SARP, the GCPO, and SE-LCCs John Tirpak SARP Steering Committee - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SARP, the GCPO, and SE-LCCs

John Tirpak Science Coordinator Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC SARP Steering Committee Nashville, TN 23 May 2012

Objectives

• Report on some LCC activities with relevance

to SARP

• Frame the ensuing conversation about the

relationship between SARP and the SE LCCs

• Scott Robinson to LCC Community

– “It’s time to take it to the next level”

Outline

• Basics of LCCs
• Current roles

– SARP in LCCs – LCCs in SARP

• Where do we want to go

– LCC perspective

• How do we get there

– Options

Just the Facts

• Self-directed, non-regulatory partnership

– 180 M acres

• 12 states
• 3 FHPs
• Function

– Design “sustainable landscapes”

• Integrate across resource priorities
• Account for future change
• Form

– Steering Committee – Conservation Science Staff – Working Groups

GCPOLCC Webcommunity

• http://gcpolcc.org

Current Roles SARP in SE-LCCs

• Scott has been busy

– Steering Committees

• Appalachian LCC
• Gulf Coast Prairie LCC

– Partnership Advisory Councils

• Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC
• South Atlantic LCC

– Science Teams/Strike Teams

• Appalachian LCC
• Peninsular Florida LCC
• Gulf Coast Prairie LCC
• South Atlantic LCC

Adaptation Science Management Team

Fish Herps Birds Mammals Aquatic Inverts Plants Culture Water East Gulf Coastal Plain/ South Atlantic- Gulf, Tennessee

X X *

• X

X

Interior Highlands/ Missouri, Ohio, Upper Mississippi X X X

• X

Mississippi Alluvial Valley/ Lower Mississippi

X X * *

• X

West Gulf Coastal Plain/ Arkansas- Red-White, TX-Gulf X o *

X X X

Gulf Coast/TX-Gulf X X X

• X

X X X

Fed State NGO/Private Partnership Manager Scientist About 50-50 X = confirmed * = verbal

• = likely

Current Roles SE-LCCs in SARP

• Southern Instream Flow Network (SIFN)

– South Atlantic LCC – recently completed – Gulf Coast Prairie LCC – getting started – Appalachian LCC – current RFP – Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks – exploring options

Current Roles SE-LCCs in SARP

• Conservation Design

– South Atlantic LCC

• Conservation Blueprint

From current to future landscape

• Future landscape

predictions complete for every NHD+ catchment in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain*

• Animation on right shows

from 2009-2050. Urban is red and water is blue.

• Includes:

– Urban growth – Sea level rise – Climate change

*Work from Grand, Terando, Costanzo, and others…

Aquatic modeling in progress

• Work is now underway to connect the future

landscape to potential conservation actions (e.g., improving connectivity, restoring hydrology)

Aquatic modeling in progress

• Work is now underway to connect the future

landscape to potential conservation actions (e.g., improving connectivity, restoring hydrology) Aquatic connectivity Instream flow Hydrologic restoration Current/future landscape Aquatic ecosystem response

Current Roles SE-LCCs in SARP

• Conservation Design

– South Atlantic LCC

• Conservation Blueprint

– Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks LCC

• Alligator Gar
• Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel

• Alligator gar is a priority species

– Representative of intact floodplains of large river systems – Community of practice – Charismatic megafauna

• Strategic conservation

– How much? – How much more? – Where?

Alligator Gar Priority Model

Alligator Gar Priority Model

? ?

• What does a sustainable

landscape look like for alligator gar?

• How does that integrate with

the vision for birds and bears?

A Strategic Vision for Gator Gar

• Held a meeting in Vicksburg on 7 December 2010

– Yvonne Allen, Army Corps of Engineers (ERDC) – Ricky Campbell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (PJANFH) – Glenn Constant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (BRFCO) – Jan Dean, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (NNFH) – Lee Holt, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission – John Tirpak, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC – Nick Wirwa, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (SCCNWR)

Objectives for Model

• To identify relative habitat quality for alligator

gar across the entire Lower Mississippi River Basin

– Identify habitats similar to the “hotspot” at St. Catherine Creek NWR – Analyze data at St. Catherine Creek NWR to explain gar usage of that area – Identify missing elements of “ideal” gar habitat to direct management – Identify highly suitable places to stock gar – Identify factors to measure to characterize gar habitat at multiple scales

Modeling Considerations

• Spatial

– Hierarchical scales

• Site: St. Catherine’s Creek NWR
• Region: Lower Mississippi River basin
• Temporal

– Consider seasonal use patterns

• Staging (1 February – 14 April)
• Spawning/Nursery (15 April – 14 June)
• Summer (15 June – 31 October)
• Winter (1 November – 31 January)

Framing the Conceptual Model

• Identifying factors that define gar habitat

– Water presence – Water class (e.g., lake, river, etc.) – Flooding frequency – Water depth – Water temperature – Vegetation type – Connectivity to river – Flood duration

Towards an Empirical Model

Staging Spawning Summer Winter

Water presence X X X X Water class Lake = optimal River = suitable Temporarily flooded area Any open water River = optimal Lake = suitable Flood frequency Permanent Annual = optimal 1/7 years = minimum Permanent Permanent Water depth 4’-16’ 1’-4’ N/A >10’ Water temperature >50°F 65-72°F N/A N/A Vegetation type N/A Herb.wetlands, ag, and moist-soil = optimal shrub-scrub = suitable N/A N/A Connectivity X X N/A N/A Flood duration N/A 60 days = optimal 10 days = minimal N/A N/A

