Report ASMT LCD#2 - MAV

Report ASMT LCD#2 - MAV

- no slides -

Contents

Contents

1 LCD Process Overview

1.1 Overview(Presentation)

Presenter

Greg Wathen

2 Priority Habitats

2.1 Habitat(Presentation)

Presenter

Greg Wathen

2.2 Rating: Habitat Systems

2.2.1.T0 Habitat Systems(rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order

7 persons have submitted their ratings.

The Host does not participate in the Rating.

Participant instructions of Rating 2.2.1

What do you think is the best approach?

Label for scale value

• In the MAV, do think Grasslands (e.g. Grand River Grasslands) should be a focal habitat system for the GCPO?
• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  Partners have expressed interest in some very specific areas. I have been asking around about this. So based on partner response, I would say that you should consider/explore what this would mean. But I could be convinced either way. (#1)

• Abstention "Best Fit"

-  I'm not familiar with these habitats. If they are considered critical by people working in that area, then sure, but I tend to think it easier to keep it simple with dewer habitats right now. (#2)

• In the MAV, do think Hardwood Forests (e.g. Upland Mesic Forest, Dune Woodlands) should be a focal habitat system for the GCPO?
• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  I don't think these are particularly unique to the MAV and the MAV should focus on forested wetlands. (#1)

• In the MAV, do think Working Lands (e.g. tree plantations, pastures, cropland) should be a focal habitat system for the GCPO?
• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  Be careful, though, with terminology as BHW restoration can be referred to as "plantation", which I don't think is what this question intends (#1)

-  I see these as something with Best Management Practices, not necessarily a focal habitat system. There are wildlife benefits, but it is unclear to me how these would be treated if they were a focal habitat system. (#3)

-  At this time, no, I don't think so. In the future if the goal is to consider a more complete strategy of natural habitats, working lands, and deveolped areas, then yes. (#4)

• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  Difficult question that will require some vetting I think. I answered yes because this is a priority for a number of partners, the NRCS in particular but certainly not only. You provided tree plantations as an example. It is a high priority for most of the partner organizations within relevent MAV based Conservation Delivery Networks. (#2)

• Are there other habitat systems in the MAV you would split up or add (e.g. flatwoods, emergent marsh)?
• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  moist-soil, natural flood storage areas (#1)

• Abstention "Best Fit"

-  Would depend on the species (bird, aquatic, etc.) that you were trying to focus on. Scrub-shrub (even though not listed by anyone it looked like) has come up a number of times as important for waterfowl. Is is worth considering scrub-shrub and emergent marsh? I'm not sure. (#2)

• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  None come to my mind. (#3)

3 Bottom-Up Assessment

3.1 Bottom-up(Presentation)

Presenter

Greg Wathen

3.2 Rating: Bottom-Up Assessment

3.2.1.T0 Bottom-Up Assessment(rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order

8 persons have submitted their ratings.

The Host does not participate in the Rating.

Participant instructions of Rating 3.2.1

What do you think is the best approach?

Label for scale value

• Is the compilation of Priority Areas within the GCPO a useful exercise for understanding the state of the current Network of Lands & Waters (i.e. what do we think is important & where we are investing in those priorities)?
• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  No because there seem to be too many priority areas with little or no funding. (#1)

-  I would really see this as a communication tool. However, my instinct is that it would lead to too much confusion depending on what layers you included. (#3)

• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  Yes, useful for understanding the state of the current network, but not necessarily useful for establishing LCC priorities (#2)

-  Wish I could answer yes and no. I have found in the Valley that in many cases money is targeted morebroadly toward conservation goals. Best example being NRCS funding which tens to be the largets pot. A second being NAWCA. The quick assessment you just shared seemedfairly broad and I'm not sure from those examples would get at the come of the key targets for coservation expenditures. (#4)

• Do you think it would be useful to refine this procedure such that we identify Reference Sites, Natural Areas; existing/planned restoration projects, &/or initiative areas for each habitat system (i.e. focus on the money trail rather than the stated priorities)?
• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  Have concern that just because $ being spent at a location - it may not be of conservation priority. (#1)

