Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015 Identifying Spatial Priorities

for Longleaf Restoration

• Introduction and Overview

– Kevin McIntyre – Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center

• Spatial Prioritization: Concepts and Best practices

– Tom Hoctor, Director of the Center for Landscape Conservation

Planning, University of Florida

• Case Study: Sewee Longleaf Conservation Cooperative

– Colette DeGarady, Senior Ecologist, TNC SC

• Case Study: NC Sandhills Conservation Partnership

– Ryan Bollinger, LIT Consul, The Longleaf Alliance

• 2016 Longleaf Stewardship Fund RFP – Draft Priority Area map

– Jon Scott, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

AGENDA

Florida’s Statewide Greenways Initiative

1990 - 2015

1990-94

Florida

Greenways

Program &

the

Florida

Greenways

Commission

Initial

Greenways

Legislation -

DEP Lead

State

Agency &

Florida

Greenways

Coordinating

Council

1995

1999 1997 - 98 2000-15

Adopt

Priorities,

Update Plan

and Implement

Protection

GIS

Decision

Support

Model

Completed,

Public

Review &

Comment

Legislative

Adoption of

Five

Year Plan

FEGN Update Goals and Objectives

• Update the FEGN to identify a functionally connected statewide ecological network of public and private conservation lands that incorporates new and updated GIS data.

• Ensure the FEGN maximizes protection of high priority natural communities and species identified in the Florida State Wildlife Action Plan.

• Address climate change impacts to maximize the potential of Florida’s native biodiversity to functionally respond to sea-level rise and other environmental changes.

Approximate Occupied Bear Range

Goals: Conserving and Restoring large, wide ranging-species

Goals: Protecting Functional Landscape

Gradients

Aquatic--wetlands--mesic uplands--xeric uplands

Gainesville Sun

October 20, 1999

Goals: Mitigating Climate Change Impacts

• Protect south-north corridors and landscape

linkages

• Protect coastal to inland corridors and linkages

Key Analysis Steps

Step 1 - Identify:

Areas of Ecological Significance

Step 2 - Select:

Ecological Hubs

Step 3 - Delineate:

Landscape Linkages

Connectivity Analyses

• Major river/riparian connectivity/buffer analysis

• Coastal to inland connectivity analysis

• Xeric habitat connectivity analysis

• Florida panther and Florida black bear habitat and

connectivity analyses

Riparian Connectivity

Coastal-Inland Connectivity

FEGN Xeric Habitat Connectivity

• Identified xeric natural communities using CLC: scrub,

scrubby flatwoods, and sandhill 100 acres

or larger.

• Identified other natural and semi-natural land uses on xeric

soils.

• Identified all connected areas of xeric habitat within 1.5

miles of xeric natural communities and that had at least

two patches within 3 miles of each other.

• Separated these patches into two size classes:

--1,000 acres to 4,999 acres

--5,000 acres or larger

Xeric Habitat Connectivity

Florida Black

Bear

Circuitscape

and LCP

Connectivity

Model

Results

Updated FEGN

Prioritization Considerations: FEGN and 2060 Growth Projection

Prioritization Considerations: FEGN and Sea Level Rise

New FEGN (2013)

Florida 2060

Growth Projection (Paul Zwick and Peggy Carr, University of Florida

and 1000 Friends of Florida)

The Century Commission for a

Sustainable Florida

• “Envisions the future for the

state, and then, develops and

recommends policies, plans,

action steps, or strategies to

assist in achieving the vision.”

• A future by design or a future by

default?

• Identify statewide, regional and

local green space protection

priorities and identify measures

for effective protection (CLIP).

CLIP

Critical Lands & Waters

Identification Project

What is CLIP?

• Statewide Natural Resource Spatial Database

• Prioritizes Biodiversity, Landscapes, & Water

• Identifies Florida’s “Green Infrastructure”: e.g.,

the critical concept that ecosystem function,

biodiversity, and the health of human

communities are inextricably linked.

CLIP Database Schematic

Strategic Habitat Conservation

Areas

Potential Habitat Richness

Rare Spp. Habitat Conserv. Priorities

Priority Natural Communities

FL Ecological Greenways

Network

Landscape Integrity Index

Significant Surface Waters

Natural Floodplain

Wetlands

Core Data Layers Resource Categories

Aggregated CLIP Model Biodiversity

Landscapes

Surface Water

Groundwater

Marine

Aquifer Recharge

10 Marine Layers

CLIP v3.0 Aggregated Priorities

CORE DATA LAYERS Landscape Integrity Index

Source: University of Florida Geoplan Center and Center for Landscape Conservation Planning

CLIP 3.0 Version: updated 2013; based on 2010-2012 Cooperative Land Cover version 2.3

What it means for my site

Higher values indicate large expanses of remote, intact natural and semi-natural areas such as the Everglades or the Apalachicola and Ocala National Forests. Lower values indicate more fragmented landscapes with increasingly intensive land uses from agriculture to urban development. Generally, values of 1-3 are considered to have little to no ecological integrity; values of 4-7 are considered to have moderate ecological integrity; and values of 8-10 are considered to have high ecological integrity. This data layer was created by the University of Florida Center for Landscape Conservation Planning specifically for CLIP. It combines two models: natural land cover patch size and land use intensity. Both are based on the FNAI/FWC Cooperative Land Cover (CLC) data layer, and major roads data from the Florida Department of Transportation (which are used to help delineate patches). Unlike most of the CLIP core data layers, the Landscape Integrity Index is a continuous scale, from intensive urban areas to remote natural areas, that covers the entire state.

