assessing wildlife habitatassessing wildlife habitat ... bernthal.pdfassessing wildlife...
Post on 03-May-2018
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Assessing wildlife habitatAssessing wildlife habitat preservation and restoration
t iti t l l lopportunities at a local scale: A planning tool
Gary S. Casper1, Tom Bernthal2, Joanne Kline2, Marsha Burzynski2,
and Kate Barrett2
National Water Quality Monitoring Conference, Denver, CO, 28 April 2010
1 - University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Field Station2 - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Milwaukee River BasinMilwaukee River Basin Wetlands Assessment Project
• Improve wetland restoration decision making with spatial assessment toolsg p
• Improve water quality and flood control• Provide a means to assess and maximize• Provide a means to assess and maximize
wildlife value for wetland and upland habitat restorationshabitat restorations
Funding: Wisconsin DNR and U S EPAFunding: Wisconsin DNR and U.S. EPA
Why Address Wildlife Habitat?y• The largest populations and highest di it f ti i t d tdiversity of native species tend to occur in the most productive portions of the landscape where humans also reachlandscape, where humans also reach their highest densities.
• Scott et al. 2001; Miller & Hobbs 2002; Huston 2005• Consequently, urbanization is the leading cause of species imperilment in the United Statesthe United States.
• Wilcove et al. 1998; Czech et al. 2000; Brown & LaBand 2006; Lerner et al. 2007
Global Extinction Crisis“Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live ”ecosystems where they live,
Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN Director General, 2008
Wilson’s Law: If you save the living environment, you willWilson s Law: If you save the living environment, you will automatically save the physical environment. But if you only try to save the physical environment, you will lose them both.
E.O. Wilson, New Scientist, August 2009)g )
Wisconsin Wildlife StatusNumber of Species
source: WDNR, Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need, 2009
250
300
200
250 84
100
150
200
30
N Species at Risk
N Secure Species
0
5055
32
1171424
0birds mammals herps fish
The Milwaukee Model
100%100%
Ecological Change in Milwaukee Countysource: The Vanishing Present, Univ. Chicagp Press, 2008
80%
90%
100% 100%100%
63%63%
50%
60%
70%
56%53%
63%
53%54%
Breeding Birds
Flora20%
30%
40%
22%
35%
Amphibians
Reptiles
Breeding Birds
0%
10%
Original % Species Present %
S i Future %Species Future % Species
It’s always easier toIt s always easier to identify problems than to construct
solutionssolutions- Stephen J. Gould
Solutions
• Decisions regarding development are t i ll d t l ti l l l l ftypically made at relatively low levels of government, such as the county or municipality (Duerksen et al 1997;municipality (Duerksen et al. 1997; Lawrence 2005).• Consequently, efforts to stem habitat q y,loss and declines have increasingly turned to land-use planning at local scales (Steelman 2002).
• private land owners• local zoning committees• local zoning committees
DisconnectDisconnect(Miller et al. 2008. Conservation Biology 23:53-63)
• Biodiversity conservation is seldom a major consideration in these departments. • Staff time is mainly devoted to development mandates.• Very few planning agencies employ conservation biologists.
Connect
• Most planning agencies do
Connect
• Most planning agencies do employ or contract land use planning specialists and wetlandplanning specialists, and wetland mapping staff. • This project targets these staff• This project targets these staff resources to address wildlife habitat planninghabitat planning.
LAKE SUPERIOR
WDNR Geographic Management Units (GMU)
ST. CROIX
UPPER CHIPPEWA
Management Units (GMU)
UPPER CHIPPEWAHEADWATERS
UPPER GREEN BAY
LOWER CHIPPEWA
LAKE SHOREBLACK-BUFFALO-TREMPEALEAU
CHIPPEWA
WOLFLOWER FOXCENTRAL
WISCONSIN
MISSISSIPPI-LOWER ST. CROIX
UPPER FOX
LA CROSSE BAD AXE
SHEBOYGAN
UPPER MILWAUKEE
LOWER WISCONSINUPPER ROCK
LOWER ROCK ILLINOIS
F
GRANT-PLATTE-SUGAR-PECATONICA
ROOT-PIKE
C t B d
Legend
FOXDNR GMU BoundaryCounty Boundary
SheboyganFond du Lac
Milwaukee River BasinLandcovera dco e
"Pristine" Kettle Moraine State Forest - 23 000 acres
Glaciated, rolling groundmoraine
#
#
Dodge
Ozaukee
Urbanized south:18% of Basin contains 90%
Agricultural northMajor suburban growthState Forest - 23,000 acres
#
#
#
Dodge
Milwaukee River BasinState Properties
