sierra meadow prioritization tool user guide and data ... · the prioritization tool is based on...

63
1 Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data Dictionary Version 1.0, June 2019 Marian E. Vernon Point Blue Contribution Number 2243

Upload: others

Post on 10-Jul-2020

6 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

1

Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool

User Guide and Data Dictionary

Version 1.0, June 2019

Marian E. Vernon

Point Blue Contribution Number 2243

Page 2: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

2

Contents Introduction and Purpose...........................................................................................................................................3

Tool Methods .............................................................................................................................................................3

How to use the tool and guide ...................................................................................................................................4

Ecosystem Targets ......................................................................................................................................................6

Carbon Storage Potential .......................................................................................................................................6

Climate Vulnerability Catchment-Level Prioritization ............................................................................................8

Sierra Nevada Meadow Climate Vulnerability .................................................................................................... 12

Climate Refugia.................................................................................................................................................... 14

Hydrological Importance ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Landscape-Level Significance .............................................................................................................................. 20

Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

Target Amphibian Species ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Cascades Frog ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog ................................................................................................................................ 29

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, Northern DPS .................................................................................................... 32

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog ...................................................................................................................... 36

Southern Long-Toed Salamander ........................................................................................................................ 40

Yosemite Toad ..................................................................................................................................................... 43

Target Bird Species .................................................................................................................................................. 47

Great Gray Owl .................................................................................................................................................... 47

Greater Sandhill Crane ........................................................................................................................................ 48

Sierra Willow Flycatcher ...................................................................................................................................... 50

Target Fish Species .................................................................................................................................................. 53

Multiple Benefits ..................................................................................................................................................... 58

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... 59

References and Data Sources .................................................................................................................................. 59

Point Blue Conservation Science – Point Blue’s 160 staff and seasonal scientists conserve birds, other wildlife and their ecosystems through scientific research and outreach. At the core of our work is ecosystem science, studying birds and other indicators of nature’s health. Visit Point Blue on the web www.pointblue.org. Sierra Meadows Partnership – The Sierra Meadows Partnership (SMP) was formed to foster expansion of and more effective collaboration among partners currently engaged in meadow conservation to increase the pace, scale, and efficacy of meadow restoration and protection in the Sierra for the benefit of people and ecosystems. Visit SMP on the web www.sierrameadows.org. Cover photo: Humbug Valley meadow restoration site. Photo by Marian E. Vernon.

Page 3: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

3

Introduction and Purpose The purpose of this tool is to provide a strategic, flexible

approach for prioritizing Sierra meadows to achieve multiple

benefits and provide a comprehensive database of the

distribution of conservation values across the Sierra Nevada

meadow landscape that can be used in decision-making. The

ultimate goal is that restoration practitioners, land

managers, and others will use this tool to inform decision-

making about which meadows to prioritize for restoration,

protection, and/or conservation actions that will maximize

benefits to our conservation targets. The purpose of this

guide is to provide detailed information about the

conservation targets used in this meadow prioritization tool,

their associated indicators, and how these indicators may be

used in a meadow prioritization process.

Tool Methods The Sierra Meadows Partnership (SMP) work group

identified 24 conservation targets to serve as the basis for

this meadow prioritization tool. These targets together

represent multiple benefits associated with meadows and

include those related to ecosystem services and functioning

(e.g., water, climate, and carbon benefits) and those related

to biodiversity conservation (target species). Table 1 includes

a full list of our 24 conservation targets. We also include a

“multiple benefits” score for each meadow, which is the sum

of the suggested final scores for our 24 conservation targets.

For each conservation target, we identified a set of associated “indicators” that may indicate the suitability of a

given meadow to achieving benefits to the given conservation target. These indicators can be used as the basis

for prioritizing meadows for a given conservation target, as some meadows will have more indicators associated

with it than others and therefore may be more suited for achieving benefits to that given conservation target

compared to other meadows.

We identified indicators for each conservation target based on expert solicitation and literature review as well

as availability of existing geospatial data, ideally at the scale of the entire Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades

range. For our species targets, we identified two different categories of indicators: (1) range indicators and (2)

habitat suitability indicators. The range indicators are generally at a broader scale than habitat suitability

indicators and include factors such as current range, critical habitat, and watersheds with recent observations of

the species. The habitat suitability indicators are generally (though not always) at the scale of the meadow and

allow further discernment of meadows for a target species based on the likely presence of features that may be

important for the species’ habitat, such as a perennial stream, fen, hydrogeomorphic type, and meadow size.

Most users will focus on prioritizing meadows that fall within historic or current range for the species.

Nevertheless, habitat suitability indicator data for each species are available for all meadows in the dataset as

some users may want to also consider potential habitat for species outside of historic or current range in order

Ecosystem Targets

Carbon Storage Potential

Climate Vulnerability, Catchment-Level

Climate Vulnerability, Meadow-Level

Climate Refugia

Hydrological Importance

Landscape-Level Significance

Water Quality

Target Amphibian Species

Cascades Frog

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, Northern DPS

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog

Southern Long-Toed Salamander

Yosemite Toad

Target Bird Species

Great Gray Owl

Greater Sandhill Crane

Willow Flycatcher

Target Fish Species

California Golden Trout

Central Valley Steelhead Trout

Chinook Salmon Central Valley Spring Run

Eagle Lake Rainbow Trout

Goose Lake Redband Trout

Kern River Rainbow Trout

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

Little Kern Golden Trout

Paiute Cutthroat Trout

Table 1: Conservation targets for the meadow

prioritization tool.

Page 4: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

4

to identify meadows that may be important in the future as species shift their ranges in response to climate

change.

The climate vulnerability and climate refugia indicators can also be used to help prioritize meadows for species,

and the tables for these two targets include information about which target species are sensitive to the given

climate indicators.

The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons

Compilation (v 2.0) shapefile, hereafter Sierra meadows layer (UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017). We were limited to using indicators with existing geospatial

data in order to ensure the best possible representation of these indicators across the entire range of the Sierra

meadows layer. Some data sources that we used for indicators were more comprehensive than others, and this

user guide provides notes about the scale and distribution of the data. For example, data on fens are limited to a

survey that took place in national forests (Sikes et al. 2013), while data on hydrological features (e.g., perennial

streams, seeps/springs) encompass the entire Sierra meadows layer (U.S. Geological Survey’s National

Hydrography Dataset).

How to use the tool and guide The tool is hosted on Data Basin here. Each conservation target has an associated ArcGIS layer package that is

hosted on Data Basin. The layer packages for each target includes all the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-

Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0) shapefile (UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017). You can download these layer packages directly from Data Basin for

personal use. You can also use Data Basin’s mapping tool to display and analyze the layer packages online. Data

Basin’s mapping tool can be used to select meadows within an area of interest, and download a .csv spreadsheet

for each given conservation target for that area. This will result in a spreadsheet with meadow IDs as rows and

indicators associated with the given conservation target as columns (table “attributes”). The meadow IDs are the

same as those in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0) shapefile (UC Davis,

Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017), allowing for a spatial

join with this layer in ArcGIS.1

Once you have your spreadsheet or layer package for a conservation target of interest, you can use this user

guide to assist in interpretation and prioritization of meadows. Each conservation target has a table in this guide

that includes their associated indicators for use in meadow prioritization along with a description of the

indicator, why it was chosen for the given conservation target, the data source(s), and a suggested scoring

approach (see Table 2). Each conservation target also has a final score for each meadow based on the suggested

scoring approach outlined in the table based on the target’s indicators. You can either use the final scores for

each conservation target for your prioritization, or alternatively use the indicator data to explore alternative

scoring approaches. These metadata are also available to view directly for each layer package on Data Basin.

1 Note that the meadow ID UCDSNM011199 corresponds to two different meadows in the Sierra meadows layer and so we dropped these two meadows from all analyses to prevent confusion.

Page 5: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

5

Table 2: This user guide includes a table for each conservation target that follows the below format.

Indicator Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

This box will have the name of the attribute column in the .csv. It represents the indicator associated with the conservation target.

This box will have a brief description of the indicator associated with the conservation target, the rationale for its inclusion for the given target, the scale and, if applicable, units of the original data, and a suggested approach for how it can be used in prioritization for the given target. Data Source: This will list the data source for the indicator.

This box will have a suggested scoring approach for the indicator.

While we provide a suggested scoring approach for each target based on its associated indicators and include

these scored data in the tool itself, we also strongly recommend exploring other approaches in order to evaluate

the sensitivity of the prioritization results to the chosen scoring method. The scoring approaches included in this

user guide and in the data downloads from the tool itself are generally based on a “flat” weighting scheme, with

most indicators receiving equal weight in the final score. You may want to explore different weighting schemes,

such as giving more weight to some indicators over others based on the perceived relative importance of those

indicators to the given conservation target. Another option is to use Excel to sort the meadows according to the

values of certain indicators. This approach also provides a way to give more weight to certain indicators over

others. By sorting the data in order of one or more important indicators, you can generate a ranked list of

meadows for each conservation target.

It is also important to think about the scale at which you are making decisions. If you are beginning with a large

set of meadows, you may first want to “filter” your meadows to narrow down your list to a smaller subset based

on factors such as accessibility (e.g., distance to the nearest road), hydrogeomorphic type, size, and/or

ownership. This may result in a more manageable set of meadows from which to prioritize.

Finally, it is important to note that this tool does not provide information about the current state of the meadow

and generally does not include site-specific, field-verified information about the presence of target species (with

the exception of willow flycatcher). This tool is not a substitute for field assessments. We recommend using this

tool as a starting point to identify meadows for field assessments to assess meadow condition and resource

values, such as by using the American Rivers meadow condition scorecard or conducting wildlife surveys.

Page 6: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

6

Ecosystem Targets This section includes information on our ecosystem targets, which are carbon storage potential, climate

vulnerability, climate refugia, hydrological importance, landscape-level significance, and water quality.

Carbon Storage Potential This target provides a suggested approach for identifying meadows that may be important for carbon storage.

The associated indicators focus on identifying large, wet meadows that may lead to carbon storage benefits

upon restoration.

Carbon Storage Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Fen_Present

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow has 1 or more fens present and a value of 0 if the meadow does not have a recorded fen. Fen data were drawn from existing literature, unpublished studies, and fen surveys and covers the 11 National Forests of the Sierra Nevada and adjacent areas (Sikes et al. 2013). We recommend prioritizing meadows with fens present in order to protect the peat soil found in fens that are rich in organic carbon and are vulnerable to rapid and unrecoverable loss.2 Data Source: Sikes et al. 2013

0 or 1

Active_Allotment

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is located in an active grazing allotment on USFS land and has a value of 0 if the meadow is located in a vacant allotment or outside of a grazing allotment. Grazing may lead to loss of soil organic carbon through erosion, loss of vegetation, soil compaction, and resulting alterations to meadow vegetation and hydrology.3 Consider prioritizing meadows in vacant allotments or, for meadows in active allotments, consider actions to reduce impacts from cattle grazing or pursue options to close the allotment. This can be user determined. Data Source: Bokach et al. 2008

User determined

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic type for the meadow. Meadow wetness is correlated with high levels of soil organic carbon and we therefore recommend prioritizing wet meadow HGM types.4 See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type, with a value of 1 for meadows with a RIP, LF, DEPP, DEPS, or DS HGM type and a score of 0 for meadows with a DRY or unknown HGM type.

0 or 1

Perennial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is intersected by a perennial stream. Stream presence may indicate meadow wetness, which is correlated with high levels of soil organic carbon.5 Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

2 Drew et al. 2016 3 Stillwater Sciences 2012 4 Norton et al. 2014; Norton et al. 2011 5 Norton et al. 2014; Norton et al. 2011

Page 7: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

7

Pstream_Length

The Pstream_Length field lists the length of perennial stream(s) that intersect the meadow, in meters. Consider prioritizing meadows with a relatively high length of perennial stream(s). Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

Pstream_Length_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Pstream_Length by scoring perennial stream length by quartiles, with Q1=0.5, Q2=1, Q3=1.5, and Q4=2. Meadows without a perennial stream present receive a score of 0.

0-2

Seeps_Springs

This field has a value of 1 if one or more seep/springs falls within the meadow. The presence of a seep/spring may indicate a consistent groundwater source and meadow wetness, which is correlated with high levels of soil organic carbon.6 Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

Meadow_Size

This field lists the size of the meadow in acres. Larger meadows may be able to store more carbon than smaller ones and thus we recommend prioritizing larger meadows. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Meadow_Size_Score This field provides a suggested scores for Meadow_Size by scoring meadow size by quartiles, with Q1=0.5, Q2=1, Q3=1.5, and Q4=2.

0.5-2

CWD_Refugia

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is refugial for climatic water deficit (CWD), defined as the mean annual CWD within 10% or 25mm of historic conditions (1910-1939) compared to modern conditions (1970-1990). This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not refugial or if data are unavailable. Meadows that are refugial for CWD may indicate more soil moisture content, which can contribute to carbon storage. Data available for a subset of meadows. Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

0 or 1

Carbon_Storage_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for carbon storage and is the sum of Fen_Present, HGM_Score, Perennial_Stream, Pstream_Length_Score, Seeps_Springs, Meadow_Size_Score, and CWD_Refugia for each meadow.

0.5-9

6 Norton et al. 2014; Norton et al. 2011

Page 8: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

8

Climate Vulnerability Catchment-Level Prioritization These climate vulnerability indicators can be used to evaluate the meadow’s relative exposure to projected

changes in climate variables at the meadow’s catchment scale. Under Description and Rationale, we also list

target species that are sensitive to the given climate indicator and can be selected for use in target species

prioritization. It is important to note that the values for each indicator are associated with only a single climate

model (see Description and Rationale for further information). Climate models for California vary in terms of

their projections for temperature and precipitation, with some projecting increases in precipitation while others

projecting decreases in precipitation. The data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) uses the

CCSM3-A2 climate model, which projects increases in precipitation. It is important to use these data with this

uncertainty in mind. Resources such as the California Basin Characterization Model (Flint et al. 2014) can be

used to explore how projections differ among climate models.

