Environmental Management

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 165–179 | Cite as

Assessing and Prioritizing Ecological Communities for Monitoring in a Regional Habitat Conservation Plan

  • Lauren A. Hierl
  • Janet Franklin
  • Douglas H. Deutschman
  • Helen M. Regan
  • Brenda S. Johnson
Article

Abstract

In nature reserves and habitat conservation areas, monitoring is required to determine if reserves are meeting their goals for preserving species, ecological communities, and ecosystems. Increasingly, reserves are established to protect multiple species and communities, each with their own conservation goals and objectives. As resources are always inadequate to monitor all components, criteria must be applied to prioritize both species and communities for monitoring and management. While methods for prioritizing species based on endangerment or risk have been established, approaches to prioritizing ecological communities for monitoring are not well developed, despite a long-standing emphasis on communities as target elements in reserve design. We established guidelines based on four criteria derived from basic principles of conservation and landscape ecology—extent, representativeness, fragmentation, and endangerment—to prioritize communities in the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). The MSCP was one of the first multiple-species habitat conservation areas established in California, USA, and it has a complex spatial configuration because of the patterns of surrounding land use, which are largely urbanized. In this case study, high priority communities for monitoring include coastal sage scrub (high endangerment, underrepresented within the reserve relative to the region, and moderately fragmented), freshwater wetlands, and coastal habitats (both have high fragmentation, moderate endangerment and representativeness, and low areal extent). This framework may be useful to other conservation planners and land managers for prioritizing the most significant and at-risk communities for monitoring.

Keywords

Biodiversity Endangerment Fragmentation Multispecies Representativeness Reserve Protected area 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a Local Assistance Grant (P0450009) from the California Department of Fish and Game and in cooperation with the MSCP Monitoring Partners, a multiagency and multijurisdictional task force. Linnea Spears-Lebrun assisted with data analysis. We are grateful to many people for making this project possible, especially Clark Winchell (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), who, along with Keith Greer, Elizabeth Santos, and the anonymous reviewers, provided comments that improved this paper. We thank Douglas Stow for information concerning the map accuracy assessment. The opinions expressed and any errors that remain in this paper are the authors’.

