A Biodiversity Scorecard Approachto Assessing Conservation Status &

Protection and Management

Marie Venner, 303-798-5333mvenner@vennerconsulting.com

Objective

• Develop an intuitive, repeatable, easy-to-understand approach for evaluating theviability and status of Colorado’s biodiversity.

• Identify measurable attributes which quantify• Identify measurable attributes which quantifyviability and conservation status

• Produce summary statistics

Components of Conservation Success

Biodiversity Status(abundance and quality)

EffectivelyConserved

Protection/Management StatusThreat Statuscurrent and potential future threats to “target”

Conserved

Scope of Pilot Project

• 92 Plant Species

Evaluated all rare (G1-G2)

• 180 Animal Species• 180 Animal Species

Evaluated all Tier 1 species

• 11 Ecological systems

Evaluated all “matrix-forming” systems

Example of Attributes for Animals and Plants(Scored from 0-10)

• Number of individuals

• Number of occurrences (populations)

• Occupied area

• Number of occurrences with good viability

• Short and long-term trends

• Threats (scope, severity, and immediacy)

• Percent protected and semi-protected

Examples of Attributes for Ecological Systems(Scored from 0-10)

• Proportion of total acres in patches of “preferred” size

• Percent natural vegetation within ½ mile of patches

• Landscape integrity

• Fire condition index• Fire condition index

• Energy development potential

• Projected population growth and development

• Potential for future transportation development

• Protection level

Examples of Landscape Integrity Layers(e.g., patterns of land use, integrity, and fragmentation)

Oil & GasAgriculture

Development

Primary &Secondary Roads

Landscape integrityCumulative High and medium impacts from roads,

oil & gas wells, urban development, agriculture

Future Threats

Transportation development

Population growth

Energy development

Excerpt from Plant Scorecard

This species is

“effectively conserved”

7

8

9

10

Hig

hL

ow

Aletes humilis (G2G3/S2S3)

Aletes humilis (Larimer aletes) – G2G3 S2S3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Abund

ance

Threa

t Sta

tus

Qua

lity

Land

scap

eIn

tegrit

y

Energ

yD

evel

opm

ent

Land

Statu

s

Ranking factors

Le

ve

lo

fc

on

ce

rn

Hig

hL

ow

Range

This species is

“poorly conserved”

10

Astragalus osterhoutii (G1/S1)

Astragalus osterhoutii (Osterhout's Milk-vetch) - G1 S1

Range

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Abund

ance

Threa

t Sta

tus

Qua

lity

Land

scap

eIn

tegr

ity

Energ

yDev

elop

men

t

Land

Statu

s

Ranking factors

Le

ve

lof

co

nc

ern

Hig

hL

ow

Overall Rare Plant Scores(Conservation status evaluation)

Rare Plant Conservation Status – Lotsof “Poorly Conserved” Plants

The bad news:

Colorado’s Overall Rare PlantScore is poor

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er

of

sp

ec

ies

0

5

10

15

20

Poorly conserved Weakly conserved Moderately conserved Effectively conserved

Conservation status

Nu

mb

er

of

sp

ec

ies

The good news:There is plenty of opportunityto switch this around!

An example of spatially displayed scores

Rare plants of shale barrens habitat

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Abundance Threat

Status

Quality Landscape

Integrity

Energy

Dev.

Potential

Land

Status

Ranking factors

Le

ve

lo

fc

on

cern

Hig

hL

ow

Average Scores for Rare Plants occurring in

Barrens System (n=20)

The primary concern for barrens plants are energydevelopment, exurban expansion, and motorized recreation,all of which can have direct impacts on the species.

Rare plants of alpine habitat

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Abundance Threat

Status

Quality Landscape

Integrity

Energy

Dev.

Potential

Land

Status

Ranking factors

Le

ve

lof

co

nc

ern

Hig

hL

ow

Average Scores for Rare Plants occuring in

Alpine System (n=10)

Alpine habitats are effectively conserved; the primarythreat to Colorado’s alpine plants is probably globalclimate change.

Example of Animal Results

Photo © by Louis SwiftGunnison Sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus)

Gunnison Sage Grouse (G1S1)

Abundance Quality Short TermTrend

Long TermTrend

Threats Protection

Ranking factors

Le

ve

lo

fc

on

ce

rn

Hig

hL

ow

Excerpt fromEcological System Scorecard

Ecological System Summary Scores

System NameBiodiversity

StatusThreatStatus

ProtectionStatus

Historictrend

ConservationStatus

Alpine Tundra 8.2 9.2 8.6 -1%Effectivelyconserved

CO Plateau Pinyon-Juniper

6.7 4.2 7.0 -14%Moderatelyconserved

Shortgrass 6.5 4.9 1.7 -48%Poorly

conserved

AbundanceQuality

Biodiversity and Threat Summary Statisticsfor Ecological Systems – See % Acres inEach Status Category (Poor-Very Good)

Biodiversity Status - patches

Alpine Tundra

Threat Status - patches

Alpine Tundra

Biodiversity Status Threat Status

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Shortgrass

CO Plateau PJ

percent of acres

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Shortgrass

CO Plateau PJ

percent of acres

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Ecological System SummaryScores

+ +

Quality Threats Protection

Overall Scores for Ecological Systems

+ +

Conclusion

A biodiversity scorecard can:

• Summarize biodiversity/conservation status

• Allow attributes to be analyzed and summarized

• Graphically display results• Graphically display results

• Measure conservation success (State of the State)

• Provide foundation for developing conservation strategies

• Provide a database/storage place for conservation data

• Be an excellent education/outreach tool: ideal for the web