Bird Conservation Planning in the Interior Low Plateaus
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bird Conservation Planning in the Interior Low Plateaus Robert P. Ford Michael D. Roedel Abstract—The Interior Low Plateaus (ILP) is a 12,000,000 ha area has been dominated historically by oak-hickory forests, physiographic province that includes middle Kentucky, middle with areas of rock outcrops and glade habitats, prairies, and Tennessee, and northern Alabama. Spatial analysis of Breeding barrens (Martin and others 1993). All habitats now are highly Bird Atlas data has been used to determine relationships between fragmented. Currently, this project includes only Kentucky, the nature of high priority bird communities and broad features of Tennessee, and Alabama; the remainder of the ILP will be the habitat. A standardized vegetation classification using satellite incorporated later. Distinct subdivisions within the current imagery, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), GAP Analysis, scope of the project include the Bluegrass region and Shawnee and Breeding Bird Atlas data, were used to develop landscape-level Hills in Kentucky; the Western Highland Rim, Eastern High- habitat models for the ILP. The objectives of this effort were to: (1) land Rim, and Central Basin of Tennessee; and the Tennessee identify centers of abundance for species and/or species assem- River Valley of Alabama (fig. 1). These subdivisions serve as blages within the ILP, (2) identify and prioritize areas for potential distinct conservation planning units. About 95% of the land acquisition and/or public-private partnerships for conservation, (3) base consists of non-industrial forest lands, open lands for identify areas with the highest potential for restoration of degraded agriculture (pasture), and urban areas. Public lands and habitats, (4) identify specific lands managed by project cooperators lands managed by the forest products industry make up less where integration of nesting songbird management is a high prior- than 5% of the total area (Vissage and Duncan 1990). ity, and (5) identify areas that require more intensive breeding bird The Tennessee Conservation League, state affiliate of the inventories. Sites have been prioritized by each of the above objec- National Wildlife Federation, has served to facilitate PIF tives, as well as by each state agency for effective implementation. objectives in the ILP with leadership from state wildlife agencies and the forest products industry. A steering commit- tee developed to provide oversight, direction, and implemen- tation included representatives of the Alabama Department Bird Conservation Areas (BCAs) can be identified over the of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game and Fish landscape of a physiographic area using geographic infor- Division; Champion International Corporation; Kentucky mation system (GIS) technology, breeding bird atlas data, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; Tennessee De- Partners in Flight (PIF) species prioritization scores, and partment of Environment and Conservation; Tennessee Con- land management partnerships. The physiographic area is servation League; Tennessee Ornithological Society; Tennes- a useful geographic scale at which to set conservation and see Valley Authority; Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; management objectives, because physiographic areas often U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Forest Service; Westvaco have similar land forms and land uses, have similar bird Corporation; and Willamette Industries Incorporated. In ad- distribution patterns and bird conservation needs, and tran- dition, a technical working group was formed that included scend traditional political boundaries, such as state lines. land managers and biologists from the above groups. The objectives of this paper are to describe the method we used for the first phase of bird conservation planning in a specific physiographic area—the Interior Low Plateaus Methods _______________________ (ILP)—and to present the results, including the identifica- tion of potential BCAs for bird species assemblages that nest The first phase conservation planning objectives were in the ILP’s mature hardwood forests, early successional (1) to identify centers of abundance for species and species forests or old fields, and open lands. assemblages by subdivision within the ILP, (2) to identify The ILP encompasses more than 12 million ha in southern specific lands managed by the project’s current cooperators Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois; central Kentucky; central Tennes- where integration of nesting songbird management is a high see; and northern Alabama. The rolling topography of this priority, (3) to identify areas with the highest potential for restoration of degraded habitats, (4) to identify and priori- tize areas for potential acquisition and/or public-private In: Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry, partnerships for conservation, and (5) to identify areas that eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight plan- require more extensive breeding bird inventories. ning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-16. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Tools and Information Robert P. Ford, Tennessee Conservation League, 300 Orlando Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee 37209-3257. Current address: The Nature Conser- The conservation planning objectives were accomplished vancy, University of Memphis, South Campus, Building 8, Memphis, TN by using the best available information from vegetation 38152. Michael D. Roedel, Tennessee Conservation League, 300 Orlando Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee 37209-3257. maps generated by interpretation of satellite imagery from USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 103 Figure 1—Interior Low Plateaus and its subdivisions in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. the Landsat Thematic Mapper; data from each state’s breed- completed. For this analysis, we used breeding bird atlas ing bird atlas; PIF species prioritization values (Carter and information from 810 of the topographic maps. Vegetation others, this proceedings); and known boundaries from maps based on GIS technology were available for all of public and private cooperators’ lands. This process was middle Tennessee and northern Alabama, but not available modified from the Gap Analysis protocol (Scott and others for most of Kentucky at the time of this analysis. Although 1993). A standard vegetation classification and habitat the coverage for breeding bird atlas and vegetation mapping patch size distribution, including areal coverage and spatial were incomplete at the time of this writing, the analysis has location information, were fundamental layers of informa- provided preliminary results, clarification for future plan- tion. For this planning phase, the satellite imagery was ning needs, and a test of the process. Although observer processed using GIS (ARC INFO) to provide broad landcover effort differed among states, results provided sufficiently categories that included deciduous forest, coniferous forest, consistent data for this process in the ILP. Breeding bird mixed forest, wetlands, agriculture, open water, and urban species, bird species assemblages, and habitats were priori- areas. These analyses were completed in Tennessee by the tized using the PIF concern scores for the ILP (Hunter and Tennessee Gap Analysis (Jones and others 1995) and others 1993a; Carter and others, this proceedings). Finally, Biodiversity (Reid 1993) projects, and in Alabama by the the boundary maps of current cooperator lands were in- Tennessee Valley Authority. This process is not complete in cluded in the GIS. Kentucky, although Gap Analysis has been initiated by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and Murray State University. Conservation Planning Process Breeding bird distribution and relative abundance were Of the 15 species for which prioritization scores exceeded documented in the ILP by breeding bird atlas projects in 23 in the ILP, six species were typical of mature hardwood each state. Tennessee (Nicholson, in press) and Kentucky forests, six of old fields and early successional forests, and (Palmer-Ball 1996) have completed breeding bird atlas three of open lands. To more fully represent these habitat projects; observers have completed about 70% of the cover- types, we selected a species assemblage that included spe- age for a breeding bird atlas in northern Alabama. Gener- cies with concern scores of 19 or above. Birds within each ally, these atlas projects followed national protocols. One assemblage were selected to represent different habitat breeding bird atlas block was designated for a sixth of each conditions within the broad habitat category, and loosely of 820 USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps in the ILP. followed management assemblages as described by Block During the atlas periods, over 95% of the atlas blocks were and others (1995). 104 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 Three bird species were chosen to represent the species additional locations where management or restoration of assemblages within each of three broad habitat groups habitats will be a priority. (table 1). The mature hardwood forest bird species assem- The first category includes atlas blocks on which all three blage was represented by Cerulean Warbler, Worm-eating species of the assemblage were recorded and cooperator Warbler, and Black-and-white Warbler. Both Cerulean lands are present. The conservation objective here is to Warbler and