References

  1. Andelman SJ, Groves C, Regan HM (2004) A review of protocols for selecting species at risk in the context of U.S. Forest Service viability assessments. Acta Oecologica 26:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin A, Meire PM, Anselin L (1989) Multicriteria techniques in ecological evaluation: an example using the analytical hierarchy process. Biological Conservation 49:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson AJ, Trenham PC, Fisher RN, Hathaway SA, Johnson BS, Torres SG, Moore YC (2004) Designing adaptive monitoring programs in an adaptive management context for regional multiple species conservation plans. Western Ecological Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin MP, Margules CR (1984) The concept of representativeness in conservation evaluation with particular relevance to Australia. Technical Memorandum 84/11. CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrows CW, Swartz MB, Hodges WL, Allen MF, Rotenberry JT, Li B-L, Scott TA, Chen X (2005) A framework for monitoring multiple-species conservation plans. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1333–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Konstant WR, Flick P, Pilgrim J, Oldfield S, Magin G, Hilton-Taylor C (2002) Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16:909–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. California Department of Fish and Game (2003) California Fish and Game Code: section 2800–2835, Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nccp/displaycode.html. Accessed February 7, 2007
  8. Chattin L, Rubin L, Mangey D (2006) A winning combination: local land-use planning and fine-scale vegetation maps. Fremontia 34:9–13Google Scholar
  9. Davis FW, Stine PA, Stoms DM, Borchert MI, Hollander A (1995) Gap analysis of the actual vegetation of California: 1. The southwestern region. Madroño 42:40–78Google Scholar
  10. Fahrig L (2002) Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: A synthesis. Ecological Applications 12:346–353Google Scholar
  11. Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Vol. 78. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3:202–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin J, Simons DK, Beardsley D, Rogan JM, Gordon H (2001) Evaluating errors in a digital vegetation map with forest inventory data and accuracy assessment using fuzzy sets. Transactions in Geographic Information Systems 5:285–304Google Scholar
  14. Goodchild MF (1994) Integrating GIS and remote sensing for vegetation analysis and modeling: methodological issues. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:615–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodchild MF, Gopal S (eds) (1989) The accuracy of spatial databases. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Greer K (2004) Habitat conservation planning in San Diego County: lessons learned after five years of implementation. Environmental Practice 6:230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grossman DH, Faber-Langendeon D, Weakley AS, Anderson M, Bourgeron P, Crawford R, Goodin K, Landaal S, Metzler K, Patterson K, Pyne M, Reid M, Sneddon L (1998) International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States, vol 1. The National Vegetation Classification System: development, status and applications. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.naturserve.org/library/vol1.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2007
  18. Hanna S (1997) Interior Secretary praises “monumental conservation achievement” in San Diego County. Press release. U.S. Department of Interior, Available at: http://www.doi.gov/news/archives/sand.html. Accessed February 6, 2007
  19. Holland RF (1986) Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  20. Jewell SD (2000) Multi-species recovery plans. Endangered Species Bulletin 25:30–31Google Scholar
  21. Keith DA (1998) An evaluation and modification of World Conservation Union Red List criteria for classification of extinction risk in vascular plants. Conservation Biology 12:1076–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laurance WF (2000) Do edge effects occur over large spatial scales? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:134–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leyva C, Espejel I, Escofet A, Bullock SH (2006) Coastal landscape fragmentation by tourism development: impacts and conservation alternatives. Natural Areas Journal 26:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lowell K, Jaton A (1999) Spatial accuracy assessment: land information uncertainty in natural resources. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MIGoogle Scholar
  25. Luck M, Wu J (2002) A gradient of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landscape Ecology 17:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Margules CR, Usher MB (1981) Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential—a review. Biological Conservation 21:79–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Margules CR, Nicholls AO, Pressey RL (1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mazzotti FJ, Morgenstern CS (1997) A scientific framework for managing urban natural areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 38:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McAlpine CA, Lindenmayer DB, Eyre TJ, Phinn SR (2002) Landscape surrogates of forest fragmentation: synthesis of Australian Montreal Process case studies. Pacific Conservation Biology 8:108–120Google Scholar
  31. McGarigal K (2002) Landscape pattern metrics. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piergorsch WW (eds) Encyclopedia of environmetrics. John Wiley & Sons, Sussex, UK, pp 1135–1142Google Scholar
  32. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Available at: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/Metrics/Metrics%20TOC.htm. Accessed February 7, 2007
  33. Medail F, Quezel P (1999) Biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean basin: setting global conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 13:1510–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moffett A, Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Diversity and Distributions 12:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mulder BS, Noon BR, Spies TA, Raphael MG, Palmer CJ, Olsen AR, Reeves GH, Welsh HH (1999) The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-437, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  36. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nicholson E, Wilcove DS (2007) Assessing the threat status of ecological communities: scale, viability, and ecological theory. In: Society for Conservation Biology, 21st Annual Meeting, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, Volume of Abstracts Google Scholar
