A Landscape Scale Framework for Cooperative Grassland Bird Conservation

“A formal application of common sense for situations too complex for the informal use of common sense.” R. Keeney STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING (SDM)

SDM core elements - PrOACT Pr oblem – Solve the right problem O bjectives – Describe the desired outcomes A lternatives – Consider any reasonable approach C onsequences – Describe how well alternatives meet objectives T radeoffs – Incorporate values, optimal solutions – Core of structured decision making (Hammond et al., 1999).

Why SDM works Breaks a problem into key components – Makes decision-making transparent Helps identify where the difficulty in making a decision lies Helps identify where effort ($$) should be focused Provides a wide array of tools for making ‘smart’ decisions

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

OBJECTIVE To sustain viable grassland bird populations East of the Rocky Mountains.

1.Status quo 2.Conservation Design 3.Outreach/Marketing 4.Regulatory/Enforcement (Int’l) 5.Regulatory/Enforcement (US) 6.Public Land Acquisition 7.Best Management Practices (BMP) 8.Policies: Ecosystem Services 9.Economic Incentives ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS ADOPT A PRAIRIE

Connecting birds to landowner decisions Δ birdsΔ grassΔ birds ×= Δ grass Δ landowners Δ landowners

CONSEQUENCES (of alternatives, via landowner’s behavior) LAND (Agricultural/Grass/Forest) Knowledge/Risk Regulatory (ESA, legislation, spp. of concern) $$ Return (hunting, agriculture, grazing, bird watching, energy development, conservation easement, potential future opportunities) Quality of Life (cultural, land ethic, hunting, wildness) Ecosystem Integrity (water quality, biodiversity, nativeness, carbon, erosion) We did this for each of three landowner types, through the nine alternatives, incorporating five objectives. Landowner values, motivations

Problem: What will a land owner decide for a given parcel of land? (Land can be grass, agriculture, or forest) Five Objectives: Bird Conservation (B) Carbon Sequestration (C) Water Quality (W) Economic Return ($) Biodiversity (BIO) Three types of landowners: a profit-maximizing producer a conservation-minded small farmer a conservationist CONSEQUENCES

Profit- maximizing Producer Conservation Design Outreach/ Marketing Regulatory/ Enforcement Public Land BMP Ecosystem Services Economic Incentive Status Quo Birds Carbon Water Quality Revenue Biodiversity Small Farmer Birds Carbon Water Quality Revenue Biodiversity Conservationist Birds Carbon Water Quality Revenue Biodiversity

INFLUENCE DIAGRAM Δ birdsΔ grass Δ birds ×= Δ grass Δ landowners Δ landowners

CONCEPTUAL MODEL Habitat 1 Habitat 3 Habitat 5 Habitat 2 Habitat 4 Species 1 Breeding Migration Wintering Species 2 Breeding Migration Wintering Δ birdsΔ grass Δ birds ×= Δ grass Δ landowners Δ landowners

Example Landscapes Conservation Design Profit-maximizing Producer Landscape Conservationist Landscape Δ birdsΔ grass Δ birds ×= Δ grass Δ landowners Δ landowners

MODELING APPROACH Species Breeding Migration Wintering Need to model how land changes affect birds within a landscape Use a spatially-explicit model to incorporate landscape-level effects (e.g., area, configuration, edge, etc.) on the biology of the species Make assumptions explicit Δ birds Δ grass

Breeding Migration Wintering Nest Density Adult Survival Nest success Breeding populatio n Juvenile Survival Edge Effect Patch Size High ? Δ birds Δ grass

Landscape Model Smallest pixel that can support a nest Egg survival decreased because forest cover increased Nest density in grassland pixel as a function of land cover. Nest site Breeding Migration Wintering Δ birds Δ grass

Biological Consequences Conservation Design Profit-maximizing Producer Landscape Conservationist Landscape Nest potential Δ birds Δ landowners

Migration Breeding Occupancy of grassland stopover habitat: - Grassland and cropland suitable at the local scale (pixel) - Negative effect of surrounding forest cover Survivorship in grassland stopover habitat: - Forage quality of surrounding landscape - Survival greater in grassland than in cropland Wintering

Migration Breeding We represented a grassland bird’s interaction with the landscape during winter in a similar way to the migration framework. However, it was simplified in that only the individual pixel- level determined survivorship. We assumed that grassland birds do not use forest sites during the winter and that grassland pixels had higher survivorship than agricultural pixels. We further assumed that the over-winter survivorship rate was simply the average survivorship value of all suitable pixels.

Integrating land cover choice and grassland models We generated five, 1.44 km 2 landscapes that were each filled with 1600, 30- meter pixels. We assigned each pixel as grassland, agriculture or forest with the probability of each choice being determined by the alternative-generated results from the land cover choice model. We assigned one landscape to represent the breeding area, three to be migratory stopover areas, and one to be the wintering ground. Once the landscapes were generated, we applied the spatially-explicit model to them. Using this framework, we evaluated each of the 27 landowner by alternative combinations. We started each bird population with 100 birds and ran the model for 30 years.

The effect of each alternative policy and landowner on the expected growth of grassland bird populations:

Model Result – Identifying thresholds

Progress Following the Workshop Allison Vogt connected us with the CEC and RMBO Grasslands efforts. Conference call with the CEC is leading to an expanded mapping effort to identify Grassland Priority Conservation Areas throughout eastern North America. Began communicating with Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory on developing full life cycle conservation and modeling approaches.

Progress Following the Workshop Finalized Outreach Materials (fact sheet, presentation, poster) Engaging Bird Habitat Joint Ventures and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in annual cycle bird models and human dimensions research. Reaching out to regional working groups

NEEDS FOR ASSISTANCE Expand participation in overall framework – Does this make sense? What doesn’t work? – Decision makers – who are they? – Look for and engage other stakeholder groups – whom are we missing so far? Identify support and funding needs – Full-time coordinator! – Funds to obtain missing information (i.e., migration and wintering grounds, demographic studies) Begin gathering and compiling data to identify information gaps and validate/improve models

NEEDS FOR ASSISTANCE Develop teams around full life cycle conservation (breeding, migration, wintering) – We will need to engage partners in Canada, US, and Mexico – Specifically, we will ask partners to communicate and stay in touch, collaborate on projects, and prioritize filling data gaps. Maintain and expand coordinated network – E.g., wintering grounds (Mexico and South America)

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Coordinators: – Katie Koch (USFWS, R3, Migratory Bird Program) – Soch Lor (USFWS, R6, Inventory and Monitoring Initiative) Coaches: – Eric Lonsdorf (Chicago Botanic Garden) – Evan Grant (USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center) Agency representatives: – Marissa Ahlering (The Nature Conservancy) – Laurel Barnhill (USFWS, R4, Inventory and Monitoring Initiative,) – Tom Dailey (National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative) – Ryan Drum (USFWS, R3, HAPET office) – Connie Mueller (USFWS, R6, Lostwood NWR) – David Pavlacky (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory) – Christine Ribic (USGS, Wisconsin Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit) – Catherine Rideout (USFWS, East Gulf Coastal Plain Joint Venture) – David Sample (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)