Optimal conservation strategies for dynamic

landscapes

Incorporating climate change and urban growth in conservation

planningJames B. Grand, USGS,

Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

Max Post van der Burg, USGS, Northern Prairies Wildlife Research Center

Southeast Regional Assessment Project(SERAP)

1. Downscaled climate change projections

2. Sea level rise in Mississippi and Alabama

3. Impacts of climate change on bird habitats

4. Projected impacts of climate change and urban growth on habitats of priorities

5. Avian range dynamics in response to land use and climatic change

6. Multi-resolution assessment of potential climate change effects on biological resources: Aquatic and hydrologic dynamics

7. Optimal conservation strategies for dynamic landscapes

Funded by: USGS, National Climate Change & Wildlife Science CenterUSFWS, Multi-state grantsSouth Atlantic LCC

Project Scope and Spatial Extent

Spatial Extent: South Atlantic LCC

Scope: Conservation-

related decisions by partners in SA LCC

Relationship to SA LCC

The purpose of this project is to develop a framework to help guide strategic decisions for conservation delivery across the South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SA LCC).

Strategic decisions as those that maximize the LCC partners’ ability to meet large-scale, long-term objectives for complex systems.

Strategies are targeted collections of actions by SA LCC partners to implement conservation.

My naïve conceptual model

Private Lands Climate Change Public Lands Urban Growth

Land CoverHydrologyPhenology Sea Level Rise

Terrestrial Habitats

Freshwater Habitats

Coastal Habitats

Aquatic Species Response

Avian Species Response

Conservation Objectives

Habitat Conservation Strategies

Enlarge ExistingSpan GradientsFacilitate MovementsConnect ExistingDo Nothing

…is this really the problem?

Working group

National Park Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Defense Fund U.S.D.A. Forest Service U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation

Service Georgia Department of Natural Resources The Nature Conservancy National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration National Council on Air and Stream

Improvement

Products

1° Means Objectives

Stakeholder concerns

Ends Objectives

Maintain Wildlife Populations

Conserve cultural resources

Socioeconomics

Natural Areas

Maintain Terrestrial Spp.

Maintain Aquatic Spp.

Protect Archaeological Sites

Air Quality Protect Historical Sites

2° Means Objectives

Soil erosion

Runoff Water Quality

Beach Erosion

Fire

Water Quantity

Tools

Monitoring

Maps of priority areas

Education

What’s Important(ends)

Decisions - strategiesHow we get there(means)

Habitat

3-day workshop in Auburn, AL

Attendees Rua Mordecai

(SALCC) Laurel Barnhill

(USFWS) Cat Berns (TNC) Joe DeVivo (NPS) Rick Durbrow (EPA) Ken McDermond

(SALCC) Steve Musser (NRCS) Ben Wigley (NCASI)

Facilitators: Max Post van der Burg Barry Grand

Assistance Conor McGowan Amy Silvano Tyler Kreps

What are the decisions?

List decision makers for ALL conservation partners

Decisions they make Types of actions

Grouped decision makers by decision type 1. Resource managers

2. Resource regulators

3. Project funders

4. Advocates

Not mutually exclusive: EPA – manages, regulates, and funds conservation

projects TNC – manages and advocates

Influence diagram decision model(Prototype 0.3.2)

What’s ImportantHow we get there

Quality of Life (Socio-economic) DecisionsChange distributionChange discharge levels

Cultural Resource DecisionsPreserveRestoreCurateInterpret

Manager DecisionsConvertImproveRestoreMaintain

Utility

Sites

Objects

Biotic Cultural Resources

Recreation

Human health

Economy

Pop'ns Longleaf ecosystems

Pop'ns Upl. Hdwd For

Pop'ns in FW aquatic streams

Site Quality

Quantity of Sites

Air Quality

Exposure

Water quality

Water flow/discharge

Cover/Complexity Structure

Land type/cover

Land type pattern distribution

Human condition

Human populations

Urban growth

Climate

Quality

Distribution

ConstraintsCultural

BiologicalConstraints

Quantity Socio-economic

Strategies (hypothetical)Enlarge reservesEnlarge habitatEnhance Connectivity

Utility

Generalized model (Prototype 0.0)

What’s ImportantHow we get thereCultural resources• Sites• Objects• Native American Resources• Biotic Cultural Resources

Socio-economics• Recreational• Human health• Economic

Ecological systems (natural resources)• Beaches and Dunes • Caves-Karst Springs • Estuarine and Marine • Forested Wetlands (mineral soils) • Forested Wetlands (organic soils) • Freshwater aquatic • Freshwater marshes • Grassland - Prairie - Savannah • Southern Pine • Scrub-shrub • Upland Hardwood Xeric and Maritime

Scrub • Row crop

High value species

Problem statement

The LCC should serve as the umbrella group under which all of the partners come together to make decisions regarding the conservation of natural and cultural resources.

With that in mind, our problem has two parts:

1) Help partners choose strategies that are based on a shared scientific understanding about the landscape of the Southeast.

2) Help partners solve shared problems with similar objectives.

What do LCC partners want to know?

1. Where they should take action to contribute most to LCC objectives.

2. How will those actions contribute to their agencies’ objectives.

Next steps

Means objectives – prediction of consequences Need to be more explicit about desired conditions and

expected results (relationships)

Identifying data needs and potential sources Where will we get the data and models?

SERAP LCC Partners

Develop decisions or strategies explicitly

Developing strategies

Action – something done to benefit conservation

e.g., plant longleaf on agricultural lands

Portfolios – collections of actions e.g., restore all-aged forest by eliminating pasture

grasses, plant longleaf, thin, burn, and select cut e.g., achieve hardwood DFCs on forested lands

Developing strategies

Strategies – portfolios optimally implemented in time and space to maximize their value to the LCC.

1. Achieve DHCs (all habitats?) in areas that will enlarge existing reserve networks on public lands to mitigate for anticipated changes in sea level rise and precipitation patterns on fish and wildlife habitat.

2. Achieve DFCs in areas that will enhance corridors between existing habitat patches based on current climatic conditions

3. Optimal – maximum value.

Decision – choose strategy that maximizes utility

Tradeoffs

Value – Degree to which fundamental objectives are achieved

Rewards – Number of cultural sites protected Value – Proportion of all cultures represented

Tradeoffs – Incorporated as relative value (weights) of performance on each objective

How much are you will to compromise?

Utility – Total value of the strategy Discounted by uncertainty and risk Values and weights determined by partners

How did we approach this?

LCC established a small working group (8-10) 2 webinars to establish context & frame problem 1 multi-day workshop (3-day session)

Prototype model – decision network Identify needs & resources

Follow up workshops (3 1-day sessions) Develop strategies Refine & develop means objectives Review assumptions & results

Steering committee Reviews objective values Establishes & agrees on tradeoffs Decision to implement

What are the products?

Comparison of strategies Utility value of each strategy Predicted outcome for each objective Time- and value-ordered list of places for

actions GIS depictions of same

Assess Problem

Design

Assess Problem

Implement

Assess Problem

Design

What are the products?

Process for adapting to change Recommendations for monitoring and adjusting

to unexpected outcomesAssess

Problem

Design

Implement

Monitor

Evaluate

Adjust