  38. Noon BR (2003) Conceptual issues in monitoring ecological resources. In: Busch DE, Trexler JC (eds) Monitoring ecosystems: interdisciplinary approaches for evaluating ecoregional initiatives. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 27–72Google Scholar
  39. Noon BR, Spies TA, Raphael MG (1999) Conceptual basis for designing an effectiveness monitoring program. In: Mulder BS (ed) The strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-437. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Portland, OR, pp 21–48Google Scholar
  40. Noss RF (1987) From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Noss RF (1996) Ecosystems as conservation targets. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Olsen AR, Sedransk J, Edwards D, Gotway CA, Liggett W, Rathbun S, Reckhow KH, Young LJ (1999) Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54:1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olsen LM, Dale VH, Foster T (2007) Landscape patterns as indicators of ecological change at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 79:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackson BJ, DeAngelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmut B, Christensen S, Dale VH, Graham RL (1988) Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pereira JMC, Duckstein L (1993) A multiple criteria decision-making approach to GIS-based land suitability evaluation. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 7:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Possingham HP, Wilson KA, Andelman SJ, Vynne CH (2006) Protected areas: goals, limitations and design. In: Groome MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll CR (eds) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp 509–533Google Scholar
  48. Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Logan VS, Day JR, Williams PH (1999) Effects of data characteristics on the results of reserve selection algorithms. Journal of Biogeography 26:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlinshaw G, Mace GM (2000) Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society 267:1947–1952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rahn ME, Doremus H, Diffendorfer J (2006) Species coverage in multispecies conservation plans: where’s the science? Bioscience 56:613–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Regan HM, Colyvan M, Markovchick-Nicolls L (2006) A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 80:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Regan HM, Davis FW, Andelman SJ, Widyanata A, Freese M (2007) Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:2715–2728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Regan HM, Hierl LA, Franklin J, Deutchman DH, Schmalbach HL, Winchell CS, Johnson BS (2008) Species prioritization for monitoring and management in regional multiple species conservation plans. Diversity and Distribution 14:462–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Wickham JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson BL (1995) A factor-analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rodriguez JP, Balch JK, Rodriguez-Clark KM (2007) Assessing extinction risk in the absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:183–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rubinoff D (2001) Evaluating the California gnatcatcher as an umbrella species for conservation of southern California coastal sage scrub. Conservation Biology 15:1374–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sawyer JO, Keeler-Wolf T (1995) A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://davisherb.ucdavis.edu/cnpsActiveServer/hollandlist.asp. Accessed February 7, 2007
  58. Scott JM, Davis FW, Csuti B, Noss RF, Butterfield B, Groves C, Anderson H, Caicco S, D’Erchia F, Edwards TC Jr, Ulliman J, Wright RG (1993) Gap analysis: a geographical approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:1–41Google Scholar
  59. Scott JM, Goble DD, Wiens JA, Wilcove DS, Bean M, Male T (2005) Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment 3:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scott TA, Sullivan JE (2000) The selection and design of multiple-species habitat preserves. Environmental Management 26:S37–S53Google Scholar
  61. Shearer AW, Mouat DA, Bassett SD, Binford MW, Johnson CW, Saarinen JA (2006) Examining development-related uncertainties for environmental management: strategic planning scenarios in Southern California. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:359–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slocombe DS (1998) Defining goals and criteria for ecosystem-based management. Environmental Management 22:483–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sprugel DG (1991) Disturbance, equilibrium, and environmental variability—What is natural vegetation in a changing environment? Biological Conservation 58:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stehman SV, Czaplewski RL (1998) Design and analysis for thematic map accuracy assessment: fundamental principles. Remote Sensing of Environment 64:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stenhouse RN (2004) Fragmentation and internal disturbance of native vegetation reserves in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:389–401Google Scholar
  66. Stow D, O’Leary J, Hope A (1993) Accuracy assessment of MSCP GIS vegetation layer. San Diego State University. Prepared for Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  67. Turner MG, O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 3:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996) Habitat conservation planning and incidental take permit processing handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/hcp/hcpbook.html. Accessed April 3, 2007
  69. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2007) Conservation plans and agreement database. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/index.jsp. Accessed February 7, 2007Google Scholar
  70. Westman WE (1981) Factors influencing the distribution of species of Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:439–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wilson EO (1992) The diversity of life. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Wilson KA, McBride MF, Bode M, Possingham HP (2006) Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440:337–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Winchell C, Doherty P (2006) Estimation of California Gnatcatcher pair abundance and occupancy rates. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  74. Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:446–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren A. Hierl
    • 1
  • Janet Franklin
    • 1
  • Douglas H. Deutschman
    • 1
  • Helen M. Regan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brenda S. Johnson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  3. 3.California Department of Fish and GameHabitat Conservation BranchSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations