West Gulf Coastal Plain/Ouachitas Landbird Working Group
Open Pine Objectives Follow-up Workshop
Rick Evans Conservation Education Center, AR 16 December 2009
NOTES
Color Guide: Blue = Decisions/conclusions
Maroon = Objectives
Green = Action Items
Participants:
Eric Baka – Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
April Crowley – U.S. Forest Service – Angelina/Sabine NF
Tom Edwards – U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Migratory Birds
Blaine Elliott – LMVJV Office
Steve Fowler – Arkansas Game & Fish Commission
David Krementz – Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit – University of Arkansas
Keith McKnight – LMVJV Office
Jeff Reid – U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – Ecological Services
Cliff Shackelford – Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
Blair Tirpak – The Nature Conservancy/LMVJV Office
John Tirpak – LMVJV Office
Dan Twedt – U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Vicksburg Field Station
______
Progress Updates & Workshop Objectives
McKnight provided a brief update and status report on the objectives carried forward from the Minden Workshop. A summary of these is presented below:
Stated Workshop Objectives were as follows:
1. Reach consensus on methodology for estimating current population size
2. Reach consensus on methodology for setting population objectives
3. Reach consensus on key elements & assumptions of the decision support tool
4. Identify tasks & timelines for establishing Open Pine habitat objectives v1.1
5. Establish timeline for addressing the next habitat group
Progress “Reports”, Discussion, and Decisions on Key Tasks
Unfinished tasks and resolution of “homework” assignments made up the bulk of Workshop agenda items [see Agenda Final (Pine Savanna followup meeting – 16 Dec 2009.doc @ http://www.lmvjv.org/WGCP-O_landbird_working_group.htm] . The stage was set for this by brief updates/reports by the WG member(s) primarily responsible for each since the Minden workshop.
Open Pine Definition (McKnight)
McKnight summarized the information assembled regarding a definition of Open Pine habitat [Open Pine Definition.doc @ http://www.lmvjv.org/WGCP-O_landbird_working_group.htm]. It was noted that this exercise is not intended as a means to or precursor for mapping Open Pine, but rather as a means of more clearly differentiating this habitat (and the associated bird population/habitat objectives) from other closely-related habitat types.
Howery (absent) favors a range of canopy cover range from 25-50% (based on BHNU & RHWO preferences).
Crawley noted that USFS stand information is expressed in basal area, not canopy cover. Others (Baka, Edwards) agreed that we should include in the Open Definition a range of basal area, using a conversion equation. Average dbh also is needed for the conversion.
ACTION: Crawley will help obtain this equation for several pine species and work with J. Tirpak to apply the equation to the accepted range of canopy cover (25-60%).
Priority Species List Justification (J. Tirpak)
J. Tirpak summarized the justification for priority species [see Justification for priority list.doc @ http://www.lmvjv.org/WGCP-O_landbird_working_group.htm]. The question was asked: “What value does the priority species list have?” Answer: Our planning approach assumes that these priority species’ needs will be adequately covered by actions on behalf of the Umbrella species.
Baka and others expressed concern that the Eastern Wood-pewee is not on any state’s SWAP GCN list.
DECISION: Leave EAWP on the list for now but request Howery to provide a stronger justification for this species’ inclusion.
NOTE: For population- & objective-setting exercises, only a portion of the Wild Turkey, Eastern Wood-pewee, and Red-headed Woodpecker population objectives for the WGCP/O will be met in Open Pine habitat. A value of 25% was accepted for RHWO; no values were identified for other two.
Umbrella Species List Justification (Baka)
There was general consensus that the verbiage [see Umbrella species rationale 12-17-09.doc @http://www.lmvjv.org/WGCP-O_landbird_working_group.htm] needs more specifics regarding: (a) the habitat factors noted as important for each species in the initial bird-habitat matrix, (b) inclusion of priority species “covered” by each umbrella, and (c) what is unique about each umbrella species that elevates it to umbrella status. Krementz suggested this section remain general, with greater detail provided elsewhere in the document.
ACTION: McKnight will email document for WG to review and edit. Comments should be returned to McKnight by 8 January 2010.
NOTE: See Red-headed Woodpecker HSI Model Assessment below for discussion of its REMOVAL as an Umbrella species.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker on Private Land (Baka & Reid)
Reid edited the verbiage and numbers in the draft plan to reflect current status and approach to conservation of habitat for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on private lands in Texas. Similar information is needed for Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. It would be desirable to include private lands clusters in the decision support tool, and these private lands numbers (population, acres, etc.) should be included in our objectives.
