The Northeast Habitat Classification Project

1
The Northeast Habitat Classification Project

• A Foundation for Implementation of Wildlife
  Action Plans

2
Eight Required Elements

• Distribution/abundance of wildlife species of
  greatest conservation need (SGCN)
• Locations relative condition of habitats and
  communities essential to SGCN
• Description of problems adversely affecting SGCN
  and habitats
• Description of conservation actions for SGCN and
  habitats
• Plans for monitoring
• Procedures to review and update strategy
• Coordination fed, state, local, tribes
• Broad public participation

3
NEAFWA Wildlife Action Plan Meeting March 2006

Purpose identify specific actions that, based on
the collective priorities identified in the
states Action Plans, would further fish and
wildlife conservation in the (northeast) region
Of 72 proposed regional conservation action items
the highest priority was given to
standardized, consistent, and current habitat maps
4
Why Habitat Mapping?

• Create a consistent wildlife base map for
  entire region
• Assist states with habitat mapping and
  assessments requirement of Wildlife Action
  Plans
• Provide basis for identifying regional
  conservation priorities
• Baseline to identify changes and trends

5
Northeastern Wildlife Action Plan Regional
Implementation
6
Northeast Wildlife Habitat Classification and
Mapping Project

• adopted by VA Dept of Game Inland Fisheries
  on behalf of NEAFWA submitted proposal
• Funded by Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF)
  National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
• 18 month project starting Jan 2007

7
Objectives Build upon State Action Plans

• Foster regional conservation by adopting standard
  habitat classification systems
• Advance partnerships to promote detailed habitat
  mapping (GAP, NFHI, Landfire)
• Provide/Promote seamless GIS datasets
• Terrestrial habitat
• Aquatic habitat
• Protected areas

8
Products

• Terrestrial habitat classification system
• Plans and partnerships to create a detailed
  terrestrial habitat GIS dataset
• Aquatic habitat classification system
• GIS dataset to be the basis for aquatic habitat
• Standardized map (GIS dataset) of currently
  protected/conserved areas
• Documentation of each states habitat mapping
  capabilities and resources
• Standing NE regional habitat mapping coordinating
  committee

9
The People

• Steering Committee
• Habitat Mapping Partners
• Contractors NatureServe and The Nature
  Conservancy

10
Steering Committee

• Dave Morton Becky Gwynn VA-DGIF
• Tracey Tomajer NYDEC
• John OLeary - Mass Wildlife
• Dan Brauning/Lisa Williams PA Game Commission
• Dave Day PA Fish Boat Commission
• Lynn Davidson MD Dept. Natural Resources
• Robert Coxe DE Fish Wildlife
• Andrew Milliken USFWS
• Steve Fuller NH Fish Game

11
Habitat Mapping Partners

• All 14 member jurisdictions wildlife agencies
• Federal agencies USGS, NOAA, USFWS, Forest
  Service
• Other groups Defenders of Wildlife, PARC, TNC,
  state Natural Heritage Programs
• Responsibilities
• provide input and feedback
• cross-walk own systems to new standards
• adopt/use/promote new standards

12
Contractors

• NatureServe
• Sue Gawler
• Terrestrial Habitats
• Coordination of products

• The Nature Conservancy
• Mark Anderson
• Arlene Olivero
• Aquatic Habitats
• Protected Lands Database

13
Accomplishments

• Mapping Program Workshop Jul 2006
• Commitment from USGS GAP to start a Northeast
  regional project
• Survey of states habitat mapping resources
• Draft terrestrial and aquatic frameworks
• Conducted NE Habitat Classification Workshop -
  9/5/07

14
Classification Workshop

• 20 attendees including presenters
• 9 out of 14 jurisdictions represented
• Consensus on habitat classification approaches
  and protected lands compilation
• Terrestrial Classification Draft
• Aquatic Classification Approach
• Secured Lands Dataset
• Planned for future input and revision

15
Draft Terrestrial Classification

• Based on Ecological Systems with added classes
  for altered habitats and land-use types
• Hierarchical with upper levels of Formation and
  Group
• Compatible with GAP and Landfire approaches in
  northeast.

16
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES A WORKING
CLASSIFICATION OF U.S. TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS
Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S.
Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne,
M. Reid, K. Schulz, K.Snow, and J. Teague.
2003
17
Ecological Systems

• groups of biological communities (associations)
  that co-occur on the landscape
• share similar physical environments
• influenced by similar dynamic ecological
  processes

• practical, mid-scale ecological units that inform
  resource management decisions
• readily mappable and readily identifiable
• intermediate geographic scales (101 - 103 ha)
• temporally persistent (gt50 yrs)

18
Draft Terrestrial Classification

• Based on Ecological Systems with added classes
  for altered habitats and land-use types
• Hierarchical with upper levels of Formation and
  Group
• Compatible with GAP and Landfire approaches in
  northeast.

19
Draft Terrestrial Classification

• Based on Ecological Systems with added classes
  for altered habitats and land-use types
• Hierarchical with upper levels of Formation and
  Group
• Compatible with GAP and Landfire approaches in
  northeast.

20

• LANDFIRE
• (Mid-Atlantic pilot 2005, now in process for all
  of Northeast)
• Mapping ecological systems
• Developing field keys to systems
• Developing automated classification tools
• Focuses on upland habitats

21
Key Comments from Discussion

• Design is to supplement, not replace, state
  efforts consider as a foundational layer.
• State maps can be far more detailed than regional
  maps but the classification will provide a common
  currency.
• Add small-patch systems to classification
• Most states have highly important small-patch
  habitats
• Will often not be mappable at regional scale
• Will aid translation of important patchy habitats
  across states
• Grasslands and early successional habitats are
  inherently messy and need careful definition

22
Aquatic Ecosystem Classification
Framework (Higgins et al. 2005)
Freshwater Ecoregion
Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU)
Biogeographic Scale
Aquatic Ecological System
Macrohabitats
This approach has grown out of the large body of
work linking landscape features to freshwater
habitat (Maxwell etl al. 1005, Seelbach et al,
1997, USGS 1998, Higgins et al. 2005, and Sowa et
al. 2005)
23

• Create a stream reach habitat dataset (a mapped
  classification)

24
Secured Lands Dataset

• Completed and maintained by TNC, updated yearly
  via contacts in each state
• Definition lands that are permanently secured
  against conversion to development
• Public, private, NGOs fee or easement
• 15 fields including name, ownership variables,
  Gap status, year conserved, etc.

25
Areas Secured against Conversion to Development
gt150,000 tracts Ownership Gap status Size Fee Ease
ment/Interest
26
Partnerships the key to success

• Participation and support of all
  states/territories and partners
• Communication among all 14 states/territories and
  with federal partners

27
http//www.rcngrants.org/habitat_classification.sh
tml
28
For more information contactDave MortonGIS
Coordinator Virginia Dept of Game Inland
Fisheries804-367-6772dave.morton_at_dgif.virginia.g
ovSue Gawler, Ph.D.Vegetation
EcologistNatureServe207-495-3513sue_gawler_at_natu
reserve.org