Oak Habitat Metric - Willamette Partnership...Oak woodlands, despite their ecological importance,...

Oak HabitatMetric

A rapid assessment measuring oak woodland and savanna

habitat quality for improved conservation outcomes

With support from:Natural Resources Conservation Service

Benjamin Hammett, Ph. D.Bullitt Foundation

March 2012

User’s Guide

© 2012 Defenders of Wildlife

Cover photographs are by Bruce Taylor, Oregon Habitat Joint Venture. Cover inset photos: Varied thrush by Ron LeValley,Mule deer by Gary Zahm, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Contents

Acknowledgements 5

Introduction 8

Application of the Metric 10

Instructions for Using the Metric 13

Limitations 19

How the Scores are Calculated 20

Development of the Metric 22

Glossary 23

Key References 27

Oak Habitat MetricUser’s Guide

Although the contractors were compensated for their work, they all willingly contributed much more than theymay have bargained for. Others volunteered their time.

Financial support was provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service under a Conservation Innovations Grant. The Bullitt Foundation and Benjamin Hammett, Ph.D., provided matching funds.

Paul Adamus, Adamus Resource Assessment, developed the Oak Habitat Calculator and helped with some of the narrative in the Oak Habitat Metric User’s Guide. Bobby Cochran, director of the Willamette Partnership,provided meeting facilitation and advice along the way to help guide the structure of the Oak Habitat Metricand process for engaging stakeholders. Tom Kay and Rachel Schwindt, Institute for Applied Ecology, conductedthe field testing.

Very generous and helpful landowners provided five testing sites. These included the Dear Ranch, Jefferson Farm,Von Hagen/Rowena property, and two sites on the Zena Forest.

Sara Vickerman, Senior Director of Biodiversity Partnerships for Defenders of Wildlife, managed the project.Christina Skirvin, Defenders of Wildlife, performed technical editing of the Oak Habitat Calculator and wrotethe majority of the Oak Habitat Metric User’s Guide. Kassandra Kelly, Defenders of Wildlife, helped design theOak Habitat Metric User’s Guide.

The development of the Oak Habitat Metric would not have been

possible without the following people and organizations.

Joe Bowersox, director of the Sustainability Center atWillamette University, hosted the expert advisor meetings in Salem.

Bob Altman –American Bird Conservancy Dan Bell, Ed Alverson – The Nature ConservancyJoe Bowersox – Willamette UniversityLynda Boyer – Heritage SeedlingsKaren Bennett, Nikola Smith, Kathy Bulchis, Jane

Kertis, Cindy McCain – U.S. Forest ServiceCalLee Davenport, Shauna Ginger, David Ross, Steve

Smith – U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceRenee Davis-Born – Oregon Watershed Enhancement

BoardSara Duemling – Zena TimberJon Germond, Rod Krahmer – Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Jane Hartline – Lost Lagoon Farm Kim Hudnall – Yamhill Co. District ConservationistJimmy Kagan – Oregon Institute for Natural

ResourcesPeter Kenagy – Kenagy Farm Clair Klock – Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation

DistrictGlenn Lamb – Columbia Land Trust Jeremy Maestas, Todd Peplin, David Chain – Natural

Resource Conservation Service John Miller – Wildwood, MahoniaJoe Moll – McKenzie Land TrustMichael Pope – Greenbelt Land Trust David Primozich – Freshwater TrustSue Reams – Polk County ConservationistBrad Withrow-Robinson – Oregon State UniversitySara O’Brien, Bruce Taylor – Defenders of Wildlife

Expert advisors attended meetings and/or provided advice

between meetings. They are:

Oak savanna in the William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge. Photo by George Gentry. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

8

Introduction

Oak woodlands and oak savanna were once widelydistributed across the western United States, espe-

cially in the valleys of western Oregon and Washington.Generally found at mid-elevation, most of these lands are in private ownership and have eitherbeen converted to other uses or remain vulnerable toconversion. They are particularly likely to be developedfor residential or agricultural uses, especially vineyards.They are also threatened by the invasion of Douglas fir, a commercially valuable conifer species that thrives underconditions in which fire is suppressed. Oak woodlands,despite their ecological importance, are generally not regulated by local, state, or federal agencies. However,there are a number of incentive programs and philan-thropic investments that prioritize oak woodlands.

There are a variety of different approaches to the conservation of oak woodlands and savanna. Invasivespecies, like ivy, blackberry, scotch broom and other invasive species can be removed, enhancing the potentialfor oaks to thrive. Often it is necessary to remove over-abundant conifers like Douglas fir. Cattle can bemanaged to avoid damage to young seedlings. In areaswhere human structures are not an issue, fire can be reintroduced to the system. Several federal and stateagencies are investing substantial amounts of money onconservation efforts. Are they working? How do weknow?

There is a growing interest in measuring conservationoutcomes rather than implementing management practices in scattered locations and hoping for the best.The Oak Habitat Metric (metric) is one of several ecological measures that have been developed to helpmanagers determine where to invest limited resources

and how to calculate the ecological impact and improvement associated with the implementation of conservation actions. The metric is encompassed in twodocuments, this Oak Habitat Metric User’s Guide (user’sguide) and an Oak Habitat Calculator (calculator), and may be used to measure the impact to oak habitat on a development site, and to measure the habitat improvement on a site managed for conservation. It ispart of a larger effort to provide information on the overall ecological context within oak woodland and savanna ecosystems and to implement mitigation programs more strategically.

Each assessment may be applied to an area of development or conservation (defined as “project site”throughout this user’s guide and calculator).1 Experts,advisors, and contractors designed the metric to measurethe quality of a project site’s oak ecosystem. Metric userswill assess project site conditions using maps, aerial imagery, existing databases, interviews with people whoare familiar with the science and history of the projectsite, and at least one project site visit. During the projectsite visit(s), data will be gathered which may confirm or correct information obtained from other sources. Resulting data are entered into the calculator to reveal afinal score: the Oak Habitat Quality Score. The score isexpressed as a percentage of optimum.

The user’s guide and calculator will be included in a suiteof ecological measures under the Willamette Partnership’sprogram, Counting on the Environment,2

as well as on the Conservation Registry’s website (see http://www.conservationregistry.org/). Other similar calculators within the Counting on the Environmentprogram have been developed for sagebrush/sage grouse,

1 “Project site” as used in the metric is not the same as “Ecological Site” (a term used by Natural Resources Conservation Service andother resource planners).2 Counting on the Environment: http://willamettepartnership.org/ongoing-projects-and-activities/nrcs-conservation-innovations-grant-1

floodplain habitat, upland prairie and wetlands, whichare also habitats at risk throughout the western UnitedStates.

Metric users who wish to register, or expect to be buyingor selling, habitat credits in a regulatory context

(as in candidate conservation banking) may wish to have their credits verified and registered on the Ecosystem Crediting Platform (see http://willamettepartnership.ecosystemcredits.org/for more detail on the crediting platform and requirements for participation).

9

Chipping sparrow. Photo by Dave Mencke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

10

Application of the Metric

This tool is intended to provide an assessment of thehabitat quality of a localized area containing (or po-

tentially containing) oak habitat. “Habitat quality” is de-fined as the capacity of an area to currently supporthealthy populations of native animal or plant species ofconservation concern that typify oak woodland or oak savanna ecosystems in some part of the western UnitedStates. This assessment is intended to be applicable primarily to western Oregon and Washington. It mayalso be applicable to California and other parts of thewestern United States that potentially, or actually, support a predominance of oak woodland or oak sa-vanna. This includes vegetation types classified as NorthPacific Oak Woodland, Mediterranean California LowerMontane Black Oak-Conifer Forest and Woodland (principally in areas that support more conifer cover),and Mediterranean California Mixed Oak Woodland.