Climate Vulnerability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Relative_Clim_Vulnerability

This field lists the climate vulnerability score for the catchment in which the meadow falls on a scale to 0-1, with higher values indicating lower climate vulnerability relative to Sierra Nevada catchments in California in which meadows occur. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean score is used. Climate change vulnerability scores were extracted for each NHD catchment in the Sierra Nevada that fall within the state of California. Climate vulnerability is normalized across 7 climate indicators (precipitation, mean temperature, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, snowpack, baseflow, and surface runoff), with each indicator calculated as the absolute percent difference between 2050 and 2010 values under the CCSM3-A2 climate model. For the purposes of this tool, we normalized the scores such that they are relative to the Sierra Nevada AND so that higher scores indicate LOWER climate vulnerability. Scores are not available for meadows in catchments that fall entirely within Oregon or Nevada. Consider prioritizing meadows with relatively low climate vulnerability (higher score). Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Baseflow_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in mean baseflow from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

Baseflow_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for Baseflow_Percent_Change. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in baseflow values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

MaxTemp_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in mean annual maximum temperature from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California.

See below

Page 9: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

9

Target Species: Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog7, Yosemite toad8, southern long-toed salamander9, mountain yellow-legged frog10, foothill yellow-legged frog11, willow flycatcher12, great gray owl13 Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

MaxTemp_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for MaxTemp_Percent_Change. We normalized the projected change in mean annual maximum temperature values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

MeanTemp_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in mean annual temperature from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. Target Species: Yosemite toad14 Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

MeanTemp_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for MeanTemp_Percent_Change. We normalized the projected change in mean annual temperature values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

MinTemp_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in mean annual minimum temperature from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

MinTemp_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for MinTemp_Percent_Change. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in minimum temperature values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

7 Viers et al. 2013; Graves et al. 2017 8 Viers et al. 2013; Graves et al. 2017 9 Viers et al. 2013 10 Viers et al. 2013; Graves et al. 2017 11 Hayes et al. 2016 12 Schofield et al. 2018 13 Wu et al. 2016 14 Graves et al. 2017

Page 10: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

10

Ppt_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in annual precipitation from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. Target Species: All fish species15, all amphibian species16, willow flycatcher17, great gray owl18 Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

Ppt_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for Ppt_Percent_Change. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in precipitation values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Runoff_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in monthly runoff from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. Target Species: All fish species19; mountain yellow-legged frog, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, southern long-toed salamander, Yosemite toad20; foothill yellow-legged frog21, willow flycatcher22 Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

Runoff_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for the Runoff_Percent_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in surface runoff values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Stream_Degree_Change

This field is the degree change (in Celsius) in the average August stream temperature from 1993-2011 to 2040 under the A1B climate scenario for meadows with a stream present and for which NorWest data are available. For meadows with more than one stream present, the average degree change is listed. Target Species: All fish species23 Data Source: Isaak et al. 2015, 2016

See below

15 Katz et al. 2012; Moyle et al. 2013 16 Sherman and Morton 1993; Fellers et al. 2007; Lacan et al. 2008; Viers et al. 2013; Pope et al. 2014; Brown et al. 2015; Hayes et al. 2016; Graves et al. 2017 17 Schofield et al. 2018 18 Wu et al. 2016 19 Katz et al. 2012; Moyle et al. 2013 20 Viers et al. 2013 21 Hayes et al. 2016 22 Graves et al. 2017 23 Katz et al. 2012; Moyle et al. 2013

Page 11: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

11

Stream_Degree_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for the Stream_Degree_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the degree change in stream temperature on a scale from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating less change in stream temperature relative to meadows that have a stream present and for which NorWest data are available. Data Source: Isaak et al. 2015, 2016

0-1

SWE_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in monthly mean snow water equivalent from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. Target Species: All fish species24, all amphibian species25, willow flycatcher26, great gray owl27 Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

SWE_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the SWE_Percent_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in snowpack values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Climate_Vuln_Final_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for climate vulnerability, with higher scores indicating lower vulnerability relative to other meadows. It is the sum of Relative_Clim_Vulnerability, Baseflow_Score, MaxTemp_Score, MeanTemp_Score, MinTemp_Score, Ppt_Score, Runoff_Score, Stream_Degree_Score, and SWE_Score ONLY for meadows that have values available for at least one of these indicators. For meadows without values for at least one indicator, this field is null.

0-9

24 Katz et al. 2012; Moyle et al. 2013 25 Sherman and Morton 1993; Lacan et al. 2008; Viers et al. 2013; Pope et al. 2014; Brown et al. 2015; Hayes et al. 2016; Graves et al. 2017 26 Graves et al. 2017; Schofield et al. 2018 27 Wu et al. 2016

Page 12: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

12

Sierra Nevada Meadow Climate Vulnerability This dataset should be used in conjunction with the decision framework (DF): Gross, S., M. McClure, C. Albano, and B. Estes. 2019. A spatially explicit meadow vulnerability decision framework to prioritize meadows for restoration and conservation in the context of climate change. Version 1. The DF and this dataset can aid in the prioritization of meadow conservation and restoration in the context of other priorities in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges in California. Each meadow has data associated with sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and exposure. The time period is 1985-2016 (sensitivity and adaptive capacity) and 2040-2069 (exposure). There are 18,780 meadows in the dataset. Exposure data is available for 18,780. Sensitivity and full adaptive capacity data are available for 6294 (NDWI) and 6301 (NDVI). Individual adaptive capacity factors are available for 13503 to 16931 meadows. These individual AC factors can be used when sensitivity and full adaptive capacity is not available. Meadows that do not have data were limited because of their size due to pixel size used in the underlying data. Methods and data are from Albano et al. 2019 and Gross et al. 2019. The climate models used were CNRM and MIROC, RCP8.5.

Indicators Description

ExpUncert

Identifies if the CNRM and MIROC agree with the direction of change. Values of 1 indicate that the models do not agree with projected direction of change.

SensNDVI

Sensitivity is measure of the slope of the relationship between April 1st Snowpack and September greenenss (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index-NDVI). (null values: -9999) Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

SensNDWI

Sensitivity is measure of the slope of the relationship between April 1st Snowpack and September vegetation wetness (Normalized Difference Water Index-NDWI). (null values: -9999) Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

AC_NDVI

Adaptive capacity in the context of this study was conferred by landscape context of an individual meadow. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

AC_NDWI

Adaptive capacity in the context of this study was conferred by landscape context of an individual meadow. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

MdClimate

The dominant variables contributing to the meadow climate factor include mean snowpack and mean precipitation. This factor was inversely related to overall adaptive capacity, therefore lower values indicate higher adaptive capacity. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

WsForested

The dominant variables contributing to watershed forestedness include percent of the watershed that is barren, dense cover, forested cover, and the long term maximum greenness (NDVI). Higher values indicate higher adaptive capacity. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

HumanMod

The dominant variables contributing to human modification is the percent of the watershed and meadows modified by urban sprawl, ag/logging, energy, and transportation. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

WsStorage

The dominant variables contributing to watershed water storage include root zone available water storage and 0-150 cm available water storage. Higher values indicate higher adaptive capacity. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

MdStorage The dominant variables contributing to meadow water storage at the meadow include root zone available water storage, 0-150 cm available water

Page 13: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

13

storage, and percent of clay soils. Higher values indicate higher adaptive capacity. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

Geology

The dominant variables contributing to geology are percent extrusive igneous/metamorphic (positive relationship) and percent intrusive igneous (negative relationship). Higher values indicate higher adaptive capacity. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

MdSize

The dominant variables contributing to meadow size include acreage and perimeter to area ratio. Higher values indicate higher adaptive capacity. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

MdGrnness

The dominant variable contributing to meadow greenness is late-season NDVI (1986-2016). This factor had a curved relationship with overall adaptive capacity, mid values indicate the lowest adaptive capacity. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

WsBasinCrv

The dominant variable contributing to basin curvature is the integral of watershed hypsometric curve. Higher values indicate higher adaptive capacity for NDWI, for NDVI there is not a strong relationship to overall AC. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

WsVallBott

The dominant variables contributing to percent valley bottom are the percent of the watershed classified as low (foot) slope or valley bottom (toe slope), cool slope, steep slope. Higher values indicate higher adaptive capacity. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

ExposDry

Relative change in April 1st snow pack 2040-2069 compared to 1981-2010. Change in snow pack is based on the climate model MIROC-RCP8.5. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

ExposWet

Relative change in April 1st snow pack 2040-2069 compared to 1981-2010. Change in snow pack is based on the climate model CRNM-RCP8.5. Data is based on percentile rank for the study region.

ExpDryCat Categorical Rank For ExposDry

ExpWetCat Categorical Rank for ExposWet

SenNDVICat Categorical Rank for SensNDVI

SenNDWICat Categorical Rank for SensNDWI

AC_NDVICat Categorical Rank for AC_NDVI

AC_NDWICat Categorical Rank for AC_NDWI

MdClimCat Categorical Rank for MdClimate

WsForesCat Categorical Rank for WsForested

HumModCat Categorical Rank for HumanMod

WsStorCat Categorical Rank for WsStorage

MdStorCat Categorical Rank for MdStorage

GeologyCat Categorical Rank for Geology

MdSizeCat Categorical Rank for MdSize

MdGrnnCat Categorical Rank for MdGrnness

WsBasCrvCt Categorical Rank for WsBasinCrv

WsVallCat Categorical Rank for WsVallBott

Page 14: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

14

Climate Refugia These climate refugia indicators can be used to identify meadows for certain species based on the climate

variables that they may be most sensitive to. Under Description and Rationale, we list target species that are

sensitive to the given climate indicator and that may benefit from meadows that are refugial for that given

indicator.

Climate Refugia Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

CWD_Refugia

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is refugial for climatic water deficit (CWD), defined as the mean annual CWD within 10% or 25mm of historic conditions (1910-1939) compared to modern conditions (1970-1990). These data are only available for a subset of meadows. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not refugial or if data are unavailable. Target Species: Willow flycatcher28, great gray owl29, foothill yellow-legged frog30, mountain yellow-legged frog and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog31, and Yosemite toad.32 Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

0 or 1

AET_Refugia

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is refugial for mean annual evapotranspiration (AET), defined as the mean annual AET within 10% or 25mm of historic conditions (1910-1939) compared to modern conditions (1970-1990). These data are only available for a subset of meadows. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not refugial or if data are unavailable. Target Species: Willow flycatcher33 Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

0 or 1

Tmax_Refugia

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is refugial for maximum temperature, defined as maximum temperature of the warmest month within 1 degree C of historic conditions (1910-1939) compared to modern conditions (1970-1990). These data are only available for a subset of meadows. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not refugial or if data are unavailable. Target Species: Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog34, Yosemite toad35, southern long-toed salamander36, mountain yellow-legged frog37, foothill yellow-legged frog38, willow flycatcher39, great gray owl40 Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

0 or 1

Tmn_Refugia This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is refugial for minimum temperature, defined as minimum temperature of the coldest month within 1 degree C of historic conditions (1910-1939) compared to modern conditions (1970-1990).

0 or 1

28 Graves et al. 2017 29 Wu et al. 2016 30 Hayes et al. 2016 31 Graves et al. 2017 32 Graves et al. 2017 33 Graves et al. 2017; Schofield et al. 2018 34 Viers et al. 2013; Graves et al. 2017 35 Viers et al. 2013; Graves et al. 2017 36 Viers et al. 2013 37 Viers et al. 2013; Graves et al. 2017 38 Hayes et al. 2016 39 Schofield et al. 2018 40 Wu et al. 2016

Page 15: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

15

These data are only available for a subset of meadows. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not refugial or if data are unavailable. Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

MeanTemp_Refugia

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is refugial for mean annual temperature, defined as the mean annual temperature within 1 degree C of historic conditions (1910-1939) compared to modern conditions (1970-1990). These data are only available for a subset of meadows. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not refugial or if data are unavailable. Target Species: Yosemite toad41 Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

0 or 1

Ppt_Refugia

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is refugial for precipitation, defined as annual precipitation within 10% of historic conditions (1910-1939) compared to modern conditions (1970-1990). These data are only available for a subset of meadows. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not refugial or if data are unavailable. Target Species: All fish species42, all amphibian species43, willow flycatcher44, great gray owl45 Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

0 or 1

Refugial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 if the average August stream temperature in 2040 under the A1B climate scenario is less than or equal to 16 degrees C for meadows with a stream present and for which NorWest data are available. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow has a stream that is not refugial or if data are unavailable. Streams projected to have a stream temperature of less than 16 degrees C in 2040 may serve as refugia for a wide range of fish species.46 Target Species: All fish species47 Data Source: Isaak et al. 2015, 2016

0 or 1

Rel_Well_Connected

This field has a value of 2 if the meadow is relatively well-connected, defined as meadows that were in the upper quartile of connectivity of at least one but not all of the surface measures (distance, topography, watercourses, and roads) from Maher et al. 2017. Data are only available for a subset of meadows. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not relatively well connected or if data are unavailable. Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

0 or 2

Well_Connected

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is well-connected, defined as meadows that were in the upper quartile of connectivity in all surface measures (distance, topography, watercourses, and roads) from Maher et al. 2017. Data are only available for a subset of meadows. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow is not well connected or if data are unavailable. Data Source: Maher et al. 2017

0 or 1

41 Graves et al. 2017 42 Katz et al. 2012; Moyle et al. 2013 43 Sherman and Morton 1993; Fellers et al. 2007; Lacan et al. 2008; Viers et al. 2013; Pope et al. 2014; Brown et al. 2015; Hayes et al. 2016; Graves et al. 2017 44 Schofield et al. 2018 45 Wu et al. 2016 46 Isaak et al. 2015 47 Moyle et al. 2013

Page 16: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

16

Climate_Refugia_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for climate refugia, and is the sum of the field values for the above attributes ONLY for meadows that have values available for at least one of these attributes. For meadows without values for at least one indicator, this field is null.

