WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 1

Transcription

1 Project Title: The Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Analyzing Ecoregions, Incorporating Climate Change, Providing Analysis Tools, and Validating Models Project Coordinator: Joanne Schuett-Hames, Co-lead of Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group, WDFW (360) ; Project PI(s): Brian Cosentino (WDFW, Sonia Hall (TNC, Meade Krosby (UW, Robert Long (WTI, Kelly McAllister (WSDOT, Brad McRae (TNC, Leslie Robb (Independent researcher, Michael Schroeder (WDFW, Andrew Shirk (UW, Jen Watkins (CNW, Partners: The Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG) is a science-based collaboration of land and resource management agencies, NGOs, universities, and Washington Treaty Tribes. The group is co-led by Washington State Departments of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Transportation (WSDOT), with active participation from member organizations including The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Conservation Northwest (CNW), Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), US Forest Service (USFS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Western Transportation Institute (WTI), and University of Washington (UW). Project Summary: We are requesting funding to support 12 months of a multi-year project that builds upon our work funded by the Great Northern LCC (GNLCC) during FY2010 (see Appendix B for accomplishments to date). Specifically, we will: (1) identify essential habitats and linkages connecting them for the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion of Washington State and neighboring areas, and initiate pre-planning for future analyses for the Okanogan Ecoregion; (2) identify habitat and connectivity areas expected to be resilient to climate change and to facilitate species range shifts in response to climate change; (3) develop methods and tools necessary for this work, and package and share them in a way that provides support for their interpretation and implementation; and (4) examine WHCWG model assumptions and predictions using occurrence, movement, and genetic data for sage-grouse and mammalian carnivores. Together this work will provide valuable information and tools that will directly contribute to the GNLCC s efforts to strengthen regional capabilities for designing and implementing connectivity conservation strategies in the face of climate change. Need: Managing for well-connected landscapes is a key strategy to enhance resilience and ensure the long-term viability of plant and animal populations. Connectivity conservation is also the single most frequently cited climate adaptation strategy; many species will require highly permeable, well-connected landscapes both to maintain dispersal and gene flow as vegetation patterns and disturbance regimes change and to allow range shifts. Yet conservation planning efforts have rarely included connectivity, and rigorous examples of connectivity conservation plans designed to promote climate change adaptation are lacking. The need for connectivity conservation planning at multiple scales, including consideration of climate change, has been identified by several management and planning entities within the GNLCC and beyond. The Western Governors Association s Wildlife Council is an example of WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 1

