USGS FishVis and FishTail: Decisions Support Mappers for Assessing Current and Future Fish Habitat

FishVis and FishTail: DECISION SUPPORT MAPPERS FOR ASSESSING

CURRENT AND FUTURE FISH HABITAT

Wesley M. Daniel1, Dana M. Infante1, and Jana Stewart2

1Michigan State University2USGS

Adapting Forested Watersheds to Climate Change Workshop

March 15th

Wesley.daniel@gmail.com Infanted@anr.msu.edu jsstewar@usgs.gov

FishVis and FishTail• Brief description of both• Applications of the results• Demonstration of the online mapper

• Both are:– Decision support tools– Spatially-explicit web-based mappers on the CCVIEWeR– Consider potential stream fish species responses to

climate change – Built with stakeholder needs in mind

• Possible changes in fish species occurrence in response to climate change

• Upper Midwest– MN, WI, MI, NY

– Portions of (IN, OH PA)

• Indices of current fish habitat condition and potential habitat change with climate

• 22 states of the Northeast Climate Science Center– Northeast and Midwest

FishVis FishTail

• A1B emissions scenario• 13 gcms • Downscaled – Dan Vimont et al.

(University of Wisconsin – Madison)

• 3 time periods– current (1961-2000)

– mid-century (2046-2065)

– late-century (2081-2100)

• A1B emission scenario• 8 gcms • Downscaled – 19 metrics were derived

by Jason Robinson (Illinois Natural History Survey)

• 2 time periods– current, (1961-2000)– mid-century (2055-2084)

FishVis FishTailClimate data

FishVis: A Regional Decision Support Tool for Identifying Vulnerabilities of Riverine Habitat and

Fishes to Climate Change

• The broad goal of this project was to

• Identify changes in fish habitat due to projected climate changes based on responses of 13 fish species in streams across the Great Lakes region– Along with changes in stream thermal or flow characteristics important to fishes.

• Create maps of vulnerability (loss) of fish species to climate change index

• Web-based decision support mapper– Display, Navigate, View, Interrogate results of Fish Climate Vulnerability analysis

and ancillary layers

Jana S. Stewart, S. Alex Covert , Nick J. Estes, Stephen M. Westenbroek, Damon Krueger, Daniel J. Wieferich, Michael T. Slattery, John D. Lyons, James E. McKenna, Jr., Dana M. Infante,

and Jennifer L. Bruce

FishVis13 species

3 thermal guilds

FishVis

Current Mid- century Late century

Stream temperature thermal classes

Concepts for assessing climate change ImpactsVulnerability – Models predict a species or stream will experience a loss (i.e., species disappearance)

Opportunity – Models predict a species or stream will experience a gain (i.e., species appearance)

Sensitivity – Models predict a species or stream will experience a change (i.e., either a species appearance or a species disappearance)

FishVis

Mapping Vulnerability – Mottled Sculpin

Current Distribution (20,433 miles) Future Losses (-15,527 miles/ –76%)

Mapping Opportunity – Green Sunfish

Current Distribution (15,291 miles) Future Gains (+9,137 miles/ +60%)

Mapping Sensitivity – Both Species

Mottled Sculpin (15,527 miles/ 76%) Green Sunfish (9,137 miles/ 60%)

FishTail: A Decision Support Mapper for Conserving Stream Fish Habitats for the NE CSC Region

The broad goal of this project was to

1) Characterize current condition of stream fish habitat; develop three spatially-explicit indices reflecting target fish species’ response

a) Human land use

b) Stream fragmentation from dams and road crossings

c) Water quality impairments based on EPA 303d listings in waterbodies

2) Identify stream reaches that may change with climate based on potential changes to distributions of target fish species; develop a spatially-explicit index reflecting likelihood of habitat change with climate

3) Distribute the results through a decision support web based mapper.

Craig Paukert, Dana M. Infante, Jana Stewart, Joanna Whittier, Wesley Daniel, Nick Sievert, Kyle Herreman

N=85Reaches =4,627

N=75Reaches =4,811

N=63Reaches =4,147

N=76Reaches=8,821

Final species count

• Stakeholder’s selected 105 fish species

• Selection criteria included:

• Landscape Conservation Cooperatives priority species

• State-recognized game species (n=40, Daniel et al. 2015)

• All federally-listed endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidates fishes

• EPA intolerant (n=17) and tolerant (n=13) fishes• (Graberkiewicz and Davis 2008)

• Climate-sensitive species (n=11)

We used stakeholder-selected priority fish species forassessing current and future risk of fish habitat degradationFishTail

FishTail

Future climate

Water-quality impairment

Stream fragmentation

Human land use

ApplicationWhich protected areas in Vermont may be best suited for ensuring the long term persistence of native fish communities?

