This pilot project investigated the potential application of Yale Framework analyses and approaches for public land management; where natural resource assessment aims to provide context and information for planning decisions.  The project built upon a project carried out for the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs — see process diagram below) within the ecological transition between the Mojave Desert and Great Basin ecoregions of southern Nevada.

An adaptive management approach is essential with a changing climate.  Change is likely to accelerate and bring increasing levels of uncertainty to decision making.  We now face the challenge of aligning assessment and planning processes to better foresee rapidly changing conditions and provide insights into the type, location, and timeframe for appropriate management action.  The latter factor, - timeframes - tend to differ for assessment vs. planning. Timeframes for ecoregional assessments pertain to the prior century, current conditions, and forecasts extending over the coming 50 years.  In contrast, planning decisions are taken within 1, 5, 10, or perhaps 15 year planning cycles.  Therefore, a key challenge is to glean insights from assessments organized around longer timeframes that will inform the planning decisions of the coming decade.  Determining which actions to take today, versus postponing them for subsequent cycles of assessment, will become an increasingly critical facet of natural resource management in the 21^st century.  Through this project, we aimed to explore these questions and test analyses suggested by the Yale Framework in order to assist BLM with their planning decisions.

Objectives

• Collaborate with Nevada BLM to test several approaches of the Yale Framework across most levels of ecological organization
• Utilize and enhance results of BLM’s rapid ecoregional assessments (REAs) for the ecotone region between the Central and Mojave basins to inform the project
• Demonstrate the potential utility of the Yale approaches to various stages of BLM decision making
• Integrate components of the data and approaches in a decision support system to facilitate BLM capacity to conduct such work in an adaptive management framework

Geographic Location

Southwestern Region (Mojave Desert and Central Great Basin regions of Nevada)

Principal Investigator

Patrick Crist

Ecosystem Type

Terrestrial

Framework focus

• Protect current patterns of biodiversity
• Protect future patterns of biodiversity
• Maintain ecological functions and processes
• Maintain and restore ecological connectivity
• Protect climate refugia
• Protect the ecological state

We gathered BLM staff from the Nevada state office to review the framework and then identify which approaches were both feasible within a 6-month project timeframe and most likely to be informative for planning decisions (see table).  We then formulated a series of specific management questions to be addressed by each analysis (see table).  This facilitated clarification and agreement among the team on expected outputs and detailed focus of each analysis.  This also provided an opportunity to clarify the expected utility of each analysis to various forms and stages of BLM resource decision making.  Since many spatial analyses already completed for each ecoregional assessment fit neatly into the Yale Framework, we were able to build directly on those prior efforts.  In other instances, we completed new analyses and adaptive actions specifically suited to Framework recommendations.  Data sources, technical methods and tools under each analysis are explained in greater depth here.

Following from methods applied in the REAs, we established a set of conservation elements, change agents, and scenarios that would be used in each analysis.  Conservation elements include the natural resource values of conservation concern. Here we included a subset of representative ecological systems and habitats that characterize the regional transition from warm desert (Mojave) to cool desert (Great Basin).  We also selected a number of landscape species, or species with relatively large home-ranges and migratory requirements as a second focus for analysis.  Again, these included species that characterize both southern (warm desert) and northern (cool desert) portions of the study area.  Change agents include human land uses and effects that alter the natural ecological processes supporting our selected conservation elements.  Besides the potential effects of climate change, urban and industrial development, invasive species, and altered natural fire regimes were selected for inclusion in these analyses.  Scenarios are aimed at spatially representing land use, management, and other change agents for different timeframes to understand how conservation elements may be sustained at each timeframe. For this project, scenarios were derived from the REAs for current conditions (2012), along with forecasted land use and invasive species conditions circa 2025, and forecasted climate-change-influenced conditions circa 2060. Each scenario was cumulative of change agents from previous timeframes.