Landcover
18% of Basin contains 90%of its population
Washington Lake Michigan LandcoverUrbanAgricultureGrasslandForest
Waukesha
Open WaterWetlandBarrenShrubland
Milwaukee
Cloud Cover
8 0 8 16 Miles
Overall Process in a NutshellSelect watershedand gather data
lDevelop Data(Drainage Ditches,
Reed Canary Grass)
ID Potentially Restorable Wetlands
W t Q lit d
Wetland WildlifeHabitat Tool
Apply Models for
Water Quality andHydrology Tools
Apply Models forDecision making
Existing Data SetsExisting Data Sets
• Topography• Topography• 24K Hydrolayer; Watersheds• Wisconsin Wetland Inventory• Reed canary grass dominated wetlands• NRCS Soils• WISCLAND Land Cover; NASSWISCLAND Land Cover; NASS • SEWRPC Land Use Mapping• Roads• Biological Inventories• Biological Inventories
Identify Potentially RestorableIdentify Potentially RestorableWetlands (PRWs)
PRWs = Hydric Soils - Existing y gWetlands
ANDANDMust be in agricultural or other
d l d l l dundeveloped rural land use
Existing and Potentially Restorable Wetlands
Milwaukee River BasinCedar CreekWatershedWatershed
Existing WetlandsExisting Wetlands
Potentially Restorable Wetlands
Surface Water
Watershed Boundary
Oth W tl d R t tiOther Wetland RestorationSuitability Factorsy
• Drained WetlandsDrained Wetlands– Drainage ditches evident
• Invasive Species Domination• Invasive Species Domination– i.e. reed canary grass
C d W tl d• Cropped Wetlands
NW Ozaukee County
Drainage Ditches withPotentially Restorable
Wetlands
Rivers / Streams
Wetlands
Lakes
Rivers / Streams
Drainage Ditches
Oza
ukee
Was
hing
ton
Wetlands
Potentially RestorableWetlands
RiverMilwaukee
Wetlands
0.6 0 0.6 1.2 Miles
Process in a NutshellSelect watershedand gather data
Develop Data(Drainage Ditches,
Reed Canary Grass)
ID Potentially Restorable Wetlands
W t Q lit d
Wetland WildlifeHabitat Tool
Apply Models for
Water Quality andHydrology Tools
Apply Models forDecision making
Are All Restorations Equal e esto at o s quaFrom a Wildlife Perspective?
What About• Habitat Area• Habitat Patch Size• Habitat Patch Size• Habitat Connectivity• Habitat Quality
Wildlife Tool: Maximizing Habitat Quality
SelectUmbrella Speciesp
Populate MatricesIdentify PRWs with the greatest
Apply Proximity& Patch Size
the greatest value for increasing
Test the modelsuitable wildlife habitat for a
Develop HabitatQuality Index (HQI)
diversity of species
Apply Models forDecision making
Umbrella Species ConceptUmbrella Species Concept• Species whose conservation
confers a protective umbrella to co-occurring species due to h d h bit t i tshared habitat requirements
(Lambeck, 1997)
• Assumption - if the resource• Assumption - if the resource requirements of an umbrella species are met, thespecies are met, the requirements of many other species also will be satisfied (Fleishman et al., 2001)
UmbrellaWetland Habitat Context
Black Tern Open Water
Species
Species Pied-billed Grebe Open Water
American Bittern Sora Shallow Marsh
Bl i d T l Watery Wetland near Blue-winged Teal yGrassland
Sedge Wren Wet Meadow Alder Flycatcher Willow Flycatcher Wet Shrub
BIRDS
yVeery Black-and-white Warbler
Wet Forest, Coniferous or Mixed
American Redstart Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Wet Forest, DeciduousBlue gray Gnatcatcher
Muskrat Deep Marsh and Shallow Marsh
Meadow Vole Wet Meadow / GrasslandMasked Shrew Wet Forests
MAMMALS
Masked Shrew Wet Forests
Chorus Frog Open Wetlands near Grassland
Wood Frog Wetlands near WoodlandsHERPS
Blanding's Turtle Wetland/Upland Complex
FISHES Northern Pike Open Wetlands connected to streams
Herp Umbrella Speciesfor the Milwaukee River Basinfor the Milwaukee River Basin
• Wood Frog
• Chorus Frog
• Blanding’s TurtleBlanding s Turtle
Wood Frog Umbrella:wetlands near woodlands
support for 11 speciesBlue-spotted Salamander, Spotted Salamander, Tiger Salamander, Central Newt, Four-toed ,Salamander, American Toad, Spring Peeper, Gray Treefrog, Wood Frog, Blanding's Turtle CommonBlanding s Turtle, Common Gartersnake
Populate MatricesSelect
Umbrella Species
Populate Matrices
Apply Proximity& Patch Size
D l H bit t
Test the model
Apply Models for
Develop HabitatQuality Index (HQI)
Apply Models forDecision making
Assign Habitat Associationsgbased on habitat requirementsExample Matrix: Herp association scored 0 3Example Matrix: Herp association scored 0-3
Land CoverType*
Wetland Habitat Context ps r ed/D
eep
Mar
sh
arsh
<5
ac
arsh
5 a
c or
eado
w
ores
t bro
ad lv
d
ores
t
ores
t mix
ed
hrub