If wetlands are present on the project site, exclude them from the assessment area. Instead use a different assessment tool such as Oregon Wetlands AssessmentProtocol (ORWAP),3 in Oregon, or Wetland EcosystemServices Protocol (WESP)4 elsewhere.

The assessment may be used to:

Assess the impacts of development;a) Assess the impacts of reducing threats and hazards;b) Assess the implications of planned management c) actions, e.g., prescribed fire, weed control, evergreentree removal;Monitor changes resulting from (a-c);d) Prioritize oak habitat sites for management actions,e) regulation, or preservation;

Assess the equivalency of areas dominated by oaks f) as part of land exchange transactions and off-site mitigation.

Some of these applications may be useful for programssuch as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Private Land Habitatprograms (e.g., Access and Habitat), and incentives onpublic lands through development of Candidate Conservation Agreements.

CATEGORIES5 IN THE OAK HABITATCALCULATOR

VegetationOaks on the project site — a higher proportion of•oaks, 20 feet or taller — on the project site raises thefinal score.Oak species on the project site — if all oak species•that are expected to occur in the project site’s geographic location and elevation are present on aproject site, then the final score will increase.Shrub and vine cover — the final score is greatest•when the project site’s oak forest, woodland, and savanna contain anywhere between a trace amount ofshrub and vine cover (excluding chaparral) and 50%cover.Invasive shrub and vine cover — a higher proportion•of invasive shrub and vine cover (excluding chaparral)within the project site’s oak forest, woodland, and savanna lowers the final score.

3 http://oregonstatelands.us/DSL/WETLAND/or_wet_prot.shtml4 http://people.oregonstate.edu/~adamusp/WESP/5 Willamette Partnership. 2011. Measuring Up: Synchronizing Biodiversity Measurement Systems for Markets and Other Incentive Programs. The Willamette Partnership, Hillsboro, OR. 39p. http://willamettepartnership.org/measuring-up/Measuring Up.pdf(These are categories of indicators consistent with the national framework described in the Willamette Partnership’s Measuring Upreport (which was sponsored by the national Office of Environmental Markets). The framework suggests using the following categories to evaluate ecosystems and/or habitat.)

Invasive herbaceous vegetation cover — a higher •proportion of invasive herbaceous vegetation (forbsand grasses) cover within the project site’s oak forest,woodland, and savanna lowers the final score.Conifers on the project site — a higher proportion •of conifers (excluding pine and juniper) within theproject site’s oak forest, woodland, and savanna lowersthe final score.

ContextAssessment of land cover — increased presence of•trees, shrubs/chaparral, native perennial grasslands(non-wetland), and other grasslands mowed or grazedno more than once annually within a ½-mile of thecenter of the project site raises the final score.Patches of oak and native grassland — a project site•with large patches of contiguous oak and native grass-land within close proximity to other oak and nativegrassland patches receives a higher score than a projectsite with smaller patches spaced farther apart.Proximity to a conservation priority area — the final•score increases for a project site within or nearly contiguous to a designated priority area for habitatconservation or restoration.

RiskLand cover on the project site — a greater proportion•of a project site’s land cover in trees, shrubs/chaparral,native perennial grasslands (non-wetland), and othergrasslands mowed or grazed no more than once annually raises the final score.Paved roads — paved roads completely encircling a•project site lowers the final score.Pesticides — closer proximity of a project site’s oaks•to areas likely to be sprayed for insect control lowersthe final score.Soil disturbance — greater soil disturbance on a •project site lowers the final score.

SpeciesSpecial-status plant species — presence of a special-•status plant species on a project site raises the finalscore.

Special status animal species — presence of a special-•status animal species that is reproducing on or withina ½-mile of the project site raises the final score.

PracticesBest management practices — a greater proportion of•oak habitat best management practices implementedon more than 15% of a project site raises the finalscore.Fire feasibility — a project site where fire can and has•been used, within the last five years, to help sustain itsoak habitat receives a higher final score.Adaptive management — a project site whose vegeta-•tion is actively monitored before and after manage-ment with results being used to modify futuremanagement practices receives a higher final score.

This assessment is designed to be program-neutral. It isintended to be applied to an area that will be impactedby development or a conservation action. It is suitablefor application in formal mitigation programs, incentiveprograms, payments for ecosystem services, ecosystemservice valuation studies, and to help guide conservationinvestments. For example, at the site of a proposed development, a baseline assessment can determine the overall quality of the habitat at the site of impact. Eitherhypothetically or after the development is complete, theassessment can be repeated to quantify the reduction inhabitat quality. The difference between the baseline scoreand the post-development score is a measure of impact.Where conservation projects (including mitigation actions) are planned, a baseline assessment followed by a repeat assessment after conservation actions are implemented will quantify the ecological improvement oruplift. In landowner incentive programs, the assessmentcan be used to compare sites, or to measure the habitatimprovement after conservation projects are completed.For more traditional land protection programs, like feetitle acquisitions, conservation easements, or protectivedesignations, the assessment can be used to determinewhich sites offer the highest quality habitat and help

11

determine which ones are more likely to be ecologicallyviable long term. However, the assessment is not designed for use in landscape-scale assessments or management plans.

This assessment is distinguished from most other oakhabitat assessment methods partly by generating a single“project site quality score” for an assessed area, withoutthe use of GIS (although this may be helpful), and by requiring no more than one day per project site to apply,

including both a project site visit and review of back-ground information. It does not require advanced skillsin the identification of vascular plants, lichens, birds, in-sects, or other fauna. However, it is not intended for useby most landowners, since a background or education inbiology, ecology, or environmental sciences is necessary.Beyond that, all that is required are printed copies of alldata forms and a computer with access to MicrosoftExcel and the Internet.

12

Volunteers at an oak savanna restoration site, Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge,Oregon. Photo by George Gentry, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

13

Instructions for Using the Metric

This metric includes two documents, this user’s guideand a calculator (an Excel workbook). Both office

and fieldwork are required to complete the assessment.

Calculator updates This metric (calculator and user’s guide) may be updatedperiodically. Be sure to use the most recent version of thecalculator and user’s guide for each assessment. Beforeevaluating a project site, check the Conservation Registryweb site (http://marketplace.conservationregistry.org/) orthe Willamette Partnership web site (http://willamet-tepartnership.org/) to confirm the most current versionsof the calculator and user’s guide in use. Once a projectassessment has begun, use the same version of the calcu-lator and user’s guide throughout the life of the project.Do not transfer data to a newer version even if one wasreleased while the assessment was taking place.

Again, if wetlands are present on the project site, excludethem from the assessment area.

TO START: IN THE OFFICE

1. Obtain the Oak Habitat Metric Calculator ExcelWorkbook6

The calculator and user’s guide can be found and downloaded from two different websites: (1) Conserva-tion Registry http://marketplace.conservationregistry.org/and (2) Willamette Partnership http://willamettepartner-ship.org/. Note: It is recommended that all calculator usersprint and keep on hand the user’s guide; not only will it behelpful in the office, but it will be very useful during theproject site visit.

Download the calculator and change the file name to onethat uniquely describes the project site, e.g., OakCalcula-tor_RockyFlat3.xls.

