Assessing wildlife habitatAssessing wildlife habitat ... Bernthal.pdf · Assessing wildlife habitatAssessing wildlife habitat preservation and restoration opportiti tl l ltunities

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