PPROACHES FOR MAPPING THE HABITAT OF …€¦ · flooding adjacent to ponds Sandy or ... needs for...
1
Spatially explicit sub-county habitat for federally listed species is required for assessing the risk that pesticides may pose to endangered species. Of the approximately 1,680 listed species in the US, nearly 788 have federally declared Critical Habitat suitable for use in national-scale regulatory assessments. In the draft Biological Evaluations for three organophosphates published in the spring of 2016, USEPA referenced species range maps provided by The Services; however, these range maps are not publicly available in order to prevent poaching of these sensitive species. For the nearly 850 species without Critical Habitat or public range maps (see pie chart below for breakdown by taxa group), stakeholders still need to evaluate pesticide risk. So that assessments can proceed for these species, multiple approaches were examined for efficiently compiling species occurrence AQUATIC LISTED SPECIES APPROACHES FOR MAPPING THE HABITAT OF LISTED SPECIES WITHOUT FEDERALLY DECLARED CRITICAL HABITAT Megan Sebasky 1 , Joshua Amos 1 , Brian Kearns 1 , Steve Kay 2 1 Waterborne Environmental, Inc.; 2 Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc. SPECIES HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS DATABASE TERRESTRIAL LISTED SPECIES USGS GAP MODELS TIERS 2 AND 3 HABITAT SUITABILITY RANKING Due to the nature of aquatic habitats and the data available to describe them, listed aquatic species require a completely different framework and methodology for delineating habitat. FWS documents for many of the aquatic species provide maps and/or detailed textual descriptions of species occurrences that can be manually delineated at the catchment level using NHDPlus flowlines and visual inspection of available spatial information. In addition to mapping known occurrences, species distribution modeling (SDM) was used to predict where else suitable habitat exists within FWS listed counties and the known HUC-08 range for the species. Methods for using the Maximum Entropy SDM program, MaxEnt, 3 at the catchment-level were based on those used by Liang et al., 2013. INTRODUCTION The critical first step to delineating sub-county habitats was a thorough review of the existing information on habitat requirements, historical occurrences, and range, including: FWS and NatureServe biological reports, scientific publications, and consultation with species experts. A robust crosswalk of textual habitat descriptors was built to parameterize every habitat model. WORKFLOW Habitat suitability maps were generated for multiple species using deductive modeling. For tier 2, the seven spatial datasets used by USGS GAP were combined and habitat parameters chosen. Four additional datasets were added for tier 3. Species tolerances to each parameter were described in general terms based on the literature and converted to suitable values within each dataset (see “Crosswalk”). Ultimately, a new data layer was generated representing potential habitat suitability for each 30-meter cell within the FWS county range by summing the number of matching input parameters, with a higher ranking indicating greater potential suitability. Modeled suitability maps were reviewed by species experts and compared to other data sources (e.g., GBIF), to assess model accuracy and identify areas that need additional investigation. Habitat descriptors and historical occurrences were assessed for several terrestrial species. Species were grouped into Tiers 2, 3, and 4 according to the most appropriate modeling approach based on available data (Tier 1 = Listed county range) . Habitat models were created at 30-meter resolution. Endangered Species without Critical Habitat Tier 1: Species Range = Listed Counties and HUC-08 Aquatic Tier 2 Delineate occurrences from literature Tier 3 Species distribution modeling trained by historical occurrences Terrestrial Vertebrates Tier 2 USGS GAP model validation or refinement Invertebrates Tier 2 Replicate USGS GAP methodology Tier 3 Refine USGS GAP methodology Tier 4 Delineate occurrences from literature TIER 4 MANUAL DELINEATION The USGS GAP program is publishing peer-reviewed species distribution models for vertebrates in the US. They are built using habitat descriptors in literature and using seven 30-meter raster datasets, including detailed land cover, elevation, and hydrological