developing landscape conservation designs & adaptation...

D. Todd Jones-Farrand

Science Coordinator [email protected]

29-30 June 2015

Replace this box with key image to introduce talk’s scope, importance, or background

Developing Landscape Conservation Designs & Adaptation Strategies for the GCPO LCC

mailto:[email protected]

2

Introduction to Landscape Conservation Design

This presentation proposes an approach to build a GCPO-wide Landscape Conservation Design & invites your input

Building the GCPO’s Blueprint 1.0

The Proposed Approach

Landscape Conservation Design is both a Process and a Product

Process – Collaborative, integrated, and holistic process – Focused on partners’ missions, mandates, and goals – Focused on ensuring sustainability of ecosystem services for current and future

generations Product

– Science‐based, technologically advanced, spatially‐explicit – Identifies targets of interest to partners – Articulates measurable objectives – Assesses current and projected landscape patterns and processes – Identifies a desired future condition, conservation/development trade‐offs,

implementation strategies

The case for Landscape Conservation Design: the cure for what ails us?

• Landscapes are not equally valuable to native species. • Given limited capacity, the conservation community must set priorities and identify

geographically‐specific priority places for collaborative planning & implementation. • The process for designating Collaborative Opportunity Areas must include an assessment of

current and expected future stressors • COAs must be linked into a network of lands and waters which will provide the best opportunity

to secure future natural & cultural resources. • The Network within an ecoregion must include all major desired habitat systems (matrix systems

& important patch communities such as glades) • Conserving desired habitat systems is the most efficient way to integrate species needs across

taxa (amphibian, bird, invertebrate, mammal, reptile) • Population Objectives for multiple representative species can help define the amount of each

habitat system that needs to be conserved • Habitat requirements for representative species can help define the desired habitat conditions

(configuration & structure) for each habitat system when developing and implementing conservation actions within the network design

5

Why now?

• Countdown to SECAS 2016 • Greg’s blog in the GCPO Newsletter

• What is SE Conservation Adaptation Strategy? • Sustainable landscapes by 2060 • Not extra work, but integration of conservation planning and action across LCCs • Focus of SEAFWA Fall Meeting • Milestone, not a deadline

6

What can the ASMT do?

• Really want Collaborative Habitat Initiatives, not Opportunity Areas, but we are a voluntary committee in a voluntary partnership • Efficiency, social accountability & acceptance • Outside our scope

• The decision space (as I see it) • How does the LCC catalyze habitat conservation actions in landscapes with the

highest probability of securing fish & wildlife? • How does the ASMT provide useful information to help identify those landscapes?

• In the next 15 months & beyond

The case for Landscape Conservation Design









Define: We’ve done some of this










Define: We’ve got some of this










Design: We need to do some of this



geographically-specific priority places for collaborative planning & implementation. • The process for designating Collaborative Opportunity Areas must include an assessment of







Deliver: So folks can do this

11





12

The GCPO Steering Committee approved a general approach to developing an LCD

• Where are we investing in Pine habitats in the Ozarks? (How much do we have in good condition?) • CFLR (USFS), MO State Parks, MDC, NPS, AGFC, ANH, TNC, LAD, & now NRCS

• What is the return on investment? (How much do we need?) • Have landscape & species Endpoints in ISA • Need Objectives & a Rule Set

• Where else could we invest? (Where could we get more?) • Need a Rule Set

• What investment portfolio is most likely to be successful? (How are we most likely to get a functioning, resilient network?) • Future Projections + Collaborative forums (adaptation strategies) + Sp Endpoints (models) = Scenario

Planning


• Bottom-up Assessment • ID current investments (i.e. priority places) • “Armada of Arcs”

• Top-down Assessment • ID collaboration opportunities from existing

data & expert judgment

• Integration into a Strategy Framework • What’s the next “best” place to invest? • What’s the likely outcome of changes in the

landscape on current & potential investments?