0-10

Page 17: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

17

Hydrological Importance These indicators are related to water yield within each meadow and their watershed, which we characterize as

“hydrological importance.” The indicators range from those at the broader catchment or watershed scale, while

others are indicators of in situ meadow water sources. For the scoring example below, we focus on prioritizing

meadows located in watersheds with historically high amounts of April 1 snowpack, precipitation, and

recharge/runoff, and relatively low projected change in baseflow, precipitation, snowpack, and runoff. Our

hypothesis is that these meadows may be more resilient to changing hydroclimatic conditions.

Hydrological Importance Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Historic_Snowpack

This field lists the sum of the average annual historic April 1 snow-water equivalent for the HUC12 watershed in which the meadow falls (in mm) for the period 1951-1980. We suggest prioritizing meadows in watersheds with relatively high historic annual April 1 snowpack, which may indicate greater water availability in the meadow and the watershed. Data Source: Flint et al. 2014

See below

Historic_Snowpack_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the Historic_Snowpack attribute. For scoring, we normalized the average historic annual April 1 snowpack values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicate higher amounts of historic annual April 1 snowpack. Data Source: Flint et al. 2014

0-1

Historic_Precipitation

This field lists the sum of the average historic annual precipitation (in mm) from 1951-1980 for the HUC12 watershed in which the meadow falls. We suggest prioritizing meadows in watersheds with relatively high historic annual precipitation, which may indicate greater water availability in the meadow and the watershed. Data Source: Flint et al. 2014

See below

Historic_Precipitation_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the Historic_Precipitation attribute. For scoring, we normalized the values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicate higher amounts of historic annual precipitation. Data Source: Flint et al. 2014

0-1

Historic_RchRun

This field lists the average historic recharge and runoff (in mm) from 1951-1980 for the HUC12 watershed in which the meadow falls. We suggest prioritizing meadows in watersheds with relatively high historic recharge and runoff, which may indicate greater water availability in the meadow and the watershed. Data Source: Flint et al. 2014

See below

Historic_RchRun_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the Historic_RchRun attribute. For scoring, we normalized the values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicate higher amounts of historic recharge and runoff. Data Source: Flint et al. 2014

0-1

Page 18: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

18

Baseflow_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in mean baseflow from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. We suggest prioritizing meadows in catchments with relatively low projected change in baseflow. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

Baseflow_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the Baseflow_Percent_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in baseflow values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Ppt_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in annual precipitation from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. We suggest prioritizing meadows with relatively low projected change in precipitation. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

Ppt_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the Ppt_Percent_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in precipitation values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

SWE_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in monthly mean snow water equivalent from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. We suggest prioritizing meadows with relatively low projected change in snowpack. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

See below

SWE_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the SWE_Percent_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in snowpack values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Runoff_Percent_Change

This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in runoff from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. We suggest prioritizing meadows with relatively low projected change in surface runoff.

See below

Page 19: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

19

Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

Runoff_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the Runoff_Percent_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in surface runoff values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Perennial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 if a perennial stream intersects the meadow, and a value of 0 if not. The presence of a perennial stream may be an indicator of in situ water availability in the meadow. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

Pstream_Length

This field lists the length of perennial stream(s) that intersect the meadow, in meters. Consider prioritizing meadows with a relatively high length of perennial stream(s), which may be an indicator of in situ water availability in the meadow. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

Pstream_Length_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Pstream_Length by scoring perennial stream length by quartiles, with Q1=0.5, Q2=1, Q3=1.5, and Q4=2. This field has a value of 0 for meadows without a perennial stream.

0-2

Seeps_Springs

This field has a value of 1 if one or more seep/springs falls within the meadow and a value of 0 if not. The presence of a seep/spring may be an indicator of in situ water availability in the meadow. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

Hydro_Importance_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for hydrological importance. It is the sum of Historic_Snowpack_Score, Historic_Precipitation_Score, Historic_RchRun_Score, Baseflow_Score, Ppt_Score, SWE_Score, Runoff_Score, Perennial_Stream, Pstream_Length_Score, and Seeps_Springs.

0-11

Page 20: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

20

Landscape-Level Significance This target has a group of landscape-scale associated indicators that may be useful for identifying meadows in

already identified priority conservation areas. These priority conservation areas include Priority Freshwater

Conservation Network watersheds (Howard et al. 2018) and Critical Aquatic Refuges (U.S. Forest Service 2006).

Landscape-Level Significance Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Priority_Network

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls inside a watershed in the priority freshwater conservation network and a value of 0 if the meadow falls outside this network. This network optimizes representation of target taxa ranges while minimizing overall network size. The network of priority watersheds encompasses 34% of the area of California and includes >10% of the geographic range for all target freshwater taxa. We recommend prioritizing meadows located in these network watersheds in order to contribute to conservation of target freshwater taxa. Data Source: Howard et al. 2018

0 or 1

Conservation_Strategy

If the meadow falls in a priority conservation blueprint watershed, this indicator will return the watershed’s suggested conservation strategy based on the watershed’s condition and threat scores. The conservation strategies include: (1) restore and monitor (high condition and low threat), (2) secure and monitor (low condition and low threat), (3) secure and mitigate (low condition and high threat), and (4) restore and mitigate (high condition and high threat). Data Source: Howard et al. 2018

User determined

Critical_Aquatic_Refuge

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls inside a Critical Aquatic Refuge and a value of 0 if the meadow falls outside one of these refuges. These refuges are subwatersheds found in the Sierra Nevada National Forests that contain: (1) known locations of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, (2) highly vulnerable populations of native plant or animal species, or (3) localized populations of rare native aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant or animal species. We recommend prioritizing meadows in these refuges in order to contribute to the USFS’s strategy of protecting listed, vulnerable, and rare species in national forests. Data Source: U.S. Forest Service 2006

0 or 1

Page 21: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

21

Water Quality Indicators of water quality are categorized as threat indicators and condition indicators. The suggested

prioritization and scoring approach outlined in the table below is designed to prioritize meadows in watersheds

with high condition and high threats. Nevertheless, there are many possible ways of prioritizing meadows for

water quality, such as prioritizing meadows in watersheds in high condition with low threats or prioritizing

meadows in watersheds with high threats; thus, we encourage the user to explore other prioritization

approaches based on their goals and interests.

Water Quality Threat Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Active_Allotment

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is located in an active grazing allotment on USFS land and has a value of 0 if the meadow is located in a vacant allotment or outside of a grazing allotment. Intensive grazing and livestock use can impact water quality through stream bank erosion, increased sediment input to stream channels, and waste runoff into streams.48 For meadows in active allotments, consider actions to reduce water quality impacts from cattle grazing or, when possible, close the allotment or meadow to grazing. Data Source: Bokach et al. 2008

0 or 1

Sediment_Intersect

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is intersected by a listed impaired waterbody for sediment. Prioritizing the restoration of meadows that are intersected by listed waters can be used to design restoration actions to help reduce sedimentation. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015

0 or 1

WTemp_Intersect

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is intersected by a listed impaired waterbody for water temperature. Prioritizing the restoration of meadows that are intersected by listed waters can be used to design restoration actions to help reduce water temperature. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015

0 or 1

HUC12_Sediment

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls in a HUC12 watershed with at least 1 listed impaired waterbody for sediment. Prioritizing the restoration of meadows that are located in watersheds with listed waterbodies can be used to design restoration actions to help reduce sedimentation. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015

0 or 1

HUC12_WaterTemp

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls in a HUC12 watershed with at least 1 listed impaired waterbody for water temperature. Prioritizing the restoration of meadows that are located in watersheds with listed waterbodies can be used to design restoration actions to help reduce water temperature. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015

0 or 1

PAMP_Density

This field lists the density of Principal Areas of Mine Pollution (PAMP) in each HUC12 watershed as the number of PAMPs per km2. Each meadow receives the value for the HUC12 watershed in which it falls. The PAMP dataset is a compilation of mining operations and their potential water quality problems. It includes operations where production exceeded

See below

48 Stillwater Sciences 2012

Page 22: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

22

$100,000 or where other factors indicated a high potential for pollution. Prioritizing meadows for restoration in watersheds with relatively high densities of PAMPs may help contribute to the rehabilitation of these impacted watersheds. Data Source: California Division of Mine Reclamation, Abandoned Mine Lands Unit, n. d.

PAMP_Density_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for PAMP_Density. For scoring, the PAMP density values for each HUC12 watershed were normalized relative to one another on a scale of 0-1, with higher values indicating higher PAMP density. Each meadow is given the normalized score for the HUC12 watershed in which it falls. Data Source: California Division of Mine Reclamation, Abandoned Mine Lands Unit, n. d.

0-1

Abandoned_Mine_Density

This field lists the density of abandoned mines in each HUC12 watershed as the number of mines per km2 in each watershed. Each meadow receives the value for the HUC12 watershed in which it falls. The abandoned mines dataset includes digitized mining features from scanned USGS topographic quadrangles. Prioritizing meadows for restoration in watersheds with relatively high densities of abandoned mines may help contribute to the rehabilitation of these impacted watersheds. Data Source: California Division of Mine Reclamation, Abandoned Mine Lands Unit 2001

See below

Mine_Density_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for Abandoned_Mine_Density. For scoring, the abandoned mine density values for each HUC12 watershed were normalized relative to one another on a scale of 0-1, with higher values indicating higher abandoned mine density. Each meadow is given the normalized score for the HUC12 watershed in which it falls. Data Source: California Division of Mine Reclamation, Abandoned Mine Lands Unit 2001

0-1

Road_Density

This field lists the road density in each HUC12 watershed as km/km2. Each meadow receives the value for the HUC12 watershed in which it falls. Roads data include all primary, secondary, neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, 4WD vehicular trails, and private roads for service vehicles from the TIGER/Line county roads dataset and all U.S. Forest Service roads not captured in TIGER/Line. Roads can lead to water quality impacts through erosion, sedimentation, and runoff of pollutants found on roadways. Prioritizing meadows for restoration in watersheds with relatively high road densities may help contribute to water quality improvements in these impacted watersheds. Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau, 2018a and U.S. Forest Service 2019

See below

Road_Density_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for Road_Density. For scoring, the road density values for each HUC12 watershed were normalized relative to one another on a scale of 0-1, with higher values indicating higher road density. Each meadow is given the normalized score for the HUC12 watershed in which it falls. Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau, 2018a and U.S. Forest Service 2019

0-1

Page 23: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

23

Rel_Watershed_Vuln

This field lists the relative watershed vulnerability score for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls on a scale to 0-1, with higher values indicating higher watershed vulnerability relative to Sierra Nevada catchments in California in which meadows occur. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean score is used. Watershed vulnerability is defined as the potential for future degradation of watershed processes and aquatic ecosystems. The indicators used to characterize vulnerability included climate change, projected land cover change, water demand, and projected change in wildfire severity and fire regime condition class. Scores are not available for meadows in Oregon or Nevada. The original scores were normalized on a scale of 0-1 relative to all other California catchments. We normalized these scores again such that they are relative to Sierra Nevada catchments in which meadows are present to allow for more accurate comparisons across Sierra meadows in the state of California. Prioritizing meadows in catchments with higher scores may contribute to conservation of watersheds that are more vulnerable and more at risk from threats. Alternatively, prioritizing meadows in watersheds with lower scores may contribute to conservation of watersheds that are less vulnerable and less at risk from threats and may be in better condition. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Wqual_Threat_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for water quality threats. It is the sum of Active_Allotment, HUC12_Sediment, HUC12_WaterTemp, Sediment_Intersect, WTemp_Intersect, PAMP_Density_Score, Mine_Density_Score, Road_Density_Score, and Rel_Watershed_Vuln. Higher values indicate higher watershed threats.

0-9

Wqual_Threat_Score_Norm This field is the normalized value of Wqual_Threat_Score on a scale of 0-1 relative to all meadows. It is calculated as: (x-xmin)/(xmax-xmin) with x = Wqual_Threat_Score.

0-1

Page 24: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

24

Water Quality Condition Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Rel_Stream_Health

This field lists the relative stream health score for the catchment in which the meadow falls on a scale to 0-1, with higher values indicating higher stream health relative to Sierra Nevada catchments in California in which meadows occur. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean score is used. Stream health in California was characterized using a collection of indicators that focus on the natural attributes of freshwater streams. These indicators include physical and biological habitat condition, water quality, and instream biological condition. Relative stream health index scores were extracted for each NHD catchment in the Sierra Nevada that fall within the state of California. For the purposes of this tool, the relative stream health scores were normalized such that they are relative to the Sierra Nevada to provide more accurate comparisons across Sierra meadows in the state of California. Scores are not available for meadows in catchments that fall entirely within Oregon or Nevada. Prioritizing meadows in catchments with higher scores may contribute to conservation of streams already in relatively good condition, while prioritizing restoration of meadows in catchments with lower scores may contribute to restoration of overall stream health. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Rel_Watershed_Condition

This field lists the relative watershed condition score for the catchment in which the meadow falls on a scale to 0-1, with higher values indicating higher watershed condition relative to Sierra Nevada catchments in California in which meadows occur. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean score is used. Watershed health in California was characterized using a collection of indicators that focus on the natural attributes of a watershed and its freshwater streams. The indicators used to determine watershed condition include percent natural land cover, percent intact active river area, sedimentation risk, percent artificial drainage area, dam storage ratio, and road crossing density. Relative watershed condition scores were extracted for each NHD catchment in the Sierra Nevada that fall within the state of California. For the purposes of this tool, the relative watershed condition scores were normalized such that they are relative to the Sierra Nevada. Scores are not available for meadows in catchments that fall entirely within Oregon or Nevada. Prioritizing meadows in catchments with higher scores may contribute to conservation of watersheds already in relatively good condition, while prioritizing restoration of meadows in catchments with lower scores may contribute to restoration of overall watershed health. Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Wqual_Condition_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for watershed condition. It is the sum of Rel_Stream_Health and Rel_Watershed Condition, with higher values indicating higher watershed condition.

0-2

Condition_Score_Norm This field is the normalized value of Wqual_Condition_Score on a scale of 0-1 relative to all meadows. It is calculated as: (x-xmin)/(xmax-xmin) with x = Wqual_Condition_Score.

0-1

WQual_Final_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for water quality. It is the sum of Wqual_Threat_Score_Norm and Condition_Score_Norm, with higher values indicating meadows in watersheds with relatively high threat and condition.

