Prioritizing Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Work for the Eastern Brook Trout J

1
Prioritizing Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration
and Enhancement Work for the Eastern Brook Trout
Joint Venture  Mark Hudy Teresa M. Thieling
P  U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Aquatic
Ecology Unit, James Madison University, MSC 7801
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807and Eric P.
SmithDepartment of Statistics , Virginia
Tech  
2
The Big Picture Through the eyes of a brook
trout!
3
Assessment goals

• Assess the loss of reproducing brook trout
  habitat as it relates to historic
  (pre-settlement) levels.
• Develop a model that uses landscape metrics and
  known brook trout status to predict areas where
  brook trout data is missing
• 3. Develop a prioritized list for protection,
  enhancement and restoration work.

4
Detailed Science 

• Hudy et al. 2008. Distribution,Status and Land
  Use Characteristics of Subwatersheds Within the
  Native Range of Brook Trout in the Eastern United
  States. North American Journal of Fisheries
  Management (in press, June issue).
• Zhang et al. 2008. Model-Based Clustering in a
  Brook Trout Classification Study within the
  Eastern United States. Transactions of the
  American Fisheries Society (May 2008)
• Thieling T.M. 2006. Assessment and Predictive
  Model for Brook Trout Population Status in the
  eastern U.S. Masters Thesis , James Madison
  University.

5
What scale?Least Common denominator approach
(LCD)(apples, oranges, pineapples)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Key findings
9
Land use metrics at the subwatershed level are
useful predictors of brook trout for land managers
10
Methods
11
GIS dataSubwatershed and Water Corridor Metrics

• Over 60 Metrics
• Road Density
• Dams/area
• Road/Stream Crossings
• Population Density
• NO3 and SO4 Deposition
• Soil pH
• Elevation

12
National Land Cover Data (30m)
Human Uses
Natural Cover

• Low Intensity Residential
• High Intensity Residential
• Commercial/Industrial/ Transportation
• Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
• Transitional
• Orchards/Vineyards
• Pasture/Hay
• Row Crops
• Small Grains
• Fallow
• Urban/Recreational Grasses

• Woody Wetlands
• Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
• Open Water
• Perennial Ice/Snow
• Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
• Deciduous Forest
• Evergreen Forest
• Mixed Forest
• Shrubland
• Grasslands/Herbaceous

Derived Cover

• Total Forested
• Agriculture
• Residential
• Human Use

13
Screening

• Completeness

• Range

• Redundancy

• Responsiveness

14
Subwatershed metrics
Intact
Extirpated

• Reduced

15
Results
16
What CART classification trees do

• Look at all possible combination of metrics and
  metric values to most efficiently divide the
  dataset
• Sets up a decision tree using different metric
  values as splitting criteria (20 80 couplets)
• Predicts the probability of correct
  classifications at terminal nodes

17
Core Metrics

• Forested land
• Agricultural land
• Combined N03 SO4 deposition (kg/ha)
• Road density (km/km2)
• Mixed forested land in water corridor

18
Core Metric Forest

• Subwatershed threshold
• 68 forested land
• Only 6 of Intact gt 50 subwatersheds have less
  than 68 Total Forest.
• 85 of Extirpated subwatersheds lt 68 Total Forest

68
68
19
CART MODEL TOP NODE VALues71 correct
overall(76 Extirpated)(64 Reduced)(79
Intact)

• Forest lt68
• Deposition lt 28 kg/ha
• Deposition lt 19 kg/ha
• Agriculture lt 27
• Road Density lt 1.67 km/km2
• Deposition lt 18 kg/ha

20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Key philosophy for priority settings
23
Protection, Restoration and Enhancement Successes

• More likely in healthy subwatersheds
• High forest cover
• Low agriculture use
• Low acid deposition
• Low road density
• Good riparian buffers

24
Subwatershed Priority Score (SPS) The
subwatershed priority score (SPS) was determined
for each subwatershed by adding the probability
of an individual subwatershed being Intact to the
average probability of the ten nearest neighbor
subwatersheds being Intact.
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Not all states can contribute equally to goals
and objectives of the EBTJV
29
I. Maintain the current number of Intact
watersheds

• This regional objective reflects the states
  intention to protect the best of the best in
  each state.

30
Top 250 for Protection

• Based on 1,612 Intact subwatersheds

31
II. Establish self-sustaining brook trout
populations in 10 of the known Extirpated
watersheds (n 116)

• By 2012 re-establish 44 self-sustaining brook
  trout populations

32
Top 250 Restoration Watersheds

• Based on 1,451 extirpated subwatersheds

33
III. Change the classification of 30 of the
watersheds. We will strengthen the populations
from reduced to intact

• By 2012, change 45 Reduced watersheds to Intact

34
Top 250 Enhancement

• Based on 1,938 reduced subwatersheds

35
IV. Maintain and improve 70 of watersheds

• 2012 Strengthen Intact watersheds
• 2012 Strengthen Reduced watersheds
• 2012 Maintain Reduced watersheds

36
Top 750 All Categories

• Based on 5,001 subwatersheds

37
V. Determine status of unknown watersheds to
validate the model used to predict unknown
watersheds

• 2012 assess 50 of the predicted watersheds to
  validate the model

38
(No Transcript)
39
Key findings
40
Where did we go wrong !
1. Extirpated subwatersheds predicted to be
reduced or intact. Exotic species?
41
Exotics, Exotics, Exotics !

• Biggest non land use threat
• Rainbow trout in south east
• Brown trout in New York, New England
• Smallmouth bass in lakes
• Metric ??

42
Screening SPS scores prior to funding (pass the
laugh test, use local expertise)

• Complete surveys if predicted status
• Use professional judgment on exotics
• Resiliency to climate change?

43
(No Transcript)