2 this at the multi-state scale; they have recently initiated several pilot projects, aimed at mapping crucial wildlife habitats and connectivity areas for current and future climates. We are working closely with the pilot project for the Columbia Plateau of Washington, Idaho and Oregon to ensure our efforts are well integrated and complementary. WDFW s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) identified habitat conversion, fragmentation, and degradation as the most serious statewide threats to Washington s wildlife, and since then habitat connectivity and climate change have been elevated to among the top planning priorities for WDFW. Similarly, Washington s Arid Lands Initiative (ALI) is developing a coordinated strategy for the conservation of the Columbia Plateau, in pursuit of its vision of conserving and restoring a viable, well-connected system of eastern Washington s arid lands. All of these projects are directly in need of rigorous connectivity information and tools to guide their planning efforts. To begin addressing these needs, our 2010 statewide connectivity analysis identified broad-scale priority areas for connectivity conservation. More detailed, finer-scale analyses will give land managers the information they need to begin prioritizing and implementing conservation actions. The Columbia Plateau (Appendix A, Fig. 1) was selected for the first ecoregional-scale analysis for two reasons. First, several climate models suggest that the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion in Washington is likely to be a stronghold of shrubsteppe ecosystems under climate change. Second, despite the high level of habitat loss and fragmentation in the ecoregion, our statewide analysis identified previously undocumented patterns and opportunities for multiple-species connectivity conservation. This highlights the need to refine analyses for the region and prioritize among areas needed to maintain connectivity, particularly in the face of rapid energy development. We expect our pilot analysis of the Columbia Plateau to provide a general approach and specific tools that can be used to increase the efficiency of subsequent ecoregional analyses. The use of independent datasets to evaluate assumptions and improve the power and confidence of landscape connectivity models is fundamental to furthering our ability to predict how species will respond to climate change and other stressors. We have the unique opportunity to validate connectivity models developed by the WHCWG using movement, occurrence, and genetic data from species or species groups within the GNLCC, specifically greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and mammalian carnivores. Both model validation approaches will enhance landscape connectivity conservation within the Columbia Plateau and Northern Rockies regions of the GNLCC, and will help to advance the GNLCC s objective to develop a sciencebased decision support system for climate-smart, landscape-scale conservation efforts. Objectives: This proposal directly supports three LCC objectives and functions: (1) decision support tools/systems or science applications for focused resource conservation (Part I Objectives 1, 2, and 3), (2) testing assumptions of model predictions (Part II Objectives 1 and 2), and (3) inventory of resource conditions or trends (Part I Objectives 1 and 2, Part II Objectives 1 and 2). Our project objectives are categorized into two parts: Part I objectives focus on accomplishing specific analyses and analysis tools, while Part II objectives provide focal species model validation. Specific project objectives are: Part I. Objective #1. Conduct ecoregional connectivity analyses and publish results for the Columbia Plateau. We will build upon our broad-scale statewide products by completing a WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 2

3 more detailed connectivity analysis of the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion, applying innovative connectivity modeling methods (see Objective #3 below) to prioritize conservation and restoration opportunities (Appendix A, Figs. 2 and 3). These analyses will directly inform the Arid Lands Initiative s decisions on where to focus implementation of shared priority strategies. A key part of this objective is refinement of products and methods that will help answer decision-critical questions that continue to trouble conservation practitioners.. Parallel products based on focal species and landscape/systems integrity will allow further testing of the effectiveness of integrity-based analyses for capturing the connectivity patterns of suites of species. Our efforts will provide tested methods and tools for the Western Governors Association Columbia Plateau Pilot Decision-Support System Project (WGA Pilot Project), and for future analyses in the seven remaining ecoregions in Washington, starting with the Okanogan Ecoregion. We will set-up transboundary and ecoregional subgroups and lay the groundwork for connectivity analyses focused on this critical area that spans Washington and British Columbia. Part I. Objective #2. Incorporate climate change into statewide and ecoregional connectivity analyses. We will complete analyses developed as part of our framework (see Appendix B, Part I Objective #2) for providing additional, climate-smart connectivity map layers to the WHCWG statewide connectivity analysis, as well as to WHCWG ecoregional analyses, beginning with the Columbia Plateau. We will synthesize our new climate connectivity layers with existing WHCWG products and provide decision support regarding their interpretation and implementation. Finally, we will continue to make our climate data and methods widely available to other connectivity planning efforts (see Objective #3 below). Part I. Objective #3. Develop and share methods, protocols, and spatial analysis tools needed for climate and Columbia Plateau analyses. We will develop and publically release spatial analysis tools needed for our Columbia Plateau analysis. These include tools that incorporate algorithms from circuit theory to identify choke points (areas where corridors narrow, creating bottlenecks where connectivity could be easily severed) and to identify areas where restoration could most greatly enhance connectivity (Appendix A, Figs. 2 and 3). We will also release tools that identify corridors that follow climatic gradients using methods developed by our climate subgroup (Appendix A, Fig. 4; Nuñez et al. in prep). Lastly, we will release new tools to identify and prioritize linkages and core areas with high network centrality (those which are particularly important for connectivity across an overall network of core habitat areas). Lastly, we will continue working with the WGA Pilot Project and other efforts within the GNLCC to adapt our climate-smart connectivity framework and tools to their planning regions and needs. Part II. Objective #1. Compare greater sage-grouse movement and genetic data with connectivity model predictions. We will assess connectivity model predictions for greater-sage grouse landscape resistance and movement using radio-telemetry and genetic data. These analyses will provide insight for connectivity modeling of greater sage-grouse (Appendix A, Fig. 5) and other arid lands species in the Columbia Plateau region of the GNLCC. Part II. Objective #2. Assess carnivore connectivity and barriers to carnivore movement and compare with connectivity model predictions. We will collect genetic samples from focal carnivore species (i.e., American black bear [Ursus americanus], American marten [Martes WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 3

