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

2. 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. 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. 4 Dividing the problem Problem 1 : 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. Problem 2 : 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9 What are the consequences? Species Habitat Characteristics Tree densityBare GroundWater depth Canopy Closure Hetero- geneity A109867 B 8847 C 8577 Assess the alternatives with respect to the objectives Can be qualitative or quantitative Requires an underlying model Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

10. 10 Assessing consequences Focus on distinguishing objectives – For tree density and heterogeneity - A ≈ B ≈ C – Focus on others Biological planning – Species Selection Species Habitat Characteristics Tree densityBare GroundWater depth Canopy Closure Hetero- geneity A109867 B 8847 C 8577 Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

11. 11 Assessing consequences Dominated alternatives – Eliminate alternatives (species) that are clearly inferior – A > B on objectives 2, 3, & 4 Eliminate B from consideration Biological planning – Species Selection Species Habitat Characteristics Tree densityBare GroundWater depth Canopy Closure Hetero- geneity A109867 B 8847 C 8577 Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

12. 12 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 Biological planning – Species Selection Species Habitat Characteristics Tree densityBare GroundWater depth Canopy Closure Hetero- geneity A109867 B 8847 C 8577 Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

13. 13 Assessing consequences Habitat Characteristics Species Low % Canopy Cover Diverse, Herb- aceous Under- story Low Basal Area/ Tree DensityOld treesSnags Large Patch Size High Fire Frequency Growing Season Fire Bare Ground BASP XXXXX BRNU XXX HESP XXXXX NOBO XXXXXX RCWO XXXXX AMKE XXXXX Priority species (alternatives) – rows Habitat attributes (objectives) – columns Biological planning – Species SelectionBiological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

14. 14 Assessing consequences Habitat Characteristics Species Low % Canopy Cover Diverse, Herb- aceous Under- story Low Basal Area/ Tree DensityOld treesSnags Large Patch Size High Fire Frequency Growing Season Fire Bare Ground BASP XXXXX BRNU XXX HESP XXXXX NOBO XXXXXX RCWO XXXXX AMKE XXXXX Priority species (alternatives) – rows Habitat attributes (objectives) – columns Distinguishing objectives differ among the alternatives Biological planning – Species SelectionBiological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

15. 15 Assessing consequences Dominated alternatives – Same outcome for each attribute – Mapping same habitats Habitat Characteristics Species Low % Canopy Cover Diverse, Herb- aceous Under- story Low Basal Area/ Tree DensityOld treesSnags Large Patch Size High Fire Frequency Growing Season Fire Bare Ground BASP XXXXX BRNU XXX HESP XXXXX NOBO XXXXXX RCWO XXXXX AMKE XXXX Biological planning – Species SelectionBiological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

16. 16 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. Habitat Characteristics Species Low % Canopy Cover Diverse, Herb- aceous Under- story Low Basal Area/ Tree DensityOld treesSnags Large Patch Size High Fire Frequency Growing Season Fire Bare Ground BASP XXXXX BRNU XXX HESP XXXXX NOBO XXXXXX RCWO XXXXX AMKE XXXX Biological planning – Species SelectionBiological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

17. 17 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. Habitat Characteristics Species Low % Canopy Cover Diverse, Herb- aceous Under- story Low Basal Area/ Tree Density Old treesSnags Large Patch Size High Fire Frequency Growing Season Fire Bare Ground Wet Savannah / Bogs BASP XXXXX BRNU XXX HESP XXXXXX NOBO XXXXXX RCWO XXXXX AMKE XXXX Biological planning – Species Selection/Habitat Relationships

18. 18 Open Pine Decision Support Tool Problem 1 : 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. Problem 2 : 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 1. Large reserves are better than smaller ones; 2. One larger reserve is better than several small ones; 3. Reserves that are close together are better; 4. Individual reserves should be equidistant 5. Reserves connected by corridors are better; 6. 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. 19

20. Conservation Design – Desired Landscape Configuration 20 Prioritization Objectives 1. Capitalize on recent restoration and management efforts 2. Restore on appropriate sites. 3. Encourage long-term conservation stewardship and connectivity 4. Existing and potential habitat for priority species – Connectivity to existing open pine (longleaf) systems 5. Areas where frequent fire can be used as a management tool 6. Areas connective to existing source populations 7. Sufficient habitat to meet population objectives

21. Conservation Design – Desired Landscape Configuration 21 Prioritization Objectives 1. Capitalize on recent restoration and management efforts 2. Restore on appropriate sites. 3. Encourage long-term conservation stewardship and connectivity 4. Existing and potential habitat for priority species – Connectivity to existing open pine (longleaf) systems 5. Areas where frequent fire can be used as a management tool 6. Areas connective to existing source populations 7. Sufficient habitat to meet population objectives

22. 22 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) 1 1 Species specific data Conservation Design – Desired Landscape Configuration

23. 23 Prioritizing areas Objectives Limiting or Compensatory Capitalize on recent restoration and management efforts A C Restore on appropriate sites.S L Long-term conservation stewardshipL C Existing and potential habitat for priority speciesH C Frequent use of fireF L Near source populationsP C Priority = S*F*(A+P+L+H) Conservation Design – Decision Support Tool

24. 24 Species priorities Conservation Design – Decision Support Tool

25. 25 Overall Priorities Conservation Design – Decision Support Tool

26. 26 Alternatives |Sufficient area Efficacy of Alternative Models (total density) ObjectivesABC Build from existing open pine (longleaf) systems Existing open pine Capitalize on recent restoration and management efforts Recent projects Restore on appropriate sites. Suitable sites Long-term conservation stewardship Public lands Existing and potential habitat for priority species Potential habitat Frequent use of fire Burnable area Near source populations Large tracts of potential habitat Meet population goals Given Conservation Design – Decision Support Tool