Open the newly saved file. Do an initial review of theworkbook. The following will help guide this process.The calculator contains eight worksheets. The eight worksheet tabs are:

Worksheets into which data will be entered on the com-puter:

Cover Page•Calculator•Oak•

Worksheets that serve as guidelines and may be printedto bring to the field:

RareVertebrates (for Q #8)•RarePlants (for Q #9)•Invasives (for Q #13 and #14)•

Worksheets that must be printed to bring to the field:Cover Page Form•Project Site Visit Form•

There are colored cells throughout the calculator. Thekey below indicates the meaning of each color and willhelp with navigation among the worksheets.

Throughout the calculator and user’s guide one will findreferences to categories, indicators, subscores, and data.Here is how they are interrelated. As data are entered,Excel calculates a subscore for each indicator. Each indicator falls within a category.

6 In Excel, an entire document is called a “workbook.” Within a workbook, there are multiple “worksheets.” Each worksheet canbe accessed by its respective tab at the bottom of the workbook. The name on the tab is the name of the worksheet.

After all data have been entered, the calculator automati-cally computes the following scores:

indicator subscores•composite indicator subscores•final habitat quality score•

Note: Follow the way the final score is calculated by following the tables down the Calculator worksheet: mainindicators composite indicators final score.

While working through the assessment, use the previous paragraphs as reference. Also, the Glossaryprovides more detailed definitions of terms, tables,and worksheets.

2. Obtain and review images, maps, and other documents

Aerial images, existing maps, and other data sources willneed to be obtained before data can be entered on theCover Page worksheet and the Main Indicators Table onthe Calculator worksheet:

Obtain the most recent and detailed (finest-resolu-1) tion) aerial image available that covers the project site.Google Earth7 may be the most convenient sourcebut should not be used if higher-resolution images are easily available. Print the aerial image and mark theboundaries of the project site. Within the designatedproject site, farmed, grazed, or developed areas maybe included if they are interspersed with oak and willbe restored or manipulated to restore or enhance oakhabitat. If different management actions/practicesare being proposed for (or have been applied on)different parts of the same property/parcel, do notdesignate the entire property/parcel as a singleproject site; instead assess each area separately(project site = one management action/practice).Note: Alternatively, if your objective is to prioritizeamong several properties for conservation, then limit your project site boundaries to areas dominated by oakwoodland or oak savanna within the property boundaries of each parcel being considered.

Determine if areas containing oak, or potential to2) support oak, have already been mapped within theproject site (and, ideally, at a finer scale on the property). If so, obtain and review the maps, usingthem to inform the answers to the questions in theMain Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet.Note: If the project site is very large (e.g.; >1000 acres)and located in the Willamette Valley of Oregon,1:24,000 scale spatial data showing oak woodlands inpart of that region may be obtained from NorthwestHabitat Institute: http://www.nwhi.org/index/gis-data#Willamette%20Valley%20Specific%20GIS%20Data.

It is necessary to know, for question #11 in the Main3) Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet, all ofthe oak species expected to occur in the same geo-graphic area and at the same elevation as the projectsite. A range map for each oak species can be foundat: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/. Make noteof all the oak species expected to occur on the project site for use during the project site visit.(Washington = usually 1 species, Oregon = usually 2,California = up to 5)

Request information from the State Natural Heritage4) Program or other sources on occurrences of plants or animals of conservation concern that have beendocumented within the project site (this will helpwith answering questions #8 and #9 in the Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet). Note: There may be a fee for this information.

Determine if vegetation data has already been 5) collected from the project site as part of recent surveysfor an Ecological Site Inventory, Rangeland HealthAssessment, or other purpose. If so, review the data.Such data might be available from the local offices ofthe Bureau of Land Management, Natural ResourcesConservation Service, Forest Service, university extension, watershed councils, or state agencies.

14

7 http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

Contact the project site’s landowner(s) and/or 6) managers to get a historical understanding of theproperty before the project site visit. This can be donethrough a phone call or email, even a preliminary visitif that is most helpful. Note: While an initial contact is particularly important to gain permission to visit the project site and to provide historical context, continue to follow up with thelandowner or manager as needed throughout the process.

3. Enter Information on Cover Page

The cover page provides a summary of project site infor-mation as well as the final score. Note: This page can beprinted and serve as an overview document upon completionof the assessment.

On the cover page, enter relevant data into all data boxes except the Final Score Table; the final score will

automatically update after all data has been entered onthe Calculator worksheet.

The cover page solicits important information on projectsite history; please include this information here.

Answer questions #1-#9 using the aerial images, existingmaps, and other data sources.

For a majority of the questions in the Main IndicatorsTable, there will be drop-down menus from which thecorrect answer should be selected. Use the drop-downmenus whenever they are available.

For question #2, while in the office, use the aerial imagery to approximate percentages of each land use option on the project site. Then, during the field visit,observe the site in its entirety and adjust percentages, ifnecessary, according to what is physically seen.

15

Aerial map of an oak savanna test site. Image courtesy of the Conservation Registry.

Do not rely on aerial imagery alone to answer question #2 unless the project site is very large (and,thus, impossible to be viewed in its entirety) or areas ofthe project site cannot be viewed/accessed during thefield visit. If aerial imagery is used to answer this question,then the answers to question #2 and #3 should be the same.

For question #4, the Oak Table (on the Oak worksheet)must be used. When determining the largest patch of con-tiguous and native grassland (Column A), compare allpatches that are located either completely within, and onlypartially within, the project site’s boundaries. Choose the

largest one. For those largest patches that are locatedpartially within the boundaries of the project site, in-clude acreage both on and off the project site when determining the total patch size. (e.g.; on a project site,the largest determined patch has .5 acre within the project site boundaries and 25 acres outside. The totalpatch size is, then, 25.5 acres, and the number used inColumn A.)

Once question #9 is completed, save the document.

5. Gather Materials for Project Site Visit

Locate the two forms within the saved Excel workbook(see the purple-highlighted tabs). They are the:1. Cover Page Form.2. Project Site Visit Form

Print each form.

Fill in, by hand, (1) data entered in questions #1through #9 on the Main Indicators Table of the Calcu-lator worksheet on the printed Project Site Visit Form and(2) the information from the Cover Page worksheet onthe printed Cover Page Form.

Use the following handy checklist of all the materialsneeded for the project site visit:

Materials Checklist:1. Printed aerial image2. The list of all oak species expected to occur

on the project site3. User’s Guide4. Cover Page Form5. Project Site Visit Form6. Pen/pencil

Note: Before heading into the field, review the RareVertebrates,RarePlants, and Invasives worksheets as they may help withanswering some of the questions in the Main Indicators Table. Print, if necessary; however, there are quite a few pages associated with each worksheet.

16

*a detailed explanation of each category and indicator can be found inthe Glossary

PROJECT SITE VISIT

Note: If possible, revisit the project site at a different time ofthe growing season and modify responses to account for anydifferences noted.

Project Site Form

Answer questions #10-#19 on the Project Site VisitForm.

For question #11, confirm whether or not all expectedoak species are actually on the project site.

When answering Question #17, examine all existingoak and native grassland on the entire parcel/property,not just within the project site’s boundaries. Since aproject site is defined as an area where one managementaction/practice is being proposed or has been imple-mented, look at the property/parcel in its entirety whenevaluating the use of the three management actions/practices in question.

Refine responses to the questions already answered in theoffice as appropriate (questions #1 through #9).