0-2

Page 25: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

25

Target Amphibian Species Our target amphibian species include Cascades frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog

(Northern DPS), Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, southern long-toed salamander, and Yosemite toad.

Cascades Frog The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for Cascades frog. We recommend prioritizing

meadows that meet the criteria for at least one range indicator, and then use the habitat suitability indicators

for that meadow subset for prioritization. See also the Climate Vulnerability and Climate Refugia targets for

information about which climate indicators Cascades frog are most sensitive to, which can also be used in

prioritization for this species.

Cascades Frog Range Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the range for Cascades frog as defined by the CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database and is within the mean elevation range for the species (230-2500m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Cascades Frog Range - CWHR A042 [ds591]

0 or 1

Critical_Aquatic_Refuge

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a Critical Aquatic Refuge for Cascades frog. These refuges are subwatersheds located in Sierra Nevada National Forests and contain populations of listed, rare, and highly vulnerable species. Data Source: U.S. Forest Service 2006

0 or 1

Recent_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with recent observations (post-1980) for Cascades frog and is within the mean elevation range for the species (230-2500m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015) and K. Pope

0 or 1

Historic_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with historic observations (pre-1980) for Cascades frog and is within the mean elevation range for the species (230-2500m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Range_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Cascades frog range data and is the sum of the four above attributes (Range, Critical_Aquatic_Refuge, Recent_HUC12, and Historic_HUC12).

0-4

Page 26: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

26

Cascades Frog Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Priority_Elevation This field has a value of 1 for meadows for which the Mean_Elevation is 1000-2000m, which is the elevation range in which recent detections of the species have been recorded.49

0 or 1

HGM_Type

This field lists the HGM_Type for the meadow. Cascades frogs require wet meadows with perennial water and diverse aquatic features.50 Consider prioritizing HGM types that have perennial water, especially riparian and discharge slope meadows. See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score This field has a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type and has a value of 1 for meadows with a RIP or DS HGM_Type.

0 or 1

Fen_Present

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow has 1 or more fens present and a value of 0 if the fen does not have a recorded fen. Fen data were drawn from existing literature, unpublished studies, and fen surveys and covers the 11 National Forests of the Sierra Nevada and adjacent areas (Sikes et al. 2013). Note that fen data are limited to surveys conducted in National Forests. Historical records of Cascades frog in Lassen National Forest coincide with fens.51 Data Source: Sikes et al. 2013

0 or 1

Dist_SeepSprings

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD seeps/springs. Frogs overwinter in springs52 and require meadows with consistent groundwater inputs.53 The distance to seeps/springs indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_SeepSprings_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_SeepSprings. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_SeepSprings equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

Dist_Flow

The field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Streams/Rivers (flow). Cascades frogs require wet meadows with perennial water and diverse aquatic features.54 The distance to streams/rivers indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

49 Pope et al. 2018 50 Pope et al. 2018 51 Pope et al. 2014 52 K. Pope, pers. comm. 53 Pope et al. 2018 54 Pope et al. 2018

Page 27: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

27

Dist_Flow_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Flow. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_Flow equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

Perennial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 for meadows that are intersected by a perennial stream. Cascades frogs require wet meadows with perennial water and diverse aquatic features.55 Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0-1

Other_Stream

This field has a value of 0.5 for meadows that are intersected by an intermittent or ephemeral stream. Cascades frogs require wet meadows with diverse aquatic features.56 Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0-0.5

Dist_PondLakes

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Ponds/Lakes lake edge. Cascades frogs require wet meadows with perennial water and diverse aquatic features.57 The distance indicator is intended to capture both those ponds/lakes in the meadow as well as those located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_PondLakes_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_PondLakes. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_PondLakes equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

PondLakes_Area

This field lists the total area of ponds/lakes present within the meadow polygon (in m2). Cascades frogs require wet meadows with perennial water and diverse aquatic features.58 Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

PondLakes_Area_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for PondLakes_Area. The area of ponds/lakes in the meadow is scored by quartiles, with Q1=0.25, Q2=0.5, Q3=0.75, and Q4=1. Meadows without a pond/lake present receive a score of 0.

0-1

CRT_Trans_Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the translocated range for coastal rainbow trout. Introduced trout are a threat to Cascades frog because of competition and predation.59 Data Source: Pisces (Katz et al., n.d.)

User determined

Active_Allotment

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is located in an active grazing allotment on USFS land and a value of 0 if the meadow is located in a vacant allotment or outside of an active grazing allotment. Grazing may have negative impacts on Cascades frog.60 If there is an active grazing allotment in the meadow, consider implementing actions to reduce impacts or closing the allotment. Data Source: Bokach et al. 2008

User determined

55 Pope et al. 2018 56 Pope et al. 2018 57 Pope et al. 2018 58 Pope et al. 2018 59 Fellers et al. 2007; Pope et al. 2014 60 Pope et al. 2014

Page 28: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

28

Habitat_Suitability_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for habitat suitability indicators for Cascades frog and is the sum of Priority_Elevation, HGM_Score, Fen_Present, Dist_Flow_Score, Dist_SeepSprings_Score, Perennial_Stream, Other_Stream, Dist_PondLakes_Score, and PondLakes_Area_Score.

0-8.5

CascadesFr_Final_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for the Cascades frog target and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for those meadows with a Range_Score of 1 or more. All other meadows receive a score of 0.

0-12.5

Page 29: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

29

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for foothill yellow-legged frog. We recommend

prioritizing meadows that meet the criteria for at least one range indicator, and then use the habitat suitability

indicators for that meadow subset for prioritization. See also the Climate Vulnerability and Climate Refugia

targets for information about which climate indicators foothill yellow-legged frog are most sensitive to, which

can also be used in prioritization for this species.

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Range Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Recent_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with recent observations (post-1980) for foothill yellow-legged frog. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Critical_Aquatic_Refuge

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a Critical Aquatic Refuge for foothill yellow-legged frog. These refuges are subwatersheds located in Sierra Nevada National Forests and contain populations of listed, rare, and highly vulnerable species. Data Source: U.S. Forest Service 2006

0 or 1

Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the range for foothill yellow-legged frog as defined by the CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database. Data Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Range - CWHR A043 [ds589].

0 or 1

Historic_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with historic observations (pre-1980) for foothill yellow-legged frog. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Range_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for foothill yellow-legged frog range data and is the sum of Range, Critical_Aquatic_Refuge, Recent_HUC12, and Historic_HUC12.

0-4

Page 30: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

30

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type for the meadow. The frogs occupy low-gradient streams and are stream breeding.61 We suggest prioritizing meadows that have a riparian HGM type. If the meadow has a different HGM type, consider prioritizing meadows that also have a low gradient stream present and/or have a stream in close proximity to the meadow (see below indicators). See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score This field has a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type and has a value of 1 for meadows with a RIP HGM_Type.

0 or 1

Dist_Flow

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Streams/Rivers (flow). The frogs occupy low-gradient streams and are stream breeding.62 The distance to streams/rivers indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_Flow_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Flow. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_Flow equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

Perennial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 for meadows that are intersected by a perennial stream. The frogs occupy low-gradient streams and are stream breeding.63 Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

Other_Stream

This field has a value of 0.5 for meadows that are intersected by an intermittent or ephemeral stream. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 0.5

StreamSlope_Grade

This field lists the length-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments in each meadow, given for all meadows with flowlines. Meadows without flowlines are null for this attribute. The frogs occupy low-gradient streams and are stream breeding.64 Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

StreamSlope_Type

This field lists the type of stream slope based on the value in StreamSlope_Grade. Meadows with a stream slope of less than 0.02 are listed as having a “Low” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of greater than 0.02 and less than 0.04 are listed as having a “Medium” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of equal to or greater than 0.04 are listed as having a “HIgh” stream slope type. After Weixelman et al. 2011.

See below

StreamSlope_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for StreamSlope_Grade and StreamSlope_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the StreamSlope_Type is

0-1

61 Hayes et al. 2016 62 Hayes et al. 2016 63 Hayes et al. 2016 64 Hayes et al. 2016

Page 31: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

31

“Low,” a value of 0.5 if the StreamSlope_Type is “Medium,” and a value of 0 for all other meadows. This approach prioritizes low gradient streams. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

CRT_Translocated_Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the translocated range for coastal rainbow trout. Non-native fish compete with the frog.65 Consider prioritizing meadows outside the translocated range of these species or alternatively consider restoration and management actions to reduce risks posed by non-native and translocated fish species. Data Source: Pisces (Katz et al., n.d.)

User determined

Active_Allotment

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is located in an active grazing allotment on USFS land and a value of 0 if the meadow is located in a vacant allotment or outside of an active grazing allotment. Grazing may have negative impacts on foothill yellow-legged frog, although impacts are poorly understood.66 If there is an active grazing allotment in the meadow, consider implementing actions to reduce impacts or closing the allotment. Data Source: Bokach et al. 2008

User determined

Habitat_Suitability_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for habitat suitability indicators for foothill yellow-legged frog and is the sum of HGM_Score, Dist_Flow_Score, Perennial_Stream, Other_Stream, and StreamSlope_Score.

0-4.5

FYLF_Final_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for the foothill yellow-legged frog target and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for those meadows with a Range_Score of 1 or more. All other meadows receive a score of 0.

0-8.5

65 Hayes et al. 2016 66 Hayes et al. 2016

Page 32: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

32

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, Northern DPS The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for mountain yellow-legged frog (Northern

DPS). We recommend prioritizing meadows that meet the criteria for at least one range indicator, and then use

the habitat suitability indicators for that meadow subset for prioritization. See also the Climate Vulnerability and

Climate Refugia targets for information about which climate indicators mountain yellow-legged frog are most

sensitive to, which can also be used in prioritization for this species.

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Range Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Critical_Habitat

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls in designated critical habitat for mountain yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016a

0 or 1

Critical_Aquatic_Refuge

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a Critical Aquatic Refuge for mountain yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. These refuges are subwatersheds located in Sierra Nevada National Forests and contain populations of listed, rare, and highly vulnerable species. Data Source: U.S. Forest Service 2006

0 or 1

Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the range of mountain yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: R. Knapp

0 or 1

Recent_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with recent observations (post-1980) for mountain yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Historic_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with historic observations (post-1980) for mountain yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Range_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for mountain yellow-legged frog range data and is the sum of Critical_Habitat, Critical_Aquatic_Refuge, Range, Recent_HUC12, and Historic_HUC12.

0-5

Page 33: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

33

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type for the meadow. The frogs require perennial aquatic habitats for breeding and rearing.67 Consider prioritizing meadows with HGM types that are likely to have perennial water. See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the meadow HGM_Type is RIP, DS, DEPP, or LF. This field has a value of 0 for meadows with a DRY, DEPS, or unknown HGM type.

0 or 1

Dist_Flow

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Streams/Rivers (flow). The frogs require perennial aquatic habitats for breeding and rearing and are typically found near streams with low to moderate gradients.68 The distance to streams/rivers indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_Flow_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Flow. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_Flow equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

Perennial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 for meadows that are intersected by a perennial stream. The frogs are typically found near streams with low to moderate gradients.69

Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0-1

Other_Stream

This field has a value of 0.5 for meadows that are intersected by an intermittent or ephemeral stream. The frogs are typically found near streams with low to moderate gradients.70 We suggest scoring meadows with a perennial stream present higher than meadows with intermittent or ephemeral streams present. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0-0.5

StreamSlope_Grade

This field lists the length-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments in each meadow, given for all meadows with flowlines. Meadows without flowlines are null for this attribute. The frogs are typically found near streams with low to moderate gradients.71 Consider prioritizing low (slope of less than 0.02) or moderate (slope of greater than or equal to 0.02 and less than 0.04) gradient riparian meadows.72 Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

67 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 68 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 69 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 70 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 71 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 72 Weixelman et al. 2011

Page 34: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

34

StreamSlope_Type

This field lists the type of stream slope based on the value in StreamSlope_Grade. Meadows with a stream slope of less than 0.02 are listed as having a “Low” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of greater than 0.02 and less than 0.04 are listed as having a “Medium” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of equal to or greater than 0.04 are listed as having a “HIgh” stream slope type. After Weixelman et al. 2011.

See below

StreamSlope_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for StreamSlope_Grade and StreamSlope_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the StreamSlope_Type is “Low” or “Medium,” and a value of 0 for all other meadows. This approach prioritizes low and medium gradient streams.

0 or 1

Dist_PondLakes

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Ponds/Lakes lake edge. The frogs use deep and shallow lakes and ponds, especially those without non-native fish.73 The distance indicator is intended to capture both those ponds/lakes in the meadow as well as those located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_PondLakes_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_PondLakes. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_PondLakes equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

PondLakes_Area

This field lists the area of ponds/lakes in the meadow (in m2). The frogs use deep and shallow lakes and ponds, especially those without non-native fish.74

Consider prioritizing meadows with a high area of ponds/lakes and/or in close proximity to a pond/lake. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

PondLakes_Area_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for PondLakes_Area. The area of ponds/lakes in the meadow is scored by quartiles, with Q1=0.25, Q2=0.5, Q3=0.75, and Q4=1. Meadows without a pond/lake present receive a score of 0.

0-1

Dist_SeepSprings

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD seeps/springs. The frogs will lay eggs in spring habitat.75 The distance to seeps/springs indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

SeepSprings_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_SeepSprings. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_SeepSprings equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

CRT_Trans_Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the translocated range of coastal rainbow trout. Non-native fish are major threats to the frog and coastal rainbow trout have been observed to prey on all life stages of the frog.76 Consider prioritizing meadows outside the translocated range of these species or alternatively consider restoration and management actions to reduce risks posed by non-native and translocated fish species. Data Source: Pisces (Katz et al., n.d.)

User determined

73 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 74 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 75 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 76 Brown et al. 2014

Page 35: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

35

CAGT_Trans_Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the translocated range of California golden trout. Non-native fish are major threats to the frog and California golden trout have been observed to prey on all life stages of the frog.77 Consider prioritizing meadows outside the translocated range of these species or alternatively consider restoration and management actions to reduce risks posed by non-native and translocated fish species. Data Source: Pisces (Katz et al., n.d.)

