U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2016–1207

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management

Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a 

Landscape Approach to Resource Management in the 

Bureau of Land Management
Cover. Dubois Badlands Wilderness Study Area, Wyoming. Photograph by Bob Wick, Bureau of Land Management.
Multiscale Guidance and Tools for 

Implementing a Landscape Approach 

to Resource Management in the 

Bureau of Land Management

Edited by Sarah K. Carter, Natasha B. Carr, Kevin H. Miller, and David J.A. Wood

Chapter 1

Introduction

By Sarah K. Carter

Chapter 2

Understanding a Landscape Approach to Resource Management in 

the Bureau of Land Management

By Sarah K. Carter, Natasha B. Carr, Jena R. Hickey, Karla N. Rogers, and David J.A. Wood

Chapter 3

Including Broad-Scale Indicators in Multiscale Natural Resource 

Montitoring and Assessment Programs in the Bureau of Land 

Management

By David J.A. Wood, Sarah K. Carter, Sandra E. Litschert, and Natasha B. Carr

Chapter 4

Assessing Ecological Integrity Using Multiscale Information from 

Bureau of Land Management Assessment and Monitoring Programs

By Sarah K. Carter, Natasha B. Carr, Curtis H. Flather, Erica Fleishman, Matthias Leu, 

Barry R. Noon, and David J.A. Wood

Chapter 5

A Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness for Management 

of Public Lands

By Natasha B. Carr, Ian I.F. Leinwand, and David J.A. Wood

Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management

Open-File Report 2016–1207

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://store.usgs.gov/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Carter, S.K., Carr, N.B., Miller, K.H., and Wood, D.J.A., eds., 2017, Multiscale guidance and tools for implementing a 

landscape approach to resource management in the Bureau of Land Management: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2016–1207, 79 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161207.

ISSN 0196-1497 (print)

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................3

References Cited............................................................................................................................................5

Chapter 2. Understanding a Landscape Approach to Resource Management in the Bureau 

of Land Management.......................................................................................................................7

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................7

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................7

A Landscape Approach to Natural Resource Management..................................................................8

Implementing a Landscape Approach to Natural Resource Management 

in the Bureau of Land Management .............................................................................................8

Understanding Landscapes, Patterns, and Processes to Implement 

a Landscape Approach .................................................................................................................11

Considering Multiple Spatial Scales in Natural Resource Decisions.................................................12

Management Questions Across Spatial Scales.....................................................................................13

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................15

Chapter 3. Including Broad-Scale Indicators in Multiscale Natural Resource Monitoring 

and Assessment Programs in the Bureau of Land Management..........................................19

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................19

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................19

Integrating Rapid Ecoregional Assessments with the Assessment, Inventory, 

and Monitoring Program...............................................................................................................23

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring .........................................................................................23

Rapid Ecoregional Assessments......................................................................................................24

Development of Broad-Scale Indicators from Rapid Ecoregional Assessments .............................25

A Process for Assessing Broad-Scale Indicators as part of Multiscale Monitoring Efforts..........26

Step 1: Develop................................................................................................................................26

Step 2: Design ..................................................................................................................................28

Step 3: Implement............................................................................................................................29

Step 4: Repeat..................................................................................................................................29

Using Broad-Scale Indicators to Inform Field Monitoring....................................................................30

Integrating Local- and Broad-Scale Monitoring and Assessment Data 

to Inform Management Decisions...............................................................................................30

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................33

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................34

Chapter 4. Assessing Ecological Integrity Using Multiscale Information from Bureau 

of Land Management Assessment and Monitoring Programs ..............................................39

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................39

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................39

Relation Between Ecological Integrity and Land Health ......................................................................40

A Framework for Assessing Ecological Integrity Across Scales in Terrestrial Systems ................42
iv

Using the Framework to Assess Ecological Integrity on Rangelands Across the Western 

United States...................................................................................................................................43

Specify Management Question........................................................................................................43

Identify Target Resources and Key Stressors................................................................................44

Define Spatial and Temporal Scales................................................................................................44

Select and Evaluate Indicators ........................................................................................................44

Define Natural and Acceptable Ranges 

of Variation for Indicators ....................................................................................................48

Collect and Analyze Data ..................................................................................................................48

Report Ecological Integrity Results .................................................................................................48

Use Assessment Results to Inform Management.........................................................................49

Repeat Assessment at Predetermined Frequency .......................................................................49

Using the Ecological Integrity Framework and Assessment Process to Facilitate Implementing 

a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management......................................................49

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................51

Chapter 5. A Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness for Management of Public Lands......55

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................55

Broad-Scale Indicators for the Landscape Approach ..........................................................................55

Creating a Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness..........................................................................57

Measuring the Gradient of Anthropogenic Influence ..................................................................57

Selection of Analysis Methods for Development..........................................................................57

Selection of Scales of Analysis for Quantifying Development and Landscape Intactness .......58

Selection of Breakpoints for Calculating Landscape Intactness Level.....................................59

Transparency and Interpretation of the Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness..............60

Use of the Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness to Address Management Questions .........61

1. How does landscape intactness vary across the ecoregions and ecological 

communities assessed for the REAs?................................................................................62

2. Where are the largest intact areas, and which land management agencies 

have primary responsibility for these areas? ...................................................................64

3. How does intactness level vary by land ownership or jurisdiction? ..................................64

4. What is the status of BLM lands on the basis of the multiscale index of landscape 

intactness, and how does this vary among field offices within an ecoregion?..........64

5. Where are the most intact areas managed by the BLM that are not protected 

as national conservation lands?.........................................................................................66

Discussion.....................................................................................................................................................66

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................72

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................75

References Cited in the Glossary.....................................................................................................78

Figures

1–1. Major topics covered in subsequent chapters of this report, and their relations to 

implementation of a landscape approach to resource management in the Bureau 

of Land Management...................................................................................................................4

2–1. Key concepts and core principles of a landscape approach to resource 

management..................................................................................................................................9

2–2. Male greater sage-grouse displaying on a lek (mating ground) near 

Bodie, California..........................................................................................................................10

2–3. Oil and gas well-pad development in the Jonah Field near Pinedale, Wyoming.............11
v

2–4. Example of a landscape hierarchy, illustrated using analyses of aspen vegetation 

in the Wyoming Basin ecoregion.............................................................................................12

2–5. Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) make use of a wildlife highway overpass 

at Trappers Point, Wyoming......................................................................................................14

3–1. Conceptual model of the ecosystem components monitored by the BLM 

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring program.................................................................24

3–2. Example landscape condition analysis from the Mojave Basin and Range Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment...........................................................................................................25

3–3. Example of indicators for sagebrush steppe for the Wyoming Basin Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment...........................................................................................................27

3–4. Steps in assessing broad-scale indicators of natural resource status and 

condition as part of a multiscale monitoring program. ........................................................28

3–5. Grassland conceptual model for the Northwestern Plains ecoregion..............................29

3–6. Potential ways in which broad-scale assessments may inform field monitoring 

efforts at each stage in the assessment process .................................................................30

4–1. Conceptual framework for quantifying ecological integrity, with example ecological 

attributes for each level in the hierarchy and component of integrity...................................42

4–2. Steps for assessing ecological integrity, which are consistent with the broader 

AIM process ................................................................................................................................43

4–3. Conceptual model highlighting the major ecological drivers and anthropogenic 

stressors affecting shortgrass prairies in the Southern Great Plains ecoregion............45

4–4. Bureau of Land Management Rapid Ecoregional Assessments that are in progress

or have been completed across the western conterminous United States .........................46

5–1. Examples of the cumulative direct and indirect ecological effects of development 

as a function of the surface disturbance footprint resulting from development.............56

5–2. Terrestrial development index score and the associated surface disturbance 

footprint from development for two landscapes in Wyoming.............................................60

5–3. The terrestrial development index at two analysis scales ..................................................61

5–4. The level of landscape intactness as derived from terrestrial development index 

classes at two scales (2.5 and 20-kilometer radius moving window)................................62

5–5. Overview of the process model used to create the multiscale index of landscape 

intactness.....................................................................................................................................63

5–6. Landscape intactness for the western U.S. Intactness levels were derived from 

terrestrial development index classes using a 2.5- and 20.0-kilometer radius 

moving window...........................................................................................................................63

5–7. Multiscale index of landscape intactness and associated terrestrial development

index for two landscapes in New Mexico ...................................................................................65

5–8. Levels of landscape intactness by ecoregion, assessed as a part of the Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment program for the western U.S. Intactness levels were 

derived from the terrestrial development index for 2.5- and 20.0-kilometer radius 

moving windows .........................................................................................................................66

5–9. Size of patches with the highest and very high levels of landscape intactness 

for the western United States...................................................................................................67

5–10. Size classes of patches on federal lands with the highest or very high landscape 

intactness levels, summarized by agency..............................................................................68

5–11. Levels of landscape intactness by land ownership or jurisdiction for the entire 

western United States ...............................................................................................................68

5–12. Levels of landscape Intactness for lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management ...............................................................................................................................69
vi

5–13. Levels of landscape intactness for lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management in Wyoming .........................................................................................................70

5–14. Levels of landscape intactness for lands that fall within the jurisdiction of the

Bureau of Land Management field office boundaries in the Wyoming Basin 

Ecoregion............................................................................................................................................70

5–15. Lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management with the highest levels 

of landscape intactness that are not protected as national conservation lands ............71

Box Figures

1−1. Vegetation Condition Class in the Middle Rockies Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

boundary, Dillon field office, and Centennial watershed.....................................................22

1−2. Percent area in each Vegetation Condition Class within the Middle Rockies Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment boundary, Dillon field office, and Centennial Watershed...........23

2−1. A and C, Current (2015) and B and D, future (2025–2030) landscape condition for 

the San Luis Valley–Taos Plateau Landscape Assessment ................................................32

2−2. Evaluation of current and projected future landscape condition of grasslands and 

shrublands in the San Luis Valley–Taos Plateau ecoregion................................................33

Tables

2–1. Bureau of Land Management administrative units, management decisions, 

and ecological processes and patterns across a range of spatial extents......................13

3–1. Potential core, supplemental, and derived broad-scale indicators of natural 

resource status and condition .................................................................................................26

4–1. Proposed indicators, the spatial extent at which they are assessed (local or 

regional), and example reference conditions for quantifying the compositional, 

structural, and functional components of ecological integrity on rangelands 

across the western United States ...........................................................................................47

4–2. One model for presenting results of an ecological integrity assessment for 

rangelands across the western United States ..............................................................50

5–1. Data sources used to quantify the surface disturbance footprint from development........58

5–2. Buffer sizes for creating the surface disturbance footprint from development for 

linear and point features ...........................................................................................................59

5–3. Landscape intactness of Bureau of Land Management lands derived from two 

analysis scales across the western U.S.................................................................................62

5–4. Hierarchy of datasets included in the multiscale index of landscape intactness...........64
vii

Contributing Authors and Editors

Natasha B. Carr

U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colo.

Sarah K. Carter

U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colo.

Curtis H. Flather

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colo.

Erica Fleishman

University of California - Davis, John Muir Institute of the Environment, Davis, Calif. 

(currently: Colorado State University, Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands 

and Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Fort Collins, Colo.)

Jena R. Hickey

Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Zoology and Physiology, 

University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo., in cooperation with U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins 

Science Center, Fort Collins, Colo. (currently: International Gorilla Conservation Programme, 

Musanze, Rwanda)

Ian I.F. Leinwand

Cherokee Nation Technologies, on contract to U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science 

Center, Fort Collins, Colo.

Matthias Leu

College of William and Mary, Biology Department, Williamsburg, Va.

Sandra (Sam) E. Litschert

Quantum Spatial, on contract to Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, 

Denver, Colo.

Kevin H. Miller

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colo.

Barry R. Noon

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.

Karla N. Rogers

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colo.

Leroy J. Walston

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.

David J.A. Wood

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colo., and Montana State 

Office, Billings, Mont. (currently: U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science 

Center, Bozeman, Mont.)
viii

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to numerous reviewers for providing valuable insights and suggestions on an 

earlier draft of the report. Reviewers from the U.S. Geological Survey included Pat Anderson, 

Tim Assal, Greg Auble, Dan Manier, and Mark Vandever from the Fort Collins Science Center; 

Sue Phillips, David Pilliod, and Doug Schinneman from the Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem 

Science Center; and Todd Esque from the Western Ecological Research Center. Reviewers 

from the Bureau of Land Management included Tim Bottomley, Chris Cole, Melissa Dickard, 

Emily Kachergis, Sherm Karl, Elroy Masters, Ron McCormick, Robert Means, Stephanie Miller, 

Kit Muller, Anthony Titolo, John Wilson, and Chris Woodward. Additional reviewers included 

Sean Finn from the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Jason Taylor from the 

National Park Service, and Leroy Walston from Argonne National Laboratory. We also thank 

Lucy Burris (U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center) for assistance with preparing 

maps and figures.
ix

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to International System of Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

Abbreviations

AIM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (a Bureau of Land Management program)

BLM Bureau of Land Management

LANDFIRE Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

REA Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

RMP Resource Management Plan

SEZ Solar Energy Zone

TDI Terrestrial development index

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing 

a Landscape Approach to Resource Management 

in the Bureau of Land Management

Edited by Sarah K. Carter, Natasha B. Carr, Kevin H. Miller, and David J.A. Wood

broad-scale indicators of natural resource status and condition: the 

amount, spatial distribution, patch size and connectivity of ecosystems and wildlife habitats, and the pattern of existing development across the landscape. Additional supplemental broad-scale 

indicators may include fire return intervals, distributions of 

invasive species, and vulnerability of ecosystems to a changing 

climate. Landscape intactness is an additional derived indicator 

that is calculated from one or more of the core and supplemental 

broad-scale indicators. We then outline a process for assessing 

broad-scale indicators that is consistent with the overall BLM 

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring process, facilitating 

development of a multiscale natural resource monitoring program. Finally, we describe how broad-scale indicators of natural 

resource status and condition may guide field monitoring implemented through the BLM Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring 

program and help address complex management questions.

In chapter 4, we consider the specific question of assessing the ecological integrity of rangelands across the western 

United States. We first define ecological integrity and its 

relation to land health. We then suggest that a combination of 

six local-scale indicators collected through field sampling at 

individual sites and five complementary broad-scale indicators 

together provide information on the composition, structure, 

and function of rangelands. The terrestrial monitoring indicators collected at the level of individual field sites are the 

amount of bare ground, vegetation composition (including 

invasive plants and plants of management concern), vegetation 

height, and the proportion of the soil surface in large intercanopy gaps. The broad-scale indicators are vegetation amount, 

distribution, patch size, connectivity, and productivity, along 

with the pattern of terrestrial development. Our suggested 

approach to quantifying ecological integrity focuses specifically on informing management of public lands for multiple 

resource uses, and illustrates how existing data collected 

through BLM monitoring and assessment programs may be 

used together to provide multiscale information on land condition across broad extents.

Abstract

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is implementing a landscape approach to resource management (hereafter, 

landscape approach) to more effectively work with partners 

and understand the effects of management decisions. A 

landscape approach is a set of concepts and principles used 

to guide resource management when multiple stakeholders 

are involved and goals include diverse and sustainable social, 

environmental, and economic outcomes. Core principles of a 

landscape approach include seeking meaningful participation 

of diverse stakeholders, considering diverse resource values 

in multifunctional landscapes, acknowledging the tradeoffs 

needed to meet diverse objectives in the context of sustainable resource management, and addressing the complexity 

of social and ecological processes by embracing interdisciplinarity and considering multiple and broad spatial and 

temporal perspectives.

 In chapter 1, we outline the overall goal of this report: to 

provide a conceptual foundation and framework for implementing a landscape approach to resource management in 

the BLM, focusing on the role of multiscale natural resource 

monitoring and assessment information. In chapter 2, we 

describe a landscape approach to resource management. BLM 

actions taken to implement a landscape approach include a 

major effort to compile broad-scale data on natural resource 

status and condition across much of the west. These broadscale data now provide a regional context for interpreting 

monitoring data collected at individual sites and informing 

decisions made for local projects. We also illustrate the utility 

of using multiscale data to understand potential effects of different resource management decisions, define relevant terms 

in landscape ecology, and identify spatial scales at which planning and management decisions may be evaluated.

In chapter 3, we describe how the BLM Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessment program and Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring 

program may be integrated to provide the multiscale monitoring 

data needed to inform a landscape approach. We propose six core, 
2 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

In chapter 5, we develop a method for quantifying landscape intactness and apply this method to the western United 

States. Our multiscale index of landscape intactness is designed 

to be defensible, decomposable, and easy to understand. The 

foundation of the multiscale index of landscape intactness is the 

surface disturbance footprint of anthropogenic development, 

including energy and urban development, roads and railroads, 

cultivated croplands, surface mines and quarries, and energy 

transmission lines and pipelines. The index represents a gradient 

of anthropogenic influence as represented by development summarized at two spatial scales of analysis: 2.5 and 20 kilometers. 

We provide several example applications of the index, illustrating how these data may inform natural resource decisions at the 

spatial extent of BLM field and district offices, states, ecoregions, and the western United States. We find that 19.2 percent 

of lands managed by the BLM across the 17 western states 

of the conterminous United States had the highest landscape 

intactness. The largest intact areas occur on public lands at high 

elevations or in the Great Basin.

We believe the frameworks, processes, and analyses 

provided in this report will improve the ability of the BLM 

to identify and evaluate potential direct and indirect 

effects of management actions (such as habitat restoration and renewable energy development), and assist the 

BLM in further implementing a landscape approach to 

resource management.
Chapter 1. Introduction

By Sarah K. Carter

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 

246 million acres (100 million hectares) of public lands across 

the United States (Bureau of Land Management, 2015c), 

with a goal of accommodating multiple uses and achieving 

sustained yield while protecting the scientific, scenic, historic, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water 

resource, and archeological values of the lands (Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 [43 USC §1701]). Effective management of multiple-use lands requires strategies to 

balance different resource objectives and key pieces of information to inform those strategies.

The purpose of this report is to describe a landscape 

approach to natural resource management (hereafter, landscape approach), a strategy that may be used to help achieve 

multiple and potentially conflicting resource objectives across 

broad landscapes (chapter 2). Implementing a landscape 

approach requires, among other things, monitoring the status 

and condition of natural resources across broad landscapes and 

understanding the potential effects of management decisions 

across multiple spatial scales. In subsequent chapters, we present data, methods, and analyses to inform implementation of a 

landscape approach by the BLM (chapters 3−5) (fig. 1−1).

The report seeks to provide a conceptual foundation and 

framework for BLM implementation of a landscape approach 

to resource management. Our focus is on the role of multiscale 

natural resource monitoring and assessment information, and 

on how such information may be used to help managers and 

stakeholders better understand the status and condition of 

lands managed by the BLM, the potential effects of different management decisions on those lands, and the tradeoffs 

involved in managing lands to provide multiple services to 

the American public. The processes we describe (for example, 

for quantifying broad-scale indicators and assessing ecological integrity) are purposefully consistent with the overall 

BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) process 

(Taylor and others, 2014). As such, the report highlights key 

opportunities for integrating local- and broad-scale monitoring 

efforts within the agency’s existing monitoring framework and 

facilitating the use of multiscale natural resource assessments 

to inform BLM planning and management actions.

Throughout the report, we focus on ecological objectives of public land management by the BLM, with the 

knowledge that tools and analyses for achieving social and 

economic objectives are also crucial for effective management 

of multiple-use lands. The report presents terrestrial systems and examples, but many of the principles and methods 

described are also applicable to and useful for management of 

aquatic systems.

Although the report describes the application of 

approaches and analyses to management of public lands by the 

BLM, the information presented may be useful to other agencies and organizations that manage public lands and protected 

areas to meet multiple resource goals. Potential audiences 

include the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, State 

fish and wildlife agencies, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations.

The Department of the Interior has recently developed 

a strategy for improving mitigation policies and practices 

(Clements and others, 2014). The BLM is working to promote 

effective science integration in all BLM decisions and actions 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2015a). The BLM is also 

implementing a major new planning initiative, Planning 2.0, as 

part of their implementation of a landscape approach (Bureau 

of Land Management, 2015b). The information in this report 

supports objectives of all three efforts by providing scientific 

information, data, and analyses to help resource managers 

shift from project-level management toward landscape-level, 

science-based management that more effectively avoids, 

minimizes, and compensates for adverse effects of development on natural resources. The report also provides a potential 

framework for the resource assessments that are foundational 

to Planning 2.0, facilitating assessment of the significance 

and cumulative effects of potential planning and management 

actions at spatial extents from field offices to ecoregions. 

These resource assessments may help identify management 

priorities in light of widespread management challenges such 

as continuing development, more frequent and intense wildfires, and a changing climate.
4 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach to Resource Management 

in the Bureau of Land Management

Chapter 2. Understanding a landscape approach to resource management in the Bureau of Land Management

• Describe a landscape approach to resource management.

• Summarize initial efforts by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to implement a landscape approach.

• Explain the importance of scale in understanding effects of a management actions on natural resources.

• Illustrate the utility of multiscale information for answering BLM resource management questions.

A landscape approach to resource management is a widely used strategy for achieving multiple resource 

objectives across landscapes.

Chapter 3. Including broad-scale indicators in multiscale natural resource monitoring and assessment programs

in the Bureau of Land Management

• Describe BLM assessment and monitoring programs.

• Propose core, supplemental, and derived broad-scale indicators of natural resource status and condition.

• Present a process for assessing broad-scale indicators as part of a comprehensive monitoring program.

• Outline the utility of broad-scale indicators for informing field monitoring efforts and answering BLM 

management questions.

A participatory, accessible monitoring program that provides multiscale natural resource information 

is key to implementing a landscape approach.

Chapter 4. Assessing ecological integrity using multiscale information form Bureau of Land Management

assessment and monitoring programs.

• Describe ecological integrity and its relation to land health.

• Present a framework and process for quantifying ecological integrity in terrestrial systems.

• Outline how existing BLM assessment and monitoring data may be used to quantify ecological integrity on 

rangelands across the western United States.

Multiscale monitoring and assessments allow managers to assess ecological integrity and identify tradeoffs 

inherent in multiple-use management, another core component of a landscape approach.

Chapter 5. A multiscale index of landscape intactness for management of public lands

• Present a method for quantifying landscape intactness in terrestrial systems.

• Quantify landscape intactness across the western United States.

• Illustrate the utility of a multiscale index of landscape intactness for informing BLM management questions.

A multiscale index of landscape intactness allows managers to focus on broad-scale threats to target resources,

another core component of a landscape approach.

Figure 1–1. Major topics covered in subsequent chapters of this report, and their relations to implementation of a landscape approach to

resource management in the Bureau of Land Management.
References Cited 5

References Cited

Bureau of Land Management, 2015a, Advancing science in the 

BLM: An implementation strategy: Bureau of Land Management, accessed June 2, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/

style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/BLM_pubs.Par.38337.

File.dat/BLMAdvSciImpStratFINAL032515.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015b, Planning 2.0: Improving 

the way we plan together: accessed April 14, 2015, at http://

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_overview/

planning_2_0.html.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015c, Public land statistics: 

Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 21, 2016, at

http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls14/pls2014.pdf.

Clement, J.P., Belin, A.d’A., Bean, M.J., Boling, T.A., and 

Lyons, J.R., 2014, A strategy for improving the mitigation 

policies and practices of the Department of the Interior: 

Washington, D.C., Energy and Climate Change Task Force, 

accessed October 12, 2016, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/

files/migrated/news/upload/Mitigation-Report-to-theSecretary_FINAL_04_08_14.pdf.

Taylor, Jason, Kachergis, Emily, Toevs, Gordon, Karl, Jason, 

Bobo, Matthew, Karl, Michael, Miller, Scott, and Spurrier, 

Carol, 2014, AIM-Monitoring: A component of the BLM 

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: Denver, 

Colo., U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, National Operations Center: accessed 

June 18, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/

wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.24137.File.dat/TN_445.pdf.

Chapter 2. Understanding a Landscape Approach to 

Resource Management in the Bureau of Land Management

By Sarah K. Carter, Natasha B. Carr, Jena R. Hickey, Karla N. Rogers, and David J.A. Wood

Abstract

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has adopted a 

landscape approach to natural resource management (hereafter, landscape approach) on lands the agency manages. A landscape approach is a set of concepts and principles that guide 

resource management when multiple stakeholders are involved 

and goals include diverse and sustainable social, environmental, and economic outcomes. Core principles of a landscape 

approach include meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders, considering diverse resource values in multifunctional 

landscapes, acknowledging tradeoffs needed to meet diverse 

resource objectives, and addressing the complexity of the 

social and ecological processes involved by embracing interdisciplinarity and considering multiple and broad spatial and 

temporal perspectives. When considering the potential effects 

of actions such as habitat restoration and renewable energy 

development, data gathered at both local and broad scales help 

managers to evaluate direct and indirect effects of the action, 

including the potential significance of effects on regional plant 

or wildlife populations. The initial emphasis of the BLM in 

implementing a landscape approach has been on developing a 

coordinated nationwide field monitoring effort, filling in data 

gaps at the broad scale in its biophysical programs, and using 

the resulting information to inform regional planning and 

management efforts. Two priority areas for future work are 

developing data and approaches to integrate socioeconomic, 

recreational, cultural, visual, and historic resource values into 

BLM planning for large areas, and fostering greater collaboration with stakeholders across broader extents.

Introduction

In the United States, 640 million acres (259 million 

hectares) of public lands (28 percent of the Nation’s total area) 

are managed by the Federal Government (Gorte and others, 

2012). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 

246 million acres (100 million hectares), which is more land 

than any other Federal agency (Bureau of Land Management, 

2015f). Lands managed by the BLM harbor key timber and 

energy reserves, products used on a subsistence and commercial basis, places for recreating and experiencing natural 

scenery, sanctuaries of culture and traditional customs, habitat 

for rare and game species, and many other resources. Central to the mission of the BLM is managing public lands for 

multiple uses and sustained yield while protecting the scientific, scenic, historic, ecological, environmental, air, atmospheric, archeological, and water resources and values of the 

lands (The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

[43 USC §1701]).

Managing lands for multiple uses is not unique to the 

BLM. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service also 

operates under an explicit, multiple-use mandate (MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 [16 USC §528]). In addition, 

nearly all other land management agencies and organizations 

face the challenge of balancing different land uses and values. 

Most protected areas and public lands have been and will 

continue to be affected by people (Radeloff and others, 2010; 

Theobald, 2013) and are managed by agencies and organizations whose missions involve balancing conservation with 

recreation, education, historical preservation and other uses 

(for example, National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 

[16 USC §1]; U.S. Department of Defense, 2011).

Landscapes are large areas encompassing 

an interacting mosaic of ecosystems and 

human systems that are characterized by a set 

of common management concerns 

(Clement and others, 2014).

Effective management of multiple-use lands requires strategies that consider resource patterns and uses across broad scales 

to inform management in the face of changing demographics, a 

changing climate, and other challenges (U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 2014). In this chapter, we describe one such strategy—

a landscape approach to natural resource management (sensu 

Sayer, 2009; Sayer and others, 2013; Freeman and others, 2015; 

hereafter, landscape approach) as presented in the published 

literature. We focus on the importance of a multiscale perspective in natural resource monitoring, planning, and management 

activities. We define relevant terms in landscape ecology and 

identify spatial scales at which different planning and management decisions may be evaluated. We then consider the types 

of management questions that may be asked at different spatial 

scales, provide examples of the utility of multiscale information 

for answering these questions, and outline the initial efforts of 

the BLM to implement a landscape approach.
8 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

A Landscape Approach to Natural 

Resource Management

The mission of the BLM is to sustain the health, diversity, 

and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment 

of present and future generations. Sustaining the health and 

diversity of public lands includes consideration of the upland, 

riparian, wetland, and aquatic components of watersheds; 

diverse ecological processes; water quality; and habitat for 

species of conservation concern (43 CFR 4180.1). Sustaining 

productivity of public lands may include sustaining productive 

rangelands that provide forage for wildlife and domestic livestock, sustaining forests that provide harvestable timber, and 

sustaining production of renewable and nonrenewable energy. 

A landscape approach is a set of concepts and principles used 

to guide resource management when multiple stakeholders 

are involved and goals include diverse and sustainable social, 

environmental, and economic outcomes within and across 

landscapes (Sayer, 2009; Sayer and others, 2013, Freeman and 

others, 2015).

Resource management decisions occur in the context of 

dynamic landscapes, diverse constituencies, and significant 

uncertainties about future environmental and social conditions (Sayer, 2009; Sayer and others, 2013). Seeking broad 

participation, understanding multifunctionality, acknowledging complexity, embracing interdisciplinarity, and striving to 

achieve sustainability are concepts critical to addressing such 

challenges, and are the foundation of a landscape approach 

(fig. 2−1). Core principles of a landscape approach that 

embody these concepts include seeking meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders, collecting and considering 

information at multiple and broad spatial and temporal scales 

to better understand complex social and ecological processes 

in multifunctional landscapes, and using adaptive management 

(Sayer and others, 2013; Freeman and others, 2015; fig. 2−1). 

When a landscape approach is used, stakeholders work collaboratively to set goals, implement actions, and monitor 

outcomes to assess whether goals are being met (Sayer, 2009; 

Sayer and others, 2013).

Using a landscape approach requires explicitly acknowledging diverse values and perspectives of stakeholders and 

the need to balance tradeoffs among different and often 

conflicting land uses (Sayer and others, 2013; Freeman and 

others, 2015). Energy development and wildlife conservation 

are examples of land uses that often conflict but are essential 

to meeting multiple-use objectives on lands managed by the 

BLM (Skillen, 2009; Sawyer and others, 2009a; Copeland 

and others, 2014). Considering multiple spatial and temporal 

scales is necessary to understand the complex, interacting, 

and multiscale nature of social and ecological drivers and 

processes (Lindenmayer and others, 2008; Sayer and others, 

2013). A landscape approach also focuses on managing for 

system resilience by assessing threats and vulnerabilities to 

key resources, including cumulative effects across time and 

space (Lindenmayer and others, 2008; Sayer and others, 2013; 

Reed and others, 2014). Participatory monitoring programs 

in which the resulting data are understandable and accessible to all stakeholders foster inclusiveness, transparency, 

and a collective interest in measuring progress (Sayer and 

others, 2013).