4 americana]), evaluate genetic exchange among subpopulations, and use landscape genetic methods to identify barriers to carnivore movement and potential linkage zones. Focal species of conservation concern within the GNLCC, such as grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), may also be detected opportunistically. Our analyses will provide independent, genetically based information about landscape connectivity for mammalian carnivores in the GNLCC (Appendix A, Fig. 6). Methods: The tasks detailed in this section will allow us to fulfill the above objectives supported by the federal FY 2011 GNLCC funding requested here, significant in-kind support from WHCWG partners, and additional funding to be requested from the GNLCC in FY 2012 (see budget). Part I. Objective #1. Conduct ecoregional connectivity analyses and publish results for the Columbia Plateau. Task 1.1: Complete wildlife habitat connectivity analysis across the Columbia Plateau of Washington State and adjacent arid lands in Idaho, Oregon, and British Columbia. We will map essential habitats and linkages for 10 Columbia Plateau focal species, and intact areas of high landscape integrity, including systems such as sand dunes. We will add value to the statewide products by refining our statewide methods, engaging local expertise, including features difficult to consider at a statewide scale, and using climate-smart connectivity methods. Specific refinements will be defined in coordination with the Arid Lands Initiative, and may include choke point and restoration opportunity detection and network centrality measures (Appendix A, Figs. 2 and 3). Key cooperators: All WHCWG partners and the Arid Lands Initiative. Task 1.2: Developing products and methods in ways that best inform conservation decisions. We will work closely with the Arid Lands Initiative to: (1) define how best to craft the Columbia Plateau analysis and results so that they inform conservation decisions across eastern Washington s arid lands, and (2) share our products and provide guidance on their proper use. Task 1.3: Initiate planning for wildlife habitat connectivity analysis for the Okanogan Ecoregion of Washington State and across to British Columbia. We will initiate discussions with partners in British Columbia to identify capacity for collaboration, analyze the data layers available for a finer scale analysis, establish transboundary and ecoregional subgroups to lead this effort, and define a clear geographic boundary for the analysis. The subgroups will make decisions on what additional data layers and threats should be considered in the connectivity analysis. Key cooperators: All WHCWG partners and new partners in British Columbia including Ministry of the Environment (BCME), NGOs, and independent contractors. Task 1.4: Develop and share documents and web-based products. High-quality maps and documents that clearly communicate our results are essential to the impact of our work. We will present our results to a wide range of groups, including scientists, groups interested in applying these methods in other areas, and entities such as the Arid Lands Initiative who will use these results to inform their resource conservation and management efforts. We will also make our documents and data available on the web and host our GIS data at Key cooperators: CNW, WDFW, WSDOT, TNC. WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 4

