1. The 2015 RPA Assessment Update of:
Wildlife, Fish, and Biodiversity (WFB)
Curt Flather, Research Ecologist
USDA, Forest Service, Research & Development
Rocky Mountain Research Station
Mike Knowles, Ecologist
RMRS
Analyst and ‘Keeper of the Data’

2. Outline Overview of RPA Assessments. ◦
Housing, protected areas, and at-risk birds. ◦
▫ What finding from the 2010 Assessment motivated new work for the Update?
▫ What problem/question did the Update address?
▫ What new work is being proposed for the 2020 Assessment?
At-risk biodiversity trends and projections. ◦
A focused look at at-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking water. ◦

3. What is the RPA Assessment?•
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act
of 1974 mandates a national report (the RPA Assessment) on
the status and trends of renewable resources every ten years. •
The Assessment provides a snapshot of current U.S. forest
and rangeland conditions and trends on all ownerships;
identifies drivers of change; and projects 50 years into the
future.
RPA Assessment Overview

4. Wildlife, Fish, & Biodiversity
Projection Modeling Systems
Big box of drivers
Forest Sector Model
Human Populations
Scenarios
Land Use
Model
Socioeconomic
Bioenergy
Composition
Landscape
Pattern
Climate
Forecasts of Ecosystem Services/Responses
Outdoor
Recreation
Wildlife, Fish, & Biodiversity
Water
Resources
Forest
Carbon
Rangeland Resources
Forest Resources
• Forest Products
• Urban Forests
RPA Assessment Overview

5. Conceptual Model for Wildlife
Land Use and
Land Cover
Abiotic
Characteristics
(includes climate, weather,
water quality, physiography)
Disturbance
(fire, insect/disease, drought)
Resource
Extraction
(includes recreational
harvest, timber, minerals,
water,…etc)
Human
Population
Wildlife Resource
Response
Species Abundance
Species Assemblage
Habitat
RPA Assessment Overview

6. Case Study I Housing, protected lands, and at-risk birds
Protected Areas
Forest Bird Diversity
Housing growth near
NFs and NPs
Effects of land use/housing
on forest bird diversity
Case Study I
2010 Assessment findings

7. Housing growth and protected lands
2010 Assessment findings

8. Forest bird response to landscape change
2010 Assessment findings

9. Forest bird response to landscape change
RPA A1B
Synanthropes
All forest breeders
Neotropical migrants
Ground nesters
Interior nesters
2010 Assessment findings

10. Forest bird response to landscape change
Question:
Can we combine these two approaches to examine
the impacts of housing on birds in protected areas?
Are we “harming what we love”?
Addressed in the 2015 Update

11. Housing, protected lands, and at-risk birds
Design Considerations:
Stratification
Treatments
Protected Area
BBS route
Outside
Within
Boundary
Review how 2 bird groups responded:
Synanthropic species – those that thrive in association
with humans
Species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) – compiled from
State Wildlife Action Plans
Addressed in the 2015 Update

12. Housing, protected lands, and at-risk birds
Proportional Abundance
Addressed in the 2015 Update

13. Housing, protected lands, and at-risk birds
Implications:
Protected areas (PAs) still provide ‘safe haven’ for native
bird communities •
Evidence points to an erosion of bird communities as housing
density within and near PAs increases (in space and time) •
Maintenance of PAs as biodiversity refugia will require
a creative mix of conservation strategies: •
Purchase (PA expansion)
Conservation easement
Cluster development
Landowner education: pet mgt; native plant plans;
invasive plant control
Addressed in the 2015 Update

14. Housing, protected lands, and at-risk birds
Land Use and
Land Cover
Resource
Extraction
(includes recreational
harvest, timber, minerals,
water,…etc)
Abiotic
Characteristics
(includes climate, weather,
water quality, physiography)
Disturbance
(fire, insect/disease, drought)
Human
Population
Wildlife Resource
Response
Species Assemblage
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

15. Housing, protected lands, and at-risk birds
Predicting potential and realized bird diversity
(Sgroup)
Bird diversity
Environmental gradient
ecosystem capacity = f (measure of energy) ◦
realized diversity = f (human footprint)
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

16. Case Study II At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections 2010 1368
Number of Species
2010
1368
All
Plants
Animals
2000
1090
Case Study II
1989
531
1979
236
2010 Assessment findings

17. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Where do these species occur?
2010 Assessment findings

18. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Problems confounding interpretation & modeling
1. Variation in county size make it difficult to rank areas.
– Species accumulate with area nonlinearly
◦ Can’t estimate a simple density
– Accumulation rates vary by ecosystem
◦ There is no global correction factor
2. The pool of listed and at-risk species continues to grow.
Addressed in the 2015 Update

19. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Number of Species
All
1652
Plants
941
Animals
711
All
Plants
Animals
Addressed in the 2015 Update

20. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Addressed in the 2015 Update

21. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Gain a refined ‘hotspot’ picture
2010 Assessment
2015 Update
Addressed in the 2015 Update

22. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Observations:
1. At-risk species occurrence is far from random.
2. Conservation science has struggled with how to use this information
to move beyond spp-by-spp conservation/recovery strategies.
3. Targeting key endangerment hotspots to focus conservation
remains an untested strategy.
Which is to say that they are concentrated in distinct regions of the country.
4. We don’t fully understand what is driving areas of concentration.
Addressed in the 2015 Update

23. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Problems confounding interpretation & modeling
1. Variation in county size make it difficult to rank areas.
– Species accumulate with area nonlinearly
– Accumulation rates vary by ecosystem
◦ Can’t estimate a simple density
◦ There is no global correction factor
2. The pool of listed and at-risk species continues to grow.
3. System capacity to support species affects rarity.
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

24. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Species-abundance Distribution
# of species
Abundance class Sr Sc
low
high
rare
common Sr Sc
>
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

25. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Species-abundance Distribution
Abundance class
# of species A SA B SB
low
rare SA SB
>
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

26. Drivers of extinction risk and predicting its geography
Christine Howard
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Philip A. Stephens
Associate Professor
Photo by Kent Baldner/CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

27. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Hypotheses
System productivity
1. Inherent rarity
Species traits
SAR
= f (climate, physiography, traits)
[AR = at-risk]
2. Ecosystem stress
SAR
= f (human population, housing, intensive land uses)
3. Refuge
SAR
= f (spatial contrasts)
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

28. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Can we predict the conservation ranks?
Observed Rank
Predicted Rank
n = 508
n = 203
R2=0.44
R2=0.47
Critically
Imperiled
Secure
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

29. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Variable importance
Relative variable importance
Mean relative variable importance
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

30. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Observed
Proportion at-risk
Predicted
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

31. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Observed
Proportion at-risk
Predicted
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

32. At-risk biodiversity: trends and projections
Refuge Hypothesis
Spatial Contrast
Stayed Tuned
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

33. Case Study III At-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking H2O
Vertebrates
Invertebrates
Case Study III
2010 Assessment findings

34. At-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking H2O
2010 Assessment findings

35. At-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking H2O
Jim Wickham with the EPA’s Exposure Research Lab had recently completed a national assessment of US drinking water watersheds.
2010 Assessment findings

36. At-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking H2O
Observations:
Setting aside land from future development (via acquisition or
easement) is a common biodiversity conservation strategy. 1.
Natural lands and their conservation are important elements
of a sustainable drinking water infrastructure. 2.
Question:
Where do these common aquatic resource interests co-occur
and what are the opportunities for shared benefits?
Jim Wickham with the EPA’s Exposure Research Lab had recently completed a national assessment of US drinking water watersheds.
Addressed in the 2015 Update

37. At-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking H2O
How might we identify watersheds where we could
realize the greatest bang for the conservation buck?
Identify watershed s supporting high #s of at-risk species 1.
Have one or more drinking water intakes 2.
Limited area of protected lands 3.
So, recognizing that conservation $$ are limited, where can we likely maximize the co-benefits that could accrue to drinking water and conservation of at-risk aquatic biodiversity?
Undergoing high urban development 4.
Addressed in the 2015 Update

38. At-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking H2O❼ ❶ ❷ ❻ ❹ ❺ ❸
Addressed in the 2015 Update

39. At-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking H2O
To fully flush out the co-benefit we need....
To update the at-risk aquatic species occurrence data
We need a drinking water response – Tx costs
Travis Warziniak
RMRS
Economist
Money...currently not a fully funded project
Modeling framework to drive projections
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

40. At-risk aquatic biodiversity and drinking H2O
Water System
Characteristics
Land Use/Cover,
Roads, PA,
Human Pop/Housing
Physiography,
Soil Characteristics
Climate
(Temp & Precip)
For each
8-digit HUC
Water Intake
Type
Total Aquatic
Biodiversity
Water
Quality Tx
Technology
Inherent
Rarity
Facility
Size
At-risk Aquatic
Biodiversity
Facility Tx
Costs
Proposed for 2020 Assessment

41. Acknowledgements

43. Housing, protected lands, and at-risk birds
Appalachian & Northwoods Regions
Proportional Abundance
of SGCN
Addressed in the 2015 Update