Providing Management Focus on the Landscape Systematic Management - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Providing Management Focus on the Landscape

October 29th 2015

Systematic Management of Disturbance Managing from the Top to the Bottom

Systematic management of Disturbances

An Informed-Focused Approach to Managing Disturbance

Management Priorities Established LARP BMF Location on the landscape? Composition? Specific disturbances? Toolkit ILM and restoration?

Landscape Level Site Level Strategic Plans Tactical Plans Operational Plans

Landscape Prioritization Landscape Management Plan SAOS Regional Plan Site Level Prioritization ILM and Restoration Plans

Marxan Optimization

Management Zones Management Areas

The Focused Management Approach

Getting to the Right Ball Park on the Landscape Landscape Focus

Where should we do management? What should we do for management? Where should we start?

Using Marxan to support the LMP and the BMF

Objective: Identify Priority Areas for Footprint Management

• Help to inform “zones”
• f management
• Highlight key areas to

support biodiversity (BMF)

Targets Cost

Features Planning Units

a. b. c. d.

‘Scenarios’ developed to:

• Vary

cost/constraint

• Vary targets -

features

Optimized solution

Everything must be spatially-explicit

Marxan Parameters

• Study area for analysis

– LAR and Moose Lake

• Planning units

– Quarter-sections (65 ha) – Total of 150, 126 units

• Features selected based on:

– BMF Indicators – Previous engagement – Regional input

Planning Units for Evaluating Management Options The puzzle pieces

¼ section is ~800 x 800 m (~66 ha)

Study area = 72,554 km2 Planning units = 101,101 (¼ sections) Summarize information within ¼ sections Target areas for biodiversity priorities and management (Triage approach)

Photo credit: Tim Vinge Planning Units

Linkages to BMF

• Not all BMF Tier 1,2,3 indicators can be included directly in the

Marxan analysis

• Indicators will also be considered indirectly through the

inclusion of a constraint layer that captures existing footprint:

– Interior habitat – Native terrestrial habitat – Native aquatic habitat

• Indicators will benefit from the reduction of footprint though the

LMP (e.g. non-native vascular plants, lotic connectivity)

– BMF indicator methodology is still under development and can be incorporated at such a time when spatial layers are available

Marxan Parameters- Habitats

• Features Included

– Fen (BMF Tier 2) – Old Forest (BMF Tier 2) – Climate Change refugia

• Vascular plants
• Boreal birds

– Wetland types (rich and poor fen, swamp, bog and open water) – Key wildlife and Biodiversity zones (AEP) – Special Access areas (AEP) – Ecologically significant areas (ESA analysis)

Marxan Parameters- Species

• Features Included

– Arctic Grayling (BMF Tier 2) – Caribou (BMF Tier 3) – Moose (BMF Tier 3) – Forest Birds

• Black-throated Green Warbler
• Brown creeper
• Raven
• Ovenbird
• Pileated woodpecker
• Pine siskin
• Red-breasted nuthatch
• Ruby-crowned kinglet
• Warbling vireo
• White-throated sparrow
• Yellow-bellied sapsucker

Photo: Josh Laymon

Pileated woodpecker habitat

Modelled by ABMI

– Colonial nesting birds – Piping plover – Sharp-tailed grouse – Fisher/marten – Wood bison – Wolf – S1 and S2 plants (rare) – Fruiting shrubs

• Saskatoon
• Beaked hazelnut
• Pin cherry
• Chokecherry
• Buffaloberry
• Blueberry
• High-bush cranberry

Marxan Parameters- Species cont’d

Pin cherry habitat

Modelled by Scott Nielsen, UofA

Setting Targets in Marxan

Please Select Items from the Menu Feature Target

• Ovenbird

20%

• Pine siskin

30%

• Caribou

60%

• Moose

50%

• Marten

30%

• Fisher

40%

• Lynx

20%

• Wolf

30%

• Cultural sites
• Look at the features as a list of items on a menu. We

can select the priority values from the menu. Everyone’s priorities may be different both in terms of the type of value/feature and the level of the feature or target.

Targets

Cost- Development constraints

• Marxan incorporates constraints on

the landscape through a spatial cost layer

– An index combining the bitumen pay thickness and existing footprint represents constraints to biodiversity

• Identifying areas outside of human

conflict, where possible, can increase probability of successful reclamation and create larger contiguous areas of habitat

Scenarios

• 2 initial scenarios

– Biodiversity features only- no cost – Biodiversity features with development cost

• Targets consistent
• Additional preliminary scenario to change extent

– Force Marxan to seek solutions in high conflict areas

Results- 1. Biodiversity Only Scenario

Biodiversity not evenly distributed

Results- 2. Development Constraints Scenario

Results- Comparing scenarios

• Similar patterns, but:

– Stronger selection to the periphery with economic constraint – Areas become more distinct

• Fewer options with higher cost
• Gypsy-Gordon and Dillon

highlighted

• Athabasca river corridor is

distinct – Stony Mountain prominent without cost layer – Marguerite River and Birch Mountains areas consistently selected

Biodiversity only Economic constraint

Changing the extent- opportunities within constrained areas

• Lock out planning to get

Marxan to achieve targets within a smaller extent

• Can highlight areas to

focus restoration or offsets

preliminary

Supplementing the LMP

• Priority areas that occur in relatively

pristine areas can be primarily managed to minimize new footprint

• Priority area that occur in areas with

high existing footprint can be primarily managed for reclamation and restoration

Seismic lines

The Focused Management Approach

Playing the Ball Game in the Right Park Site Level Focus

Scott Nielsen and Cassidy Van Rensen University of Alberta

Which disturbances have a priority? Which treatments should we use? How long until restoration is achieved? DART Disturbance and Recovery Trajectories

Restoration priorities based on Phase 1 feature data and the Restoration Prioritization Matrix