characteristics. GAP models for vertebrate species were assessed for their utility in mapping potential Listed Species habitat. For the example species shown, the FWS Recovery Plan listed reintroduction sites which were used to validate the GAP model. Puritan Tiger Beetle Habitat HABITAT CROSSWALK TERRESTRIAL EXAMPLE: FASSETT’S LOCOWEED Tier 2: USGS GAP modeling datasets Tier 3: WEI - National Datasets Tier 4: Species- specific refinement Data type Human Impact Avoidance Elevation Land Cover Forest Edge (distance) Forest/Open Ecotone + Woodlands/ Shrublands Hydrography type Distance into and from type of hydrography Minimum patch size Slope Aspect Percent canopy cover Soil (SSURGO) Temp General description N/A ~350m Shore of seepage lakes Far from forest edge, intolerant of shade N/A Close to edge of seepage lake Close to edge of lake N/A N/A N/A Very low, intolerant to competition and lives in areas disturbed by frequent flooding adjacent to ponds Sandy or gravelly moist soils N/A Several sites in WI but not specific enough information for tier 4 Dataset values N/A 300-400 Central Interior and Appalachian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems; Laurentian-Acadian Freshwater Marsh; Laurentian- Acadian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems; Open water (fresh) 60-500m N/A s1t2v0n0 (fresh standing water with brackish masked out) 30-120m N/A N/A N/A 0-25% (in prep) N/A N/A Suitability Ranking Habitat Suitability Ranking for the flowering plant, Fassett’s locoweed (Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea) For many endemic species or species with small ranges, available spatial data is often too coarse for mapping detailed habitats (e.g., narrow sandy shores of a river). Because of this, manually delineating occurrences often provides more detailed maps. The habitat of two invertebrate species with highly specific habitats (i.e., tiger beetles) were mapped using the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) as the base and adding a 60 meter wide buffer along the perimeter of selected waterbodies. The resulting maps were compared to multiple data sources including a 2015 Center for Biological Diversity petition for Critical Habitat. RECOMMENDATIONS • For many species, a wealth of validated species location information (e.g., FWS docs, peer reviewed SDMs, USGS GAP models) is currently available and can be compiled and used in pesticide risk assessments. • Habitat models that are trained by species occurrences and biophysical requirements are a viable option for generating sub-county species locations in the absence of federally declared Critical Habitat or range maps. • A “one size fits all” solution to habitat modelling does not exist. The approach selected is informed by the available information. • While mapping 850 listed species may seem daunting, efficiencies can be gained by grouping species into similar workflow categories based on available information. HABITAT CROSSWALK AQUATIC EXAMPLE: ALABAMA LAMPMUSSEL REFERENCES 1 Liang, L., Fei, S., Ripy, J. B., Blandford, B. L. and Grossardt, T. (2013), STREAM HABITAT MODELLING FOR CONSERVING A THREATENED HEADWATER FISH IN THE UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, KENTUCKY. River Res. Applic., 29: 1207–1214. doi:10.1002/rra.2605 2 McKay L, BondelidT, DewaldT, Johnston J, Moore R, Rea A. NHDPlus Version 2: User Guide. 2012. 3 Phillips S. J., Anderson R. P., and Schapire R. E.. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190:231–259. 4 U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program. 2011. National GAP vertebrate species distribution model. http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/species Hydrology Other factors Data Type Stream Size Stream order Velocity Stream gradient Perennial/ Intermitt- ent Catchment Area Stream width Stream depth Mean Annual Flow Max Annual Flow Min Annual Flow Stream temp. Upstream drainage area Dam Density Agriculture pollution or disturbance Industrial pollution Develop- ment Road density Runoff potential Mine density Described Factor? X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X X X X N/A X Value Small (tributary) 1,2 N/A High Perennial N/A 10-30m Shallow N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Low Low Low Low Low N/A Low DELINEATED OCCURRENCES Occurrence maps from FWS documents PREDICTED HABITAT SUITABILITY NHDPlus Flowlines and catchments as framework for