Prioritizing Restoration Activities

Different combinations of habitat abundance and habitat risk have different implications for conservation and restoration. Those characterizations can inform and guide restoration priorities. For example, watersheds with habitats of relatively higher abundance and lower risk may represent habitat strongholds, (i.e., optimal habitat amount, quality, and spatial arrangement) for a group of species. Management objectives for these watersheds would likely be tailored to maintain current conditions through prudent management of human activities and potential threats that can alter the amount, quality, and spatial pattern of desired native habitats. In general, targeting management of native shrublands at moderate risk may be the most prudent approach, given (1) the relative security of low-risk habitats and (2) the vast resources required to prevent high-risk areas from passing beyond ecological thresholds, after which restoration of native habitats may be difficult or impossible to achieve (Wisdom and others 2005b). Areas at high risk from these stressors may have already passed such thresholds.

By contrast, watersheds with limited habitat area and higher risk may be suboptimal relative to the requirements of a species group. Watersheds in this condition would likely have smaller patch sizes, lower habitat quality, or poor habitat connectivity in relation to the group’s needs. Management objectives for such watersheds would likely focus on retention of existing habitats, combined with substantial emphasis on restoration activities to mitigate past habitat losses and degradation. Identification of broad-scale patterns of habitat risk for species of concern helps determine whether restoration activities need to be initiated (Wisdom and others 2005b).