Successfully implementing a landscape approach also 

requires a strong, long-term commitment to a participatory, 

interdisciplinary, and adaptive process to address the complexity of the problem and increase the likelihood of achieving 

diverse objectives across the landscape (Freeman and others, 

2015). Beginning by addressing simpler issues of concern 

to multiple stakeholders helps build momentum and trust in 

the process (Sayer and others, 2013). Building stakeholder 

capacity helps to ensure adequate, effective and continued 

participation (Sayer and others, 2013; Reed and others, 2016). 

A fair, transparent, and inclusive process for making decisions in which the responsibilities of all stakeholders are clear 

is crucial for resolving conflicts (Sayer and others, 2013). 

Strong leadership and governance policies, effective facilitation, and adequate human and financial resources are critical 

for success (Sayer and others, 2015, Sunderland and others, 

2015). Exploring scenarios associated with different objectives 

and actions helps stakeholders understand potential tradeoffs 

(Polasky and others, 2008) and identify solutions with the 

broadest support (Sayer, 2009). A commitment to monitoring specific metrics agreed upon by the group may identify to 

what extent progress is being made toward achieving objectives and inform adaptive management actions (Sayer and 

others, 2015, Reed and others, 2016).

In practice, a landscape approach may be implemented 

as a continuum ranging from simply adopting a broad spatial 

perspective, to an intermediate level that considers only one 

or a few resource objectives, to the more comprehensive, 

integrated landscape approach that we describe here (Freeman 

and others, 2015). As one moves along the continuum toward 

a more integrated (and complex) approach, greater levels of 

commitment to the underlying concepts of participation and 

interdisciplinarity are required. Correspondingly stronger commitments are also needed to adaptive management processes 

that address the complexity of the problems and increase the 

likelihood of achieving diverse and sustainable resource objectives and uses (Freeman and others, 2015).

Implementing a Landscape Approach 

to Natural Resource Management in 

the Bureau of Land Management

Many principles of a landscape approach have been used 

in management of all Federal lands for decades. For example, 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. §4321) established a process for making decisions 
Implementing a Landscape Approach to Natural Resource Management in the Bureau of Land Management 9

Figure 2–1. Key concepts (in outer ring) and core principles (in colored ovals and rectangles) of a landscape approach to 

resource management (Sayer and others, 2013; Freeman and others, 2015). This report focuses on the four principles listed 

under the heading, “Accessible, multiscale information on multiple resources.”

regarding development on Federal lands and defined clear 

participatory rights and responsibilities of the public and other 

stakeholders in the process. Goals of NEPA include preventing 

and eliminating damage to the environment while stimulating 

human health and welfare (42 U.S.C. §4321, Section 101). 

NEPA requires Federal agencies to inform other affected 

agencies and the public of the environmental effects of and 

alternatives to major Federal actions significantly affecting 

the environment. Federal agencies must consider and provide 

multiple opportunities for public input throughout this process 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2008). The NEPA process is an 

important mechanism for achieving open and transparent decisions in the Federal Government (for example, Smith, 2007; 

Skillen, 2009), but it is also a common source of conflict and 

lawsuits for the BLM and other Federal agencies (Canter and 

Clark, 1997; Skillen, 2009).

The BLM also has decades of experience in engaging 

stakeholders, generating and managing information, and integrating resource management decisions across social, economic, and renewable and non-renewable resource programs. 

These activities have typically occurred at the spatial extents 

where resource decisions are often made in the agency (for 

example, the boundaries of resource management plans or 

field offices, or smaller areas within these boundaries). With 

the advent of increasingly complex and widespread challenges 

such as managing wildfires across extensive sagebrush landscapes and addressing the effects of climate change, there is a 

need to manage systems across even broader spatial extents. 

Such challenges have prompted the BLM to build on prior 

broad-scale planning and management efforts (Bracke and 

McCaffrey, 2010) and formally adopt a landscape approach 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2014c). The result has been a 
10 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

renewed focus on providing the best available tools, science, 

and information to implement the multiple-use and sustainedyield mandate of the BLM. The BLM has also implemented 

new initiatives to inform, integrate, and enhance management 

across different resource management programs (for example, 

visual, cultural, and natural resources) and across spatial and 

temporal scales (Bureau of Land Management, 2014a).

A broad spatial perspective is inherent to a landscape 

approach (Lindenmayer and others, 2008; Reed and others, 

2014). However, collecting data, developing partnerships, and 

sharing information all become more difficult at larger spatial 

extents such as district offices, states, ecoregions, or across 

international borders (for example, O’Donnell and others, 

2014). Accordingly, the initial emphasis of the BLM in implementing a landscape approach has been on addressing data 

gaps at broad spatial scales in its biophysical programs through 

(1) conducting Rapid Ecoregional Assessments to synthesize the 

best available geospatial data on resource status and condition at 

the spatial extent of ecoregions (Bureau of Land Management, 

2016); (2) implementing management priorities across broad 

scales through the Healthy Lands Initiative (Bureau of Land 

Management, 2011); (3) piloting and developing a coordinated, 

nationwide Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program (Toevs and others, 2011); and (4) emphasizing the use of 

science to inform planning and management decisions (Bureau 

of Land Management, 2014c, 2015b).

Gathering and sharing multiscale monitoring and assessment information and working to develop strong partnerships across broader areas and with diverse stakeholders have 

helped the BLM to better evaluate tradeoffs inherent in natural 

resource decisions. Two early examples of such efforts were 

the Northwest Forest Plan (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 1994) and 

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management, 2000). Both efforts had a strong 

partnership between science and management, and the information and processes developed in both projects strongly 

influenced current efforts within the BLM to implement a 

landscape approach.

More recent efforts by the BLM to bring together the 

information and stakeholders needed to effectively plan and 

implement management actions across broad spatial extents 

include a multiagency conservation plan addressing future 

renewable energy development across seven counties in 

California (California Energy Commission and others, 2014), a 

multiagency land use planning effort across ten western states to 

support conservation of the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus, fig. 2−2) (Bureau of Land Management, 2015c), an 

integrated activity plan developed for the 9-million ha (23-million 

acre) National Petroleum Reserve−Alaska (Bureau of Land 

Management, 2015d), a resource management plan developed 

for western Oregon (Bureau of Land Management, 2015g), and 

a coordinated resource management plan addressing future solar 

Figure 2–2. Male greater sage-grouse displaying on a lek (mating 

ground) near Bodie, California (Photograph by Jeannie Stafford, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

energy development across six southwestern states (Bureau of 

Land Management, 2012). An example of a next step in implementing a landscape approach is the regional mitigation strategy 

for solar energy development in southeast Nevada (Bureau of 

Land Management, 2014b), which identifies specific strategies for 

implementing decisions reached by using a landscape approach.

Two priority areas for future work have emerged following these initial efforts by the BLM to implement a landscape 

approach (see Bureau of Land Management, 2015e). The first is 

development of approaches and datasets to further integration of 

socioeconomic, recreational, cultural, visual, and historic resource 

services and values into BLM planning efforts conducted at 

broad scales. The primary broad-scale assessment and monitoring efforts of BLM (AIM westwide landscape monitoring, Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessments) have focused on resource management questions related to wildlife, vegetation, and biological 

communities. However, the Northwest Forest Plan and the 

ecosystem assessment for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project included broad-scale assessments of 

socioeconomic conditions, and the Northwest Forest Plan continues to monitor socioeconomic and tribal issues as part of plan 

implementation (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management, 1994, 2000). More recently, 

broad-scale data on cultural resources were used in developing 

the San Luis Valley—Taos Plateau Landscape Assessment and 

Solar Regional Mitigation Strategy (Westcott, 2014), providing a starting point for more explicit consideration of the human 

dimensions of resource management in the future. Information 

is at the heart of understanding the tradeoffs involved in managing landscapes for diverse resource values and uses. Accordingly, having accessible, timely, multiscale resource data for all 

BLM programs is critical for moving forward in implementing a 

landscape approach.
Understanding Landscapes, Patterns, and Processes to Implement a Landscape Approach 11

A second priority area is to foster greater coordination 

and collaboration with stakeholders across broader spatial 

extents. Partnerships facilitate development of a shared 

vision for the landscape, collection of consistent monitoring 

data across land ownerships, and efficiencies in conducting resource assessments across regions. Many successful 

partnerships between the BLM and diverse stakeholders exist 

at local levels. An important focus for the future is to support 

and integrate these partnerships into a larger network that can 

help the BLM to identify and achieve regional and national 

resource objectives. There are examples of effective land 

planning and management partnerships between Federal agencies (Northwest Forest Plan [U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, 1994]), 

Federal and State agencies (Western Governors’ Association 

Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool [State Wildlife Agencies 

of the Western United States, 2014]), and Federal and State 

agencies and other organizations (Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives). A core goal of the new BLM planning framework, Planning 2.0, is to enhance opportunities for planning 

across broad landscapes using a collaborative process that 

strongly values involvement by and contributions from stakeholders (Bureau of Land Management, 2015e).

Understanding Landscapes, 

Patterns, and Processes to Implement 

a Landscape Approach

A key aspect of implementing a landscape approach is 

considering the effects of potential actions, such as habitat 

restoration and renewable energy development, across broad 

landscapes (Jones and others, 2015). Landscapes have been 

defined in a number of ways, often focusing primarily on ecological processes (Freeman and others, 2015). The Department 

of the Interior definition explicitly considers the human element of landscapes: large areas encompassing an interacting 

mosaic of ecosystems and human systems that are characterized by a set of common management concerns (Clement and 

others, 2014). Landscapes are mosaics in many senses of the 

word: mosaics of vegetation types, mosaics of land ownerships, and mosaics of land uses, to name a few. These mosaics 

are characterized by different landscape patterns and processes. For example, vegetation patches may be large or small, 

abundant or few in number, and clumped or widely scattered. 

Land ownership patterns may be characterized by many small 

parcels or few large ones. Roads may be clustered in specific 

areas or evenly dispersed across the landscape following 

environmental patterns or gridlines. Maintaining landscape 

patterns that include large, structurally complex and connected 

patches of native vegetation is essential for maintaining biodiversity in production landscapes (Fischer and others, 2006).

Landscape patterns affect ecological processes across the 

landscape. Road networks foster the spread of invasive species. 

The presence of invasive plants and the size, type, and proximity of vegetation patches affect wildfire frequency, intensity, and 

extent. The size and proximity of habitat patches and surrounding patterns of land use affect the extent to which populations of 

habitat specialist species are functionally connected.

Landscape patterns also affect human use patterns across 

the landscape. The location and characteristics of lands suited 

for particular types of recreation determine where, when, and 

with what intensity those recreational activities will occur. The 

location and amount of energy and mineral resources shape 

energy development patterns. Managing for the persistence 

of key ecological processes (such as wildfire), conducting 

management to mimic natural disturbance processes that are 

now greatly altered (through prescribed fire, for example), and 

controlling processes resulting from anthropogenic disturbance 

(such as the spread of invasive species) are priority conservation 

actions in multiple-use landscapes (Fischer and others, 2006).

Our perception of landscape patterns and processes, 

and the ways in which they both affect and are affected by 

each other, is influenced by the spatial and temporal scales 

at which we examine them. For example, a single gas well 

pad has a small surface disturbance footprint. However, that 

well pad together with many other well pads compose a large 

oil field (often developed over multiple years), which affects 

resource quality and quantity over much of a landscape 

(fig. 2−3). A wildfire may kill individual plants and animals 

within its perimeter but play an important role in maintaining 

the broader ecological community that supports these same 

species over the long term. Considering multiple spatial and 

temporal scales helps planners, managers, and policy makers better understand and quantify the potential effects of 

proposed management actions by providing perspectives on 

both short- and long-term effects and both local and regional 

context (Jones and others, 2015).

Figure 2–3. Oil and gas well-pad development in the Jonah 

Field near Pinedale, Wyoming (Photograph by Peter Aengst, The 

Wilderness Society).
12 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Considering Multiple Spatial Scales 

in Natural Resource Decisions

When evaluating the potential effects of natural resource 

decisions and actions, it is helpful to consider a hierarchy of spatial scales from the local level up to and including landscapes and 

regions (Lindenmayer and others, 2008; Wiens, 2009). Each level 

in the hierarchy provides different information for assessing the 

potential effect of a resource decision. For example, when considering the value of an individual vegetation patch for wildlife, 

the local scale provides specific information on the health and 

composition of habitat within the patch itself (fig. 2−4). A broader 

perspective, at the level of watersheds or landscapes, provides 

information on the context in which the patch occurs, such as the 

land cover type and land ownership of the habitat surrounding the 

patch or the location of adjacent populations. A regional perspective provides information on the role that the patch plays in 

maintaining regional connectivity of plant or wildlife populations.

In general, the finest spatial scale provides information on the 

specific effects of a resource management action or decision on 

vegetation composition and structure within a patch. An intermediate scale provides information on the direct and indirect effects 

of a decision on the amount and configuration of habitat across 

a landscape and the potential to affect adjacent populations. The 

broadest spatial scale indicates how a decision may affect species 

or habitat connectivity across a region.

There are no predefined rules for determining the exact 

size or number of spatial scales at which to consider the 

potential effects of a resource decision. Relevant scales will 

vary by project type and characteristics of the resources 

likely to be affected (for example, ecological, economic, 

recreational, or visual resources). When wildlife species of 

conservation concern are involved, the body size, movement 

patterns, and dispersal distances of the species may inform 

scale selection (Jackson and Fahrig, 2012). For example, 

Figure 2–4. Example of a landscape hierarchy, illustrated using analyses of aspen vegetation in the Wyoming Basin 

ecoregion (modified from Carr and Melcher, 2015). Considering multiple levels in the landscape hierarchy is helpful for 

understanding details within the individual site along with the landscape and regional importance of the site. The regional 

level illustrates structural connectivity of aspen across the Wyoming Basin ecoregion, with black, blue, and orange 

colors indicating aspen patch complexes that are connected at distances of 0.3, 1.3, and 6.5 kilometers, respectively. 

At the landscape level, it is possible to identify specific aspen patches in the landscape that may be important stepping 

stones for dispersing wildlife species. At the local level (often an individual patch or forest stand), field samples provide 

important details about vegetation composition and stand structure. At the local level, the contribution of a patch to 

structural connectivity of aspen across the landscape and region might not be apparent. (Photograph by Natasha B. Carr, 

U.S. Geological Survey).
Management Questions Across Spatial Scales 13

Spatial extent

Local Intermediate Regional

Bureau of Land Management 

administrative units

Field office or smaller Field and district offices State or multiple State offices, 

National office

Example management 

decisions

Determinations of no significant effect 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (Categorical Exclusions) 

Landscape-level projects, 

Environmental Impact 

Statements, resource 

management plans

Multistate projects, implementation 

of the (National) Energy Policy Act 

of 2005

Example ecological 

processes and patterns

Selection of nest-sites and foraging 

patches, population density

Seasonal movement patterns, 

dispersal and migration, 

connectivity, habitat 

dynamics

Range shifts, gene flow, disturbance 

regimes, connectivity, population 

dynamics

Table 2–1. Bureau of Land Management administrative units, management decisions, and ecological processes and patterns across 

a range of spatial extents. Note that local, intermediate (often a watershed or landscape), and regional extents represent a continuum, 

with many management decisions and ecological processes being relevant across more than one spatial extent (modified from Carr and 

Melcher, 2015).

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and other ungulates in the 

Intermountain West often complete seasonal migrations of 

50–100 km, requiring consideration of broad spatial scales and 

seasonal habitats to fully understand effects of potential development on populations (Sawyer and others 2009a, 2009b). In 

this case, the finest spatial extent to consider may be the size 

of a typical habitat patch (for example, a foraging or reproduction area), an intermediate extent might be the average size 

of an individual home range, and the broadest extent might 

include the full geographic range of the species.

The specific boundaries used in evaluating potential 

effects of a management decision will depend on the action 

being considered, the resources and species potentially 

affected, and any measures being considered to minimize or 

mitigate negative effects to each. Ecological boundaries such 

as ecoregions or watersheds are likely to be most relevant for 

species. Geographic boundaries such as counties or states may 

be appropriate for considering management constraints (for 

example, county permitting processes and State endangered 

species regulations). Agency administrative boundaries such 

as field offices and districts may be relevant for management actions corresponding to agency funding or planning 

processes. Often a combination of ecological, geographic, 

and administrative boundaries is useful for accommodating 

ecological, regulatory, and management considerations.

Management Questions Across 

Spatial Scales

The resource management questions of BLM span local 

to national extents (table 2−1). Consequently, data collected 

across a range of spatial extents may be useful for addressing 

those questions. For example, at the broadest scale, the BLM is 

responsible for reporting on the condition and trend in condition 

of rangelands managed by the BLM across the Nation (Public 

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Public Law 95-514). 

This is a major goal of the westwide landscape monitoring 

effort of the BLM (Toevs and others, 2011). Field sampling 

conducted at individual rangeland sites that are selected in a 

consistent and statistically valid manner allows inference to be 

made across rangelands managed by the BLM nationwide. The 

BLM also is working to use data collected at individual rangeland sites in conjunction with remotely sensed data collected 

across broad spatial extents to answer additional management 

questions (Toevs and others, 2011; see chapter 4).

At the scale of ecoregions, BLM planners and managers 

may use information on the status, condition, and distribution of natural resources and of key stressors acting on those 

resources to, for example, map where development is concentrated and identify where large, relatively undeveloped areas 

occur (see chapter 5). Information on patterns of existing 

development may be used to help guide future development 

activities and minimize negative effects on large, relatively 

undeveloped areas. Patterns of existing and projected future 

development also may be used together with other natural 

resource information in a systematic conservation planning 

framework to help prioritize areas for conservation or restoration activities (Margules and Pressey, 2000). Remotely sensed 

data that are appropriate for use at an ecoregional or broader 

scale also increasingly have a spatial resolution (for example, 

30- x 30-m cells) and level of discrimination between different land use and land cover types that are suitable for informing decisions made at smaller extents such as field offices or 

watersheds.

At the spatial extent of a field or district office, an 

important management question may be to determine whether 

planning and management actions are effective in meeting 

objectives identified in resource management plans (RMPs) 

(Toevs and others, 2011). RMPs guide management decisions 

and actions on public lands within the RMP boundary (often 

a BLM field office) such as the balance between developed 

and conserved habitats. Monitoring conducted at the scale 
14 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

of the RMP boundary is the best tool for assessing the extent 

to which RMPs are effective tools in producing the desired 

resource outcomes (Toevs and others, 2011).

Many decisions within the BLM are made in response 

to proposed actions at a specific site. The effects of these 

proposed actions often encompass multiple scales: anticipated 

site effects (often direct physical disturbance) and indirect and 

cumulative effects at broader spatial and temporal scales. For 

example, accurate assessment of the potential effects of the 

proposed installation of a single wind turbine often requires 

a broad spatial perspective (Jones and others, 2015). Specific 

questions to be investigated will include the area over which 

the structure is visible; the distance over which noise, dust, 

or vibrations will travel; the likely locations of associated 

activities such as road construction; and the sensitivity, spatial 

distribution, and population structure of wildlife species of 

conservation concern that are present perennially or seasonally 

in the area. Decisions that may affect resources over a large 

area or long time period, often with requirements for offsite 

mitigation of negative effects on resources within the project boundary, may require the broadest spatial and temporal 

perspectives. However, all projects can benefit from multiscale 

assessment and planning. Broad-scale data (such as Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessments) and plans (such as RMPs, Bureau 

of Land Management, 2004) provide important context for 

making specific decisions at all scales, including individual 

sites or projects.

Energy development occurring within the range of the 

greater sage-grouse (fig. 2−3) provides another illustration of 

the potential effects of development that may extend beyond 

the footprint of a proposed well pad or wind turbine. Greater 

sage-grouse require large, connected areas of sagebrush for 

lekking, nesting, and overwintering (Connelly and others, 

2011). Females typically avoid nesting within 950 meters of 

the infrastructure of natural gas fields (Holloran and others, 

2010), and wind turbines can decrease nesting survival to a 

distance of 30 kilometers or more (Lebeau and others, 2014). 

In addition, greater sage-grouse avoid paved roads (Fedy and 

others, 2014), and even lightly traveled roads (1–12 vehicles 

per day) may lead to reduced rates of nest initiation (Lyon 

and Anderson, 2003). Thus, potential indirect and cumulative 

effects of an individual well pad or wind turbine may affect 

breeding behavior and reproductive success at locations and 

scales that extend well beyond the individual site.

Considering potential effects of proposed development 

actions at multiple spatial scales may also improve the effectiveness of proposed mitigation actions. A proposed road that 

will cross an important wildlife corridor may be designed to 

minimize adverse localized effects by incorporating wildlife 

overpasses or underpasses to allow animal movement to continue (Sawyer and others, 2012; fig. 2−5). Integrating broader 

scale information enables application of compensatory mitigation elsewhere in the landscape where it may be most effective 

in offsetting negative effects on natural resources (Bureau 

of Land Management, 2014a, 2015g). To compensate for 

the effects of the proposed road on wildlife movement in the 

landscape, other wildlife corridors that contribute to regional 

connectivity of the population could be protected. Mitigation 

actions that compensate for negative effects of development at 

multiple scales help to achieve more effective and defensible 

resource management (Clement and others, 2014).

Figure 2–5. Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) make use of a wildlife highway overpass at Trappers Point, Wyoming 

(Photograph by Jeff Burrell, Wildlife Conservation Society).
References Cited 15

Implementing a landscape approach involves considering, assessing, and monitoring multiple resource values and 

uses, and understanding the implications of management 

decisions on those resources, across spatial and temporal 

scales. Using multiscale information in managing natural 

resources is not a new concept. However, expanding from 

evaluating effects of proposed actions at the scale of individual sites to considering effects at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales and on multiple natural resources is still 

a developing science (Haines and others, 2014; Jones and 

others, 2015). Unanticipated ecological and policy interactions may be evident only when examined at a variety of 

scales (Smith and others, 2011, Sunderland and others, 2015). 

Considering cultural, visual, and other human dimensions 

resources, some without defined tools for multiscale analyses, 

adds additional complexity. Although there are clear challenges in implementing a landscape approach (Sayer and 

others, 2015), assessing and monitoring changes in welldefined indicators of key ecological patterns and processes in 

response to different management decisions at different spatial 

and temporal scales are needed to inform and adapt future 

management actions.

References Cited

Bracke, Marsha, and McCaffery, Maggie, 2010, Lessons learned 

report—Ecoregional assessment processes: U.S. Institute 

for Environmental Conflict Resolution and EnviroIssues, 

Inc., accessed February 21, 2016, at http://www.blm.gov/

style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/

public_affairs/landscape_approach/documents1.Par.51236.

File.dat/20101110_EcoregionalAssessment_Lessons_

Learned_Report_FINAL_v2.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2004, Bureau of Land Management national sage-grouse habitat conservation strategy: 

Bureau of Land Management, accessed July 31, 2015, at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_

Renewable_Resources/fish__wildlife_and.Par.9151.File.dat/

Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2008, Bureau of Land Management National Environmental Policy Act Program: 

Bureau of Land Management, accessed June 15, 2015, at

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_

Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.24487.

File.dat/h1790-1-2008-1.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2011, The Bureau of Land 

Management Healthy Lands Initiative, accessed January 12, 

2017, at https://www.blm.gov/about/how-we-manage/

shared-conservation-strategies.

Bureau of Land Management, 2012, Approved resource management plan amendments/record of decision (ROD) for 

solar energy development in six southwestern states: Bureau 

of Land Management, accessed September 25, 2015, at http://

solareis.anl.gov/documents/docs/Solar_PEIS_ROD.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2014a, Draft regional mitigation 

manual section (MS)-1794: Bureau of Land Management, 

accessed January 10, 2017, at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/

medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/

im_attachments/2013.Par.57631.File.dat/IM2013-142_att1.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2014b, Solar regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone: Bureau 

of Land Management, Southern Nevada District Office, 

Technical Note 444, accessed September 25, 2015, at 

https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/

tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2014c, The BLM’s landscape 

approach for managing public lands: Bureau of Land Management, accessed April 14, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/

wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_Approach.html.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015a, Advancing science in the 

BLM: An implementation strategy: Bureau of Land Management, accessed June 2, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/

style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/BLM_pubs.Par.38337.

File.dat/BLMAdvSciImpStratFINAL032515.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015b, Implementing mitigation 

at the landscape-scale: Department of the Interior Manual 

600 DM 6: Bureau of Land Management, accessed December 7, 2015, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/

uploads/TRS%20and%20Chapter%20FINAL.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015c, Land use planning 

to support conservation of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush: Bureau of Land Management, accessed September 25, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

sagegrouse.html.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015d, National Petroleum 

Reserve−Alaska Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement: Bureau of Land Management, accessed 

September 25, 2015, at https://eplanning.blm.gov/

epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?method

Name=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=14702.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015e, Planning 2.0: Improving 

the way we plan together: Bureau of Land Management, 

accessed April 14, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/

prog/planning/planning_overview/planning_2_0.html.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015f, Public land statistics: 

Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 21, 2016, at

http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls14/pls2014.pdf.
16 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Land Management, 2015g, Western Oregon draft 

Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement: Bureau of Land Management, accessed 

September 25, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/

rmpswesternoregon/deis.php.

Bureau of Land Management, 2016, Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessments: Bureau of Land Management, accessed 

March 7, 2016, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

Landscape_Approach/reas.html.

California Energy Commission, California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014, Draft Desert Renewable 

Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) and Environmental 

Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement: California Energy Commission, California Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, accessed September 25, 2015, at 

http://www.drecp.org/draftdrecp/.

Carr, N.B., and Melcher, C.P., eds., 2015, Wyoming 

Basin Rapid Ecoregional Assessment: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2015–1155, 896 p., accessed 

December 8, 2016, at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/

ofr20151155.

Clement, J.P., Belin, A.d’A., Bean, M.J., Boling, T.A., and 

Lyons, J.R., 2014, A strategy for improving the mitigation 

policies and practices of the Department of the Interior: 

Washington, D.C., Energy and Climate Change Task Force, 

accessed October 12, 2016, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/

doi.gov/files/migrated/news/upload/Mitigation-Report-tothe-Secretary_FINAL_04_08_14.pdf.

Connelly, J.W., Rinkes, E.T., and Braun, C.E., 2011, Characteristics of greater sage-grouse habitats: A landscape species 

at micro- and macroscales, in Knick, S.T., and Connelly, 

J.W. eds., Greater sage-grouse—Ecology and conservation 

of a landscape species and its habitats: Studies in Avian 

Biology, v. 38, p. 69−83.

Copeland, H.E., Sawyer, Hall, Monteith, K.L., Naugle, D.E., 

Pocewicz, Amy, Graf, Nicholas, and Kauffman, M.J., 2014, 

Conserving migratory mule deer through the umbrella of 

sage-grouse: Ecosphere, v. 5, no. 9, p. 1−16, accessed October 12, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00186.1.

Fedy, B.C., Doherty, K.E., Aldridge, C.L., O’Donnell, 

Micheal, Beck, J.L., Bedrosian, Bryan, Gummer, David, 

Holloran, M.J., Johnson, G.D., Kaczor, N.W., Kirol, C.P., 

Mandich, C.A., Marshall, David, McKee, Gwyn, Olson, 

Chad, Pratt, A.C., Swanson, C.C., and Walker, B.L., 2014, 

Habitat prioritization across large landscapes, multiple 

seasons, and novel areas—An example using greater sagegrouse in Wyoming: Wildlife Monographs, v. 190, p. 1−39.

Fischer, Joern, Lindenmayer, D.B., and Manning, A.D., 2006, 

Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience—Ten 

guiding principles for commodity production landscapes: 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 4, p. 80−86.

Freeman, O.E., Duguma, L.A., and Minang, P.A., 2015, Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice: 

Ecology and Society, v. 20, no. 1, accessed October 12, 2016, 

at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/art24/.

Gorte, R.W., Vincent, C.H., Hanson, L.A., and Rosenblum, 

M.R., 2012, Federal land ownership: Overview and data: 

Washington, D.C., Congressional Research Service, 

accessed June 22, 2015, at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/

R42346.pdf.

Haines, S.S., Diffendorer, J.E., Balistrieri, Laurie, Berger, 

Byron, Cook, Troy, DeAngelis, Don, Doremus, Holly, 

Gautier, D.L., Gallegos, Tanya, Gerritsen, Margot, Graffy, 

Elisabeth, Hawkins, Sarah, Johnson, K.M., Macknick, 

Jordan, McMahon, Peter, Modde, Tim, Pierce, Brenda, 

Schuenemeyer, J.H., Semmens, Darius, Simon, Benjamin, 

Taylor, Jason, and Walton-Day, Katie, 2014, A framework 

for quantitative assessment of impacts related to energy and 

mineral resource development: Natural Resources Research, 

v. 23, p. 3−17.

Holloran, M.J., Kaiser, R.C., and Hubert, W.A., 2010, Yearling greater sage-grouse response to energy development in 

Wyoming: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 74, p. 65−72.

Jackson, H.B., and Fahrig, Lenore, 2012, What size is a 

biologically relevant landscape?: Landscape Ecology, v. 27, 

p. 929−941.

Jones, N.F., Pejchar, Liba, and Kiesecker, J.M., 2015, The 

energy footprint: How oil, natural gas, and wind energy 

affect land for biodiversity and the flow of ecosystem services: Bioscience, v. 65, p. 290−301.

Lebeau, C.W., Beck, J.L., Johnson, G.D., and Holloran, M.J., 

2014, Short-term impacts of wind energy development on 

greater sage-grouse fitness: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 78, p. 522−530.

Lindenmayer, David, Hobbs, J.R., Montague-Drake, Rebecca, 

Alexandra, Jason, Bennett, Andrew, Burgman, Mark, Cale, 

Peter, Calhoun, Aram, Cramer, Viki, Cullen, Peter, Driscoll, 

Don, Fahrig, Lenore, Fischer, Joern, Franklin, Jerry, Haila, 

Yrjo, Hunter, Malcolm, Gibbons, Philip, Lake, Sam, Luck, 

Gary, MacGregor, Chris, McIntyre, Sue, Mac Nally, Ralph, 

Manning, Adrian, Miller, James, Mooney, Hal, Noss, Reed, 

Possingham, H.P., Saunders, Denis, Schmiegelow, Fiona, 

Scott, Michael, Simberloff, Dan, Sisk, Tom, Tabor, Gary, 

Walker, Brian, Wiens, John, Woinarski, John, and Zavaleta, 

Erika, 2008, A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation: Ecology Letters, v. 11, p. 78−91.
References Cited 17

Lyon, A.G., and Anderson, S.H., 2003, Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation and movement: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 31, p. 486−491.

