What is Strategic Habitat Conservation?

1. A structured way to critically thinking about what we do and why we do it; or

2. Setting explicit objectives for populations and then systematically figuring out how to achieve them most efficiently using our own resources and by working with partners.

Where we Are Where we Want to Be(Objective)

Efficiency Highest312,850 acres

Efficiency Lowest2,020,000 acres37,000 acres

7,115 recruits113,000 acres2,153 recruits

WMD Goal32,000 Recruits

OpportunisticConservation

Everything else is just details

Setting clear objectives and then systematically figuring out how to achieve them most efficiently using our own resources and by working with partners.

Can we all agree that this is a good thing?

Why did I start by mentioning populations?

The Service was created to conserve species that regularly traverse political/jurisdictional boundaries, are covered by international treaties, and/or or require a multi-state or international approach to conservation.

This remains our mandate although we do many essential things like habitat management, education and outreach, law enforcement, etc. as actions to help us fulfill our mandate.

Can we all agree to these statements?

Thus our mandate is the conservation of populations.

Habitat management is an essential tool in conserving populations of many species.

What about species that aren’t limited by habitat or for which there is no habitat solution?

Give me an example ………

The basic tenets of strategically (efficiently) conserving these species’ populations are the same as those in SHC. Try to think about these examples as we talk about each element of SHC and see if it doesn’t fit.

Partnerships are often a way to get more done and increase efficiency. While they can be very useful, they are not an objective under SHC!

Our objective is the conservation of populations.

Habitat management (often through partnerships) is an essential tool in conserving populations of many species.

Setting explicit objectives for populations and then systematically figuring out how to achieve them most efficiently using our own resources and by working with partners.

We’ll call these mission-oriented objectives

Whereas traditional (activity-based) objectives………

Protect and restore 20,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.

Reestablish and maintain three viable sub-populations of LA Black Bear in the Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, and Atchafalaya Basin of Louisiana.

We’ll call these mission-oriented objectives …………………..

How do they differ, and what are the advantages/disadvantages of each?

Reestablish and maintain three viable sub-populations of LA Black Bear in the Tensas Basin, Red River Backwater, and Atchafalaya Basin of Louisiana.

Protect and restore 20,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.

•Easily measured (tracked)

•Doesn’t matter where the acres are protected and restored

•No predicted consequences of success versus failure, therefore no justification for increased program resources.

•No clear ending point (when have you done enough and move on to another conservation issue?)

•Doesn’t promote mission-oriented accountability

•Requires biological info to measure progress

•Requires predictions of population response to habitat to decide where to protect and restore (where we deliver habitat determines how much is required).

•An objective foundation for deciding how much habitat we need (and therefore $$$ needed)

•Outcomes relative to our mission are clear, as are consequences of success versus failure.

•Promotes mission-oriented accountability

Do we agree that, conceptually, mission-based objectives are preferable toactivity-based objectives?

Plan

Do

Learn

We’ll talk about the attributes of mission-oriented objectives more in a little while. For now, try to think of one relevant to your job.

Everything else is just details

Remember, the purpose of this iterative process is simply to helpus attain out objectives as efficiently as possible.

In other words, help us conserve landscapes capable ofsustaining species at desired levels with the limited resources we can

muster.

The Basic SHC Framework is an Iterative, 5-Element Adaptive Process

Priority Species

Population Objectives

Synthesis of science (models)