ACTION: Baka will work with Bill Holimon in Arkansas to fill in the information gap for AR, LA, and OK.
Red-headed Woodpecker HSI Model Assessment (Shackelford)
Of the five Umbrella species, the Red-headed Woodpecker is the only one that has neither objectives from an existing regional/national plan (e.g., Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative & Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan) nor a validated HSI model upon which to base objectives (e.g., Brown-headed Nuthatch & Bachman’s Sparrow). Hence, several WG members were tasked in Minden with reviewing the RHWO HSI model. After some additional review by all workshop participants, it was generally agreed that the snag density function in the existing model was unrealistic (HSI value goes to zero below 200 snags/ha).
Krementz – Uncomfortable using BBS data to estimate density. Additionally, has difficulty with HSI approach in general. Using HSI approach just because it works with some validation methods is faulty; it’s an arbitrary decision to say that a model is or isn’t valid based solely on a P-value. A similarly rigorous review should be made of all species models not just the one that doesn’t “work.”
J. Tirpak – Given available data, we currently don’t have a better modeling approach than HSI or better data than BBS. All the criticisms are legitimate, but what is the alternative. Using these models at least allows us to enter the adaptive management loop. There is ongoing work with Todd Jones-Farrand, Todd Fearer, Frank Thompson, and Wayne Thogmartin to compare HSI models with other approaches (e.g., CART and hierarchical Bayesian models).
Two options for dealing with Red-headed Woodpecker population objectives were identified: (a) drop it as an umbrella (if we think the other umbrella species cover what is “lost”), or (b) revise the HSI model as best we can. The value of including the Red-headed Woodpecker is (1) its status as a primary cavity nester, and (2) its association with low (20-40 ft2/ac) basal area habitats.
DECISION: Drop the Red-headed Woodpecker as an umbrella for now but continue to improve the habitat model for this species. [This decision assumes that Red-cockaded Woodpecker captures the low range basal area and low canopy cover identified with the Red-headed Woodpecker.]
ACTION: Giocomo, Jones-Farrand, Shackelford, and J. Tirpak will continue to investigate ways to improve the RHWO HSI model.
Derivation of Habitat Objectives for Select Umbrella Species – Population Estimation, Density Estimation, and Minimum Population per Patch (J. Tirpak)
J. Tirpak presented the rationale behind the approach for estimating population size, density, and minimum population per patch [see Habitat objectives derivation.doc, Breeding density estimates worksheet.xls, Habitat objectives estimation worksheet.xls at http://www.lmvjv.org/WGCP-O_landbird_working_group.htm].
A = (N * D) + B, where
A = area of forest patch required to support a source (i.e., sustainable) population
N = number of reproductive units (i.e., pairs) required to support a source population
D = breeding density (ha/breeding pair)
B = the area of a 1-km forested buffer around the forested core that ensures productivity of population within forested core is self-replacing
Twedt suggested that Open Pine stands are not isolated enough to be comparable to islands of forest patch in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, hence NOT in need of a buffer (B) in the equation [NOTE: this was also the opinion of the WG at last meeting and is reflected in the documentation].
It was also suggested that a “patch” does not need to be an uninterrupted patch of Open Pine forest because these stands usually are situated in a matrix of other forest types through which Open Pine birds could disperse. Hence, dispersal distance should figure into what is considered suitable, effectively allowing for areas of the patch “matrix” to be non-Open Pine, provided that Open Pine birds could disperse among the suitable Open Pine blocks.
ACTION: Twedt will identify and assess alternatives for deriving habitat objectives and provide a recommendation for moving forward.
Workshop Objective 2: Reach consensus on methodology for setting population objectives
DECISION: Take a 3-tiered approach to objective-setting:
Short Term = Stabilize population trend (5-year running average is ≥0)
Med. Term = Achieve population level of the 1980s (consistent with NOBO objective baseline)
Long Term = Achieve population level of 1966
Workshop Objective 1: Reach consensus on methodology for estimating current population size
DECISION (not changed from Minden Workshop)
Bird Species Approach
Northern Bobwhite: Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery Plan
Brown-headed Nuthatch: HSI-adjusted Rosenberg & Blancher estimate
Bachman’s Sparrow: HSI-adjusted Rosenberg & Blancher estimate
Suggestions were floated to use the median value of all applicable density estimates identified in the literature, or drop the extreme values and calculate a mean.
Krementz: We need to use corrected density estimates that are geographically relevant.
