Download Document 8132556

Objectives and Challenges of Goal-oriented
Landscape Design
Bryan Watts and Mike Wilson
Center for Conservation Biology
College of William and Mary
http://www.ccb-wm.org
Producing information that enables conservation
Continental Bird Conservation Lattice
Strategy
Development
Continental
Integration
&
Strategy
Implementation
Continental
Action
BCR / Landscape
Management
&
Restoration
BCR / Landscape
Assessment
Species / Habitat
Assessment
Species / Habitat
Management
&
Restoration
Species / Habitat
Information
Needs
Assessment
Targeted
Species / Habitat
Monitoring
BCR / Landscape
Information
Needs
Assessment
BCR-specific
Monitoring
Continental
Monitoring
Infrastructure
Continental
Monitoring
Program
Conservation
Monitoring
General Management Framework
Resource Constraints
Single Species Systems
Multiple Species Systems
Conservation Strategy
Conservation Planning
National Planning
Shorebird
Plan
Colonial
Waterbird
Plan
Waterfowl
Plan
Translation
Adaptive Monitoring
Regional
Planning
Synthesis
Integrated
Regional Plan
MABCI
PLAN
Conservation Action
Status
Evaluation
Action
Plan
Local
Conservation
Action
Response
Conservation
Goals
Regional
PIF
Plan
STATUS EVALUATION
(Conceptual Model)
Habitat Requirements
Habitat Assessment
Ecological
Modifiers
Population Projection
Population/Goal Comparison
Management
Options
Action Plan
STATUS EVALUATION
(Grasshopper Sparrow)
Grassland
18,884 ha
Sub-type
Density
Patch Area
Population Projection
150 k
Population Goal
?
75 k
Conservation
Design
Status
Conservation Benefit
Conservation Benefit
Habitat Management
Management
H1
H2
Management
Goal-Oriented Land Management
(For Wildlife Species)
Species-Landscape Compatibility
Suite of Required Resources
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
What is our objective (goal)?
What management tools should we use?
What resources are available to us?
What criteria are we going to use to evaluate strategy?
Habitat Availability
Winter
Conditions
Physiological
Stressors
Food
Availability
Predation
Competition
Contaminants
Integrated Responses
Ecological Factors
Influencing
Populations
Survivorship
Reproductive
Success
Population Response
Legislative Protection
Reduce
Contaminants
Improve
Habitat Quality
Predator
Control
Protect
Habitat
Control
Competitors
Create Habitat
Integrated Responses
Management Actions
Influencing
Populations
Survivorship
Reproductive
Success
Population Response
Management Actions are
Habitat Specific
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Pool of
Management
Actions
Habitat 1
Habitat 2
Habitat 3
Habitat 4
Attributes of Management Actions
Benefit
Cost
9
10
11
12
Metrics
Money
Land
Time
Population
Increase
Management Strategy
m09
m10
m11
m12
Benefits
(m9 + m10 + m11 + m12)
Costs
(m9 + m10 + m11 + m12)
Management Trajectories
Bird Population
Population Goal
Beginning Condition
Management Strategy
m10
m09
m11
m12
Random Management Walk
Cost
Criteria
Maximize conservation benefit
Minimize costs
Conservation Benefit
Design Principles
1) produce maximum benefit with the most efficient
combination of resources. (universal)
Restoration Costs
Landscape to Landscape Variation
in Beginning Condition
Bird Population
Population Goal
Cost
Cost
Beginning Condition
Beginning Condition
Landscape 1
Landscape 2
Maintenance Costs
Attaining vs Sustaining Goals
Landscape Equilibrium
Maintenance Costs
Maintenance Costs
Attaining vs Sustaining Goals
Landscape Equilibrium
Restoration Cost
Attaining vs Sustaining Goals
Long term Maintenance Costs
Design Principles
1) produce maximum benefit with the most efficient
combination of resources.
2) consider both restoration and long-term maintenance
costs.
General Management Framework
Resource Constraints
Single Species Systems
Multiple Species Systems
Management Potential/Constraints
Total Land
Lost to system (e.g. urbanization)
Natural constraints (e.g. wetlands)
Use constraints (e.g. cemeteries, monuments)
Open to Management
Management Limits
Bird Population
Absolute Management Limit
Total Area – Losses and Constraints
Practical Management Limit
Beginning Condition
Management Limits
Population Goal Achievable (within management limits)
Bird Population
Absolute Management Limit
Practical Management Limit
Population Goal
Beginning Condition
Management Limits
Population Goal not Achievable (exceeds management limits)
Bird Population
Absolute Management Limit
Population Goal
Practical Management Limit
Beginning Condition
General Management Framework
Resource Constraints
Single Species Systems
Multiple Species Systems
Protecting Land for Bald Eagles in the lower Chesapeake Bay
What is our objective (goal)?
Protect land for 120 pairs
What management tools should we use?
Acquisition
What resources are available to us?
To be determined
What criteria are we going to use to
evaluate strategy?
Maximize benefit, minimize cost
Bald Eagle Working Area
Bald Eagle Habitat Suitability Model
(Chesapeake Bay)
Distribution Constraints
No
Is site within 3 km of 250 m channel?
Yes
No
Is there < 5 houses within 200 m?
Yes
Unsuitable
Is there < 10 houses within 400 m?
No
Yes
Is there forest cover within 200 m?