Towards an Empirical Model

Data Source Spawning

Water presence NHD+ X Water class NHD+ Temporarily flooded area Flood frequency Landsat imagery River gauges Annual = optimal 1/7 years = minimum Water depth LiDAR 1’-4’ Water temperature Landsat thermal band? 65-72°F Vegetation type NASS CDL Herb.wetlands, ag, and moist-soil = optimal shrub-scrub = suitable Connectivity NHD+ X Flood duration Landsat imagery River gauges 60 days = optimal 10 days = minimal

Flood Inundation Frequency

• Identifying inundation extent for Atchafalaya

Filling in Data Gaps

Data Source Spawning

Water presence NHD+ X Water class NHD+ Temporarily flooded area Flood frequency Landsat imagery River gauges Annual = optimal 1/7 years = minimum Water depth LiDAR 1’-4’ Water temperature Landsat thermal band? 65-72°F Vegetation type NASS CDL Herb.wetlands, ag, and moist-soil = optimal shrub-scrub = suitable Connectivity NHD+ X Flood duration Landsat imagery River gauges 60 days = optimal 10 days = minimal

Alligator Gar Priority Model

• Progress to date

– Newsletter article

• Oct/Nov 2011

– SDAFS Meeting

• January 2012
• Basin-wide gar plan

– Stocking/restoration – Habitat management – Population monitoring

• Conservation targets

– Population size – Age class distribution – Harvest – Occupancy

Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel

• Can we come up with a similar strategic vision

for LPM conservation?

– Held a meeting in Vicksburg on 14 December 2010

• Tony Brady, Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery
• Steve Shivley, Kistachie National Forest
• John Tirpak, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC
• Blair Tirpak, The Nature Conservancy – Mississippi
• Amy Keister, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture

Objectives for Model

• Provide model-based estimates of suitable

LPM habitat in Grant and Rapides Parishes

• Prioritize “new” areas to search in other

parishes

• Identify potential areas for stocking mussels

– Areas identified as suitable but unoccupied

• Serve as a model for other freshwater mussels

– Alabama Pearshell Mussel? Others?

Model Considerations

• Scope

– All parishes along Red River from Texas to Mississippi – Potential range of LPM – Pilot in current range of LPM

• Scale

– Temporal

• Seasonal dynamics of habitat are not important

– Spatial

• Individual 100 m stream reaches as base unit of analysis
• Response variable

– Relative habitat quality is sufficient – No need for quantitative occupancy probabilities or strict estimates of individuals

Framing an LPM Conceptual Model

• Identifying factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates – Water temperature – Water depth – pH

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates – Water temperature – Water depth – pH

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence

• This is the key factor in mussel occurrence
• Currently unknown

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream

• NHDPlus stream network
• Perennial stream status

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow

• Stream order
• Gradient (slope) along reach

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow

• Stream order
• Gradient (slope) along reach
• 0.12
• 0.1
• 0.08
• 0.06
• 0.04
• 0.02

0.02 0.04 0.06 10 20 30 40 50 60 4 8 12 16 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Landscape Mussels

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates

• Not available directly
• Steep slopes next to streams
• Slope perpendicular to stream

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates

• Not available directly
• Steep slopes next to streams
• Slope perpendicular to stream

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Mussel Landscape

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates – Water temperature

• Not available directly
• Landcover covariates

– % canopy within watershed

Water Temperature

• Canopy Cover

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mussels Landscape

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates – Water temperature

• Not available directly
• Landcover covariates

– % canopy within watershed

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates – Water temperature

• Not available directly
• Landcover covariates

– % canopy within watershed – % non-forest within watershed

Water Temperature

• % non-forest within subwatershed

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mussels Landscape

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates – Water temperature

• Not available directly
• Landcover covariates

– % canopy within watershed – % non-forest within watershed

Towards an Empirical Model

• Estimating factors that define LPM habitat

– Host fish presence – Perennial stream – Adequate flow – Gravel substrates – Water temperature

• Not available directly
• Landcover covariates

– % canopy within watershed – % non-forest within watershed

Where Do LCCs Want to Go

• Identification of Additional Focal Species

– Establishment of quantitative population objectives

• Aquatic Habitat Assessment

– Consistent classification – SIFN and Future Flows – Aquatic connectivity

• Linkages to other efforts

– LMVJV, LMRCC, ACE, TNC, TPL, NRCS, FSA, USGS, EPA, GOMA, GCERTF, etc.

Some Additional Roles SE-LCCs in SARP

• Gulf Coast Coordination

– Laurie Rounds, NOAA Gulf Coast LCC Liaison

• Communications

– Gregg Elliott, Communications Specialist – GCPOLCC

SE Conservation Adaptation Strategy

• An integrated vision for a

future conservation landscape

– Conservation targets – “Seeing” the system – Adaptive framework – Science Capacity – Conservation delivery tools – Risk management tools – Monitoring – Engaging the public

Questions to Consider

• What is nature of relationship between LCCs

and SARP?

– Independent Operators – Customer-Client/Contractor – Participant/Advisor/Consumer – Collaborator/Cooperator – Vested Partner

• Questions

– Where do we want to settle? – How do we get ourselves there?