Gap Status 1 and 2

VermontFishTail

Land Use1) Identify locations with “low” and “very low” risk of habitat degradation in the local catchment due to land use.

FishTail

Fragmentation

18

2) Identify locations with “low” and “very low” risk of habitat degradation due to land use.

FishTail

Water Quality

19

3) Eliminate any locations with known water quality impairments.

FishTail

Climate

20

4) Select all streams with “Low” or “Very Low” risk of change in class due to predicted changes in climate.

FishTail

Refugia

21

Catchments in light blue are those catchments which met the previous requirements and are likely well suited to allowing for the long term persistence of the fish community.

FishTail

• Mary Ratnaswamy• Michelle Staudinger• Jason Robinson • Arthur Cooper • Nora Hargett • Project builds from previous efforts: FishVis - Upper

Midwest and Great Lakes LCC, NorEaST, USGS Aquatic GAP, National Fish Habitat Partnership

• All our data providers:• Joe Rogers (Rushing Rivers Institute), Kevin Wehrly (Michigan Department Natural Resources),

Angela Grier (Indiana Department of Natural Resources), Matt Combes (Missouri Department of Conservation), Gust Annis (Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership), Mike Hardin (Kentucky Department for Fish and Wildlife), Rodney Pierce (Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection), Jeff DeShon (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Bob Miltner (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Jim McKenna (U.S. Geological Survey), Todd Richards (Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife), Arlene Olivero (The Nature Conservancy), Corinne Smith (The Nature Conservancy), Mark Hudy (U.S. Department Agriculture, Forest Service), Dan Polhemus (US Fish and Wildlife Service), Ellen Dickey (Delaware Department of Natural Resources), Ann Holtrop (Illinois Department of Natural resources), Tom Wilton (Iowa Department of Natural Resources), John Brumely (Kentucky Division of Water), Mary Gallagher (Maine Department of Environment Protection), Ross Williams (Maryland Department of Natural Resources), John Sandberg (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency), John Magee (New Hampshire Fish and Game Department), Lisa Barno (New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife), Steve Hurst (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation), Dennis Mishne (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency), Rich Langdon (Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department), Russell Burman (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission), Brant E. Fisher (Indiana Department Natural Resources), Stacey Sobat (Indian Department Environmental Management), and Mike Slattery (U.S. Geological Survey).

FishVis FishTail

• https://ccviewer.wim.usgs.gov/FishVis

• https://ccviewer.wim.usgs.gov/fishtail

• Arthur Cooper• Kuolin Fang• Paul Conrads• Wisconsin Internet Mapping team• University of Michigan• Michigan State University• Institute for Fisheries Research• Michigan DNR• Minnesota DNR• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency• Wisconsin DNR• NFHP• USGS-NCCWSC

Thanks

Learn about the analysis?

Choose Your Basemap

SEARCH Place

Choose Additional Layers

FishVis data layers

FishVis data layers

FishVis data layers

FishVis data layers

FishVis data layers

FishVis data layers

POPUPs–

Climate change Predictions: Incorporating Uncertainty

Mottled Sculpin Green Sunfish

Coldwater Species Warmwater Species

Timber Coulee Creek, WI

Cool-Cold Cool-Warm

GCM1: 1 GCM2: 0

GCM3: 1 GCM4: 0

GCM5: 1 GCM6: 1

GCM7: 1 GCM8: 0

GCM9: 1 GCM10: 0

GCM11: 0 GCM12: 0

GCM13: 0

Future: Present = 6/13

Absent = 8/13

Current: Present (1)

Vulnerability = 8/13 = 62% Opportunity = Null Sensitivity = 8/13 = 62%

Current: Absent (0)

GCM1: 1 GCM2: 1

GCM3: 1 GCM4: 1

GCM5: 1 GCM6: 1

GCM7: 0 GCM8: 0

GCM9: 1 GCM10: 1

GCM11: 1 GCM12: 0

GCM13: 1

Future: Present = 9/13Absent = 5/13

Vulnerability = Null Opportunity = 10/13 = 77% Sensitivity = 10/13 = 77%

Vulnerability = 8/13 = 62% Opportunity = 10/13 = 77% Sensitivity = 13/13 = 100%