14


• Where are we investing in Pine habitats in the Ozarks? (How much do we have in good condition?) • CFLR (USFS), MO State Parks, MDC, NPS, AGFC, ANH, TNC, LAD, & now NRCS

• What is the return on investment? (How much do we need?) • Have landscape & species Endpoints in ISA • Need Objectives & a Rule Set

• Where else could we invest? (Where could we get more?) • Need a Rule Set

• What investment portfolio is most likely to be successful? (How are we most likely to get a functioning, resilient network?) • Future Projections + Collaborative forums (adaptation strategies) + Sp Endpoints (models) = Scenario

Planning

Bottom‐up

Top‐down

Strategy Framework

15

Logistics of the Proposed Process

• Lead by Adaptive Science Management Team • The ASMT represents the various resource interests of the partnership (Core Team) • Can’t have everybody at the table at once • Responsible for defining, guiding, & contributing to the process

• Executed primarily by LCC Staff • Very few resources currently available to contract out tasks

• Broader partnership reviews products in workshops • Stakeholders determine utility • Iterative process of review & revision (hopefully not too many)

16

Timeline of the Proposed Process

• First 6 months • Draft Partner Priorities database & map • Draft Collaboration Opportunities maps • Start Stakeholder Review

• Next 6 months • Complete stakeholder review, update database & revise maps • Develop modeling framework to assess “enoughness” of existing investments

• By SECAS 2016 • Release Blueprint 1.0

***Iterative process so we need not get it perfect the first time around, only “as functional as possible”

Another 1‐2 virtual meetings

An in‐person meeting + another 1‐2 virtual meetings

18





The ASMT is tasked with fleshing out this general approach to developing an LCD

• Bottom-up Assessment • What should be in the database? • “Paper” priorities vs. Investments

• Top-down Assessment • Is the Ozark Pilot process workable? • What criteria are important to include?

• Integration into a Strategy Framework • How do we structure this? • What strategies should we test first?

20

Bottom Up: The Partner Priorities & Investments Database

• Need to leverage existing conservation investments

• People need to “see themselves” in this design

• Actors include LCC partners, existing partnerships, other organizations, neighboring LCCs, non-traditional partners, etc.

• Targeted Review by LCC Staff (primarily Taylor Hannah & Todd) with Review by ASMT & Stakeholders

• Focused on the 9 habitat systems in the ISA

21

• Lead Org • Partners • Geo Locator • Priority

System • System

Objective • Priority

Species • Species

Objective

• Investment Level • Investment Type • Threats (drivers &

stressors) • LCC Role(s) • Monitoring

(design, protocol, database)

• Human Dimensions

Bottom Up: The Partner Priorities & Investments Database

Investment Hierarchy of Priority Areas

Region

BLOBS

COAs

Initiative Areas

Shared Targets

Prioritization

Assessment

Broader Foundation & Future Context

LEVEL LCC ROLE

24

Top Down: Best places for Collaborative Conservation

• Data-driven, transparent process • Ozark Highlands Pilot

• Connect up staff projects, funded projects & available assessments

• Focused on GCPO needs & info • Completed by LCC Staff & ASMT with

review by Steering Committee & Stakeholders

• Habitat systems with completed Ecological Assessments • Any potential additions identified by

Bottom‐up effort will wait for the next iteration.

25

Developing a Comprehensive Conservation Strategy across the LCC as a social process

Revised Phased Approach • Phase 1

• Identify priority habitat systems • Identify representative species • Identify Conservation Opportunity Areas based on landscape

condition • Identify preliminary Conservation Network Design

• Phase 2 • Test the Network with species habitat & viability models

26

The Ozark CCS is a Team Effort

• Local knowledge of habitats, representative species & conservation community

• Decision makers

• Planning & Geospatial Support • Avian Habitat Objectives

• Coordination of shared vision • Spatial data management

Ozark Highlands Comprehensive Conservation Strategy Elements

• Fundamental objective • “Landscapes capable of sustaining healthy plant and animal communities

throughout the Ozark Highlands”

• Product • A spatial data layer prioritizing conservation opportunity areas (COAs) across Ozark

portion of AR, MO, and OK

• Process • Core Group meeting (virtual or in person) several times a year • Identify scientific process for identifying COAs

• Transparent • Defensible • Replicable

“Rule Set”

29

The Team finalized the Rule Set – Phase 1 (Opportunity)

1. Is the Catchment “in”? 2. Does potential exist for each Habitat System? 3. Ample potential for each Habitat System? 4. Minimal re‐purposed land? 5. Converted to Developed? 6. What catchments are “high priority”?

