Emily Watson May 5,2011 Downstream Strategies & FHPs Create - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Tennessee/Cumberland Aquatic Habitat Assessment Emily Watson May 5,2011

Downstream Strategies & FHPs  Create spatially-explicit habitat assessment models for each of the Midwestern FHPs…and now SARP  Create an integrated GIS decision support tool  Create a regional representation of habitat condition

Modeling Approach INPUT OUTPUT Landscape Predictor Data Model Results o Natural and Anthropogenic o Response variable predictions @ o Local vs. US Network vs. DS 1:100K SLW scale Network vs. Regional o Predictor variable importance weightings BOOSTED Stream or Lake Response Data o Stressor-Response functions REGRESSION o Environmental Data o Estimates of model uncertainty TREES o Fish Data • Assemblage Post-Modeling Results • Abundance o Cumulative Natural Habitat • Presence-Absence Quality Index (CHQI) • Index of Biotic Integrity o Cumulative Anthropogenic • Community Metrics Stressor Index (CASI) o CHQI and CASI accumulated from 1:100K SLW up to HUC12.

Local vs. Network vs. Regional Network area draining to focal Local area draining to focal SLW SLW (local variable ) (network variable) Local area draining to focal SLW (local variable) Dam downstream of SLW (regional variable) Ecoregion (regional variable)

Example: Great Lakes Basin BKT  Brook Trout Habitat Condition  FHPs determined HUC-8 watersheds where brook trout are likely to be found  FHP provides a list of top stressors or influences for the probability of brook trout (predictor variables)  Collect regional fish sampling data (response variables), provided by FHP  Run and apply model  Map and interpret results

Response Variable: BKT

Predictor Variable Weights Relative Cumulative Variable Variable Description Influence Percent POPDENS Local population density 9.044 100 MINELEVSMO Minimum stream elevation 7.732 91 LU_WETPC Network wetland land cover (percent) 6.838 83 SOIL_C_PC Network soil class C land cover (percent) 6.757 76 SLOPE Watershed slope 6.277 70 SOIL_A_PC Network soil class A land cover (percent) 6.090 63 LU_FORPC Network forest land cover (percent) 4.570 57 IMPERVSC Network impervious surface cover (percent) 4.097 53 ROADCRC Network density of road crossings 3.601 49 LU_FORP Local forest land cover (percent) 3.192 45 AREA_SQKMC Upstream drainage area 3.187 42 CATTLE Local density of cattle 3.054 39 LU_DEVPC Network developed land cover (percent) 2.926 36 GAP_TEMP Predicted thermal regime (cold, cool, warm) 2.321 33 WATER_QW Local groundwater withdrawal amount 2.222 30 SOIL_B_PC Network soil class B cover (percent) 2.093 28 WATER_SWC Network surface water withdrawal amount 1.967 26 LU_AGPC Network agriculture land cover (percent) 1.941 24 Analogous to a Standardized Regression Coefficient Variables with top 75% of Influence; Red = Anthropogenic

Probability of Brook Trout

Natural Habitat Quality Index

Predictor-Response Functions Independent functional relationship between the fish response variable and natural landscape attributes . (1.00) (0.87) (0.81) 1.5 Marg. Effect on Logit 1 8 1.0 0 6 0.5 -1 0.0 4 -2 -0.5 2 -3 -1.0 0 -1.5 -4 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 Soil C % Land Cover Average Slope Min. Elevation CHQI is calculated for each 1:100K Segment Level Watershed

Anthropogenic Stress Index

Predictor-Response Functions Independent functional relationship between the fish response variable and anthropogenic stressors . (0.76) (0.5) (1.00) 10 Marg. Effect on Logit 1.5 3 8 1.0 2 6 0.5 1 0.0 4 0 -0.5 2 -1 -1.0 0 0 50 100 150 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Pop. Density (#/km 2 ) Wetland Cover (%) Forest Land Cover (%) CASI is calculated for each 1:100K Segment Level Watershed

NHQI vs. CASI Restoration Priorities Protection Priorities

Restoration/Protection Priorities

Decision Support Tool  Integrated within ArcMap 9.3  Index calculator  Comprise programming model for weighting decisions based on current conditions  Downstream future conditions based on user input and model output.  Reporting all the data with one click, producing customized report of catchments and watershed conditions and contributing factors. 1.5 3 1.0 2 0.5 1 0.0 0 -0.5 -1 -1.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Potential FHPs Response Variables  Great Lakes Basin FHP  Brook trout, walleye, lake sturgeon, darters (guild)  Driftless Area Restoration Effort  Brook/brown trout, sculpin, Am. Brook lamprey, smallmouth bass  Fishes and Farmers of the Upper Mississippi River  Fish/mussels species richness, % native species  Great Plains FHP  Topeka shiner, others to be determined  Midwest Lakes  Sportfish indices, keystone species, water quality

