Download Forest Core - Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture

Responding to the Expectations and
Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation
Science & Technology
Conservation Programs
Swainson’s Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Hooded Warbler
Wood Thrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Patch Size Model: A = (N * D) + B
A = Area of forest required to support a source population
N = Desired number of breeding pairs
D = Density of breeding birds (pairs / area)
B = Area of a 1-km wide forested buffer around the core
(N*D)
Source Population Objectives
State
Arkansas
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Tennessee
Totals
10K
9
0
2
19
14
6
1
51
20K
11
1
1
15
6
1
1
36
100K
3
0
0
7
2
0
1
13
Biologically
Efficient
Effective
Responding to the Expectations and
Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation
Science & Technology
Conservation Programs
Swainson’s Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Hooded Warbler
Wood Thrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Patch Size Model: A = (N * D) + B
A = Area of forest required to support a source population
N = Desired number of breeding pairs
D = Density of breeding birds (pairs / area)
B = Area of a 1-km wide forested buffer around the core
(N*D)
Source Population Objectives
State
Arkansas
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Tennessee
Totals
10K
9
0
2
19
14
6
1
51
20K
11
1
1
15
6
1
1
36
100K
3
0
0
7
2
0
1
Landscapes
That Sustain
Populations Of
Priority Species
At Prescribed
Levels
13
Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness
of our Conservation Actions
Responding to the Expectations and
Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation
Science & Technology
Conservation Programs
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW MUCH
Landscapes
That Sustain
Populations Of
Priority Species
At Prescribed
Levels
HOW MUCH MORE
Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness
of our Conservation Actions
Responding to the Expectations and
Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation
Conservation Enterprise
Science & Technology
Conservation Programs
WHAT
– Planning–
WHERE
WHEN
HOW MUCH
Landscapes
– Implementation –
That Sustain
Populations Of
– Monitoring Priority
–
Species
At Prescribed
– Evaluation –
Levels
HOW MUCH MORE
– Research –
Function As An Iterative Whole
Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels
Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels
PRIORITY SPECIES
Swainson’s Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Swallow-tailed Kite
Prothonotary Warbler
Northern Parula
Hooded Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Wood Thrush
Louisiana Waterthrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Eastern Wood-pewee
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Summer Tanager
Red-eyed Vireo
American Redstart
Broad-winged Hawk
Pileated Woodpecker
Cooper’s Hawk
White-breasted Nuthatch
Forest patches should be of sufficient size to support
source populations.
Fragmentation
Land Conversion
Nest Parasitism
Nest Predation
- How should birds be buffered from predation/parasitism?
- What constitutes a source population?
- What density do birds occur within the habitat?
Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels
PRIORITY SPECIES
Swainson’s Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Swallow-tailed Kite
Prothonotary Warbler
Northern Parula
Hooded Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Wood Thrush
Louisiana Waterthrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Eastern Wood-pewee
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Summer Tanager
Red-eyed Vireo
American Redstart
Broad-winged Hawk
Pileated Woodpecker
Cooper’s Hawk
White-breasted Nuthatch
Forest patches should be of sufficient size to support
source populations.
Patch Size Model: A = (N * D) + B
A = Area of forest required to support a
source population
N = Desired number of breeding pairs
D = Density of breeding birds (pairs / area)
B = Area of a 1-km wide non-hostile buffer
around the core (N*D)
- How should birds be buffered from predation/parasitism?
- What constitutes a source population?
- What density do birds occur within the habitat?
Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels
Ecological Suites
Swainson’s Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Northern Parula
Hooded Warbler
Wood Thrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Red-eyed Vireo
American Redstart
Cerulean Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Summer Tanager
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Louisiana Waterthrust
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler
Great Crested Flycatcher
Scarlet Tanager
White-breasted Nuthatch
Forest patches should be of sufficient size to support
source populations.
Patch Size Model: A = (N * D) + B
A = Area of forest required to support a
source population
N = Desired number of breeding pairs
D = Density of breeding birds (pairs / area)
B = Area of a 1-km wide non-hostile buffer
around the core (N*D)
Swallow-tailed Kite
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Pileated Woodpecker
Cooper’s Hawk
- How should birds be buffered from predation/parasitism?
- What constitutes a source population?
- What density do birds occur within the habitat?
Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels
Ecological Suites
Source Population
Habitat Requirements
Swainson’s Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Northern Parula
Hooded Warbler
Wood Thrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Red-eyed Vireo
American Redstart
Forest Blocks ≥ 10,000ac
500 Pairs
Cerulean Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Summer Tanager
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Louisiana Waterthrust
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler
Great Crested Flycatcher
Scarlet Tanager
White-breasted Nuthatch
Forest Blocks ≥ 20,000ac
500 Pairs
Forest Blocks ≥ 100,000ac
Swallow-tailed Kite
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Pileated Woodpecker
Cooper’s Hawk
~80 Pairs
MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization
Forest Breeding Birds
MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization
Forest Breeding Birds
Forest Core
MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization
Forest Breeding Birds
Assessment of Landscape Conditions
