What we need to know Location, spatial relationship (regarding herpetofauna), and condition of all UDWs Define connectivity metrics for target species Define vegetative structure V. CONSERVATION TARGET VIABILITY ASSESSMENT Introduction A key pillar of the 2004 Site Conservation Plan was its Biodiversity Health Assessment. The purpose of the assessment was to understand the critical functions of the selected conservation targets, how the targets are affected by actions, and develop an understanding of the overall status for each target. The 2004 Site Conservation Plan was created using TNC’s Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process. This 2012 Plan works off of the same CAP principles and presents an updated Conservation Target Viability Assessment with revised key ecological attributes and indicators. This new assessment, like its predecessor, helps identify the steps to be taken to manage and restore the natural processes that each target depends. The current Viability Assessment will serve as a point of reference for future assessments in order to measure the amount of progress that has been made through implementing the strategies outlined in Section VIII of this plan. Viability Assessment Process The Viability Assessment involves the identification of key ecological attributes (KEAs) for each conservation target. These KEAs are aspects of a target’s biology or ecology that if present, define a healthy target and if missing or altered, would lead to the outright loss or extreme degradation of that target over time. Identification of KEAs is based on three attribute categories that can collectively determine the health of a conservation target: Size – a measure of the area of the conservation target’s occurrence (for an ecosystem target) or abundance of the target’s occurrence (for a species or population target) Condition – is a measure of the biological composition, structure and biotic interactions that characterize the space in which the target occurs Landscape Context – is an assessment of the target’s environment including: a) ecological processes and regimes that maintain the target occurrence such as flooding, fire regimes and other kinds of natural disturbance; and b) connectivity that allows species targets to access habitats and resources or allows them to respond to environmental change through dispersal or migration. The Viability Assessment also involves the identification of indicators, defined as a unit of information measured over time that documents changes in the condition of attributes. Indicators are selected to assess the status of each KEA. For each indicator a rating is developed to assess the current status
Direct Threats/ Targets Longleaf Pine Mosaic Upland Depressional Wetlands Streamhead Pocosins/Seeps Blackwater Streams Summary Threat Rating Fire Suppression Sc. High Sc. High Sc. High Sc. Low High Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Invasive Species Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Medium Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Surface Mining Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Medium Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Incompatible Development Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Sc. High Sc. Low Medium Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Incompatible forestry practices Sc. Medium Sc. Low Sc. Low Sc. Medium Medium Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Transportation Planning and Construction Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Sc. Medium Sc. Low Medium Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Unsustainable Surface Withdrawals Sc. Sc. Sc. Sc. Medium Low Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Incompatible Agricultural Production Practices Sc. Sc. Low Sc. Low Sc. Medium Low Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Incompatible Pine Straw Production Sc. Medium Sc. Sc. Sc. Low Low Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Conventional Golf course Maintenance and Management Sc. Sc. Sc. Low Sc. Low Low Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Small dams on headwater tributaries Sc. Sc. Sc. Sc. Medium Low Sev. Sev. Sev. Sev. Irr. Irr. Irr. Irr. Summary Target Ratings High Medium High Medium High Figure 7.1: Miradi Threat Analysis (refer to page x for criteria definitions)
KEA: Presence of natural community types State of Success: All community targets in sufficient quantity to support appropriate diversity of plant species and composition. Stream Bioclassification metrics from Natural Heritage’s Biodiversity/Wildlife Habitat Assessment Need to define “occurrence” relative to communities Need to define “good” condition and of each “occurrence” to be measured Consider a different KEA for each community type Consider LHIGs for community monitoring Representation of all BW community types in Sandhills Poor: <50% of occurrences of each community target remaining and in good condition Fair: 50-75% of occurrences of each community target remaining and in good condition Good: 75-90% of occurrences of each community target remaining and in good condition Very Good: >90% of occurrences of each community target remaining and in good condition Stream Bioclassification Poor: Fair: Good: Very Good: KEA: Representative/Indicator Species State of Success: Viable populations of all representative/Indicator species potential species intolerant of disturbance include Sandhills chub (Semotilus lumbee), Pinewoods darter (Etheostoma mariae), Sawcheek darter (Etheostoma serrifer), and Piedmont darter (Percina crassa) Also consider indicator species for connectivity Species TBD by Reserve Design Poor: Fair: Good: Very Good: KEA: Connectivity among communities & ecosystems State of Success: BWS habitats are connected along forested riparian corridors, and in stream habitats are not restricted by impoundments Landscape connectivity refers to the landscape context of the surrounding area and the extent of connection to natural communities Potential metrics include Steve Hall’s rule set for connectivity of floodplain forest guild Consider comparing 100 year plain area with LHIG floodplain forest layer % intact forested riparian habitat within defined reach Poor: Fair: Good: Very Good: Presence of Impoundments Poor: # of miles accessible to aquatic spp within defined basin or reach Fair: Good: Very Good: Longleaf Pine Mosaic Indicator Rating (poor, fair, good, very good)