User determined

Active_Allotment

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within an active grazing allotment on USFS land and a value of 0 if the meadow is located in a vacant allotment or outside of an active grazing allotment. Livestock grazing is a threat to the frog.78 If there is an active grazing allotment in the meadow, we recommend implementing actions to reduce impacts or closing the allotment. Data Source: Bokach et al. 2008

User determined

Habitat_Suitability_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for habitat suitability indicators for mountain yellow-legged frog and is the sum of HGM_Score, Dist_Flow_Score, Perennial_Stream, Other_Stream, StreamSlope_Score, Dist_PondLakes_Score, SeepSprings_Score, and PondLakes_Area_Score.

0-7.5

MYLF_Final_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for mountain yellow-legged frog and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for those meadows with a range indicator score of 1 or more. This field has a value of 0 for all other meadows.

0-12.5

77 Brown et al. 2014 78 Brown et al. 2014

Page 36: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

36

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. We

recommend prioritizing meadows that meet the criteria for at least one range indicator, and then use the

habitat suitability indicators for that meadow subset for prioritization. See also the Climate Vulnerability and

Climate Refugia targets for information about which climate indicators Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog are

most sensitive to, which can also be used in prioritization for this species.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Range Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Critical_Habitat

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls in designated critical habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016b

0 or 1

Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the range of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: R. Knapp

0 or 1

Recent_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with recent observations (post-1980) for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Historic_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with historic observations (post-1980) for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and is within the elevation range for the species (1100-3810m). This field has a value of 0 if it does not meet these criteria. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Range_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog range data and is the sum of Critical_Habitat, Range, Recent_HUC12, and Historic_HUC12.

0-4

Page 37: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

37

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type for the meadow. The frogs require perennial aquatic habitats for breeding and rearing and are typically found near streams. Consider prioritizing riparian meadows and HGM types that are likely to have perennial water.79 See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the meadow HGM_Type is RIP, DS, DEPP, or LF. This field has a value of 0 for meadows with a DRY, DEPS, or unknown HGM type.

0 or 1

Perennial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 for meadows that are intersected by a perennial stream. The frogs are typically found near streams with low to moderate gradients.80

Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

Other_Stream

This field has a value of 0.5 for meadows that are intersected by an intermittent or ephemeral stream. The frogs are typically found near streams with low to moderate gradients.81 We suggest scoring meadows with a perennial stream present higher than meadows with intermittent or ephemeral streams present. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0-1

Dist_Flow

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Streams/Rivers (flow). The frogs require perennial aquatic habitats for breeding and rearing and are typically found near streams with low to moderate gradients.82 The distance to streams/rivers indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_Flow_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Flow. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_Flow equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

StreamSlope_Grade

This field lists the length-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments in each meadow, given for all meadows with flowlines. Meadows without flowlines are null for this attribute. The frogs are typically found near streams with low to moderate gradients.83 Consider prioritizing low (slope of less than 0.02) or moderate (slope of greater than or equal to 0.02 and less than 0.04) gradient riparian meadows.84

See below

79 K. Pope, pers. comm. 80 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 81 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 82 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 83 Vredenburg et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2014 84 Weixelman et al. 2011

Page 38: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

38

Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

StreamSlope_Type

This field lists the type of stream slope based on the value in StreamSlope_Grade. Meadows with a stream slope of less than 0.02 are listed as having a “Low” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of greater than 0.02 and less than 0.04 are listed as having a “Medium” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of equal to or greater than 0.04 are listed as having a “High” stream slope type. After Weixelman et al. 2011.

See below

StreamSlope_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for StreamSlope_Grade and StreamSlope_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the StreamSlope_Type is “Low” or “Medium,” and a value of 0 for all other meadows. This approach prioritizes low and medium gradient streams.

0 or 1

Dist_PondLakes

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Ponds/Lakes lake edge. The frogs use deep and shallow lakes and ponds, especially those without non-native fish.85 The distance indicator is intended to capture both those ponds/lakes in the meadow as well as those located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_PondLakes_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_PondLakes. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_PondLakes equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

PondLakes_Area

This field lists the area of ponds/lakes in the meadow (in m2). The frogs use deep and shallow lakes and ponds, especially those without non-native fish.86

Consider prioritizing meadows with a high area of ponds/lakes and/or in close proximity to a pond/lake. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

PondLakes_Area_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for PondLakes_Area. The area of ponds/lakes in the meadow is scored by quartiles, with Q1=0.25, Q2=0.5, Q3=0.75, and Q4=1. Meadows without a pond/lake present receive a score of 0.

0-1

CRT_Trans_Range This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the translocated range of coastal rainbow trout. Non-native fish are major threats to the frog and coastal rainbow trout have been observed to prey on all life stages of the frog.87 Consider prioritizing meadows outside the translocated range of these species or alternatively consider restoration and management actions to reduce risks posed by non-native and translocated fish species. Data Source: Pisces (Katz et al., n.d.)

User determined

CAGT_Trans_Range This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the translocated range of California golden trout. Non-native fish are major threats to the frog and California golden trout have been observed to prey on all life stages of the frog.88 Consider prioritizing meadows outside the translocated range of these species or alternatively consider restoration and management actions to reduce risks posed by non-native and translocated fish species. Data Source: Pisces (Katz et al., n.d.)

User determined

85 Brown et al. 2014 86 Brown et al. 2014 87 Brown et al. 2014 88 Brown et al. 2014

Page 39: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

39

Active_Allotment

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within an active grazing allotment on USFS land and a value of 0 if the meadow is located in a vacant allotment or outside of an active grazing allotment. Livestock grazing is a threat to the frog.89 If there is an active grazing allotment in the meadow, we recommend implementing actions to reduce impacts or closing the allotment. Data Source: Bokach et al. 2008

User determined

Habitat_Suitability_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for habitat suitability indicators for mountain yellow-legged frog and is the sum of HGM_Score, Perennial_Stream, Other_Stream, Dist_Flow_Score, StreamSlope_Score, Dist_PondLakes_Score, and PondLakes_Area_Score.

0-6.5

SNYLF_Final_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for those meadows with a range indicator score of 1 or more. This field has a value of 0 for all other meadows.

0-10.5

89 Brown et al. 2014

Page 40: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

40

Southern Long-Toed Salamander The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for southern long-toed salamander. We

recommend prioritizing meadows that meet the criteria for at least one range indicator, and then use the

habitat suitability indicators for that meadow subset for prioritization. See also the Climate Vulnerability and

Climate Refugia targets for information about which climate indicators southern long-toed salamander are most

sensitive to, which can also be used in prioritization for this species.

Southern Long-Toed Salamander Range Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the range of southern long-toed salamander. Data Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Southern Long-toed Salamander – CWHR A003 [ds1132]

0 or 1

Recent_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with recent observations (post-1980) of southern long-toed salamander. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Historic_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with historic observations (pre-1980) of southern long-toed salamander. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Range_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for southern long-toed salamander range data and is the sum of Range, Recent_HUC12, and Historic_HUC12.

0-3

Page 41: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

41

Southern Long-Toed Salamander Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type for the meadow. The salamander breeds in wet meadows and is frequently found in perennial and seasonal depressional meadows.90 Consider limiting analysis to wet meadow HGM types and giving higher priority to meadows that have a depressional perennial (DEPP) or depressional seasonal (DEPS) HGM type. See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the meadow HGM_Type is DEPP or DEPS. This field has a value of 0.5 if the meadow HGM_Type is RIP, DS, or LF. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow has a DRY or unknown HGM type.

0-1

Dist_SeepSprings

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD seeps/springs and whether a seep/spring is present in the meadow. The salamander will breed in spring pools.91 The distance to seeps/springs indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

SeepSprings_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_SeepSprings. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_SeepSprings equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

Dist_PondLakes

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Ponds/Lakes lake edge. The salamander uses ponds and small lakes for breeding.92 The distance indicator is intended to capture both those ponds/lakes in the meadow as well as those located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_PondLakes_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_PondLakes. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_PondLakes equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

PondLakes_Area

This field lists the area of ponds/lakes in the meadow (in m2). The salamander uses ponds and small lakes for breeding.93 Consider prioritizing meadows with a high area of ponds/lakes and/or in close proximity to a pond/lake. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

PondLakes_Area_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for PondLakes_Area. The area of ponds/lakes in the meadow is scored by quartiles, with Q1=0.25, Q2=0.5, Q3=0.75, and Q4=1. Meadows without a pond/lake present receive a score of 0.

0-1

90 Viers et al. 2013 91 K. Pope, pers. comm. 92 Howard 1997, Viers et al. 2013 93 Howard 1997, Viers et al. 2013

Page 42: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

42

Dist_Flow

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Streams/Rivers (flow). The salamander will use streams, although not for breeding.94 The distance to streams/rivers indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_Flow_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Flow. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_Flow equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

Stream

This field has a value of 1 if a perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream intersects the meadow. The salamander will use streams, although not for breeding.95 Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

Dist_Roads

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest Forest Service Topographic Map Data Transportation Road. The salamander has terrestrial life history components and roads pose a threat to their across-land movement.96 Consider prioritizing meadows that are not in close proximity to a road (e.g., no road within 100m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_Roads_Score This field has a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Roads. This field has a value of 0 for meadows with a distance to roads of 100m or less and all other meadows a score of 1.

0 or 1

Habitat_Suitability_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for habitat suitability indicators for southern long-toed salamander and is the sum of HGM_Score, SeepSprings_Score, Dist_PondLakes_Score, Dist_Flow_Score, PondLakes_Area_Score, Stream, and Dist_Roads_Score.

0-7

SLTS_Final_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for southern long-toed salamander and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for meadows that have a score of 1 or higher for Range_Score.

0-11

94 Howard 1997 95 Howard 1997 96 K. Pope, pers. comm.

Page 43: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

43

Yosemite Toad The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for Yosemite toad. We recommend prioritizing

meadows that meet the criteria for at least one range indicator, and then use the habitat suitability indicators

for that meadow subset for prioritization. See also the Climate Vulnerability and Climate Refugia targets for

information about which climate indicators Yosemite toad are most sensitive to, which can also be used in

prioritization for this species.

Yosemite Toad Range Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Critical_Habitat

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within designated critical habitat for Yosemite toad and is within the elevation range for the species (1800-3400m). Data Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016c

0 or 1

Critical_Aquatic_Refuge

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a Critical Aquatic Refuge for Yosemite toad and is within the elevation range for the species (1800-3400m). These refuges are subwatersheds located in Sierra Nevada National Forests and contain populations of listed, rare, and highly vulnerable species. Data Source: U.S. Forest Service 2006

0 or 1

Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the range of Yosemite toad and is within the elevation range for the species (1800-3400m). Data Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and C. Brown, pers. comm.

0 or 1

Recent_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with recent observations (post-1980) of Yosemite toad and is within the elevation range for the species (1800-3400m). Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Historic_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within HUC12 watersheds with historic observations (pre-1980) of Yosemite toad and is within the elevation range for the species (1800-3400m). Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Range_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Yosemite toad range data and is the sum of Critical_Habitat, Critical_Aquatic_Refuge, Range, Recent_HUC12, and Historic_HUC12.

0-5

Page 44: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

44

Yosemite Toad Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type for the meadow. The toad uses wet meadows.97 Consider limiting analysis to wet meadow HGM types and excluding the DRY HGM type. See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a RIP, DS, DEPP, DEPS, or LF HGM type. This field has a value of 0 for meadows with a DRY or unknown HGM type.

0 or 1

Dist_SeepSpring

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD seep/spring. The toad relies on meadows with consistent groundwater inputs and will use springs.98 The distance to seeps/springs indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

SeepSpring_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Dist_SeepSpring. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_SeepSprings equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

Dist_Flow

The Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Streams/Rivers (flow), and whether a stream (perennial, intermittent, or seasonal) intersects the meadow. The toad will use a variety of aquatic habitats, including channels, inlets, outlets, and slow-moving streams and they will also breed in shallow streams on meadow edges.99 The distance to streams/rivers indicator is included to capture both those in the meadow as well as those that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the toad (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_Flow_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Flow. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_Flow equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

Stream

This field has a value of 1 if a perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream is present in the meadow. The toad will use a variety of aquatic habitats, including channels, inlets, outlets, and slow-moving streams and they will also breed in shallow streams on meadow edges.100 Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

StreamSlope_Grade This field lists the length-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments in each meadow, given for all meadows with flowlines. Meadows without flowlines are null for this attribute. The toad will use slow-moving streams.101

See below

97 Pope et al. 2018 98 Brown et al. 2015; Pope et al. 2018 99 Viers et al. 2013; Pope et al. 2018 100 Viers et al. 2013; Pope et al. 2018 101 Brown et al. 2015

Page 45: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

45

Consider prioritizing low-gradient riparian meadows, characterized as those with a stream slope of less than +/-0.02.102 Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

StreamSlope_Type

This field lists the type of stream slope based on the value in StreamSlope_Grade. Meadows with a stream slope of less than 0.02 are listed as having a “Low” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of greater than 0.02 and less than 0.04 are listed as having a “Medium” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of equal to or greater than 0.04 are listed as having a “HIgh” stream slope type. After Weixelman et al. 2011.

See below

StreamSlope_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for StreamSlope_Grade and StreamSlope_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the StreamSlope_Type is “Low.” This field has a value of 0.5 if the StreamSlope_Type is “Medium.” This field has a value of 0 for all other meadows.

0-1

Dist_PondsLakes

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Ponds/Lakes lake edge. The toad will use lakes and small ponds.103 The distance indicator is intended to capture both those ponds/lakes in the meadow as well as those located in close proximity that could be used by the frog (e.g., within 25m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_PondsLakes_Score This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Dist_PondLakes. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a Dist_PondLakes equal to 25m or less.

0 or 1

PondLakes_Area

The area of ponds/lakes in the meadow (in m2). The toad will use lakes and small ponds.104 Consider prioritizing meadows with a high area of ponds/lakes and/or in close proximity to a pond/lake. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

PondLakes_Area_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for PondLakes_Area. The area of ponds/lakes in the meadow is scored by quartiles, with Q1=0.25, Q2=0.5, Q3=0.75, and Q4=1. Meadows without a pond/lake present receive a score of 0.

