1 / 20

Optimal conservation strategies for dynamic landscapes

Optimal conservation strategies for dynamic landscapes. Incorporating climate change and urban growth in conservation planning. James B. Grand , USGS, Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Max Post van der Burg , USGS, Northern Prairi es Wildlife Research Center.

catrin
Download Presentation

Optimal conservation strategies for dynamic landscapes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Optimal conservation strategies for dynamic landscapes Incorporating climate change and urban growth in conservation planning James B. Grand, USGS, Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Max Post van der Burg,USGS, Northern Prairies Wildlife Research Center

  2. Southeast Regional Assessment Project(SERAP) • Downscaled climate change projections • Sea level rise in Mississippi and Alabama • Impacts of climate change on bird habitats • Projected impacts of climate change and urban growth on habitats of priorities • Avian range dynamics in response to land use and climatic change • Multi-resolution assessment of potential climate change effects on biological resources: Aquatic and hydrologic dynamics • Optimal conservation strategies for dynamic landscapes Funded by: USGS, National Climate Change & Wildlife Science CenterUSFWS, Multi-state grantsSouth Atlantic LCC

  3. Project Scope and Spatial Extent • Spatial Extent: • South Atlantic LCC • Scope: • Conservation-related decisions by partners in SA LCC

  4. Relationship to SA LCC • The purpose of this project is to develop a frameworkto 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.

  5. My naïve conceptual model …is this really the problem?

  6. 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

  7. Stakeholder concerns What’s Important(ends) Ends Objectives Socioeconomics Maintain Wildlife Populations Natural Areas Conserve cultural resources 1° Means Objectives Maintain Terrestrial Spp. Protect Archaeological Sites Maintain Aquatic Spp. Air Quality Protect Historical Sites 2° Means Objectives Water Quantity Soil erosion Beach Erosion Runoff Water Quality Habitat Fire Decisions - strategies Products Tools Maps of priority areas Monitoring Education How we get there(means)

  8. 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

  9. What are the decisions? • List decision makers for ALL conservation partners • Decisions they make • Types of actions • Grouped decision makers by decision type • Resource managers • Resource regulators • Project funders • Advocates • Not mutually exclusive: • EPA – manages, regulates, and funds conservation projects • TNC – manages and advocates

  10. Influence diagram  decision model(Prototype 0.3.2) How we get there What’s Important

  11. Generalized model (Prototype 0.0) • Cultural 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 How we get there What’s Important

  12. 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 strategiesthat are based on a shared scientific understanding about the landscape of the Southeast. • 2) Help partners solve shared problems with similar objectives.

  13. What do LCC partners want to know? • Where they should take action to contribute most to LCC objectives. • How will those actions contribute to their agencies’ objectives.

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Developing strategies • Strategies – portfolios optimally implemented in time and space to maximize their value to the LCC. • 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. • Achieve DFCs in areas that will enhance corridors between existing habitat patches based on current climatic conditions • Optimal – maximum value. • Decision – choose strategy that maximizes utility

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. Assess Problem • Assess Problem • Assess Problem What are the products? • Design • Design • Process for adapting to change • Recommendations for monitoring and adjusting to unexpected outcomes • Implement

More Related