Reminder: Go back to question #2, during the project sitevisit, and adjust percentages, if necessary, according towhat is physically seen at the project site. If the projectsite is very large (and, thus, impossible to be viewed in its entirety) or areas of the project site cannot beviewed/accessed during the field visit, then aerial imagerywill have to be relied upon to answer question #2.

Cover Page Form

Refine and add to the information on the Cover PageForm as necessary, documenting highlights of the field assessment.

BACK AT THE OFFICE

Enter all the hand-written data obtained from the projectsite visit into the saved Excel file:

Data from the Cover Page Form go on the Cover Page•worksheet.Data from questions #10-#19 of the Project Site •Visit Form go on the Main Indicators Table on theCalculator worksheet.

If any modifications were made in the field to questions #1 through #13, update them now on theMain Indicators Table on the calculator worksheet.

Review all of the data entered in the Main IndicatorsTable on the calculator worksheet, confirming that eachquestion has in fact been answered fully and completely.

On the Calculator worksheet, do NOT enter informationinto the Composite Indicators Table or Final Score Tableas they will be automatically populated with data.

Once all data have been entered in the Main IndicatorsTable on the Calculator worksheet, the final score willcompute automatically. Review the result to see if itmakes sense intuitively. If not, double check all ques-tions in the Main Indicators Table, confirming they wereanswered completely and correctly, corresponding to theon-the-ground facts. If no errors are apparent and thefinal score still seems incorrect, try changing responses to the questions to see instantly how they influence thefinal score. This process may help point out a data entryerror. Of course, change the answers back to the originalones afterwards.

If certain responses and the final score still seem counter-intuitive, describe possible reasons on the Cover Pageworksheet. Also, information in the “How the Scores areCalculated” section of the user’s guide might help explainthe reasons for the score.

Note: If assessing other project sites or other scenarios for thesame project site, name each Excel file uniquely and save it,then repeat the above for each project site.

17

4. Begin Entering Data in the Calculator worksheet

At the top of the Calculator worksheet, re-enter the name of the project site and date assessed. This is thesame information entered on the Cover Page worksheet.

CATEGORY VS. INDICATORS VS. SUBSCORESVS. DATA

Throughout the calculator and user’s guide one will findreferences to categories, indicators, subscores, and data.Here is how they are interrelated. As data are entered,Excel calculates a subscore for each indicator. Each indicator falls within a category.

18

Oaks in Camassia Natural Area, West Linn, Oregon. Photo by Jenne Reische.

19

Limitations

This metric is not intended to be the only tool to inform decision-making. It could be used as an ini-

tial screening tool for deciding where and when more intensive and costly assessment protocols need to be employed (e.g.; point-intercept sampling of vegetationspecies composition, insect surveys). More time-consum-ing and precise methods should be used to detect relatively subtle changes at a project site between years, or to define realistic quantitative expectations for specificoak plant communities or habitat structures that arebeing rehabilitated or enhanced. Also, the metric is not intended to predict future condition of the vegetation in an area, either as a result of project actions or fromnatural succession, climate change, or other factors.

The Oak Habitat Quality Score has not been optimizedto predict the habitat of any single species, nor does it attempt to (a) assess the capacity of a particular projectsite to sustain oak habitat over the long term (e.g.; “project site index”), or (b) parse out the individualservices of oak ecosystems such as carbon sequestration,soil stabilization, pollination support, and forage production. Because the assessment does not predictspecies occurrences or require comprehensive inventoriesof wildlife use or vegetation composition at the specieslevel, there is a risk that some elements of biodiversitymay be lost in land exchanges and other projects if thismetric is used alone. Therefore, whenever possible,

more comprehensive species surveys and more rigorousassessments of ecosystem “health” should be conducted.

Different indicators, thresholds, and indicator weights(e.g., for patch size, vegetation structure, and condition)may sometimes be appropriate for different oak habitatcommunity types within the oak habitat ecosystem. This assessment does not incorporate those differencesbecause of lack of sufficient data on each communityfrom a spectrum of reference project sites encompassingboth the human stressor gradient and natural spatial andtemporal variation. Also, even when limited only to consideration of oak habitat, the assessment does not useall variables important to predicting habitat quality oroak habitat integrity. It uses only those that are science-based and can be assessed rapidly during a single project site visit or by using data that are availablefrom other sources throughout most of Oregon andWashington. When this metric is used to compare twoproperties, it should be used to compare properties onlywithin the same ecoregion.

All of these caveats aside, what this metric does offer is a quick and low-cost tool to generate relative measuresof a project site’s ecological and oak habitat values. Used appropriately, it can provide useful guidance forconservation and management decisions in oak habitatsacross the west.

Band-tailed pigeon.Photo by GaryKramer, USFWS.

20

How the Scores are Calculated

The questions answered in the office and field (in the Main Indicators Table on the Calculator

worksheet) produce subscores. Those subscores are used to calculate subscores for six composite indicators(in the Composite Indicators Table on the Calculatorworksheet). The composite indicator subscores are thenweighted and used in the final score equation. Note: Follow the way the final score is calculated by following the tables down the Calculator worksheet: mainindicators composite indicators final score.

WEIGHTS

The Oak Habitat Quality Score comes from combiningthe subscores for six composite indicators that areweighted differently, with maximum possible weightsshown in parentheses below, followed by the abbreviations used in the calculator.

Landscape context (3) (Lscape)Invasive species of vegetation (3) (Invas)Risks/stressors (2) (Risk)Management practices (1) (Mgt)Vegetation structure (1) (Veg)Sensitive/rare species (1) (Spp)

The main indicator weights, found in the Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet, are determined by taking the assigned weight of a compositeindicator (1, 2, or 3) and dividing by the number of indicator variables in that composite indicator equation(e.g., 2/3 = 0.6). However, the Main Indicators Table onthe Calculator worksheet has a column titled “MaximumWeight in Oak Habitat Quality Final Score” becausesome of the indicators will have a different weight in thefinal score depending on the data entered. Thus, theweights listed in these columns are the maximumamount each particular main indicator could have in influencing the final score.

In general, advisory participants, collectively, recommended the weights given to each of the composite

indicators that make up the final score. Nonetheless, ahigh degree of discretion had to be exercised in assigningthese weights and formulating the categories of indicatorgroupings and combination rules. This is not meant tobe a deterministic model, and science is insufficient toclearly support a specific set of weights, groupings, andcombination rules. Several alternatives were tested, andthe ones in the final version of the calculator seemed tomatch well the rankings of the test sites based on the field tester’s general impressions. However, the Composite Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheethas a column titled “Maximum Weight in Oak HabitatQuality Final Score” because some of the composite indicators have a different weight in the final score depending on the data entered. Thus, the weights listed in these columns are the maximum amount eachparticular composite indicator could have in influencingthe final score.

TECHNICAL NOTES

1. When a main indicator subscore is left blank, eitherthrough instruction or by mistake, it is not carriedforward into a composite indicator equation, and is,thus, not included in the final score. If a composite indicator subscore is blank, because all its main indi-cators have been left blank, it is not included in thefinal score. Blank answers do not function as “0” an-swers. Not until data is entered, zero or otherwise,will a main indicator or composite indicator be in-cluded in subsequent scores.

2. Most of the composite indicator equations are calculated by averaging relevant main indicator subscores. However, the composite indicator, “Spp,”uses either the main indicator, “RarePlants,” subscoreor the main indicator, “RareAnim,” subscore,whichever is greater, as its subscore.