Moving Forward: Ohio River Basin - Predictor Variables Predictor Variable Natural/Anthropogenic Surface & Ground Water Use Estimates A Land use/Land cover (2001) A National Inventory of Dams A TIGER Roads US Census/ESRI (2000) A Agriculture Census (2000): Cattle A Mines & Mineral Plants A Superfund Sites A Toxic Release Inventory A NPDES A Climate Data N Elevation N Soil Data N National Wetland Inventory N National geologic data N

Moving Forward: Ohio River Basin – Response Variables 1. Large & Great Rivers Signature Fish (Rivers Index) 2. Medium/Small Rivers, Streams, & Headwaters Signature Fish (Streams Index) 3. Presence/Absence of Fluvial Mussels 4. Macroinvertebrate Index/Metric 5. Modified Index of Centers of Diversity for Fish (MICD) 6. Fish IBI scores

Moving Forward: Ohio River Basin – Response Variables  1 st three Response Variables submitted to DS on April 1 st  Signature Fish Abundance Metrics  Rivers index (Paddlefish, Blue Suckers, Sauger, Sturgeon, etc)  Streams Index (Darters, SM Bass, SP Bass, etc)  MICD for Fish  Still in the works  Presence/Absence of Fluvial Mussels (by May?)  Macroinvertebrate Index/Metric Scores (data in, not processed)  Fish IBI Scores (raw data available)  May initially be limited to 5 Response Variables

Response Variables: Development  Requested fish data from throughout the entire basin  State WQ agencies targeted  21,008 events entered into Access DB  ORBFHP area only  11,712 “Community” samples  Excludes targeted or non-standardized samples  Excludes events without abundance data  9,368 events matched to GIS stream reach COMID  5,566 events marked as most recent event for a COMID

Data Sets Compiled  PADEP – 2000-2010  IN DEM – 1996-2007  VA DEQ – 1993-2010  IL EPA – 1990–2004  WV DNR – 1990-2006  KY DOW – 1999-2010  NKY SD1 – 2001-2010  MD DNR – 1995-2010  ORSANCO – 2000-2010  NC DWQ – 1998-2009  USGS – 1993-2009  NY DEC – 1990-2009  U OF S. MISS – 1990-1995  OH EPA – 2000-2007

Data Sets In Progress Data Sets Requested  IN DEM – 2008-2010  Eastern Ky U  TN Wildlife Res Agcy – 1994-2008  TN Valley Authority  Tulane – 1998-2000  USEPA NRSA  NC State – 2003  U of Florida – 2005-2010  Yale – 2006-2008 Gaps  PA Fish & Boat Co.  Pennsylvania  PADEP EMAP-GRE co-op – ’07-’10  Kentucky large rivers  Green River basin

Modified Index of Centers of Diversity  Scores sites based on highest abundances of the rarest species relative to all sites in the basin density of a species ata site Relative Density sum of densities of the same species at all sites sum of the relative densities for all species at a site MICD * 10,000 total number of species fromall sites

MICD

Signature Fish Species Index Large & Great River spp (i.e., Rivers Index)  Classified all spp by stream size based on entire dataset using NHD+ stream orders  Determined which species nearly exclusively occur at 6 th order or greater sites  Eliminated more tolerant species  Classified 38 spp as Signature Spp for Large & Great Rivers  Need to be more restrictive?  Can distribute list of species to anyone interested

Signature Fish Species Index Rivers Index  Used individual box plots of abundances for each species to create scores of 1-5 for each species’ abundance at a given site  Scores for each spp were then added together to give overall score for each site

35 30 25 upper non-outlier 20 range SumOfCount 15 10 75% 5 median 25% 0 -5

Signature Fish Species Index Rivers Index  Modifications  Extremely rare spp score 5 if >=1 individual American eel, lake sturgeon, paddlefish, slender madtom,  slender chub, alligator gar, Rare spp score 3 if 1 ind and 5 if >1 ind  Shoal chub, shovelnose sturgeon, silver lamprey, spotted gar,  blacknose shiner, silverband shiner, pugnose minnow,

Rivers Index

Signature Fish Species Index Medium, Small, & Headwater Streams (i.e., Streams Index)  Species chosen based primarily on strategic plan: Smallmouth bass, spotted bass, Etheostoma spp, and  Percina spp Headwater species added   Scored same as Rivers Index  Scored using all Etheostoma spp as one taxa and all Percina s pp as another Also true for Phoxinus spp, Cottus spp, & Clinostomus spp 