As each analysis was completed, BLM staff provided reviews via web meetings to evaluate and interpret results.  This allowed staff to fully understand the data sources, technical tools, and outcomes from each analysis. A two-day workshop was then conducted to review the complete set of analyses results and to document their applicability to management planning. This documentation included the potential for each analysis to a) identify the need to change current management, b) identify, construct, and evaluate alternative management solutions, c) establish the potential timeframe for implementing the management action, and d) considerations for documenting uncertainty associated with each management alternative.

Applications of available tools

Circuitscape for modeling desert tortoise connectivity:
http://www.circuitscape.org/Circuitscape/Welcome.html

Topography Tools for ArcGIS (9.3, 9.2, 9.1/9.0) to model landform classification (Jenness) and solar radiation (McCune 2002):
http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=15996%20

 

Table 1. Framework adaptation for BLM application,.

	Analysis Type	Levels of Decision Making
Management Questions Addressed		Issue ID	Regional Strategy	Land Use Plans	Site or Activity Planning
What proportion of CE values are currently found within lands with management aimed at their conservation?	Gap Analysis, CE & Conservation Value Mapping	Direct	Direct	Direct	NA
What is the current ecological integrity of  CEs and what changes to management might maintain or restore ecological integrity?	Ecological Integrity Assessment	Direct	Direct	Direct	Indirect
What does connectivity contribute towards the current ecological integrity of our key CEs and where are current barriers to this connectivity?	Landscape Permeability and Linkages	Direct	Direct	Direct	Indirect
By 2025, what proportion of CEs are likely to be affected by renewable energy and other forms of urban/industrial development?	2025 Development	Direct	Direct	Direct	Direct
By 2060, what proportion of CE distributions are likely to occur outside current distributions, and what proportions might be affected by development by 2025?	2060 Climate Envelope & Forecasts	Direct	Direct	Direct	Indirect
By 2060, what portion of BLM managed land is likely to occur with climate regimes significantly departed from 20th century character? and…which climate variables might contribute most to that change?	2060 Climate Space Trends Analysis	Direct	Direct	Indirect	Indirect
By 2060, what proportion of CE distributions are likely to occur within their 20th century climate regime, and what areas within and outside of those distributions might provide robust local-scaled refuge from a changing climate?	2060 Climate Envelope Refugia and Linkages   Biophysical Heterogeneity	Direct	Direct	Indirect	Indirect

Our objective was not so much to reach conclusions from the assessment as to explore the "menu of approaches" in the Framework and develop information and a decision support system for integration into multiple scales and planning functions of BLM. Working through the modules with BLM provided information on the value of information products for BLM purposes. The most useful information identified by BLM is:

• Current location and ecological integrity of conservation elements.
• Species-specific connectivity vs. general landscape permeability, the latter they found difficult to interpret and apply to decision making.
• Quantitative cumulative effects assessment of current, planned, potential stressors on biodiversity and the ability to readily propose and test mitigation/adaptation actions against conservation elements and climate refugia data.
• Individual species refugia and concentration areas and threats to those areas.

They found least utility in "protecting the ecological stage," finding it too abstract to explain and utilize within a formal planning process (where defensibility is very important).

The framework provided an initial structure for comparison against data and analyses that could potentially be addressed by BLM within the Ecoregional Direction phase of their Adaptive Landscape Approach.  It certainly suggested some analyses that BLM might not have otherwise considered.  Prior to project start-up, BLM had identified a series of potential responses to climate change.  While most of these responses fell into the Framework, several did not.  These included species-based strategies, such as planning for assisted migration or translocation and adjusting seed mixes in anticipation of site restoration with climate-appropriate species.  Others included evaluation of current monitoring investments to better anticipate climate-induced change. Still others suggested combining climate change mitigation (e.g., carbon sequestration) with adaptation strategies and/or development of new education, outreach, and policy-based strategies.