30

Rule 1: Is the catchment in the Ozark Highlands?

37.8 M Acres 84.9 k Catchments

31

Rule 2: Does potential exist to conserve the habitat? Class BDH

Terr

estr

ial

Grasslands

Scrub‐shrub

Upland hardwoods and montane conifers

Open pine woodlands and savannas

Forested wetlands

• More habitat priorities in Ozarks than defined by the ISA. • Team used habitat priorities defined by the CHJV

32

Rule 2: Does potential exist to conserve the habitat? Class BDH CHJV Potential Vegetation

Terr

estr

ial

Grasslands

Working Grassland??? Prairie

Savanna

Scrub‐shrub Glade / Woodland Complex (<20% canopy)


Oak Open Woodland (20‐50% canopy) Oak Closed Woodland (50‐80% canopy) Mesic Forest (> 80% canopy)


Pine / Bluestem Open Woodland (20‐50% canopy) Pine / Oak Closed Woodland (50‐80% canopy)

Forested wetlands Floodplain Forests

Class BDH Te

rres

tria

l

Grasslands

Scrub‐shrub



Forested wetlands

Nelson Glade Mapping Project

OK Pine‐Oak Mapping Project

MO Pre‐settlement Prairie Map

Better or additional datasets used when available

33

Rule 2: Does potential exist to conserve the habitat? Rule 3: Relative conservation opportunity?

34

Rule 4: Is there minimal re-purposed land?

35

Rule 5: Is there minimal developed land?

36

Rule 6: Is the catchment a high priority?

37

Rule 6: Is the catchment a high priority?

38

The Ozark CCS draft priority areas are NOT informed by objectives

39


Watch List Species Stewardship Species

System CHJV Obj Priority 12 Priority 11+ Priority 10+ Priority 9+ Mixed

Priority Prairie n/a 30,836 144,647 410,811 918,369 918,369 Savanna 149,680 2,538 11,042 37,631 130,766 130,766 Glade 421,354 7,461 21,455 43,355 77,938 77,938 Open Oak Woodland 479,193 6,372 177,327 684,677 1,677,824 1,677,824

Closed Oak Woodland 895,095 9,486 331,662 1,112,879 2,812,875 1,112,879 Open Pine Woodland 56,979 22,487 120,283 251,249 381,294 120,283 Pine-Oak Woodland 471,530 4,368 538,697 1,171,853 1,834,445 538,697 Mesic Forest 654,451 1,885 56,074 489,315 1,556,238 1,556,238

Riparian/Bottomland Forest 363,363 99,144 206,917 430,816 1,512,797 430,816 Total Acres 3,491,645 184,578 1,608,103 4,632,586 10,902,546 6,563,810

Proportion of OZH Area (%) 0.5% 4.3% 12.3% 28.8% 17.4% Proportion of OZH Catchments (%) 5.9% 14.4% 27.9% 52.3% 32.7%

40


System CHJV Obj Priority 12 Priority 11+ Priority 10+ Priority 9+ Prairie n/a 30,836 144,647 410,811 918,369 Savanna 149,680 2,538 11,042 37,631 130,766 Glade 421,354 7,461 21,455 43,355 77,938 Open Oak Woodland 479,193 6,372 177,327 684,677 1,677,824

Closed Oak Woodland 895,095 9,486 331,662 1,112,879 2,812,875 Open Pine Woodland 56,979 22,487 120,283 251,249 381,294 Pine-Oak Woodland 471,530 4,368 538,697 1,171,853 1,834,445 Mesic Forest 654,451 1,885 56,074 489,315 1,556,238

Riparian/Bottomland Forest 363,363 99,144 206,917 430,816 1,512,797 Total Acres 3,491,645 184,578 1,608,103 4,632,586 10,902,546

Proportion of OZH Area (%) 0.5% 4.3% 12.3% 28.8% Proportion of OZH Catchments (%) 5.9% 14.4% 27.9% 52.3%

System CHJV Obj Prairie n/a Savanna 149,680 Glade 421,354 Open Oak Woodland 479,193

Closed Oak Woodland 895,095 Open Pine Woodland 56,979 Pine-Oak Woodland 471,530 Mesic Forest 654,451

Riparian/Bottomland Forest 363,363 Total Acres 3,491,645

Proportion of OZH Area (%) Proportion of OZH Catchments (%)

41

The Ozark CCS draft priority areas are NOW informed by objectives

42

The Ozark CCS draft priority areas are NOW informed by objectives

43

We need to move from Opportunity to Design

44

The Team finalized the Rule Set – Phase 2 (Design)

7. Where are the high quality • habitat systems? 8. Where are the conservation lands? 9. Where are known locations of sensitive species? 10. Will priority catchments remain valuable? 11. Can priority catchments secure species?

