Designation of Conservation Planning Units
Emily Jo Williams
David N. Pashley
Abstract—Developing a comprehensive set of Bird Conservation
Plans for North America requires the designation of conservation
planning units. Many systems are available, including designations
by political boundaries, watersheds, and vegetation types. Partners
in Flight has chosen to use physiographic areas as its conservation
planning units. These areas are based on the Breeding Bird Survey
system, which was the first planning effort to reflect actual bird
distributions. Partners in Flight has designated 58 physiographic
areas for the contiguous United States (map included). physiographic areas are effective and sensible conservation planning
units because vegetative communities, bird populations, and species assemblages, as well as land use and conservation issues, tend
to be more uniform within than across these areas. Issues involving
the needs of birds and their habitats, and the objectives required to
meet those needs, are therefore evaluated within physiographic
areas. However, because actions required to achieve the objectives
are implemented within states, the Partners in Flight conservation
process also relies on political boundaries. Programs and activities
that focus specifically on conservation of land birds are still relatively new to most organizations and agencies. A logical organization of effort, relying where possible on existing alliances and
relationships, is needed to establish such programs as permanent
conservation elements. Examples from the Southeastern United
States illustrate that the combination of physiographic area planning with state implementation promises to provide such acceptable
organization.
The task of developing a comprehensive set of Bird Conservation Plans for North America is enormous in complexity and importance. A basic issue is the designation of
conservation planning units. The lack of one clearly superior
system for defining planning units is reflected in the multitude of conflicting systems now in use, including designations by political boundaries, watersheds, and vegetation
types. All systems have advantages; none is clearly better
than the others. In this paper, we examine a model that
takes into account both ecological and political boundaries,
drawing examples from the Southeast in general and the
state of Georgia more specifically.
In: Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry,
eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight planning 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.
Emily Jo Williams, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife
Resources Division, 116 Rum Creek Drive, Forsyth, GA 31029. David N.
Pashley, American Bird Conservancy, P.O. Box 249, The Plains, VA 20198.
44
Types of Planning Units __________
States and provinces often are used as planning units. In
some cases, planning within such political boundaries is the
simplest and most expedient method available. However,
bird habitats normally cut across political boundaries. Also,
the federal agencies that deal with land management, including the USDA Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and the Environmental Protection Agency,
as well as the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies all have differing schemes for grouping states into
larger planning units, which can cause confusion.
Recognizing the limitations of wildlife management by
political boundary, some agencies have recently begun
ecoregional planning. Watersheds, for example, are planning units for both the USFWS and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Unfortunately, watershed boundaries are useful
for managing aquatic resources but have only marginal
applicability to birds, which frequently cross watershed
boundaries within their breeding and wintering ranges.
To deal with this problem, several other ecoregional planning systems divide the continent on the basis of potential
vegetation types. All of these systems share many similarities, and all are relevant to, but not precisely descriptive of,
the distribution of birds.
The first system to reflect actual bird distributions was
developed by planners for the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS).
These biologists considered the strengths and limitations of
existing systems, then developed a new set of monitoring
units called “physiographic strata,” which blend together
several of the previously designated vegetation types (D.
Bystrak, personal communication). BBS data have been
analyzed and reported on the basis of physiographic strata
for the past three decades.
To begin defining bird conservation planning units, Partners in Flight (PIF) chose the BBS physiographic strata as
a starting point, because data on bird abundance and population trends already were available on that basis. However,
some physiographic strata, even though biologically relevant, do not lend themselves to practical conservation
work. For example, the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic
strata stretches from New Jersey all the way around the
coast to Texas. So PIF planners broke that strata into four
units that reflect avian issues but also facilitate internal
communication, travel to meetings, and shared conservation issues.
In other cases, small physiographic strata were combined,
or borders of strata that barely cross into a state were
truncated and merged with the state boundaries, so that
planners would have fewer planning units (and thus meetings) with which to contend. All of these delineations and
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
modifications eventually resulted in a map of the United
States that is based upon, but significantly different from,
the original BBS physiographic strata map. To stress the
difference and reduce confusion between the two, the PIF
conservation planning units were named physiographic
areas (fig. 1: Note that physiographic area boundaries are
agreed upon only for the contiguous 48 states).