rygr
ass
re
yp
Species
Fora
ge c
ro
Gra
ssla
nd
Fore
st
Shru
b
Ope
n W
ate
Aqu
atic
Be
Shal
low
Ma
Shal
low
Ma
larg
er
Wet
land
Me
Wet
land
Fo
deci
duou
sW
etla
nd F
oco
nife
rous
Wet
land
Fo
Wet
land
Sh
Ree
d ca
nar
mon
ocul
tu
Chorus Frog Open Wetlands near Chorus Frog Grassland 1 3 1 2 0 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2
Wood Frog Wetlands near Woodlands 0 1 3 1 0 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 0
Blanding's Turtle Wetland/Upland Complex 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 1
HERPS
Proximity & Patch Size AnalysesSelect
Umbrella Species
Populate Matrices
Apply Proximity& Patch Size
D l H bit t
Test the model
Apply Models for
Develop HabitatQuality Index (HQI)
Apply Models forDecision making
Parameters for Forest HerpParameters for Forest Herp Umbrella (wood frog) Habitat
• Wetlands >= 0.5 acres size
• Wetlands within 10 m of forests
• Forests within 10 m of theForests within 10 m of the wetlands
• Forests no farther than 300 m from wetland edges
Wildlife Matrix Habitat
Milwaukee River BasinCedar CreekW t h dWatershed
AllSuitableSuitableHabitatAssociations
All ForestsSuitable Wetlands
Surface WaterWatershed Boundary
Wildlife Matrix Habitat
Milwaukee River BasinCedar CreekW t h dWatershed
PerformProximityAnalysis
All ForestsSuitable WetlandsPotential Wood Frog Forest HabitatPotential Wood Frog Wetland Habitat
Surface WaterWatershed Boundary
y
Wildlife Matrix Habitat
Milwaukee River BasinCedar CreekWatershedRemove
AreasFailingFailingProximityCriteria------------PredictedSpecies
Potential Wood Frog Forest HabitatPotential Wood Frog Wetland Habitat
pDistribution
gSurface WaterWatershed Boundary
Wildlife Matrix Habitat
Milwaukee River BasinCedar CreekW t h dWatershed
Suitable Wood Frog Wetland Habitat
AddPRWs
Restorable Wood Frog WetlandsSuitable Wood Frog Forest Habitat
g
Surface WaterWatershed Boundary
Validating the Species ModelsValidating the Species Models
• Use independent data sets of known poccurrences• Wisconsin Herp Atlas, WDNR Frog & Toad Survey,Wisconsin Herp Atlas, WDNR Frog & Toad Survey,
personal observations
• Compare known occurrences to the• Compare known occurrences to the predicted distribution
• Test to see if known occurrences fall within predicted habitat more often than do random localities
Model Validation ResultsModel Validation Results
• Wood frog predictions were significant g p g(N=67, p=0.0000)
• Blanding’s turtle predictions were• Blanding s turtle predictions were significant (N=47, p=0.0000)
• Chorus frog predictions were not significant (N=63, p=0.1318)g ( )• Chorus frogs may be too general in their wetland use for GIS
data to capture habitat suitability, especially very small breeding sitesbreeding sites
Next StepsNext Steps
• Test more species in the pmodels
• Compare to alternative• Compare to alternative methods such as ecological niche modeling usingniche modeling using presence-only data
(Philli t l 2006 E l i l M d li 190 231(Phillips et al. 2006. Ecological Modeling 190:231–259)
Combining Association Resultsg
1 0BirdsMarsh Umbrella 1
2 2Mammals
H
Marsh Umbrella 2
3 0
HerpsMarsh Umbrella 3
Habitat Quality Index
6 2
Q y(HQI) = sum ofall scores foreach grid cell
Herp Habitat Quality Index
Milwaukee River BasinCedar CreekWatershed
CombinedHerp ate s edUmbrellasDarkerColorsLikely toSupportMoreS i
Herp HQI - Existing Wetlands12
Species
Herp HQI - Restorable Wetlands123
34
34
Surface WaterWatershed Boundary
SUMMARY• Spatial tool can have enormous value in
id tif i i ti d t ti l ildlif h bit tidentifying existing and potential wildlife habitat.• Incorporating the biological constraints for
i i l i t l i i ti l tspecies survival into planning is essential to long term success.
• Private landowners are the key to preventing• Private landowners are the key to preventing serious losses of biodiversity.
• Simplified tools for modeling are needed that• Simplified tools for modeling are needed that can be implemented by land use planning agencies.g
“When one tugs at a single thing in nature,he finds it attached to the rest of the world.”
Acknowledgements- John Muir
Acknowledgements
• Milwaukee River Basin Project– Many WDNR staff,
Wildlife Experts: Richard Bautz Noel Cutright Robert Hay– Wildlife Experts: Richard Bautz, Noel Cutright, Robert Hay, Dale Katsma, Steven Price, Missy Sparrow, Gary Casper
• Milwaukee County Ecological Change ProjectJ h Id ik ki L L it– John Idzikowski, Larry Leitner
top related