Margules, C.R., and Pressey, R.L., 2000, Systematic conservation planning: Nature, v. 405, p. 243−253.

O’Donnell, M.S, Assal, T.J., Anderson, P.J., and Bowen, Z.H., 

2014, Geospatial considerations for a multiorganizational, 

landscape-scale program: Journal of Map and Geography 

Libraries, v. 10, p. 62−99.

Polasky, Stephen, Nelson, Erik, Camm, Jeff, Csuti, Blair, 

Fackler, Paul, Lonsdorf, Eric, Montgomery, Claire, White, 

Denis, Arthur, Jeff, Garber-Yonts, Brian, Haight, Robert, 

Kagan, Jimmy, Starfield, Anthony, and Tobalske, Claudine, 

2008, Where to put things? Spatial land management to 

sustain biodiversity and economic returns: Biological Conservation, v. 141, p. 1505−1524.

Radeloff, V.C., Stewart, S.I., Hawbaker, T.J., Gimmi, Urs, 

Pidgeon, A.M., Flather, C.H., Hammer, R.B., and Helmers, D.P., 2010, Housing growth in and near United States 

protected areas limits their conservation value: Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, v. 107, p. 940−945.

Reed, James, Deakin, Liz, and Sunderland, Terry, 2014, What 

are ‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ and how effectively 

have they been implemented in the tropics: a systematic 

map protocol: Environmental Evidence, v. 4, p. 1−7.

Reed, James, Van Vianen, Josh, Deakin, E.L., Barlow, Jos, and 

Sunderland, Terry, 2016, Integrated landscape approaches 

to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: 

learning from the past to guide the future: Global Change 

Biology, v. 22, p. 2540−2554.

Sawyer, Hall, Kauffman, M.J., Nielson, R.M., and Horne, 

J.S., 2009a, Identifying and prioritizing ungulate migration 

routes for landscape-level conservation: Ecological Applications, v. 19, p. 2016−2025.

Sawyer, Hall, Kauffman, M.J., Nielson, R.M., and Horne, J.S., 

2009b, Influence of well pad activity on the winter habitat 

selection patterns of mule deer: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 73, p. 1052−1061.

Sawyer, Hall, Lebeau, Chad, and Hart, Thomas, 2012, Mitigating roadway impacts to migratory mule deer—a case study 

with underpasses and continuous fencing: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 36, p. 492−498.

Sayer, Jeffrey, 2009, Reconciling conservation and development: Are landscapes the answer?: Biotropica, v. 41, 

p. 649−652.

Sayer, Jeffrey, Margules, Chris, Boedhihartono, A.K., Dale, 

Allan, Sunderland, Terry, Supriatna, Jatna, and Saryanthi, 

Ria, 2015, Landscape approaches: what are the pre-conditions for success?: Sustainability Science, v. 10, p. 345−355.

Sayer, Jeffrey, Sunderland, Terry, Ghazoul, Jabouary, Pfund, 

Jean-Laurent, Sheil, Douglas, Meijaard, Erik, Venter, 

Michelle, Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, Michael, Garcia, 

Claude, van Oosten, Cora, and Buck, L.E., 2013, Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, 

conservation, and other competing land uses: Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, v. 110, p. 8349−8356.

Skillen, J.R., 2009, The Nation’s largest landlord: the Bureau 

of Land Management in the American West: Lawrence, 

Kans., University Press of Kansas, 297 p.

Smith, M.D., 2007, A review of recent NEPA alternatives 

analysis case law: Environmental Impact Assessment 

Review, v. 27, p. 126−144.

Smith, A.C., Fahrig, Lenore, and Francis, C.M., 2011, Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat amount, 

habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds: 

Ecography, v. 34, p. 103−113.

State Wildlife Agencies of the Western United States, 2014, 

West-wide crucial habitat data set. Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies Crucial Habitat Assessment 

Tool—Mapping fish and wildlife across the west: State 

Wildlife Agencies of the Western United States, accessed 

September 29, 2015, at http://www.wafwachat.org/map.

Sunderland, Terry, Baudron, Frédéric, Ickowitz, Amy, Padoch, 

Christine, Ros-Tonen, Mirjam, Sandbrook, Chris, Vira, 

Bhaskar, Chambers, Josephine, Deakin, Elizabeth, Foli, 

Samson, Jeary, Katy, Parrotta, J.A., Powell, Bronwen, Reed, 

James, Ayeri Ogalleh, Sarah, Neufeldt, Henry, and Serban, 

Anca, 2015, Response options across the landscape, in Bhaskar 

Vira, Wildburger, Christoph, and Mansourian, Stephanie, eds., 

Forests, trees and landscapes for food security and nutrition: 

Vienna, Austria, International Union of Forest Research Organizations World Series, v. 33, p. 113−127.

Theobald, D.M., 2013, A general model to quantify ecological integrity for landscape assessments and US application: 

Landscape Ecology, v. 28, p. 1859−1874.

Toevs, G.R., Taylor, J.J., Spurrier, C.S., MacKinnon, W.C., and 

Bobo, M.R., 2011, Bureau of Land Management Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: For integrated renewable resources management: Bureau of Land Management, 

National Operations Center, accessed June 15, 2015, at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_

Resources_Management/policy/ib_attachments/2012.

Par.53766.File.dat/IB2012-080_att1.pdf.
18 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management, 1994, Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

planning documents within the range of the northern spotted 

owl: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 21, 2016, 

at http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management, 2000, Interior Columbia Basin Final Environmental Impact Statement: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, accessed February 21, 2016, at http://www.icbemp.gov/html/icbhome.html.

U.S. Department of Defense, 2011, Instruction 4715.03: 

Natural Resources Conservation Program, U.S. Department 

of Defense, accessed June 22, 2015, at http://www.dtic.mil/

whs/directives/corres/pdf/471503p.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2014, Strategic plan for 

fiscal years 2014−2018: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, accessed June 15, 2015, at

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/bpp/

upload/DOI-Strategic-Plan-for-FY-2014-2018-POSTEDON-WEBSITE.pdf.

Westcott, Konnie, 2014, Cultural landscape assessment: San 

Luis Valley—Taos Plateau: Colorado SEZ Solar Regional 

Mitigation Strategy Public Workshop, Alamosa, Colo. [Presentation], September 10, 2014, accessed June 15, 2015, at 

http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/slvfo/solar/solar_regional_

mitigation.html.

Wiens, J.A., 2009, Landscape ecology as a foundation for 

sustainable conservation: Landscape Ecology, v. 24, 

p. 1053−1065.
Chapter 3. Including Broad-Scale Indicators in 

Multiscale Natural Resource Monitoring and Assessment 

Programs in the Bureau of Land Management

By David J.A. Wood, Sarah K. Carter, Sandra E. Litschert, and Natasha B. Carr

Abstract

The collection and use of multiscale monitoring data are 

key components of a landscape approach to natural resource 

management. However, broad-scale indicators of resource 

status and condition are not always monitored, and methods 

are frequently not consistent across regions and organizations. 

We describe key components of the Assessment, Inventory, 

and Monitoring Strategy of the Bureau of Land Management, 

including the Rapid Ecoregional Assessment program. We 

identify a suite of core, supplemental, and derived broadscale indicators that emerged from the Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessment program as the most important and feasible to 

quantify at the ecoregional scale: the amount and distribution 

of ecological communities and wildlife habitats, the patch size 

and connectivity of communities and habitats, the pattern and 

amount of development, the frequency with which ecological 

communities burn, the distribution of invasive species, the 

potential effects of climate change on communities and habitats, and landscape intactness. We outline steps for assessing 

broad-scale indicators within a multiscale monitoring program 

and suggest ways in which broad-scale indicators may inform 

field monitoring programs and be used in multiscale assessments. Multiagency, multiscale monitoring programs that 

collect data consistently across broad extents regardless of 

land ownership or jurisdiction are an important component of 

a landscape approach to resource management, and emerging 

regional partnerships may support these efforts.

Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is committed 

to implementing a landscape approach to resource management (hereafter landscape approach) on the public lands it 

manages (see chapter 2). One fundamental aspect of a landscape approach is collecting and sharing monitoring information at multiple spatial scales, including broad scales such as 

ecoregions (Stahl and others, 2011; Sayer and others, 2013). 

Multiscale monitoring data inform all stages of natural resource 

management from setting resource objectives to evaluating 

the effectiveness of management actions (Noss, 1990; Lui and 

Taylor, 2002; Frost and others, 2006; Fancy and others, 2009).

Traditionally, much of the ecological monitoring conducted 

within the BLM has occurred at local scales commensurate with 

permitting activities (for example, applications for grazing or 

drilling permits). The boundaries of most projects and permit 

decisions are relatively small, occurring well within field offices 

or National Conservation Areas. Accordingly, available funding 

and capacity within the BLM have traditionally been prioritized 

to support making frequent, fine-scale decisions for projects and 

permits. The BLM is now addressing widespread threats and 

conservation needs through planning and management actions 

carried out across large areas. There is an associated need for 

both field-collected and broad-scale monitoring data to fully 

evaluate the effectiveness of these actions.

Data collected at individual field sites provide important 

information on, for example, vegetation composition and stand 

structure (see chapter 2), and the BLM has recently begun to 

systematically sample sites across the western United States to 

gather such information. However, there are challenges in relying only on fine-scale data to characterize resource status and 

condition across broad regions. For example, data collected at 

individual project and permit sites in the course of completing 

land management projects and issuing or renewing permits are 

unlikely to adequately represent the broader landscape, as field 

sampling sites need to be chosen in an unbiased manner to provide an accurate assessment of resources across broader extents 

(Gruijter and others, 2006). In many regions, the scattered 

pattern of public lands for which the BLM has surface management authority may also limit site access, making it difficult for 

the BLM to implement a standardized and efficient monitoring 

program that relies on only field sampling. Monitoring broadscale indicators derived from remotely sensed data also provides 

additional benefits, including the ability to quantify indicators 

that may be difficult or time consuming to measure on the 

ground (for example, productivity) and to easily summarize 

indicators across broad extents, including across jurisdictional 

and land ownership boundaries.
20 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

In light of the challenges associated with field sampling and potential benefits of considering broad-scale data, 

the BLM has traditionally augmented its field data with 

broad-scale data collected by other agencies and organizations. Examples include the U.S. Geological Survey Gap 

Analysis Program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

National Resources Conservation Service National Resources 

Inventory, and the Landscape Fire and Resource Management 

Planning Tools (LANDFIRE, a joint program of the 

U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture). However, 

using such data may at times not adequately meet the information needs of the BLM. For example, datasets designed 

primarily for fuels inventory and management in forested 

landscapes such as LANDFIRE are often inadequate for characterizing the arid shrublands and grasslands that constitute 

the majority of lands managed by the BLM outside of Alaska.

Many BLM resource management objectives relate to the 

distribution of ecological resources across large landscapes, 

which is typically quantified using remotely sensed datasets 

(Wulder and others, 2010). As remote sensing technologies 

improve, the availability of consistent land cover data across 

broad extents is increasing. There is a concomitant need to 

collect field data to ground truth broad-scale indicators (for 

example, vegetation type and productivity). The BLM is now 

prioritizing the systematic collection of natural resource data 

at both fine- and broad-scales to facilitate efficiencies in monitoring and assessment at both scales, meet its agency reporting 

requirements, and enable more effective and efficient decisionmaking across landscapes (Toevs and others, 2011).

Broad-scale indicators provide information 

about the spatial pattern and 

distribution of species and ecological 

communities across landscapes.

Agencies and organizations outside of the BLM are also 

implementing multiscale monitoring and assessment programs 

to inform conservation and management decisions. Multiscale monitoring programs have been proposed or are being 

implemented by the National Park Service (Fancy and others, 

2009; National Park Service, 2012), by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service through their new planning 

rule (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2012) 

and Watershed Condition Framework (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, 2011), and by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service through their Strategic Habitat Conservation 

initiative (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008). Natural 

resource management agencies at the State level (The Heinz 

Center, 2009; Western Governors Wildlife Council, 2013) and 

nongovernmental conservation organizations (World Wildlife 

Fund International, 2004; The Nature Conservancy, 2006) also 

use multiscale monitoring to inform their management actions. 

As these programs mature and expand their data repositories, 

cooperation, coordination, and data sharing can increase the 

information available to all entities and foster consistency and 

efficiencies in data collection.

Broad-scale indicators provide information about the spatial pattern and distribution of species and communities across 

landscapes, complementing and providing context for detailed 

information about the species composition of communities 

collected at the scale of individual sites or projects (see 

chapter 2). From a management perspective, understanding the 

status and condition of resources across an ecoregion provides 

context for targeted management actions (see Box 1) and can 

identify areas where localized, supplemental sampling of habitat condition is needed to inform local decisions.

Multiscale monitoring also captures information about ecological processes that interact across spatial scales. For example, 

the hydrologic function of a specific site will depend on precipitation and flow patterns that are affected by soils and vegetation 

both locally and across a watershed. Similarly, wildlife need 

individual habitat patches of adequate size and condition to 

provide high value forage opportunities. However, those patches 

also need to occur in adequate numbers and proximity across a 

species’ range to provide the conditions needed to maintain traditional movement patterns (for example, seasonal migrations), 

effective population sizes, and genetic diversity.

In this chapter, we first describe key components of 

the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) 

Strategy, and the relation between the AIM Strategy, initial 

AIM monitoring efforts, and Rapid Ecoregional Assessments 

(REAs). We then propose core and supplemental broad-scale 

indicators of resource status and condition that have been 

developed through the REAs and found to be most appropriate and feasible to measure at the extent of ecoregions. The 

proposed broad-scale indicators complement terrestrial and 

aquatic indicators measured locally, facilitating the use of 

multiscale information in making resource decisions on lands 

managed by the BLM. Finally, we suggest ways in which 

broad-scale indicators may inform the development, design, 

and implementation of field monitoring programs and be used 

in multiscale natural resource assessments.
Introduction 21

Box 1—Using Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Data 

to Provide a Broader Context for the Centennial 

Watershed Assessment

By Sandra (Sam) E. Litschert

One of several applications for broad-scale data is to understand better how a specific area of interest relates 

to the surrounding landscape. For example, how does the status and condition of resources within the area of interest compare to other areas across the landscape or region? Rapid Ecoregional Assessments provide broad-scale 

data over one or more ecoregions that can be used to evaluate the ecological and physical contexts of smaller 

areas (Bureau of Land Management, 2016). Understanding the status and condition of natural resources, and the 

ecological processes and anthropogenic activities that may affect those resources, can help resource managers 

identify potential areas for restoration and mitigation actions and assess potential cumulative effects of proposed 

development activities.

We used resource condition data from the Middle Rockies Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (REA) (Science 

Applications International Corporation, 2012a) to provide information on existing threats and potential future risks 

to highly valued resources in the Centennial Watershed and surrounding landscape (Bureau of Land Management, 

2015b). Dillon Field Office personnel selected several resources and issues of management concern to evaluate including priority terrestrial and aquatic species and assemblages, riparian communities, forest health, risk of wildfire, and 

conifer expansion. We analyzed data addressing each resource and issue at three different spatial extents: the Middle 

Rockies REA, the Dillon Field Office, and the Centennial Watershed (Box 1−fig. 1). The watershed and field office 

extents cover about 1 percent and 7 percent of the Middle Rockies REA area respectively. Here we present example 

results illustrating the relation between the Centennial Watershed and the rest of the ecoregion.

The Centennial Watershed contains corridors of high quality habitat for priority terrestrial species, including large 

carnivores. Vegetation Condition Class data (LANDFIRE, 2012) provide information about the condition of vegetation 

in these corridors, specifically the degree to which current vegetation is different from simulated historical (preEuroAmerican settlement) reference conditions (Box 1−fig. 2). Low departure indicates areas of vegetation that are 

generally within the historic or natural range of variation for that area (Barrett and others, 2010). Areas showing high 

departure indicate uncharacteristic conditions that may be a result of fire suppression, introduction of invasive weeds, 

insects, disease, forest harvest, or repeated grazing (Barrett and others, 2010). Proportionally, Centennial Watershed 

has the largest area with high departure (57 percent) compared to the Dillon Field Office (39 percent) and the Middle 

Rockies (43 percent) (Box 1−fig. 2). Our findings illustrate that wildlife habitat corridors within the Centennial watershed 

may be at high risk from shifts in vegetation condition compared to the broader ecoregion.

Broad-scale data from REAs can help to inform and provide context for resource assessments conducted for 

smaller areas. Broad-scale data may have limited spatial resolution and accuracy for assessing localized areas, but 

can indicate a need for collecting more detailed data to verify local conditions and identify factors potentially affecting resource condition locally. Using a combination of fine-scale and broad-scale data provides a more complete 

understanding of the status and condition of resources in the area of interest. In this case, broad-scale data identifying 

the location of and risks to wildlife habitat corridors helped to both identify fine-scale data collection needs and plan 

individual projects that will provide benefits across a broader area.

”Looking at the data at multiple scales, helped the Interdisciplinary Team put resource issues and concerns 

in context with larger scales and therefore helped us to develop and prioritize projects at the watershed level. 

Projects selected for implementation are aimed at incrementally improving conditions within the ecoregion. These 

datasets will also be very valuable to support and defend our decisions for the Centennial Watershed.”—Pat Fosse, 

September 2015, Dillon Field Office, Bureau of Land Management
22 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Box 1—Continued

Box 1−Figure 1. Vegetation Condition Class (LANDFIRE, 2012) in the Middle Rockies Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessment boundary, Dillon field office, and Centennial watershed.
Integrating Rapid Ecoregional Assessments with the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Program 23

Box 1—Continued

Box 1−Figure 2. Percent area in each Vegetation Condition Class (LANDFIRE, 2012) within 

the Middle Rockies Rapid Ecoregional Assessment boundary, Dillon field office, and Centennial 

Watershed.

Integrating Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessments with the Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring Program

In 2011, the BLM developed an AIM Strategy in 

response to a program evaluation of the BLM by the 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget that identified gaps 

in monitoring of resource condition (Toevs and others, 2011, 

Office of Management and Budget, 2004). The AIM Strategy 

outlines 10 fundamental management issues spanning local to 

national resource concerns, including assessing the cumulative effects of management actions, the status and condition of 

resources across an ecoregion, and the location and abundance 

of priority renewable resources across all lands managed by 

the BLM (Toevs and others, 2011). The AIM Strategy also 

proposes a process for collecting and managing data to address 

these issues. Key components of the process are: (1) consistent collection of core indicators, (2) use of statistically 

valid sampling designs, (3) use of remote sensing techniques, 

and (4) efficient data management and acquisition. The AIM 

Strategy is a multiscale, coordinated, and integrated approach 

for new data collection, and is intended to allow the BLM to 

more easily address management issues that cross field office 

boundaries (Toevs and others, 2011).

Initial accomplishments of the AIM Strategy have been 

to establish scientifically valid monitoring principles (Toevs 

and others, 2011) and identify standardized indicators for field 

monitoring of terrestrial systems (MacKinnon and others, 

2011). Many pilot efforts helped the BLM develop effective 

and efficient monitoring and assessment programs. In the 

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring section of this report, 

we describe two of these efforts that together provide complementary local- and broad-scale information spanning the 

fundamentals of the AIM Strategy: AIM monitoring and Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessments (REA).

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring

AIM monitoring describes monitoring conducted according to a standardized process originally outlined in the AIM 

Strategy (Toevs and others, 2011) and further defined in subsequent work (Taylor and others, 2014). The fundamental components of AIM monitoring are to use a standardized monitoring process, a core set of indicators to monitor key ecosystem 

components (fig. 3−1), a statistically valid sampling design, 

electronic data capture, and integration of field and remotely 

sensed data. Additional supplemental indicators may also be 

monitored to help answer specific management questions (for 

example, questions related to endangered species habitat).
24 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Figure 3–1. Conceptual model of the ecosystem components 

monitored by the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring 

program (modified from Taylor and others, 2014).

To date, AIM monitoring efforts have primarily used sitebased field sampling of vegetation composition and height, 

amount of bare ground, and other metrics to assess the status 

and condition of terrestrial systems (Taylor and others, 2014). 

Example efforts include the westwide landscape monitoring 

effort, land health assessments for rangelands in Nevada, and 

monitoring in the National Petroleum Reserve−Alaska (Taylor 

and others, 2014; Karl, 2015). All of these projects use annual 

sampling of core and supplemental indicators to address questions about the condition of Federal lands within large geographic areas. Core indicators for streams and rivers have also 

been developed that will guide aquatic AIM monitoring efforts 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2015a). Core broad-scale 

indicators of natural resource status and condition have not 

yet been developed. Further work is also needed to identify 

how locally collected and broad-scale indicators may be used 

together to increase monitoring efficiency and enhance our 

understanding of resource status and condition (for example, 

using field sampling of vegetation to validate indices of vegetation productivity calculated using satellite imagery).

Rapid Ecoregional Assessments

The purpose of REAs is to facilitate evaluation of the 

cumulative effects of management decisions on regionally 

important species and ecosystems at broad spatial scales 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2016). REAs identify and map 

the distribution of priority ecological communities and wildlife 

habitats within ecoregions, including wide-ranging species such 

as mule deer, caribou (Rangifer tarandus), and golden eagles 

(Aquila chrysaetos). REAs also evaluate potential threats to 

natural resource values (fig. 3−2), including development, climate 

change, wildfire, and invasive species. Some REAs compared 

current resource status to estimated historical reference conditions 

(for example, LANDFIRE biophysical settings [LANDFIRE, 

2010]) to evaluate changes in vegetation patterns that have 

occurred since EuroAmerican settlement. Using information 

from multiple REA analyses can help managers understand, for 

example, where development may have had the greatest effects 

on wildlife habitat and where relatively undeveloped areas of 

wildlife habitat remain. In this way REAs provide broad-scale 

information needed to help identify areas that may be most appropriate for future conservation, restoration, or development actions, 

informing a landscape approach to natural resource management 

(see chapter 2).

REAs consider all lands (regardless of ownership) within 

an ecoregion. Ecoregions span administrative boundaries and 

typically encompass areas much larger than those managed by 

individual BLM field offices. The assessment areas of completed REAs range in size from 4 to 39 million hectares (11 

to 91 million acres). In the conterminous United States, REA 

boundaries were derived from the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Level III Ecoregions (Omernik, 1987). In 

Alaska, REAs use the Unified Ecoregions of Alaska (Nowacki 

and others, 2001). Examples of ecoregions include the 

Sonoran Desert, Seward Peninsula, and Colorado Plateau.

REAs compile existing data; no new field data are collected for these assessments. A goal of the REAs is to identify 

key data gaps and management questions that cannot be fully 

addressed because adequate data are not available across the 

ecoregion. Such data gaps, along with our limited understanding of many species and communities, restricted many REA 

modeling efforts. As new information becomes available, REA 

analyses can be updated. New priorities may also emerge, and 

REAs may be able to more fully address some management 

questions through new or enhanced models. To date, REAs 

have been completed as one-time assessments. Repeated 

assessments could provide a mechanism for monitoring current trends in resource status and condition.

The challenge for the BLM is to build on lessons learned 

through REAs and initial AIM monitoring efforts to integrate 

the two programs. Goals for both programs are compatible. 

Using a common framework (the AIM Strategy) and linking 

the field- and remote sensing-based approaches will facilitate 

implementation of a coordinated, multiscale monitoring program. Such a program would allow managers to address management questions that span local to national scales, to more 

fully evaluate progress towards meeting resource objectives at 

multiple scales, and to develop a multiscale working understanding of the landscape, all of which support implementation of a landscape approach (see chapter 2). In chapter 4, 

we outline one example application of how REA and AIM 

monitoring data could be used together to assess the ecological 

integrity of rangelands across the western United States.
Development of Broad-Scale Indicators from Rapid Ecoregional Assessments 25

Development of Broad-Scale Indicators 

from Rapid Ecoregional Assessments

The BLM has initiated or completed 15 REAs to date. The 

REAs were conducted using different approaches to address 

local information needs and to foster innovation in regional 

assessment approaches and analysis techniques. The following 

questions have emerged as priorities at the ecoregion level that 

are feasible to answer with currently available data.

1. What is the amount and spatial distribution of ecological 

communities and wildlife habitats across the ecoregion, 

and how have they changed over time (compared to a 

natural or historical reference condition)?

2. What is the size distribution of patches of ecological 

communities and wildlife habitats, and how has it 

changed over time?

3. How well connected are patches of ecological communities and wildlife habitats, and how has connectivity 

changed over time?

4. What is the current amount and spatial distribution of 

development across the ecoregion, and how do both 

relate to ecological communities and wildlife habitats?

5. How frequently do ecological communities burn currently, and how has this changed over time?

6. What is the current distribution of invasive species, 

and how does the presence of invasive species relate to 

the distribution of ecological communities that may be 

vulnerable to invasion?

7. How may a changing climate affect ecological communities and wildlife habitats in the ecoregion?

8. What is the current level of landscape intactness across 

the ecoregion, and how does intactness vary spatially 

across ecological communities and wildlife habitats?

The first two questions were addressed consistently by the 

majority of REAs. Most REAs also addressed connectivity and 

existing development, but they used a variety of analysis methods. Consequently, standardized methods for quantifying connectivity and development have yet to be identified. In chapter 5, 

we review the different methods used to quantify development in 

REAs and propose one approach for quantifying development as 

part of a multiscale index of landscape intactness.

We suggest that the first four questions represent core 

broad-scale indicators—the amount and spatial distribution of 

ecological communities and wildlife habitats, the size distribution and structural connectivity of community and habitat 

patches, and the amount and distribution of development 

(table 3−1, fig. 3−3, see chapter 5). Core indicators provide the 

foundational information needed to address common management questions that apply to many ecosystems and landscapes. 

We suggest that questions 5−7 represent a preliminary list 

of supplemental broad-scale indicators that may be relevant 

to managers in many, but not all situations (table 3−1). 

Supplemental indicators provide the ability (and flexibility) 

to address more specific management questions that may 

emerge for particular communities, species, or locations. The 

final question represents a key derived indicator, landscape 

intactness, that is calculated using one or more of the core 

and supplemental indicators across the extent of interest (see 

chapter 5).

Figure 3–2. Example landscape condition analysis from the Mojave Basin and Range Rapid Ecoregional

Assessment (map modified from Comer and others, 2013b).
26 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Table 3–1. Potential core, supplemental, and derived broad-scale indicators of natural resource status and condition. 

Type Indicator Example method Where applied?

Core Amount and distribution of ecological community/habitat LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type and 

Biophysical Setting summarized under 

the National Vegetation Classification

All ecoregions with BLM 

surface management 

Patch size (ecological community, species, or habitat) To be developed

Connectivity

Amount and distribution of development See chapter 5

Supplemental Fire return interval To be developed When needed

Invasive species distribution

Climate change vulnerability

Derived Landscape intactness See chapter 5 When needed

In the remainder of this chapter, we provide guidance on 

how to assess broad-scale indicators as part of multiscale AIM 

monitoring projects and outline ways in which the broad-scale 

indicators may inform management.

A Process for Assessing Broad-Scale 

Indicators as part of Multiscale 

Monitoring Efforts

AIM monitoring projects are intended to be long term, 

iterative efforts in which management questions drive project design and indicators across multiple scales are used, 

as appropriate, to improve understanding of and adaptively 

manage resources across landscapes and regions (Taylor 

and others, 2014). The four steps of AIM monitoring are to 

develop, design, implement, and repeat the monitoring or 

assessment. Similar to the design of other monitoring programs (for example, Cooperrider and others, 1986), these steps 

encompass scoping to identify management concerns, evaluating scoping results to identify major resources and values of 

concern, key threats, and additional specialized assessment 

needs; defining the temporal and (or) geographic scope of the 

monitoring effort; and linking resources, values, and threats 

through conceptual models. In the four steps below, we apply 

the generalized AIM monitoring process to the specific task of 

quantifying broad-scale indicators and describe key steps in 

assessing broad-scale indicators as part of a multiscale monitoring project (fig. 3−4).

Step 1: Develop

Defining priority management questions will guide identification of the natural resources and environmental and anthropogenic processes (such as development, fire, and invasive 

species) that are of greatest management concern in the study 

area (fig. 3−4). Using established frameworks for characterizing 

anthropogenic processes improves consistency across assessments (see Salafsky and others, 2008). Careful consideration is 

needed of the number of species and ecological communities 

selected for inclusion, the number of environmental or anthropogenic drivers relevant to each, and the level of detail required to 

address the management questions. Otherwise assessments may 

become so large in scope that some topics must be treated superficially because of logistical constraints (Sutherland, 2013).

Priority management questions and objectives will drive 

the geographic extent of the assessment. For species, assessment extents may encompass the range of relevant populations 

or species (for example, Manier and others, 2013). Considering larger extents and using consistent methodologies across 

ecoregions may enable rangewide analyses of habitat for and 

potential threats to species with ranges that span ecoregional 

boundaries (for example, greater sage-grouse, golden eagles). 

Similarly, questions relating to the potential response of species 

and communities to a changing climate frequently are addressed 

at broader spatial extents than ecoregions. In REAs, analyses of 

potential effects of a changing climate on a species or community 

are often conducted across the entire bioclimatic range of the 

species or community but interpreted within the region of interest (for example, Comer and others, 2013a, b; Crist and others, 

2014), and may include consideration of areas outside the current 

range of a species (for example, Inman and others, 2016). The 

spatial and temporal scales at which the selected processes operate along with relevant ecological and administrative boundaries 

help define the study area boundary and analysis units. The REAs 

focus on terrestrial and aquatic communities and wide-ranging 

wildlife species and use broad ecological boundaries.

Developing conceptual models relating priority resources to 

environmental and anthropogenic drivers highlights interactions 

between different ecosystem components and stressors and helps 

ensure that relevant spatial and temporal scales and indicators 

are considered. For example, a grassland conceptual model 

(fig. 3−5) may identify fire and invasive species as key drivers for 

which supplemental indicators should be measured. Conceptual 

models may often be available from prior efforts (for example, 

Britten and others, 2007; Chung-MacCoubrey, 2008; Gitzen and 

others, 2010; Miller and others, 2010; The Heinz Center, 2009). 