delineations Percent Contribution Permutation Importance Min. annual flow 18.7 0.5 Mean annual flow 17.5 13.3 Dam density 14.3 24 Population density 11.7 2 Mean temperature 9.9 15.2 Runoff 8.6 37.9 Strahler stream order 7.6 0.7 Soil erodibility 6.5 3.4 Stream gradient 0.3 0.3 MaxENT suitability model Delineated occurrences (catchments) AUC (accuracy) = 0.994 Amphibians 1% Arachnids 1% Birds 8% Clams 6% Conifers &Cycads 0% Corals 0% Crustaceans 2% Ferns and Allies 3% Fishes 7% Flowering Plants 53% Insects 5% Lichens 0% Mammals 7% Reptiles 3% Snails 4% National Taxa Distribution for 850 Listed Species without Critical Habitat Model performance was assessed via the AUC and the relative contribution each parameter has on the probabilistic suitability model. This information was examined against the habitat requirements (see first panel). This species prefers smaller tributaries (lower stream order and flow) with higher gradients. Stressors included dams and high urbanization (population). Response curves Suitable habitat Dam Density Habitat suitability Slope Annual mean flow Stream order Population density Minimum annual flow Metrics assigned to catchments: • Hydrology (from NHDPlus) • National Landcover Dataset • Geology • Impact Metrics (Mining, Roads, Development, etc.) This work was sponsored and funded by the Generic Endangered Species Task Force, Inc. (GESTF), a consortium of crop protection companies formed to address data needs for US-EPA Federally listed species assessments of crop protection products. records and generating habitat representing the physical and biological features occupied by a species. In total, 50 aquatic and terrestrial listed species (following similar relative percentages as the pie chart) were selected. This poster highlights a few of the key findings from this pilot study. Example: Black-footed ferret
Transcript of PPROACHES FOR MAPPING THE HABITAT OF …€¦ · flooding adjacent to ponds Sandy or ... needs for...
Spatially explicit sub-county habitat for federally listed species is required for assessing the risk that pesticides may pose to endangered species. Of the approximately 1,680 listed species in the US, nearly 788 have federally declared Critical Habitat suitable for use in national-scale regulatory assessments. In the draft Biological Evaluations for three organophosphates published in the spring of 2016, USEPA referenced species range maps provided by The Services; however, these range maps are not publicly available in order to prevent poaching of these sensitive species. For the nearly 850 species without Critical Habitat or public range maps (see pie chart below for breakdown by taxa group), stakeholders still need to evaluate pesticide risk. So that assessments can proceed for these species, multiple approaches were examined for efficiently compiling species occurrence
AQUATIC LISTED SPECIES
APPROACHES FOR MAPPING THE HABITAT OF LISTED SPECIES WITHOUT FEDERALLY DECLARED CRITICAL HABITAT
Megan Sebasky1, Joshua Amos1, Brian Kearns1, Steve Kay2 1 Waterborne Environmental, Inc.; 2 Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc.
SPECIES HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS DATABASE
TERRESTRIAL LISTED SPECIES
USGS GAP MODELS
TIERS 2 AND 3 HABITAT SUITABILITY RANKING
Due to the nature of aquatic habitats and the data available to describe them, listed aquatic species require a completely different framework and methodology for delineating habitat. FWS documents for many of the aquatic species provide maps and/or detailed textual descriptions of species occurrences that can be manually delineated at the catchment level using NHDPlus flowlines and visual inspection of available spatial information. In addition to mapping known occurrences, species distribution modeling (SDM) was used to predict where else suitable habitat exists within FWS listed counties and the known HUC-08 range for the species. Methods for using the Maximum Entropy SDM program, MaxEnt,3 at the catchment-level were based on those used by Liang et al., 2013.
INTRODUCTION
The critical first step to delineating sub-county habitats was a thorough review of the existing information on habitat requirements, historical occurrences, and range, including: FWS and NatureServe biological reports, scientific publications, and consultation with species experts. A robust crosswalk of textual habitat descriptors was built to parameterize every habitat model.
WORKFLOW
Habitat suitability maps were generated for multiple species using deductive modeling. For tier 2, the seven spatial datasets used by USGS GAP were combined and habitat parameters chosen. Four additional datasets were added for tier 3. Species tolerances to each parameter were described in general terms based on the literature and converted to suitable values within each dataset (see “Crosswalk”).
Ultimately, a new data layer was generated representing potential habitat suitability for each 30-meter cell within the FWS county range by summing the number of matching input parameters, with a higher ranking indicating greater potential suitability.
Modeled suitability maps were reviewed by species experts and compared to other data sources (e.g., GBIF), to assess model accuracy and identify areas that need additional investigation.
Habitat descriptors and historical occurrences were assessed for several terrestrial species. Species were grouped into Tiers 2, 3, and 4 according to the most appropriate modeling approach based on available data (Tier 1 = Listed county range) . Habitat models were created at 30-meter resolution.
Endangered Species without Critical HabitatTier 1: Species Range = Listed Counties and HUC-08
Aquatic
Tier 2
Delineate occurrences
from literature
Tier 3
Species distribution
modeling trained by historical
occurrences
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Tier 2
USGS GAP model
validation or refinement
Invertebrates
Tier 2
Replicate USGS GAP
methodology
Tier 3
Refine USGS GAP
methodology
Tier 4
Delineate occurrences
from literature
TIER 4 MANUAL DELINEATION
The USGS GAP program is publishing peer-reviewed species distribution models for vertebrates in the US.
They are built using habitat descriptors in literature and using seven 30-meter raster datasets, including detailed land cover, elevation, and hydrological characteristics.
GAP models for vertebrate species were assessed for their utility in mapping potential Listed Species habitat. For the example species shown, the FWS Recovery Plan listed reintroduction sites which were used to validate the GAP model.
Puritan Tiger Beetle Habitat
HABITAT CROSSWALK TERRESTRIAL EXAMPLE: FASSETT’S LOCOWEED
Tier 2: USGS GAP modeling datasets Tier 3: WEI - National DatasetsTier 4: Species-
specific refinementData type
Human Impact
AvoidanceElevation Land Cover
Forest Edge (distance)
Forest/Open Ecotone +
Woodlands/Shrublands
Hydrographytype
Distance into and from type of hydrography
Minimum patch size
Slope Aspect Percent canopy coverSoil
(SSURGO)Temp
General description
N/A ~350m Shore of seepage lakes
Far from forest edge, intolerant of shade
N/AClose to edge of seepage lake
Close to edge of lake
N/A N/A N/A
Very low, intolerant to competition and lives in areas disturbed by frequent flooding adjacent to ponds
Sandy or gravelly moist soils
N/A
Several sites in WI but not specific enough information for tier 4
Dataset values
N/A 300-400
Central Interior and Appalachian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems; Laurentian-Acadian Freshwater Marsh; Laurentian-Acadian Shrub-Herbaceous Wetland Systems; Open water (fresh)
60-500m N/A
s1t2v0n0 (fresh standing water with brackish masked out)
30-120m N/A N/A N/A 0-25% (in prep) N/A N/A
Suitability Ranking
Habitat Suitability Ranking for the flowering
plant, Fassett’s locoweed (Oxytropis
campestris var. chartacea)
For many endemic species or species with small ranges, available spatial data is often too coarse for mapping detailed habitats (e.g., narrow sandy shores of a river). Because of this, manually delineating occurrences often provides more detailed maps.
The habitat of two invertebrate species with highly specific habitats (i.e., tiger beetles) were mapped using the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) as the base and adding a 60 meter wide buffer along the perimeter of selected waterbodies.
The resulting maps were compared to multiple data sources including a 2015 Center for Biological Diversity petition for Critical Habitat.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• For many species, a wealth of validated species location information (e.g., FWS docs, peer reviewed SDMs, USGS GAP models) is currently available and can be compiled and used in pesticide risk assessments.