A key finding from this pilot was that the current framework was difficult for public land managers to comprehend and readily apply to their decision making processes. We suspect this would be a common problem for all but a small group of organizations experienced in such analyses that could determine how to apply the menu of approaches to their work. In response, we developed an alternative matrix that more directly links the framework to public land management decision making processes (see table). In this version we replaced the strategies (the rows) with key management questions of BLM. The levels of ecological organization from the Yale Framework (the columns) with levels of decision making from national to project level. The right hand columns of the matrix center on the types of decision making that each analysis could inform.  These include broader aspects of issue identification or public education, informing regional (typically multi-partner) strategies, informing alternatives management directions, and local site-scale or activity plans.  The latter two processes typically dovetail with planning under NEPA and other regulations governing public lands. In most instances, the spatial resolution of analyses we selected would have limited utility to local site or activity planning and/or require iteration with locally-available data. Input from the BLM Washington Office indicated the need for a 4^th column to address national policy and budget decision making; to keep the matrix simple we suggest that function be captured in the Issue Identification column.

We added a column that identified the type of analyses conducted to answer the management questions and then populated the columns with an indication of how the analyses result applied at the level of decision making as:

• Direct: the results would be used directly in that stage of decision making
• Indirect: the result would provide information and context to the decision but the level of spatial resolution and uncertainty would not support direct use/reliance on the result. For example, BLM was very interested in the climate envelope modeling to inform whether a desert tortoise relocation site was suitable. While a site might be currently suitable and offer adequate connectivity to populations to the south, barriers to the north would prevent population migration if the climate envelope predicted that populations would need to migrate. Under those conditions, one might determine the site would not have long term viability.
• NA: not applicable to the decision level.

Table 1. Framework adaptation for BLM application,.

	Analysis Type	Levels of Decision Making
Management Questions Addressed		Issue ID	Regional Strategy	Land Use Plans	Site or Activity Planning
What proportion of CE values are currently found within lands with management aimed at their conservation?	Gap Analysis, CE & Conservation Value Mapping	Direct	Direct	Direct	NA
What is the current ecological integrity of  CEs and what changes to management might maintain or restore ecological integrity?	Ecological Integrity Assessment	Direct	Direct	Direct	Indirect
What does connectivity contribute towards the current ecological integrity of our key CEs and where are current barriers to this connectivity?	Landscape Permeability and Linkages	Direct	Direct	Direct	Indirect
By 2025, what proportion of CEs are likely to be affected by renewable energy and other forms of urban/industrial development?	2025 Development	Direct	Direct	Direct	Direct
By 2060, what proportion of CE distributions are likely to occur outside current distributions, and what proportions might be affected by development by 2025?	2060 Climate Envelope & Forecasts	Direct	Direct	Direct	Indirect
By 2060, what portion of BLM managed land is likely to occur with climate regimes significantly departed from 20th century character? and…which climate variables might contribute most to that change?	2060 Climate Space Trends Analysis	Direct	Direct	Indirect	Indirect
By 2060, what proportion of CE distributions are likely to occur within their 20th century climate regime, and what areas within and outside of those distributions might provide robust local-scaled refuge from a changing climate?	2060 Climate Envelope Refugia and Linkages   Biophysical Heterogeneity	Direct	Direct	Indirect	Indirect

Overall, the Yale Framework provides a unique "menu of approaches" rather than a more typical step-by-step framework such as UNEP’s Ecosystem Based Adaptation Decision Support Framework, USFWS/NatureServe’s Refuge Vulnerability Assessment guide (in process), and WCS’s climate adaptation framework. For organizations with established processes and ability to incorporate the approaches into their processes having a menu rather than a prescribed process may be appealing. For other organizations, the lack of sequential steps may lead to confusion about where to start and where to go next.

Here we include our evaluation of the utility of the content based on discussion of value and utility of the results we provided using the Framework components.