For example, the Middle Rockies and Northwestern Plains REAs 

used conceptual models developed by the National Park Service 

Rocky Mountain Network (fig. 3−5).
A Process for Assessing Broad-Scale Indicators as part of Multiscale Monitoring Efforts 27

Figure 3–3. Example of indicators for sagebrush steppe for the Wyoming Basin Rapid Ecoregional Assessment. 

A, distribution of sagebrush steppe, B, patch size for reference conditions, C, structural connectivity, and D, development 

levels (modified from Carr and Melcher, 2015).
28 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Step 2: Design

When designing the assessment, the selected questions and 

indicators will guide identification of specific datasets and methods to be used. Existing datasets, completed assessments, and 

ongoing monitoring can help identify the broad-scale indicators 

that may be most feasible to quantify and provide information 

on available reference or historical conditions for evaluating 

resource condition. Acceptable methods for quantifying indicators may exist, or may need to be developed or adapted from the 

scientific literature. The development and design steps are likely 

to be iterative. Time, funding, and scope limitations may mean 

that some management questions or approaches are not feasible 

to address given available capacity and information.

The design of the monitoring program can be improved by 

explicitly considering the need, balance, and tradeoffs between 

collecting and compiling generalized information applicable 

to many species and communities compared to developing 

specific, detailed models for fewer high priority resources. For 

example, many REAs focused on broad-scale indicators of 

development rather than species-level indicators of the likely 

effects of development on individual species (for example, 

Carr and Melcher, 2015). For species with limited available 

information, generalized indicators may be helpful to managers. 

However, developing species-level models and approaches may 

improve the utility of the assessment for informing management 

of those species. Considering how detailed information, such 

as existing field data or detailed habitat models, can be used 

together with more generalized, broad-scale indicators to 

address management questions helps set expectations, identify 

information gaps, and guide the assessment.

Using standardized classification schemes for vegetation 

communities facilitates addressing management questions at 

different levels of detail. For example, the BLM uses macrogroups from the National Vegetation Classification Standard 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2013) when assessing terrestrial 

communities at a Level III ecoregion. The macrogroup level 

in the classification hierarchy provides a reasonable number of 

vegetation communities to inform BLM resource management 

plans. For specific high priority resources (such as five-needle 

pines in the Middle Rockies [Science Applications International 

Corporation, 2012a] or mesquite in the Madrean Archipelago 

[Crist and others, 2014]), a more detailed level in the classification such as group or alliance may be needed.

As with the development step, general frameworks for 

multiscale assessments (Groves, 2003; Lindenmayer and others, 

2015, Noon, 2003, Unnasch and others, 2009) provide valuable 

information for designing multiscale programs. Many multiscale 

monitoring programs exist, including programs that focus on 

monitoring individual species (Carroll and others, 2001; Parrish 

and others, 2003; The Heinz Center, 2009; Stiver and others, 

2015) and terrestrial systems (Diffendorfer and others, 2007; 

Figure 3–4. Steps in assessing broad-scale indicators of natural resource status and condition as part of a 

multiscale monitoring program.
A Process for Assessing Broad-Scale Indicators as part of Multiscale Monitoring Efforts 29

Tierney and others, 2009; Wulder and others, 2010; Wilson and 

Bayley, 2012; Thompson and others, 2013). Communicating and 

cooperating during the design step with other entities that have 

established monitoring programs may help highlight data gaps 

that need to be filled, identify useful indicators and methods, 

promote consistency in methods, and augment the pool of available data.

Step 3: Implement

Collecting and analyzing data to implement the assessment will follow the overall AIM monitoring process. Broadscale indicators are typically collected in multijurisdictional 

landscapes, so there may be opportunities to leverage monitoring efforts with other agencies and organizations. Assessment 

of broad-scale indicators may focus on analyses of existing 

datasets. Conducting pilot analyses and following appropriate 

data quality assurance and control steps will help determine if 

modifications to the development or design steps are needed.

Step 4: Repeat

The speed at which a landscape is changing in terms of 

both resources and environmental and anthropogenic drivers, 

such as energy development, will inform the ideal frequency 

for repeating broad-scale assessments. Some components of an 

assessment may need to be repeated frequently (for example, 

calculation of development in a rapidly urbanizing landscape), 

while other indicators may be more durable. New techniques 

and datasets may also emerge that allow more accurate quantification of additional broad-scale indicators (for example, the 

amount and distribution of invasive species).

Figure 3–5. Grassland conceptual model for the Northwestern Plains ecoregion (figure modified 

from the Northwestern Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment [Science Applications International 

Corporation, 2012b] and originally developed for the Rocky Mountain Network Vital Signs 

Monitoring Plan [Britten and others, 2007]). Note that this model fits within a conceptual model for 

the landscape and includes submodels to provide more detail about specific processes.
30 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Using Broad-Scale Indicators 

to Inform Field Monitoring

Developing, designing, and implementing a broad-scale 

assessment with explicit consideration of potential links to 

field monitoring increase the utility of broad-scale data and 

inform field monitoring efforts in a number of ways (fig. 3−6). 

Some management questions may be answered (or partially 

answered) using the core broad-scale indicators. With the 

increasing quality and resolution of remotely sensed land 

cover data, standardized indicators calculated across broad 

regions may meet more localized information needs as well. 

Broad-scale indicators also provide context for interpreting 

data collected at individual sites. For example, what appears 

to be unexplained variability in individual field samples may 

be consistent with broad environmental patterns evident from 

remotely sensed data collected across regions. Alternately, 

broad-scale indicators may provide early warning that field 

sampling is needed and help prioritize areas for more intensive monitoring efforts. For example, broad-scale indicators 

may identify where habitat conversion or loss has occurred 

and whether remaining habitat patches occur in close proximity within a landscape that is primarily natural or are isolated 

within an area that has been largely developed. Field sampling 

to evaluate local habitat condition can then focus on specific 

questions related to habitat degradation within key patches 

or habitat areas. Poor data availability at regional extents (for 

example, on invasive species) may also indicate a need to 

collect more data (for example, on the species and abundance 

of invasive plants) at field sampling locations. Understanding 

the amount and distribution of vegetation communities 

across a landscape may also be used, in part, to stratify field 

sampling efforts.

Integrating Local- and Broad-Scale 

Monitoring and Assessment Data 

to Inform Management Decisions

Local- and broad-scale monitoring efforts provide managers with key information needed to prioritize and target conservation, restoration, and mitigation actions within and across 

landscapes (for example, Pyke and others, 2015). Broad-scale 

assessments provide information on the current distribution of 

priority ecological communities and wildlife habitats, where 

they may have occurred in the past, and where environmental 

processes or human activities may threaten priority resources. 

Field sampling provides detailed information on the composition, 

structure, and function of ecosystems and habitats at a local scale. 

Field data are often critical for understanding the condition of the 

community and the specific manner and extent to which it may 

be affected by human activities or environmental processes. For 

example, information on areas of potential habitat for sage-grouse 

(from broad-scale indicators) that are currently in poor condition 

(from field sampling) may help guide habitat restoration efforts. 

Similarly, broad-scale assessments that map locations of sensitive 

species and ecosystems are a first step in determining where other 

desired resource uses, such as solar energy development, can best 

be accommodated, and how negative effects to the environment 

from development may be mitigated (see Box 2).

Figure 3–6. Potential ways in which broad-scale assessments may inform field monitoring efforts at each stage 

in the assessment process.
Using Broad-Scale Indicators to Inform Field Monitoring 31

Box 2—Using Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Data to 

Inform Regional Mitigation Planning for Solar Energy 

Development

By Leroy J. Walston

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other Federal agencies are adopting a landscape approach to 

mitigation planning for management decisions affecting large areas of public lands. The BLM has outlined a process 

for evaluating proposed utility-scale solar developments (for example, facilities with electric capacities greater than 

20 megawatts) on lands managed by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy, 2012). As a 

result of this process, the BLM committed to preparing regional mitigation strategies for 17 Solar Energy Zones (SEZs). 

SEZs are locations where solar energy potential is maximized while minimizing potential negative effects of development on wildlife and other resources. Accordingly, the SEZs are priority areas for utility-scale solar energy development. The SEZs range from approximately 1,000 to 60,000 hectares in size. 

The BLM follows a formal mitigation hierarchy to avoid, minimize, and compensate for the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of all land use decisions, including solar development (Clement and others, 2014). The BLM has adopted a regional perspective in identifying potential opportunities for mitigating negative environmental effects of solar 

energy development by completing Solar Regional Mitigation Strategies (SRMSs) for each SEZ or group of SEZs (for 

example, Colorado SEZs). SRMSs provide a systematic process for identifying project-specific compensatory mitigation 

opportunities based on regional goals and objectives (for example, Bureau of Land Management, 2014).

The BLM uses data on the distribution of resources across broad extents to identify SRMSs in which resources 

may be affected by energy development and other environmental stressors, SRMSs in which anticipated resource effects may warrant mitigation, and potential locations of mitigation actions. Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs) are 

one source of data and models used to develop SRMSs. A key broad-scale indicator for the Dry Lake SRMS (Bureau 

of Land Management, 2014) was landscape condition, which is a spatial characterization of the degree of naturalness 

across the landscape (Box 2−fig. 1).

Broad-scale indicators are used in several ways in SRMS evaluations:

1. Determining which environmental effects warrant mitigation—The compensatory mitigation recommendations in 

a SRMS are largely based on an understanding of the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of solar 

energy development in a regional context, and the status, condition, and trend of resources across the region 

that may be affected by solar development. Landscape condition, in combination with data on cultural and visual 

resources across the region, is particularly useful in determining which unavoidable effects may warrant compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation is determined on the basis of (a) the status, condition, and trend of 

regionally important resources, and (b) how solar energy development is expected to affect those regional trends 

(Box 2−fig. 2). Examples of unavoidable effects warranting regional compensatory mitigation include (but are not 

limited to) (a) loss or degradation of ecosystem services and vegetation, (b) loss of habitat for special status species and other wildlife, (c) effects to cultural resources, and (d) effects to visual resources.

2. Evaluating mitigation locations—Landscape condition is one indicator used to identify and evaluate candidate 

mitigation sites and actions recommended in SRMSs. For example, landscape condition can inform the mitigation 

actions (such as acquisition, preservation, or restoration) that are most suited for a particular location. In general, 

sites with low landscape condition (relative to the surrounding region) that have the potential to improve key 

resource attributes (for example, patch size and connectivity of habitat for wildlife species of conservation concern) may be suitable areas for restoration actions. Sites with relatively high landscape condition may be suitable 

areas for preservation actions.
Box 2—Continued

32 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

3. Calculating a recommended compensatory mitigation fee—The SRMS recommended fee is calculated per acre 

and averaged across the entire SEZ. The fee considers the full range of potential mitigation actions that may 

be employed (for example, restoration, preservation, or acquisition). The recommended base fee is determined 

using a market analysis of local acquisition and restoration costs. Several adjustments to the base fee may be 

applied, including an adjustment that considers the current landscape condition in the SEZ. This adjustment 

is designed to account for any pre-existing degradation of the area that is not the responsibility of the solar 

energy lessee.

Box 2−Figure 1. A and C, Current (2015) and B and D, future (2025–2030) landscape condition for the San Luis Valley–

Taos Plateau Landscape Assessment (Walston and others, 2016). Results show the expected future change in landscape 

condition related to solar energy development and were used to inform the Solar Regional Mitigation Strategy for the 

Colorado Solar Energy Zones (Bureau of Land Management and Argonne National Laboratory, 2016).
Box 2—Continued

Conclusion 33

Box 2−Figure 2. Evaluation of current and projected future landscape condition of grasslands and shrublands in the San Luis 

Valley–Taos Plateau ecoregion (Walston and others, 2016). Results suggest a future decline in the area of shrublands and 

grasslands with high and very high landscape condition. Grasslands and shrublands dominate the SEZs, suggesting that solar 

energy development may contribute to declining trends in overall resource condition across the SEZs. Note that anticipated 

solar development within the SEZs is included in the calculation of future landscape condition.

Conclusion

While the mandates and missions of natural resource 

management agencies differ, most are committed to monitoring the status and trend of natural resources on the lands 

they manage. Developing guidance for assessing broad-scale 

indicators and using those indicators to inform field monitoring efforts is a first step in providing consistent, multiscale 

natural resource information across public lands, including on 

the multiple-use lands of the BLM. Identifying a core set of 

broad-scale indicators to be measured and standardizing methods for quantifying those indicators would facilitate efficient 

collection, use, and sharing of multiscale data and information 

across natural resource programs, entities, and jurisdictions. 

Standardized methods would also facilitate coordination 

across boundaries by decreasing the need to allocate staff 

and resources to understanding differences in methods and 

analyses between agencies and across boundaries, ultimately 

allowing greater direction of resources toward management 

responses to assessment and monitoring findings.

Collecting consistent, multiscale information across 

broad extents supports implementation of a landscape 

approach to natural resource management across public lands 

in numerous ways. Multiscale data are the foundation for 

understanding and quantifying tradeoffs inherent in meeting 

different resource objectives across landscapes, a core element 

of a landscape approach (Sayer and others, 2013). Consistent 

data across land ownerships and jurisdictions also help to 

establish a common starting point for conversations between 

diverse stakeholders about resource values and vulnerabilities. Multiscale monitoring programs supported by multiple 

entities also build shared understanding and capacity across 

public lands. Emerging cooperatives at broad, regional scales 

provide capacity and coordination to support these efforts. For 

example the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives include 

collaborative conservation as a goal in their strategic plan, 

with objectives of removing barriers to cross-agency collaboration and facilitating data sharing (Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative Network, 2014). The integration of existing, 

place-based partnerships (such as the Wyoming Landscape 

Conservation Initiative, the Greater Yellowstone Coordination 

Committee, and the Crown of the Continent Partnership) 

with regional conservation cooperatives may help to provide 

the structure and coordination needed to develop, maintain, 

and utilize findings from multiscale monitoring programs to 

improve the effectiveness of management decisions across 

large, multijurisdictional landscapes.
34 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

References Cited

Barrett, S.W., Havlina, Doug, Jones, J., Hann, W.J., Frame, C.K., 

Hamilton, D., Schon, Kathy, Demeo, T., Hutter, L., Menakis, 

J.P., 2010, Interagency fire regime condition class guidebook, 

version 3.0: National Interagency Fuels, Fire, and Vegetation 

Technology Transfer, accessed October 14, 2016, at http://

www.fire.org/niftt/released/FRCC_Guidebook_2010_final.pdf.

Britten, Mike, Schweiger, E.W., Frakes, Brent, Manier, Dan, and 

Pillmore, David, 2007, Rocky Mountain Network Vital Signs 

Monitoring Plan: Fort Collins, Colo., National Park Service, 

Natural Resource Report NPS/ROMN/NRR-2007/010, 

accessed October 14, 2016, at irmaservices.nps.gov/datastore/

v4/rest/DownloadFile/447063.

Bureau of Land Management, 2013, The National Vegetation 

Classification and associated mapping standards for Bureau 

of Land Management planning documents and assignment 

of state-level vegetation classification data stewards: Bureau 

of Land Management accessed September 1, 2016, at https://

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_

and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/im_2013-111_the_

national.print.html.

Bureau of Land Management, 2014, Regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone: Las Vegas, Nev., 

Bureau of Land Management, Southern Nevada District 

Office, Technical Note 444, accessed October 14, 2016, at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/

tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015a, AIM National Aquatic 

Monitoring Framework: Introducing the framework and 

indicators for lotic systems: Denver, Colo., Bureau of 

Land Management, National Operations Center, Technical 

Reference 1735–1, accessed October 14, 2016, at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/

tech_refs.Par.86942.File.dat/TR_1735-01.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015b, Centennial Watershed 

assessment report: Bureau of Land Management, accessed 

July 1, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/

mt/field_offices/dillon.Par.70685.File.dat/Centennial%20

Assessment%20Report%202015.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2016, Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessments: Bureau of Land Management, accessed 

March 1, 2016, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

Landscape_Approach/reas.html.

Bureau of Land Management and Argonne National Laboratory, 

2016, Regional mitigation strategy for the Colorado Solar 

Energy Zones draft report: Argonne, Ill., Argonne National 

Laboratory Environmental Science Division, accessed October 14, 2016, at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/co/

field_offices/slvplc/slv_solar/srms_documents/srms_2016.

Par.79732.File.dat/CO%20SRMS_Draft_1Mar2016%20

(508%20Comp).pdf.

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy, 

2012, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) for solar energy development in six southwestern 

states: Washington, D.C., Bureau of Land Management, 

accessed October 14, 2016, at http://solareis.anl.gov/

Documents/fpeis/index.cfm.

Carr, N.B., and Melcher, C.P., eds., 2015, Wyoming Basin 

Rapid Ecoregional Assessment: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2015–1155, 896 p., accessed October 14, 

2016, at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151155.

Carroll, Carlos, Noss, R.F., and Paquet, P.C., 2001, Carnivores 

as focal species for conservation planning in the rocky mountain region: Ecological Applications, v. 11, no. 4, p. 961−980.

Chung-MacCoubrey, A.L., Truitt, R.E., Caudill, C.C., Rodhouse, 

T.J., Irvine, K.M., Siderius, J.R., and Chang, V.K., 2008, 

Mojave Desert Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan: Fort 

Collins, Colo., National Park Service, NPS/MOJN/NRR–

2008/057, accessed October 14, 2016, at https://science.nature.

nps.gov/im/monitor/plans/MOJN_MonitoringPlan.pdf.

Clement, J.P., Belin, A.d’A., Bean, M.J., Boling, T.A., and 

Lyons, J.R., 2014, A strategy for improving the mitigation policies and practices of the Department of the Interior: A report to the Secretary of the Interior from the 

Energy and Climate Change Task Force: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, accessed October 12, 2016, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/

migrated/news/upload/Mitigation-Report-to-the-Secretary_

FINAL_04_08_14.pdf.

Comer, Patrick, Crist, Patrick, Reid, Marion, Hak, Jon, Hamilton, Healy, Braun, David, Kittel, Gwen, Varley, Ian, Unnasch, 

Bob, Auer, Stephanie, Creutzburg, Megan, Theobald, David, 

and Kutner, Lynn, 2013a, Central Basin and Range Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment report: Arlington, Va., NatureServe, 

prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, 168 p.

Comer, Patrick, Crist, Patrick, Reid, Marion, Hak, Jon, Hamilton, Healy, Braun, David, Kittel, Gwen, Varley, Ian, Unnasch, 

Bob, Auer, Stephanie, Creutzburg, Megan, Theobald, David, 

and Kutner, Lynn, 2013b, Mojave Basin and Range Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment report: Arlington, Va., NatureServe, 

prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, 173 p.

Cooperrider, A.Y., Boyd, R.J., and Stuart, H.R., eds., 1986, 

Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitats: Denver, 

Colo., Bureau of Land Management Service Center, 858 p.

Crist, Patrick, Reid, Marion, Hamilton, Healy, Kittel, Gwen, 

Auer, Stephanie, Harkness, M., Braun, David, Bow, J., Scott, 

C., Misztal, L., and Kutner, Lynn, 2014, Madrean Archipelago Rapid Ecoregional Assessment final report: NatureServe, 

accessed October 12, 2016, at https://landscape.blm.gov/

REA_General_Docs/MAR_REA_Final_Report_Exec_Sum_

Main_Report.pdf.
References Cited 35

Diffendorfer, J.E., Fleming, G.M., Duggan, J.M., Chapman, 

R.E., Rahn, M.E., Mitrovich, M.J., and Fisher, R.N., 2007, 

Developing terrestrial, multi-taxon indices of biological 

integrity: An example from coastal sage scrub: Biological 

Conservation, v. 140, p. 130–141.

Fancy, S.G., Gross, J.E., and Carter, S.L., 2009, Monitoring the 

condition of natural resources in U.S. National Parks: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 151, p. 161−174.

Frost, Peter, Campbell, Bruce, Medina, Gabriel, and Usongo, 

Leonard, 2006, Landscape-scale approaches for integrated natural resource management in tropical forest 

landscapes: Ecology and Society, v. 11, no. 2, article 30, 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art30/.

Gitzen, R.A., Wilson, Marcia, Brumm, Joel, Bynum, Mike, 

Wrede, John, Millspaugh, J.J., and Paintner, K.J., 2010, 

Northern Great Plains Network Vital Signs Monitoring 

Plan: Fort Collins, Colo., National Park Service, Natural 

Resource Report NPS/NGPN/NRR−2010/186.

Groves, C.R., 2003, Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practitioner’s guide to planning for biodiversity: Washington, 

D.C., Island Press, 404 p.

Gruijter, Jaap de, Brus, D.J., Bierkens, M.F.P., and Knotters, 

Martin, 2006, Sampling for natural resource monitoring: 

New York, Springer-Verlag, 334 p.

Inman, R.D., Esque, T.C., Nussear, K.E., Leitner, Philip, 

Matocq, M.D., Weisberg, P.J., and Dilts, T.E., 2016, 

Impacts of climate change and renewable energy development on habitat of an endemic squirrel, Xerospermophilus 

mohavensis, in the Mojave Desert, USA: Biological Conservation, v. 200, p. 112−121.

Karl, M.S, 2015, National terrestrial monitoring: BLM Rangeland Resource Assessment: Society for Range Management, 

AIM Symposium, February 2015, at http://www.landscapetoolbox.org/society-for-range-management-aim-symposium/.

LANDFIRE, 2010, LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings layer 

(2010 update): U.S. Geological Survey, accessed October 

20, 2015, at http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/.

LANDFIRE, 2012, LANDFIRE Vegetation Condition Class 

layer (2012 update): U.S. Geological Survey, accessed 

October 20, 2015, at http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/.

Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network, 2014, Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network strategic plan: 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network, accessed 

October 15, 2015, at http://lccnetwork.org/resource/

landscape-conservation-cooperative-network-strategic-plan.

Lindenmayer, David, Pierson, Jennifer, Barton, Phillip, Beger, 

Maria, Branquinho, Cristina, Calhoun, Aram, Caro, Tim, 

Greig, Hamish, Gross, John, Heino, Jani, Hunter, Malcolm, 

Lane, Peter, Longo, Catherine, Martin, Kathy, McDowell, 

William, H., Mellin, Camille, Salo, Hanna, Tulloch, Ayesha, 

and Westgate, Martin, 2015, A new framework for selecting 

environmental surrogates: Science of the Total Environment, 

v. 538, p. 1029–1038.

Lui, Jianguo, and Taylor, W.W., eds., 2002, Integrating landscape ecology into natural resources management: New 

York, N.Y., Cambridge University Press, 481 p.

MacKinnon, W.C., Karl, J.W., Toevs, G.R., Taylor, J.J., Karl, 

Michael, Spurrier, C.S., and Herrick, J.E., 2011, BLM core terrestrial indicators and methods: Denver, Colo., Bureau of Land 

Management, National Operations Center, Tech Note 440, 14 p.

Manier, D.J., Wood, D.J.A., Bowen, Z.H., Donovan, R.M., 

Holloran, M.J., Juliusson, L.M., Mayne, K.S., OylerMcCance, S.J., Quamen, F.R., Saher, D.J., and Titolo, 

A.J., 2013, Summary of science, activities, programs, and 

policies that influence the rangewide conservation of greater 

sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1098, 170 p., accessed 

March 1, 2016, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1098/.

Miller, D.M., Finn, S.P., Woodward, Andrea, Torregrosa, Alicia, Miller, M.E., Bedford, D.R., and Brasher, A.M., 2010, 

Conceptual ecological models to guide integrated landscape 

monitoring of the Great Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5133, 134 p., accessed 

December 8, 2016, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5133/

pdf/sir20105133.pdf.

National Park Service, 2012, Guidance for designing an integrated monitoring program: Fort Collins, Colo., National Park 

Service, Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/NRR−545, 49 p.

Noon, B.R., 2003, Conceptual issues in monitoring ecological 

resources, in Busch, D.E., and Trexler, J.C., eds., Monitoring 

ecosystems: Interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives: Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 27–71.

Noss, R.F., 1990, Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach: Conservation Biology, v. 4, no. 4, p. 355–364.

Nowacki, Gregory, Spencer, Page, Fleming, Michael, Brock, 

Terry, and Jorgenson, Torre, 2001, Ecoregions of Alaska: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2002−297, 

accessed December 8, 2016, at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

publication/ofr2002297.

Office of Management and Budget, 2004, Performance and management assessments, Department of the Interior habitat restoration activities: Office of Management and Budget, accessed 

October 17, 2016, at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/omb/budget/fy2004/pma/habitatrestoration.pdf.
36 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United 

States (map scale 1:7,500,000): Annals of the Association of 

American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118−125.

Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P., and Unnassch, R.S., 2003, Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity 

within protected areas: BioScience, v. 53, no. 9, p. 851−860.

Pyke, D.A., Chambers, J.C., Pellant, M., Knick, S.T., Miller, 

R,F., Beck, J.L., Doescher, P.S., Schupp, E.W., Roundy, 

B.A., Brunson, M., and McIver, J.D., 2015, Restoration 

handbook for sagebrush steppe ecosystems with emphasis 

on greater sage-grouse habitat—Part 1. Concepts for understanding and applying restoration: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1416, 44 p., accessed December 8, 2016, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1416.

Salafsky, Nick, Salzer, Daniel, Stattersfield, A.J., HiltonTaylor, Craig, Neugarten, Rachel, Butchart, S.H.M., Collen, 

Ben, Cox, Neil, Master, L.L., O’Connor, Sheila and Wilkie, 

David, 2008, A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of threats and actions: Conservation Biology, v. 22, p. 897–911.

Sayer Jeffrey, Sunderland Terry, Ghazoul Jaboury, Pfund, 

J.-L., Sheil, Douglas, Meijaard, Erik, Venter, Michelle, 

Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, Michael, Garcia, Claude, van 

Oosten, Cora, and Buck, L.E., 2013, Ten principles for a 

landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, 

and other competing land uses: Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 

v. 110, no. 21, p. 8349−8356.

Science Applications International Corporation, 2012a, Middle 

Rockies Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—Final memorandum II-3-C: Science Applications International Corporation, 

accessed July 31, 2015, at http://www.landscape.blm.gov/

REA_General_Docs/MIR_REA-II-3-C_MainReport_

andAppxAandB.pdf.

Science Applications International Corporation, 2012b, Northwestern Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—Final memorandum II-3-C: Science Applications International Corporation, 

accessed July 31, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/style/

medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/

landscape_approach/landscape4.Par.85767.File.dat/

NWP-REA_II-3-C_MainText_App%20A_Final.pdf.

Ståhl, Göran, Allard, Anna, Esseen, Per-Anders, Glimskär, 

Anders, Ringvall, Anna, Svensson, Johan, Sundquist, Sture, 

Christensen, Pernilla, Torell, A.G., Högström, Mats, Lagerqvist, Kjell, Marklund, Liselott, Nilsson, Björn, and Inghe, 

Ola, 2011, National inventory of landscapes in Sweden 

(NILS)—Scope, design, and experiences from establishing 

a multiscale biodiversity monitoring system: Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment, v. 173, no. 1−4, p. 579−595.

Stiver, S.J., Rinkes, E.T., Naugle, D.E., Makela, P.D., Nance, 

D.A., and Karl, J.W., eds., 2015, Sage-grouse habitat assessment framework—A multiscale assessment tool: Denver, Colo., 

Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies, Technical Reference 6710−1, 114 p.

Sutherland, W.J., 2013, Review by quality not quantity for 

better policy, Nature, v. 503, p. 167.

Taylor, J.J., Kachergis, E.J., Toevs, G.R., Karl, J.W., Bobo, 

M.S., Karl, Michael, Miller, Scott, and Spurrier, C.S., 2014, 

AIM-Monitoring: A component of the BLM Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: Denver, Colo., Bureau 

of Land Management, National Operations Center, Technical Note 445, 34 p.

The Heinz Center, 2009, Measuring the results of wildlife 

conservation activities: Washington, D.C., The Heinz Center, 

122 p.

The Nature Conservancy, 2006, Conservation by Design: A 

strategic framework for mission success: Arlington Va., The 

Nature Conservancy, 17 p.

Tierney, G.L., Faber-Langendoen, Don, Mitchell, B.R., 

Shriver, W.G., and Gibbs, J.P., 2009, Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems: Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment, v. 7, no. 6, p. 308–316.

Thompson, I.D., Guariguata, M.R., Okabe, Kimiko, Bahamondez, Carlos, Nasi, Robert, Heymell, Victoria, and Sabogal, 

Cesar, 2013, An operational framework for defining and 

monitoring forest degradation: Ecology and Society, v. 18, 

no. 2, article 20, at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/

vol18/iss2/art20/.

Toevs, G.R., Taylor, J.J., Spurrier, C.S., MacKinnon, W.C., and 

Bobo, M.R., 2011, Bureau of Land Management Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: For integrated renewable resources management: Denver, Colo., Bureau of Land 

Management, National Operations Center, 34 p.

Unnasch, R.S., Braun, D.P., Comer, P.J., and Eckert, G.E., 2009, 

The ecological integrity assessment framework: A framework 

for assessing the ecological integrity of biological and ecological resources of the National Park System: Ơ2

 Sound Science, 

National Park Service, NatureServe, and The Nature Conservancy, A report to the National Park Service, 43 p., accessed 

March 1, 2015, at http://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/

publications/files/nps_ecological_integrity_framework.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2011, Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants Program, 24 p.
References Cited 37

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2012, Summary 

of the final land management planning rule: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, accessed March 1, 2016, 

at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5359652.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008, Strategic Habitat Conservation handbook—A guide to implementing the technical 

elements of strategic habitat conservation (version 1.0): Washington, D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a report from the 

national Technical Assistance Team, accessed March 1, 

2016, at https://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/pdf/

SHCHandbook.pdf.

Walston, L.J., Hartmann, H.M., Wescott, K.L., Zvolanek, E.A., 

Rollins, K.E., and Fox, L.R., 2016, San Luis Valley—Taos 

Plateau Level IV Ecoregion Landscape Assessment final 

draft report, ANL/EVS-16/5, Prepared for U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State 

Office and New Mexico State Office: Argonne, Ill., Argonne 

National Laboratory Environmental Science Division, 

accessed October 14, 2016, at http://www.blm.gov/style/

medialib/blm/co/field_offices/slvplc/slv_solar/srms_

documents/srms_2016.Par.49268.File.dat/LA%20Report%20

March%202016%20%20(508%20compliant).pdf.

