1 / 31

How to accomplish something comparable but automatable?

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.

sylvia-walsh
Télécharger la présentation

How to accomplish something comparable but automatable?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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” connecting core areas

  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” connecting core areas 

  3. Once “sticks” were identified, California modeled linkages one-by-one, taking months andtens 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!

  4. How to accomplish something comparable but automatable? Need to create informative maps for 16 focal species + landscape integrity

  5. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Habitat Concentration areas (HCAs) 6 5 8 4 3 2 1

  6. Sharp-tailed grouse Candidate map #1: Cost-weighted distances to all 11 HCAs using resistance surface See notes attached to this and following slides

  7. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Masked out areas beyond 300km

  8. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Cost-weighted distance from HCA #3

  9. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Sum of cost-weighted distances from HCAs 3 & 5 = Least-cost corridor

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

  11. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 From a bunch of maps like this?

  12. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Proposed method: Minimum of all normalized least-cost corridors

  13. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Proposed method: Minimum of all normalized least-cost corridors

  14. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Proposed method: Minimum of all normalized least-cost corridors

  15. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Problem with overlapping corridors

  16. 9 8 7 11 6 5 4 3 Sharp-tailed Grouse Problem # 2: Which HCAs to connect?

  17. Sharp-tailed Grouse 7 Proposed method: If a least-cost corridor passes through an intermediate HCA, don’t map the corridor

  18. 9 8 7 11 6 5 4 3 Sharp-tailed Grouse Creates a network of HCA’s

  19. Sharp-tailed Grouse 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

  20. 9 8 7 11 6 5 4 3 Sharp-tailed grouse Candidate map product 2:Minimum of all normalized corridor layers using network of HCA’s

  21. Sharp-tailed grouse Candidate map product 3: Some measure of corridor quality Here, I’ve divided each corridor by the geographic distance between the HCAs it connects

  22. Sharp-tailed grouse Candidate map product 3: Some measure of corridor quality Here, I’ve divided each corridor by the geographic distance between the HCAs it connects

  23. Sharp-tailed grouse Circuitscape results- pinch points and redundancy between HCAs 3 and 5

  24. Sharp-tailed grouse Circuitscape results- important barriers separating HCAs 3 and 5

  25. 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.

  26. Sharp-tailed grouse Candidate map product 5: Circuitscape results showing important barriers in network

  27. Sharp-tailed grouse Problem: Some maps display well at larger extents… Normalized corridors

  28. Sharp-tailed grouse Problem: Some maps display well at larger extents… …and some don’t Corridor quality 

  29. Sharp-tailed Grouse 9 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) 8 7 11 6 5 4 3

  30. 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

  31. 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!)

More Related