Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015 Identifying Spatial Priorities
for Longleaf Restoration
• Introduction and Overview
– Kevin McIntyre – Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center
• Spatial Prioritization: Concepts and Best practices
– Tom Hoctor, Director of the Center for Landscape Conservation
Planning, University of Florida
• Case Study: Sewee Longleaf Conservation Cooperative
– Colette DeGarady, Senior Ecologist, TNC SC
• Case Study: NC Sandhills Conservation Partnership
– Ryan Bollinger, LIT Consul, The Longleaf Alliance
• 2016 Longleaf Stewardship Fund RFP – Draft Priority Area map
– Jon Scott, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
AGENDA
Florida’s Statewide Greenways Initiative
1990 - 2015
1990-94
Florida
Greenways
Program &
the
Florida
Greenways
Commission
Initial
Greenways
Legislation -
DEP Lead
State
Agency &
Florida
Greenways
Coordinating
Council
1995
1999 1997 - 98 2000-15
Adopt
Priorities,
Update Plan
and Implement
Protection
GIS
Decision
Support
Model
Completed,
Public
Review &
Comment
Legislative
Adoption of
Five
Year Plan
FEGN Update Goals and Objectives
• Update the FEGN to identify a functionally connected statewide ecological network of public and private conservation lands that incorporates new and updated GIS data.
• Ensure the FEGN maximizes protection of high priority natural communities and species identified in the Florida State Wildlife Action Plan.
• Address climate change impacts to maximize the potential of Florida’s native biodiversity to functionally respond to sea-level rise and other environmental changes.
Approximate Occupied Bear Range
Goals: Conserving and Restoring large, wide ranging-species
Goals: Protecting Functional Landscape
Gradients
Aquatic--wetlands--mesic uplands--xeric uplands
Gainesville Sun
October 20, 1999
Goals: Mitigating Climate Change Impacts
• Protect south-north corridors and landscape
linkages
• Protect coastal to inland corridors and linkages
Key Analysis Steps
Step 1 - Identify:
Areas of Ecological Significance
Step 2 - Select:
Ecological Hubs
Step 3 - Delineate:
Landscape Linkages
Connectivity Analyses
• Major river/riparian connectivity/buffer analysis
• Coastal to inland connectivity analysis
• Xeric habitat connectivity analysis
• Florida panther and Florida black bear habitat and
connectivity analyses
Riparian Connectivity
Coastal-Inland Connectivity
FEGN Xeric Habitat Connectivity
• Identified xeric natural communities using CLC: scrub,
scrubby flatwoods, and sandhill 100 acres
or larger.
• Identified other natural and semi-natural land uses on xeric
soils.
• Identified all connected areas of xeric habitat within 1.5
miles of xeric natural communities and that had at least
two patches within 3 miles of each other.
• Separated these patches into two size classes:
--1,000 acres to 4,999 acres
--5,000 acres or larger
Xeric Habitat Connectivity
Florida Black
Bear
Circuitscape
and LCP
Connectivity
Model
Results
Updated FEGN
Prioritization Considerations: FEGN and 2060 Growth Projection
Prioritization Considerations: FEGN and Sea Level Rise
New FEGN (2013)
Florida 2060
Growth Projection (Paul Zwick and Peggy Carr, University of Florida
and 1000 Friends of Florida)
The Century Commission for a
Sustainable Florida
• “Envisions the future for the
state, and then, develops and
recommends policies, plans,
action steps, or strategies to
assist in achieving the vision.”
• A future by design or a future by
default?
• Identify statewide, regional and
local green space protection
priorities and identify measures
for effective protection (CLIP).
CLIP
Critical Lands & Waters
Identification Project
What is CLIP?
• Statewide Natural Resource Spatial Database
• Prioritizes Biodiversity, Landscapes, & Water
• Identifies Florida’s “Green Infrastructure”: e.g.,
the critical concept that ecosystem function,
biodiversity, and the health of human
communities are inextricably linked.
CLIP Database Schematic
Strategic Habitat Conservation
Areas
Potential Habitat Richness
Rare Spp. Habitat Conserv. Priorities
Priority Natural Communities
FL Ecological Greenways
Network
Landscape Integrity Index
Significant Surface Waters
Natural Floodplain
Wetlands
Core Data Layers Resource Categories
Aggregated CLIP Model Biodiversity
Landscapes
Surface Water
Groundwater
Marine
Aquifer Recharge
10 Marine Layers
CLIP v3.0 Aggregated Priorities
CORE DATA LAYERS Landscape Integrity Index
Source: University of Florida Geoplan Center and Center for Landscape Conservation Planning
CLIP 3.0 Version: updated 2013; based on 2010-2012 Cooperative Land Cover version 2.3
What it means for my site
Higher values indicate large expanses of remote, intact natural and semi-natural areas such as the Everglades or the Apalachicola and Ocala National Forests. Lower values indicate more fragmented landscapes with increasingly intensive land uses from agriculture to urban development. Generally, values of 1-3 are considered to have little to no ecological integrity; values of 4-7 are considered to have moderate ecological integrity; and values of 8-10 are considered to have high ecological integrity. This data layer was created by the University of Florida Center for Landscape Conservation Planning specifically for CLIP. It combines two models: natural land cover patch size and land use intensity. Both are based on the FNAI/FWC Cooperative Land Cover (CLC) data layer, and major roads data from the Florida Department of Transportation (which are used to help delineate patches). Unlike most of the CLIP core data layers, the Landscape Integrity Index is a continuous scale, from intensive urban areas to remote natural areas, that covers the entire state.
