1. Conservation Programs Responding to the Expectations and Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation Science & Technology 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) Arkansas Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Tennessee Totals 9 0 2 19 14 6 1 11 1 15 6 1 30072013007201 513613 Source Population Objectives State10K20K100K Efficient Effective Biologically

2. Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels Science & Technology 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) Arkansas Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Tennessee Totals 9 0 2 19 14 6 1 11 1 15 6 1 30072013007201 513613 Source Population Objectives State10K20K100K Conservation Programs Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness of our Conservation Actions Responding to the Expectations and Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation

3. Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels Science & Technology WHEN WHERE WHAT HOW MUCH HOW MUCH MORE Conservation Programs Responding to the Expectations and Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness of our Conservation Actions

4. Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels WHEN WHERE WHAT HOW MUCH HOW MUCH MORE Conservation Programs Responding to the Expectations and Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation Science & Technology Conservation Enterprise – Planning– – Planning– – Implementation – – Monitoring – – Monitoring – – Evaluation – – Research – Function As An Iterative Whole

5. Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels

6. Forest patches should be of sufficient size to support source populations. - How should birds be buffered from predation/parasitism? - What constitutes a source population? - What density do birds occur within the habitat? Fragmentation Land Conversion Nest Predation Nest Parasitism 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 PRIORITY SPECIES

7. Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels - How should birds be buffered from predation/parasitism? - What constitutes a source population? - What density do birds occur within the habitat? 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) 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 PRIORITY SPECIES Forest patches should be of sufficient size to support source populations.

8. Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels Forest patches should be of sufficient size to support source populations. - How should birds be buffered from predation/parasitism? - What constitutes a source population? - What density do birds occur within the habitat? 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 Swallow-tailed Kite Red-shouldered Hawk Broad-winged Hawk Pileated Woodpecker Cooper’s Hawk Ecological Suites 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)

9. Target: Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels Forest Blocks ≥ 10,000ac Forest Blocks ≥ 20,000ac Forest Blocks ≥ 100,000ac 500 Pairs ~80 Pairs Source Population Habitat Requirements 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 Swallow-tailed Kite Red-shouldered Hawk Broad-winged Hawk Pileated Woodpecker Cooper’s Hawk

10. MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization Forest Breeding Birds

11. Forest Core MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization Forest Breeding Birds

12. BLH Forest based on 1992 Thematic Mapper satellite Imagery. Patch size values from Twedt and Loesch 1999. 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 Assessment of Landscape Conditions MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization Forest Breeding Birds

13. Predation & Brood Parasitism 99% of Forest Fragments Unable to Sustain Source Populations of Species of Concern MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization Forest Breeding Birds BLH Forest based on 1992 Thematic Mapper satellite Imagery. Patch size values from Twedt and Loesch 1999. 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 Assessment of Landscape Conditions

14. Source Population Objectives MAV Ecoregional Habitat Characterization Forest Breeding Birds

15. Source Population Objectives Arkansas Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Tennessee Totals 9 0 2 19 14 6 1 11 1 15 6 1 30072013007201 513613 State 10K20K100K 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 Swainson’s Warbler Prothonotary Warbler Northern Parula Hooded Warbler Wood Thrush Acadian Flycatcher Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Red-eyed Vireo American Redstart Swallow-tailed Kite Red-shouldered Hawk Broad-winged Hawk Pileated Woodpecker Cooper’s Hawk

16. Source Population Objectives Landscapes That Sustain Populations Of Priority Species At Prescribed Levels Science & Technology WHEN WHERE WHAT HOW MUCH HOW MUCH MORE Conservation Programs Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness of our Conservation Actions

17. Source Population Objectives Science & Technology WHEN WHERE WHAT HOW MUCH HOW MUCH MORE Conservation Programs RESTORATION PROTECTION MANAGEMENT Federal State Private Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness of our Conservation Actions

18. Habitat Natural Flood StorageWater-Quality Use Science and Technology to Development Restoration Decision Support Models Improving the Biological Efficiency and Effectiveness of Conservation Actions: RESTORATION