0-1

Historic_Snowpack

This field lists the sum of the average annual historic April 1 snow-water equivalent for the HUC12 watershed in which the meadow falls (in mm) for the period 1951-1980. The toad relies on snowmelt-supported pools and wetlands for breeding.105 Consider prioritizing meadows in watersheds that historically had relatively high April 1 SWE. Data Source: Flint et al. 2014

See below

Historic_Snowpack_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the Historic_Snowpack attribute. For scoring, we normalized the average historic annual April 1 snowpack values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicate higher amounts of historic annual April 1 snowpack.

0-1

SWE_Percent_Change This field is the absolute value of the projected percent change in monthly mean snow water equivalent from 2010 to 2050 under the CCSM3-A2 climate model for the NHD catchment in which the meadow falls. For meadows that

See below

102 Weixelman et al. 2011 103 Brown et al. 2015 104 Brown et al. 2015 105 Pope et al. 2018; Viers et al. 2013

Page 46: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

46

fall into more than one catchment, the mean value is used. These data are only available for catchments within California. We suggest prioritizing meadows with relatively low projected change in snowpack as the toad relies on snowmelt-supported pools and wetlands for breeding.106 Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

SWE_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the SWE_Percent_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the projected change in snowpack values on a scale of 0-1 so the scores are relative to all other meadows, with higher scores indicating lower departure from 2010 to 2050 and therefore lower relative vulnerability. Meadows in catchments with no data available were given a score of 0.

0-1

Dist_Roads

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest Forest Service Topographic Map Data Transportation Road. The toad has terrestrial life history components and roads pose a threat to their across-land movement.107 We suggest prioritizing meadows that are not in close proximity to a road (e.g., no road within 100m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_Roads_Score This field has a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Roads. This field has a value of 0 for meadows with a distance to roads of 100m or less and all other meadows a score of 1.

0 or 1

Habitat_Suitability_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for habitat suitability indicators for Yosemite toad and is the sum of HGM_Score, SeepSpring_Score, Dist_Flow_Score, Stream, StreamSlope_Score, PondLakes_Area_Score, Dist_PondsLakes_Score, Historic_Snowpack_Score, SWE_Score, and Dist_Roads_Score.

0-10

YosToad_Final_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Yosemite toad and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for meadows that have a score of 1 or higher for Range_Score.

0-15

106 Pope et al. 2018; Viers et al. 2013 107 K. Pope, pers. comm.

Page 47: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

47

Target Bird Species Our target bird species include great gray owl, greater sandhill crane, and willow flycatcher.

Great Gray Owl The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for great gray owl. We recommend prioritizing

meadows that meet the criteria for at least one range indicator, and then use the habitat suitability indicators

for that meadow subset for prioritization. See also the Climate Vulnerability and Climate Refugia targets for

information about which climate indicators great gray owl are most sensitive to, which can also be used in

prioritization for this species.

Great Gray Owl Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Suitable_Breeding_Hab

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the range of suitable breeding habitat for Great Gray Owl defined as meadows with a mean elevation of 650m-2400m in El Dorado, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa, and Madera counties and a mean elevation of 900m-2400m or more in Fresno and Tulare counties. Data Source: Wu et al. 2016

0 or 1

Core_Pop_Center

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls in Yosemite National Park, Stanislaus National Forest, or Sierra National Forest and has a mean elevation of 650-2400m. This national park and forests are considered core population centers for Great Gray Owl. Data Source: Wu et al. 2016

0 or 1

Recent_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a HUC12 watershed with recent observations (post 1980) of Great Gray Owl and is within the elevation range for this species (650-2400m). Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Historic_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a HUC12 watershed with historic observations (pre 1980) of Great Gray Owl and is within the elevation range for this species (650-2400m). Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Meadow_Size

This field lists the size of the meadow in acres. We suggest limiting analysis to meadows that are greater than or equal to 25 acres in size.108 Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

GGOW_Final_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Great Gray Owl and is the sum of Suitable_Breeding_Hab, Core_Pop_Center, Recent_HUC12, and Historic_HUC12 ONLY for meadows that are greater than or equal to 25 acres in size.

0-4

108 Beck and Winter 2000

Page 48: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

48

Greater Sandhill Crane The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for greater sandhill crane. We recommend

prioritizing meadows that meet the criteria for at least one range indicator, and then use the habitat suitability

indicators for that meadow subset for prioritization. See also the Climate Vulnerability and Climate Refugia

targets for information about which climate indicators greater sandhill crane are most sensitive to, which can

also be used in prioritization for this species.

Greater Sandhill Crane Range Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the range of Greater Sandhill Crane as defined by the CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database. Data Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sandhill Crane – CWHR B150 [ds1459]

0 or 1

Breeding_Counties

This field has a value of 2 if the meadow falls in Modoc or Lassen County and has a value of 1 if the meadow falls in in Siskiyou, Plumas, Shasta, or Sierra County. These counties all have breeding season detections of Greater Sandhill Crane. Modoc and Lassen County together represent 80% of breeding pair detections from a 2000 survey, while Siskiyou, Plumas, Shasta, and Sierra counties together represent 20% of breeding pair detections from the 2000 survey.109 Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau, 2017

0-2

Recent_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a HUC12 watershed with recent observations (post 1980) of Greater Sandhill Crane. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Historic_HUC12

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a HUC12 watershed with historic observations (pre 1980) of Greater Sandhill Crane. Data Source: California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015)

0 or 1

Range_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Greater Sandhill Crane range indicators and is the sum of Range, Breeding_Counties, Recent_HUC12, and Historic_HUC12.

0-5

109 Ivey and Herziger 2001

Page 49: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

49

Greater Sandhill Crane Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Meadow_Size

This field lists the meadow size in acres. We recommend prioritizing meadows that are greater than or equal to 50 acres in size.110 Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See final scoring

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type for the meadow. Greater sandhill cranes use wet meadows with perennial water. Consider limiting analysis to wet meadow HGM types and excluding the DRY HGM type and depressional seasonal HGM type, which may lack perennial water. See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the meadow HGM type is RIP, LF, DEPP, or DS. This field has a value of 0 if the meadow HGM type is DEPS, DRY, or unknown.

0 or 1

Dist_PondsLakes

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest NHD Ponds/Lakes lake edge. Greater sandhill crane habitat ranges from wet meadows to small ponds and lakes.111 The distance to ponds/lakes indicator is included to capture those that that might not be in the meadow but may be located in close proximity that could be used by the bird (e.g., within 100m). Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_PondsLakes_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Dist_PondsLakes. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a distance to ponds/lakes of less than or equal to 100m.

0 or 1

PondLakes_Area

This field lists the area of ponds/lakes in the meadow (in m2). Greater sandhill crane habitat ranges from wet meadows to small ponds and lakes.112 Consider prioritizing meadows with a pond/lake present and a high relative area of lakes/ponds. Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

PondLakes_Area_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for PondLakes_Area. The area of ponds/lakes in the meadow is scored by quartiles, with Q1=0.5, Q2=1, Q3=1.5, and Q4=2. Meadows without a pond/lake present receive a score of 0.

0-2

Habitat_Suitability_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for habitat suitability indicators for Greater Sandhill Crane and is the sum of HGM_Score, Dist_PondsLakes_Score, and PondLakes_Area_Score

0-4

GRSA_Final_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for Greater Sandhill Crane and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for meadows with a score of 1 or higher for Range_Score and ONLY for meadows that are greater than or equal to 50 acres in size.

0-9

110 NFWF 2010 111 Ivey and Herziger 2001 112 Ivey and Herziger 2001

Page 50: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

50

Sierra Willow Flycatcher The below tables include range and habitat suitability indicators for willow flycatcher. The range indicators for

willow flycatcher are listed in suggested order of priority. We recommend giving higher priority to meadows

with recent breeding season detections and unoccupied meadows with suitable habitat, followed by meadows

within dispersal distance of recently occupied meadows, historically occupied meadows, and lastly meadows

within dispersal distance of historically occupied meadows. The habitat suitability indicators below can be used

to further evaluate and prioritize those unoccupied meadows within dispersal distance of recent or historically

occupied sites. See also the Climate Vulnerability and Climate Refugia targets for information about which

climate indicators willow flycatcher are most sensitive to, which can also be used in prioritization for this

species.

Willow Flycatcher Range Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Recent_Meadows

This field has a value of 2 if the meadow has breeding season detections of willow flycatcher since 2008. Data Source: Schofield et al. in prep

0 or 2

Priority_Unoccupied_Meadows

This field has a value of 2 if the meadow is assumed to be unoccupied by willow flycatcher and has suitable habitat, defined as meadows greater than or equal to 40ha within 12km of sites known to be occupied since 2008 with water availability and riparian shrub coverage. Data Source: Schofield et al. in prep

0 or 2

Dispersal_Meadows

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a 12km buffer of meadows with breeding season detections of willow flycatcher since 2008 and is within the elevation range for the species (1000-2500m). Note that this may include meadows captured in other range indicators. Data Source: Schofield et al. in prep

0 or 1

Historic_Meadows

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow had historic breeding season detections of willow flycatcher from 1988-2007. Data Source: Schofield et al. in prep

0 or 1

Range_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Willow Flycatcher range indicators and is the sum of Recent_Meadows, Priority_Unoccupied_Meadows, Dispersal_Meadows, and Historic_Meadows.

0-6

Page 51: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

51

Willow Flycatcher Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Meadow_Size

This field lists the size of the meadow in acres. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Meadow_Size_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for Meadow_Size. This field has a value of 2 for meadows that are greater than or equal to 247 acres, a value of 1.5 for meadows between 98-247 acres, a value of 1 for meadows between 25-98 acres, and a value of 0 for meadows less than 25 acres.

0-2

Beaver_Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls in a watershed with beaver observations. Consider prioritizing meadows in watersheds with beaver observations, as Willow Flycatchers co-occur with beavers and beavers help maintain suitable habitat conditions.113 Data Source: iNaturalist, GBIF, and the California Freshwater Species Database v2 (Howard and Klausmeyer 2015).

0 or 1

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type for the meadow. Willow flycatchers need surface water or saturated soils through all or much of the growing season and are associated with riparian and discharge slope meadows.114 Consider prioritizing HGM types that have perennial water, especially riparian and discharge slope meadows, or meadows with another HGM type that have a perennial stream present. See original data source metadata for further information. Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a RIP or DS HGM type. This field has a value of 0 for meadows with all other HGM types or an unknown HGM type.

0 or 1

Perennial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is intersected by a perennial stream. Willow flycatchers need surface water or saturated soils through all or much of the growing season.115

Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

StreamSlope_Grade

This field lists the length-weighted average slope of all NHD flowline segments in each meadow, given for all meadows with flowlines. Meadows without flowlines are null for this attribute. Consider prioritizing low-gradient riparian meadows, characterized as those with a stream slope of less than +/-0.02.116 Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

StreamSlope_Type This field lists the type of stream slope based on the value in StreamSlope_Grade. Meadows with a stream slope of less than 0.02 are listed as having a “Low” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream

See below

113 Schofield et al. in prep 114 Schofield et al. in prep 115 Schofield et al. in prep 116 Weixelman et al. 2011

Page 52: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

52

slope of greater than 0.02 and less than 0.04 are listed as having a “Medium” stream slope type. Meadows with a stream slope of equal to or greater than 0.04 are listed as having a “HIgh” stream slope type. After Weixelman et al. 2011.

StreamSlope_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for StreamSlope_Grade and StreamSlope_Type. This field has a value of 1 if the StreamSlope_Type is “Low.” This field has a value of 0.5 if the StreamSlope_Type is “Medium.” This field has a value of 0 for all other meadows.

0-1

Fen_Present

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow has 1 or more fens present and a value of 0 if the fen does not have a recorded fen. Fen data were drawn from existing literature, unpublished studies, and fen surveys and covers the 11 National Forests of the Sierra Nevada and adjacent areas (Sikes et al. 2013). Fens have a steady hydrologic regime characterized by groundwater flow and surface water flow that allow them to remain saturated for most if not all of the growing season.117 Willow flycatchers need surface water or saturated soils through all or much of the growing season, and therefore fens may be an indicator of high quality habitat. Data Source: Sikes et al. 2013

0 or 1

Area/Perimeter

This field lists the ratio of the meadow area (in m2) to the meadow perimeter (in m) as m2/m. Larger meadows with a greater area to perimeter ratio can support more willow flycatcher territories. Consider prioritizing meadows with a high ratio of meadow area to perimeter.

See below

Area_Perimeter_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Area/Perimeter. The area/perimeter ratio of the meadow is scored by quartiles, with Q1=0.5, Q2=1, Q3=1.5, and Q4=2.

0.5-2

Habitat_Suitability_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for willow flycatcher habitat suitability indicators and is the sum of Meadow_Size_Score, HGM_Score, StreamSlope_Score, Fen_Present, Perennial_Stream, Area_Perimeter_Score, and Beaver_Range.

0.5-9

WIFL_Final_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for willow flycatcher and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for meadows with a Range_Score of 1 or more.

0.5-15

117 Drew et al. 2016

Page 53: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

53

Target Fish Species Our target fish species are California golden trout, Chinook salmon Central Valley spring run, Eagle Lake rainbow

trout, Goose Lake redband trout, Kern River rainbow trout, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Little Kern golden trout,

Paiute cutthroat trout, and steelhead trout Central Valley fall run. Note that not all of these indicators are

available or applicable to all target species. The description and rationale text box provides information about

which species are associated with the indicator. We recommend prioritizing meadows that meet the criteria for

at least one range indicator, and then use the habitat suitability indicators for that meadow subset for

prioritization.

*Indicators with an asterisk are those that are only available for a subset of the target species.

Fish Range Indicators Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

Current_Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the current range for the target fish species selected. Current range includes both observed range and extant range – expert opinion. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: Pisces (Katz et al., n.d.)

0 or 1

Historic_Range

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within the historic range for the target fish species selected. Historic range includes both observed range and historic range – expert opinion. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: Pisces (Katz et al., n.d.)