• **Thompson/Bonnot project funded by the LCC this year will complete Phase 2 in 2015

PrOACT

Modeling Toolkit

Problem

Uncertainty: Climate Change?

Land use Change? Funding?

Trigger

Objectives

Alternatives

Consequences

Tradeoffs & Optimization

Decide & Take Action

SDM Analysis Toolkit

46

Principles of the Ozark CCS Process

• Catchments are the best way to integrate systems • Small & manageable (~1,000 ac on average) • Across terrestrial & aquatic systems

• Rules are fixed but how we answer the questions can change • Maintains consistency & transparency • Allows us to use the best available data

• Opportunity areas are defined based on current landscape conditions • What are the best places now?

• Other considerations are part of building strategies • Public lands doesn’t drive the ranking (Private lands are just as important) • Heritage data doesn’t drive the ranking (generally not scientific surveys) • Risk of urbanization doesn’t drive the ranking (don’t want to give up too soon)

47

The Ozark CCS Process is a good pilot, but…

• Doesn’t explicitly recognize where we are currently investing • Existing priority areas & projects are not used to ID priority areas; used later to build strategies • Need partners to “see themselves” in a plan & not see this as duplicative

• It hasn’t been vetted by the broader community • State Diversity Coordinators can’t speak for all conservation interests in their state • The broader the input, the broader the foundation for collective action

• It performs well for forests but poorly for grasslands • Remnants are small & frequently confused with crop & pasture • May need an approach similar to glades

• It only covers terrestrial habitat systems • Doesn’t distinguish between protection & restoration priorities

• Opportunity areas defined by potential habitat & natural cover, not current habitat condition • Areas in/closer to desired condition have a different set of management options & costs

48

There are alternative approaches out there

• Straight ranking of watersheds instead of thresholds • FWS R4 Fisheries Watershed Prioritization Tool ranks watersheds on 9 criteria (1‐401)

• Weighting criteria instead of equal value • FWS R4 Fisheries Watershed Prioritization Tool weights criteria before calculating priority score

• Criteria beyond restoration potential • Other people’s priorities (e.g. R4 Fisheries, LMV Delivery Networks, Gulf Land Trust Partnership) • Biodiversity (e.g. R4 Fisheries, PARCAs) • Invasive species & other threats (e.g. R4 Fisheries) • Critical Habitat (e.g. Alabama SHUs) • Resilience (e.g. TNC) • Permeability/Connectivity (e.g. R4 Fisheries, TNC, SALCC) • Departure from reference condition

Next Steps

2015 – Currently developing Investments Database & Collaboration

Opportunity maps – Stakeholder Review Workshops beginning in Fall

2016 – Refine database & maps based on stakeholder input – Develop modeling framework to assess “enoughness” of existing

investments – Develop adaptation strategies (i.e. how do we maintain what we have

& get more where we need it in light of forecasted changes)

Next ASMT Meetings

Logistics – August – Breakout by subgeography (terrestrial) & aquatics

Tasks – Finalize priority habitats list (from database project)

• Full list & what goes into Blueprint v1.0

– Determine prioritization criteria & best datasets (when we have options) to spatially depict them

• To the extent that we use current condition (ecological assessment project), what Ls Endpoints do we include?

– Determine criteria to select best species to model • Assess enoughness of current conservation network (short term) & serve as a basis for

selecting best adaptation strategies (down the road)

Next ASMT Meetings

Logistics – September – Breakout by subgeography (terrestrial) & aquatics

Tasks – Review initial landscape prioritization – Review species criteria

Next ASMT Meetings

Logistics – January/February – Face‐to‐face

Tasks – Review workshop results & determine next steps

developing landscape conservation designs & adaptation...

Documents