Spatially-ExplicitModels

Habitat Objectives

Program PriorityAreas

PopulationImpacts

Build the scientificfoundation for

Management

ProgramAccomplishments

Net progress towardPopulation objectives

Out

com

e-ba

sed

Mon

itori

ng

BiologicalPlanning

Conservation

Design

Assumption-basedResearch

ConservationDelivery

IdentifyLimitingFactors

Monitor Site-scale EffectsOf Management Actions

On Populations

FeedbackLoop:Assess

Net ProgressToward

PopulationObjectives

Delivery ofConservation Actions

IdentifyPriority Species

SelectFocal

Species

FormulatePopulationObjectives

Compile and ApplyModels

DescribingPopulation-Habitat

Relationships

Feedback Loop:Target Research

at Key Assumptions

Conservation

Design

BiologicalPlanning

Delivery ofConservation Actions

Mon

itorin

gA

nd R

esea

rch

Feedback Loop:Assess

ProgramAccomplish-

ments

DesignateProgramPriorityAreas

FormulateHabitat

Objectives

AssessCurrent

Stateof FocalSpecies

Populations

DevelopSpecies HabitatDecisionSupport

Tools

CombineAppropriate Species

Decision Support Tools

Revise ModelsAccordingly

Revise ModelsAccordingly

If you’re really into details …………………………

No single office or even programis expected to perform all of these functions.

SHC is not applied office by office.It is a Service-wide approach to conservation.

Strategic habitat conservation – Benefits

EfficiencyTransparencyand Credibility

Strategic ResearchAnd Monitoring

(Quality Assuranceand R&D)

Communication

GreaterReach,Capacity andLeadership

Accountability

Attributes of any Successful

Corporation (or Gov’t Agency)

SHC is…focused on functional change.SHC is…focused on functional change.

SHC is not…directed at organizational change.SHC is not…directed at organizational change.

Strategic Habitat ConservationStrategic Habitat ConservationWhat it is, What it is notWhat it is, What it is not

In other words, don’t expect any change in Service organization, or in what you do in your day-to-day job.

Do expect to have new tools to help you be more effective.

Let’s think about models

Think of some examples that you already use about how populations relate to habitat.

Where you bring together what you know, suspect, and/or believe about how a species relates to it’s habitat and express it (write it down, etc.) in measurable terms

Models force us to be explicit about these relationships and therefore force us to confront our uncertainties.

Let’s think about models

•A simplified description of reality that aids in decision making.

•No model makes perfect predictions but they can still be useful if we understand their limitations.

•Every parameter in a model must be measurable – what do I mean?

•Relate the population to the limiting factor.

•Can be based on data (empirical models) or experience (conceptual or experienced-based models)

Empirical models can be based on existing data sets (if the data is appropriate) or new data sets.

Collecting New Data for Models

REGRESSION (NB) ON LANDSSCAPE ONLY: Grasshopper Sparrow

Negative binomial regression Number of obs = 952 LR chi2(2) = 86.85

Dispersion = mean Prob > chi2 = 0.0000Log likelihood = -1143.2436 Pseudo R2 = 0.0366

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ true_dens | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf.Interval]

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- grass4b | .0177522 .0020034 8.86 0.000 .0138257 .0216787 trees4b | -.0280443 .011417 -2.46 0.014 -.0504212 -.0056674 _cons | -.8051343 .0956861 -8.41 0.000 -.9926756 -.617593

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /lnalpha | .4074185 .1116098 .1886673 .6261697

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- alpha | 1.502933 .1677421 1.207639 1.870433

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Likelihood-ratio test of alpha=0: chibar2(01) = 300.73 Prob>=chibar2 = 0.000

Modeling with Existing Data Sets

• Presence/absence of booming grounds with at least 2 males

• ¼ section (not QQ)• consecutive years counts

as 1 point• Data from MPCS/MNDNR

1996-2004• Compared with random,

non-b.g. locations• 624 booming grounds• 715 random ¼ sections

+ 0.0461 * %(grass+hay) 1 mile - 0.0699 * % trees ¼ mile - 0.0359 * % crop 2 miles - 0.00123 * distance (m) to grass+ 0.00033 * distance (m) to trees

- 0.1906 * # woody patches 1 mile

- 0.00002 * X UTM

Final Model

Experienced-based models

Patch size - > 320 acresa) < ¼ mile wide = poorb) ¼ - ½ mile wide = goodc) > ½ mile wide = best

Percent grass within 2 milesa) <10% = poorb) 10-30% = goodc) >30% = best

Topography – coefficent of variation within 90 haa) CV > 1 = poorb) CV < 1 = good

Trees – must be > 100 m from treesWetlands – must have 4 acres temporary

&/or seasonal wetlands within 320 acre patch

Predicted Habitat Suitability for Marbled Godwits

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Nes

t Suc

cess

Percent Grass in a 2 mile Radius

10 +

(-1.