-  Tracking the money trail may provide some useful insight, but may not point accurately to where we SHOULD be working, based on ecological paramerters/needs, because some of where the money is spent is based on opportunity (e.g., easements), and possibly outdated priorities or where priority application of work has achieved its goal (i.e., we are "done" there) (#2)

• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  This really depends on what your objective is. If you are trying to fill in gaps between existing protected land, then yes it might be useful to explore and see if this can refine your approach (#3)

-  The JV's Forest Breeding Bird Model is an example of how the NRCS using that tool wlong with multiple other variables to target WRP/WRE. Also, it appeared in your examples that WRP easements were no included as protected acres. In MS, Ar and LA for example those acres are now puching 700,000. (#4)

• Do you think the compilation of Priority Areas within the GCPO would be useful for identifying the best areas for Collaborative Conservation (i.e. the top-down assessment of the GCPO)?
• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  I don't see it that way. I think it should work the opposite way. Identify the best areas for conservation and then buils the collaboration to get them done. Otherwise, youare just looking at areas where the most groups have already identified, but these aren't necesarily based oncommon goals. (#1)

• Abstention "Best Fit"

-  Potentially if at the right scale, but I'm not sure what a larger scale when talking about the MAV would mean. (#2)

• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  Don't see how you can avoid the "thunderstorm map" outcome of this approach unless you for example, break it down further maybe into broad faunal types to make the assesment and approach clearer, more understandable and hopefully more achievable. (#3)

4 Top-down Assessment

4.1 Top-Down(Presentation)

Presenter

Greg Wathen

4.2 Rating: Top-Down Criteria

4.2.1.T0 Top-Down Criteria(rating by numeric scale) sorted by Source order

7 persons have submitted their ratings.

The Host does not participate in the Rating.

Participant instructions of Rating 4.2.1

What do you think is the best approach?

Label for scale value

• Do you think the GCPO should prioritize landscapes based on Current Condition and Future Threats alone?
• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  With regard to BHW conditions you described early in the presentation of this section, I do question the ability to reasobably measure the forest stand conditin variables that would derive accurate results. (#1)

-  Yes, do it this way first, and then worry about partner priorities. (#2)

-  Maybe. It would be helpful to"see" what kinds of data are really available and useful in the other two themes. (#3)

• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  I do not think that this would be enough information to get at what you want (#4)

-  I think they should be included but not necessarily "alone". (#5)

• Do you think it would be useful to map conservation actions (e.g. maintenance and restoration) based on current condition and future threats?
• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  I would be interested to see how this turns out. However, it may not be important to differeniate between the two so much as it is to identify that these actions need to happen. (#1)

• Do you think the GCPO should include biodiversity data in our selection of priority landscapes?
• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  No, I don't think thebiodiversity data is all that accurate. Those are compiled at broad scales, and quality habitat is much more important. (#1)

• Abstention "Best Fit"

-  Maybe (#2)

• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  From an LCC perspective, yes I think you would want to include a diversity of species. (#3)

-  But this does NOT imply that high biodiversity is necessarily better than lower biodiversity. (#4)

• If we decide to use biodiversity criteria, should we prioritize species for inclusion (i.e. use select species, not all SGCN)? If yes, do you have suggestions how we select species (e.g. identify representative species, known locations, only species with survey data)?
• Scale value -1 "Best Fit"

-  I think this is a bad road to go down. Conservation is as much about keeping common things common as it is preserving the struggling species. I am not in favor of priortizing species or choosing "representative species". (#1)

• Scale value 1 "Best Fit"

-  I would think carefully about the species that you include. For example, do they have good data available or sufficient research? Do some species serve as representatives for other species? Etc. (#2)

-  Species with known or presumed conservation priority favored. (#3)

• Do you think the GCPO should include partner priority areas in our selection of priority landscapes? If so, does double counting of partners bias the ranking?
• Abstention "Best Fit"

-  This is a difficult question. Don't feel I can answer it with out a lot more information and thought. (#1)