Bottomland Forest
Patch Size
Number
5-2,500 ac
38,047
2,500-10,000 ac
159
10,000-20,000 ac
55
20,000-100,000 ac 37
>100,000 ac
6
BLH Forest based on 1992 Thematic Mapper
satellite Imagery.
Patch size values from Twedt and Loesch 1999.
MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization
Forest Breeding Birds
Predation &
Brood Parasitism
Assessment of Landscape Conditions
Bottomland Forest
Patch Size
Number
5-2,500 ac
38,047
2,500-10,000 ac
159
10,000-20,000 ac
55
20,000-100,000 ac 37
>100,000 ac
6
99% of Forest Fragments
Unable to Sustain Source
Populations of Species of
Concern
BLH Forest based on 1992 Thematic Mapper
satellite Imagery.
Patch size values from Twedt and Loesch 1999.
MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization
Forest Breeding Birds
Source Population
Objectives
Source Population Objectives
Swainson’s Warbler
State
10K
20K
100K
Arkansas
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Tennessee
9
0
2
19
14
6
1
11
1
1
15
6
1
1
3
0
0
7
2
0
1
Totals
51
36
13
Prothonotary Warbler
Northern Parula
Hooded Warbler
Wood Thrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Red-eyed Vireo
American Redstart
Cerulean Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Summer Tanager
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Louisiana Waterthrust
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Yellow-throated Vireo
Yellow-throated Warbler
Great Crested Flycatcher
Scarlet Tanager
White-breasted Nuthatch
Swallow-tailed Kite
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Pileated Woodpecker
Cooper’s Hawk
Source Population Objectives
Science & Technology
Conservation Programs
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW MUCH
Landscapes
That Sustain
Populations Of
Priority Species
At Prescribed
Levels
HOW MUCH MORE
Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness
of our Conservation Actions
Source Population Objectives
Science & Technology
Conservation Programs
WHAT
WHERE
Federal State Private
RESTORATION
WHEN
PROTECTION
HOW MUCH
HOW MUCH MORE
MANAGEMENT
Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness
of our Conservation Actions
Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness
of Conservation Actions: RESTORATION
Use Science and
Technology to
Development
Restoration Decision
Support Models
Natural Flood Storage
Habitat
Water-Quality
MAV Forest Breeding Bird Reforestation
Decision Support Model
Forest
Blocks 
4,000ha
Swainson’s Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Hooded Warbler
Wood Thrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Forest
Blocks 
8,000ha
Cerulean Warbler
Kentucky Warbler
Summer Tanager
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Forest
Blocks 
40,000ha
Restoration
DSM
Swallow-tailed Kite
Red-shouldered Hawk
Broad-winged Hawk
Pileated Woodpecker
Cooper’s Hawk
Higher
Reforestation Decision Support
Model for Forest Breeding Birds
Reforestation Decision Support
Model for Forest Breeding Birds
Top 10%
Top 20%
Top 30%
Top 40%
Top 50%
State Wildlife Management Areas
National Wildlife Refuges
Using Decision Support Models to
Optimize Biological Efficiency
% Gain in Core Habitat
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
Highest
Priority
20
30
40
50
60
70
Reforestation Priority
80
90
100
Lowest
Priority
Using Decision Support Models to
Optimize Biological Efficiency
% Gain in Core Habitat
50
Core
established
in top 10%
priorities
Core
established
in top 50%
priorities
■
Core
established
randomly
40
30
Relationship between core habitat and
reforestation priority percentiles when
1.5 million acres are randomly restored.
20
■
10
■
■
■
■
■
■
40
50
60
70
Reforestation Priority
80
0
10
Highest
Priority
20
30
■
90
■
100
Lowest
Priority
Coordinated, Partner-driven Delivery
Arkansas
Texas
Ducks Unlimited
The
Conservation
Fund
Kentucky
The Nature
Conservancy
FWS Refuges
Louisiana
Mississippi
US Geological
Survey
Missouri
US Fish &
Wildlife
US
Forest Service
Tennessee
Wildlife Mgt
Institute
% CORE GAIN (w/
equal reforested area)
WRP POINT
VALUES
Top 10
47.38%
400
20
14.01%
120
30
11.09%
95
DU MARSH Program
40
7.83%
70
50
5.36%
50
FWS Partners for Wildlife
60
4.52%
40
70
3.80%
35
80
3.08%
30
90
2.53%
25
100 percentile
2.45%
20
State WMAs
Wetland Reserve Program
NAWCA
Carbon Sequestration
REFORESTATION
PRIORITY BANDS
Oklahoma
Assessing Conservation Status - Protection
National
Wildlife
Refuge
State
Wildlife
Mgt Area
Wetland
Reserve
Program
Ducks
Unlimited
Easement
Conservation
Status of the
Forest Breeding
Bird Landscape
UNPROTECTED
Percent
100
0
2,358 18
AR
IL
320 >.1
PROTECTED
PVT EASEMENT
EXTANT
FOREST
48 3,475 1,645 240 185 7,969 Total
KY
LA MS MO TN MAV Acres
2 1,227 326 10
30 1,916 X 1000
100
FEDERAL
Percent
STATE
0
CORE
Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness
of Conservation Actions: PROTECTION
National
Wildlife
Refuge
State
Wildlife
Mgt Area
Wetland
Reserve
Program
Ducks
Unlimited
Easement
“Forest Protection”
Decision Support Model
• Protect Remaining Core?
• Protect Forest Buffer?
• Protect Extant Forest in
Close Proximity to Core?
Assessing Conservation Status - Management
?
Forest Inventory Analysis
(FIA)
Forest Management
Tracking System
Realizing the Expectations and Challenges
of Joint Venture Implementation
Science & Technology
Conservation Programs
Swainson’s Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
Hooded Warbler
Wood Thrush
Acadian Flycatcher
Patch Size Model: A = (N * D) + B
A = Area of forest required to support a source population
N = Desired number of breeding pairs
D = Density of breeding birds (pairs / area)
B = Area of a 1-km wide forested buffer around the core
(N*D)
Source Population Objectives
State
Arkansas
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Tennessee
Totals
10K
9
0
2
19
14
6
1
51
20K
11
1
1
15
6
1
1
36
100K
3
0
0
7
2
0
1
13
Efficient
Effective
Realizing the Expectations and Challenges
of Joint Venture Implementation
Conservation Programs
WHAT
WHERE
WHEN
HOW MUCH
HOW MUCH MORE
Efficient
Effective
Habitat Monitoring Databases
Waterfowl
Shorebirds
Water Mgmt Units
-Spatial locations
-Tabular attributes
Water Mgmt Units
-Spatial locations
-Tabular attributes
Satellite Imagery
-Performance
-Compliance
Mgmt w/in Units
-Tracking Mgmt
-Monitoring
Plant Response (% cover)
Productivity (lbs/ac)
Songbirds
Forest Mgmt Units
-Mgmt w/in units
-Cruz data
-Demonic disturbance
-Fire
-Ice
-Storm
Reforestation
-Spatial locations
-Tabular attributes
The LMVJV Reforestation Tracking System


