pljv implementation planning

Download PLJV Implementation Planning

Post on 12-Jan-2016




2 download

Embed Size (px)


PLJV Implementation Planning. Partners in Flight Conservation Design Workshop Saint Louis, MO April 11-13, 2006. PLAYAS. The All Bird Puzzle. waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, landbirds. Cropland. Cropland. Cropland. Sand Sage. Sand Sage. Riparian. Riparian. Riparian. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • PLJV Implementation Planning

    Partners in Flight Conservation Design WorkshopSaint Louis, MOApril 11-13, 2006

  • waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, landbirdsFutureCurrentUrbanUrbanPLAYASRiparianCroplandCroplandCRPCRPRiparianMixed-GrassMixed-GrassOther WetlandsShortgrassOther WetlandsSand SageSand SageShortgrassCroplandRiparianCRPUrbanThe All Bird Puzzle

  • A Hierarchical StructureAREA (BCR part of a state)

    ASSOCIATIONS (habitats with associated species)

    CONDITIONS (Variations within habitat associations)

    SEASONS (Breeding, Non-breeding, months, etc)

    SPECIES (Found in each condition of each association)

  • Acres of Habitat in an AreaXDensity/use-days of a Species =Estimated current carrying capacity of a SpeciesPopulation Objective for the Area=% of Goal for AreaThen, if needed, develop habitat to meet goal.

    Relationships are complex but can be simplified:

  • Playas in BCR 18 - KSSource: Soil Surveys mapped by Johnson et al. at Univ. of Kansas

  • Consistent Landcover

  • Associations: Mappable habitatsand bird species associated with them.

  • Conditions: Un-mappableaspects of associations (used NASS Ag. stats)

    Cropland6,692,262% of Assoc.Alfalfa166,2000.025Corn965,4000.144Hay68,5000.010Peanuts0.000Sorghum1,003,2000.150Soybeans85,5000.013Sunflowers81,4000.012Wheat2,258,8000.338All Other Crops2,063,2620.308TOTAL6,692,2621.000

  • Relationship to Habitat

  • Breeding Densities

    BCR 18 KS : BRSP (0.0032/Faanes and Lingle 1995) Density over 11 yrs. in upland prairie in w-central NE. Assumed habitat was sand sage (per Molhoff 2001). Density is appropriate as BRSP is at eastern edge of range in both NE and KS.

    BCR 19 OK: GRSP (0.0015/Wiens 1973) Density from grazed mixed grass prairie in SD. Based on BBS density maps, SD GRSP density is, on average, 10 times the density in BCR 19-OK. Density adjusted accordingly.

  • Other factors

  • Large Blocks Lesser Prairie-Chicken in Grass/SandSage

    Associations: Mixed grass, Sandhills Grassland, tall grass, shortgrass, shinnery, sand sage, wet meadow and moist soil units (Min. 2,000 ac)Woodland (includes riparian shrub/canopy and mesquite) - 50 ac. Cropland - 3,000 ac of Cropland and CRP combined. All water associations: < 100acRoad Acreage: No 4 lane roads. And < 50 ac.Window Size 5,000 ac

  • Mapped Large BlocksBCR 18 KS

    Red - Lesser Prairie-Chicken

    Blue - Long-billed Curlew

  • Model Acres of Association x % of ConditionxSuitability x Availability x Large BlocksxUnits=Current Carrying Capacity

  • Percent of Goal by Area

  • % of Goal within BCR 18 - CO

  • Effects of burning and grazing BCR 19 - Oklahoma

  • Habitat OptimizationLewiss WoodpeckerLeave Pinyon-Juniper aloneIncrease the management of Ponderosa Pine so that 80% of all forest has few trees and a grassy understoryManage all Riparian habitat in the Arkansas Valley so that exotic riparian shrubland and all early successional riparian forest is replaced with late successional forest. 55% with a grassy/shrubby understory.