Western Governors Wildlife Council, 2013, Western Governors Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT): Vision, definitions and guidance for state systems and regional viewer: 

Western Governors Wildlife Council, accessed March 1, 

2016, at http://www.westgov.org/component/docman/

doc_download/1746-wgwc-white-paper-2013?Itemid=53.

Wilson, M.J., and Bayley, S.E., 2012, Use of single versus 

multiple biotic communities as indicators of biological 

integrity in northern prairie wetlands: Ecological Indicators, 

v. 20, p. 187−195.

World Wildlife Fund International, 2004, Ecoregion action 

programmes—A guide for practitioners: World Wildlife 

Fund International, accessed October 1, 2016, at 

assets.panda.org/downloads/guidebookpart1.pdf.

Wulder, M.A., White, J.C., Gillis, M.D., Walsworth, Nick, 

Hansen, M.C., and Potapov, Peter, 2010, Multiscale satellite and spatial information and analysis framework in 

support of a large-area forest monitoring and inventory 

update: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, v. 170, 

p. 417−433.

Chapter 4. Assessing Ecological Integrity Using 

Multiscale Information from Bureau of Land Management 

Assessment and Monitoring Programs

By Sarah K. Carter, Natasha B. Carr, Curtis H. Flather, Erica Fleishman, Matthias Leu, Barry R. Noon, 

and David J.A. Wood

Abstract

The Bureau of Land Management manages 246 million 

surface acres (100 million hectares) across the United States 

for multiple uses and sustained yield. Ensuring protection 

of ecological systems in the context of multiple, and often 

conflicting, resource uses and values is a challenge. Ecological 

integrity and land health are terms used by the Bureau of Land 

Management to describe the condition of ecological systems. 

Ecological integrity refers to the ability of ecological systems 

to support and maintain a community of organisms that is 

similar in composition, structure, and function to natural habitats within the region. We present a framework and process 

for assessing ecological integrity in terrestrial systems that 

accommodates the multiple-use mission of the Bureau of Land 

Management and is designed to inform future management 

actions. The nine steps in the assessment process are specifying the management question, identifying target resources and 

key stressors, defining spatial and temporal scales of analysis, 

selecting and evaluating indicators, defining the natural and 

acceptable range of variation for indicators, collecting and 

analyzing data, reporting results, using the results to inform 

and evaluate management actions, and repeating the assessment. We illustrate the process through a conceptual example 

outlining how the ecological integrity of rangelands across the 

western United States could be quantified. We propose a suite 

of six field-based indicators and six complementary broadscale indicators to provide multiscale information on the composition, structure, and function of rangelands. Data on 11 of 

the 12 proposed indicators are already being collected through 

the agency’s Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring program. 

The framework and process presented here can help the BLM 

quantify ecological integrity to inform future planning and 

management actions in multiple-use landscapes.

Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 

246 million surface acres (100 million hectares) across the 

United States for multiple use and sustained yield in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (43 USC §1701). Multiple use refers to a combination of 

resource uses that take into account both the Nation’s present needs and the long-term needs of future generations of 

the American public (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2001). 

Resource uses are diverse, and may include livestock grazing, 

timber harvest, energy production, recreation, and conservation of wildlife, historical, and cultural resources. Sustained 

yield refers to the ability of lands to achieve and maintain 

in perpetuity high-level output of various renewable natural 

resources (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2001). Providing 

vegetation for livestock and wildlife foraging into the future 

is one important aspect of sustained yield on lands managed 

by the BLM. As part of its multiple use and sustained yield 

mission, the BLM is also charged with protecting the quality 

of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, 

air, atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values 

of the public lands it manages (Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 [43 USC §1701]).

Ensuring protection of ecological systems in the context 

of multiple, and often conflicting, resource uses and values is 

a challenge. A landscape approach to resource management 

(hereafter landscape approach) is a strategy that may help to 

achieve diverse and potentially conflicting resource objectives 

within and across landscapes (see chapter 2). Key principles of 

a landscape approach include collecting monitoring information at multiple spatial and temporal scales, focusing on threats 

and vulnerabilities of key resources, and explicitly acknowledging tradeoffs inherent in meeting different resource objectives within and among landscapes (Sayer and others, 2013). 

Quantifying the condition of ecological systems across spatial 

scales and monitoring changes in condition over time in 

response to different management actions may help managers 

and stakeholders better understand risks, opportunities, and 

tradeoffs associated with different resource use decisions.

There are many ways in which the condition or health 

of ecological systems can be measured. The Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health (43 CFR §4180.1), land health standards, and 

land health evaluations (Bureau of Land Management, 2001) 

are specific terms used in BLM policy. The BLM seeks to manage lands in a manner consistent with maintaining or making 

progress toward achieving four Fundamentals of Rangeland 

Health: (1) properly functioning physical condition of watersheds, (2) ecological processes such as hydrologic and nutrient 

cycling that support healthy biotic populations and communities, (3) water quality that complies with State standards and 
40 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

achieves BLM objectives such as meeting wildlife needs, and 

(4) restoration or maintenance of habitat for Federal threatened 

and endangered species, Federal proposed or candidate species, 

and other special status species (43 CFR §4180.1). Land health 

standards are ecological goals that conform to the Fundamentals 

of Rangeland Health and have been established at State or 

regional levels to reflect the characteristics of rangelands within 

that area. Land health evaluations establish the degree to which 

land health standards are being achieved by measuring specific 

indicators relevant to the land health standards of each State or 

region (Bureau of Land Management, 2001).

Another term often used to describe the condition or health 

of ecological systems is ecological integrity (for example, Karr 

and Dudley, 1981; Parrish and others, 2003). Ecological integrity 

is defined by the BLM as “the ability of ecological systems to 

support and maintain a community of organisms that have the 

species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to those of natural habitats within the ecoregion range or 

area” (p. 30 in Toevs and others, 2011). This definition embodies 

three components of ecological systems: composition, structure, 

and function (Noss, 1990). Composition refers to the identity, 

variety, and diversity of elements in a collection. Structure refers 

to the physical organization or pattern of a system both horizontally and vertically (for example, the size and proximity of 

vegetation patches and the height of vegetation in those patches). 

Function refers to the evolutionary processes (for example, gene 

flow and adaptation), ecological roles (for example, resource use 

patterns of species and predator-prey dynamics) and ecosystem 

processes (for example, nutrient cycling) that are foundational 

to the system (Petchey and Gaston, 2006). Fire, drought, and 

interactions within and among species (such as insect outbreaks 

and disease) are processes relevant to the structuring of many 

ecological communities. Deviation in or absence of key functions 

can drive systemic changes. For example, an increase in invasive grasses may shorten the fire return interval of and eliminate 

shrubs from a community (Chambers and others, 2007).

Ecological integrity is the ability of 

ecological systems to support and maintain 

a community of organisms that have a species 

composition, diversity, and functional 

organization comparable to those of natural 

habitats within the ecoregion range or area 

(Toevs and others, 2011).

The National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service), and many other 

agencies and conservation organizations now consider ecological integrity in their management decisions. The mission of 

the National Park Service is to preserve unimpaired the natural 

and cultural resources and values of the National Park System 

for future generations (National Park Service Organic Act of 

1916 [16 USC §1]). Recent changes to the regulations governing land management planning by the Forest Service also 

require the agency to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of ecosystems (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service 2012 Planning Rule [36 CFR §219.9(a)]). These policies and recent efforts to develop consistent indicators of ecological integrity (Vickerman and Kagan, 2014) reflect increasing recognition across resource management agencies and 

conservation organizations of the need to develop standardized 

methods for quantifying ecological integrity in terrestrial systems across spatial scales, as has been accomplished in aquatic 

systems (see for example, Karr and others, 1987; Hawkins and 

others, 2000; Borja and others, 2008).

In this chapter, we first discuss similarities and differences between ecological integrity and land health. We then 

describe a framework and process for assessing the condition of terrestrial systems. Our framework is intended to be a 

simple tool that helps to ensure that a comprehensive suite of 

indicators are considered, and that the scope and limitations 

of the assessment are clear. The assessment itself may seek 

to evaluate land health or ecological integrity depending on 

the management context, the reference conditions to which 

current systems are compared, and the suite of indicators 

considered. The steps in the assessment process are consistent 

with the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) 

process, and are applicable to assessments of both land health 

and ecological integrity. We apply the framework and process 

to the conceptual example of assessing the ecological integrity 

of rangelands across the western United States. We propose 

that a combination of six core terrestrial indicators used in 

the westwide landscape monitoring component of the BLM 

AIM program, five broad-scale indicators identified through 

the BLM Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (REA) program (see 

chapter 3), and an additional broad-scale indicator of biomass 

or productivity can be used to quantify the ecological integrity 

of rangelands across the western United States.

Relation Between Ecological Integrity 

and Land Health

The concepts of land health and ecological integrity both 

describe the condition of ecological systems. However, the 

specific reference conditions and indicators used to assess land 

health and ecological integrity may differ. Reference conditions used for comparison with the current status of the system 

fall along a continuum of human influence and may reflect 

natural conditions, societally-desired conditions, or both.

Many definitions of ecological integrity, including the 

BLM definition, compare the current state of the system to 

that of natural areas within the region (for example, Karr and 

Dudley, 1981; Parrish and others, 2003; Toevs and others, 
Relation Between Ecological Integrity and Land Health 41

2011). The most conservative interpretation of natural area is 

what is often termed true reference conditions: the range of 

conditions that would be expected for a region in the absence 

of human perturbation. However, the term natural areas may 

also refer to ecological systems that have been affected by 

humans to some degree but are perceived to function largely 

without anthropogenic influences, especially given that there 

are few if any places today that remain unaffected by human 

activity (see chapter 5).

Ecological integrity and land health 

both describe the condition of ecological systems, 

but may be assessed using different indicators 

and reference conditions.

The BLM employs a variety of reference conditions 

to evaluate land health standards, including lands that are 

not grazed by domestic livestock (but are grazed by native 

herbivores), plant communities that are desired by management because they will satisfy multiple uses and sustain 

production of renewable resources, and well-managed 

rangelands that are grazed by domestic livestock and have 

nearly intact hydrologic cycles, nutrient cycling, and energy 

flow (M. Karl, written commun., 2016). This diversity of 

potential comparison systems illustrates a continuum ranging 

from pristine systems to systems with increasing degrees of 

human modification.

For clarity, we propose that the term ecological integrity 

be applied to assessments in which the current state of the 

system is being compared to the state of the system that would 

be expected in the absence of human perturbations (that is, the 

natural range of variation). It may be necessary to use historical information (for example, estimated conditions prior to 

EuroAmerican settlement) or information from systems that 

have been minimally affected by human use (Stoddard and 

others, 2006) to estimate the natural range of variation of 

ecological integrity metrics. However, a natural benchmark 

is the goal.

A second relevant reference condition for many public 

lands is the state of the system that considers the goals society 

has identified for the system. We refer to this as a societally 

determined reference condition (and associated acceptable 

range of variation), and we emphasize its importance for 

interpreting and applying ecological integrity assessments to 

agency planning and management actions. Most public lands 

managed by the BLM and the Forest Service have been designated for multiple uses, and thus a benchmark that acknowledges this multidimensional management goal is relevant. 

Balancing maintenance of vegetation condition and providing 

adequate vegetation for grazing by both wildlife and domestic 

livestock is one common management decision that considers 

socially determined acceptable ranges of variation. Examples 

of societally determined reference conditions include the best 

available ecological conditions given the current state of the 

landscape and the expected ecological condition if the best 

possible management practices were followed for some time 

(Stoddard and others, 2006).

In ecological integrity assessments, societally determined 

reference conditions that differ from natural reference conditions (for example, areas consisting primarily of non-native 

forage plants) will highlight changes in the composition, 

structure, or function of systems that have accompanied these 

new societal goals. In some cases, society has decided that 

the appropriate benchmark is the natural state of the system 

in the absence of human influence (for example, designated 

Wilderness Areas are managed to leave them unimpaired 

and to preserve their wilderness character [16 USC §1131]). 

In these cases, the societally determined benchmark and the 

natural benchmark are the same, and the management goal 

may be to achieve ecological integrity. A societally determined 

reference condition may often be appropriate as the primary 

comparison for land health assessments, provided it is consistent with achieving the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health 

(43 CFR §4180.1).

After reference conditions have been identified, one must 

select indicators of ecological integrity or land health. In ecological integrity assessments, indicators ideally are identified 

on the basis of conceptual models of the system and encompass aspects of the composition, structure, and function of systems or elements at different levels of biological organization 

(for example, genes, species, ecosystems, and ecoregions). 

Assessments of land health use established indicators of land 

health for each state or region (Bureau of Land Management, 

2001, 2009). There are 19 sets of land health standards, and 

more than 100 suggested indicators (M. Karl, unpub. data, 

2015). In Colorado, for example, indicators for the health 

standard for upland soils include canopy and ground cover, 

litter, soil organic matter, and plant species diversity (Bureau 

of Land Management, 1997).

The interacting nature of ecological processes operating 

at different spatial and temporal scales suggests that the most 

comprehensive assessments of either land health or ecological 

integrity will use data collected at multiple spatial scales (see 

chapter 2 for a discussion of ecological patterns and processes 

across different spatial scales). For example, complementary 

information about vegetation structure may be gained by 

measuring both the percent cover of vegetation within a patch 

and the size and proximity of vegetation patches across a 

landscape. To date, land health assessments have focused 

primarily on metrics assessed at local scales (J. Taylor, written 

commun., 2015), although indicators have been identified at 

broader scales (M. Karl, unpub. data, 2015).
42 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

A Framework for Assessing Ecological 

Integrity Across Scales in Terrestrial 

Systems

We present a framework for assessing ecological integrity 

that is a 3 x 4 matrix that managers may use to help identify 

the scope and limitations of ecological integrity assessments 

and help ensure consideration of (1) all components of integrity (composition, structure, and function) and (2) key levels 

in the ecological hierarchy (fig. 4−1). Using the organizing 

framework, it is possible to consider a total of 12 combinations of ecological levels and system components in any given 

ecological integrity assessment. Considering that within each 

‘cell’ in the matrix, there are likely multiple indicators and 

potentially different spatial and temporal scales to consider 

(see next section), it becomes apparent that assessments that 

consider all possible combinations of system components and 

ecological levels will rarely be possible. Explicitly identifying 

which system components and levels in the ecological hierarchy will be considered helps to characterize the scope and 

limitations of any individual ecological integrity assessment.

The framework may also be used to help identify indicators, data sources, and methods that may be most relevant 

and feasible for a given ecological integrity assessment. At 

the ecoregion and ecosystem levels of the hierarchy, remotely 

sensed imagery is a common data source. Geographic 

Information Systems technology is often used to assess composition (for example, the diversity of vegetation communities), structure (for example, the proximity or size distribution 

of natural vegetation patches), and function (for example, fire 

frequency) within and across ecoregions. At the ecosystem 

level, field-collected data are often used together with remotely 

sensed data (Noss, 1990). If, for example, a primary focus of 

the assessment is the effect of invasive species on the ecological 

integrity of shortgrass prairie ecosystems, an indicator may be 

the change in the proportion of non-native plant species sampled 

at shortgrass prairie sites across a gradient of human modification. If the assessment is focused at the species level (for example, the effect of energy development on migratory behavior of 

mule deer), data often are collected through targeted research 

or surveys (for example, detection of movement patterns with 

radiotelemetry, Sawyer and others, 2009b). Continuing with 

the mule deer example, indicators might include the change in 

migration speed or the probability of use of different migratory 

routes through areas with different development densities (for 

example, Sawyer and others, 2009a). At the genetic level, new 

analysis techniques are greatly facilitating addressing questions 

about the genetic structure of populations and species across 

landscapes (Waits and Paetkau, 2005; Beja-Pereira and others, 

2009; Luikart and others, 2010). Findings from broad-scale 

Figure 4–1. Conceptual framework for quantifying ecological integrity, with example ecological attributes 

for each level in the hierarchy and component of integrity. The blue box indicates the area of focus for the 

example assessment described in this chapter.
Using the Framework to Assess Ecological Integrity on Rangelands Across the Western United States 43

indicators can be supplemented with local research or monitoring information to more fully assess local effects. For example, 

managers working on the above mule deer migration example 

may seek genetic evidence to evaluate the potential for future 

development to genetically isolate populations, particularly if 

substantial changes in movement patterns are likely.

Using the Framework to Assess 

Ecological Integrity on Rangelands 

Across the Western United States

The process for assessing the condition of a species 

or system (fig. 4−2) may be organized into a series of steps 

within the general BLM AIM process of developing, designing, implementing, and repeating monitoring or assessments 

(Taylor and others, 2014, see also fig. 3−4). We illustrate the 

steps for assessing ecological integrity using a conceptual 

example related to management of rangelands across the 

western United States. We also note aspects of the process that 

would vary if the goal of the assessment was to quantify land 

health instead of ecological integrity.

Specify Management Question

Developing an assessment of ecological integrity or 

land health requires first identifying an explicit management 

question within a more general management and policy 

context. The management question will reflect the mission 

and regulatory requirements of the organization, and will 

differ according to management goals and responsibilities 

for the area, the size of the area being assessed, and other 

factors. At the local level, for example, a manager may assess 

land health as part of the process of renewing an individual 

grazing permit. At the level of field, district, or State offices, 

the goal of the assessment may be to evaluate achievement of 

natural resource objectives in resource management plans. At 

the national level, the goal may be to quantify the ecological 

integrity of all lands managed by the BLM to inform national 

policy and meet agency reporting requirements. Assessments of ecological integrity may complement land health 

assessments by providing a broader perspective and context, 

particularly when assessments encompass large areas or lands 

within a more protective management category (for example, 

the National Landscape Conservation System). It may also be 

possible to evaluate land health and ecological integrity simultaneously, with associated economies of time and funds.

Figure 4–2. Steps for assessing ecological integrity, which are consistent with the broader AIM process (see 

also chapter 3).
44 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

In our example, the management question is: What 

is the ecological integrity of rangelands across the western 

conterminous United States? This question is separate from 

but related to the requirement of BLM to report periodically 

on the condition and trend in condition of rangelands that the 

agency manages (Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 

1978 [43 USC §1903]). Consequently, the assessment would 

focus at the ecosystem level and include indicators of the 

composition, structure, and function of rangelands (fig. 4−1). 

Ecosystems considered to be rangeland by the BLM include 

grasslands, savannas, shrublands, deserts, tundra, alpine plant 

communities, marshes, wet meadows, and oak and pinyonjuniper woodlands (Karl and others, 2016).

We explore the management question,

What is the ecological integrity of rangelands 

across the western conterminous United States?,

to illustrate the steps for assessing 

ecological integrity.

Identify Target Resources and Key Stressors

Management goals and relevant State and Federal 

laws and policies (for example, BLM land health standards, 

Federal Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544]) 

will inform selection of target resources. A conceptual model 

of the system guides identification of the major natural 

and anthropogenic processes that may affect key resources 

(Woodley, 2010).

In our example, we focus on soils and terrestrial vegetation. Soils and terrestrial vegetation are two resources now 

widely monitored across rangeland ecosystems managed by 

the BLM to measure progress toward attaining land health 

standards (Taylor and others, 2014). We illustrate a conceptual 

model developed for one rangeland community type (short 

grass prairies) in one ecoregion (the Southern Great Plains, 

Assal and others, 2015). The model identified soils, climate, 

fire, grazing, development, insects and disease, and invasive 

species as major factors and processes affecting the flora, 

fauna, and landscape structure of short grass prairies in the 

region (fig. 4−3).

Assessments of ecological integrity likely will measure 

resources sensitive to multiple stressors, and may quantify the 

stressors themselves as well. Resources sensitive to stressors over which there is management control (for example, 

livestock grazing) may be the most helpful in informing future 

management actions intended to improve the ecological status 

and condition of the lands. However, understanding the influence of unmanaged processes and patterns on target resources 

is important for accurately assessing the potential effects of 

management actions.

Define Spatial and Temporal Scales

The spatial extent of the assessment and the temporal 

and spatial scales of analysis will be informed by the management question, management jurisdictions (such as field office 

boundaries), and conceptual models of the system. The boundary of an assessment may be administrative (such as BLM 

State or district office boundaries) or environmental (such as 

ecoregional boundaries). The extent of the assessment area and 

the analysis scale used will reflect scales at which stressors act 

on elements of ecological systems or scales at which management actions typically are applied. Spatial mapping units 

may be determined by the resolution of available remotely 

sensed data (for example, 30- x 30-meter (m) pixels of most 

nationwide land cover datasets). Relevant temporal scales may 

be defined by seasonal field sampling, reporting periods (for 

example, required annual reports), the cycle of key ecological 

processes, or the timeframe within which resources respond 

to stressors (for example, the length of time it may take for an 

area to recover from overgrazing).

In our example, the spatial extent of the assessment is the 

western United States defined using state boundaries. Both local 

and broad-scale indicators will be considered (see next step) 

both because rangeland ecosystems occur in different spatial 

configurations (for example, small patches compared to vast 

areas of relatively homogeneous vegetation cover) and because 

anthropogenic and natural processes affecting rangelands operate at multiple scales. For example, livestock stocking rates 

may vary by individual grazing allotments, land use allocations 

occur at the scale of larger areas within BLM resource management plan boundaries, and patterns of development may vary 

by region.

Select and Evaluate Indicators

Detailed design of the assessment begins with selecting 

and evaluating indicators. Indicators should reflect key ecological attributes of a resource—the biological characteristics, 

ecological processes or physical interactions that define the 

resource and whose alteration beyond some threshold could 

lead to degradation or loss of the resource in the near future 

(Parrish and others, 2003, Unnasch and others, 2009). Examples of key ecological attributes include the extent of a community, reproduction rates of a species, and genetic diversity 

of a population (fig. 4−1).

In our example, 11 of the 12 indicators are currently 

measured by the BLM AIM program or were quantified in 

REAs. The BLM AIM program has identified a core set of 

indicators for quantifying the status, condition, and trend of 

renewable resources on lands managed by the BLM (Toevs 

and others, 2011, Taylor and others, 2014). The core terrestrial indicators are measured on 50-m long transects at 

all AIM field monitoring sites using standardized methods, 

and include indicators of system composition, structure, and 
Using the Framework to Assess Ecological Integrity on Rangelands Across the Western United States 45

function (Herrick and others, 2009; MacKinnon and others, 

2011; Taylor and others, 2014). Core indicators have also been 

identified for streams and rivers, and are in development for 

lakes and ponds (Miller and others, 2015).

AIM monitoring sites are chosen using a statistically 

valid sampling design that allows inference to be drawn about 

values of the terrestrial indicators across larger extents (such as 

ecological sites or ecoregions), particularly as sampling density 

increases over time. We note that there will also always be a role 

for localized, fine-scale monitoring to understand and evaluate 

effects of specific local decisions. Environmental processes and 

anthropogenic disturbances operating at broad scales also affect 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, suggesting a need to consider 

spatially and temporally extensive indicators of system status 

and condition as well (see chapters 2 and 3).

REAs compile broad-scale data on the status and condition 

of natural resources at the level of ecoregions, and have been 

completed or are in progress across much of the western United 

States (fig. 4−4). The broad-scale information in REAs complements local data and facilitates resource planning and management by the BLM and other partners across jurisdictional 

boundaries. Regularly updating REAs or other broad-scale 

assessments would provide information on resource status and 

condition into the future (see chapter 3). Our example management question encompasses some areas for which REAs have 

not yet been completed (fig. 4−4), but other data sources (such 

as LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type) provide continuous 

vegetation cover across the western United States.

In our example, we propose quantifying the ecological 

integrity of rangelands across the western United States using 

six core terrestrial AIM indicators, four broad-scale indicators 

derived from REAs (chapter 3), and one additional broad-scale 

indicator of rangeland biomass or productivity (table 4−1). 

The AIM core terrestrial indicators and the broad-scale indicators derived from REAs originally were selected by researchers, managers, and stakeholders on the basis of their feasibility 

Figure 4–3. Conceptual model highlighting the major ecological drivers and anthropogenic stressors affecting shortgrass 

prairies in the Southern Great Plains ecoregion (figure modified from the Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessment [Assal and others, 2015]).
46 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Figure 4–4. Bureau of Land Management Rapid Ecoregional Assessments that are in progress or have been completed 

across the western conterminous United States (Bureau of Land Management, 2016).

of measurement and utility for informing BLM management. 

The core terrestrial AIM indicators are measured in the field, 

and consist of the amount of bare ground, vegetation composition, invasive plants, plants of management concern, vegetation height, and the proportion of the soil surface in large, 

intercanopy gaps. The broad-scale indicators are derived primarily from satellite imagery and cover broad spatial extents 

at a spatial resolution of 30- x 30-m pixels to 90- x 90-mpixels. Four broad-scale indicators were identified through REAs: 

the distribution and amount, patch size, and structural connectivity of communities considered to be rangelands by the 

BLM, and the amount and distribution of development in and 

near rangelands. A fifth broad-scale indicator, the normalized 

difference vegetation index, is one index of rangeland biomass 

or productivity. The normalized difference vegetation index 

is available as a standard global product derived from satellite 

imagery that is strongly and consistently related to aboveground biomass and productivity (Pettorelli and others, 2005).

Standard methods have been established to measure 

the AIM core terrestrial indicators (MacKinnon and others, 

2011). Some guidance for quantifying broad-scale indicators 

is available from completed REAs (see chapter 3). Data on the 

amount and location of natural community types considered 

to be rangelands by the BLM are available from REAs and 
Using the Framework to Assess Ecological Integrity on Rangelands Across the Western United States 47

Table 4–1. Proposed indicators, the spatial extent at which they are assessed (local or regional), and example reference conditions 

for quantifying the compositional, structural, and functional components of ecological integrity on rangelands across the western 

United States. Indicators are listed under the ecological integrity component(s) about which they provide the most information, but 

many indicators also provide some information about other components of ecological integrity.

Indicator Composition Structure Function Explanation and relation to the four 

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health

Example sources 

for reference conditions

Amount of bare 

ground

Local Local AIM1

 core terrestrial indicator measuring local 

structure and related to watershed function, 

ecological processes, water quality, and 

habitat quality.

AIM monitoring of minimallydisturbed areas 

Vegetation 

composition 

Local AIM core terrestrial indicator related to 

watershed function and habitat quality.

Ecological site description

Invasive plants Local AIM core terrestrial indicator related to 

watershed function, habitat quality, and 

ecological processes.

Relative to an absence of 

invasive species

Plants of 

management 

concern

Local AIM core terrestrial indicator related to 

watershed function, habitat quality, and 

ecological processes.

Ecological site description

Vegetation height Local Local AIM core terrestrial indicator measuring local 

structure and related to habitat quality.

AIM monitoring of minimallydisturbed areas 

Proportion of soil 

surface in large 

intercanopy 

gaps

Local Local AIM core terrestrial indicator measuring local 

structure and related to watershed function, 

ecological processes, water quality, and 

habitat quality.

AIM monitoring of minimallydisturbed areas 

Vegetation 

amount, 

by type

Regional Broad-scale indicator quantifying the amount of 

identified ecological communities and related 

to watershed function and habitat quality.

Landfire Biophysical Settings

Vegetation 

distribution, 

by type

Regional Broad-scale indicator quantifying the distribution 

of identified ecological communities and related 

to watershed function and habitat quality.

Landfire Biophysical Settings

Patch size Regional Broad-scale indicator quantifying the size 

distribution of vegetation patches and related 

to habitat quality.

Landfire Biophysical Settings

Structural 

connectivity 

Regional Broad-scale indicator quantifying the proximity 

(structural connectivity) of vegetation 

patches and related to watershed function 

and habitat quality.

Landfire Biophysical Settings

Development Regional Broad-scale indicator quantifying the pattern 

of development occurring within rangeland 

communities (see chapter 5) and related to 

watershed function, ecological processes, 

and water quality.

Relative to an absence 

of development

Biomass/

productivity 

Regional Standard index derived from satellite imagery 

that provides information on above-ground 

biomass and productivity and is related to 

ecological processes.

Normalized difference vegetation 

index of minimally-disturbed 

areas

1

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring, a Bureau of Land Management program.

nationwide land cover datasets. A standardized indicator of 

development is now available across the western United States 

(see chapter 5). Indicators of patch size and structural connectivity may be calculated using consistent methods applied to 

REA or nationwide land cover datasets. The BLM and USGS 

are currently (2017) working to standardize methods and datasets for quantifying these broad-scale indicators.

A final step in choosing indicators is to confirm that they 

are sensitive to the stressors of interest identified in the conceptual model (see fig. 4–3) at the chosen temporal and spatial 

scales of interest. Ideally, sensitivity of the indicators to the 

stressors of interest will have been documented in the peerreviewed literature. For example, grazing intensity by domestic 

livestock is widely known to affect the species composition and 

proportion of invasive species present in grasslands (DiTomaso 

and others, 2000). If sensitivity has not been documented, new 

analyses relating known changes in the presence and intensity 

of stressors to changes in the indicators, ideally under experimentally controlled conditions, may be needed to ensure that the 

results of the ecological integrity assessment are defensible.
48 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Define Natural and Acceptable Ranges 

of Variation for Indicators

Quantifying the condition of a system requires comparison 

to a reference condition. For an assessment of ecological integrity, the current value of indicators ideally is compared to the 

natural range of variation for that indicator under true reference 

conditions (that is, in areas with no human influence). Established alternatives to true reference conditions are minimallydisturbed condition (the condition of systems in the absence 

of significant human disturbance) and historical condition (the 

condition of systems at a specified point in their history, often 

prior to EuroAmerican settlement, Stoddard and others, 2006). 

Within the BLM, the best source of information on reference 

conditions is likely to be ecological site descriptions (Bureau of 

Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 

Forest Service, and USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, 2010, Taylor and others, 2014). AIM monitoring data 

collected in minimally-disturbed systems also may provide 

information on natural variation of the measured indicators. 

Most REAs have considered minimally-disturbed or estimated 

historical condition in lieu of true reference conditions, with 

estimated historical conditions often derived from LANDFIRE 

Biophysical Settings (BpS) (LANDFIRE, 2010). When estimating natural ranges of variation, it is also important to consider 

potential future ranges of variation under changing climate 

conditions (Millar and others, 2007, Keane and others, 2009).

