Decision Support Tool for Open Pine Systems

1. Decision Support Toolfor Open Pine Systems East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture

2. What is the problem? Context Who are the decision makers? Under what authority do they act? Who else has influence on the decision? Nature of the decision Timing and frequency Biological planning - Ecological context

3. Open Pine Decision Support Tool Problem: Prioritize areas within the East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture boundary for strategic conservation of open pine ecosystems by partner agencies and stakeholders. Conservation implementation on the selected areas is expected to result in target populations of birds associated with these ecosystems. Selection of areas based on fundamental concepts of landscape ecology and conservation biology. Encourage that longleaf pine be reforested wherever practical and appropriate. Updated periodically as new data become available. Biological planning - Ecological context

4. Dividing the problem Problem1: Identify a group of birds (focal species) associated with open pine systems that represent co-occurring species, are a reliable tool for biodiversity assessment, and are sensitive to resources, area, connectivity, and natural processes. Problem2: Identify priority areas for conserving and restoring open pines systems that satisfy criteria for quantity, configuration, and location to achieve target populations of the umbrella species. Biological planning - Ecological context

5. What are the objectives? Write it down (avoid “group think”) Convert concerns to succinct objectives Example: Rank bird species Separate means from ends Means: Rank priority of birds using open pine systems Ends: Identify focal bird species for open pine systems Clarify each objective Identify the most sensitive species in terms of resources, area requirements, connectivity, and natural processes.

6. Objectives Started with an initial list of priority species Identified critical resources they represent Habitat structure – BA, density, stand age, etc. Large area requirements Connectivity requirements Natural processes – fire frequency and season Resources ≈ habitat “objectives” Describe the outcome of using focal species Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

7. Creating alternatives Ask how you can best achieve the objectives Challenge constraints Avoid “psychological traps” Anchoring on initial values Salient examples Sunk costs Think on your own Learn from experience Adaptive management Requires monitoring & evaluation Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

8. Alternatives Developed a list of focal species … most sensitive species in terms of resources, area requirements, connectivity, and natural processes… Each species ≈ alternative for conservation planning Looking for the suite of species that best represents the important habitat attributes Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

9. Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships What are the consequences? • Assess the alternatives with respect to the objectives • Can be qualitative or quantitative • Requires an underlying model

10. Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships Biological planning – Species Selection Assessing consequences • Focus on distinguishing objectives • For tree density and heterogeneity - A ≈ B ≈ C • Focus on others

11. Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships Biological planning – Species Selection Assessing consequences • Dominated alternatives • Eliminate alternatives (species) that are clearly inferior • A > B on objectives 2, 3, & 4 • Eliminate B from consideration

12. Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships Biological planning – Species Selection Assessing consequences • Make even swaps • Objective 2 – • Amount of bare ground twice as important as canopy closure • Comparison: • A.2 > C.2 (|A.2 – C.2| = 9-8 = 1) • A.4 < C.4 (|A.4 – C.4| = 7-6 = 1) • 2*|A.2 – C.2| > |C.4 >A.4| • A is clearly the better alternative

13. Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships Biological planning – Species Selection Assessing consequences • Priority species (alternatives) – rows • Habitat attributes (objectives) – columns

14. Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships Biological planning – Species Selection Assessing consequences • Priority species (alternatives) – rows • Habitat attributes (objectives) – columns • Distinguishing objectives differ among the alternatives

15. Assessing consequences Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships Biological planning – Species Selection • Dominated alternatives • Same outcome for each attribute • Mapping same habitats

16. Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships Biological planning – Species Selection Assessing consequences • Basis • Preference to high priority species • Unidentified attributes? • Revisit the objective – to identify important characteristics • Unlike the other species HESP use wet sites in “lower” coastal plain and bogs in “upper” coastal plain.

17. Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships Assessing consequences • Basis • Preference to high priority species • Unidentified attributes? • Revisit the objective – to identify distinguishing characteristics • Unlike the other species HESP use wet sites in “lower” coastal plain and bogs in “upper” coastal plain.

18. Open Pine Decision Support Tool Problem1: Identify a group of birds (umbrella species) associated with open pine systems that represent co-occurring species, are a reliable tool for biodiversity assessment, and are sensitive to resources, area, connectivity, and natural processes. Problem2: Identify priority areas for conserving and restoring open pines systems that satisfy criteria for quantity, configuration, and location to achieve target populations of the umbrella species. Conservation Design – Desired Landscape Configuration

19. Conservation design guidelines • Large reserves are better than smaller ones; • One larger reserve is better than several small ones; • Reserves that are close together are better; • Individual reserves should be equidistant • Reserves connected by corridors are better; • Circular reserves are better than elongated ones. Diamond, J.A.  1975.  The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves.  Biological Conservation 7: 129-146.

20. Prioritization Objectives Capitalize on recent restoration and management efforts Restore on appropriate sites. Encourage long-term conservation stewardship and connectivity Existing and potential habitat for priority species Connectivity to existing open pine (longleaf) systems Areas where frequent fire can be used as a management tool Areas connective to existing source populations Sufficient habitat to meet population objectives Conservation Design – Desired Landscape Configuration

21. Priority model Combine densities to map priority for each species Limiting factors (*) Suitable longleaf sites (S) Potential to use fire (F) Compensatory factors (+) Putative source populations (P)1 Public lands (L) Distance to potential habitat (H)11Species specific data Conservation Design – Desired Landscape Configuration

22. Conservation Design – Decision Support Tool Prioritizing areas Priority = S*F*(A+P+L+H)

23. Conservation Design – Decision Support Tool Species priorities

24. Conservation Design – Decision Support Tool Overall Priorities

25. Alternatives |Sufficient area Conservation Design – Decision Support Tool