Planning, implementing, and monitoring multiple-species habitat conservation plans

Janet Franklin, Helen M. Regan, Lauren A. Hierl, Douglas H. Deutschman, Brenda S. Johnson, Clark S. Winchell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Premise of the study: Despite numerous recommendations for various aspects of the design and monitoring of habitat conservation plans, there remains a need to synthesize existing guidelines into a comprehensive scheme and apply it to real-world conservation programs. Methods: We review tools for systematic conservation planning and elements for designing and implementing ecological monitoring in an adaptive management context. We apply principles of monitoring design to the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in California, USA - one of the first multispecies habitat conservation plans, located in a landscape where high biodiversity and urban development converge. Key results: Tools for spatial conservation planning are aimed to conserve biodiversity, often in the context of a limited budget. In practice, these methods may not accommodate legislative mandates, budgetary uncertainties, and the range of implementation mechanisms available across consortia of stakeholders. Once a reserve is implemented, the question becomes whether it is effective at conserving biodiversity, and if not, what actions are required to make it effective. In monitoring plan development, status and threats should be used to prioritize species and communities that require management action to ensure their persistence. Conceptual models documenting the state of knowledge of the system should highlight the main drivers affecting status and trends of species or communities. Monitoring strategies require scientifically justified decisions based on sampling, response, and data design. Conclusions: Because the framework illustrated here tackles multiple species, communities, and threats at the urban-wildland interface, it will have utility for ecosystem managers struggling to design monitoring programs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)559-571
Number of pages13
JournalAmerican Journal of Botany
Volume98
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2011

Fingerprint

habitat conservation
species conservation
Biodiversity
Ecosystem
planning
monitoring
Urban Renewal
conservation programs
conservation planning
Budgets
biodiversity
Uncertainty
wildland-urban interface
Guidelines
urban development
adaptive management
stakeholders
plan
managers
stakeholder

Keywords

  • Biodiversity
  • Conservation reserves
  • Ecological monitoring
  • Habitat conservation plan
  • Landscape
  • Multiple species
  • Prioritization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Plant Science
  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Genetics

Cite this

Franklin, J., Regan, H. M., Hierl, L. A., Deutschman, D. H., Johnson, B. S., & Winchell, C. S. (2011). Planning, implementing, and monitoring multiple-species habitat conservation plans. American Journal of Botany, 98(3), 559-571. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000292

Planning, implementing, and monitoring multiple-species habitat conservation plans. / Franklin, Janet; Regan, Helen M.; Hierl, Lauren A.; Deutschman, Douglas H.; Johnson, Brenda S.; Winchell, Clark S.

In: American Journal of Botany, Vol. 98, No. 3, 03.2011, p. 559-571.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Franklin, J, Regan, HM, Hierl, LA, Deutschman, DH, Johnson, BS & Winchell, CS 2011, 'Planning, implementing, and monitoring multiple-species habitat conservation plans', American Journal of Botany, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 559-571. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000292
Franklin J, Regan HM, Hierl LA, Deutschman DH, Johnson BS, Winchell CS. Planning, implementing, and monitoring multiple-species habitat conservation plans. American Journal of Botany. 2011 Mar;98(3):559-571. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000292
Franklin, Janet ; Regan, Helen M. ; Hierl, Lauren A. ; Deutschman, Douglas H. ; Johnson, Brenda S. ; Winchell, Clark S. / Planning, implementing, and monitoring multiple-species habitat conservation plans. In: American Journal of Botany. 2011 ; Vol. 98, No. 3. pp. 559-571.
@article{8ee87b1cc7074e91918a9aadd135d96b,
title = "Planning, implementing, and monitoring multiple-species habitat conservation plans",
abstract = "Premise of the study: Despite numerous recommendations for various aspects of the design and monitoring of habitat conservation plans, there remains a need to synthesize existing guidelines into a comprehensive scheme and apply it to real-world conservation programs. Methods: We review tools for systematic conservation planning and elements for designing and implementing ecological monitoring in an adaptive management context. We apply principles of monitoring design to the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in California, USA - one of the first multispecies habitat conservation plans, located in a landscape where high biodiversity and urban development converge. Key results: Tools for spatial conservation planning are aimed to conserve biodiversity, often in the context of a limited budget. In practice, these methods may not accommodate legislative mandates, budgetary uncertainties, and the range of implementation mechanisms available across consortia of stakeholders. Once a reserve is implemented, the question becomes whether it is effective at conserving biodiversity, and if not, what actions are required to make it effective. In monitoring plan development, status and threats should be used to prioritize species and communities that require management action to ensure their persistence. Conceptual models documenting the state of knowledge of the system should highlight the main drivers affecting status and trends of species or communities. Monitoring strategies require scientifically justified decisions based on sampling, response, and data design. Conclusions: Because the framework illustrated here tackles multiple species, communities, and threats at the urban-wildland interface, it will have utility for ecosystem managers struggling to design monitoring programs.",
keywords = "Biodiversity, Conservation reserves, Ecological monitoring, Habitat conservation plan, Landscape, Multiple species, Prioritization",
author = "Janet Franklin and Regan, {Helen M.} and Hierl, {Lauren A.} and Deutschman, {Douglas H.} and Johnson, {Brenda S.} and Winchell, {Clark S.}",
year = "2011",
month = "3",
doi = "10.3732/ajb.1000292",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "98",
pages = "559--571",
journal = "American Journal of Botany",
issn = "0002-9122",
publisher = "Botanical Society of America Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Planning, implementing, and monitoring multiple-species habitat conservation plans