A societally determined acceptable range of variation for 

system indicators is a second relevant reference against which 

to compare the current state of systems managed explicitly 

for multiple uses. This acceptable range of variation takes 

into account societal goals established for the system through 

policy (for example, compliance with land health standards and 

endangered species laws) and the current landscape context of 

the system. An acceptable range of variation may be defined 

on the basis of measurements of a system believed to be in the 

best available or best attainable condition (Stoddard and others, 

2006) given the landscape in which the system occurs and the 

regulatory context within which the system is managed. In the 

case of ecological integrity assessments, the purpose of this 

second benchmark is to provide additional context regarding 

the landscape, planning, and policy context in which the system 

occurs. For land health assessments, a societally determined 

acceptable range of variation may be the primary benchmark 

for the assessment as long as it is consistent with achieving the 

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR §4180.1).

For ecological integrity assessments, it is also necessary 

to specify the indicator values below which a system will be 

considered to lack integrity for that indicator. The values may 

be the upper or lower bound of the natural range of variation 

for each indicator, or may reflect indicator values likely to 

allow persistence of target species or communities into the 

future (Parrish and others, 2003). The values may also reflect 

current policy or management guidelines.

In our example, a relevant management goal across 

sagebrush-dominated shrublands in much of the western United 

States is conservation of greater sage-grouse (Stiver and others, 

2015). Development in or near greater sage-grouse habitat may 

be detrimental to populations, and detrimental anthropogenic 

disturbances occurring within 3 kilometers of greater sagegrouse habitat degrade habitat suitability (Knick and others, 

2013; Stiver and others, 2015). A target of maintaining anthropogenic disturbances at or below 3 percent of the landscape 

within priority greater sage-grouse habitat has been suggested 

(Sage-grouse National Technical Team, 2011), and caps of 3 

to 5 percent disturbance have been implemented in an effort to 

allow persistence of greater sage-grouse populations (for example, State of Wyoming, 2011; Bureau of Land Management, 

2015). As a result, in areas that may provide habitat for greater 

sage-grouse, acceptable ranges of variation for patch size and 

connectivity indicators might be defined on the basis of sites 

with less than 3 to 5 percent development. Different ecological, 

conservation and management issues apply to other community 

types and locations, suggesting that community types within 

ecoregions are likely to be the appropriate strata for defining 

natural and acceptable ranges of variation and associated lower 

limits of integrity for most indicators.

Collect and Analyze Data

In our example, the ecological integrity assessment 

focuses on use of existing (primarily BLM) data rather than 

collection of new data. AIM westwide monitoring has been 

operating since 2011, and is beginning to provide the density 

of samples needed to infer information about the composition, 

structure, and function of rangelands managed by the BLM 

across the western United States (Taylor and others, 2014; 

Karl and others, 2016). Similarly, 11 REAs have been completed or are in progress in the western conterminous United 

States, providing example approaches and methods needed to 

quantify the amount, patch size, and connectivity of rangelands across the west (see chapter 3). The current effort to 

quantify terrestrial development across the conterminous western United States (see chapter 5) provides consistent information on development across all western lands. The normalized 

difference vegetation index, an index of vegetation biomass 

and productivity, is calculated from open source online satellite imagery at increasingly fine spatial and temporal resolutions (as fine as 10- × 10-m pixels or as frequently as daily 

[but not both], depending on the sensor).

Report Ecological Integrity Results

Presentation of assessment results requires deciding on 

a format for presenting the condition of individual indicators 

(for example, Cardoso and others, 2007; Tierney and others, 

2009), and, if desired, combining individual indicators into a 
Using the Ecological Integrity Framework and Assessment Process to Facilitate Implementing a Landscape Approach 49

more comprehensive index of ecological integrity (for example, Glennon and Porter, 2005). Presenting results for individual indicators and for comprehensive indices is common 

in the literature (for example, Karr and others, 1986, Cardoso 

and others, 2007, Diffendorfer and others, 2007, Tierney and 

others, 2009). The target audience and context in which the 

information will be used will help inform the best presentation 

format.

Ecological integrity results may be presented as the 

degree of departure from reference conditions (table 4−2). 

This approach is simple and informative. Presenting ecological integrity results categorically (for example, good, caution, 

significant concern, Tierney and others, 2009) using breakpoints that are meaningful both biologically and to management is another option that can convey additional information 

to managers, stakeholders, and the public. Ideally, passing a 

breakpoint will automatically trigger a management response, 

which might include additional monitoring, research, or management actions (Mitchell and others, 2014).

In our example, we present hypothetical results using 

degree of departure from reference conditions at the level 

of our original management question—the entire western 

conterminous United States (table 4−2). However, natural and 

acceptable ranges of variation, breakpoints for indicators, and 

management actions for addressing identified deficiencies may 

differ among ecoregions. Thus it may be helpful, particularly 

for land managers, to report assessment results at ecoregion 

levels as well (see Mitchell and others, 2014 for an example). 

Because of the multiple-use mandate of the BLM, it may be 

helpful to present findings relative to departure from both the 

natural and acceptable ranges of variation. Given the prominent role of the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health in driving 

management, monitoring, and reporting activities within the 

BLM, it also may be appropriate to highlight how each of the 

ecological integrity indicators relates to the Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health (table 4−1).

Use Assessment Results to Inform Management

Once the assessment has been completed, the final steps 

include using the assessment results to inform and evaluate 

management actions and repeating the assessment as needed. 

The BLM is committed to implementing adaptive management that is informed by the best available science (Clement 

and others, 2014). The assessment process outlined here is 

grounded in well-established principles of environmental monitoring and assessment, and is intended to include 

key resources over which there is management control or 

concern. As a result, the assessment process is designed to 

explicitly inform management actions focused on maintaining or improving ecological integrity within the context of the 

multiple-use mandate of the BLM.

In our example, conceptual models identify known or 

hypothesized stressors (such as grazing), and thus inform 

potential management responses to those stressors (such 

as changing allowed grazing intensities if land health standards are not met). The process of identifying stressors also 

acknowledges that local managers have a reasonable level of 

control over some processes (for example, local grazing intensities) but not others (for example, a changing climate). The 

reporting format explicitly identifies the degree to which current values of each indicator depart from reference conditions, 

and whether the indicators were measured at local or broad 

scales. In some cases, it may be helpful to analyze and present 

results at finer spatial scales (for example, ecoregions or field 

office boundaries) to guide management responses.

Repeat Assessment at Predetermined Frequency

An initial ecological integrity assessment will usually 

identify the degree of departure from reference conditions for 

each indicator, informing the type and amount of management 

that may be needed to improve the integrity of the system. 

Repeated assessments can be used to evaluate the extent to 

which management actions are correlating with indicator 

values that are closer to their natural and acceptable ranges of 

variation. The frequency at which the assessment is repeated 

will be informed by factors similar to those identified for 

defining relevant temporal scales, including the ecology of the 

system and the time frames in which management decisions 

are made and management responses are likely to be detected.

Using the Ecological Integrity 

Framework and Assessment Process 

to Facilitate Implementing a Landscape 

Approach in the Bureau of Land 

Management

The early adoption of ecological integrity as a goal for 

aquatic systems in the United States through implementation 

of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC §1251) and early definition of a standard method for assessing integrity in aquatic 

systems (Karr and Dudley, 1981; Karr and others, 1986) 

may have fostered widespread use of ecological (or biotic) 

integrity assessments for managing aquatic systems. There 

is a comparable desire and policy foundation for considering 

ecological integrity in management of terrestrial systems in 

the United States (Vickerman and Kagan, 2014), including on 

Federal lands (for example, National Park Service Organic Act 

of 1916 [16 USC §1], USDA Forest Service 2012 Planning 

Rule [36 CFR §219]). However, quantitative application of 
50 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

0–10 percent departure 

from reference conditions

10–20 percent 

departure

20–30 percent 

departure

30–40 percent 

departure

Greater than 

40 percent departure

Indicator Composition Structure Function Western United States

Amount of bare ground Local Local

Vegetation composition Local

Invasive plants Local

Plants of management concern Local

Vegetation height Local Local

Proportion of soil surface in large intercanopy gaps Local Local

Vegetation amount Regional

Vegetation distribution Regional

Patch size Regional

Structural connectivity Regional

Development Regional

Biomass/productivity Regional

Table 4–2. One model for presenting results of an ecological integrity assessment for rangelands across the western United States. 

Results include the name of the indicator, the component(s) of ecological integrity (composition, structure, or function) described by 

the indicator, the spatial scale at which each indicator is assessed (local or regional), and the degree to which the current value of 

each indicator departs from reference conditions for the Western United States. Note: these data are fictional representations of the 

proportional area of rangelands in each departure category, and are intended for illustration only.

the ecological integrity concept in terrestrial systems has been 

limited (but see Fraser and others, 2009; Tierney and others, 

2009; Mitchell and others, 2014), likely due in part to the difficulty in identifying and measuring representative indicators 

across what are often larger systems with less defined boundaries compared to freshwater systems. In addition, application 

of the concept of ecological integrity to multiple-use contexts, 

in which some resource objectives directly conflict with protection of pristine systems, is not well understood (Wurtzebach 

and Schultz, 2016).

The BLM is not required by policy or law to consider 

ecological integrity in its management. Rather, the agency 

manages on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield 

(43 USC §1701) and the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health 

(43 CFR §4180.1). We suggest, however, that evaluating ecological integrity is possible with little additional monitoring 

effort (11 of 12 proposed indicators are already quantified in 

REAs or through AIM monitoring). Further, assessing ecological integrity would provide complementary information to 

land health assessments and contribute to both managers and 

the public gaining a broader understanding of the condition 

of ecological systems across all Federal lands. The ecological 

integrity assessment process outlined here is consistent with 

the AIM monitoring process, facilitating integration of ecological integrity assessments into the existing monitoring and 

assessment programs of the BLM. In addition, using results 

from ecological integrity assessments together with information on current and authorized land uses can help identify tradeoffs resulting from different resource management actions, a 

key aspect of implementing a landscape approach to resource 

management on lands managed by the BLM (see chapter 2).
References Cited 51

References Cited

Allred, B.W., Smith, W.K., Twidwell, Dirac, Haggerty, J.H., 

Running, S.W., Naugle, D.E., and Fuhlendorf, S.D., 2015, 

Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America: 

Science, v. 348, p. 401−402.

Assal, T.J., Melcher, C.P., and Carr, N.B., eds., 2015, 

Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—

Pre-assessment report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2015–1003, 284 p., accessed December 8, 2016, at 

https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151003.

Beja-Pereira, Albano, Oliveira, Rita, Alves, P.C., Schwartz, 

M.K., and Luikart, Gordon, 2009, Advancing ecological 

understandings through technological transformations in 

noninvasive genetics: Molecular Ecology Resources, v. 9, 

p. 1279−1301.

Bureau of Land Management, 1997, Decision record and 

finding of no significant impact for adoption of standards 

for public land health and guidelines for livestock grazing 

management in Colorado: Bureau of Land Management, 

accessed June 12, 2016, at https://www.blm.gov/style/

medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/

policy/blm_handbook.Par.61484.File.dat/h4180-1.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2001, Bureau of Land Management handbook for rangeland health standards: Bureau of 

Land Management, accessed January 12, 2017, at http://

www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_

Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.61484.

File.dat/h4180-1.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2008, Colorado standards for 

public land health: Bureau of Land Management, accessed 

October 18, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_

Programs/grazing/rm_stds_guidelines.html.

Bureau of Land Management, 2009, Manual 4180, Land 

health manual for the Bureau of Land Management: 

Bureau of Land Management, accessed March 2, 2016, at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_

Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.23764.

File.dat/4180.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2015, Record of decision and 

approved resource management plan amendments for 

the Great Basin region, including the greater sage-grouse 

sub-regions of Idaho and southwestern Montana, Nevada and 

Northeastern California, Oregon, Utah: Bureau of Land Management, accessed October 20, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/

wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html.

Bureau of Land Management, 2016, Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessments: Bureau of Land Management, accessed 

March 7, 2016, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

Landscape_Approach/reas.html.

Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, and 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010, 

Interagency ecological site handbook: Bureau of Land 

Management, accessed February 28, 2016, at http://

directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.

aspx?content=33943.wba.

Boone, R.B., Taylor, J.J., Swift, D.M., Evangelista, P.H., 

and Hollowed, Ed, 2011, Developing a resource management and monitoring protocol for a semiarid landscape 

with extensive oil and gas development potential: 

Denver, Colo., Bureau of Land Management, National 

Operations Center, Technical Note 439, 52 p., accessed 

September 16, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/

pdf/TN439.pdf.

Borja, Angel, Bricker, S.B., Dauer, D.M., Demetriades, 

N.T., Ferreira, J.G., Forbes, A.T., Hutchings, Pat, Jia, 

Xiaoping, Kenchington, Richard, Marques, J.C., and Zhu, 

Changbo, 2008, Overview of integrative tools and methods 

in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal 

systems worldwide: Marine Pollution Bulletin, v. 56, 

p. 1519−1537.

Cardoso, Pedro, Borges, P.A.V., and Gaspar, Clara, 2007, 

Biotic integrity of the arthropod communities in the natural 

forests of Azores: Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 16, 

p. 2883−2901.

Carr, N.B., Wood, D.J.A., Bowen, Z.H., and Haby, T.S., 

2015, Broad-scale assessments of ecological landscapes—

Developing methods and applications: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Fact Sheet 2015–3007, 4 p., accessed 

October 19, 2015, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2015/3007/pdf/

fs2015-3007.pdf.

Chambers, J.C., Roundy, B.A., Blank, R.R., Meyer, S.E., 

and Whittaker, A., 2007, What makes Great Basin 

sagebrush ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum?: 

Ecological Monographs, v. 77, no. 1, p. 117–145.

Clement, J.P., Belin, A.d’A., Bean, M.J., Boling, T.A., 

and Lyons, J.R., 2014, A strategy for improving the 

mitigation policies and practices of the Department of the 

Interior: Washington, D.C., A report to the Secretary of the 

Interior from the Energy and Climate Change Task Force, 

25 p.

Diffendorfer, J.E., Fleming, G.M., Duggan, J.M., Chapman, 

R.E., Rahn, M.E., Mitrovich, M.J., and Fisher, R.N., 2007, 

Developing terrestrial, multi-taxon indices of biological 

integrity: an example from coastal sage scrub: Biological 

Conservation, v. 140, p. 130−141.
52 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

DiTomaso, J.M., 2000, Invasive weeds in rangelands: 

Species, impacts, and management: Weed Science, v. 28, 

p. 255−265.

Fraser, R.H., Olthof, I., and Pouliot, D., 2009, Monitoring land 

cover change and ecological integrity in Canada’s national 

parks: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 113, p. 1397−1409.

Glennon, M.J., and Porter, W.F., 2005, Effects of land use 

management on biotic integrity: An investigation of 

bird communities: Biological Conservation, v. 126, 

p. 499−511.

Hawkins, C.P., Norris, R.H., Hogue, J.N., and Feminella, J.W., 

2000, Development and evaluation of predictive models for 

measuring the biological integrity of streams: Ecological 

Applications, v. 10, p. 1456−1477.

Herrick, J.E., Van Zee, J.W., Havstad, K.M., Burkett, L.M., 

and Whitford, W.G., 2009, Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland and savanna ecosystems: Las Cruces, 

N. Mex., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 

Research Service, Jornada Experimental Range, accessed 

June 25, 2015, at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/

docs.htm?docid=24068.

Karl, M.G. “Sherm”, Kachergis, Emily, and Karl, J.W., 2016, 

Bureau of Land Management Rangeland Resource Assessment—2011: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, 112 p.

Karr, J.R., and Dudley, D.R., 1981, Ecological perspective 

on water quality goals: Environmental Management, v. 5, 

p. 55−68.

Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., and 

Schlosser, I.J, 1986, Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale: Illinois Natural 

History Survey Special Publication 5, 28 p.

Keane, R.E., Hessburg, P.F., Landres, P.B., and Swanson, F.J., 

2009, The use of historical range of variability (HRV) in 

landscape management: Forest Ecology and Management, 

v. 258, p. 1025−1037.

Knick, S.T., Hanser, S.E., and Preston, K.L., 2013, Modeling 

ecological minimum requirements for distribution of greater 

sage-grouse leks: Implications for population connectivity 

across their western range, USA: Ecology and Evolution, 

v. 3, p. 1539−1551.

LANDFIRE, 2010, LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings layer 

(2010 update): U.S. Geological Survey, accessed October 20, 2015, at http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/.

Luikart, Gordon, Ryman, Nils, Tallmon, D.A., Schwartz, M.K., 

and Allendorf, F.W., 2010, Estimation of census and effective 

population sizes: the increasing usefulness of DNA-based 

approaches: Conservation Genetics, v. 11, p. 355−373.

MacKinnon, W.C., Karl, J.W., Toevs, G.R., Taylor, J.J., Karl, 

Michael, Spurrier, C.S., and Herrick, J.E., 2011, BLM core 

terrestrial indicators and methods: Denver, Colo., Bureau of 

Land Management, National Operations Center, Technical 

Note 440, accessed June 18, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/

nstc/library/pdf/TN440.pdf.

Mitchell, B.R., Tierney, G.L., Schweiger, E.W., Miller, K.M., 

Faber-Langendoen, Don, and Grace, J.B., 2014, Getting the 

message across: Using ecological integrity to communicate 

with resource managers, in Guntenspergen, G.R., ed., Application of threshold concepts in natural resource decision 

making: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 199−230.

Millar, C.I., Stephenson, N.L., and Stephens, S.L., 2007, Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of 

uncertainty: Ecological Applications, v. 17, p. 2145−2151.

Noss, R.F., 1990, Indicators for monitoring biodiversity—

A hierarchical approach: Conservation Biology, v. 4, 

p. 355−364.

Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P., and Unnasch, R.S., 2003, Are 

we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas: Bioscience, v. 53, 

p. 851−860.

Pellant, Mike, Shaver, Patrick, Pyke, D.A., and Herrick, J.E., 

2005, Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, ver. 4: 

Denver, Colo., Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center, Technical Reference 1734-6, 

BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05, 122 p.

Petchey, O.L., and Gaston, K.J., 2006, Functional diversity: 

back to basics and looking forward: Ecology Letters, v. 9, 

p. 741−758.

Pettorelli, Nathalie, Vik, J.O., Mysterud, Atle, Gaillard, J.M., 

Tucker, C.J., and Stenseth, N.C., 2005, Using the satellitederived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 20, 

p. 503−510.

Sage-grouse National Technical Team, 2011, A report of 

national greater sage-grouse conservation measures: Bureau 

of Land Management, accessed October 20, 2015, at http://

www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/co/programs/wildlife.

Par.73607.File.dat/GrSG%20Tech%20Team%20Report.pdf.

Sawyer, Hall, Kauffman, M.J., Nielson, R.M., and Horne, 

J.S., 2009a, Identifying and prioritizing ungulate migration 

routes for landscape-level conservation: Ecological Applications, v. 19, p. 2016−2025.
References Cited 53

Sawyer, Hall, Kauffman, M.J., Nielson, R.M., and Horne, J.S., 

2009b, Influence of well pad activity on the winter habitat 

selection patterns of mule deer: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 73, p. 1052−1061.

Sayer, Jeffrey, Sunderland, Terry, Ghazoul, Jaboury, Pfund, 

J.-L., Sheil, Douglas, Meijaard, Erik, Venter, Michelle, 

Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, Michael, Garcia, Claude, van 

Oosten, Cora, and Buck, L.E., 2013, Ten principles for a 

landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, 

and other competing land uses: Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 

v. 110, p. 8349−8356.

State of Wyoming, 2011, Executive Order 2011−5: Greater 

sage-grouse core area protection: State of Wyoming, 

accessed October 20, 2015, at http://will.state.wy.us/sis/

wydocs/execorders/EO2011-05.pdf.

Stiver, S.J., Rinkes, E.T., Naugle, D.E., Makela, P.D., Nance, 

D.A., and Karl, J.W., eds., 2015, Sage-grouse habitat 

assessment framework: A multiscale assessment tool: 

Denver, Colo., Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Technical 

Reference 6710−1, accessed October, 20, 2015, at http://

www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_refs.

Par.34086.File.dat/TR_6710-01.pdf.

Stoddard, J.L., Larsen, D.P., Hawkins, C.P., Johnson, R.K., 

and Norris, R.H., 2006, Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: The concept of reference condition: Ecological Applications, v. 16, p. 1267−1276.

Taylor, Jason, Kachergis, Emily, Toevs, Gordon, Karl, Jason, 

Bobo, Matthew, Karl, Michael, Miller, Scott, and Spurrier, Carol, 2014, AIM-Monitoring: A component of the 

BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: 

Denver, Colo., U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, National Operations Center, accessed 

June 18, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/

wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.24137.File.dat/TN_445.pdf.

Tierney, G.L., Faber-Langendoen, Don, Mitchell, B.R., 

Shriver, W.G., and Gibbs, J.P., 2009, Monitoring and evaluating the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems: Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment, v. 7, p. 308−316.

Toevs, G.R., Taylor, J.J., Spurrier, C.S., MacKinnon, W.C., 

and Bobo, M.R., 2011, Bureau of Land Management 

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: For 

integrated renewable resources management: Denver, Colo., 

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, accessed June 15, 2015, at http://www.blm.gov/style/

medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/

policy/ib_attachments/2012.Par.53766.File.dat/IB2012-

080_att1.pdf.

Unnasch, R.S., Braun, D.P., Comer, P.J., Eckert, G.E., 2008, The 

Ecological Integrity Assessment Framework: A framework for 

assessing the ecological integrity of biological and ecological 

resources of the National Park System, Report to the National 

Park Service: National Park Service, accessed December 7, 

2016, at http://www.natureserve.org/biodiversity-science/

publications/ecological-integrity-assessment-frameworkframework-assessing.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and Office of the Solicitor, eds., 2001, The Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act, as amended: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management Office of Public Affairs, 69 p., accessed 

October 18, 2015, at https://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/

files/FLPMA.pdf.

Vickerman, Sara, and Kagan, J.S., 2014. Assessing ecological 

integrity across jurisdictions and scales: accessed September 3, 2015, at http://www.defenders.org/publication/

eco-integrity-measures-across-jurisdictions-and-scales.

Waits, L.P., and Paetkau, David, 2005, Noninvasive 

genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: A review 

of applications and recommendations for accurate data 

collection: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 69, 

p. 1419−1433.

Woodley, Stephen, 2010, Ecological integrity: A 

framework for ecosystem-based management, in Cole, 

D.N., and Yung, Laurie, eds., Beyond naturalness: 

rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era 

of rapid change: Washington D.C., Island Press, 

p.106–124.

Wurtzebach, Zachary and Schultz, Courtney, 2016, 

Measuring ecological integrity: history, practical applications, and research opportunities: Bioscience, v. 66, no. 6, 

p. 446–457.

Chapter 5. A Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness 

for Management of Public Lands

By Natasha B. Carr, Ian I.F. Leinwand, and David J.A. Wood

Abstract

Landscape intactness has been defined as a quantifiable 

estimate of naturalness measured on a gradient of anthropogenic 

influence across broad landscapes or ecoregions. We developed 

a multiscale index of landscape intactness for the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) landscape approach, which requires 

multiple scales of information to quantify the cumulative effects 

of land use. The index represents a gradient of development as 

represented by the surface disturbance footprint from development (surface disturbance footprint) at two analysis scales. To 

create the index, we first mapped the surface disturbance footprint 

for the western United States by compiling and combining spatial 

data for transportation, energy and minerals, agriculture, and 

urban development. We summarized the total surface disturbance 

footprint using a 2.5-kilometer (km) and 20-km circular moving window and ranked the development levels for each scale of 

analysis. The classes for both scales were combined to quantify 

landscape intactness level. The multiscale index of landscape 

intactness is designed to be flexible, transparent, defensible, and 

applicable across multiple spatial scales, ecological boundaries, and jurisdictions. We illustrate how the multiscale index of 

landscape intactness can be applied to management issues across 

a broad range of spatial extents that span ecological and jurisdictional boundaries. Landscape intactness is a key derived broadscale indicator for quantifying natural resource status and condition, and the standardized index builds on several approaches for 

quantifying landscape intactness previously developed as a part 

of the BLM Rapid Ecoregional Assessment program. Information on landscape intactness can be used to develop landscapelevel strategies to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse 

ecological consequences of development on public lands and to 

incorporate ecological characteristics that promote ecosystem 

resilience into management strategies.

Broad-Scale Indicators 

for the Landscape Approach

Implementing a landscape approach for managing 

multiple uses of public lands requires information that spans 

a broad range of scales (Sayer and others, 2014; Freeman and 

others, 2015). Multiple scales of information are needed to 

quantify the cumulative effects of land use because the effects 

can vary with the scale of evaluation (Sayer and others, 2013; 

Burton and others, 2014; Freeman and others, 2015; see also 

chapter 2). For example, the fragmenting effects of land use 

on the size and connectivity of wildlife habitats may be most 

evident at broad scales of analysis using remotely sensed data 

(fig. 5–1). In contrast, changes to vegetation composition, 

such as the presence of non-native species, often requires field 

surveys conducted at finer spatial scales (fig. 5–1). Although 

invasive species are increasingly being assessed using 

remotely sensed data (for example, Wenjie and Wang, 2016), 

challenges in mapping invasive species remain (Mairota and 

others, 2015). The continual improvements in quality and 

accessibility of remotely sensed data and national datasets 

has expanded the potential for addressing broad-scale effects 

of land use to better evaluate cumulative effects than was 

previously possible (Heilman and others, 2002; Potapov and 

others, 2008).

Integral to the landscape approach, the Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) addresses the need for information at local, landscape, and regional scales (see chapter 3). 

Components of the AIM strategy include AIM monitoring, 

which provides local-scale information on ecological conditions, and the Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REA), which 

provide information representing broader scale conditions. 

Standardized core indicators of local-scale vegetation and soil 

conditions have been developed and incorporated into AIM 

monitoring (table 4–1), whereas standardized broad-scale 

indicators of the status and condition of habitats, ecological 

communities, and ecoregions are currently in development 

(see chapter 3). Collectively, the fine-scale and broad-scale 

indicators are integral to the multiscale approach to managing 

landscapes (fig. 5–1).

One initial objective of the REA program was to develop 

broad-scale indicators of the status and condition of ecological resources, which potentially could be incorporated into 

the AIM monitoring standards (see chapter 3). Broad-scale 

indicators of ecosystem composition, structure, and function, 

including development, can be used to characterize components of ecological integrity (table 3–1; see also chapter 4). 

Indicators of landscape composition may include the amount 

and distribution of native ecological communities (such as 

sagebrush steppe or riparian zones), wildlife habitats, and 

invasive species. Landscape structure includes the spatial 

arrangement of patches of ecological communities or wildlife habitats and may include indicators of patch size and 
56 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

connectivity (see chapter 2). Landscape function includes 

disturbance regimes and may be represented by indicators 

such as estimated historical and current fire return intervals. 

Landscape intactness, as defined by the BLM, is a quantifiable 

estimate of naturalness measured on a gradient of anthropogenic influence, across large landscapes or ecoregions (see 

chapter 3). Broad-scale indicators of ecological systems are 

interrelated and not mutually exclusive, but emphasize different ecosystem components across broad scales that cannot 

readily be represented by a single metric or scale of analysis 

(chapter 3).

Information on landscape intactness can inform selection of potential areas for conservation actions across a range 

of scales. At broad spatial extents, such as ecoregions, the 

goal of identifying large intact areas as potential areas for 

conservation is based, in part, on the assumption that because 

these areas have not been greatly altered by human activities (such as development), they are more likely to contain a 

variety of plant and animal communities and to be resilient 

and resistant to changes resulting from natural disturbances 

such as fire, insect outbreaks, and disease (Noss 1990; 

Peterson and others, 1998). Large intact areas are likely to 

support viable plant and animal populations and facilitate 

seasonal movements and dispersal of organisms. In addition, 

the potential for maintaining ecological processes across a 

variety of temporal and spatial scales is expected to be greater 

in larger intact areas. It is therefore also assumed that large 

intact areas may afford greater potential for ecological communities and wildlife populations to withstand or adapt to 

additional stress from projected climate change (Opdam and 

Wascher, 2004).

Small intact areas surrounded by a mosaic of more developed lands in multiple-use landscapes, however, also contribute 

to ecosystem functions (Tulloch and others, 2016). In the short 

term, small intact areas may function as dispersal or migration 

“stepping stones” that facilitate movements across broad areas 

with high levels of development that may inhibit movements 

(Minor and Lookingbill, 2010). Small intact areas may also 

serve as refugia (Tulloch and others, 2015). Over longer time 

frames, small intact areas could facilitate organism movements 

in response to changing climates (Minor and Lookingbill, 2010; 

Tulloch and others, 2015). Thus, small intact areas may contribute to connectivity and support metapopulations, which may 

enhance ecological resilience to changing climates in multipleuse landscapes (Sayer and others, 2013).

One of the goals of the REAs was to address ecological 

integrity by developing methods for quantifying landscape 

intactness (Bryce and others, 2012; Carr and Melcher, 2015), 

also referred to as landscape condition (Comer and others, 

2013). However, differences among REAs in methods for quantifying landscape intactness present challenges in comparing 

landscape intactness across REA boundaries. Although all REAs 

Figure 5–1. Examples of the cumulative direct and indirect ecological effects of development as a 

function of the surface disturbance footprint resulting from development. Blue boxes highlight some of 

the broad-scale effects of development on landscape structure and intactness that are addressed by 

broad-scale indicators compiled in Rapid Ecoregional Assessments. White boxes highlight other direct 

and indirect effects of development, some of which are addressed by local-scale Assessment, Inventory 

and Monitoring (AIM) core indicators.
Creating a Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness 57

included development in the methods for quantifying landscape 

intactness, there were differences in some of the regional datasets used as input variables. In addition, the methods and scales 

of analysis used to quantify development varied among REAs. 

Furthermore, some REAs included additional change agents 

(fire and invasive species) and in one case, incorporated metrics 

to address landscape structure. Because of these differences, the 

methods for quantifying landscape intactness developed by the 

REAs cannot be used to compare intactness across ecoregions. 

The different approaches, however, were useful for developing 

standardized methods to quantify intactness.

To address the need for a standardized approach, we developed a multiscale index of landscape intactness and applied it to 

17 western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, 

Montana, New Mexico, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming). Our overall goal was to develop a multiscale index 

with a suite of properties that make it useful for management of 

public lands across broad spatial extents. Specifically, the index 

was intended to be flexible and general enough for applications 

across multiple spatial scales, ecological boundaries, and jurisdictional or administrative boundaries. In addition, the index was 

designed to be transparent and defensible by limiting assumptions 

and complexity that increase uncertainty and make it more difficult to interpret the index scores. Landscape intactness has been 

proposed as a broad-scale indicator of natural resource status and 

condition for the AIM program (see chapter 3).