• Habitat models that are trained by species occurrences and biophysical requirements are a viable option for generating sub-county species locations in the absence of federally declared Critical Habitat or range maps.
• A “one size fits all” solution to habitat modelling does not exist. The approach selected is informed by the available information.
• While mapping 850 listed species may seem daunting, efficiencies can be gained by grouping species into similar workflow categories based on available information.
HABITAT CROSSWALK AQUATIC EXAMPLE: ALABAMA LAMPMUSSEL
REFERENCES1 Liang, L., Fei, S., Ripy, J. B., Blandford, B. L. and Grossardt, T. (2013), STREAM HABITAT MODELLING FOR CONSERVING A THREATENED HEADWATER FISH IN THE UPPER CUMBERLAND RIVER, KENTUCKY. River Res. Applic., 29: 1207–1214. doi:10.1002/rra.26052 McKay L, BondelidT, DewaldT, Johnston J, Moore R, Rea A. NHDPlus Version 2: User Guide. 2012.3 Phillips S. J., Anderson R. P., and Schapire R. E.. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190:231–259.4 U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program. 2011. National GAP vertebrate species distribution model. http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/species
Hydrology Other factors
Data TypeStream
SizeStream order
VelocityStream
gradient
Perennial/Intermitt-
ent
Catchment Area
Stream width
Stream depth
Mean Annual
Flow
Max Annual
Flow
Min Annual
Flow
Stream temp.
Upstream drainage
area
Dam Density
Agriculture pollution or disturbance
Industrial pollution
Develop-ment
Road density
Runoff potential
Mine density
Described Factor?
X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X X X X N/A X
ValueSmall
(tributary)1,2 N/A High Perennial N/A 10-30m Shallow N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Low Low Low Low Low N/A Low
DELINEATED OCCURRENCES
Occurrence
maps from
FWS
documents
PREDICTED HABITAT SUITABILITY
NHDPlus
Flowlines and catchments as
framework for delineations
PercentContribution
Permutation Importance
Min. annual flow 18.7 0.5
Mean annual flow 17.5 13.3
Dam density 14.3 24
Population density 11.7 2
Mean temperature 9.9 15.2
Runoff 8.6 37.9
Strahler stream order 7.6 0.7
Soil erodibility 6.5 3.4
Stream gradient 0.3 0.3
MaxENT
suitability
model
Delineated occurrences (catchments)
AUC (accuracy) = 0.994
Amphibians1%
Arachnids1%
Birds8%
Clams6%
Conifers &Cycads0%
Corals0%
Crustaceans2%
Ferns and Allies
3%
Fishes7%
Flowering Plants53%
Insects5%
Lichens0% Mammals
7%
Reptiles3%
Snails4%
National Taxa Distribution for 850 Listed Species without
Critical Habitat
Model performance was assessed via the AUC and the relative contribution each parameter has on the probabilistic suitability model. This information was examined against the habitat requirements (see first panel). This species prefers smaller tributaries (lower stream order and flow) with higher gradients. Stressors included dams and high urbanization (population).
Response curves
Suitablehabitat
Dam Density
Ha
bi
ta
t
su
it
ab
il
it
y
Slope
Annual mean flow
Streamorder
Populationdensity
Minimum annual flow
Metrics assigned to catchments:• Hydrology (from NHDPlus)• National Landcover Dataset• Geology• Impact Metrics (Mining, Roads,
Development, etc.)
This work was sponsored and funded by the Generic Endangered Species Task Force, Inc. (GESTF), a consortium of crop protection
companies formed to address data needs for US-EPA Federally listed species assessments of crop protection products.
records and generating habitat representing the physical and biological features occupied by a species. In total, 50 aquatic and terrestrial listed species (following similar relative percentages as the pie chart) were selected. This poster highlights a few of the key findings from this pilot study.
Example:Black-footed
ferret