0 * P

erce

nt)

1.5

+ (0

.665

* Pe

rcen

t) 10 + (0.25 * Percent)

Experienced-based models

A Working Hypothesis

Once we apply an empirical or experience-based model to spatial data we call the result a spatially-explicit model (SEM). This is where GIS comes in.

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Nes

t Suc

cess

A Working Hypothesis

Percent Grass in a 2 mile Radius

10 +

(-1.

0 * P

erce

nt)

1.5

+ (0

.665

* Pe

rcen

t)

10 + (0.25 * Percent)

Patch size - > 320 acresa) < ¼ mile wide = poorb) ¼ - ½ mile wide = goodc) > ½ mile wide = best

Percent grass within 2 milesa) <10% = poorb) 10-30% = goodc) >30% = best

Topography – coefficent of variation within 90 haa) CV > 1 = poorb) CV < 1 = good

Trees – must be > 100 m from treesWetlands – must have 4 acres temporary

&/or seasonal wetlands within 320 acre patch

Predicted Habitat Suitability for Marbled Godwits

Godwit locationsfrom the Minnesota

Natural HeritageInformation

System@ Minnesota DNR

FINAL MODEL+ 0.0461 * %(grass+hay) 1 mile - 0.0699 * % trees ¼ mile - 0.0359 * % crop 2 miles - 0.00123 * distance (m) to grass+ 0.00033 * distance (m) to trees

- 0.1906 * # woody patches 1 mile

- 0.00002 * X UTM

Grasshopper SparrowRange: 0 – 0.83 birds/ha

REGRESSION (NB) ON LANDSSCAPE ONLY: Grasshopper Sparrow

Negative binomial regression Number of obs = 952 LR chi2(2) = 86.85

Dispersion = mean Prob > chi2 = 0.0000Log likelihood = -1143.2436 Pseudo R2 = 0.0366

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ true_dens | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf.Interval]

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- grass4b | .0177522 .0020034 8.86 0.000 .0138257 .0216787 trees4b | -.0280443 .011417 -2.46 0.014 -.0504212 -.0056674 _cons | -.8051343 .0956861 -8.41 0.000 -.9926756 -.617593

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /lnalpha | .4074185 .1116098 .1886673 .6261697

-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- alpha | 1.502933 .1677421 1.207639 1.870433

------------------------------------------------------------------------------Likelihood-ratio test of alpha=0: chibar2(01) = 300.73 Prob>=chibar2 =

0.000

Predicting Mallard Pairs on Wetlands

Pairs = 2.718[-0.63+0.55(lnsize)+]

On the Issue of Conservation EfficiencySHC is predicated on the idea that different landscapes have different potentials to affect populations and that managers are willing and able to prioritize their actions.

Breeding duck pair density,Grant County, MN

40 pair/mi2

2 pair/mi2

40 pairs / 2 pairs = a 20 fold increase in management efficiencyif management costs at thetwo sites are equal.

Outcome-based Monitoring: Assessing Program Accomplishments

Pairs = 2.718[y+ β(lnsize)+]

1 mi 2.1 6.1

9.21.6

0.2

2.01.11.50.4

0.30.1

Total PairsRestored =25.7

Pheasants- Wetlands

MigrantShorebirdsBlack Terns

A portfolio of SEMs provides a rapid response capability toprogrammatic information (strategic targeting) needs

CRP Wildlife Benefits

USDA - Farm Service AgencyUSDA - Natural Resource Conservation ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesMinnesota Board of Water and Soil ResourcesDucks UnlimitedPheasants Forever

Number of PointsNumber of Points4 Classes4 Classes

55101015152020

Species A Species B Species C

Wildlife Habitat FunctionPriorities

Water Quality FunctionPriorities

Other FunctionPriorities

WRP Priority EnrollmentAreas

The Service’s Leadership Responsibility for Trust Species