Minnesota Gap Analysis Project. Gary Drotts Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area Wildlife Supervisor, Brainerd

Transcription

1 Minnesota Gap Analysis Project Gary Drotts Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Area Wildlife Supervisor, Brainerd

2 Presentation Overview Land Cover Classification and Mapping Predicted Species Distributions and Species Richness Analysis Based on Land Stewardship and Management Status Conclusions and Management Implications Data Use and Availability

3 INTRODUCTION A nationwide program of the USGS Biological Resources Division. It s mission is to: 1) Provide regional/statewide assessments of the conservation status of native vertebrate species and natural land cover types; and 2) Facilitate the application of this information to land management activities. GAP cooperates with states to map statewide land stewardship, land cover, and predicted species distributions. It is a proactive, coarse filter approach to biodiversity protection and preventing additional species from becoming listed as threatened or endangered.

4 Acknowledgements MNDNR Division of Forestry, Forest Resource Assessment Unit (Dave Heinzen et al.). MNDNR Division of Fish and Wildlife, GIS Program (Steve Benson, Bruce Anderson, Sherry Buckley). MN-GAP Wildlife project staff (Jodie Provost and Nancy Dietz). Great Plains Regional Gap Project (Tom Skelebar). National GAP Office staff. MNDNR Division of Ecological Resources, County Biological Survey staff (Steve Stucker, Gerda Nordquist, and Carol Hall). Technical Team members. Special thanks to MNDNR ECS staff (Dan Hanson, John Almendinger and Brian Hargrave).

5 Wildlife Funding Sources $128,000: Federal GAP funding. $57,000: MNDNR, Division of Ecological Resources, Wildlife Grants Program. $8,750: Gift donation from UPM/Blandin Paper Co. $LOTS!: In-kind support from MNDNR, Division of Fish & Wildlife, Section of Wildlife.

6 LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING Create land cover data/maps that: 1) Determine species and natural community representations. 2) Provide spatial data for modeling wildlife habitat distributions. 3) Provide a single temporal data set for monitoring trends.

7 Methods Produced by the MNDNR, Division of Forestry, Forest Resource Assessment Unit. Landstat Thematic Mapper scene dates from , processed in Estimated positional accuracy of 1 Landstat picture element (30 meters). Four-level hierarchical classification system used. Patterned primarily after the MNDNR s Common Forest Inventory classification system.

8

9 Land Cover Classification System Level 1: 4 types, e.g. Deciduous Forest Level 2: 10 types, e.g Upland Deciduous Forest Level 3: 29 types, e.g. Oak Level 4: 49 types, e.g. Red Oak

10 Level 4 Land Cover

11 LAND STEWARDSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Create a statewide GIS coverage that attributes ownership to a minimum mapping unit of 16.2 hectares (40 acres). 1) Categorize to a land steward (i.e. federal, state, county, tribal, private). 2) Categorize to a management protection status.

12 Land Stewardship 9 owner classes Federal = 7.1% State = 13.9% County = 5.7% Tribal = 1.7% Private = 71.2% 43 agency classes I.e. State Forest, State Park, State Wildlife Management Area.

13 Land Management Status 1 = 2.6% Permanent protection, mandated management for a natural state (I.e. BWWCA, Voyagers NP, State SNAs). 2 = 5.1% Permanent protection, mandated management for primarily a natural state (National Wildlife Refuges & WPAs, National Forests). 3 = 20.8% Permanent protection for a natural state for a majority of the area (State Forest and WMAs, County lands). 4 = 71.4% Lack or irrevocable easement or mandate to prevent conversion of natural habitats (Private lands)

14 Management Status Accuracy Assessment

15 PREDICTED SPECIES DISTRIBUTIONS AND SPECIES RICHNESS Process: Establish a list of species to be mapped. Identify locational records for each species Delineate the range extent for each species. Acquire or develop a database of wildlife habitat associations. Develop a wildlife habitat relationship model (WHRM) for each species, based on available GIS coverages. Integrate the range limits and WHRM into a draft predicted species distribution map. Conduct final mapping. Perform an accuracy assessment. Edge match to adjacent states.

16 Establish a list of species to be mapped 354 of Minnesota s 551 vertebrate wildlife species met MN-GAP criteria. Known to breed in Minnesota (5 of past 10 years) and be a regularly occurring non-accidental. Listed as state endangered, threatened or special concern or as federally endangered or threatened. Listed as a furbearer, big game, small game or migratory game bird under Minnesota state statute. An exotic species that impacts native species or is of management interest.

17

18 Range extent inputs Delineate Range Extent Range extent attributes for ECS Subsections: PR - permanent resident B - regular migrant/breeder Non-breeder: M - migrant, SV - summer visitor, WV - winter visitor

19 Wildlife Habitat Database Database type and structure adopted from the Great Plains Regional Gap Analysis Project (Microsoft Access). Taxonomic and nomenclature standards from NatureServe Explorer. Existing data rolled in from: Great Plains Re-GAP, Michigan Wildlife Habitat (MIWildHab), Northwoods (wildlife habitat information from 7 National Forests, NRRI species bird accounts. Extensive Minnesota-based literature review (BiblioLines Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide). Database includes 3,000+ land cover (habitat) citations from several hundred literature/information sources.

