Developing Landscape Conservation Designs & Adaptation Strategies for the GCPO LCC D. Todd Jones-Farrand Science Coordinator david_jones-farrand@fws.gov 29-30 June 2015 Replace this box with key image to introduce talk s scope, importance, or background
This presentation proposes an approach to build a GCPO-wide Landscape Conservation Design & invites your input Introduction to Landscape Conservation Design The Proposed Approach Building the GCPO s Blueprint 1.0 2
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
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 5
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 6
The case for Landscape Conservation Design Define: We ve done some of this 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
The case for Landscape Conservation Design Define: We ve got some of this 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
The case for Landscape Conservation Design Design: We need to do some of this 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
The case for Landscape Conservation Design Deliver: So folks can do this 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
This presentation proposes an approach to build a GCPO-wide Landscape Conservation Design & invites your input Introduction to Landscape Conservation Design The Proposed Approach Building the GCPO s Blueprint 1.0 11
The GCPO Steering Committee approved a general approach to developing an LCD 12 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
The GCPO Steering Committee approved a general approach to developing an LCD 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?
The GCPO Steering Committee approved a general approach to developing an LCD 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 Bottom-up Top-down Strategy Framework 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
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) 15
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 Another 1-2 virtual meetings An in-person meeting + another 1-2 virtual meetings 16 ***Iterative process so we need not get it perfect the first time around, only as functional as possible
This presentation proposes an approach to build a GCPO-wide Landscape Conservation Design & invites your input Introduction to Landscape Conservation Design The Proposed Approach Building the GCPO s Blueprint 1.0 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?
Bottom Up: The Partner Priorities & Investments Database 20 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
Bottom Up: The Partner Priorities & Investments Database 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
Investment Hierarchy of Priority Areas LEVEL Region LCC ROLE Shared Targets BLOBS Prioritization COAs Initiative Areas Assessment Broader Foundation & Future Context
Top Down: Best places for Collaborative Conservation 24 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.
Developing a Comprehensive Conservation Strategy across the LCC as a social process 25 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
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 26
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 Rule Set Replicable
28
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? 29
Rule 1: Is the catchment in the Ozark Highlands? 37.8 M Acres 84.9 k Catchments 30
Rule 2: Does potential exist to conserve the habitat? Class BDH Grasslands More habitat priorities in Ozarks than defined by the ISA. Team used habitat priorities defined by the CHJV Scrub-shrub Terrestrial Upland hardwoods and montane conifers Open pine woodlands and savannas Forested wetlands 31
Rule 2: Does potential exist to conserve the habitat? Class BDH CHJV Potential Vegetation Working Grassland??? Grasslands Prairie Savanna Terrestrial Scrub-shrub Glade / Woodland Complex (<20% canopy) Oak Open Woodland (20-50% Upland canopy) hardwoods and Oak Closed Woodland (50-80% montane conifers canopy) Mesic Forest (> 80% canopy) Pine / Bluestem Open Woodland (20-50% Open pine canopy) woodlands and Pine / Oak Closed Woodland (50-80% savannas canopy) Forested Floodplain Forests wetlands MO Pre-settlement Prairie Map Nelson Glade Mapping Project OK Pine-Oak Mapping Project Better or additional datasets used when available 32
Rule 2: Does potential exist to conserve the habitat? Rule 3: Relative conservation opportunity? 33
Rule 4: Is there minimal re-purposed land? 34
Rule 5: Is there minimal developed land? 35
Rule 6: Is the catchment a high priority? 36
Rule 6: Is the catchment a high priority? 37
The Ozark CCS draft priority areas are NOT informed by objectives 38
The Ozark CCS draft priority areas are NOT informed by objectives Watch List Species Stewardship Species 39
The Ozark CCS draft priority areas are NOT informed by objectives 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
The Ozark CCS draft priority areas are NOW informed by objectives 41
The Ozark CCS draft priority areas are NOW informed by objectives 42
We need to move from Opportunity to Design 43
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 44
PrOACT Trigger Problem Decide & Take Action Objectives SDM Analysis Toolkit Tradeoffs & Optimization Alternatives Uncertainty: Climate Change? Land use Change? Funding? Consequences Modeling Toolkit
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) 46
The Ozark CCS Process is a good pilot, but 47 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
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 48
Next Steps 2015 2016 Currently developing Investments Database & Collaboration Opportunity maps Stakeholder Review Workshops beginning in Fall 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 Tasks August Breakout by subgeography (terrestrial) & aquatics 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