3. Within the final score equation, an AVERAGE function is included; it contains three composite indicators, “Risk,” “Mgt,” and “Spp.” Both “Spp”

and “Mgt” have the potential to be blank, dependingon how the main indicators in their respective equa-tions are answered, and not included in the finalscore. Thus, the weights of all three of these compos-ite indicators could vary in the final score.

4. The composite indicator, “Mgt,” includes three mainindicators, “BMPs,” FireFeas,” and “AdaptMgt.” Allthree of these main indicators may be blank, in a sin-gle project site evaluation, depending on the condi-tions at the project site. If they are all blank, thecomposite indicator will be blank. This would drop“Mgt” out of the final score, increasing the weight ofboth “Risk” and “Spp.”

5. The main indicator, “SInvas,” will be blank if a useranswers "None" to question #12. In that case, “SIn-vas” will not be included in subsequent equations.

6. If a user selects “Not applicable — fire not needed tosustain this project site’s oak habitat” in question#18, the main indicator, “FireFeas” will be blankand, thus, not included in subsequent equations.

7. If a user selects “unnecessary” in all three parts ofquestion #17, the main indicator, “BMPs,” will be blank and, thus, not included in subsequent equations.

8. Some main indicators drop out of a composite indicator equation because their subscores are blank, as instructed; thus, the weights of the main indicators remaining in that composite indicatorequation increase. If “AdaptMgt” is blank becauseno management is necessary, then “AdaptMgt” dropsout of the composite indicator, “Mgt,” and theweight of both “BMPs” and “FireFeas” increase in the final score.

9. Some composite indicators will drop out of the final score because each of the main indicator subscores involved in their equation were blank;thus, the weights of the composite indicators remaining in that part of the final equation increase.Both main indicators, “RareAnim” and “RarePlant,”could potentially have subscores that are blank if auser selects “no information” as the answer to bothquestions. If both of these main indicators are blank,they drop out of the “Spp” composite indicator equation. Since the only main indicators involved inthe “Spp” equation are “RareAnim” and “RarePlant,”if they are both blank, then “Spp” will be blank. Inthat case, “Spp” drops out of the final equation andthe average of just “Risk” and “Mgt” will be taken.This, then, increases the weight both “Risk” and“Mgt” have in the final score.

21

22

Development of the Metric

This metric was developed by Paul Adamus ofAdamus Resource Assessment under a Natural Re-

sources Conservation Service Conservation InnovationGrant awarded to Defenders of Wildlife. The BullittFoundation and Benjamin Hammett, Ph.D. providedmatching funds. At the outset of the effort, journal articles and reports related to the ecology of oak habitatwere compiled, prioritized for review, and most were reviewed.

Development of the metric began with a half-day workshop of technical experts and stakeholders fromOregon hosted by Defenders of Wildlife, facilitated by

the Willamette Partnership, and held in Salem, Oregon,in December 2010. The metric was then refined in twosubsequent half-day workshops of oak woodland expertsand stakeholders and applied to a limited number ofproject sites in Oregon by Rachel Schwindt, Institute ofEcology. Paul Adamus and Bobby Cochran, director ofthe Willamette Partnership, then used the results and recommendations to adjust field data forms and scoringweights, leading to the final version of the calculator.With further use, additional modifications may be madeto improve the accuracy, sensitivity, and applicability ofthe metric, especially in other western states.

Oak titmouse. Photo by Gary Kramer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

23

Glossary for the Oak Habitat Calculator Workbook

Term Definition Location in the Metric Notes

AdaptMgt

Adaptive Management. A main indicator, within the Practices category of indicators, measuring adaptive management practices on a project site. Adaptive management includes the monitoring of a project site's vegetation before and after management (according to a statistically-based sampling plan) and, then, using the results to modify future management practices.

Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet Question #19

AllSpp

All Oak Species. A main indicator, within the Vegetation category of indicators, measuring whether or not a project site contains all the oak species expected to occur in its geographic location and elevation.


BMPs

Best Management Practices. A main indicator, within the Practices category of indicators, measuring the proportion of the entire parcel/property's* wooded area where certain best management practices have been (or will be) implemented. *This is the entire parcel/property that the project site is located within.


Calculator Worksheet

One of the worksheets in the Oak Habitat Calculator workbook. The Main Indicators Table, Composite Indicators Table, and Final Score Table are all located within this worksheet. A user answers the 19 questions in the Main Indicators Table.

Oak Habitat Calculator workbook Find the other worksheets by clicking on the tabs at the bottom of the workbook.

Category The column that denotes categories of indicators as defined in the 2011 report Measuring Up , by Willamette Partnership.

Main Indicators Table and Composite Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet

Composite Indicator Description The column explaining how each composite indicator is calculated. Composite Indicators Table on the

Calculator worksheet

Composite Indicator Name The column denoting the name of each composite indicator. Composite Indicators Table on the


Composite Indicator Subscore The column denoting the numeric value of each composite indicator. Composite Indicators Table on the


Composite Indicators Table The table including all composite indicators. Calculator worksheet The composite indicator equations are

derived from main indicators.

Conif

Conifers. A main indicator, within the Vegetation category of indicators, measuring the proportion of conifers (excluding pine and juniper) taller than 20 feet within a project site's oak forest, woodland, and savanna.


Context

A category of indicators describing the value of a project site in relation to the broader landscape. This category is comparable to the"Contextual Value" category discussed in the 2011 report Measuring Up, by Willamette Partnership.


Cover Page Form worksheet

One of the worksheets in the Oak Habitat Calculator workbook. Print and take on the project site visit. Oak Habitat Calculator workbook Find the other worksheets by clicking on

the tabs at the bottom of the workbook.

Cover Page worksheet One of the worksheets in the Oak Habitat Calculator workbook. A user enters project site information within the indicated boxes. Oak Habitat Calculator workbook Find the other worksheets by clicking on

the tabs at the bottom of the workbook.

Data Entry The column where data is entered. Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet

Users are instructed to only put data in the yellow-colored cells within this column.

Distance Between Patches (Column C)

The column denoting the distance between the two patches identifiedin Column A (the largest contiguous oak and native grassland patch located at least partially within a project site's boundaries) and Column B (the next closest oak and native grassland patch).

Oak Table on the Oak worksheet

DistOak

Distance Between Oak Patches. A main indicator, within the Context category of indicators, measuring the area-weighted distance between the largest patch of contiguous oak and native grassland located at least partially within a project site to the next closest oak and native grassland patch.


EncircPaved Roads Encircling Project Site. A main indicator, within the Risk category of indicators, measuring whether or not a project site is completely encircled by paved roads.


Final Score The column denoting the numeric value of the final score. Final Score Table on the Calculator worksheet

24



Final Score Description The column explaining how the final score is calculated. Final Score Table on the Calculator

worksheet

Final Score Name The column denoting the name of the final score. Final Score Table on the Calculator worksheet

Final Score Table The table including the final score, Oak Habitat Quality. Calculator worksheet and Cover Page worksheet

The final score is derived from composite indicators.

FireFeasFire Feasibility. A main indicator, within the Practices category of indicators, measuring how fire is used to sustain a project site's oak habitat.


GoodSoilSoil Disturbance. A main indicator, within the Risk category of indicators, measuring the degree to which soil on a project site has been (or will be) disturbed beyond its natural state.


HInvas

Invasive Herb Species. A main indicator, within the Vegetation category of indicators, measuring the proportion of a project site's oak forest, woodland, and savanna that is comprised of invasive species of herbaceous vegetation (forbs and grasses).