5 Part I. Objective #2. Incorporate climate change into statewide and ecoregional connectivity analyses. Task 2.1: Identify areas most likely to continue providing habitat and connectivity as climate changes. We will complete a novel analysis that identifies and models linkages among topographically complex areas expected to act as climate refugia. This analysis will identify topographic complexity at the magnitudes and scales most likely to increase species persistence under climate change, and provide guidance regarding which scale will be appropriate for use with specific ecoregions or species guilds. In addition, in spring 2011 we will receive downscaled models of future climate change from the University of Washington s Climate Impacts Group. We will design novel methods that use these downscaled climate projections to refine our topographic analysis of climate refugia, identifying which will be most likely to maintain their current climate space into the future. This will require rigorous testing of the scale at which it may be appropriate to use downscaled future climate projections in spatial conservation planning, addressing a critical need of increasing importance as such data becomes available. Key cooperators: UW, WDFW, USFS, TNC. Task 2.2: Identify connectivity areas most likely to facilitate species movements in response to climate change. We will synthesize our new climate gradient linkage maps (Appendix A, Fig. 4; Nuñez et al. in prep) with existing statewide connectivity products, and provide decision support regarding interpretation and implementation of these new climate change products. We will also evaluate the appropriate application of this tool to finer-scale connectivity analysis, and complete additional analyses as needed at the ecoregional scale of the Columbia Plateau. In addition, we will use projections of future species distributions (expected from the Pacific Northwest Vulnerability Assessment) to provide a fine-filter, species-specific complement to our primarily coarse-filter, landscape-level climate connectivity analyses, identifying which linkages are most likely to contribute to individual species abilities to move in response to changing climates, and where our climate connectivity network may need to be modified to accommodate individual species connectivity needs under climate change. Key cooperators: UW, WDFW, USFS, TNC. Part I. Objective #3. Develop and share methods, protocols, and spatial analysis tools needed for climate and Columbia Plateau analyses. Task 3.1: Develop, test, and publish spatial analysis tools to automate connectivity modeling. We will enhance the open-source ArcGIS toolbox we created for our statewide analysis (Linkage Mapper, see Appendix B, Fig. 1) to incorporate detection of choke points and restoration opportunities using circuit theory. We will also release Linkage Mapper Climate, which will automate our methods to map corridors that follow climatic gradients. These two tools will enable the analyses proposed in Objectives 1 and 2, and will be released as fully documented open-source ArcGIS toolboxes that can be applied to other landscapes in the GNLCC and beyond. We will also develop and release a network version of Circuitscape ( to facilitate network centrality methods needed to prioritize among linkages and core habitat areas. Key cooperators: TNC, WDFW, UW. Task 3.2: Disseminate protocols and tools for climate-smart connectivity planning. We will continue to disseminate our climate methods and results to diverse audiences, via reports, peerreviewed publications, participation in conferences and workshops, and the WHCWG online WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 5

6 mapping tool. In addition, we will continue to coordinate the use of our analysis framework and tools across the greater Northwest. This will include ongoing coordination with the working group that is adapting our climate framework to the WGA Pilot Project for Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. We will also continue to provide guidance regarding extension of this framework to another WGA Pilot Project focused on the High Divide of Idaho and Montana. Finally, we will continue to work with partners in British Columbia to apply WHCWG climate tools to a BC mapping project for conservation priorities under climate change. Key cooperators: UW, Oregon State University (OSU), University of Idaho (UI), WDFW, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), US Geological Survey (USGS), TNC, Defenders of Wildlife DOW, BCME. Part II. Objective #1. Model validation using greater sage-grouse data. Task 1.1: Examine movement data for radio-marked sage-grouse in north-central Washington for comparison with connectivity model predictions. We will use data from a 7-year ( ) radio-telemetry study of greater sage-grouse in Washington to evaluate connectivity models developed by the WHCWG.We will employ GIS methods and spatial tools developed by the WHCWG. This analysis will help evaluate assumptions and predictions of connectivity models for sage-grouse, as well as provide valuable insight into habitat connectivity within the Columbia Basin. Key cooperators: WDFW, UW, USFS, WSDOT, TNC. Task 1.2: Examine patterns of lek persistence. Greater sage-grouse lek data collected from 1960 through 2010 will be used to provide insight into areas of occupation, potential corridors between occupied areas, sites for potential reintroduction, and areas of conservation concern. We will employ GIS methods and spatial tools developed by the WHCWG. This analysis will help validate pre-determined core habitat areas for greater sage-grouse and provide insight useful for arid land species within the GNLCC. Key cooperators: WDFW, UW, USFS. Task 1.3: Expand genetic analysis of greater sage-grouse in Washington. We will conduct microsatellite analyses of 445 samples from 2 populations (blood, feather, and egg shell membrane samples collected ). We will apply landscape genetic analysis techniques to relate patterns of connectivity between populations to patterns of landscape resistance, helping to validate the connectivity models developed by the WHCWG. Key cooperators: WDFW, UW, Department of Defense, USFS. Part II. Objective #2. Model validation using mammalian carnivore genetic data. Task 2.1: Collect genetic samples from focal carnivore species. We will use noninvasive survey devices deployed throughout Washington s North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) to collect hair samples and therefore DNA from American black bears and American martens during summer These samples will, when combined with those collected during , provide a sufficient sample size to meet the objectives of Tasks In addition to collecting DNA from target species, our devices will also sample grizzly bears that encounter our survey stations, while remote cameras will provide further evidence of species presence. Hair samples will be analyzed by Wildlife Genetics International (Nelson, BC). Key cooperators: USFS, North Cascades National Park Complex (NOCA). WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 6

