gp-lcc

1095 Words3 Pages

I thank each of the team members for taking on the laborious task to evaluate surrogate species for the Great Plains – LCC. Following review of the GP-LCC Surrogate Species document (dated 15 Nov 2013), Species Template, and literature/policy review, these comments were developed for your consideration.

• Six habitat types were identified as potential priorities within the GP-LCC area (short and mixed-grass prairies, playa wetlands, riparian streams, prairie rivers, cross timbers, and savanna, scrublands’ and sand dune [are these not three themselves?]). Among the six habitat types identified as potential priorities within the GP-LCC, five had priority habitats and related species discussed; however, Cross Timbers does not have any discussion regarding habitat or relates species. Also, non-playa wetlands and saline lakes were added in the narratives but, they were not previously listed as potential priority habitats. It appears that priority habitats in this landscape need better definition. I note that three priority habitats (riparian stream, prairie rivers, and cross timbers) within the GP-LCC are not represented in the Llano Estacado sub-geography.

• Bailey (1998) describes at least six Ecosystem Provinces in the GP-LCC. While I understand the intent to divide the GP-LCC into sub-geography to accomplish the task at hand, it would be beneficial to understand how this sub-geography was selected and to include discussion about other sub-geography endeavors planned for the future. Only for note, selection of sub-geography by ecoregional boundaries, as described by either Ricketts (1999) or Bailey (1998), would have included more priority habitats.

• Reviewing “Guidance on Selecting Species for Design of Landscape-scale C...

... middle of paper ...

...ies can best serve conservation of the greatest number of species at the largest landscape scale appropriate, LPC may be an appropriate surrogate.

• Northern pintail and sandhill crane numbers are an artifact of breeding success (that occurs outside of this selected sub-geography) and available habitat (viz. surface water and food). Because of this, it is recommended that available habitat vs. population demographics would be a better landscape condition indicator.

• I celebrate the use of black grama (a decreaser) and prickly pear (an increaser) as range condition indicators and applaud the committee’s use of flora in addition to fauna. However, distribution of black grama is limited throughout the sub-geography selected. If this geography included the short-grass steppe the distribution of black grama would suggest it as a much better landscape representative.

Open Document