the precedent: california just finished their statewide analysis. it required painstaking id of core...

31
The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks” connecting core areas

Upload: eric-mason

Post on 20-Jan-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect.

These are shown by the colored “sticks” connecting core areas

Page 2: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect.

These are shown by the colored “sticks” connecting core areas

Page 3: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Once “sticks” were identified, California modeled linkages one-by-one, taking months and tens of thousands of dollars in analyst time.

And that was for just one integrity-based analysis, compared to 16 focal species plus integrity in WA.

We need to avoid this and automate as much as possible!

Page 4: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

How to accomplish something comparable but automatable?

Need to create informative maps for 16 focal species + landscape integrity

Page 5: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Habitat Concentration areas (HCAs)

1

3

2

4

8

5

6

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 6: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Candidate map #1: Cost-weighteddistances to all 11 HCAs using resistance surface

See notes attached to this and following slides

Sharp-tailed grouse

Page 7: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Masked out areas beyond 300km

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 8: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Cost-weighted distance from HCA #3

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 9: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Sum of cost-weighted distances from HCAs 3 & 5 = Least-cost corridor

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 10: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Problem #1: How to get a map like this….

Page 11: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

From a bunch of maps like this?

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 12: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Proposed method:Minimum of all normalized least-cost corridors

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 13: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Proposed method:Minimum of all normalized least-cost corridors

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 14: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Proposed method:Minimum of all normalized least-cost corridors

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 15: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Problem with overlapping corridors

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 16: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Problem # 2: Which HCAs to connect?

Sharp-tailed Grouse

3

5

4

6

117

8

9

Page 17: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Proposed method:If a least-cost corridor passes through an intermediate HCA, don’t map the corridor

7Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 18: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Creates a network of HCA’s

Sharp-tailed Grouse

3

5

4

6

117

8

9

Page 19: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Proposed method:If a least-cost corridor passes through an intermediate HCA, don’t map the corridor

Assume it can be represented by individual corridors

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Page 20: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Candidate map product 2: Minimum of all normalized corridor layersusing network of HCA’s

Sharp-tailed grouse

3

5

4

6

11

78

9

Page 21: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Candidate map product 3: Some measure of corridor quality

Here, I’ve divided each corridor by the geographic distance between the HCAs it connects

Sharp-tailed grouse

Page 22: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Candidate map product 3: Some measure of corridor quality

Here, I’ve divided each corridor by the geographic distance between the HCAs it connects

Sharp-tailed grouse

Page 23: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Circuitscape results- pinch points and redundancy between HCAs 3 and 5

Sharp-tailed grouse

Page 24: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Circuitscape results- important barriers separating HCAs 3 and 5

Sharp-tailed grouse

Page 25: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Candidate map product 4: Circuitscape results showing pinch points and areas important for network

Brighter areas are pinch points and/or have higher centrality (meaning they’re important for multiple pairs of HCAs).

May be more appropriate for ecoregional and local analyses.

Page 26: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Candidate map product 5: Circuitscape results showing important barriers in network

Sharp-tailed grouse

Page 27: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Problem: Some maps display well at larger extents…

Sharp-tailed grouse

Normalized corridors

Page 28: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Problem: Some maps display well at larger extents…

…and some don’t

Sharp-tailed grouse

Corridor quality

Page 29: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

If needed, “sticks” can be color coded to indicate corridor info (like quality) without need to create additional hi-res maps

(Some concern about landowner sensitivity)

Sharp-tailed Grouse

3

5

4

6

117

8

9

Page 30: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

NEEDS-Funds to develop climate-smart linkage design strategies

-GIS Tools!• Automate connectivity modeling, facilitate repeat analyses, streamline ecoregional analyses

• Integrate into Decision Support Systems

• Get tools into hands of other states and planners

-New ways to share maps, tools, and data on the web

Page 31: The precedent: California just finished their statewide analysis. It required painstaking ID of core areas to connect. These are shown by the colored “sticks”

Opportunities & Risks-Rare opportunity to influence connectivity conservation throughout west (& elsewhere!)-Highly fundable (WCS, WGA, LCCs, etc.)-Critical planning needs (e.g. for greater sage-grouse)

-All eyes are on Washington

-Large partnerships and limited capacity = potential for timeline slippage-We’re on hook for Columbia Plateau analysis (Aug 2011)-Maps take on lives of their own (So do tools!)