7 Task 2.2: Evaluate genetic exchange among focal carnivore subpopulations. Following the completion of field efforts in September 2011, we will obtain multi-locus genotypes from the DNA analysis of hair samples, which will permit the genetic assessment of population structuring. Such population genetic-based approaches do not require the a priori identification of subpopulations, but rather use the genetic signature from collected samples and sample locations to assign samples and therefore individuals to populations. Key cooperators: USFS, NOCA. Task 2.3: Use landscape genetic methods to identify barriers to carnivore movement and potential linkage zones. Based on population structuring identified in Task 2.2, we will use connectivity assessment tools (e.g., Circuitscape) to identify barriers to carnivore movement and potential linkage zones throughout the NCE. Identifying potential linkage zones and barriers via genetic methods will provide an independent validation of connectivity models developed by the WHCWG. Key cooperators: USFS, NOCA. Task 2.4: Compare results from carnivore barrier and linkage zone analyses (Task 2.3) to results and products from the WHCWG. The linkage zones and barriers identified in Task 2.3 will be derived from empirical data pertaining to the location and genetic signatures of carnivores throughout the NCE, and will permit a unique and informative comparison with the connectivity maps and products produced by the WHCWG. Key cooperators: USFS, NOCA. WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 7

8 Deliverables: Task # Description Due Date Part I. Objective #1. Complete ecoregional connectivity analyses and publish results. 1.1 Summary report of Columbia Plateau ecoregional analysis, including high quality map products DEC Obtain feedback through two workshops with Arid Lands Initiative DEC Establish Okanogan transboundary and ecoregional subgroups and establish geographical analysis boundary Reports and searchable map layers for Columbia Plateau analysis on web Enhanced linkage modeling products (choke points, restoration opportunities, centrality) Minimum of 4 presentations to diverse stakeholder groups Part I. Objective #2. Incorporate climate change into connectivity analyses Release online report, searchable map layers, and decision support for: -Statewide climate refugia linkage analysis -Columbia Plateau ecoregional climate refugia linkage analysis Integrate downscaled climate projections into climate refugia analysis Synthesize climate gradient linkage maps with WHCWG statewide products and provide decision support for their interpretation and implementation Release online report, searchable map layers, and decision support for Columbia Plateau ecoregional climate refugia linkage analysis Integrate climate envelope models into WHCWG climate analyses Part I. Objective #3. Develop and share methods, protocols, and spatial analysis tools Spatial analysis decision support tools: At least 4 conference and workshop presentations, and at least 4 publications in peer-reviewed journals Release of updated GIS tools with user guides and ongoing support: -Automated tools to identify choke points and restoration opportunities -Linkage Mapper Climate to automate climate corridor mapping -Network version of Circuitscape to prioritize linkages and core areas DEC 2012 JUL 2012 SEP 2012 SEP 2012 JUN 2012 JUL 2012 JUL 2012 SEP 2011 JUL 2012 JUL 2013 JUN 2012 DEC 2011 MAR 2012 MAR 2012 Climate-smart tools and protocols: Ongoing collaboration with other efforts, and at least 2 conference presentations, and 2 submissions to peer-reviewed journals SEP 2012 Part II. Objective #1. Model validation using greater sage-grouse data. 1.1 Summary report entitled Movement of greater sage-grouse in the Columbia Basin in relation to landscape resistance to be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Interim DEC 2011, Final SEP 2012 Summary report entitled Effects of landscape connectivity on persistence of greater sagegrouse Interim DEC 1.2 leks in the Columbia Basin to be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal 2011, Final SEP 2012 Summary report entitled Greater sage-grouse gene flow in the Columbia Basin in relation Interim SEP 1.3 to historical and current patterns of occupation to be submitted for publication in a peerreviewed scientific journal 2011; Final SEP 2012 Part II. Objective #2. Model validation using mammalian carnivore genetic data. 2.1 Summary report of noninvasive survey methods and results, including high-quality map products Final report, including barrier and linkage zone maps and comparisons with existing products from the WHCWG, to be submitted for publication in 1 or more peer-reviewed scientific journal(s) and presented at 2 or more workshops or conferences Summary Report DEC 2011 SEP 2012 WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 8