19. MAV Forest Breeding Bird Reforestation Decision Support Model Cerulean Warbler Kentucky Warbler Summer Tanager Yellow-billed Cuckoo Eastern Wood-Pewee Forest Blocks  8,000ha Swainson’s Warbler Prothonotary Warbler Hooded Warbler Wood Thrush Acadian Flycatcher Forest Blocks  4,000ha Swallow-tailed Kite Red-shouldered Hawk Broad-winged Hawk Pileated Woodpecker Cooper’s Hawk Forest Blocks  40,000ha Restoration DSM

20. Reforestation Decision Support Model for Forest Breeding Birds

21. State Wildlife Management Areas National Wildlife Refuges Top 10% Top 20% Top 40% Top 30% Top 50% Reforestation Decision Support Model for Forest Breeding Birds

22. 50 10 30 % Gain in Core Habitat 0 20 40 Reforestation Priority 102030405060708090100 Lowest Priority Highest Priority Using Decision Support Models to Optimize Biological Efficiency

23. 50 10 30 % Gain in Core Habitat 0 20 40 Reforestation Priority 102030405060708090100 Lowest Priority Highest Priority ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Core established in top 10% priorities Core established in top 50% priorities Core established randomly Relationship between core habitat and reforestation priority percentiles when 1.5 million acres are randomly restored. Using Decision Support Models to Optimize Biological Efficiency

24. Texas US Forest Service TennesseeKentucky Wildlife Mgt Institute The Nature Conservancy US Geological Survey Ducks UnlimitedMississippiArkansas US Fish & Wildlife Louisiana Oklahoma The Conservation Fund Missouri REFORESTATION PRIORITY BANDS % CORE GAIN (w/ equal reforested area) WRP POINT VALUES Top 1047.38%400 2014.01%120 3011.09%95 407.83%70 505.36%50 604.52%40 703.80%35 803.08%30 902.53%25 100 percentile2.45%20 FWS Refuges State WMAs Wetland Reserve Program DU MARSH Program FWS Partners for Wildlife NAWCA Carbon Sequestration Coordinated, Partner-driven Delivery

25. National Wildlife Refuge State Wildlife Mgt Area Wetland Reserve Program Ducks Unlimited Easement Assessing Conservation Status - Protection

26. CORE EXTANT FOREST Conservation Status of the Forest Breeding Bird Landscape PROTECTED UNPROTECTED FEDERAL STATE PVT EASEMENT Percent 100 0 0 ARILLAMSMOTNMAVKY 3202 1,227 32610301,916>.1 2,358183,4751,6452401857,96948 Total Acres X 1000 Percent

27. 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?

28. Assessing Conservation Status - Management ? Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Forest Management Tracking System

29. Conservation Programs Realizing the Expectations and Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation Science & Technology 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) Arkansas Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Tennessee Totals 9 0 2 19 14 6 1 11 1 15 6 1 30072013007201 513613 Source Population Objectives State10K20K100K Efficient Effective

30. Conservation Programs Realizing the Expectations and Challenges of Joint Venture Implementation Efficient Effective WHEN WHERE WHAT HOW MUCH HOW MUCH MORE

31. Habitat Monitoring Databases WaterfowlShorebirdsSongbirds Water Mgmt Units -Spatial locations -Tabular attributes Forest Mgmt Units -Mgmt w/in units -Cruz data -Demonic disturbance -Fire -Ice -Storm Mgmt w/in Units -Tracking Mgmt -Monitoring Plant Response (% cover) Productivity (lbs/ac) Reforestation -Spatial locations -Tabular attributes Water Mgmt Units -Spatial locations -Tabular attributes Satellite Imagery -Performance -Compliance

32.  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 The LMVJV Reforestation Tracking System

33.  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?

34. Partner Landholdings Assess and inform the collective contributions to LMVJV landscape goals both spatially and temporally

35. Forest Core Forest Why an LMVJV Reforestation Tracking System? Assess and inform the protection and management of “core” habitat for area-sensitive wildlife

36. Why an LMVJV Reforestation Tracking System? Higher Lower Reforestation Priorities Forest Property Boundaries Assess and inform the restoration of the most environmentally sensitive portions of the landscape

37. 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?

38. 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 Why this kind of Reforestation Tracking System?

39.  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 Data entry via e-RTS web interface

40. What has it taken to get us where we are now? Skilled Personnel Provided By Task Forestry expertsPartners 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 expertsPartners 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 expertsPartners Beta-tested web application and approved e-RTS Management Board Representatives Partners Designate individuals responsible for data entry and data quality by each partner