20 Wildlife Habitat Relationship Models Range extent (26 Subsections) Land cover types (primarily level 4, 49 types) Additional inputs: 5 patch sizes (<16, 16-<40, 40-<100, 100-<259, =>259 hectares) 69 of 354 species, e.g. forest birds. 7 buffer distances (90, 250 and 500 m.; 1, 2, 5 and 10 km) 148 of 354 species, e.g forest birds. 5 wetland types (NWI wetland types 1-5) 69 of 354 species, e.g. water birds, amphibians. 5 river, stream, ditch types (river, perennial stream, intermittent stream, ditch, trout stream) 43 of 354 species, e.g. water birds, amphibians. 2 soil types (sandy, rock outcrop) 10 of 354 species, e.g. reptiles, mammals.

21 Non-GAP related WHRM Forest size class: information collected Regeneration, Sapling, Pole, Saw timber, Uneven. Structural/site level habitat features: Banks, man-made structures, dead/down, woody debris, rock, mast, snags, living cavity trees, vernal pools, edges, riparian, stand/gap openings, perches, rock bluffs.

22 Technical Team Meetings Technical Teams: Amphibians and Reptiles, Forest Birds, Open Landscape Birds, Water Birds, and Mammals. Can t THANK Technical Team members enough! Technical Teams reviewed and commented on draft range extent and wildlife habitat relationship models complied by MN-GAP wildlife staff. ArcView project utilized to review range extent, land cover types, air photos, wetland types, etc.

23 MNDNR Wildlife GIS Program in Grand Rapids utilizing ArcGIS 9.x Model Builder. Selected land cover types utilized by a species were clipped by range extent first then additional inputs (I.e. patch, buffer, etc.) added. Results were a 30 meter grid where 1 = presence, 0 = absence. WHRM Processing

24 Range Extent Blue-spotted Salamander

25 Predicted Habitat Blue-spotted Salamander

26 Range Extent Northern Flying Squirrel

27 Predicted Habitat Northern Flying Squirrel

28 Accuracy Assessment (upcoming) Goal of 80% or higher. 21 sites to be checked. 10 State Parks, 2 National Forests, 1 National Park, 7 National Wildlife Refuges, and Camp Ripley. Match = Species predicted to occur by MN-GAP, on site list. Omission error = Species not predicted to occur by MN- GAP, but on site list. Commission error = Species predicted to occur by MN-GAP, but not on site list.

29 Predicted Total Vertebrate Richness (n=354)

30 Predicted Amphibian Species Richness (n=21)

31 Predicted Reptile Species Richness (n=28)

32 Predicted Bird Species Richness (n=230)

33 Predicted Mammal Species Richness (n=75)

34 Analysis by Land Steward Group Federal State County Tribal Private Amphibians Reptiles Birds Forest Birds Open Birds Water Mammals Land steward % of Minnesota

35 CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT Data and Analysis needs: IMPLICATIONS Land stewardship: Need to continually edit, update and standardize. Land cover: Land cover image and related processing data should be run on at least a ten-year cycle. Range extent and habitat relationships: 1) process to continually review, edit and update information through expert input should be undertaken, 2) web-based, user friendly information system should be undertaken (e.g. Michigan wildlife system). Provide conservation assessments of biotic elements and to facilitate the application of this information to land management activities

36 PRODUCT USE AND AVAILABILTY Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses: SCALE!, ecoregional level (ECS Subsection), 1:100,000. Metadata: Utilized Federal Geographic Data Committee and NBII standards. Availability: CDs and.pdfs will be available from the two sources listed below. Data analysis beyond these two formats will need ArcView 3.x, ArcGIS 9.x or Microsoft Access. MN-GAP project data will be archived at the MNDNR Wildlife GIS Program. Anticipate serving data through MNDNR GIS Data Deli at: MN-GAP project data will also available on the National GAP home page at:

37 Disclaimers USGS Biological Resources Division: Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at the BRD, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended that these data are directly acquired from a BRD server [see above for approved data providers] and not indirectly through other sources which may have changed the data in some way. It is also strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the content of the metadata file associated with these data. The Biological Resources Division shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources makes no representation or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the reuse of data provided herewith, regardless of its format or the means of its transmission. There is no guarantee or representation to the user as to the accuracy, currency, suitability, or reliability of this data for any purpose. The user accepts the data 'as is', and assumes all risks associated with its use. By accepting this data, the user agrees not to transmit this data or provide access to it or any part of it to another party unless the user shall include with the data a copy of this disclaimer. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources assumes no responsibility for actual or consequential damage incurred as a result of any user's reliance on this data.