Evan H. Campbell Grant US Geological Survey Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative Patuxent...

Evan H. Campbell GrantUS Geological Survey Amphibian Research and Monitoring InitiativePatuxent Wildlife Research CenterSO Conte Anadromous Fish Research LaboratoryTurners Falls, MA

ADAPTING TO NATURE IN THE NEW

NORMAL IMPROVING NATURAL RESOURCE DECISION

MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY

PROBLEM:AMPHIBIAN POPULATIONS ARE DECLINING

WORLDWIDE

PROBLEMS ARE COMPLEX AND INTERACTING

Matt Gray, UT

Huntington et al. 2009. Can J. For. Res.

http://armi.usgs.gov/index.php

Are amphibians in the USA declining?

IN THE NORTHEAST…

HOTTER

DRIER

UNPREDICTABLE

IN THE NORTHEAST…

PROBLEM: HABITAT PROTECTION ALONE MIGHT

NOT CUT IT

Number of droughts

9

PRESCRIPTION FOR RESOLVING 10,000 DECISIONS

Keeney 2004. Making better decision makers. Decision Analysis 1:193-204.

10

PRESCRIPTION FOR RESOLVING 10,000 DECISIONS

Keeney 2004. Making better decision makers. Decision Analysis 1:193-204.

11

The structuring of a decision problem in terms of choices, outcomes, and values to identify the choice that is most likely to achieve the values of the decision maker.

Decisions involvevaluing the outcomes predicting outcomes from alternative choices

The first part is the (subjective) role ofsociety; the second part is the (objective) role of science

WHAT IS DECISION ANALYSIS?

Clear ObjectivesCreative management Alternatives

Models linking actions to objectives, generate predictions

Optimization to determine best approach, given observations and objectives

Implement a decisionMonitor system state changes

STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING

Elements:

Clear ObjectivesCreative management Alternatives

Models linking actions to objectives, generate predictions

Optimization to determine best approach, given observations and objectives

Implement a decisionMonitor system state changes

STRUCTURED DECISION MAKING

Values

ValuesScience

Science

14

SDM IS NOT A PANACEA

OBJECTIVES

Agreed upon

Disputed

OUTCOMES

Well Understood

Uncertain Disputed

Structured Decision- Making

Conflict Resolution

Joint Fact

Finding

Objec t i ves – A l te rna t i ves – Mode l s – Opt im iza t ion – Imp lementa t i on - Mon i to r ing

EXAMPLE FROM C&O CANAL NHP

‘Potomac Gorge’ area of C&OThreats (Allen and Flack 2001)

Urbanization Invasive/alien species Isolation

Climate change (and variability)

WHAT IS VALUED BY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: OBJECTIVESMaintain average amphibian species richness

at C&O Canal NHP wetlands.

Minimize cost of doing management.

* Can include other competing objectives (e.g., visitor use and enjoyment, access to recreation, other species-specific goals)

Objec t i ves – A l te rna t i ves – Mode l s – Opt im iza t i on – Imp lementa t i on - Mon i to r ing

Monitoring data:

Since 2005

0 2 4 6 8

02

46

8

Wetland richness 2005

We

tla

nd

ric

hn

ess 2

01

0

Observe a decline in occupancy for all

species

Relate occupancy to measured variables

(*hydroperiod)

0 1000 2000 3000

02

46

8

Wetland Area (m2)

Avera

ge p

roje

cte

d r

ichness

0 2 4 6 8 10

02

46

810

Observed number of species (2010)

Observ

ed n

um

ber

of

specie

s (

2005-2

009)

0 2 4 6 8

02

46

8


Pro

jecte

d w

etland r

ichness

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1-Specificity

Sensitiv

ity

Permanent

Semi-permanent

Temporary

2005 2010 2015 2020

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Year

Ave

rag

e w

etla

nd

ric

hn

ess

Make predictions

0 1000 2000 3000

02

46

8

Wetland Area (m2)

Avera

ge p

roje

cte

d r

ichness

0 2 4 6 8 10

02

46

810

Observed number of species (2010)

Observ

ed n

um

ber

of

specie

s (

2005-2

009)

0 2 4 6 8

02

46

8


Pro

jecte

d w

etland r

ichness

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1-Specificity

Sensitiv

ity

Permanent

Semi-permanent

Temporary

THINKING BACK TO OUR FORECASTSHOTTER

DRIER

UNPREDICTABLE

Best Alternative: increase hydroperiod of temporary wetlands

Optimization: Rank wetlands by the expected increase in richness, to choose most suitable sites for management each year

USING THE MODEL TO GUIDE MANAGEMENT:

OPTIMIZATION

Objec t i ves – A l te rna t i ves – Mode l s – Opt im iza t i on – Imp lementa t ion - Mon i to r ing

Typical response is to want to understand what’s causing declines,

But there is a tradeoff in waiting for more information (which may be imperfect) and a need for action

Both have components of uncertainty.

NOW WHAT?

When to initiate a decision?

1 5 10

Utility threshold

Avera

ge w

etl

an

d r

ich

ness

Year that management is implemented


1 5 10

Avera

ge w

etl

an

d r

ich

ness

Manage half

Manage a quarter

Manage none

Objec t i ves – A l te rna t i ves – Mode l s – Opt im iza t i on – Imp lementa t ion - Mon i to r ing

1 5 10

Marginal benefit of managing 50% of sites in year 1, vs. no management, assuming poor outcome.

Avera

ge w

etl

an

d r

ich

ness


1 5 10

Avera

ge w

etl

an

d r

ich

ness

Marginal benefit of implementing management of 50% of sites in year 1 vs. 5, assuming best outcome


1 5 10

Marginal benefit of managing 50% vs. 25% of sites in year 1, assuming average outcome.

Avera

ge w

etl

an

d r

ich

ness


1 5 10

Marginal benefit of managing 50% of sites in year 1 vs. 25% of sites in year 5, assuming learning occurred

Avera

ge w

etl

an

d r

ich

ness


IN SUMMARY

Amphibians are in trouble (or may be…)

Even amphibians in protected areas are at risk under climate change

IF we value amphibians, where they are, we need to make hard decisions about active management

UNCERTAINTY IS SCARY,BUT -

A proactive approach to conservation

Designed to preempt (or respond to) climate change effects – short term focus

Maintain community and prevent LOCAL extinctions

A structured approach to decision making

[email protected]

Evan H. Campbell Grant US Geological Survey Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative Patuxent...

Documents

Transcript of Evan H. Campbell Grant US Geological Survey Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative Patuxent...