Utility of Physiographic Areas _____
As an example of how physiographic areas are used,
consider the Southeastern Region of PIF. This region encompasses 16 states and all or part of 24 physiographic areas.
Some areas are entirely contained within a single state, such
as the Edwards Plateau in Texas, whereas other areas cover
parts of several states, such as the Mississippi Alluvial
Valley. For planning purposes, the evolving Southeastern
model takes advantage of both state borders and physiographic area boundaries: The distribution, priority, and
needs of birds and habitats—and the objectives required to
meet those needs—are evaluated within the physiographic
areas, whereas actions required to achieve the objectives are
implemented within states.
The physiographic area is a sensible conservation planning unit because vegetative communities, bird populations,
and species assemblages, as well as land use and conservation issues, tend to be more uniform within than across
physiographic areas. As an example, Georgia is a large and
diverse state in which the avifaunal and biological issues in
an area such as the mountainous Blue Ridge are distinct
from, independent of, and difficult to compare with, the
avifaunal and biological issues in the South Atlantic Coastal
Plain. At the same time, biological issues in Georgia’s South
Atlantic Coastal Plain are similar to issues in the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain of South Carolina.
Therefore, physiographic area boundaries should be used
to consider population trends, habitat preferences, and species suites; evaluation of the impacts of management and
land-use practices; and the setting of habitat and population
objectives. If continental or range-wide objectives exist for a
species or a habitat type, then physiographic area objectives
should be set within the context of that larger scale. In the
absence of larger-scale objectives, the sum of physiographic
area conservation objectives for each high-priority bird species should eventually be considered for consistency and
sufficiency.
In some cases, a species’ potential densities and population sizes are too low within a single physiographic area to
provide long-term security for the species. In such cases,
conservation objectives must initially be set at the regional
level. An example in the Southeast and Georgia is the
Swallow-tailed Kite (Elanoides forficatus). The proposed
Southeastern goal for this species is the maintenance of at
least 80 pairs of kites in each of 13 floodplain forests. Each
of these forests should provide about 100,000 acres of habitat
suitable for nesting and foraging. Neither Georgia nor the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area alone can
satisfy this goal, but a river system, such as the Altamaha
and Savannah, can contribute to the regional objective.
Often physiographic area boundaries are similar to the
boundaries of other ecologically defined conservation
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
planning units. For example, the PIF Mississippi Alluvial
Valley physiographic area roughly coincides with the boundaries of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture. The South Atlantic
Migratory Bird Initiative is a combined effort within the PIF
South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area and the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. In these and other cases, the
United States Shorebird Conservation Plan has developed
shorebird objectives within the same geographic boundaries. These schemes provide valuable opportunities for
broader partnerships.
Planning Relationship Between
Physiographic Areas and States ___
Once objectives are set forth in physiographic area conservation plans, the best means of carrying out the objectives is
probably on the basis of state or provincial boundaries. The
actions of state wildlife agencies will be critical for achievement of many of these conservation objectives: These state
agencies tend to have good relationships with many private
landowners and corporations whose active and willing participation in PIF is imperative. Also, most federal agencies
and private conservation groups are organized on a state
basis. In addition, many of the corporations and nongovernmental organizations that own significant amounts of land,
or have resources to support conservation action, are organized at least partially by states.
At present, each state working group in the Southeast
Region is focusing on implementation of the biological objectives defined in the conservation plans for those physiographic areas that extend into the state. These objectives
must be combined, balanced, and prioritized within each
state. All of the responsibilities for accomplishing conservation actions should be adopted by one or a combination of the
partners in the state working group.
Examples for which physiographic area objectives are
translated into state-level organization abound in Georgia.