IndicatorVariables used to indicate the oak habitat quality of the project site. Divided into the following categories: Context, Practices, Risk, Species, and Vegetation.

throughout the user's guide and calculator

InvasInvasives on the Project Site. A composite indicator, within the Vegetation category of indicators, measuring the proportion of invasive species of vegetation on a project site.

Composite Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet

Equation: AVERAGE(Conif, SInvas, HInvas)

Invasives (for Q #13 and #14) worksheet

One of the worksheets in the Oak Habitat Calculator workbook. A user can find some guidance on the most invasive plant species in North America.


Lscape Landscape on the Project Site. A composite indicator, within the Context category of indicators, measuring landscape context on a project site.


Equation: AVERAGE(LU.5mi, DistOak, PrioArea)

LU.5miLand Use within 1/2-mile of Project Site. A main indicator, within the Context category of indicators, measuring the land use of all the land within a 1/2-mile of the center of a project site.


LUsiteLand Use of Project Site. A main indicator, within the Context category of indicators, measuring the land use of the land within a project site's boundaries.


Main Indicator Name The column denoting the name of each main indicator. Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet

Main Indicator Subscore The column denoting the numeric value of each main indicator. Main Indicators Table on the Calculator

worksheet

Main Indicators Table The table including all main indicators. Calculator worksheet

Maximum Weight in Oak Habitat Quality Final Score

The column denoting the maximum weight said indicator will have in the final score.


MgtManagement Practices on the Project Site. A composite indicator, within the Practices category of indicators, measuring the suitability of the management actions/practices on a project site.


Equation: AVERAGE(BMPs, FireFeas, AdaptMgt)

Oak worksheet

One of the worksheets in the Oak Habitat Calculator workbook. The Oak Table is located within this worksheet. A user will use the Oak Table to answer question #4 in the Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet.


Oak Habitat Calculator workbook

The entire Excel document, containing eight worksheets, including the calculator.

Downloadable from two different websites: (1) Conservation Registry http://www.conservationregistry.org/ and (2) Willamette Partnership http://willamettepartnership.org/

25



Oak Habitat Quality Score

The final score, produced by the metric, to measure the quality of a project site's oak ecosystem.

Final Score Table on the Calculator worksheet

Equation: (3*Invas + 3*Lscape + (2*AVERAGE(Risk,Mgt,Spp)) + Veg)/9). It is not intended to be the only or best tool to inform decision-making. (See Limitations section of the user's guide.)

Oak Table

The table including weighted scores for the distance between the largest contiguous oak and native grassland patch located at least partially within the project site's boundaries to the next closest oak and native grassland patch.

Oak worksheetThis table is used to answer question #4 in the Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet.

PctOakPercent of Oak on a Project Site. A main indicator, within the Vegetation category of indicators, measuring the proportion of hardwood trees on a project site, 20 feet or taller, that are oak.


Practices

A category of indicators showing whether or not a project site is being managed suitably. This category is comparable to the "Appropriate Management Practices" category discussed in the 2011 report Measuring Up , by Willamette Partnership.


PrioArea

Designated Priority Area. A main indicator, within the Context category of indicators, specifying whether or not a project site is within, or contiguous to, a designated area for habitat conservation orrestoration.


Project Site Each assessment will be applied to an area of development or conservation, this area is referred to as the "project site". throughout the calculator and user's guide

“Project site” as used in this assessment is not the same as “Ecological Site” (a term used by Natural Resources Conservation Service and other resource planners).

Project Site Visit Form worksheet

One of the worksheets in the Oak Habitat Calculator workbook. Print and take on the project site visit. This worksheet includes the Main Indicators Table with the 19 questions a user must answer.


RareAnim

Rare Animals. A main indicator, within the Species category of indicators, measuring the presence, or absence, of special-status animal species, known to be reproducing on or within 1/2-mile of a project site.


RarePlantRare Plants. A main indicator, within the Species category of indicators, measuring the presence, or absence, of special-status plant species known to be occurring on a project site.


RarePlants (for Q #9) worksheet

One of the worksheets in the Oak Habitat Calculator workbook. A user can find some guidance on rare and/or protected plant species of western North America.


RareVertebrates (for Q #8) worksheet

One of the worksheets in the Oak Habitat Calculator workbook. A user can find some guidance on rare and/or protected animal speciesof western North America.


A category of indicators describing a project site's likelihood to continue supporting biodiversity benefits over time. This category is comparable to the "Risk and Viability" category discussed in the 2011report Measuring Up , by Willamette Partnership.


Risks/Stressors on the Project Site. A composite indicator, within the Risk category of indicators, measuring risks/stressors, or potential risks/stressors, to oak habitat on a project site.


Equation: AVERAGE(LUsite, Encirc, Spray, GoodSoil)

Score if Intervening is Mostly Developed (Column E)

The column revealing a project site's score if the area between the two identified patches is mostly developed. This score is the number entered into question #4 in the Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet.


Score if Intervening is Mostly Undeveloped (Column D)

The column revealing a project site's score if the area between the two identified patches is mostly undeveloped. This score is the number entered into question #4 in the Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet.


Risk

26



SCov

Shrub and Vine Cover. A main indicator, within the Vegetation category of indicators, measuring the proportion of shrub and vine cover (excluding chaparral) within a project site's oak forest, woodland, and savanna.


SInvas

Invasive Species of Shrubs and Vines. A main indicator, within the Vegetation category of indicators, measuring the proportion of a project site's oak forest, woodland, and savanna that is comprised of invasive species of shrubs and vines (excluding chaparral).


Size of Contiguous Oak & Native Grassland Patch (in acres) (Column A)

The column denoting the size categories, a user chooses from, for the largest contiguous oak and native grassland patch that is at least partially within a project site's boundaries.


Size of Next Closest Oak & Native Grassland Patch (in acres) (Column B)

The column denoting the size categories, a user chooses from, for the next closest oak and native grassland patch to the largest patch identified in Column A.


Species

A category of indicators that are species-specific, such as presence/absence. This category is comparable to the "Species Attributes" category discussed in the 2011 report Measuring Up , by Willamette Partnership.


SppSensitive/Rare Species on the Project Site. A composite indicator, within the Species category of indicators, measuring sensitive/rare plant or animal species on a project site.


Equation: MAX(RarePlant, RareAnim). This indicator does not measure the total amount of sensitive/rare plant and animal species on the project site, but instead uses the number of species in whichever group (plant or animal) has the most.

SpraySpray for Insect Control. A main indicator, within the Risk category ofindicators, measuring the closest distance from a project site's oaks to areas likely to be sprayed for insect control.


VegVegetative Structure on the Project Site. A composite indicator, within the Vegetation category of indicators, measuring vegetative structure on a project site.


Equation: AVERAGE(PctOak, AllSpp, SCov)

Vegetation

A category of indicators describing vegetative attributes of the project site. This category is comparable to the "Vegetative Condition" category discussed in the 2011 report Measuring Up , by Willamette Partnership.


WeightThe relative weights of individual indicators, inferred from the factor the indicator is multiplied by and the placement of the indicator in the subscore and final score formulas.

throughout the user's guide and calculator

Weighted Data The column denoting the weighted user-entered data. Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet

Weights for Main Indicator

The column denoting the factors by which the user-entered data will be multiplied, the larger the factor the greater the relative importance it is in the main indicator's subscore.

Main Indicators Table on the Calculator worksheet

27

References

Abrams, M.C. “Fire and the development of oak forests.” Bioscience 42 (1992): 346-353.

Adamus, P.R. “Protection, Restoration, and Management of Terrestrial Habitats and Species of the Willamette Sub-Basin.” Technical Appendix D. In: Willamette Subbasin Plan. 2004: Northwest Power Conservation Council,Portland, OR.