9 Schedule: Washington Connected Landscapes Project Schedule FY2012 (Federal) 2012 FY2013 (Federal) 2013 Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Part I Objective #1. Complete statewide and ecoregional connectivity Task 1.1. Columbia Plateau ecoregional analysis GIS layer acquisition/development Focal species and landscape integrity model development and reports Resistance, HCA/core area, and linkage modeling Initial Ecoregional analysis products and report Draft model review, define enhanced ecoregional analyses Enhanced linkage modeling (pinch points, restoration opportunities, network centrality) Enhanced ecoregional analysis review and report Task 1.2. Develop products and methods that best inform conservation decisions Input from Arid Lands Initiative - workshops Incorporating input into modeling Coordination with Arid Lands Initiative core team (Advisory Committee) Task 1.3. Initiate planning for Okanogan wildlife habitat connectivity Transboundary discussions for collaboration capacity Formation of ecoregional and transboundary sub-groups Define geographic boundary, data analysis needs, availability, and compatibility Initiate connectivity analysis Task 1.4. Develop and share documents and web-based products Summary documents and maps on web for statewide and Columbia Plateau analyses Searchable web-based maps on webfor statewide and Columbia Plateau assessments Presentations and workshops for stakeholder groups within project area Part I Objective #2. Incorporate climate change into connectivity Task 2.1. Identify connectivity areas resilient to climate change GIS modeling for climate refugia linkages (Statewide) Final report, interactive maps, decision support for climate refugia linkages (Statewide) Incorporate downscaled climate models into climate refugia linkage analysis (Statewide) GIS modeling for climate refugia linkages (CP Ecoregional) Final report, interactive maps, decision support for climate refugia linkages (CP Ecoregional) Task 2.2. Identify connectivity areas to facilitate species range shifts Synthesis and decision support for statewide climate gradient linkage maps GIS modeling for finer scale climate gradient linkage maps (CP Ecoregional) Final report, interactive maps, decision support for climate gradient linkages (CP Ecoregional) Incorporate species' range shift models into climate connectivity analysis Part I Objective #3. Develop and share methods, protocols, and spatial Task 3.1. Develop and share spatial analysis tools Present ArcGIS toolboxes at national conferences, ongoing support and enhancement Integrate Circuitscape and Linkage Mapper to facilitate barrier and choke-point detection Release Linkage Mapper Climate and user guide Release network version of Circuitscape to prioritize high-centrality core areas and linkages Task 3.2. Disseminate protocols and tools for climate-smart connectivity planning Present, publish, and share climate-smart methods, decision support tools, and protocols Collaborate with WA/ID/OR WGA Pilot Project to complete their climate connectivity analyses Part II Objective #1. Model validation: greater sage-grouse data Task 1.1. Model validation: sage-grouse movement data Task 1.2. Model validation: spatial analysis of leks Task 1.3. Sage-grouse genetic analyses Part II Objective #2. Model validation: carnivore connectivity Task 2.1. Collect genetic samples from focal carnivore species Task 2.2. Evaluate genetic exchange among subpopulations Task 2.3. Identify barriers and linkage zones Task 2.4. Compare with results of WHCWG Statewide Analysis Bright green: time interval covered by this proposal Gray green: time interval indicated in proposal budget as estimated future costs Light blue: interim processes and products Dark blue: final products WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 9

