Climate change, habitat degradation and fragmentation, declines in water quality and quantity, the spread of invasive species, and ocean acidification are among the many stressors putting unparalleled pressures on the nation’s ecosystems. There has never been a more critical time for the conservation community to work together to develop landscape-level conservation strategies. Land managers are more frequently facing the difficult task of identifying lands that can be saved by timely, concerted action; those that will likely recover on their own; and those that no amount of effort will save. In these situations, managers must often answer questions, such as, should we attempt to maintain freshwater wetlands in the face of salt-water intrusion, or would the wildlife refuge’s limited resources be better spent enhancing the ecological resilience of upland habitats to climate change? Such trade-offs in conservation are nothing new, of course, but are likely to become ever more urgent in the coming years. The need for collaborative, scientifically based and proactive conservation planning and design has long been seen as essential. During the early implementation phase of Fulfilling the Promise, several teams assessed how wildlife refuges should plan for wildlife, habitat and biodiversity goals at multiple spatial scales. Their important “goals report” made clear that such an endeavor would have implications throughout the landscape. Nearly a decade ago, the teams concluded that it made little sense for the Refuge System to undertake such an effort on its own. Several of the report’s authors joined with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service colleagues to form a National Ecological Assessment Team, which examined the subject more broadly. Their work resulted in the June 2006 report, “Strategic Habitat Conservation,” which serves as the scientific blueprint and methodology for the Service’s current conservation efforts.
Strategic Habitat Conservation is a science-based framework for making management decisions about where and how to deliver conservation effectively to achieve specific biological outcomes. It is a feedback loop that starts with assumption-based research that feeds biological planning and then moves into conservation design; conservation delivery; inventory and monitoring; and back again to inform biological planning. The principles of Strategic Habitat Conservation are being used in implementing the Service’s climate change strategy, Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change. This plan establishes a basic framework within which the Service will work as part of a larger conservation community to help ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, plants and habitats in the face of accelerating climate change. A key component of the plan is development of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, a national network of 21 self-directed partnerships. They are to provide shared science capacity to inform resource management actions addressing climate change and other stressors within and across landscapes.
The Strategic Habitat Conservation report recognized that the Service has considerable capacity for conservation delivery. It focused primarily on the undeveloped capacity for biological planning, conservation design and targeted research and monitoring. But the report also recognized that “delivery of conservation actions” would be the subject of ample future discussion, including the changing role of the Service in collaborative conservation.
The discussion now turns to how the Service can continue to use the National Wildlife Refuge System – and its impressive array of conservation tools – to deliver conservation on the ground, and how, in light of numerous changes on the landscape, that delivery will differ from the past.
Comment below and/or move on to next section of Chapter 2- Delivering Fish and Wildlife Conservation
8 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Please consider requiring LCC planning to include a stipulation that research and guidance reach field offices and refuges. In other words, the LCC work should provide very specific guidance to managers on how to manage each refuge within the context of watershed and landscape level decision making. Questions like is it important to this state/watershed/ecosystem/landscape to manage for a specific species should be asked and region guidance should be provided to managers regarding management goals at a landscape level. These goals should be outlined in LCC planning and there should be targets or dates for the research and compilation of research to meet these goals.
Druoght need water eco tourism community net work Hassan Sli heritage warder Garissa Kenya
“Climate change” in the first sentence seems to be “its own thing” where likely climage change will exacerbate the many other already existing issues. The use of the term “stressor” does not follow the usage of the term in general conservation biology. first paragraph. suggest just using the term “issue” or a more general term than stressor. Also a few more sentences about why “landscape” is the way to go, could be helpful. Although I am not really sure who the audience is. If it is FWS, then likely not needed.
incorporate fresh water acidification and rising sea levels.
“Also a few more sentences about why “landscape” is the way to go, could be helpful’ dito
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives are, foremost, a partnership among natural resource practitioners to promote the development and dissemination of science that informs landscape-scale management in the face of a changing environment. A key value of LCCs will be identifying ways in which existing or new science can be applied to management. Even then, there will be a high degree of uncertainty associated with the resource management practices identified. Refuges can serve an important function by piloting management practices where implementation, monitoring and evaluation can be assured to improve those practices over time.
“Land managers are more frequently facing the difficult task of identifying lands that can be saved by timely, concerted action; those that will likely recover on their own; and those that no amount of effort will save.” (The questions implied here cannot be solved in a vacuum – uncertain and unpredictable outcomes are being shaped by forces outside the control of refuges, and we cannot adequately judge which lands or species will or will not be saved. For this reason, a precautionary or pre-emptive – rather than a reactive or adaptive – approach might be better for strengthening ecosystem resilience. Strategic conservation begins with a firm understanding of socio-economic contexts and trends; a willingness to recognize and address perverse incentives and policies; and a determination to enlist other allies in collaborative conservation to assess and address threats before they become disasters. Triage is something that might be considered as a way to cut losses AFTER most damage is done.)
What are the underlying assumptions and expectations involved in making conservation “trade-offs?” Are they geared toward increasing natural resource extraction and expoitation or conservation and environmental protection? What are the primary drivers of land use and how do they affect habitats? Can comprehensive planning produce a sufficiently broad array of environmental and socio-economic benefits if LCC participation is limited to scientists or even members of the conservation community?
It is interesting the priority placed on planning – as a logic first step in this process, and statements such as ” our undeveloped capacity for biological planning, conservation design……” There has been study growth in the planning area through the Refuge CCP process – however, ironically, often the push has been more to get the plans done, without concern for plan quality or content. As is the tone in the vision document, hopefully in the future we will embrace planning and those with planning, analytical, organizational and design skills as an important part of our NWRS culture – and effective management processes.