The purpose of this chapter is to document how the 

multiscale index of landscape intactness was designed to 

achieve the desired index properties and to demonstrate 

potential applications of the index to management issues that 

are relevant to the landscape approach. We provide the criteria 

used for selecting the change agents (such as development) 

and for evaluating source datasets and scales of analysis. We 

also discuss the basis for the breakpoints used for defining 

landscape intactness levels and demonstrate how intermediate 

derived datasets are retained in the dataset to facilitate ease of 

interpretation. Finally, we illustrate how the multiscale index 

of landscape intactness can be applied to management issues 

across a broad range of spatial extents that span ecological and 

administrative or jurisdictional boundaries.

Creating a Multiscale Index 

of Landscape Intactness

Measuring the Gradient 

of Anthropogenic Influence

To create a multiscale index of landscape intactness, we 

evaluated the methods used for quantifying change agents 

(types of anthropogenic activities) in REAs and other published broad-scale assessments of landscape intactness and 

related indices. Development (including agricultural, energy, 

minerals, transportation, and urban) was included as a measure of anthropogenic influence for all broad-scale assessment 

methods we reviewed, but in several cases this was the only 

change agent evaluated (Woolmer and others, 2008; Theobald, 

2010; Carr and Melcher, 2015). In addition to the surface 

disturbance footprint from development (surface disturbance 

footprint), some methods included human population densities, night-time lights, recreation, or traffic volumes (Leu and 

others, 2008; Dickson and others, 2015; Theobald 2010, 2013; 

Ventor and others, 2015). Other change agents sometimes 

evaluated were invasive species (Leu and others, 2008; Comer 

and others, 2013; Theobald, 2013), fire (Bryce and others, 

2012), and potential predators that can increase as a result of 

human activities (such as corvids, dogs, cats; Leu and others, 

2008). In some cases, patch metrics related to fragmentation 

were included (Leu and others, 2008; Bryce and others, 2012). 

For the approaches that limited the number of change agents 

and related indicators addressed, additional types of anthropogenic influence were addressed by overlaying datasets (such as 

invasive species) or evaluating fragmentation separately (such 

as Carr and Melcher, 2015).

We focused on quantifying the surface disturbance 

footprint from development as the best indicator of multiscale landscape intactness for several reasons. First, national 

datasets quantifying development were readily available 

for all 17 western states, whereas national datasets for other 

anthropogenic influences (such as grazing, invasive species, traffic volumes, and altered fire regimes) were either 

context specific, or were not consistently available (Crall 

and others, 2010; Veblen and others, 2014). As a result, 

other change agents were problematic to evaluate using a 

generalized index that traverses multiple ecoregions and 

were beyond the scope of this project. Such anthropogenic 

influences can have profound effects on intactness; however, 

we suggest that local-level information on context-specific 

change agents be used to supplement broad-scale indicators 

of landscape intactness (see chapters 3 and 4). Second, the 

direct effects of development, specifically the conversion 

of native vegetation to impervious surfaces, bare ground, or 

croplands, could be quantified readily with a single metric: 

the area of vegetation conversion, referred to as the surface 

disturbance footprint. To maintain the generality of the 

index, we did not include data on predators (such as corvids 

or domestic pets) that are only relevant to some taxa, and 

also are strongly correlated with development infrastructure 

(such as garbage dumps and houses) addressed indirectly by 

the index.

Selection of Analysis Methods for Development

To quantify development levels, we did not use weightings for different types of development (Comer and others, 

2013; Theobald, 2010, 2013; Venter and others, 2016) or 
58 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

fuzzy logic models (Bryce and others, 2012) that generally 

require assumptions about the magnitude of the response of 

a particular species to the change agent and rely on expert 

opinion, which can introduce bias (Brown and Williams, 

2016). Such assumptions limit the generality, flexibility, 

and transparency of the index. To maintain transparency 

and facilitate interpretation, we only included the direct 

effects of development, namely the surface disturbance 

footprint. One of our assumptions is that for species sensitive to development, decreasing development levels corresponds to an increase in landscape intactness. Because the 

landscape intactness index is intended to apply generally 

across ecological systems, we do not establish thresholds for 

particular species.

We derived an index of development levels by first 

quantifying the footprints of urban development, agriculture, and infrastructure associated with energy and minerals 

extraction and transmission and transportation. We used 

national datasets that provided the most complete data 

across the entire 17-state assessment area, were used in 

recent western assessments (Manier and others, 2014), or 

were readily available (table 5–1). All linear features and 

points were buffered to create a surface disturbance footprint 

(table 5–2). Buffered footprints and polygonal data were 

rasterized (converted to a grid) as outlined in table 5–2. All 

variables were quantified using a gridded surface (raster) 

representing the landscape as 15- × 15-meter (m) cells 

(hereafter 225 m2 [square meter] cells) or 30- x 30-m cells 

(hereafter 900 m2 cells) depending on the resolution of the 

source data (table 5–1). All 225-m2 resolution input layers 

(table 5–1) were summed using a raster calculator. The maximum disturbance value of the composite data layer was set 

at 100 percent (table 5–2). The composite raster dataset was 

aggregated to 900 m2 and summed with the other 900 m2 raster datasets (table 5–1). Because the focus of the multiscale 

index is on broad-scale patterns not fine-scale precision, we 

aggregated to 8,100 m2

 to facilitate analysis of westwide 

patterns, which is a standard practice for broad-scale assessments (Dickson and others, 2014; Theobald, 2010).

We derived a terrestrial development index (TDI) 

by summarizing the cumulative effects of the surface disturbance footprint using circular moving windows (Theobald 

2010, 2013; Dickson and other, 2014) rather than a fixed 

rectangular (Bryce and others, 2012) or hexagonal grid 

(Woolmer and others, 2008). We used the ArcGIS focal 

neighborhood statistics function (Environmental Systems 

Research Institute, 2011) to sum the total percent of the 

surface disturbance footprint for a particular size of moving window (for example, a 2.5-kilometer [km] radius 

window). Additional details on data processing and analysis 

are provided in the metadata associated with the multiscale index of landscape intactness (Carr, Leinwand, and 

Wood, 2016).

Selection of Scales of Analysis for Quantifying 

Development and Landscape Intactness

To identify the size and minimum number of analysis 

scales necessary to capture cumulative effects of development across multiple scales, we compared 10 moving 

window sizes with a radius ranging from 1 to 250 kilometers. 

TDI scores for individual cells were highly correlated across 

window sizes (Pearson correlation coefficients > 0.8), but 

there were several distinct spatial patterns evident for several 

Development

class

Development

variables Data source

Urban Urban impervious surface1 National Land Cover Dataset 2011, Percent Developed Imperviousness 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2014)

Agriculture Cultivated croplands1 National Agriculture Statistical Service 2013 National Cultivated Layer 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 2014)

Fossil fuels Oil and gas2,3 IHS Enerdeq Production Unallocated Database (IHS Enerdeq 2014) 

Renewable energy Solar2 Surface area of solar arrays (Carr, Fancher, and others, 2016).

Wind2 Onshore industrial wind turbine locations for the United States through July 2013 

(Diffendorfer and others, 2014)

Minerals Surface mines and quarries1 National Gap Analysis Program Land Cover Data 

(National Gap Analysis Program 2010)

Energy transmission Oil and gas pipelines2 National Pipeline Mapping System (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014)

Utility and service lines2 Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) 

transmission lines (U.S. Department of Commerce 2010)

Transportation Roads2 TIGER roads (U.S. Department of Commerce 2014a)

Railroads2 TIGER railroads (U.S. Department of Commerce 2014b) 1

900 square meter resolution.

2

225 square meter resolution.

3

Active wells and wells abandoned less than 30 years ago.

Table 5–1. Data sources used to quantify the surface disturbance footprint from development.
Creating a Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness 59

Table 5–2. Buffer sizes for creating the surface disturbance 

footprint from development for linear and point features. The 

corresponding footprint area represented as the percent of 

disturbance per 15- x 15-meter cell (225 square meters) used to 

create the raster dataset is provided.

Linear or point feature Buffer width 

(meters)1

Percent 

of cell2

Transportation3

Interstate 45 100

Highway 15 100

Secondary road 10 67

Four-wheel drive road 4 27

Railroad 10 67

Oil and gas pipeline3 10 67

Transmission line3 10 67

Oil and gas well pad4 56 100

Wind turbine pad4 72 100

1

Buffer widths correspond to buffer sizes used by Leu and others (2008).

2

100 percent of 15- × 15-meter cell = 225 square meters (m2); 

67 percent = 150 m2; 27 percent = 60 m2.

3

Buffers represent half widths applied to each side of linear features 

(roads, railroads, pipelines, transmission lines).

4

Radius of footprint assigned to each point feature.

ranges of scales that supported their inclusion or exclusion 

from the index. At the finest analysis scale evaluated (1-km 

moving window), the TDI scores for most of the assessment 

area were strongly skewed towards the low end of the development gradient. As a result, this analysis scale provided 

little discriminating power among development levels (Carr 

and Melcher, 2015). In addition, the TDI scores at this scale 

closely corresponded to the surface disturbance footprint, 

consequently this scale provided little additional information 

beyond what is already provided by the footprint dataset. 

At the broadest analysis scales, window sizes greater than 

35 km resulted in highly smoothed TDI scores that had little 

discriminating power. As a result, we eliminated the 1-km 

window and window sizes greater than 35-km from consideration for use in the multiscale index.

Previous analysis for the Wyoming Basin ecoregion 

indicated that a window radius of approximately 2.5-km 

is optimal for quantifying development levels (Carr and 

Melcher, 2015). The 2.5-km window fell within a narrow range of scales corresponding to a threshold at which 

the TDI shifted from reflecting the presence or absence of 

development to representing average development level. 

We found the 2.5-km threshold to be consistent for multiple 

other ecoregions. Therefore, we selected the 2.5-km radius 

window (equivalent to 19 km2

, or 7 sections) for the finest 

scale of analysis. To provide a broader context, we selected 

the 20-km moving window (equivalent to 1,256 km2

, or 

1,357 townships) for a second scale of analysis because this 

scale had the lowest correlation with the 2.5-km window 

and provided better discrimination among large undeveloped 

areas compared to the 10- or 15-km moving window analyses. However, the results are similar if either a 10- or 15-km 

moving is used, indicating the results are fairly robust to the 

scale of analysis. Collectively, the TDI scores summarized 

at 2.5-km and 20-km radius windows capture landscape 

patterns relevant to a variety of ecological processes such 

as habitat selection, metapopulation dynamics, and organism dispersal, which are relevant to conservation planning 

(Opdam and Wascher, 2004) and the landscape approach 

(Sayer and others, 2013).

TDI scores for each scale of analysis were divided into 

six classes for visualization purposes (figs. 5–2 and 5–3) 

(see the Appendix in Carr and Melcher [2015] for additional details on how breakpoints were derived). At 2.5 km, 

the terrestrial development index scores between 0 and 

1 percent represent areas with very low levels of development (such as a few roads or oil and gas wells) (fig. 5–2). 

Scores between 1 and 3 percent often represent areas with 

low development including low densities of roads (for 

example, 3 km of roads per km2

) or medium densities of oil 

and gas wells (for example, 4 wells per section), whereas 

terrestrial development index scores greater than 3 percent 

represent medium-to-high levels of development, including relatively high-density large oil and gas fields, surface 

mines, agricultural fields, centers of urban development, and 

major highways.

Selection of Breakpoints for Calculating 

Landscape Intactness Level

The TDI scores at two analysis scales were combined to 

quantify landscape intactness level according to the matrix in 

figure 5–4. To combine the scales, we first defined four levels 

of development at each scale (fig. 5–4). We focused on TDI 

scores less than or equal to 3 percent for identifying areas 

that had moderate or greater levels of intactness (table 5–3) 

because these development levels represent relatively low 

levels of development on multiple-use lands managed by the 

BLM and other land management agencies (fig. 5–2). We used 

equal breakpoints (0–1, 1–2, and 2–3 percent) at each scale 

to classify intactness levels (fig. 5–4). The highest landscape 

intactness level corresponds to TDI scores = 0–1 percent at 

both scales. Very high landscape intactness corresponds to 

TDI scores = 0–1 percent at one scale, and 1–2 percent at 

the other scale. High landscape intactness corresponds to 

TDI scores = 1–2 percent at both scales. Moderate landscape 

intactness corresponds to TDI scores = 2–3 percent at one scale 

and less than 3 percent at the other scale. The lowest landscape 

intactness levels have TDI scores = 3–100 percent at either 

scale. Although other breakpoints could be used to evaluate landscape intactness, the breakpoints we selected help to 

identify lands with little development at both analysis scales 

and were useful in discriminating among lands in a multiple-use 
60 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Figure 5–2. Terrestrial development index score and the associated surface disturbance footprint from development for two 

landscapes in Wyoming. The terrestrial development index, derived from the percent of the surface disturbance footprint within a 

2.5-kilometer moving window, is depicted. A, an oil and gas field north of Wamsutter in south central Wyoming, and B, an agricultural 

landscape near Pinedale in western Wyoming (each location depicted by a square on inset map). Examples of 2.5-kilometer radius 

windows are indicated by red dashed circles.

landscape. An overview of the steps used to generate the multiscale index of landscape intactness is provided in figure 5–5 

and the resulting map of landscape intactness is provided in 

figure 5–6.

Collectively, the 2.5- and 20-km windows represented 

the fine- and broad-scale spatial patterns of development better 

than a single analysis scale (fig. 5–3, table 5–3). For example, 

39.4 percent of BLM lands had a TDI score of 0–1 percent and 

would be considered to have the highest level of landscape 

intactness using only the 2.5-km analysis scale, whereas only 

19.2 percent of BLM lands had a TDI score of 0–1 percent 

at both 2.5 km and 20 km. Consequently, two moving window sizes (2.5 km and 20 km) provided better discrimination among development levels than only one analysis scale 

(table 5–3). Because of the high correlation among scales, the 

inclusion of additional analysis scales provided little added 

information and complicated interpretation of the landscape 

intactness index.

Transparency and Interpretation of the 

Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness

To meet the goals of transparency and to facilitate the interpretation of landscape intactness levels, the dataset used to create 

the map of landscape intactness retains the continuous scores 

for the TDI at each scale (table 5–4 and fig. 5–7). By retaining 

the contributing information from each step in the process 

model (fig. 5–5) and in the published datasets (Carr, Leinwand, 

and Wood, 2016), end users can readily identify the types and 

levels of development and the contribution of each analysis 

scale to the level of landscape intactness for a given area of interest (fig. 5–7). In addition, alternative breakpoints can be used 

for displaying TDI or defining landscape intactness to address 

different management questions. Fostering transparency and 

ease of interpretation also will help to ensure that the multiscale 

index of landscape intactness is defensible when used to inform 

management decisions.
Use of the Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness to Address Management Questions 61

Figure 5–3. The terrestrial development index at two analysis scales. The index is derived from the surface disturbance footprint of 

agriculture, energy and minerals, transportation, and urban development and summarized for a given size of moving window. A, derived 

from a 2.5-kilometer moving window, and B, derived from a 20-kilometer moving window. The two scales of analysis are used for 

calculating the landscape intactness index.

Use of the Multiscale Index of 

Landscape Intactness to Address 

Management Questions

We used the multiscale index of landscape intactness 

for the western United States (fig. 5–6) to address five 

management questions relevant to the BLM and other land 

management agencies. These questions represent a variety 

of spatial extents, ecological contexts, land ownership and 

jurisdictions, and protection status of areas. The management questions and associated maps and graphics were 

intended to demonstrate the utility of the multiscale index 

to evaluate intactness of public lands and the flexibility of 

the index to provide information across a broad range of 

spatial extents.

1. How does landscape intactness vary across the ecoregions and ecological communities assessed for the 

REAs?

2. Where are the largest intact areas and which land 

management agencies have primary responsibility 

for these areas?

3. How does landscape intactness vary by land ownership or jurisdiction?

4. What is the status of BLM lands on the basis of 

the multiscale index of landscape intactness and 

how does this vary among field offices within an 

ecoregion?

5. Where are the most intact areas managed by the 

BLM that are not protected as national conservation 

lands?
62 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Figure 5–4. The level of landscape intactness as derived from terrestrial development index 

classes at two scales (2.5- and 20-kilometer radius moving window; see fig. 5–3). Level of 

landscape intactness is provided in each cell.

20-kilometer terrestrial development index

(percent)1 Percent 

of total area2

0–1 1–2 2–3

0–1 Highest

19.2

Very high

16.0

Moderate

4.2 39.4

2.5-kilometer terrestrial development index (percent)1 1–2 Very high

5.4

High

11.9

Moderate

4.0 21.3

2–3 Moderate

0.6

Moderate

3.4

Moderate

2.0 6.0

Percent

of total area2 25.2 31.3 10.2 66.7

1

Terrestrial development index (TDI) scores for 2.5-kilometer (km) and 20-km radius moving windows.

2

19.6 percent of the total area had a TDI score greater than 3 percent for a 2.5-km moving window and less than 3 percent for a 20-km window; 3.76 percent 

of the total area had a TDI score greater than 3 percent for a 20-km moving window and less than 3 percent for a 2.5-km window, and 9.9 percent of the total 

area had a TDI score greater than 3 percent for both window sizes.

Table 5–3. Landscape intactness of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands derived from two analysis scales across the western

U.S. Landscape intactness level and the corresponding percent of BLM lands are provided in each cell. Terrestrial development index scores 

greater than 3 percent at either scale have moderate to high development levels and were considered to have the lowest intactness levels 

(representing 33.3 percent of BLM lands).

1. How does landscape intactness vary across

the ecoregions and ecological communities

assessed for the REAs?

Landscape intactness varied considerably across the 

11 ecoregions in the contiguous western United States (fig. 5–6) 

in which REAs are ongoing or have been completed (fig. 5–8; 

see fig. 4–4 for REA map). More than 20 percent of the Mojave 

Basin and Range, Central Basin and Range, Middle Rockies, 

Northern Great Basin, Colorado Plateau, and Sonoran Desert 

ecoregions was classified at the highest level of landscape 

intactness (fig. 5–8). Less than 10 percent of the Chihuahuan 

Desert, Madrean Archipelago, and the Wyoming Basin ecoregions was classified at the highest level of landscape intactness; 

these ecoregions nevertheless encompass 47–61 percent of 

the area classified as having moderate to very high levels of 

landscape intactness. More than 86 percent of the Southern and 

Northwestern Great Plains ecoregions was classified at the lowest level of intactness reflecting the dominance of agriculture as 

a land use in these ecoregions.

Landscape intactness levels also varied considerably by 

ecological communities (NatureServe 2016) for the 17 western 

states. The ecological communities having greater than 25 percent 

classified at the highest or very high levels of landscape intactness 

included high-elevation forests and alpine systems, arid shrublands of intermountain basins, and warm desert systems. In contrast, Pacific coastal shrublands and woodlands and Great Plains 

grasslands had less than 15 percent in the highest two levels of 

landscape intactness.
Use of the Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness to Address Management Questions 63

Figure 5–5. Overview of the process model used to create the multiscale index of landscape intactness. See table 5–2 for 

buffer sizes used to create the surface disturbance footprint for each point (energy and minerals) or linear (transportation 

and transmission lines) input variables. The terrestrial development index was calculated using a 2.5- and 20-kilometer 

moving window (fig. 5–3), which were combined (fig. 5–4) to create the multiscale index of landscape intactness (fig. 5–6).

Figure 5–6. Landscape intactness for the western U.S. Intactness levels were derived from terrestrial development index

classes using a 2.5- and 20.0-kilometer radius moving window (fig. 5–3).
64 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

2. Where are the largest intact areas, and

which land management agencies have

primary responsibility for these areas?

Except in the Great Plains, large intact areas, as defined 

by areas with the highest or very high intactness levels, were 

broadly distributed throughout much of the western United 

States (fig. 5–9). Most of the largest intact areas (greater 

than 40,000 km2

) occurred on public lands at high elevations or in the Great Basin. The BLM (31 percent) and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 

(28 percent) are responsible for managing the majority of area 

with the highest or very high levels of landscape intactness (as 

depicted in figure 5–9). Privately owned lands (16 percent), 

national parks (8 percent), tribal lands (6 percent), military 

lands (3 percent), and national wildlife refuges (2 percent) 

accounted for an additional 35 percent of the most intact lands. 

The BLM is responsible for managing 46 percent of the largest intact areas (greater than 40,000 km2

), whereas the USDA 

Forest Service manages 33 percent and the National Park 

Service manages 14 percent of these lands (fig. 5–10).

3. How does intactness level vary by land

ownership or jurisdiction?

Level of landscape intactness closely corresponded to 

land ownership or jurisdiction and the associated land-use 

missions (fig. 5–11). More than 50 percent of National Park 

Service, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service lands had very high or the highest levels of 

landscape intactness. Lands under the jurisdiction of multipleuse agencies like the USDA Forest Service and BLM were 

more evenly distributed among all intactness levels, with 

approximately 40 percent of lands with very high or the highest level of landscape intactness.

4. What is the status of BLM lands on the

basis of the multiscale index of landscape

intactness, and how does this vary among

field offices within an ecoregion?

Approximately 19 percent (35 million km2) of BLM lands 

had very high or the highest levels of landscape intactness 

(fig. 5–11) and approximately 67 percent of all BLM lands had at 

least moderate levels of landscape intactness (fig. 5–11, table 5–3) 

compared to 35.8 percent westwide. The largest of the most intact 

lands managed by the BLM were predominantly arid shrublands 

in the Great Basin (fig. 5–12). Although landscape intactness was 

high in the Great Basin, the multiscale index does not include 

finer-scale information that may be relevant such as the invasive 

species cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Cheatgrass, and associated 

alterations of fire regime, is much more widespread in arid shrublands of the Great Basin (Chamber and others, 2007) than in areas 

with lower levels of landscape intactness, such as the Wyoming 

Basin (Carr and others, 2015). Thus, local information on invasive species occurrence, shrub cover, and altered fire regimes 

could improve evaluations of ecological integrity (chapter 4).

Levels of intactness at multiple spatial extents (such as 

westwide, ecoregion, field office) can provide both a multiscale 

perspective and a basis for comparison. In the Wyoming Basin, 

for example, lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM Pinedale 

Field Office were more intact than they were in several other 

BLM field offices or in the Wyoming Basin overall (figs. 5–13 

and 5–14). The mountainous portions of the ecoregion, managed by the National Park Service and the USDA Forest 

Service, represented the largest intact areas (fig. 5–14A). BLM 

lands included the largest intact areas in the arid shrublands 

that dominate the ecoregion (fig. 5–14B), which includes some 

of the highest densities of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) within the range of the species (Rowland and 

Leu, 2011).

Dataset Resolution

(square meters) Description

Source data Variable1 Raster, polygon, point, or line formats (agriculture, energy and minerals, 

transportation, and urban development) 

Surface disturbance footprint for each 

development variable

225 or 900 Raster dataset for the surface area for each development variable (agriculture, 

energy and minerals, transportation, and urban development)

Surface disturbance footprint2,3,4 900 and 8,100 Raster dataset for the surface area for all development variables combined

Terrestrial development index

2.5 kilometer3,4

8,100 Percent of the window area (20 hectare) covered by the surface disturbance 

footprint for all development variables

Terrestrial development index

20 kilometer3,4

8,100 Percent of the window area (1,257 hectare) covered by the surface disturbance 

footprint for all development variables

Multiscale index of landscape intactness4.5 8,100 Levels of landscape intactness derived from 2.5-kilometer and 20-kilometer 

terrestrial development index 1

See table 5–1 for resolution of source data.

2

See figure 5–2 for map of surface disturbance footprint and associated terrestrial development index.

3

See figure 5–3 for individual scales of terrestrial development index.

4

Included as a dataset in Carr, Leinwand, and Wood (2016).

5

See figure 5–4 for a description of landscape intactness rank. See figure 5–6 for landscape intactness level.

Table 5–4. Hierarchy of datasets included in the multiscale index of landscape intactness. All datasets can be accessed for a given 

area of interest to allow interpretation of landscape intactness levels.
Use of the Multiscale Index of Landscape Intactness to Address Management Questions 65

Figure 5–7. Multiscale index of landscape intactness and associated terrestrial development index for two landscapes 

in New Mexico. Left column Agricultural landscape near Farmington, N. Mex. Right column Oil and gas field near 

Cuba, N. Mex. Top row depicts the landscape intactness index derived from the surface disturbance footprint using a 

2.5-kilometer (km) moving window (middle row), and a 20-km moving window (bottom row).
66 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

5. Where are the most intact areas managed

by the BLM that are not protected as

national conservation lands?

Special management designations have been established 

by the BLM to protect resources by restricting certain land 

uses, such as development, and thus, are useful for evaluating 

the protected status of the most intact BLM lands. Designation 

as national conservation lands provides the most restrictions 

on development of BLM lands and provides Federal protection of more than 105,218 km2

 of ecologically and culturally 

significant areas including national monuments, national 

conservation areas, wild and scenic rivers, national scenic and 

historic trails, and wilderness areas. National conservation 

lands accounted for 26.7 percent of BLM lands with the highest or very high levels of landscape intactness (fig. 5–15).

National conservation lands are designated by congressional or presidential authority, whereas protection of other 

BLM lands is primarily determined administratively as defined 

by BLM policies. Other BLM designations limit development 

to some degree and can contribute to the protection of BLM 

lands with the highest or very high levels of landscape intactness. For example, areas of critical environmental concern and 

greater-sage grouse priority habitat management areas, are 

BLM designations that may include restrictions or stipulations 

on development activities to reduce potential negative effects 

on species or communities of management concern.

Discussion

The multiscale index of landscape intactness addresses 

broad-scale cumulative effects of development by quantifying the surface disturbance footprint from development at two 

analysis scales (2.5- and 20-km radius moving windows). The 

index is designed to be flexible, transparent, defensible, and 

relevant to a broad range of spatial scales and across ecoregional, land ownership, or jurisdictional boundaries. It also 

provides a standardized basis for comparing how development 

affects landscape structure (such as the size and connectivity of intact areas; fig. 5–9) of communities, ecosystems, and 

ecoregions (see table 3–1). The index may also serve as an 

indicator for the AIM monitoring program, providing broadscale information on resource condition that complements 

the local-scale information currently measured using field 

sampling (chapter 3). Collectively, the index of landscape 

intactness and local-level monitoring provide a comprehensive 

set of indicators that span multiple analysis scales and thereby 

help to inform a landscape approach to resource management 

(chapter 2).

The multiscale index of landscape intactness can be 

used in conjunction with other information such as habitat 

designations, rangeland condition, and AIM monitoring data, 

to identify potential areas for conservation, restoration, or 

development activities. Information on landscape intactness 

can be used to develop landscape-level strategies to avoid, 

Figure 5–8. Levels of landscape intactness by ecoregion, assessed as a part of the Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

program for the western U.S. Intactness levels were derived from the terrestrial development index for 2.5- and 

20.0-kilometer radius moving windows (fig. 5–3).
Discussion 67

minimize, and compensate for adverse effects from major 

development activities; develop metrics and benchmarks for 

use in monitoring changes in the condition of landscapes; and 

address some of the ecological characteristics that can promote 

ecosystem resilience, which are all elements of the landscape 

approach (Sayer and others, 2013, Freeman and others, 2014). 

The management questions addressed in this chapter demonstrated the utility of the multiscale index of landscape intactness to identify the most intact areas across a range of broad 

spatial extents, ecological communities and ecoregions, and 

administrative boundaries. Indeed, comparisons of lands managed by Federal agencies highlight the crucial role of the BLM 

in managing some of the largest and most intact areas of the 

western United States. Because many intact areas are managed by multiple agencies, and for multiple uses, coordination 

and interagency collaboration will be crucial for managing 

the remaining large intact areas in the western United States 

(Aycrigg and others, 2016; Sayer and others, 2014).

Multiscale information is necessary because no single 

scale of analysis is sufficient for assessing the various 

ecological processes and stressors that can affect ecological 

integrity (Sayer and others, 2013, Jackson and Fahrig, 2014). 

At broad spatial extents, the multiscale index of landscape 

intactness provides the ecological context for finer scale 

assessments, but additional regional- or local-level datasets 

are necessary for evaluating stressors that cannot currently 

be evaluated across the entire western United States, such as 

invasive species occurrence (Wurtzebach and Schultz, 2016). 

In addition, there are tradeoffs between the resolution and 

extent of spatial datasets. Multiple scales of information (for 

example, REAs and AIM monitoring programs) can be used 

to address the inherent limitations among datasets with different spatial resolution and extent. National datasets (such 

as roads from TIGER; table 5–1) typically lack the accuracy 

or details that are provided by datasets at much smaller 

spatial extents, such as a digitized road layer developed at 

the state level (for example, Wyoming roads; O’Donnell and 

Figure 5–9. Size of patches with the highest and very high levels of landscape intactness for the western United States. Patches are 

defined by areas with the highest or very high intactness levels (fig. 5–6).
68 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Figure 5–10. Size classes of patches on federal lands with the highest or very high landscape intactness levels, summarized 

by agency. Patches are defined by areas with the highest or very high landscape intactness (see fig. 5–9 for the map of the most 

intact patches by size class). Only agencies with responsibility for managing greater than 8 percent of the most intact lands are 

listed individually. Other federal lands include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Defense (see fig. 5–11 for 

landscape intactness levels by jurisdiction).

Figure 5–11. Levels of landscape intactness by land ownership or jurisdiction for the entire western United States. 

Intactness levels were derived from the terrestrial development index for 2.5- and 20.0-kilometer radius moving windows 

(fig. 5–3).
Discussion 69

others, 2014). In addition, local datasets may be updated 

more frequently than the planned 2–5 year scheduled updates 

for the multiscale landscape intactness index. At broad spatial extents, however, an index that is derived from moving 

windows can minimize the effects of local inaccuracies by 

averaging the area of the surface disturbance footprint over 

larger scales (Theobald, 2007), particularly for comparisons 

of landscape intactness level across BLM field offices or 

ecoregions. The use of multiscale data requires an understanding of the limitations and assumptions inherent to each 

analysis scale.