Portions of five physiographic areas, the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain, Southern Piedmont, Southern Blue Ridge,
Southern Ridge and Valley, and Cumberland Plateau, extend into this state. Long-term monitoring is a priority
conservation action that is being successfully implemented
by Georgia’s state PIF working group. The Georgia Wildlife
Resources Division (WRD) took the lead in establishing a
statewide monitoring system, building upon the extensive
U.S. Forest Service system of point counts on the
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest. Many Georgia WRD
biologists and technicians have been trained in bird identification and point-count methodology, along with staff from
numerous other organizations including industrial timber
corporations, St. Catherines Island Foundation, Little St.
Simons Island, USGS Biological Resources Division, Department of Defense (Fort Stewart), and the USFWS. The
combined efforts of these many partners have resulted in a
statewide monitoring system that covers most of the priority
habitats in each of Georgia’s physiographic areas. Monitoring in Georgia has become contagious, and continuing expansions and addition of new partners will ensure that birds
in all habitat types in the state will be adequately monitored.
45
Figure 1—Map of Partners in Flight physiographic areas.
Key for PIF Physiographic Area Codes
01 Subtropical Florida
02 Peninsular Florida
03 South Atlantic Coastal Plain
04 East Gulf Coastal Plain
05 Mississippi Alluvial Valley
06 Coastal Prairies
07 South Texas Brushlands
08 Oaks and Prairies
09 Southern New England
10 Mid Atlantic Piedmont
11 Southern Piedmont
12 Mid Atlantic Ridge and Valley
13 Southern Ridge and Valley
14 Interior Low Plateaus
15 Lower Great Lakes Plain
16 Upper Great Lakes Plain
17 Northern Ridge and Valley
18 St. Lawrence Plain
19 Ozark-Ouachita Plateau
20 Boreal Hardwood Transition
21 Northern Cumberland Plateau
46
22 Ohio Hills
23 Southern Blue Ridge
24 Allegheny Plateau
25 Open Boreal Forest
26 Adirondack Mountains
27 Northern New England
28 Spruce-Hardwood Forest
29 Closed Boreal Forest
30 Aspen Parklands
31 Prairie Peninsula
32 Dissected Till Plains
33 Osage Plains
34 Central Mixed Grass Prairie
36 Central Shortgrass Prairie
37 Northern Mixed Grass Prairie
38 West River
39 Northern Shortgrass Prairie
40 Northern Tallgrass Prairie
42 West Gulf Coastal Plain
44 Mid Atlantic Coastal Plain
53 Edwards Plateau
54 Rolling Red Plains
55 Pecos and Staked Plains
56 Chihuahuan Desert
62 Southern Rocky Mountains
63 Fraser Plateau
64 Central Rocky Mountains
66 Sierra Nevada
68 Northern Rocky Mountains
69 Utah Mountains
80 Basin and Range
81 Mexican Highlands
82 Sonoran Desert
83 Mohave Desert
84 Mogollon Rim
85 Mesa and Plains
86 Wyoming Basin
87 Colorado Plateau
89 Columbia Plateau
90 Central and Southern California
Coast and Valleys
93 Southern Pacific Rainforests
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
It also is advantageous to develop education and outreach
materials at a state level. Specific accomplishments in
Georgia include a Neotropical migratory bird poster, a
teachers’ workshop on Neotropical migrants, and a landowners’ guide to landbird management. Not only is a delivery mechanism for these types of projects lacking on a
physiographic area basis, but the materials resonate best to
the intended audience within a state context.
States that share a physiographic area must communicate in order to assure that their combined efforts meet the
needs outlined in the physiographic area plan. Although
adding some additional costs such as interstate travel to
meetings, multistate efforts foster beneficial communication. The savings in time, effort, and direct expenses realized
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
by this sharing of information and workload more than
make up for any additional expenses. In addition, the contribution of each state’s efforts toward broader scale objectives
and achievements serves as both impetus and justification
for involvement.
Programs and activities that focus specifically on conservation of land birds and Neotropical migrants are still
relatively new to most organizations and agencies. A logical
organization of effort, relying on existing alliances and
relationships where possible, is needed to establish such
programs as permanent conservation elements. In the Southeast, the combination of physiographic area planning and
state implementation promises to provide such acceptable
organization.
47