AU - Franklin, Janet

AU - Regan, Helen M.

AU - Hierl, Lauren A.

AU - Deutschman, Douglas H.

AU - Johnson, Brenda S.

AU - Winchell, Clark S.

PY - 2011/3

Y1 - 2011/3

N2 - Premise of the study: Despite numerous recommendations for various aspects of the design and monitoring of habitat conservation plans, there remains a need to synthesize existing guidelines into a comprehensive scheme and apply it to real-world conservation programs. Methods: We review tools for systematic conservation planning and elements for designing and implementing ecological monitoring in an adaptive management context. We apply principles of monitoring design to the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in California, USA - one of the first multispecies habitat conservation plans, located in a landscape where high biodiversity and urban development converge. Key results: Tools for spatial conservation planning are aimed to conserve biodiversity, often in the context of a limited budget. In practice, these methods may not accommodate legislative mandates, budgetary uncertainties, and the range of implementation mechanisms available across consortia of stakeholders. Once a reserve is implemented, the question becomes whether it is effective at conserving biodiversity, and if not, what actions are required to make it effective. In monitoring plan development, status and threats should be used to prioritize species and communities that require management action to ensure their persistence. Conceptual models documenting the state of knowledge of the system should highlight the main drivers affecting status and trends of species or communities. Monitoring strategies require scientifically justified decisions based on sampling, response, and data design. Conclusions: Because the framework illustrated here tackles multiple species, communities, and threats at the urban-wildland interface, it will have utility for ecosystem managers struggling to design monitoring programs.

AB - Premise of the study: Despite numerous recommendations for various aspects of the design and monitoring of habitat conservation plans, there remains a need to synthesize existing guidelines into a comprehensive scheme and apply it to real-world conservation programs. Methods: We review tools for systematic conservation planning and elements for designing and implementing ecological monitoring in an adaptive management context. We apply principles of monitoring design to the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in California, USA - one of the first multispecies habitat conservation plans, located in a landscape where high biodiversity and urban development converge. Key results: Tools for spatial conservation planning are aimed to conserve biodiversity, often in the context of a limited budget. In practice, these methods may not accommodate legislative mandates, budgetary uncertainties, and the range of implementation mechanisms available across consortia of stakeholders. Once a reserve is implemented, the question becomes whether it is effective at conserving biodiversity, and if not, what actions are required to make it effective. In monitoring plan development, status and threats should be used to prioritize species and communities that require management action to ensure their persistence. Conceptual models documenting the state of knowledge of the system should highlight the main drivers affecting status and trends of species or communities. Monitoring strategies require scientifically justified decisions based on sampling, response, and data design. Conclusions: Because the framework illustrated here tackles multiple species, communities, and threats at the urban-wildland interface, it will have utility for ecosystem managers struggling to design monitoring programs.

KW - Biodiversity

KW - Conservation reserves

KW - Ecological monitoring

KW - Habitat conservation plan

KW - Landscape

KW - Multiple species

KW - Prioritization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952753515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952753515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3732/ajb.1000292

DO - 10.3732/ajb.1000292

M3 - Article

VL - 98

SP - 559

EP - 571

JO - American Journal of Botany

JF - American Journal of Botany

SN - 0002-9122

IS - 3

ER -