Reforestation: the re-establishment of a forested land
use on areas that were previously converted from a
forested to non-forested land use
e-RTS
 Internet-accessible data entry and query application
 Data is “housed” in a relational database
 Designed to serve as a central repository for reforestation
data
 Managed and served by the LMV Joint Venture Office as a
service to Joint Venture partners
Why an LMVJV Reforestation Tracking System?
 Reforestation is a common LMVJV partner
conservation action that is inherently spatial and
temporal
 Document the collective contributions of multiple
programs / organizations to meet landscape goals and
objectives
 To assess partnership progress and inform adaptive
approach to conservation, need to know





Where was it done?
How much was done?
How was it done?
Where are the high priority places?
e-RTS: Example of a value-added service required to
achieve NABCI goal: “regionally based, biologically
driven, landscape-oriented” conservation
Spring 2004 MBM Notebook: Revised LMVJV Business Model, pg 4
Why an LMVJV Reforestation Tracking System?
Assess and inform the collective contributions to
LMVJV landscape goals both spatially and temporally
Partner Landholdings
Why an LMVJV Reforestation Tracking System?
Assess and inform the protection and management
of “core” habitat for area-sensitive wildlife
Forest Core
Forest
Why an LMVJV Reforestation Tracking System?
Reforestation
Priorities
Assess and inform the restoration of the most
environmentally sensitive portions of the landscape
Higher
Lower
Forest
Property Boundaries
Why this kind of Reforestation Tracking System?
e-RTS takes advantage of two information technologies to help
track a common conservation practice comprehensively and
efficiently

The relational database design
The Internet
A relational database is good for




Efficient storage of data
Efficient access to “answers” that can be gleaned from specific
questions (e. g., queries)
Efficient data maintenance
Internet applications for data entry and access are good for




Efficient entry of data
Maintenance of data quality during data entry
Maintenance of data standards
User-friendly data access
Why this kind of Reforestation Tracking System?
Beneficial Results




Comprehensive data set: Foresters chose the set of tracked
parameters
Common set of parameters: Foresters chose data standards
 Improve landscape planning, assessment, and evaluative
research
Centralized: Reduce individual organization’s costs for hardware,
software and personnel to design, build, and maintain system
Efficient / Convenient: Reduce data entry time and speed access
to data summaries
 Reduce program costs
 Increase use of data for land management decisions
Data entry via e-RTS web interface

Data entry system
 Guides user through data entry process
 Prevents common data entry errors
 Increases data entry speed
 Insures standardization of data
 Improves data quality
 Facilitates data updates
 Improves data accessibility
What has it taken to get us where we are now?
Skilled
Personnel
Provided
By
Task
Forestry experts
Partners
Identified tracking parameters and data standards
Built short-term Access solution
Demonstrated this solution at Spring 2000 MBM
Recognized opportunity to better use technology
IT experts
Partners
Initialized relational database design
Database designer
& developer
Office
Built the data tables, based on input from
foresters, and “wired” the relationships between
the tables
Web application
programmer
Office
Programmed functionality and data management
into e-RTS web interface
Forestry experts
Partners
Beta-tested web application and approved e-RTS
Management Board
Representatives
Partners
Designate individuals responsible for data entry
and data quality by each partner