Focus questions pertaining to landscape conservation

Transcription

1 Photo: Rich Watson

2

3 Connectivity Group collaboration Focus areas of work Identifying linkages (scales, current and climate change) Developing GIS tools, and broadly sharing Supporting/including research to validate models Communications to build support for connectivity conservation Collaboration with Western Governors Association Columbia Plateau Pilot Project, and Arid Lands Initiative Focus questions pertaining to landscape conservation Collaboration/integration of new & ongoing efforts Strategic focus of resources towards landscape condition or priority How the GNLCC can/is supporting this effort, and the value towards achieving collective vision among diverse agencies and organizations

4 Promoting the long term viability of wildlife populations in Washington State through a science based, collaborative approach that identifies opportunities and priorities to conserve and restore habitat connectivity. Public private partnership Science based Participation from conservation organizations, state and federal agencies, universities, tribes, and others

5

6 Identifying habitat linkages at statewide and ecoregional scales (current conditions and climate change) Scale of analysis WA statewide analysis WA Columbia Plateau analysis Climate connectivity

7 Statewide and Surrounding Landscapes Ecoregion Local Creates statewide data layers Emphasizes wildlife Habitat Concentration and Core Areas Identifies areas important for statewide connectivity Establishes statewide context to inform finer-scale analyses Focuses on particular habitat types Includes wildlife species with smaller geographic ranges Increases resolution regarding wildlife Habitat Concentration and Core Areas and connection patterns Includes species with small ranges or local significance Can be accomplished by local organizations Provides sufficient detail for project-scale action

8 In addition: GIS linkage mapper and hca toolkits GIS files and metadata By fall: Searchable layers (Executive Summaries)

9 16 Focal Species + Landscape Integrity Focal Species Vancouverian Forests Rocky Mt. Forests Semi-desert Habitats Alpine Habitats Subalpine Forests Black Bear X X * * Elk X X * * * Northern Flying Squirrel X X Western Toad X X * X American Marten X * X Bighorn Sheep X * Western Gray Squirrel * X Mule Deer X X * * Sharp-tailed Grouse X Greater Sage-grouse X American Badger X Black-tailed Jackrabbit X White-tailed Jackrabbit X Mountain Goat * * X X Wolverine X X Lynx X Primary species for class X Species also occurs here *

10

11 Areas of highest landscape integrity have the lowest human footprint (e.g., natural land-covers, low housing density, and minimum roads). Composite landscape integrity linkage map which combines four sensitivity models. Cost values indicate relative ease of movement within each linkage.

12 Cluster Dendrogram Shrub-Steppe Associates TYPH Sharp-tailed Grouse Height TYPH CEUR LECA LETO TATA LYCA GUGU ORAM URAM GLSA MAAM ANBO CEEL ODHE LI_LCC OVCA SCGR CEUR LECA LETO TATA Sage Grouse Black-tailed Jackrabbit White-tailed Jackrabbit Badger Montane Associates LYCA Lynx GUGU ORAM URAM GLSA MAAM Wolverine Mountain Goat Black Bear Flying Squirrel Marten Habitat Generalists & Edge Spp. ANBO Western Toad CEEL ODHE Elk Mule Deer Shrub-Steppe Montane Generalist/edge OVCA SCGR Bighorn Sheep Western Grey Squirrel

13 Figure 4.2. Cost-weighted distance map for elk. Even though box 1 spans a larger distance, the higher permeability of habitat means the length of this box is predicted to be easier and safer for elk to traverse than box 2, which spans a fracture zone.

14 Columbia Plateau Connectivity Analysis Higher resolution data Regional data, expertise, and communications Energy development Climate change

15 Columbia Plateau Focal Species Columbia Plateau connectivity analysis focal species. X = primary habitats species is chosen to represent; * = additional habitats where species occurs. Dunes connectivity will be modeled through a systems approach; no species were chosen specifically to represent this vegetation class. Taxon Common Name Scientific Name Shrubsteppe Grassland Cliff, Canyon, Talus Riparian Wetland Bird Sharp tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus X X * X * Bird Greater Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus X X * * * Mammal Black tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus X * * Mammal White tailed Jackrabbit Lepus townsendii X X * Mammal Townsend's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus townsendii X X * Mammal Washington Ground Squirrel Spermophilus washingtoni X X * Mammal Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus X * Mammal Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus X X * * * * Reptile Western Rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus * * X * * * Mammal Beaver Castor canadensis X X Amphibian Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum * * * * X Dunes

16 Implementation Identify opportunities for conserving and restoring habitat connectivity Develop, coordinate and implement conservation strategies ARID LANDS INITIATIVE

17 Nunez et al. in prep

18 Developing needed GIS tools for our work, and broadly sharing these tools Habitat concentration and core areas Resistance surface Linkage mapper FUTURE: Climate mapper Bighorn sheep, photo by Mike Schroeder.

19 Spatial data 1. Core area mapping automated with the HCA TOOLKIT 2. Resistance layer mapping automated soon with new ArcGIS tools

20 Linkage Mapper The precedent: California had just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of which core area pairs to connect. After that, corridor mapping took months and tens of thousands of dollars in analyst time.

21 Linkage Modeling: The Linkage Mapper toolkit

22 Sharp-tailed Grouse 9 Linkage Mapper automatically decides where to map linkages Landscape Resistance Low 3 High

23 Sharp-tailed Grouse It then creates corridor maps connecting networks of core areas Connectivity value Low High

24 Supporting/including research to validate models and scientific assumptions (Sage Grouse, Cascades Carnivores) Shirk et. al

25 Cascades Carnivore Connectivity Project: Evaluating Habitat Connectivity for Carnivores in Washington's Cascade Mountains Update for WWHCWG February, 24, 2011 Robert Long, Paula MacKay, James Begley Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University William Gaines, Okanogan/Wenatchee National Forest Roger Christophersen, North Cascades National Park Service Complex

26 Validation Approaches Use WWHCWG linkage models as costsurface for testing; Compare degree of correspondence between WWHCWG models and genetically derived models; Evaluate how well occurrence data matches predicted HCA and linkage habitat from WWHCWG models.

27 Greater Sage-Grouse Model Validation Leslie Robb Mike Schroeder Andrew Shirk

28 Integration Movement pattern Genetic variation Lek persistence

29 Model Validation Approaches Patterns of movement relative to model assumptions and predictions Patterns of lek persistence relative to model predictions Genetic variation relative to movement, lek persistence, and model predictions

30 Communications to build support for connectivity conservation The goal of the communications and implementation subgroup: to provide complementary products to our scientific analysis that will inform and guide communications and implementation of our work, while facilitating effective internal and external communications.

31 3. How the GNLCC can/is supporting this effort, and the value towards achieving collective vision among diverse agencies and organizations Big picture needs: consistent data sets, collaboration sites such as data portel, GIS tools, communicating and sharing across state and national borders Connectivity group includes ambitious work plan, we seek to accomplish this work in ways that can be shared with and by the GNLCC. Capacity and funding for all aspects of work very challenging. GNLCC funding is hugely important for the group s work

32 Find information about the analyses, data availability, and GIS tools at: Contacts: WHCWG Co lead Joanne Schuett Hames Joanne.Schuett Lead GIS Analyst Brian Cosentino Communications Jen Watkins