An Evaluation of Ecological Integrity Assessments (Eias) As a Tool for Non-Profit Land Conservancies, with Forterra NW As a Case Study
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
An Evaluation of Ecological Integrity Assessments (EIAs) as a Tool for Non-Profit Land Conservancies, with Forterra NW as a Case Study Forterra’s Hazel Wolf Wetlands Preserve (photo by Collette MacLean) Collette MacLean June 2020 A project in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Horticulture University of Washington School of Environmental and Forest Sciences Committee: Jon Bakker, Soo-Hyung Kim, Caren Crandell, and Jim Fridley ABSTRACT Ecological Impact Assessments (EIAs) are tools for assessing the composition, structure, and function of ecosystems relative to intact reference systems. EIAs are being used by state agencies across the United States, and Washington State’s Department of Natural Resources has recently adapted the EIA methodology for use in Washington. Nonprofit land trusts, in contrast, often do not utilize any consistent method of assessing their lands. In order to determine whether EIAs are a useful assessment tool for land trusts, 10 EIAs were conducted on properties owned by Forterra NW, a nonprofit land conservancy in Washington. Factors evaluated included the time, effort, and botanical expertise required to complete the EIAs, as well as the perceived value of the assessments by Forterra’s land manager. Land managers from several other land trusts in Washington were interviewed about their impressions of EIAs, as were state land managers from environmental agencies in Washington and several other states that use this type of assessment. While EIAs provided valuable ecological information for land managers, many land trust managers reported that they do not have the capacity in terms of staff time and expertise to perform this type of intense assessment. Increasing funding for stewardship in general, and ecological assessments specifically, would provide more opportunities for this type of assessment. Modifications to the protocols to reduce the time and expertise needed can also make the EIA methodology more appealing to nonprofit land trusts. Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Assessment Protocols .............................................................................................................................. 10 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Forterra EIAs .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Interviews ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Interview with Forterra lands manager ............................................................................................... 15 Interviews with other Washington State land conservancy managers ................................................ 18 Interviews with Washington State agencies ........................................................................................ 19 Interviews with other state agencies ................................................................................................... 19 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 26 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix A: WNHP Upland EIA Form Example .............................................................................. 30 Appendix B: WNHP Wetland/Riparian EIA Form Example.............................................................. 40 Appendix C: EIA Reports ................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix D: Simplified EIA Form Example ..................................................................................... 67 Appendix E: WNHP Field manual for EIAs in Upland Plant Communities of WA (DRAFT) .......... 80 Appendix F: WNHP Field manual for EIAs in Wetlands and Riparian Areas in WA ..................... 200 Tables Table 1: Three-level Approach to EIA Methodology ................................................................................... 4 Table 2: EIA Sites on Forterra Lands ........................................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Score Metrics and Weights from WNHP Upland EIA Field Form .............................................. 11 Table 4: Land Managers/ecologists Interviewed ........................................................................................ 13 Table 5: Forterra Sites EIA Scores ............................................................................................................. 14 Table 6: Forterra Sites EIA Submetrics ...................................................................................................... 15 Table 7: Summary of Land Manager Interviews ........................................................................................ 17 Figure Figure 1: EIA Site Locations ........................................................................................................................ 7 Acknowledgments Many individuals contributed their time and expertise to this project. Stu Watson at Forterra first introduced me to the possibilities of EIAs, provided invaluable information about Forterra lands, recommended sites, and provided frank and thoughtful feedback. Joe Rocchio at Washington DNR brought me up to speed on EIA methodology, answered many questions, and provided me with manuals, forms, and documents, some still in draft form, which made this project possible. Scott Brekke Davis assisted me in doing EIAs in remote locations, bringing his botanical expertise, field smarts, and sense of humor to the job. My MEH committee chair Professor Jon Bakker provided early feedback, and along with MEH professors Soo Hyung-Kim, Jim Fridley, and Caren Crandell offered helpful suggestions and edits on this document. Thank you to all those who provided information on EIAs and land assessments for this project, including: Don Faber-Langendoen, Senior Ecologist/ Conservation Methods Coordinator, NatureServe Neal Hedges, Stewardship Director, Chelan-Douglas Land Trust Mike Leahy, Natural Community Ecologist, Missouri Department of Conservation Jennifer Mackey, Stewardship Director, Whatcom Land Trust Bill Nichols, Senior Ecologist/ State Botanist, New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau Ryan O’Connor, Ecologist/Inventory Coordinator, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Randi Shaw, Stewardship Manager, The Nature Conservancy of Washington Ian Sinks, Stewardship Director, Columbia Land Trust Matt Vander Haugen, Senior Research Scientist, Washington Department of Wildlife Introduction Accurately assessing the ecological condition of land is critical for land managers. An ecological assessment allows managers to obtain a baseline of site conditions, track changes, identify and monitor invasive or rare species, and prioritize restoration or other management activities. The concept of ecological integrity is increasingly being used by land managers as a framework for assessing and monitoring land (Wurtzebach and Schultz 2016). In ecological integrity assessments, the structure, function, and composition of an ecosystem are assessed using a set of metrics that are relatively easy to measure, robust, and repeatable. These metrics are used to compare the area being assessed to appropriate reference habitats, within a natural range of variation. NatureServe’s Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) methodology is a system that has been developed for use in state Natural Heritage Programs. In states such as Washington, state land management agencies have recently adopted this methodology, sometimes modifying it to fit agency needs. Land conservancies (also known as land trusts) are growing in number and acreage managed in the United States. According to the Land Trust Alliance’s latest census, 56 million acres of land were preserved by land conservancies as of 2015, an increase of 9 million acres since the 2010 census (Land Trust Alliance 2015). Of these lands, approximately 8 million acres are owned and managed by land trusts, with the rest conserved through transfer to agencies, conservation easements, or other mechanisms. In Washington state, over 126,000 acres of land are owned by land trusts, with much more protected through conservation easements and other mechanisms (Land Trust Alliance 2015). However, very few land trusts have systems in place to assess the