optimal conservation strategies for dynamic landscapes incorporating climate change and urban growth...
TRANSCRIPT
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