No
Habitat Quality Rating
Yes
100
Very Good
Discriminant
Function
Model
Results
67
Good
34
Acceptable
21
0
Questionable
Bald Eagle Habitat Projection
Bald Eagle Management Limits
665,079 ha
51%
Total Land
Lost to system (e.g. urbanization)
326,419 ha
22%
Natural constraints (e.g. wetlands)
181,601 ha
?%
Use constraints (e.g. cemeteries, monuments)
181,601 ha
Open to Management
Salinity Gradient
(Lower Chesapeake Bay)
Breeding Density (Pairs/10 km Shoreline)
Bald Eagle Breeding Density by Salinity
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
Tidal Fresh
Oligohaline
0.0
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Survey Year
Mesohaline
Polyhaline
Breeding Density (Pairs/10 km shoreline)
BALD EAGLE BREEDING DENSITY BY SALINITY
3.6
A
A
3.0
2.4
B
1.8
B
1.2
0.6
0.0
TF
OH
Salinity Zone
MH
PH
Mean+SD
Mean-SD
Mean+SE
Mean-SE
Mean
H2 (Salinity > 1 ppt)
Eagle Benefit
Salinity and Eagle Benefit/Unit Area
Eagle Benefit
H1 (Salinity < 1 ppt)
Management Limits
Population Goal Achievable (within management limits)
Bird Population
660
Practical Management Limit
Protection Goal
200 (80 achieved)
Beginning Condition
Land Acquisition Cost Benefit by Jurisdiction
Cost per Hectare (dollars X 100,000)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
Benefit (potential eagle territories)
50
60
Bald Eagle Protection Opportunities
Cost of Land Protection for Bald Eagles
Accumulated Cost (millions of dollars)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
Price Tag
200
0
0
100
200
300
Pairs Protected
400
500
General Management Framework
Resource Constraints
Single Species Systems
Multiple Species Systems
Species Suites and Habitats
Sp1
Sp2
Sp3
Sp4
Habitat 1
Sp5
Sp6
Sp1
Sp2
Sp3
Sp4
Habitat 4
Management Potential/Constraints
Total Land
Lost to system (e.g. urbanization)
Natural constraints (e.g. wetlands)
Use constraints (e.g. cemeteries, monuments)
Open to Management
Land Requirements for Suite
Land Requirements
Sp3 Population Goal
Sp5 Population Goal
Sp6 Population Goal
Sp1 Population Goal
Sp2 Population Goal
Sp4 Population Goal
Management Limits
Collective Land Requirement
Population Goals Achievable (within management limits)
Absolute Management Limit
Practical Management Limit
Collective Land Requirement (H1 + H2…)
Beginning Condition
Management Limits
Collective Land Requirement
Population Goals not Achievable (exceed management limits)
Absolute Management Limit
Collective Land Requirement (H1 + H2…)
Practical Management Limit
Beginning Condition
Sp1 Density
Land Requirement (Sp2)
Opportunity Cost
Opportunity Cost
H1
H2
H1 > H2
Land Requirement (Sp1)
Design Principles
1) produce maximum benefit with the most efficient
combination of resources.
2) consider both restoration and long-term maintenance
costs.
3) under land constraints manage for high-quality habitats.
Colonial National Historical Park
3,403 ha
Improve Colonial NHP for Early Successional Species
What is our objective (goal)?
Support 500 GHSP, 500 FISP
What management tools should we use?
Land Conversion, Management
What resources are available to us?
To be determined
What criteria are we going to use to
evaluate strategy?
Maximize benefit, minimize cost
SUCCESSIONAL GRADIENT
Grassland
1-3 yr
Transitional
Shrubland
3-5 yr
DISTURBANCE INTERVAL
5-8 yr
HABITAT
USE
BIRD SUITES
8
Mean Density (Birds/ha)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Grassland
Transitional
Shrubland
Habitat Type
Grasshopper Sparrow
Eastern Meadowlark
Field Sparrow
Common Yellowthroat
Prairie Warbler
Yellow-breasted Chat
Indigo Bunting
Blue Grosbeak
GRASS
SHRUB
A
R
E
A
S
E
N
S
IT
IV
IT
Y
4
.0
3
.5
3
.0
2
.5
Density(birds/ha)
2
.0
1
.5
1
.0
0
.5
0
.0
G
r
a
s
s
h
o
p
p
e
r
-0
.5
1
3
1
0
P
a
tc
hS
iz
e(h
a
)
>
3
0
F
ie
ld
Early Successional Management Limits
3,403 ha
Total Land
Lost to system (e.g. urbanization)
1.5%
3,350 ha
87.3%
Natural constraints (e.g. wetlands)
380 ha
3.3%
266 ha
Use constraints (e.g. cemeteries, monuments)
Open to Management
Patch Size Distribution
20
FISP
18
???
16
Frequency (N)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
Patch Size (ha)
21
24
27
30
Management Limits
Collective Land Requirement
Population Goals not Achievable (exceed management limits)
Collective Land Requirement (H1 + H2…)
266 ha
Practical Management Limit
Beginning Condition
Allocation Options
800
600
Land Budget
GHSP
???
400
FISP
Projected Maintenance Costs
for Management Scenarios
500000
Cost (dollars)
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Year
7
8
9
10
Current
Grasshopper
Field
Allocation Options
800
600
Land Budget
GHSP
???
400
FISP
Two-pronged Approach to Bridging Disconnect
Regional Conservation Goals
Scaling down regional goals
to the management of land parcels
Orchestrating local actions
to achieve regional goals
Local Conservation Actions
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
What is our objective (goal)?
What management tools should we use?
What resources are available to us?
What criteria are we going to use to evaluate strategy?
Species Tradeoffs – Integration Across Scales
Benefit
Wintering Species
Local
Patch
Migrating Species
Region
Continental
Cost
Integration
Integration
Breeding Species
Design Principles
1) produce maximum benefit with the most efficient
combination of resources.
2) consider both restoration and long-term maintenance
costs.
3) under land constraints manage for high-quality habitats.
Needs
1) prioritize species tradeoffs.
2) integration of information across spatial scales.