The criteria for identifying the most intact areas may vary 

by land-use context and spatial extent. In protected areas, like 

national parks, large intact areas with limited human activities may be of sufficient size to support viable populations of 

the native biota, ecological processes, and associated complex 

interactions (Potapov and others, 2008). In multiple-use landscapes, however, highly intact areas may form a mosaic with 

more developed landscapes that have lower intactness and 

consequently have greater fragmentation than protected areas. 

Nevertheless, smaller but highly intact areas in multiple-use 

landscapes may contribute to landscape intactness at broader 

scales and could be targeted for conservation (Minor and others, 2010; Tulloch and others, 2013). Information on landscape 

intactness at broad scales can be useful for identifying potential areas of restoration that could expand or connect highly 

intact areas. On the other hand, areas with low landscape 

intactness may include areas where additional development 

is less likely to diminish broader scale landscape intactness. 

Thus, the multiscale index of landscape intactness can be used 

in developing conservation, restoration, and development 

strategies when evaluated across a range of spatial scales.

The multiscale index of landscape intactness can be used 

to address management questions in landscapes managed for 

multiple uses or for multiple agencies. For example, the size 

and structural connectivity of areas with the highest or very 

Figure 5–12. Levels of landscape Intactness for lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Intactness levels were 

derived from the terrestrial development index for 2.5- and 20.0-kilometer radius moving windows (fig. 5–3).
70 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

Figure 5–13. Levels of landscape intactness for lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the

Wyoming Basin. Intactness levels were derived from the terrestrial development index for 2.5- and 20.0-kilometer 

radius moving windows (fig. 5–3).

Figure 5–14. Levels of landscape intactness for lands that fall within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) field office boundaries in the Wyoming Basin Ecoregion. The ecoregion boundary was defined by the Wyoming 

Basin Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (Carr and Melcher, 2015; fig. 4–4). A, All lands, and B, BLM lands. Intactness levels 

were derived from the terrestrial development index for 2.5- and 20.0-kilometer radius moving windows (fig. 5–3).
Discussion 71

high landscape intactness could be used as a basis for enhancing the connectedness of intact lands in multiple-use landscapes and across jurisdictional boundaries (see chapter 29 in 

Carr and Melcher, 2015). For example, small relatively intact 

areas may serve as refugia or dispersal stepping stones across 

more developed areas, and land-use managers could target 

these areas for management actions (such as limiting development or restoring after development) to promote landscape 

connectivity in multiple use landscapes.

The multiscale index of landscape intactness and its role 

in the BLM landscape approach supports the U.S. Department 

of the Interior (DOI) “A Strategy for Improving the Mitigation 

Policies and Practices of The Department of the Interior,” 

(Clement and others, 2014) also referred to as the LandscapeScale Mitigation Strategy (Landscape Strategy). A primary 

objective of the DOI Landscape Strategy is to shift from 

project-level to broad-scale, science-based management that 

helps to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse effects 

to natural resources. Specifically, by transcending administrative boundaries and addressing broad-scale cumulative 

effects of development, the multiscale index of landscape 

intactness addresses the following key components outlined 

by the DOI Landscape Strategy: develop assessment methods 

that promote consistency in management decisions, identify 

ecological characteristics that promote ecosystem resilience 

under rapidly changing environmental conditions, and foster 

collaboration among land management agencies (Clement and 

others, 2014). The BLM Landscape Approach and the DOI 

Landscape Strategy recognize the need for methods and tools 

to quantify landscape-level effects across a range of spatial 

scales. The multiscale index of landscape intactness addresses 

the consequences of human activities on the spatial patterning 

and dynamics of ecological communities and wildlife habitats 

at broad spatial extents.

Figure 5–15. Lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management with the highest levels of landscape intactness that are not protected

as national conservation lands. Intactness levels were derived from the terrestrial development index for 2.5- and 20.0-kilometer radius 

moving windows (fig. 5–3).
72 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

References Cited

Aycrigg, J.L., Groves, Craig, Hilty, J.A., Scott, Michael, 

Beirer, Paul, Boyce D.A., Jr., Figg, Dennis, Hamilton, 

Healy, Machlis, Gary, Muller, Kit, Rosenburg, K.V., 

Sauvajot, R.M., Shaffer, Mark, and Wentworth, Rand, 

2016, Completing the system: opportunities and 

challenges for a National Habitat Conservation 

System: BioScience, 11 p., doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw090.

Brown, E.D., and Williams, B.K., 2016, Ecological integrity 

assessment as a metric of biodiversity: are we measuring 

what we say we are?: Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 25, 

p. 1011–1035, doi 10.1007/s10531-016-1111-0.

Burton, A.C, Huggard, D. Bayne, E., Schieck, J., Solymos, P., 

Muhly, T., Farr, D., Boutin, S., 2014, A framework for adaptive monitoring of the cumulative effects of human footprint 

on biodiversity: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

v. 186, p. 3605–3617.

Bryce, S.A., Strittholt, J.R. Ward, B.C. and Bachelet, D.M., 

2012, Colorado Plateau Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Report: 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Denver, Colo., available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_

Approach/reas/coloplateau.html

Carr, N.B., Fancher, Tammy, Freeman, A.T., and Battles 

Manley, Heather, 2016, Surface area of solar arrays in the conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey data release, 

accessed December 8, 2016, at http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/

F79S1P57.

Carr, N.B., Leinwand, I.I.F, and Wood, D.A.J. 2016. A 

multiscale index of landscape intactness for the western 

United States: U.S. Geological Survey data release, 

accessed December 8, 2016, at https://dx.doi.org/10.5066/

F75H7DCW.

Carr, N.B., and Melcher, C.P., eds., 2015, Wyoming Basin 

Rapid Ecoregional Assessment: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2015–1155, 896 p., accessed December 8, 

2016, at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151155.

Chambers, J.C., Roundy, B.A., Blank, R.R., Meyer, S.E., and 

Whittaker, A., 2007, What makes Great Basin sagebrush 

ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum?: Ecological Monographs, v. 77, no. 1, p. 117–145.

Clement, J.P., Belin, A.d’A., Bean, M.J., Boling, T.A., and 

Lyons, J.R., 2014, A strategy for improving the mitigation 

policies and practices of the Department of the Interior—

A report to the Secretary of the Interior from the Energy 

and Climate Change Task Force: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Energy and Climate Change Task 

Force, accessed October 12, 2016, at https://www.doi.gov/

sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/news/upload/Mitigation-Reportto-the-Secretary_FINAL_04_08_14.pdf.

Comer, Patrick., Crist, Patrick, Reid, Marion, Hak, Jon, 

Hamilton, Healy, Braun, David, Kittel, Gwen, Varley, 

Ian, Unnasch, Bob, Auer, Stephanie, Creutzburg, Megan, 

Theobald, David, and Kutner, Lynn, 2013, Central Basin 

and Range Rapid Ecoregional Assessment Report: Prepared 

for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, 168 p, accessed January 17, 2017, at http://

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_Approach/

reas/cbasinrange.html

Crall, A.W., Newman, G.J., Jarnevich, C.S., Stohlgren, T.J., 

Waller, D.M., and Graham, Jim, 2010, Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists: 

Biological Invasions, v. 12, no. 10, p. 3419–3428, 

DOI: 10.1007/210530-01009740-9.

Dickson, B.D., Zachmann, L.J., and Albano, C.M., 2014, Systematic identification of potential conservation priority areas 

on roadless Bureau of Land Management lands in the western 

United States: Biological Conservation, v. 178, p.117–127.

Diffendorfer, J.E., Compton, Roger, Kramer, Louisa, Ancona, 

Zach, and Norton, Donna, 2014, Onshore industrial wind turbine locations for the United States through July 2013 (ver.1.1, 

May 2015): U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 817, accessed 

November 25, 2014, at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds817.

Freeman, O.E., Duguma, L.A., Minang, P.A., 2015, Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice: Ecology 

and Society, v. 20, no. 1, p. 24, http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/

ES-07175-200124.

Heilman, G.E., Jr., Strittholt, J.R., Slosser, N.C., 2002, Forest 

fragmentation of the conterminous United States: assessing 

forest intactness thorough road density and spatial characteristics, 2002: American Institute of Biological Sciences, v, 52, 

no. 5, p. 411−422.

IHS Enerdeq, 2014, IHS Enerdeq Production Unallocated 

Database: IHS, Englewood, Colo., accessed January 16, 

2015, at https://www.ihs.com/products/oil-gas-toolsenerdeq-browser.html.
References Cited 73

Jackson, N.D., and Fahrig, Lenore, 2014, Landscape context 

affects genetic diversity at a much larger spatial extent than 

population abundance: Ecology v., 95, no. 4, p 871−881.

Leu, Matthias, Hanser, S.E., and Knick, S.T., 2008, The 

human footprint in the West—A large-scale analysis of 

anthropogenic impacts: Ecological Applications, v. 18, 

no. 5, p. 1119−1139.

Manier, D., Bowen, Z.H., Brooks, M.L., Casazza, M.L., 

Coates, P.S., Deibert, P.A., Hanser, S.E., and Johnson, 

D.H., 2014, Conservation buffer distance estimates for 

greater sage-grouse—A review: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2014−1239, 14 p., accessed 

December 8, 2016, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1239/.

Mairota, Paola, Cafarelli, Barbara, Didham, R.K., Lovergine, F.P., Lucas, R.M., Nagendra, Hairini, Rocchini 

Duccio, and Tarantino, Christina, 2015, Challenges and 

opportunities in harnessing satellite remote-sensing for 

biodiversity monitoring: Ecological Informatics, v. 30, 

p. 207−214.

Minor, E.S., and Lookingbill, T.D., 2010, A multiscale network analysis of protected-area connectivity for mammals 

in the United States: Conservation Biology v., 24, no. 6, 

p. 1549−1558.

National Gap Analysis Program, 2010, Land Cover Data: 

National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID, accessed February 5, 2016, at http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gaplandcover/

data/download/.

NatureServe, 2014, Terrestrial Ecological Systems of the 

United States: NatureServe, accessed January 21, 2016, at 

http://www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/terrestrialecological-systems-united-states.

Noss, R.F., 1990, Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A 

hierarchical approach: Conservation Biology, v. 4, no. 5, 

p. 355−364.

O’Donnell, M.S., Fancher, T.S., Freeman, A.T., Ziegler, 

A.E., Bowen, Z.H., and Aldridge, C.L., 2014, Large 

scale Wyoming transportation data—A resource planning tool: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 821, 21 p., 

accessed December 8, 2016, at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/

ds821.

Opdam, Paul, and Wascher, Dirk, 2004, Climate change meets 

habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation: Biological 

Conservation, v. 11, p. 285−297.

Peterson, G., Allen, C.R., Holling, C.S., 1998, Ecological 

resilience, biodiversity, and scale: Ecosystems v. 1, no. 1, 

p. 6−18.

Potapov, Peter, Yaroshenko, Aleksey, Turubanova, Svetlana, 

Dubinin, Maxim, Laestadius, Lars, Thies, Christoph, 

Aksenov, Dmitry, Egorov, Aleksey, Yesipova, Yelena, 

Glushkov, Igor, Karppachevskiy, Mikhail, Kostikova, Anna, 

Manisha, Alexander, Tsybikova, Ekaterina and Zhuravleva, 

Ilona, 2008, Mapping the world’s intact forest landscapes 

by remote sensing: Ecology and Society, v. 13, no. 2, p. 51.

Sayer, Jeffery, Sunderland, Terry, Ghazoul, Jaboury, Pfund, 

Jean-Laurent, Sheil, Douglas, Meijaard, Erik, Venter, 

Michelle, Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, Michael, Garcia, 

Claud, van Oosten, Cora, and Buck, L.E., 2013, Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, 

conservation, and other competing land uses: Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America, v. 110, p. 8349−8356.

Theobald, D.M., 2013, A general model to quantify ecological 

integrity for landscape assessments and U.S. application: 

Landscape Ecology, v. 28, p. 1859−1874.

Theobald, D.M., 2010, Estimating natural landscape changes 

from 1992 to 2030 in the conterminous U.S.: Landscape 

Ecology, v. 25, p. 999–1011.

Theobald, D.M., 2007, GIS concepts and ArcGIS methods: 

Fort Collins, Colo., Conservation Planning Technologies, 

429 p.

Tulloch, A.I.T., Barnes, M.D., Ringma, Jeremy, Fuller, R.A., 

and Watson, J.E.M., 2016, Understanding the importance of 

small patches of habitat for conservation: Journal of Applied 

Ecology, v. 53, p. 418−429.

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, 2014, National Agricultural Statistics Service 2013 

National Cultivated Layer: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Sioux Falls, SD, 

accessed January 24, 2014, at https://www.nass.usda.gov/

Research_and_Science/Cropland/Release/index.php.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2010, TIGER/Line shapefile: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division, Washington D.C., accessed February 5, 2016, 

at https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2014a, TIGER roads: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Geography 

Division, Washington D.C., accessed February 5, 2016, at 

https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html.
74 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2014b, TIGER railroads: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Geography Division, Washington D.C., accessed February 5, 2016, at https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/

data/tiger.html.

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004, National Pipeline Mapping System: U.S. Department of Transportation 

– Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety, Washington, 

D.C., accessed November 7, 2014, at https://www.npms.

phmsa.dot.gov/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2014, NLCD 2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness (2011 edition, amended 2014): 

U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD, accessed 

February 5, 2016, at http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data.php.

Veblen, K.E., Pyke, D.A., Aldridge, C.L., Casazza, Michael, 

Assal, T.J., and Farinha, M.A., 2014, Monitoring of 

livestock grazing effects on Bureau of Land Management 

land: Rangeland Ecology and Management, v. 67, no. 1, 

p. 68−77.

Venter, Oscar, Sanderson, E.W., Magrach, Ainhoa, Allan, 

J.R., Beher, Jutta, Jones, K.R., Possingham, H.P., Luarance, 

W.F., Wood, Peter, Balázs, M.F., Levy, M.A., and Watson, 

J.E.M., 2016, Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity 

conservation: Nature Communications, v. 7, article 12558, 

doi:10.1038/ncomms12558.

Wenjie, Ji and Wang, Le, 2016, Phenology-guided saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) mapping using Landsat TM images 

in western U.S.: Remote Sensing of Environment v. 173, 

p. 29−38.

Woolmer, G., Trombulak, S.C., Ray, J.C., Doran, P.J., Anderson, M.G., Baldwin, R.F., Morgan, A., Sanderson, E.W., 

2008, Rescaling the human footprint: a tool for conservation planning at an ecoregional scale: Landscape and Urban 

Planning, v. 87, p. 42−53.

Wurtzebach, Zachary, and Schultz, Courtney, 2016, 

Measuring ecological integrity: history, practical applications, and research opportunities: BioScience v. 66, no. 6, 

p. 446−457.
Glossary 75

Glossary

Terms are defined here as they are used in this report, and citations are included to facilitate further inquiry. Where possible and appropriate, we have used definitions specified by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

integrity or is viable when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, elements of 

composition, structure, function, and ecological 

processes) occur within their natural ranges of 

variation and can withstand and recover from 

most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human disruptions.”

Ecoregion Ecoregions are large areas that 

are described “based on perceived patterns of 

a combination of causal and integrative factors 

including land use, land surface form, potential 

natural vegetation, and soils” (Omernik, 1987).

F

Function One of the three characteristics of 

an ecosystem that describes the ecological (for 

example, production of organic matter and 

cycling of nutrients) and evolutionary processes that are inherent in the system, how they 

are accomplished, and the rates at which they 

occur (Franklin and others, 1981, Noss, 1990).

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health The 

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health describe 

conditions relating to the health and functionality of watersheds, ecological processes, water 

quality, and threatened and endangered species 

habitat. The four Fundamentals of Rangeland 

Health are as follows: (a) Watersheds are in, 

or are making significant progress toward, 

properly functioning physical condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic 

components; soil and plant conditions support 

infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release 

of water that are in balance with climate and 

landform and maintain or improve water quality, 

water quantity, and timing and duration of flow. 

(b) Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, 

are maintained, or there is significant progress 

toward their attainment, in order to support 

healthy biotic populations and communities. 

(c) Water quality complies with State water 

quality standards and achieves, or is making significant progress toward achieving, established 

BLM management objectives such as meeting 

C

Change agent A term used in Bureau of Land 

Management Rapid Ecoregional Assessments 

to describe natural or anthropogenically caused 

disturbances that may influence the health of 

species or communities of conservation concern (Bureau of Land Management 2016).

Composition One of three main characteristics of an ecosystem that refers primarily to 

the array of plant and animal species present 

in the system (Franklin and others, 1981) and 

often includes measures of species or genetic 

diversity (Noss, 1990).

Condition The status of a renewable resource 

in comparison with a specific reference value 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2016).

Connectivity The degree to which a landscape facilitates or impedes movement of 

organisms among resource patches (Taylor and 

others, 1993). Two components of connectivity 

are generally considered. Structural (or physical) connectivity is the spatial arrangement 

of different elements or habitat types across a 

landscape (Crooks and Sanjayan, 2006). Functional (or behavioral) connectivity describes 

the behavioral response of individuals, species, 

or ecological processes to the physical structure 

of the landscape (Crooks and Sanjayan, 2006).

Conservation element A term used in BLM 

Rapid Ecoregional Assessments to describe 

resources of conservation concern (Bureau of 

Land Management 2016).

E

Ecological integrity Ecological integrity is 

defined by the BLM as “the ability of ecological 

systems to support and maintain a community 

of organisms that have the species composition, 

diversity, and functional organization comparable to those of natural habitats within the ecoregion range or area” (Toevs and others, 2011). A 

commonly cited definition in the peer-reviewed 

scientific literature is that of Parrish and others 

(2003): “An ecological system or species has 
76 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

wildlife needs. (d) Habitats are, or are making 

significant progress toward being, restored or 

maintained for Federal threatened and endangered species, Federal proposed or candidate 

threatened and endangered species, and other 

special status species (60 FR 9969, Feb. 22, 

1995, as amended at 71 FR 39508, July 12, 

2006; codified as 43 CFR 4180.11). State or 

regional land health standards and guidelines must provide for conformance with the 

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR § 

4180.2(b), Bureau of Land Management, 2009).

I

Indicators “Components of a system whose 

characteristics (for example, presence or absence, 

quantity, distribution) are used as an index of 

an attribute (for example, rangeland health) that 

is too difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to 

measure” (Pellant and others, 2005).

L

Land health The degree to which the integrity of the soil and the ecological processes 

of ecosystems are sustained (Bureau of Land 

Management, 2001).

Land health evaluation A process to establish whether land health standards are being 

achieved. Land health evaluations may refer to 

either the specific case pertaining to rangeland 

health standards, or the more general case pertaining to land health standards developed by 

all programs (rangeland management; forestry; 

fish and wildlife; soil, water, and air; riparian; 

wildfire management; cultural resources and 

paleontology; and use authorization programs; 

Bureau of Land Management, 2009).

Land health guideline A practice, method 

or technique determined to be appropriate 

to ensure that standards of land health or 

rangeland health can be met or that significant 

progress can be made toward meeting the 

standard. Guidelines such as grazing systems, 

vegetative treatments, or improvement projects help managers and permittees achieve 

standards. Guidelines may be adapted or 

modified when monitoring or other information indicates the guideline is not effective, 

or a better means of achieving the applicable 

standard becomes appropriate (Bureau of 

Land Management, 2001).

1

The 2006 amendment was enjoined by a decision of 

the Idaho Federal District Court (see BLM Instruction 

Memorandum 2009-109) which reverted the regulations 

to those that existed before the amendment.

Land health standard Standards of land 

health are expressions of levels of physical 

and biological condition or degree of function 

required for healthy lands and sustainable uses, 

and define minimum resource conditions that 

must be achieved and maintained (Bureau of 

Land Management, 2001).

Landscape Landscapes have been defined 

in a number of ways, often focusing primarily on ecological processes. In this report, we 

use the following definition: an area encompassing an interacting mosaic of ecosystems 

and human systems that is characterized by 

a set of common management concerns. A 

landscape is not defined by the size of the 

area, but rather by the interacting elements 

that are relevant and meaningful to management (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2015; 

Clement and others, 2014). The term landscape is not exclusive of areas described in 

terms of aquatic conditions, such as watersheds, which may represent the appropriate 

spatial scale at which to consider landscapes.

Landscape approach A landscape approach 

to resource management is a set of concepts 

and principles used to guide resource management when multiple stakeholders are involved 

and goals include diverse and sustainable 

social, economic, and environmental outcomes 

within and across landscapes (Sayer, 2009; 

Sayer and others, 2013; Freeman and others, 

2015). In implementing a landscape approach, 

the BLM uses broad ecological assessments to 

discern ecological values, patterns of environmental change, and management opportunities that may not be evident when considering 

smaller areas, and to inform long-term conservation, restoration, and development efforts 

(Bureau of Land Management, 2012).

Landscape condition Landscape condition 

describes output from a landscape condition 

model that uses regionally available spatial 

data to transparently express user knowledge 

regarding the relative effects of land uses 

on natural ecosystems and habitats. Expert 

knowledge often forms the basis of stressor 

selection and relative weightings, with model 

parameters generally drawn from the published literature. The landscape condition 

model developed by NatureServe was used in 

multiple Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (for 

example, Comer and others, 2013).

Landscape intactness Landscape intactness 

is akin to the landscape modification gradient 

(Forman and Godron, 1986), and is defined 
Glossary 77

by the BLM Rapid Ecological Assessment 

program as a quantifiable estimate of naturalness 

measured along a gradient of anthropogenic 

influence.

M

Mitigation Mitigation is defined by the 

National Environmental Policy Act as measures taken to: (1) avoid an impact altogether, 

(2) minimize the degree or magnitude of 

the impact, (3) reduce the impact over time, 

(4) rectify the impact, or (5) compensate for 

the impact (40 CFR 1508.20).

N

National Conservation Lands (also known 

as the National Landscape Conservation 

System) Lands with exceptional scientific, 

cultural, ecological, historical, and recreational 

values that are designated by Congress or 

the President to conserve, protect, enhance, 

and manage public lands for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future generations 

(Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009: Public Law 111-11, Sec. 2002, codified as 

16 US Code Chap. 91, Sec. 7202(a)). National 

Conservation Lands include national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness 

study areas, national scenic trails, national 

historic trails, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness areas administered by the BLM.

P

Patch In ecology, a patch is an area of relatively homogeneous environmental conditions 

that differs from its surroundings (Forman, 

1995). In this report we refer to patches 

defined by the presence of vegetation communities and wildlife habitats, or by landscape 

intactness level.

R

Rangeland health The degree to which the 

integrity of the soil, vegetation, water, and 

air, as well as the ecological processes of the 

rangeland ecosystem, are balanced and sustained. Integrity is defined as maintenance of 

the structure and functional attributes characteristic of a locale, including normal variability (Society for Range Management, 1998). 

Rangelands are considered healthy when 

ecological processes are functioning properly 

to maintain the structure, organization and 

activity of the system over time (Bureau of 

Land Management, 1994).

Rangeland health evaluation A rangeland 

health evaluation is conducted to arrive at two 

outcomes: (1) an analysis and interpretation 

of the findings resulting from the assessment, 

relative to land health standards, to evaluate the degree of achievement of land health 

standards, and (2) an analysis and interpretation of information–be it observations or data 

from inventories and monitoring–on the causal 

factors for not achieving a land health standard 

(Bureau of Land Management 2001).

Rangeland health standards and guidelines See Land health standard and Land 

health guideline.

Resilience The capacity of an ecosystem 

to tolerate disturbance without switching to a 

qualitatively different state that is controlled 

by a different set of processes (Holling, 1973).

Resource management plan A blueprint explaining how the Bureau of Land 

Management will manage areas of public land 

over a period of time (generally 10–15 years). 

BLM field offices or district offices prepare 

resource management plans (RMPs) for the 

lands within their boundaries. RMPs contain 

decisions that guide future management actions 

and subsequent site-specific implementation 

decisions. RMPs establish goals and objectives 

for resource management (desired outcomes) 

and the measures needed to achieve these goals 

and objectives (management actions and allowable uses, Bureau of Land Management, 2014).

S

Scale In ecology, the concept of scale refers 

to the spatial or temporal dimension of an 

object or process. Scale is characterized by 

both extent and grain. Spatial extent is the 

total area considered, while grain is the size 

of the individual units of observation (for 

example, pixels) within the overall extent 

(Turner and others, 2001; Forman, 1995).

Status The amount of a renewable resource 

(for example, a vegetation community) present at a single point in time (Karl and others, 

2016).

Structure One of three main characteristics of 

an ecosystem that describes the physical organization or pattern of a system both horizontally 

and vertically over multiple scales (Noss, 1990).

T

Trend A change in the condition of a 

resource over time.
78 Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management

References Cited in the Glossary

Bureau of Land Management, 1994, Rangeland Reform ’94 

Final Environmental Impact Statement: Washington, D.C., 

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 

in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, accessed October 12, 2016, at https://archive.org/

details/rangelandreform25unit.

Bureau of Land Management, 2001, H-4180-1 Rangeland 

health standards: Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C., accessed October 12, 

2016, at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/

Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_

handbook.Par.61484.File.dat/h4180-1.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2009, Manual 4180–Land health 

manual for the Bureau of Land Management: Washington, 

D.C., Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, accessed October 12, 2016, at http://www.blm.gov/

style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/

policy/blm_manual.Par.23764.File.dat/4180.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management, 2012, The BLM’s landscape 

approach for managing the public lands: Bureau of Land Management, Information Bulletin 2012-058, accessed June 13, 

2016, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/

Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_information/2012/

IB_2012-058.html.

Bureau of Land Management, 2014, Land use planning: 

Bureau of Land Management, accessed March 7, 2016, at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_

overview/frequently_asked_questions.html%20-%203.

Bureau of Land Management, 2016, Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessments: Bureau of Land Management, accessed 

March 7, 2016, at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

Landscape_Approach/reas.html.

Clement, J.P., Belin, A.d’A., Bean, M.J., Boling, T.A., and 

Lyons, J.R., 2014, A strategy for improving the mitigation 

policies and practices of the Department of the Interior: 

Washington, D.C., Energy and Climate Change Task Force, 

accessed October 12, 2016, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/

doi.gov/files/migrated/news/upload/Mitigation-Report-tothe-Secretary_FINAL_04_08_14.pdf.

Comer, Patrick, Crist, Patrick, Reid, Marion, Hak, Jon, Hamilton, Healy, Braun, David, Kittel, Gwen, Varley, Ian, Unnasch, 

Bob, Auer, Stephanie, Creutzburg, Megan, Theobald, David, 

and Kutner, Lynn, 2013, Mojave Basin and Range Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment: Arlington, Va., NatureServe, for the 

Bureau of Land Management, 173 p.

Crooks, K.R., and Sanjayan, M.A., 2006, Connectivity conservation: New York, Cambridge University Press, 732 p.

Forman, R. T. T., 1995. Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions: New York, Cambridge University Press, 

632 p.

Forman, R.T.T., and Godron, M., 1986, Landscape ecology: 

New York, John Wiley & Sons, 620 p.

Franklin, J. F., Cromack, Kermit Jr., Denison, William, 

McKee, Arthur, Master, Chris, Sedell, James, Swanson, 

Fred, Juday, Glen, 1981, Ecological characteristics of oldgrowth douglas-fir forests: Portland, Oregon, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-118, accessed October 12, 2016, at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr118.pdf?.

Freeman, O.E., Duguma, L.A., and Minang, P.A., 2015, Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice: 

Ecology and Society, v. 20, no. 1, article 24.

Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological 

systems: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 4, 

p. 1–23.

Karl, M.G. “Sherm,” Kachergis, Emily, and Karl, J.W., 

2016, Bureau of Land Management Rangeland Resource 

Assessment—2011: Bureau of Land Management, National 

Operations Center, Denver, Colo., 112 p.

Noss, R.F., 1990, Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A 

hierarchical approach: Conservation Biology, v. 4, no. 4, 

p. 355–364.

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Map supplement—Ecoregions of the 

conterminous United States: Annals of the Association of 

American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118–125.

Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P., and Unnasch, R.S., 2003, Are we 

conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological 

integrity within protected areas: BioScience, v. 53, no. 9, 

p. 851−860.

Pellant, Mike, Shaver, Patrick, Pyke, D.A., and Herrick, J.E., 

2005, Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, version 4, 

Technical Reference 1734-6: Denver, Colo., Bureau of Land 

Management National Science and Technology Center, 

accessed October 12, 2016, at http://jornada.nmsu.edu/files/

IIRHv4.pdf.

Sayer, Jeffrey, 2009, Reconciling conservation and development: Are landscapes the answer?: Biotropica, v. 41, 

p. 649−652.
References Cited in the Glossary 79

Sayer, Jeffrey, Sunderland, Terry, Ghazoul, Jabouary, 

Pfund, Jean-Laurent, Sheil, Douglas, Meijaard, Erik, Venter, 

Michelle, Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, Michael, Garcia, 

Claude, van Oosten, Cora, and Buck, L.E., 2013, Ten 

principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, 

conservation, and other competing land uses: Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 

of America, v. 110, p. 8349−8356.

Society for Range Management, 1998, Glossary of terms 

used in range management (4th ed., edited by the Glossary 

Update Task Group, T.E. Bedell, Chairman): Society for 

Range Management, 32 p.

Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, Lenore, Henein, Kringen, and Merriam, 

Gray, 1993, Connectivity is a vital element of landscape 

structure: Oikos, v. 68, p. 571–573. 

Toevs, G.R., Taylor, J.J., Spurrier, C.S., MacKinnon, W.C., and 

Bobo, M.R., 2011, Bureau of Land Management Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring Srategy: For integrated renewable resources management: Bureau of Land Management, 

National Operations Center, accessed June 15, 2015, at http://

www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_

Management/policy/ib_attachments/2012.Par.53766.File.dat/

IB2012-080_att1.pdf.

Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., and O’Neill, R.V., 2001, Landscape 

ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process: New York, 

Springer, 403 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 2015, Implementing mitigation 

at the landscape-scale, Departmental manual part 600, chapter 6: Washington, D.C., Department of the Interior, accessed 

October 12, 2016, at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/

uploads/TRS%20and%20Chapter%20FINAL.pdf.

Publishing support provided by:

Denver Publishing Service Center, Denver, Colorado

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Center Director, USGS Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

(907) 226-9398

Or visit the Fort Collins Science Center Web site at:

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/

This publication is available online at:

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161207


Carter and others—Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a Landscape Approach in the Bureau of Land Management—OFR 2016–1207

ISSN 0196-1497 (print)

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161207