diverse herbaceous ground cover, and open Need surveying method for private lands including site locations % area of historic extent managed/restored for functional longleaf habitat on private lands Poor: <20% Fair: 20-40% Good: 40-60% Very Good: >60% Ground Cover Composition- Protected lands Poor: <20% of monitoring sites contain at least 20% native herbaceous cover Fair: 20-40% of monitoring sites contain at least 20% native herbaceous cover Good: 41-60% of monitoring sites contain at least 20% native herbaceous cover Very Good: >60% of monitoring sites contain at least 20% native herbaceous cover Ground Cover Composition- Private Lands Poor: <5% of monitoring sites contain at least 20% native herbaceous cover Fair: 5-15% of monitoring sites contain at least 20% native herbaceous cover Good: 16-25% of monitoring sites contain at least 20% native herbaceous cover Very Good: >25% of monitoring sites contain at least 20% native herbaceous cover KEA: Fire regime - (timing, frequency, intensity, extent) of success: Appropriate fire regime implemented for all longleaf core areas connectors and buffers appropriate fire regime includes variable frequency, intensity, and season based on restoration status and environmental conditions Need to assess # acres currently burned each year on private lands % protected longleaf acres burned within 3 year period Poor: <60% Fair: 60-75% Good: 75-90% Very Good: >90% % burn units with appropriate fire regime (frequency/season) Poor: <20% Fair: 20-30% Good: 30-40% Very Good: >40% # acres private lands burned each year Poor: <10k private Fair: 10-15k private acres/year Good: 15-20k private acres/year Very Good: >20k private acres/year
Plants may be some of the more appropriate indicators, perhaps also pine barrens tree frog, salamander Species TBD by Reserve Design Poor: Fair: Good: Very Good: KEA: Landscape pattern State of Success: Adequate connectivity and number of occurrences to support viable populations of target species Need to improve language and clarity Need to define buffer widths For Consideration- Intactness of downstream riparian corridors as an Indicator Intactness of upland forested connectors/buffers for "X" species Poor: Fair: Good: Very Good: Impervious surface within key Poor: >25% impervious surface in watershed Fair: 15-25% impervious surface in watershed Good: 7-14% impervious surface in watershed Very Good: <7% impervious surface in watershed Upland Depressional Wetlands Indicator Rating (poor, fair, good, very good) KEA: Presence of natural communities State of success: All community targets in sufficient quantity to support appropriate diversity of plant species and composition. need to monitor for each community type Representation of nested UDW community targets Poor: Fair: Good: Very Good: KEA: Representative/Indicator Species State of success: Viable populations of all representative/Indicator species indicator species for habitat quality and connectivity of UDWs Species TBD by Reserve Design Poor: Fair: Good: Very Good: watersheds
Forestry 1. Transition Acreage from Short Rotation to multi-age Pine: By 2025, less than x% of managed forests in priority RD buffers and corridors are under short rotation pine management. Forestry 2. RD Buffer and Corridor Protection: By 2025, protect 20,000 acres within the RD corridors and buffers. Forestry 3. Maintain Natural Stands in RD: By 2020, X# of landowners in RD corridors and buffers have adopted a management plan promoting long rotation pine forestry practices and retention of bottomland hardwood Forestry 4. Establish Longleaf Academy: By 2015, Establish Longleaf Academy at NCSU for NCSU and Montgomery Community College forestry students Strategies to Reduce Incompatible Forestry Strategy Objective Working Group Activities Create Targeted Education and Outreach Program Promoting Sustainable Longleaf Forestry Practices Forestry 1 For 3, For 4 CWG*, RMWG, SC, CWG Foster Partnership with Longleaf Alliance Coordinate with NC Longleaf Pine Coalition to develop additional outreach materials Encourage mitigation of herbicides and selection of ones with low collateral damage Address Impacts and opportunities to Green Energy Work with forestry schools to develop longleaf restoration/ management curricula Bolster existing incentive programs for natural forest stewardship For 1, For 2, For 3 SC*, LPWG Provide incentives, through cost share programs and Safe Harbor, to control hardwoods in longleaf pine stands Support NC Forest Stewardship Program and Forest Legacy Programs Work with NRCS and NCFS to direct greater investment of available funding towards priority private lands in Reserve Design core areas, buffers and corridors Explore and promote incentives such as ecosystem services markets to encourage sound forestry by private landowners Increase Influence for Allocation of Funds for Acquisitions For 2 SC Improve proposals and NGO requests for ACUB, NHTF, Parks and Rec. Funds
Mining 3. Establish Land Use Plan Overlay Zones: By 2020, Sandhills counties' zoning ordinances will incorporate mining overlay zones that exclude mining in connectors and buffers identified in the Reserve Design Strategies to Mitigate Surface Mining Strategy Objective Working Activities Expand Opportunities for land conservation Mining 2 FSC Earmarked funding for Acquisition from user taxes Diversify strategies beyond acquisition work to expand CWMTF, NHTF, PARTF, and to create earmarked mining tax funding existing or new acquisition programs Reinvigorate existing SALT river corridor plans Create Mining Overlay in County Land Use Planning Mining 3 RDWG*, LPWG mining operations outside of Reserve Design and other sensitive areas Work with counties to create and adopt these zones Create targeted Education and Outreach Program for mining impacts on natural resources Mining 1, Mining 2, Mining 3 CWG Educate the public and decision makers on the damage mining can cause (water quality) if done in the wrong places, i.e. riparian buffers and bottomland forests Conduct targeted outreach to landowners within connectors and buffers to increase enrollment in conservation programs Work with mining companies to mitigate/cease activities in buffers and connectors Mining 1, Mining 2, Mining 3 SC, RDWG, LPWG* Work to find agreement with mining companies to implement BMPs in connectors and buffers Enforcement and Enhancement of BMPs for mining operations by state and local governments Encourage conditional requirements during rezoning requests or other permitting Enforcement and enhancement of BMPs for mining operations Objectives to Reduce Surface Water Withdrawals Objective Details