A Landscape Scale Framework for Cooperative Grassland Bird Conservation

1. A Landscape Scale Framework for Cooperative Grassland Bird Conservation

2. “A formal application of common sense for situations too complex for the informal use of common sense.” R. Keeney STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING (SDM)

3. SDM core elements - PrOACT Problem – Solve the right problem Objectives – Describe the desired outcomes Alternatives – Consider any reasonable approach Consequences – Describe how well alternatives meet objectives Tradeoffs – Incorporate values, optimal solutions • Core of structured decision making (Hammond et al., 1999).

4. Why SDM works Breaks a problem into key components • Makes decision-making transparent Helps identify where the difficulty in making a decision lies Helps identify where effort ($$) should be focused Provides a wide array of tools for making ‘smart’ decisions

5. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

6. OBJECTIVE To sustain viable grassland bird populations East of the Rocky Mountains.

8. ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS Status quo Conservation Design Outreach/Marketing Regulatory/Enforcement (Int’l) Regulatory/Enforcement (US) Public Land Acquisition Best Management Practices (BMP) Policies: Ecosystem Services Economic Incentives ADOPT A PRAIRIE

9. Connecting birds to landowner decisions Δ birds Δ grass Δ birds × = Δ grass Δ landowners Δ landowners

10. CONSEQUENCES (of alternatives, via landowner’s behavior) Regulatory (ESA, legislation, spp. of concern) Knowledge/Risk Landowner values, motivations LAND (Agricultural/Grass/Forest) $$ Return (hunting, agriculture, grazing, bird watching, energy development, conservation easement, potential future opportunities) Ecosystem Integrity (water quality, biodiversity, nativeness, carbon, erosion) Quality of Life (cultural, land ethic, hunting, wildness) We did this for each of three landowner types, through the nine alternatives, incorporating five objectives.

11. CONSEQUENCES • Problem: What will a land owner decide for a given parcel of land? (Land can be grass, agriculture, or forest) • Five Objectives: • Bird Conservation (B) • Carbon Sequestration (C) • Water Quality (W) • Economic Return ($) • Biodiversity (BIO) • Three types of landowners: • a profit-maximizing producer • a conservation-minded small farmer • a conservationist

13. INFLUENCE DIAGRAM Δ birds Δ grass Δ birds × = Δ grass Δ landowners Δ landowners

14. CONCEPTUAL MODEL Δ birds Δ grass Δ birds × = Δ grass Δ landowners Δ landowners Species 1 Breeding Migration Migration Migration Wintering Species 2 Breeding Migration Wintering Habitat 1 Habitat 2 Habitat 3 Habitat 4 Habitat 5

15. Example Landscapes Conservation Design Δ birds Δ grass Δ birds × = Δ grass Δ landowners Δ landowners Profit-maximizing Producer Landscape Conservationist Landscape

16. MODELING APPROACH Δ birds Δ grass • Need to model how land changes affect birds within a landscape • Use a spatially-explicit model to incorporate landscape-level effects (e.g., area, configuration, edge, etc.) on the biology of the species • Make assumptions explicit Species Breeding Migration Wintering

17. Δ birds Δ grass Breeding Migration Wintering Edge Effect Nest success Juvenile Survival Breeding population ? Nest Density Adult Survival Patch Size Edge Effect High

18. Landscape Model Δ birds Δ grass Breeding Migration Wintering Egg survival decreased because forest cover increased Smallest pixel that can support a nest Nest site Nest density in grassland pixel as a function of land cover.

19. Δ birds Δ landowners Biological Consequences Conservation Design Profit-maximizing Producer Landscape Conservationist Landscape Nest potential Nest potential

20. Migration Wintering Breeding • Occupancy of grassland stopover habitat: • - Grassland and cropland suitable at the local scale (pixel) • - Negative effect of surrounding forest cover • Survivorship in grassland stopover habitat: • - Forage quality of surrounding landscape • - Survival greater in grassland than in cropland

21. Migration Wintering Breeding • We represented a grassland bird’s interaction with the landscape during winter in a similar way to the migration framework. • However, it was simplified in that only the individual pixel-level determined survivorship. • We assumed that grassland birds do not use forest sites during the winter and that grassland pixels had higher survivorship than agricultural pixels. • We further assumed that the over-winter survivorship rate was simply the average survivorship value of all suitable pixels.

22. Integrating land cover choice and grassland models • We generated five, 1.44 km2 landscapes that were each filled with 1600, 30-meter pixels. • We assigned each pixel as grassland, agriculture or forest with the probability of each choice being determined by the alternative-generated results from the land cover choice model. • We assigned one landscape to represent the breeding area, three to be migratory stopover areas, and one to be the wintering ground. • Once the landscapes were generated, we applied the spatially-explicit model to them. • Using this framework, we evaluated each of the 27 landowner by alternative combinations. • We started each bird population with 100 birds and ran the model for 30 years.

23. The effect of each alternative policy and landowner on the expected growth of grassland bird populations:

24. The effect of each alternative policy and landowner on the expected growth of grassland bird populations:

25. Model Result – Identifying thresholds

26. Progress Following the Workshop • Allison Vogt connected us with the CEC and RMBO Grasslands efforts. • Conference call with the CEC is leading to an expanded mapping effort to identify Grassland Priority Conservation Areas throughout eastern North America. • Began communicating with Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory on developing full life cycle conservation and modeling approaches.

27. Progress Following the Workshop • Finalized Outreach Materials (fact sheet, presentation, poster) • Engaging Bird Habitat Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in annual cycle bird models and human dimensions research. • Reaching out to regional working groups

28. NEEDS FOR ASSISTANCE • Expand participation in overall framework • Does this make sense? What doesn’t work? • Decision makers – who are they? • Look for and engage other stakeholder groups – whom are we missing so far? • Identify support and funding needs • Full-time coordinator! • Funds to obtain missing information (i.e., migration and wintering grounds, demographic studies) • Begin gathering and compiling data to identify information gaps and validate/improve models

29. NEEDS FOR ASSISTANCE • Develop teams around full life cycle conservation (breeding, migration, wintering) • We will need to engage partners in Canada , US, and Mexico • Specifically, we will ask partners to communicate and stay in touch, collaborate on projects, and prioritize filling data gaps. • Maintain and expand coordinated network • E.g., wintering grounds (Mexico and South America)

30. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS • Coordinators: • Katie Koch (USFWS, R3, Migratory Bird Program) • Soch Lor (USFWS, R6, Inventory and Monitoring Initiative) • Coaches: • Eric Lonsdorf (Chicago Botanic Garden) • Evan Grant (USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center) • Agency representatives: • Marissa Ahlering (The Nature Conservancy) • Laurel Barnhill (USFWS, R4, Inventory and Monitoring Initiative,) • Tom Dailey (National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative) • Ryan Drum (USFWS, R3, HAPET office) • Connie Mueller (USFWS, R6, Lostwood NWR) • David Pavlacky (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory) • Christine Ribic (USGS, Wisconsin Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit) • Catherine Rideout (USFWS, East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture) • David Sample (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)