Landscape Partnership Resources Library
Working Lands for Wildlife National Landowner Forum: Perspectives and Recommendations
In May 2016, 26 private landowners from across the country met in Denver, Colorado to talk with NRCS staff about what is working in the Working Lands for Wildlife partnership and what opportunities exist for improvement. Jointly coordinated by Partners for Conservation and NRCS, and including funding support from the Intermountain West Joint Venture, the 2-day meeting provided a forum to share stories of success and challenges in order to maximize outcomes with future opportunities.
2016 Southeastern Forest Private Lands Partnership Forum
March 1, Pensacola, Florida Session Recommendations
Conservation Choices for Wildlife: Golden-winged Warbler and Other Forest-dependent Species
This guide outlines seven key conservation practices recommended to forest landowners who want to sustainably manage forests to benefit wildlife and forest health. USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and conservation partners work with forest landowners to plan and implement these practices that benefit a variety of species, including the golden-winged warbler. This assistance includes the development of a custom forest management plan as well as financial support to help cover part of the costs of implementing the practices. Technical and financial assistance are available through the Farm Bill, the largest source of federal funding for private lands conservation.
AppLCC Species List
WG members -- I will attach a copy of the AppLCC species-habitat database we mentioned on the Jan 14/15 meeting, should that be helpful in your work. The following information was provided on how the data were assembled. (1.) Criteria used for assembling the species – i.e., SGCN, Listed/Proposed/Candidate etc. Criteria for assembling the original list were the SGNC species with the addition of federally listed species. (2) How was the habitat association was assigned (and if the habitat classification system was standardized when assigned). With the exception of mussels and fish (used Natureserve scheme for those) the habitat association is not based on any standard habitat classification scheme and is a very broad summary of the habitats listed in the source information. (3) How species were included (i.e., reference to the 75% range. All species that were found (even partially) within the AppLCC boundary were included in this list. Species listed on SWAPs, but not found within the LCC Boundary were deleted. If (by visual inspection of range maps found in the source material) more than 75% of a species range was found with the LCC Boundary, it was coded a YES in the LCC GLOBAL TRUST column - the thought behind this was that the LCC has a global responsibility to preserve those species. (4) Re: plants and what criteria was used to exclude species from the list). • Plants were not included because only one state (Georgia) and the federal list had plants listed (so the ranking of plant species when you do your "how many states is the species found in" analysis would have been heavily skewed, making them seem much less important than they actually are. To be true to the process, I would suggest getting plant lists from each state (maybe S1-S2 species). • Invertebrates were not included simply because I ran out of time cleaning up the list and range information for many of them is not easily available. I do believe they should be included in the final list of species. and would be happy to work on the invert list if you'd like...it would take some coordination with states to get range info. • The fish list was almost finished (data is readily available on Natureserve Explorer) (5) Re: migratory birds handled in assembling this data set. The original list of migratory birds was created using the same process as for all other species. The only difference is that they have two possible habitat associations - breeding habitat and wintering habitat (if applicable) because managing for both of these is important to their conservation. (6) Final note - there may be a few (less than ten) duplicate species because some states had a subspecies listed, while others had the only species listed.
Climate Projections FAQ
USFS guidance on use of downscaled climate data
Determining suitable locations for seed transfer under climate change: A global quantitative method.
Changing climate conditions will complicate efforts to match seed sources with the environments to which they are best adapted. Tree species distributions may have to shift to match new environmental conditions, potentially requiring the establishment of some species entirely outside of their current distributions to thrive. Even within the portions of tree species ranges that remain generally suitable for the species, local populations may not be well-adapted to altered local conditions. To assist efforts to restore forests and to maximize forest productivity in the face of climate change, we developed a set of 30,000 quantitatively defined seed transfer ‘‘ecoregions’’ across the globe.
Beane_2010_WV_red spruce_climate change.pdf
environemental and site-specific variables to model current and future distribution of red spruce forest habitat in WV