CLIP 2.0 Landscape Context:
Landscape Integrity
Road densities
Roadless areas
Landscape fragmentation
Distance to intensive land uses
LLP and Landscape Assessment
Larger areas of intact and/or restorable llp pine ecosystems with consideration of:
• Landscape Integrity/Landscape Context
• Compatible/restorable landscape context
• Strategic locations for focal species and/or ecological connectivity
• Adjacency/contribution to important riverine/riparian corridors
• Proximity to existing conservation lands
• Smokesheds
Smokeshed Buffers Analysis
• Buffered all existing conservation lands, proposed conservation lands, and pyrophilic listed plant sites.
• Combined these two mile buffers with two land use categories from CLC:
1) All natural, semi-natural, and agriculatural land use (considered to be
generally compatible with nearby prescribed burning)
2) All residential, commercial, and industrial development (considered to be generally incompatible with nearby prescribed burning)
• Used the following prioritization:
P1 = compatible within ¼ mile
P2 = compatible within ½ mile
P3 = compatible within 1 mile
P4 = compatible within 2 miles
Smokeshed Buffers
Species Based LLP Landscape Assessment
Larger areas of intact and/or restorable llp pine ecosystems with consideration of landscapes capable of supporting:
• Red-cockaded Woodpecker
• Fox Squirrel
• Gopher Tortoise
• Habitat models that emphasize landscape factors (rules-based or Maxent models)
• Connectivity models
FWC Florida Gopher Tortoise Habitat
Hoctor Fox Squirrel Habitat
FNAI Florida RCW Habitat
GIS Tools for Connectivity and Habitat Analysis: CorridorDesign Website
• http://corridordesign.org/designing_corridors/resources/gis_tools
Potential Sources of Connectivity Analyses
• South Atlantic LCC: Identifying and Prioritizing Key Habitat Connectivity Areas for the South Atlantic
Region (eastern cougar, red wolf, eastern diamondback
rattlesnake, timber rattlesnake, box turtle, pine snake and black bear)
• Southeastern Ecological Framework (EPA Region 4)
• National Ecological Framework (John Richardson EPA): http://waconnected.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/NEF-description.pdf
• Theobald National Landscape Permeability Model http://www.wildlandsnetwork.org/what-we-do/scientific-approach/wild-lifelines
• Florida Panhandle Greenlinks Project
Relevant Citations for Landscape Level Assessment of LLP Priorities
• Hoctor, Thomas S., L. D. Harris, R. F. Noss, and K. A. Whitney. 2006. Spatial ecology and restoration of the longleaf pine evosystem. Pages 377-402 In S. Jose, E. Jokela and D. Miller, editors. Longleaf pine ecosystems: ecology, silviculture, and restoration. Springer-Verlag, New York.
• Hoctor, T. S., W. L. Allen, III, M. H. Carr, P. D. Zwick, E. Huntley, D. J. Smith, D. S. Maehr, R. Buch, and R. Hilsenbeck. 2008. Land corridors in the Southeast USA: connectivity to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Journal of Conservation Planning
4:90-122.
Mapping Priority Areas
for Longleaf on Private Lands
Purposes
• Setting wildlife priorities (RCW data used as an
indicator)
• Development of Restoration Priority Scoring
(where should we target resources, cost
estimates)
Data Used
• 2006 color infrared aerial photos with 1 meter ground
resolution, used to map pine stands (1:24,000)
• NRCS soil series
• GAP Land Cover 2006
• USFS Lidar Canopy, stand data, RCW cluster data
• Private Lands Pine Data developed by TNC
• Structure (row or random)
• Maturity (discerned by aerial photo)
• LLP_Suitability (GAP data helped define)
• Each of these layers carried weighted values
LiDAR -Canopy Cover
less than 60%
Longleaf Restoration Input
NRCS Soil Suitability for LLP
Tier 1 and 2 Soils
RCW Foraging Habitat
Completed Model
Choosing target sites
Basic Conservation Planning Process
Conservation
Value
Threat
s
Feasibility/
Opportunity
Priority
Rating
Priority
Rank
Site 1 VH VH High VH 1
Site 2 VH Med Med High 2
Site 3 High Low Med Med 3
Site 4 Med Low High Med 4
Another example
NC Sandhills Conservation Partnership Case Study
Reserve Design Working Group Spatial Prioritization Workshops
Presented By Ryan Bollinger
Presentation Overview
• Partnership Structure
• Reserve Design Working Group
• 2012 Sub Regional Mapping Meetings
– Organization
– Methodology
– Results
• How Reserve Design Data is Used
Partnership Structure
10 Core Partner Steering Committee
5 Working Groups RCW
Resource Management
Land Protection
Reserve Design
Communications
Partnership Structure
10 Core Partner Steering Committee
5 Working Groups RCW
Resource Management
Land Protection
Reserve Design
Communications
Reserve Design Working Group
Mission:
Synthesize biological information and create a vision to guide long-term conservation of native
Sandhills species and ecosystems
Members:
USFWS, TNC, DOD, NC State, NC Wildlife Resources Commision, NCDENR Natural Heritage
RDWG Strategies
• Identify biological targets for conservation, including species, natural communities, and animal habitats unique to the Sandhills
• Map areas of known ecological significance
• Identify areas of potential ecological significance
• Identify functions of individual connectors and buffers; fill information gaps; map functional connectors and buffers
• Periodically review new information and update reserve design
• Interpret and share this information for the purposes of implementing the conservation plan, including the Green Growth Toolbox, other working groups, and communication with local land use planners and governments.
“Mini” – Reserve Design Mapping Workshops
• Organization: – Reserve Design Working Group Members – Land Managers w/in each Focal Area
• Charge: – Mapping Functional Connectors/Buffers
• Methodology: – Live GIS Exercise drawing and labeling wildlife
corridors and buffers – Datasets: Reserve Design Data, Land Ownership,
Aerial Photography – Printed Maps for reference
4 “Mini” – Reserve Design Mapping Workshops
Reserve Design Wildlife Habitat Connectors
How Reserve Design Data is Used
• Initially- Wildlife Habitat Connectors shared with Land Protection Working Group in joint meeting w/ RDWG to align priorities
• New Datasets added to Green Growth Toolbox and available to local planning department
• GIS Data available to all Partners
• Annual Meetings w/ Land Protection Working Group to Re-Focus Priorities
THANKS!
Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015 Advancing SGA Conservation
Plans: Next Steps
• SGA Conservation Plans
– Overview and Progress to-date
– Longleaf Mapping Pilot Project Update
– Draft Map of Spatial Priorities
• 2016 Longleaf Stewardship Fund timeline
AGENDA
• Range-wide Plan identifies need for more detailed conservation planning at the SGA level
• Blueprint of conservation need, strategies and budgets required to achieve desired conservation outcomes
• Inform and guide grant making decisions, fundraising tool, set priorities and measure progress
• “Roll-up” accomplishments across range (ex. ALRI annual report)
• “Living” document, adaptive management
SGA CONSERVATION PLANS
CONSERVATION PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Establish targets
Identify focal areas/spatial priorities
Establish a baseline
Estimate goals and costs
Identify strategies and potential
barriers
Set metrics for measuring outcomes
October 2013 – LIT Meeting in Atlanta
LITs in various levels of maturity
Need for consistent information
Dynamic
2014 & 2015 Longleaf Stewardship Fund RFPs
Draft Conservation Plan
Map with the SGA boundaries and major land ownership
Key 5-10 year outcomes for the SGA
Other info as available
CONSERVATION PLANNING PROGRESS TO-DATE
December 2014 – Longleaf Mapping Meeting in Atlanta
o Remote sensing, GIS experts, LIT coordinators, agency partners
o Potential approaches, including barriers, to mapping longleaf
May 2015 – Longleaf Mapping RFP
August 2015 – Award announcement
CONSERVATION PLANNING PROGRESS TO-DATE
LONGLEAF MAPPING PILOT
• Lack good information about the location, extent and condition of existing longleaf
• Barrier to conservation planning and tracking restoration outcomes
• Longleaf Mapping RFP – pilot project
– Develop database of longleaf location and extent for 5 SGAs
– Transferable methodology
– Protocol for assessing habitat condition
– Capacity analysis and estimate to “scale up”
CONSERVATION PLANNING NEXT STEPS
Establish targets
Identify focal areas/spatial priorities
Establish a baseline
Estimate goals and costs
Identify strategies and potential
barriers
Set metrics for measuring outcomes
2016 Longleaf Stewardship Fund RFP
Draft map of spatial priorities
Start to identify priority areas
Existing data, local knowledge
Iterative process, adaptive management
MAPPING SPATIAL PRIORITIES
PDF map that shows the following:
LIT boundary
Priority area boundaries
Protected lands
Priority areas should encompass public and private lands that are highest priority for longleaf restoration
Priority area minimum mapping unit: 10,000 acres
Cumulatively, priority areas should cover no more than 30-40% of the total LIT/SGA area
NFWF needs to know where to invest to achieve greatest benefit to wildlife
MAP GUIDELINES
Document process and rationale for priority areas
What informs priority area selection?
Location of existing longleaf pine habitat
Areas appropriate to restore longleaf
Opportunities to buffer high-priority habitat
Proximity to rare or at-risk species
Wildlife corridors – making connections
Threats to long-term habitat management
Partner priorities
Opportunities to provide other conservation benefits – water quality/quantity
List of data sources used in priority area mapping
process
MAP GUIDELINES
LONGLEAF STEWARDSHIP FUND TIMELINE
• November 2015: 2016 RFP released
• February 2016: Proposals due, including draft map of spatial priorities
• June 2016: Award announcements
• November 2016: 2017 RFP – what support will your LIT need to complete conservation plan?