0 or 1

Critical_Aquatic_Refuge*

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow falls within a Critical Aquatic Refuge for California golden trout, Goose Lake redband trout, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Little Kern golden trout, or Paiute cutthroat trout. These refuges are subwatersheds located in Sierra Nevada National Forests and contain populations of listed, rare, and highly vulnerable species. Target Fish Species: California golden trout, Goose Lake redband trout, Lahontan cutthroat trout, Little Kern golden trout, Paiute cutthroat trout Data Source: U.S. Forest Service 2006

0 or 1

Critical_Habitat*

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is located in critical habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, or Little Kern golden trout. For Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, critical habitat is defined as a polyline and meadows are listed as falling within critical habitat for that species if intersected by the polyline. For Little Kern golden rout, critical habitat is defined as a polygon and meadows are listed as falling within critical habitat for that species if they fall within that polygon. Target Fish Species: Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, Little Kern golden trout Data Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002, 2005

0 or 1

Range_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for the range indicators for the given fish species and is the sum of Current_Range, Historic_Range, Critical_Aquatic_Refuge, and/or Critical_Habitat, depending on which range indicators are available for the species selected.

0-4, depending on species selected

Page 54: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

54

Fish Habitat Suitability Indicators

Description and Rationale Suggested Scoring

HGM_Type

This field lists the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) type for the meadow. We recommend prioritizing meadows with a riparian HGM type for all target fish species, and prioritizing meadows with a riparian or lacustrine fringe HGM type for Eagle Lake rainbow trout, Goose Lake redband trout, and Lahontan cutthroat trout.118 See original data source metadata for further information. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

HGM_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for HGM_Type. This field has a value of 1 for meadows with a RIP HGM type and a value of 1 for meadows with a LF HGM type ONLY for Eagle Lake rainbow trout, Goose Lake redband trout, and Lahontan cutthroat trout.119

0 or 1

Perennial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 if the meadow is intersected by a perennial stream. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 1

Intermittent_Stream

This field has a value of 0.5 if the meadow is intersected by an intermittent stream. This suggested scoring approach gives more weight to meadows with a perennial stream present than an intermittent stream present. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

0 or 0.5

PStream_Length

This field lists the total length of all perennial streams in the meadow (in meters). Consider prioritizing meadows with relatively long length of perennial streams. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

PStream_Length_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for PStream_Length. This approach scores perennial stream length by quartiles, with Q1=0.5, Q2=1, Q3=1.5, and Q4=2. Meadows without a perennial stream present receive a score of 0.

0-2

IntStream_Length

This field lists the total length of all intermittent streams in the meadow (in meters). Consider prioritizing meadows with relatively long length of intermittent streams. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset

See below

IntStream_Length_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for IntStream_Length. This approach scores intermittent stream length by quartiles, with Q1=0.25, Q2=0.5, Q3=0.75, and Q4=1. Meadows without an intermittent stream present receive a score of 0.

0-1

Road_Density

This field lists the density of roads in each HUC12 watershed as km/km2. Each meadow receives the numeric value for the HUC12 in which it falls. Roads data include all primary, secondary, neighborhood, and rural roads, city streets, 4WD vehicular trails, and private roads for service vehicles from

See below

118 K. Fesenmyer, pers. comm. 119 K. Fesenmyer, pers. comm.

Page 55: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

55

the TIGER/Line county roads dataset as well as U.S. Forest Service roads not captured in TIGER/Line. Roads are an indicator of habitat fragmentation and sedimentation effects.120 Consider prioritizing meadows in watersheds with relatively low watershed road density. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau, 2018a and U.S. Forest Service 2019

Road_Density_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for Road_Density. Watershed road density was scored by quartiles, with Q1=2, Q2=1.5, Q3=1, and Q4=0.5. Each meadow is given the normalized score for the HUC12 watershed in which it falls.

0.5-2

Dist_Roads

This field lists the Minimum Euclidean distance (in m) from each meadow to the nearest Forest Service Topographic Map Data Transportation Road. Roads are an indicator of habitat fragmentation and sedimentation effects.121 If the value for this field is 0, it means there is a road present in the meadow. Consider prioritizing meadows that do not have a road present and, if feasible, prioritizing meadows that do not have a road in close proximity (e.g., within 100m). Target Fish Species: All Data Source: UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017

See below

Dist_Roads_Score This field is a suggested scoring approach for Dist_Roads. This field has a value of 0 if the distance to roads is 100m or less. This field has a value of 1 if the distance to roads is greater than 100m.

0 or 1

Rel_Watershed_Condition122

This field lists the relative watershed condition score for the catchment in which the meadow falls on a scale to 0-1, with higher values indicating higher watershed condition relative to Sierra Nevada catchments in California in which meadows occur. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean score is used. Scores are not available for meadows in catchments that fall entirely within Oregon or Nevada. Consider prioritizing meadows in catchments with higher scores, which indicates catchments in relatively good condition. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

Rel_Stream_Health123

This field lists the relative stream health score for the catchment in which the meadow falls on a scale to 0-1, with higher values indicating higher stream health relative to Sierra Nevada catchments in California in which meadows occur. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean score is used. Scores are not available for meadows in catchments that fall entirely within Oregon or Nevada. Consider prioritizing meadows in catchments with higher scores, which indicates streams already in relatively good condition. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1

120 K. Fesenmyer, pers. comm. 121 K. Fesenmyer, pers. comm. 122 See Landscape Level Significance target for more information 123 See Landscape Level Significance target for more information

Page 56: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

56

Rel_Watershed_Vuln124

This field lists the relative watershed vulnerability score for the catchment in which the meadow falls on a scale to 0-1, with higher values indicating LOWER watershed vulnerability relative to Sierra Nevada catchments in California in which meadows occur. For meadows that fall into more than one catchment, the mean score is used. When scoring, if you want to prioritize meadows in watersheds with relatively LOW vulnerability, keep the scores as is (0 to 1 with higher scores indicating lower vulnerability); if you want to prioritize meadows with relatively HIGH vulnerability, subtract the scores from 1 such that the higher scores then indicate higher vulnerability. For the purposes of the scoring example, we prioritized meadows with relatively low vulnerability. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013

0-1, user determined

Stream_Degree_Change

This field lists the degree change (in Celsius) in the average August stream temperature from 1993-2011 to 2040 under the A1B climate scenario for meadows with a stream present and for which NorWest data are available. For meadows with more than one stream present, the average degree change is listed. Consider prioritizing meadows with streams that have a relatively lower projected change in stream temperature from 1993-2011 to 2040, which may indicate lower climate exposure and potential temperature refugia. Target Fish Species: All Data Source: Isaak et al. 2015, 2016

See below for scoring

Stream_Degree_Score

This field has a suggested scoring approach for the Stream_Degree_Change attribute. For scoring, we normalized the degree change in stream temperature on a scale from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating less change in stream temperature relative to meadows that have a stream present and for which NorWest data are available.

0-1

Refugial_Stream

This field has a value of 1 if the average August stream temperature in 2040 under the A1B climate scenario is less than or equal to 16 degrees C for meadows with a stream present and for which NorWest data are available. Prioritize meadows with streams projected to have a stream temperature of less than 16 degrees C in 2040, which may indicate refugia for a wide range of fish species.125 Target Fish Species: All Data Source: Isaak et al. 2015, 2016

0 or 1

Hab_Integrity*

This field lists the habitat integrity score of the subwatershed in which the meadow falls. For meadows that fall within more than one subwatershed, the average habitat integrity score is listed. Data are available for a subset of species (see below). The habitat integrity score for each subwatershed is based on five indicators: (1) land stewardship, (2) watershed connectivity, (3) watershed conditions, (4) water quality, and (5) flow regime. The scores range from 5-25, with higher scores indicating higher habitat integrity. Target Fish Species: California golden trout, Chinook salmon, Eagle Lake rainbow trout, Goose Lake redband trout, Little Kern golden trout, Paiute cutthroat trout, steelhead trout. Data Source: Trout Unlimited, 2009

See below for scoring

124 See Landscape Level Significance target for more information 125 Isaak et al. 2015

Page 57: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

57

Hab_Integrity_Score*

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for Hab_Integrity. The Habitat Integrity Score for each meadow was divided by 25, which is the highest possible score for a meadow in a given subwatershed. These scores are now on a scale of 0.2-1, with higher scores indicating higher habitat integrity. Meadows for which a habitat integrity score is not available receive a score of 0.

0-1

Conservation_Strategy*

This field lists the conservation strategy from the Conservation Success Index126 for the subwatershed in which the meadow falls for a subset of species (see below). These strategies can be used to inform restoration decisions but do not necessarily need to be included in meadow scoring. Target Fish Species: California golden trout, Chinook salmon, Eagle Lake rainbow trout, Goose Lake redband trout, Little Kern golden trout, Paiute cutthroat trout, steelhead trout. Data Source: Trout Unlimited, 2009

User determined

Habitat_Suitability_Score

This field provides a suggested scoring approach for the given fish species, and is the sum of Perennial_Stream, Intermittent_Stream, IntStream_Length_Score, Pstream_Length_Score, RdDensity_Score, Dist_Roads_Score, Rel_Stream_Health, Rel_Watershed_Condition, Rel_Watershed_Vuln, Stream_Degree_Score, and Refugial_Stream_Score for all species as well as Hab_Integrity_Score for California golden trout, Chinook salmon, Eagle Lake rainbow trout, Goose Lake redband trout, Little Kern golden trout, Paiute cutthroat trout, and steelhead trout.

0-14.5, depending on species selected

Final_Score

This field is a suggested scoring approach for the given fish species, and is the sum of Range_Score and Habitat_Suitability_Score ONLY for those meadows with a range indicator score of 1 or more AND ONLY for meadows with a perennial or intermittent stream present.

0-18.5

126 Trout Unlimited 2009

Page 58: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

58

Multiple Benefits This conservation target includes the final suggested scores for each species and ecosystem target as well as a

final “multiple benefits” score for each meadow, based on the sum of the normalized final scores for each

target.

Indicator Description Scoring

CAGT_Norm The final score for California golden trout normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 - 1

Chinook_Norm The final score for Chinook salmon normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 - 1

Refugia_Norm The final score for climate refugia normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 - 1

Climate_Vuln_Norm The final score for climate vulnerability normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 - 1

ELRT_Norm The final score for Eagle Lake rainbow trout normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 - 1

FYLF_Norm The final score for foothill yellow-legged frog normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 - 1

GLRT_Norm The final score for Goose Lake redband trout normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 - 1

GGOW_Norm The final score for great gray owl normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

GSC_Norm The final score for greater sandhill crane normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

KRRT_Norm The final score for Kern River rainbow trout normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

LCT_Norm The final score for Lahontan cutthroat trout normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

LLSig_Norm The final score for landscape-level significance normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

LKGT_Norm The final score for Little Kern golden trout normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

MYLF_Norm The final score for mountain yellow-legged frog normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

PCT_Norm The final score for Paiute cutthroat trout normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

SNYLF_Norm The final score for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

SLTS_Norm The final score for southern long-toed salamander normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

Steelhead_Norm The final score for steelhead trout normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

Wqual_Norm The final score for water quality normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

WIFL_Norm The final score for willow flycatcher normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

YT_Norm The final score for Yosemite toad normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

Carbon_Norm The final score for carbon storage normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

CF_Norm The final score for Cascades frog normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

HydroImp_Norm The final score for hydrological importance normalized on a scale from 0-1. 0 – 1

MultiBenefits_Score The sum of the above indicators resulting in a final multiple benefits score. 0 - 24

Page 59: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

59

Acknowledgments This work was funded by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Special thanks to members of the Sierra Meadows

Partnership that provided guidance on the conservation targets and indicators, especially K. Fesenmyer, R.

Henery, J. Seymour, K. Wilson, and S. Yarnell.

References and Data Sources Albano, C.M., M.L. McClure, S.E. Gross, W. Kitlasten, C.E. Soulard, C. Morton, and J. Huntington. 2019. Spatial

patterns of meadow sensitivities to interannual climate variability in the Sierra Nevada. Ecohydrology: e 2128.

Beck, T. W., and J. Winter. 2000. Survey protocol for the great gray owl in the Sierra Nevada of California. Prepared for USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.

Brown, C., M. P. Hayes, G. A. Green, and D. C. MacFarlane. 2014. Mountain yellow-legged frog conservation assessment for the Sierra Nevada mountains of California, USA. USDA Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. R5-TP-038, July 2014.

Bokach, M., S. Lehman, M. Cheng, and C. Trillo. 2008. Region 5 Rangeland Management Subunits Pastures and Allotments [Geodatabase]. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/landmanagement/gis/?cid=fsbdev3_048216

Brown, C., M. P. Hayes, G. A. Green, and D. C. MacFarlane. 2014. Mountain yellow-legged frog conservation assessment for the Sierra Nevada mountains of California, USA. USDA Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. R5-TP-038, July 2014.

Brown, C., M.P. Hayes, G.A. Green, D.C. Macfarlane, and A.J. Lind. 2015. Yosemite Toad Conservation Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture. R5-TP-040, January 2015.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Downloaded 6 November 2018. American Beaver Range - CWHR M112 [ds1899]. CWHR version 8.8(9.3.1.2). Personal computer program. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Downloaded 26 October 2018. Cascades Frog Range - CWHR A042 [ds591]. CWHR version 8.8(9.3.1.2). Personal computer program. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Downloaded 11 February 2019. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Range - CWHR A043 [ds589]. CWHR version 8.8(9.3.1.2). Personal computer program. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Downloaded 31 October 2018. Sandhill Crane - CWHR B150 [ds1459]. CWHR version 8.8(9.3.1.2). Personal computer program. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Downloaded 26 October 2018. Southern Long-Toed Salamander - CWHR A003 [ds1132]. CWHR version 8.8(9.3.1.2). Personal computer program. Sacramento, CA.

California Division of Mine Reclamation, Abandoned Mine Lands Unit. 2001. Topographically Occuring Mine Symbols [shapefile]. Available online at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/abandoned_mine_lands/toms. Sacramento, CA.