10 March 2, 2011 Appendix A. Figure 1. Project boundary for the Columbia Plateau Ecoregional analysis. WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 10

11 (A) (B) Figure 2. We will develop and share network centrality tools to inform prioritization among core areas and linkages. (A) Least-cost corridors identified by Linkage Mapper among core areas. (B) Network of core areas produced by Linkage Mapper. Arrows indicate a core area and a linkage that have high centrality. These are gatekeepers of connectivity because losing either would disproportionately affect connectivity across the network (Carroll, McRae, and Brookes in review). A network version of Circuitscape would automatically analyze Linkage Mapper outputs to identify core areas and linkages that are most critical for maintaining connected networks. WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 11

12 Figure 3. Building choke point and restoration opportunity analyses into Linkage Mapper will greatly increase the utility of our products for implementation. A simple example of choke points and restoration opportunities identified by least-cost and circuit theory algorithms. (A) Simple landscape, with two patches to be connected (green) separated by a matrix with varying resistance to dispersal (low resistance in white, higher resistance in darker shades, and complete barriers in black). (B) Least-cost corridor between the patches (lowest resistance routes in yellow, highest in blue). (C) Choke points identified by Circuitscape within least-cost corridor. Areas where connectivity could be compromised by the loss of a small amount of habitat glow yellow. These could be prioritized over areas that contribute little to connectivity, such as the dark blue corridor to nowhere at the top of the panel. (D) Restoration opportunities detected by new circuit algorithms. If restored (e.g. by providing a highway crossing structure), the upper one would re-route the corridor through a much more efficient path. Both would add new, independent pathways, reducing the effect of choke points. WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 12

13 Figure 4. Climate gradient linkage map. This map displays least-cost corridors that follow the climatic gradients (here, temperature) species ranges are expected to track as climate changes. These climate gradient linkages (bright green areas above, where the cost of movement increases as green fades to black) connect core areas of high landscape integrity (polygons above, shaded to reflect mean minimum temperatures) that differ in temperature by more than 1ºC. They thus allow for movement between warmer and cooler areas, while avoiding along the way major changes in temperature (e.g., crossing over cold peaks or dipping into warm valleys) and areas of low landscape integrity (e.g., cities or highways). We will synthesize our new climate gradient linkage maps with WHCWG statewide map layers, produce finer-scale climate gradient linkage maps for the Columbia Plateau, and provide decision support regarding interpretation and implementation of these new climate products. We will also make an automated version of this analysis broadly available via a new tool: Linkage Mapper Climate. WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 13

14 Figure 5. Overview of how our evaluation of assumptions and predictions of connectivity models for sage-grouse will provide insight into habitat connectivity conservation, and adaptive management within the Columbia Basin. WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 14

15 (A) (B) Figure 6. We will help validate connectivity models for mammalian carnivores using noninvasively collected DNA (i.e., from hair) and landscape genetic methods. Hair sampling surveys conducted during for (A) black bears and (B) martens at sites throughout the North Cascades Ecosystem have provided the genetic data to begin our evaluation of barriers and linkages for these species. Final surveys scheduled for 2011 will be critical for collecting a sufficient number and distribution of samples for the completion of our analyses. WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 15

16 WHCWG Connected Landscapes Project Page 16