1. Diversity mapping evaluation: BLM generally found diversity maps expressed as "Conservation Value Summaries" in the NatureServe Vista DSS to be useful for understanding patterns of biodiversity and differences in diversity among areas.
2. Gap analysis evaluation: Generally BLM found this product useful. They liked being able to see statistics on representation of conservation elements by district to understand which districts have the greatest proportion of certain elements. The results of the gap analyses, which flagged elements that are not well represented in designated lands and for which BLM has both a significant proportion of their distribution and a significant proportion in areas other institutions have identified as conservation priorities, provided BLM with useful flags to take a closer look at those conservation elements.
3. Connectivity Assessment: BLM strongly preferred individual conservation element (i.e., species) connectivity maps over general permeability analyses. They found the latter to be too abstract for decision-making purposes.
4. Cumulative Effects Assessment & Mitigation/Adaptation Planning: BLM found tremendous utility in the ability (as expressed with the NatureServe Vista DSS) to fairly rapidly evaluate scenarios against conservation elements and get maps and quantitative reports of potential impacts. Due to time constraints this project did not fully integrate the different assessments as much as desired which remains an area for further investigation. BLM found the planning capabilities useful, in particular to be able to propose alternatives and identify maladaptive responses to current and future biodiversity patterns.

Usability

Usability is first influenced by structure; a lack of step-by-step guidance, or guidance on how to apply the menu of approaches to a defined process may hamper usability. For example, we needed to define a fairly linear set of technical steps coupled with team and stakeholder interactions to make use of the Framework components. NatureServe has extensive experience in doing this that may not be typical of many organizations seeking to apply the Framework. We recommend aligning the framework to logical steps of planning. For many organizations, however, it is unlikely that merely providing the framework will prove sufficient. Many planning organizations (at all levels of government as well as consultants that perform much of the work and NGOs) still lack a firm grasp of spatially-based planning let alone the very advanced GIS modeling that involves, in some instances, very novel types of data and concepts. Therefore, some sort of technical assistance program is going to be necessary that would include a range of interventions suited to the level of assistance any particular organization requires such as:

• Informational interactive webinars to explain the framework in greater depth, illustrated with case studies, and allowing Q&A. These can also be recorded for online viewing.
• Modularized group or individual training. These can also be recorded for online viewing.
• Direct project assistance. Often organizations lack "the breathing room" to switch to new approaches, tools, and activities and thus prefer to have a transition period where a service provider conducts the heavy lifting and then provides a technical and knowledge transfer.

Interaction

In this pilot and other similar projects conducted for FWS Refuges we have found that the amount of interaction time between the technical/scientific team and the planners/managers is critical to a successful project. Upfront understanding of the process greatly helps the recipients of the work to actively and productively participate and contribute data and knowledge to the process. Strategic meetings to review work and results to date maintains this involvement and understanding and keeps the technical team on track to produce needed products. A final handoff workshop ensures that the recipients understand the products and their appropriate use and boosts the chances the products will actually be applied in planning and implementation.

Specific to our pilot project with Yale, resource constraints and the short duration of the project limited interaction to a one day kickoff workshop, four 90 minute web meetings, and a 1.5 day final workshop. The final workshop in this case was not intended as a handoff but a time to review NatureServe’s development of an adaptation alternative scenario and provide comment to guide a final iteration of it. The web meetings were meant to share the results and identify need for management change and strategies based on those results that could be incorporated into the adaptation plan alternative. In reality, the novelty and complexity of the products hampered most participants from sufficiently understanding them during those short meetings to provide the desired information. Ideally multiple in-person workshops will be conducted to review results from such complex studies and give ample time to digest and discuss the results and identify strategies. Funding limitations and availability of staff to make time for multiple meetings may preclude such an approach so we recommend creativity in solving this problem. One approach that is being used with some success in the BLM’s Rapid Ecoregional Assessments is to have contractors conduct webinars on the products, then post the products on a secure portal where participants can access them according to their own schedules and post comments. A follow up webinar after a brief time could then allow group discussion of their thoughts on need for management change and strategies.

Key stakeholders for this project included BLM staff in state and field offices within Nevada with responsibilities for natural resource management planning.  The BLM field offices of Tonopah, Caliente, and Las Vegas were emphasized. More broadly, this pilot should have relevance to other land managers and planners, especially if managing for ‘multiple-use,’ and where regulatory requirements apply under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Related data coming soon