  • Effects LEWO Habitat Work on Other Birds

  • End Product: Area Implementation Plan (AIP)

    Simple, specific, updateableShows current and desired acres of habitatDescribes specific habitats and priority species for work in that areaRepresents habitat goals over 30 years and reveals the magnitude of conservation work needed.Provides support for developing new conservation initiatives or tweaking existing onesProvides justification for budgetary requests BCR 18 Kansas

  • BCR 18 NM-TX shinnery

  • All grassland habitat in BCR 18 - NE4,699,511.8 Acres4,368,324.3 Grassland 337,838.8 CRPGIS Process:All:

  • StrengthsEffects of habitat manipulation on all species of concern evaluated simultaneouslyHighlights alternatives to object achievementSystem is flexible and adaptableQuick and relatively inexpensiveAppropriate specificity, given the capacity that partners have to implement landscape level change

  • ConcernsMany assumptions eg. % of association can change rapidlyPatchily distributed, low population species.Partial area coverage within natural rangeSpecies utilizing poorly captured habitat niches on the landscapeHabitat trend unanalyzed Assumes that density is equated with recruitment

  • Follows five elements

    General approach tried in other areas

    Works well with PIF goals by area

  • Where We Are


  • Sample Screen Grab of Main Area Edit Form

  • Curlew model outputBBS Curlew Distribution Map

    This is the area in which we are working The Southern Great Plains. Theres a clear distinction to the west with a clean demarcation between the mountains and the prairies. That distinction is lost when moving east to the tallgrass and more wooded areas, the deserts to the south or the more northern prairies.Specifically we are working in BCRs 18 and 19 the shortgrass prairies. We are planning for all of BCR 19, through an agreement with the RWBJV.All birds need to fit onto one piece of landscape. We needed to be able to plan for all species within the same landscape. We need to be able to plan for one species while knowing the good/harm that is being done for others. We can no longer afford single species or single groups of species planning. We needed some way to get initial habitat objectives out to our partners and a general understanding of what habitats to work on and where at a landscape level, (if not everywhere). We needed some way to be able to understand all this quickly thus was born HABS the Hierarchical All-Bird Strategy a relational database; It is basically just a bird accounting system able to account for numbers of birds on an acre of land.

    Key to being able to linking all priority species to their habitat simultaneously is this basic conceptual framework. PLJV uses a hierarchical approach that starts at the largest scale, the BCR part of a state and steps down to the amount of habitat, conditions of the habitat, seasons in which the habitat and conditions are utilized by a species, and finally how a species uses the above combination of factors. It is powerful yet highly flexible; it can accommodate new data, species, habitats, or conditions of habitat with ease.

    HABS works off a very basic model advocated in the Five Elements Paper and outlined here, that multiplies the number of acres by a unit (densities for breeding landbirds) to arrive at an estimated current population. For landbirds we assumed that they are limited by habitat, and therefore key to changing population size for that species, is understanding how a species is connected to the habitats it uses. (Nonbreeding species may be food limited, therefore can be connected to habitat via the energetic value of habitat following the modeling approach adopted by the LMVJV). We needed to be able to put information into the database by a meaningful area. Landbird estimates by BCR portions of states were already given to us by PIF and they are an easy way to accommodate data. Our areas, then, are BCR portions of a state. They are large enough for landscape scale bird planning yet are good for implementation planning because they fall within the boundaries of one state.Next we had to fill the HABS database with appropriate acreages of habitats. Despite our name and the fact that playas are the most common wetland type in the southern great plains, We had no comprehensive understanding of playa locations, so we had to develop that coverage. Approximate cost was $200K - (NWI coverage incomplete is incomplete, SSURGO data is best for getting at playas, NHD also gives us playas but not of these layers captured all playas We have developed a hybrid set of playa and are beginning a long process of ground-truthing) For those of you who have most important habitats already mapped this will not be an issue.We classified all our other habitats according to bird needs and generally understood habitats such as Crosstimbers woodland These were then crosswalked with the vegetation classifications in each state to one system. These are the Associations within the HABS databaseOutside of playas we used the best available base landcover for each state. Crosswalked habitat types were crosswalked and then stitched across state lines. Our associations had to be mappable through large scale landcover maps:SW ReGap used in CO, NMNatureServes ecological systems NE, KSState GAP in OK which is fairly good, but also in TX, where the information is poor but was the only landcover that offered the degree of specificity in shrub/grass types that we needed

    We know that some birds may be absent from small patches of grassland, we tested the need to rule out small patches i.e. < 40 ac. (16 ha) And we found within our region that patches that size or smaller were negligible.But gross habitat generalizations did not get us where we wanted to be with respect to how birds use habitat. Various conditions of habitat types which birds respond to but arent currently able to be mapped. (Snags, understory, high or low grass, % shrub cover, etc) Crops typifies a condition; we can easily map cropland, however, we are often unable to map different crop types. Even if we could these can change from year to year. - We gathered ag statistics by county, assigned each county to a BCR and determined a % of the Association. Where conditions were appropriate within associations we assigned percentages of association for each condition. Some % of associaitons are based on GIS or other available information. Some assigned by equal division. E.g.. Shortgrass P


View more >