CLIP 2.0 Landscape Context:

Landscape Integrity

Road densities

Roadless areas

Landscape fragmentation

Distance to intensive land uses

LLP and Landscape Assessment

Larger areas of intact and/or restorable llp pine ecosystems with consideration of:

• Landscape Integrity/Landscape Context

• Compatible/restorable landscape context

• Strategic locations for focal species and/or ecological connectivity

• Adjacency/contribution to important riverine/riparian corridors

• Proximity to existing conservation lands

• Smokesheds

Smokeshed Buffers Analysis

• Buffered all existing conservation lands, proposed conservation lands, and pyrophilic listed plant sites.

• Combined these two mile buffers with two land use categories from CLC:

1) All natural, semi-natural, and agriculatural land use (considered to be

generally compatible with nearby prescribed burning)

2) All residential, commercial, and industrial development (considered to be generally incompatible with nearby prescribed burning)

• Used the following prioritization:

P1 = compatible within ¼ mile

P2 = compatible within ½ mile

P3 = compatible within 1 mile

P4 = compatible within 2 miles

Smokeshed Buffers

Species Based LLP Landscape Assessment

Larger areas of intact and/or restorable llp pine ecosystems with consideration of landscapes capable of supporting:

• Red-cockaded Woodpecker

• Fox Squirrel

• Gopher Tortoise

• Habitat models that emphasize landscape factors (rules-based or Maxent models)

• Connectivity models

FWC Florida Gopher Tortoise Habitat

Hoctor Fox Squirrel Habitat

FNAI Florida RCW Habitat

GIS Tools for Connectivity and Habitat Analysis: CorridorDesign Website

• http://corridordesign.org/designing_corridors/resources/gis_tools

Potential Sources of Connectivity Analyses

• South Atlantic LCC: Identifying and Prioritizing Key Habitat Connectivity Areas for the South Atlantic

Region (eastern cougar, red wolf, eastern diamondback

rattlesnake, timber rattlesnake, box turtle, pine snake and black bear)

• Southeastern Ecological Framework (EPA Region 4)

• National Ecological Framework (John Richardson EPA): http://waconnected.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/04/NEF-description.pdf

• Theobald National Landscape Permeability Model http://www.wildlandsnetwork.org/what-we-do/scientific-approach/wild-lifelines

• Florida Panhandle Greenlinks Project

Relevant Citations for Landscape Level Assessment of LLP Priorities

• Hoctor, Thomas S., L. D. Harris, R. F. Noss, and K. A. Whitney. 2006. Spatial ecology and restoration of the longleaf pine evosystem. Pages 377-402 In S. Jose, E. Jokela and D. Miller, editors. Longleaf pine ecosystems: ecology, silviculture, and restoration. Springer-Verlag, New York.

• Hoctor, T. S., W. L. Allen, III, M. H. Carr, P. D. Zwick, E. Huntley, D. J. Smith, D. S. Maehr, R. Buch, and R. Hilsenbeck. 2008. Land corridors in the Southeast USA: connectivity to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Journal of Conservation Planning

4:90-122.

Mapping Priority Areas

for Longleaf on Private Lands

Purposes

• Setting wildlife priorities (RCW data used as an

indicator)

• Development of Restoration Priority Scoring

(where should we target resources, cost

estimates)

Data Used

• 2006 color infrared aerial photos with 1 meter ground

resolution, used to map pine stands (1:24,000)

• NRCS soil series

• GAP Land Cover 2006

• USFS Lidar Canopy, stand data, RCW cluster data

• Private Lands Pine Data developed by TNC

• Structure (row or random)

• Maturity (discerned by aerial photo)

• LLP_Suitability (GAP data helped define)

• Each of these layers carried weighted values

LiDAR -Canopy Cover

less than 60%

Longleaf Restoration Input

NRCS Soil Suitability for LLP

Tier 1 and 2 Soils

RCW Foraging Habitat

Completed Model

Choosing target sites

Basic Conservation Planning Process

Conservation

Value

Threat

s

Feasibility/

Opportunity

Priority

Rating

Priority

Rank

Site 1 VH VH High VH 1

Site 2 VH Med Med High 2

Site 3 High Low Med Med 3

Site 4 Med Low High Med 4

Another example

NC Sandhills Conservation Partnership Case Study

Reserve Design Working Group Spatial Prioritization Workshops

Presented By Ryan Bollinger

Presentation Overview

• Partnership Structure

• Reserve Design Working Group

• 2012 Sub Regional Mapping Meetings

– Organization

– Methodology

– Results

• How Reserve Design Data is Used

Partnership Structure

10 Core Partner Steering Committee

5 Working Groups RCW

Resource Management

Land Protection

Reserve Design

Communications

Partnership Structure

10 Core Partner Steering Committee

5 Working Groups RCW

Resource Management

Land Protection

Reserve Design

Communications

Reserve Design Working Group

Mission:

Synthesize biological information and create a vision to guide long-term conservation of native

Sandhills species and ecosystems

Members:

USFWS, TNC, DOD, NC State, NC Wildlife Resources Commision, NCDENR Natural Heritage

RDWG Strategies

• Identify biological targets for conservation, including species, natural communities, and animal habitats unique to the Sandhills

• Map areas of known ecological significance

• Identify areas of potential ecological significance

• Identify functions of individual connectors and buffers; fill information gaps; map functional connectors and buffers

• Periodically review new information and update reserve design

• Interpret and share this information for the purposes of implementing the conservation plan, including the Green Growth Toolbox, other working groups, and communication with local land use planners and governments.

“Mini” – Reserve Design Mapping Workshops

• Organization: – Reserve Design Working Group Members – Land Managers w/in each Focal Area

• Charge: – Mapping Functional Connectors/Buffers

• Methodology: – Live GIS Exercise drawing and labeling wildlife

corridors and buffers – Datasets: Reserve Design Data, Land Ownership,

Aerial Photography – Printed Maps for reference

4 “Mini” – Reserve Design Mapping Workshops

Reserve Design Wildlife Habitat Connectors

How Reserve Design Data is Used

• Initially- Wildlife Habitat Connectors shared with Land Protection Working Group in joint meeting w/ RDWG to align priorities

• New Datasets added to Green Growth Toolbox and available to local planning department

• GIS Data available to all Partners

• Annual Meetings w/ Land Protection Working Group to Re-Focus Priorities

THANKS!

Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015 Advancing SGA Conservation

Plans: Next Steps

• SGA Conservation Plans

– Overview and Progress to-date

– Longleaf Mapping Pilot Project Update

– Draft Map of Spatial Priorities

• 2016 Longleaf Stewardship Fund timeline

AGENDA

• Range-wide Plan identifies need for more detailed conservation planning at the SGA level

• Blueprint of conservation need, strategies and budgets required to achieve desired conservation outcomes

• Inform and guide grant making decisions, fundraising tool, set priorities and measure progress

• “Roll-up” accomplishments across range (ex. ALRI annual report)

• “Living” document, adaptive management

SGA CONSERVATION PLANS

CONSERVATION PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Establish targets

Identify focal areas/spatial priorities

Establish a baseline

Estimate goals and costs

Identify strategies and potential

barriers

Set metrics for measuring outcomes

October 2013 – LIT Meeting in Atlanta

LITs in various levels of maturity

Need for consistent information

Dynamic

2014 & 2015 Longleaf Stewardship Fund RFPs

Draft Conservation Plan

Map with the SGA boundaries and major land ownership

Key 5-10 year outcomes for the SGA

Other info as available

CONSERVATION PLANNING PROGRESS TO-DATE

December 2014 – Longleaf Mapping Meeting in Atlanta

o Remote sensing, GIS experts, LIT coordinators, agency partners

o Potential approaches, including barriers, to mapping longleaf

May 2015 – Longleaf Mapping RFP

August 2015 – Award announcement

CONSERVATION PLANNING PROGRESS TO-DATE

LONGLEAF MAPPING PILOT

• Lack good information about the location, extent and condition of existing longleaf

• Barrier to conservation planning and tracking restoration outcomes

• Longleaf Mapping RFP – pilot project

– Develop database of longleaf location and extent for 5 SGAs

– Transferable methodology

– Protocol for assessing habitat condition

– Capacity analysis and estimate to “scale up”

CONSERVATION PLANNING NEXT STEPS

Establish targets

Identify focal areas/spatial priorities

Establish a baseline

Estimate goals and costs

Identify strategies and potential

barriers

Set metrics for measuring outcomes

2016 Longleaf Stewardship Fund RFP

Draft map of spatial priorities

Start to identify priority areas

Existing data, local knowledge

Iterative process, adaptive management

MAPPING SPATIAL PRIORITIES

PDF map that shows the following:

LIT boundary

Priority area boundaries

Protected lands

Priority areas should encompass public and private lands that are highest priority for longleaf restoration

Priority area minimum mapping unit: 10,000 acres

Cumulatively, priority areas should cover no more than 30-40% of the total LIT/SGA area

NFWF needs to know where to invest to achieve greatest benefit to wildlife

MAP GUIDELINES

Document process and rationale for priority areas

What informs priority area selection?

Location of existing longleaf pine habitat

Areas appropriate to restore longleaf

Opportunities to buffer high-priority habitat

Proximity to rare or at-risk species

Wildlife corridors – making connections

Threats to long-term habitat management

Partner priorities

Opportunities to provide other conservation benefits – water quality/quantity

List of data sources used in priority area mapping

process

MAP GUIDELINES

LONGLEAF STEWARDSHIP FUND TIMELINE

• November 2015: 2016 RFP released

• February 2016: Proposals due, including draft map of spatial priorities

• June 2016: Award announcements

• November 2016: 2017 RFP – what support will your LIT need to complete conservation plan?