Agee, J.K. “Fire in restoration of Oregon white oak woodlands.” In: Hardy, C.C. and S. F. Arno (eds.)., The Use ofFire in Forest Restoration. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-341 (1996): 72-73. USDA Forest Service, IntermountainResearch Station, Ogden, UT.

Alexander, J.D., J.L. Stephens, and N.E. Seavy. “Livestock utilization and bird community composition in mixed-conifer forest and oak woodland in southern Oregon.: Northwest Science 82(1) (2010):7-17

Altman, B. Conservation Strategy for Land Birds in Lowlands and Valleys of Western Oregon and Washington. Report toOregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 2000: American Bird Conservancy, Corvallis, OR.

Anderson, S.H. “The avifaunal composition of Oregon white oak stands.” Condor 72 (1970):417-423.

Anderson, M.K. “Indigenous Uses, Management, and Restoration of Oaks of the Far Western United States.” Techni-cal Note No. 2. NRCS National Plant Data Center, 2007.

Andreasen, J.K., R.V. O’Neill, R. Noss, and N.C. Slosser. “Considerations for the development of a terrestrial indexof ecological integrity.” Ecological Indicators 1(1) (2001): 21-35.

Apostol, D., and M. Sinclair. “Restoring the Pacific Northwest: The Art and Science of Ecological Restoration in Cas-cadia.” Society for Ecological Restoration International, 2006.

Betts, M.G., J.C. Hagar, J.W. Rivers, J.D. Alexander, K. McGarigal, and B.C. McComb. “Thresholds in forest birdoccurrence as a function of the amount of early-seral broadleaf forest at landscape scales.” Ecological Applications 20(2010):2116–2130.

Blake, J. G., and J. R. Karr. “Breeding birds of isolated woodlots: area and habitat relationships.” Ecology 68(1987):1724-1734.

Blann, K. Habitat in Agricultural Landscapes: How Much Is Enough? 2006: Defenders of Wildlife, West Linn, OR.

Brawn, J.D. “Effects of restoring oak savannas on bird communities and populations.” Conservation Biology 20(2006): 460-469.

Bréda, N., A. Granier, and G. Aussenac. “Effects of thinning on soil and tree water relations, transpiration and growthin an oak forest (Quercus petraea).” Tree Physiology 15 (1995):295-306.

California Oaks Foundation. Oak Woodland Mitigation Program. California Oaks Foundation, Oakland, CA.

Campbell, B.H. Restoring Rare Native Habitats in the Willamette Valley: A Landowner’s Guide for Restoring OakWoodlands, Wetlands, Prairies, and Bottomland Hardwood and Riparian Forests. 2004: Defenders of Wildlife,Washington, D.C.

Carvell, K.L. and E.H. Tryon. “The effect of environmental factors on the abundance of oak regeneration beneathmature oak stands.” Forest Science 7 (1961):98-105.

Cross, S.P., and J.K. Simmons. Bird Populations of the Mixed-Hardwood Forests Near Roseburg, Oregon. 1983: Ore-gon Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report #82-2-05.

Davis, M. A. et al. “Restoring savanna using fire: impact on the breeding bird community.” Restoration Ecology 8(2000):30-40.

DeMars, C.A., D.K. Rosenberg, and J.B. Fontaine. “Multi-scale factors affecting bird use of isolated remnant oaktrees in agro-ecosystems.” Biological Conservation 143(6) (2010):1485-1492.

Devine, W.D. and C.A. Harrington. 2006. Changes in Oregon white oak (Quercus garryanna) following releasefrom overtopping conifers. Trees 20:747- 756.

Erickson, W.R. Environmental Relationships of Native Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) Communities at TheirNorthern Margin. In: Standiford, R.B., D. McCreary, K.L. Purcell . Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium onOak Woodlands: Oaks in California’s Changing Landscape. 2002: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-184, pp. 179-190.

Fair, J.M. and O.B. Myers. “Early reproductive success of western bluebirds and ash-throated flycatchers: a land-scape-contaminant perspective.” Environmental Pollution 118(3)(2002):321-330.

Floberg, J. M., et al. Willamette Valley – Puget Trough – Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment. Volume one. Port-land, OR: The Nature Conservancy, 2004.

Foster, S.A. “Studies of Ecological Factors that Affect the Population and Distribution of the Western Gray Squir-rel in Northcentral Oregon.” Diss., Portland State University, 1992.

Frank, J., et al. “Oaks belowground: mycorrhiza, truffles, and small mammals.” in A. Merenlender, D. McCreary,and K. L. Purcell (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth California Oak Symposium: Today's Challenges, Tomorrow's Op-portunities. 2008. Pages 131-138

Garmon, J.R. “Restoring Oak Savanna to Oregon’s Willamette Valley: Using Alternative Futures to Guide LandManagement Decisions.” M.S. thesis, University of Oregon, 2006.

Gilligan, L.E. “Stand Structures of Oregon White Oak (Quercus garryana) Woodlands and their Relationships tothe Environment in Southwestern Oregon.” M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, 2010.

28

Giusti, G.A. et al. “Oak Woodland Impact Decision Matrix: A Guide for Planner’s to Determine Significant Impactsto Oaks as Required by SB 1334.” (Public Resources Code 21083.4). UC Integrated Hardwood Range Manage-ment Program, Univ. California, Berkeley, CA., 2008.

Gould, P.J., D.D. Marshall, and C.A. Harrington. “Prediction of Growth and Mortality of Oregon White Oak in thePacific Northwest.” West. J . Appl. For. 23(1) (2008):26-33.

Grant, T. A., et al. “Nest survival of clay-colored and vesper sparrows in relation to woodland edge in mixed-grassprairies.” Journal of Wildlife Management 70 (2006):691-701.

Gumtow-Farrior, D.L. “Cavity Resources in Oregon White Oak and Douglas-Fir Stands in the Mid-Willamette Valley,Oregon.” M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, 1991.

Hagar, J.C. and M.A. Stern. “Avifauna in oak woodlands of the Willamette Valley, Oregon.” Northwestern Naturalist82(2001):12-25.

Hallstrom, W.E. “Effect of the habitat quality on metapopulations of three species of butterflies associated with Garryoak meadows in southwestern British Columbia.” M.S. thesis, University of Alberta, 2005.

Hanna, I., and P. Dunn. “Restoration goals of Oregon white oak habitats in the south Puget Sound region.” inDunn, P., and K. Ewing (eds.), Ecology and Conservation of the South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape. Seattle, WA:The Nature Conservancy, 1997. Pages 231-246.

Hardin, K.I. and K.E. Evans. “Cavity Nesting Bird Habitat In The Oak-Hickory Forests--A Review.” General Techni-cal Report NC-30. St. Paul MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 1977.

Hedrick, D.W., and R F. Keniston. “Grazing and Douglas-fir growth in the Oregon white-oak type.” Journal ofForestry 64 (1966):735-738.

Hibbs, D.E. and B.J. Yoder. “Development of Oregon white oak seedlings.” Northwest Science 67(l)(2003): 30-36.

Hosten, P. E. et al. “Oak woodlands and savannas.” In: Apostol, D. and M. Sinclair (eds.). Restoring the Pacific North-west: The Art and Science of Ecological Restoration in Cascadia. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2006.Pages 63-96.

Jackson, R.D., K.O. Fulgham, and B. Allen-Diaz. “Quercus garryana (Fagaceae) stand structure in areas with differentgrazing histories.” Madrono 45 (1998):275-282.