ACTION: Krementz will provide more citations with corrected estimates for Bachman’s Sparrow, and will provide same for Brown-headed Nuthatch and Red-headed Woodpecker.
Are we comfortable with MVP size or do we want to apply an adjustment value above MVP? In addition, do we need to apply some dispersal distance factor (defining how many territories are within an identified geographic area using dispersal estimate)?
ACTION: J. Tirpak will contact Barry Grand regarding derivation of Minimum Viable Population sizes in the East Gulf Coastal Plain Open Pine Decision Support Tool. J. Tirpak & Twedt will look into the applicability of using dispersal distance as a “geographic threshold”.
Population Estimates & Objectives with Measures of Variability (J. Tirpak, Krementz)
Krementz provided confidence intervals on the Bachman’s Sparrow population estimate based on polynomial regression on BBS data for this species across time. These estimates need to be provided in the Plan to provide readers a measure of variability around our estimates.
ACTION: J. Tirpak will conduct a similar analysis for the brown-headed nuthatch.
Open Pine Carrying Capacity as Impacted by Temporal Variation in Management (Baka, Crawley, Reid)
An attempt was made post-Minden Workshop to obtain information that better quantified temporal dynamics of Open Pine management so this conservation buffer could be added into our estimates of needed habitat objectives (i.e., so we could account for regeneration stands and stands with incompatible burn intervals for long-term maintenance of open pine conditions). Reid provided stand age data for Texas National Forests.
ACTION: Crawley will obtain similar and additional information (burn interval, age class, etc.) across the West Gulf Coastal Plain/Ouachitas, and work with Baka, Reid, and McKnight to synthesize and inform the Working Group.
Landbird Conservation Plan Writing (all)
The subject of specific writing tasks was discussed.
DECISION: Write Plan in JWM Style, with following umbrella species write-ups lead by:
Kimmel/Fowler – Northern Bobwhite
Howery/Crawley - Brown-headed Nuthatch
Baka/Reid – Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Krementz - Bachman’s Sparrow
Decision Support Tool (J. Tirpak)
J. Tirpak summarized the components of the draft Decision Support Tool (DST), with comparison/contrast between East Gulf Coastal Plain and WGCP approaches [see link – Decisions and Datasets paper…..where is this?]. A thorough understanding of the inputs for the DST is needed to assess the output. Working Group members were encouraged to look critically at the various component parts and the details therein. An important question emerged: “What do we assume the DST is directing us towards in the first place: protection, restoration, or management?” This question is central to decisions about components parts, threshold levels, etc. of the DST.
Prescribed Burn Component: Could we use EPA attainment area data for this? What about USFS guidelines for burning (e.g., urban interface areas)? Need a sub-team to obtain data on real-world distance thresholds for prescribed burns and urban areas.
ACTION: Crawley will get distance-from-urban interface data.
Public Lands Component: Are current public lands data important to our overall goals? Do we really need to build on the current estate to maximize our conservation efforts or do we ignore those areas? Should or focus instead be solely on lands that can ecologically support open pine (e.g., appropriate soil types, etc.)? Basically, it was agreed that this decision boils down to “Does dispersion distance matter?”.’? Can we assume that public lands currently support the umbrella species we have identified? BBS thunderstorm maps could be useful in telling us where the birds actually are rather than just assuming public lands are doing their job well. USFS data may serve as a surrogate for BBS data in Ouachita NF, which is poorly sampled by BBS.
Workshop Objective 3: Reach consensus on key elements & assumptions of the decision support tool
ACTION: McKnight will provide the group with map products (link to maps) from the DST that have state lines, public areas, and other reference points to facilitate a critical review of the implications. Twedt will assist in this.
Right-of-Way Toolkit (J. Tirpak, B. Tirpak)
Blair and John Tirpak provided the group with an overview of the right-of-way (ROW) toolkit being developed for USFWS Ecological Services staff in Lafayette, LA Field Office for use in dealing with pipeline and other activity surrounding oil and gas development underway in the WGCP/O. The models being developed quantify impacts of ROWs to productivity and provide a tool for prioritizing reforestation efforts. Baka had suggestions regarding improvement and will contact Holland & Greco in Lafayette. Krementz cautioned that there is now evidence that edge is not necessarily always bad for nesting forest birds, and that the modelers should reevaluate this assumption – particularly in the WGCP/O.
ACTION: Twedt will participate with J. Tirpak and B. Tirpak to assess the value of the DST.
Swainson’s Warbler Project Update (J. Tirpak)