Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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%