Johnson, E.M., and D. K. Rosenberg. “Granary-site selection by acorn woodpeckers in the Willamette Valley, Ore-gon.” Northwest Science 80 (2006):177-183.

Knops, J.M.H., T.H. Nash, and W.H. Schlesinger. “The influence of epiphytic lichens on the nutrient cycling of anoak woodland.” Ecol Monogr 66 (1996):159-179.

29

Koenig, W.D. and J. Haydock. “Oaks, acorns, and the geographical ecology of acorn woodpeckers.” Journal ofBiogeography 26 (1999):159-165.

Koenig, W.D., et al. “Natal dispersal in the cooperative breeding acorn woodpecker.” Condor 102 (2000):492-502.

Larsen, E.M. and J.T. Morgan. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Oregon White OakWoodlands. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1998.

LeBuhn, G. and C. Fente. “Landscape Context Influences Bumble Bee Communities in Oak Woodland Habi-tats.” General Technical Report PSW-GTR-217. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA For-est Service, 2008.

Linders, M. J., S. D. West, and M. Vander Haegen. “Seasonal variability in the use of space by western gray squir-rels in south-central Washington.” Journal of Mammalogy 85 (2004):511-516.

MacDougall, A.S. “Herbivory, hunting, and long-term vegetation change in a degraded savanna.” Biological Con-servation 141 (2008):2174-2183.

Maertins, T. “The growth-climate relationship of Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana).” M.S. thesis, Universityof Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, 2008.

Manuwal, D.A. “Bird communities in oak woodlands of southcentral Washington.” Northwest Science 77 (2003):194-201.

Merzenich, J., D. Cleland, and D. Dickman. “Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model: Northern Oak Sa-vanna (Great Lakes).” LANDFIRE Project, 2005.

Minore, D. “Comparative Autecological Characteristics of Northwestern Tree Species: A Literature Review.” Gen-eral Technical Report PNW-87. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,USDA Forest Service, 1979.

Murphy, M.S. “Edaphic Controls Over Succession in Former Oak Savanna, Willamette Valley, Oregon.” M.S.thesis, Oregon State University, 2008.

Perchemlides, K.A., P.S. Muir, and P.E. Hosten. “Responses of chaparral and oak woodland plant communities tofuel-reduction thinning in southwestern Oregon.” Rangeland Ecology and Management 61 (2008):98–109.

Peter, D.H. and C.A. Harrington. “Synchronicity and geographic variation in Oregon white oak acorn productionin the Pacific Northwest.” Northwest Science 83 (2009):117- 130.

Pierce County, Washington. “Draft Mitigation Plan for Cross-Base Highway: Oak Woodland, Prairie, and West-ern Gray Squirrel Habitat.”

30

Reino, L., P. Beja, P.E. Osborne, R. Morgado, A. Fabiao, and J.T. Rotenberry. “Distance to edges, edge contrast andlandscape fragmentation: Interactions affecting farmland birds around forest plantations.” Biological Conservation142(4) (2009):824-838.

Riegel, G.M., B.G. Smith, and J.F. Franklin. “Foothill oak woodlands of the interior valleys of SouthwesternOregon.” Northwest Science 66(2) (1992):66-76.

Rittenhouse, T.A.G., E.B. Harper, L.R. Rehard, and R.D. Semlitsch. 2008. The role of microhabitats in the desicca-tion and survival of anurans in recently harvested oak-hickory forest. Copeia 2008:807–814.

Ryan, L.A. and A.B. Carey. “Biology and management of the western gray squirrel and Oregon white oak woodlands,with emphasis on the Puget Trough.” General Technical Report PNW- GTR-348. Olympia, WA: USDA ForestService, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1995.

San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. n.d. “Oak Woodland Habitat Evaluation Procedure.”

Schultz, C.B. and E.E. Crone. “Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly.” Ecology 82 (2001): 1879-1892.

Schultz, C.B., and E.E. Crone. “Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly habitat restoration.” ConservationBiology 19 (2005): 887-896.

Schultz, C.B. “Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare Oregon butterfly.” Conservation Biol-ogy 12 (1998):284-292.

Seavy, N.E., J. D. Alexander, and P. E. Hosten. “Bird community composition after mechanical mastication fuel treat-ments in southwest Oregon oak woodland and chaparral.” Forest Ecology and Management 256 (2008):774-778.

Soll, J. “Oak Savanna and Woodland Plant Community Inventory and Classification in the Willamette Valley, Ore-gon.” Portland, Oregon: The Nature Conservancy, 2008.

Standiford, R.B., D. McCreary, K.L. Purcell . “Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Oak Woodlands: Oaks in Cali-fornia’s Changing Landscape.” USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-184, 2001.

Summerville, K.S., M. Steichen R, M.N. Lewis. “Restoring lepidopteran communities to oak savannas: contrasting in-fluences of habitat quantity and quality.” Restoration Ecology, 13 (2005): 120–128.

Thilenius, J.F. “The Quercus garryana forests of the Willamette Valley, Oregon.” Ecology 49 (1968): 124-1133.

Thysell, D.R. and A.B. Carey. “Quercus garryana communities in the Puget Trough, Washington.” Northwest Science75 (2001):219-235.

Tierney, G.L., D. Faber-Langendoen, B.R Mitchell, W. G. Shriver, and J.P Gibbs. “Monitoring and evaluating theecological integrity of forest ecosystems.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (2009): 308–316.

31

Tietje, W.D., K.L. Waddell, J.K., Vreeland, and C.L. Bolsinger. “Coarse woody debris in oak woodlands of Cali-fornia.” Western Journal of Applied Forestry 17(3) (2002):139-146.

USDA Forest Service. “Sixth California Oak Symposium: Today's Challenges, Tomorrow's Opportunities.” Gen-eral Technical Report GTR-PSW- 217. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Vesely, D.G. and G. Tucker. The Landowner's Guide for Restoring and Managing Oregon White Oak Habitats.Salem, Oregon: USDI Bureau of Land Management, Salem District, 2004.

Vesely, D.G. and D.K. Rosenberg. “Wildlife Conservation in the Willamette Valley’s Remnant Prairies and OakHabitats: A Research Synthesis.” Report to Interagency Special Status Sensitive Species Program. Portland, Ore-gon: U.S. Forest Service / Bureau of Land Management, 2010.

Viste-Sparkman, K. “White-breasted Nuthatch Density and Nesting Ecology in Oak Woodlands of theWillamette Valley, Oregon.” M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 2005.

Walsh, M.K. “Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on the Holocene Fire and Vegetation History of theWillamette Valley, Northwest Oregon and Southwest Washington.” Diss., University of Oregon, 2008.

Watkins, R.Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, and K.D. Brosofske. “Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managedhardwood landscape.” Conservation Biology 17 (2003):411-419.

Wilson, S.M. and A.B. Carey. “Small mammals in oak woodlands in the Puget Trough, Washington.” NorthwestScience 75 (2001):342-349.

Wolff, J.O., E.M. Schauber, and W.D. Edge. “Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on the behavior and de-mography of gray-tailed voles.” Conservation Biology 11 (1997):945:956.

Zack, S. The Oak Woodland Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Oak Woodland Habitatsand Associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight, 2002.

32

Oak Habitat Metric - Willamette Partnership...Oak woodlands, despite their ecological importance,...

Documents

Transcript of Oak Habitat Metric - Willamette Partnership...Oak woodlands, despite their ecological importance,...