California Division of Mine Reclamation, Abandoned Mine Lands Unit. n.d. Principal Areas of Mine Pollution [shapefile]. Available online at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/abandoned_mine_lands/pamp. Sacramento, CA.

Conservation Biology Institute. 22 August 2016. California integrated assessment of watershed health - multimetric index [Shapefile]. November 2013 EPA 841-R-14-003. Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Support for this project was provided by the U.S. EPA Healthy

Page 60: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

60

Watersheds Initiative. Available online at https://databasin.org/maps/d20b406693764ce7bcce339539089448.

Drew, W. M., N. Hemphill, L. Keszey, A. Merrill, L. Hunt, et al. 2016. Sierra Meadows Strategy. Sierra Meadows Partnership Paper 1: PP 40.

Fellers, G. M., K. L. Pope, J. E. Stead, M. S. Koo, and H. H. Welsh, Jr. 2007. Turning population trend monitoring into active conservation: Can we save the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) in the Lassen region of California? Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1): 28-39.

Flint, L., A. Flint, J. Thorne, and R. Boynton. 2014. California Basin Characterization Model (BCM) downscaled climate and hydrology. California Climate Commons. Accessible online at http://climate.calcommons.org/dataset/2014-CA-BCM

Friggens, M. M. and D. M. Finch. 2015. Implications of climate change for bird conservation in the southwestern U.S. under three alternative futures. Plos One 10(12): e0144089. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144089.

GBIF.org (7th November 2018) GBIF Occurrence Download - American Beaver. Available online at https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.mzn4pr

Graves, E. E., A. C. Collins, A. K. Bird, A. Karasov-Olson, K. O’Hearn, A. Ramirez, J. A. Shaw, E. F. Tymstra, H. Choe, R. Kelsey, E. Smith, M. W. Schwartz, and J. H. Thorne. 2017. Climate vulnerability assessment of species communities within key California habitats: Sierra Nevada forest, San Joaquin desert, and California rangelands. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento, CA.

Gross, S., M. McClure, C. Albano, and B. Estes. 2019. A spatially explicit meadow vulnerability decision framework to prioritize meadows for restoration and conservation in the context of climate change. Version 1.

Hayes, M. P., C. A. Wheeler, A. J. Lind, G. A. Green, and D. C. MacFarlane, technical coordinators. 2016. Foothill yellow-legged frog conservation assessment in California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-248. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 193 p.

Howard, J. K., K. R Klausmeyer, K. A. Fesenmyer, J. Furnish, T. Gardali, et al. 2015. Patterns of freshwater species richness, endemism, and vulnerability in California. PLOS ONE 10(7): e0130710. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130710

Howard, J. and K. Klausmeyer. 2015. California Freshwater Species Database Version 2. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA. Accessible online at map.dfg.ca.gov/bios

Howard, J. K., K. A. Fesenmyer, T. E. Grantham, J. H. Viers, P. R. Ode, et al. 2018. A freshwater conservation blueprint for California: Prioritizing watersheds for freshwater biodiversity. Freshwater Science 37(2), doi 10.1086/697996.

Howard, J. L. 1997. Ambystoma macrodactylum. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, FIre Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/amphibian/amma/all.html [2018, Oct. 3].

iNaturalist. Accessed 6 November 2018. Observations of American beaver (Castor canadensis). Available online at https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=14&subview=table&taxon_id=43794

Isaak, D. J., M. K. Young, D. E. Nagel, D. L. Horan, and M. C. Groce. 2015. The cold-water climate shield: Delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes through the 21st century. Global Change Biology 21, 2540-2553.

Isaak, D.J.; Wenger, S.J.; Peterson, E.E.; Ver Hoef, J.M.; Hostetler, S.W.; Luce, C.H.; Dunham, J.B.; Kershner, J.L.; Roper, B.B.; Nagel, D.E.; Chandler, G.L.; Wollrab, S.P.; Parkes, S.L.; Horan, D.L. 2016. NorWeST modeled summer stream temperature scenarios for the western U.S. Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service Research Data Archive.https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2016-0033.

Ivey, G. L. and C. P. Herziger. 2001. Distribution of Greater Sandhill Crane pairs in California, 2000. Funded by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service. Bend, OR.

Katz, J., P. Moyle, R. Peek, N. Santos, A. Bell, R. Quinones, and J. Viers. California Fish Data and Management Software - PISCES. U.C. Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. Accessed online on 10 January 2019. Available online at https://pisces.ucdavis.edu/about.

Page 61: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

61

Katz, J., P. B. Moyle, R. M. Quinones, J. Israel, and S. Purdy. 2012. Impending extinction of salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 96(10-11), 1169-1186.

Knapp, R. Personal communication. Range of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and mountain yellow-legged frog [shapefile].

Lacan, I., K. Matthews, and K. Feldman. 2008. Interaction of an introduced predator with future effects of climate change in the recruitment dynamics of the imperiled Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):211-223.

Loffland, H. L., R. B. Siegel, R. D. Burnett, B. R. Campos, T. Mark, and C. Stermer 2014. Assessing Willow Flycatcher population size and distribution to inform meadow restoration in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, California.

Loffland, H. n. d. Willow Flycatcher (WIFL) in the Sierra Nevada [shapefiles]. Institute for Bird Populations. Available online at https://meadows.ucdavis.edu/data/19050

Maher, S. P., T. L. Morelli, M. Hershey, L. A. Flint, L. E. Flint, C. Moritz, S. R. Beissinger. 2017. Erosion of refugia in the Sierra Nevada meadows network with climate change. Ecosphere 8, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1673

Moyle, P. B., J. D. Kiernan, P. K. Crain, and R. M. Quinones. 2013. Climate change vulnerability of native and alien freshwater fishes of California: A systematic assessment approach. PLOS One 8(5): e63883. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063883.

Moyle, P. B., R. Lusardi, and P. Samuel. 2017a. SOS II: Fish in hot water: Status, threats, and solutions for California salmon, steelhead, and trout. CalTrout and UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences.

Moyle, P. B. R. A. Lusardi, P. Samuel, and J. Katz. 2017b. State of the salmonids: Status of California’s emblematic fishes 2017. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis and California Trout, San Francisco, CA. 579 pp.

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 2010. Sierra Nevada Meadow Restoration Business Plan. Available online at http://www.nfwf.org/sierranevada/Documents/Sierra_Meadow_Restoration_business_plan.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in California; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 226. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 170, Friday, September 2, 2005, Rules and Regulations. Washington, D. C.

Norton, J. B., L. J. Jungst, U. Norton, H. R. Olsen, K. W. Tate, and W. R. Horwath. 2011. Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in upper montane riparian meadows. Ecosystems 14(8): 1217-1231.

Norton, J. B., H. R. Olsen, L. J. Jungst, D. E. Legg, and W. R. Horwath. 2014. Soil carbon and nitrogen storage in alluvial wet meadows of the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains, USA. Journal of Soils and Sediments 14(1): 34-43.

Pope, K., C. Brown, M. Hayes, G. Green, and D. Macfarlane. 2014. Cascades frog conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-244.

Pope, K. L., C. Brown, and S. Yarnell. 2018. Meadow Restoration for Sierra Nevada Amphibians. Final Report - Project #45615 for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Riverbend Sciences. Accessed 6 November 2018. Beaver Mapper aggregated to watershed [table]. Beaver Mapper [online tool]. Available online at https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?snapid=S238439ySg0

Santos, N. R., J. V. E. Katz, P. B. Moyle, and J. H. Viers. 2014. A programmable information system for management and analysis of aquatic species range data in California. Environmental Modelling & Software 53, 13-26.

Schlorff, R. W. 2005. Greater sandhill crane: Research and management in California since 1978. North American Crane Workshop Proceedings. 36.

Schofield, L. N., H. L. Loffland, R. B. Siegel, C. Stermer, and T. Mark. In prep. A conservation strategy for Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailli) in California. Interim version 1.0. The Institute for Bird Populations. Point Reyes Station, California.

Page 62: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

62

Sherman, C. K. and M. L. Morton. 1993. Population declines of Yosemite toads in the eastern Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of Herpetology, 27(2): 186-198.

Siegel, R. B., P. Pyle, J. H. Thorne, A. J. Holguin, C. A. Howell, S. Stock, and M. W. Tingley. 2014. Vulnerability of birds to climate change in California's Sierra Nevada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 9(1): 7.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00658-090107.

Sikes, K., D. Cooper, S. Weis, T. Keeler-Wolf, M. Barbour, D. Ikeda, D. Stout, and J. Evens. 2013. Fen conservation and vegetation assessment in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada and adjacent mountains, California.

Sleeter, B. M., T. S. Wilson, E. Sharygin, J. T. Sherba. 2017. Future scenarios of land change based on empirical data and demographic trends. Earth’s Future, 5(1), 1068-1083.

Stillwater Sciences. 2012. A guide for restoring functionality to mountain meadows of the Sierra Nevada. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California for American Rivers, Nevada City, California.

Sun, L., D. Muller-Schwarze, and B. A. Schulte. 2000. Dispersal pattern and effective population size of the beaver. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78(3): 393-398. https://doi.org/10.1139/z99-226

Thorne, J.H., R.M. Boynton, A.J. Holguin, J.A.E. Stewart, & J. Bjorkman. 2016. A climate change vulnerability assessment of California’s terrestrial vegetation. Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Sacramento, CA.

Trout Unlimited. 2009. Conservation Success Index Version 4.0, Sierra Nevada CSI Analyses [Google Earth .kmz]. Available online at http://tucsi.tu.org/region_sierras.aspx

UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences & USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2017. Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0), Vallejo, CA, Regional Office: USDA Forest Service.2017. http://meadows.ucdavis.edu/

U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles – Counties. Available online at https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/cbf/cbf_counties.html.

U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau. 2018a. 2018 TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Available online at https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-line.html.

U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau. 2018b. 2018 MAF/TIGER Feature Class Codes. Available online at https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/mtfccs2018.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad. Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 166. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-26/pdf/2016-20352.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. 303(d) Listed Impaired Waters by Causes of Impairment and Probable Sources [ESRI 10.x File Geodatabase]. ATTAINS Program. Washington, D. C. Available online at https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geospatial-data-downloads#303dListedImpairedWaters.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. California Integrated Assessment of Watershed Health. EPA 841-R-14-003. Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Support for this project was provided by the U.S. EPA Healthy Watersheds Initiative. Available online at https://databasin.org/maps/d20b406693764ce7bcce3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. I-ix+210 pp., Appendices A-O.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Little Kern Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus aquabonita whitei) critical habitat data [shapefile]. Sacramento, CA. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Critical-Habitat/Data/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Critical Habitat Spatial Extent - Central Valley spring-run ESU [Shapefile]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=E06D

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the Northern Distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite Toad. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 80. https://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2013/2013-09598.html

Page 63: Sierra Meadow Prioritization Tool User Guide and Data ... · The prioritization tool is based on the meadows in the Sierra Nevada Multi-Source Meadow Polygons Compilation (v 2.0)

63

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016a. Mountain yellow-legged frog, Northern DPS (Rana muscosa) critical habitat data [shapefile]. Sacramento, CA. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Critical-Habitat/Data/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016b. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) critical habitat data [shapefile]. Sacramento, CA. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Critical-Habitat/Data/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016c. Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus) critical habitat data [shapefile]. Sacramento, CA. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Critical-Habitat/Data/

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Remote Sensing Lab. 2006. Sierra Nevada U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Critical Aquatic Refuges [shapefile]. Vallejo, CA. Available online at https://databasin.org/datasets/034840c97a42406097741774dfb95176.

U.S. Forest Service. Accessed 9 January 2019. National Forest System Roads shapefile [S_USA.RoadCore_FS]. Available online at https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=transportation.

U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed 3 August 2018. Watershed Boundary Dataset. Available online at https://nhd.usgs.gov/wbd.html.

U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed 7 August 2018. National Hydrography Dataset 1:24,000 - Seeps and Springs Point Data [ESRI File Geodatabase]. Available online at gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov

U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed 7 August 2018. National Hydrography Dataset 1:24,000 - Ponds and Lakes Polygon Data [ESRI File Geodatabase]. Available online at gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov

U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed 7 August 2018. National Hydrography Dataset 1:24,000 – Streams and Rivers Polyline Data [ESRI File Geodatabase]. Available online at gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov

Viers, J. H., S. E. Purdy, R. A. Peek, A. Fryjoff-Hung, N. R. Santos, J. V. E. Katz, J. D. Emmons, D. V. Dolan, and S. M. Yarnell. 2013. Montane meadows in the Sierra Nevada: Changing hydroclimatic conditions and concepts for vulnerability assessment. Center for Watershed Sciences Technical Report (CWS-2013-01), University of California, Davis. 63 pp.

Vredenburg, V., T. Tunstal, R. Bingham, J. Yeh, S. Schoville, C. Briggs, and C. Moritz. 2004. Patterns of habitat use and movement of Rana muscosa in the northern Sierra Nevada with comparisons to populations in the southern Sierra Nevada, with additional information on the biogeography of the species. Final Report for Contract No. P0185186. University of California, Berkeley.

Wake, D. B., K. P. Yanev, and R. W. Hansen. 2002. New species of slender salamander, genus Batrachoseps, from the southern Sierra Nevada of California. Copeia, 4, 1016-1028.

Weixelman, D. A., B. Hill, D.J. Cooper, E.L. Berlow, J. H. Viers, S.E. Purdy, A.G. Merrill, and S.E. Gross. 2011. Meadow Hydrogeomorphic Types for the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California: A Field Key. Gen. Tech. Rep. R5-TP-034. Vallejo, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 34 pp.

Winter, Jon. 1986. Status, Distribution, and Ecology of the great gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) in California. M.S. Thesis, San Francisco State University. San Francisco, CA. 121 p.

Wu, J. X., H. L. Loffland, R. B. Siegel, and C. Stermer. 2016. A conservation strategy for Great Gray Owls (Strix nebulosa) in California. Interim version 1.0. The Institute for Bird Populations and California Partners in Flight. Point Reyes Station, California.