Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/33205
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Fields, William R. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Walls, Wade A. | - |
dc.contributor.author | DeGregorio, Brett A. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hohmann, Matthew G. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-06-26T17:37:43Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-06-26T17:37:43Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019-03 | - |
dc.identifier.govdoc | ERDC/CERL TR-19-11 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11681/33205 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/33205 | - |
dc.description | Technical Report | - |
dc.description.abstract | Regional partnering for threatened and endangered species (TES) management can be an effective strategy, allowing the Department of Defense to achieve conservation goals while minimizing potential conflict with its training and testing missions. However, the potential benefits of regional partnering are determined by where TES habitat occurs within a landscape, how populations interact with one another demographically, and the proportion of TES habitat managed by various agencies and potential partners. To assess the opportunities for and potential value of regional TES conservation partnering, we evaluated the relative conservation values of habitat networks for 84 TES known to occur on or near 54 Army and Army National Guard installations. The highest relative network conservation values were estimated for mammals and birds at Fort Huachuca. High relative network conservation values are associated with large amounts of public land. On average, 52.3% of identified habitat networks occurred on public lands compared to 3.8% on private conservation lands. Assessment of habitat networks provides an efficient framework for guiding regional partnering efforts, and multispecies regional conservation partnerships will be critical in addressing the combined threats of encroachment and climate change. Prioritization of regional conservation partnerships will maximize the benefits of limited conservation funding. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | United States. Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. | en_US |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Figures and Tables .................................................................................................................. iv Preface ...................................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Approach ............................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Scope .................................................................................................................. 2 2 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Species and dispersal information ................................................................... 3 2.2 Habitat network extents .................................................................................... 4 2.3 Habitat network delineation ............................................................................. 5 2.4 Habitat network metrics .................................................................................... 7 2.5 Habitat network assessment ............................................................................ 7 3 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................. 10 3.1 Listed species representation on installations .............................................. 10 3.2 Species habitats ............................................................................................. 12 3.3 Dispersal distances ........................................................................................ 13 3.4 Habitat networks and relative conservation value ........................................ 14 3.5 Discussion of methodology ............................................................................. 16 3.5.1 Advantages ................................................................................................................ 16 3.5.2 Challenges and limitations ....................................................................................... 16 3.5.3 Potential extensions of the methodology ................................................................ 17 4 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 18 4.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 18 4.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Incorporate approach and results into ACUB and REPI projectprioritization processes ............................................................................................................. 18 4.2.2 Adopt approach and results as a screening-level tool for conservation assessment and management planning .................................................................................. 19 4.2.3 Adopt approach and results for developing novel mitigation approaches ............ 19 4.2.4 Expand analyses to include at-risk species ............................................................. 20 References ............................................................................................................................. 21 Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................... 22 Appendix: Summary Tables ................................................................................................. 24 Report Documentation Page | - |
dc.format.extent | 56 pages / 1.850 Mb | - |
dc.format.medium | PDF/A | - |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (U.S.) | en_US |
dc.publisher | Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.) | - |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Technical Report (Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)) ; no. ERDC/CERL TR-19-11 | - |
dc.rights | Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited | - |
dc.source | This Digital Resource was created in Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat | - |
dc.subject | Endangered species | en_US |
dc.subject | Environmental protection | en_US |
dc.subject | Military bases | en_US |
dc.subject | Metapopulation | en_US |
dc.subject | Military training camps | en_US |
dc.subject | Environmental management | en_US |
dc.subject | Regional planning | en_US |
dc.subject | Conservation prioritization | en_US |
dc.title | A regional population viability approach for threatened and endangered species management on Army installations | en_US |
dc.type | Report | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Technical Report |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ERDC-CERL TR-19-11.pdf | 1.9 MB | Adobe PDF | ![]() View/Open |