Northeast Habitat Classification and Mapping Project:

Status and View Aheada presentation to the

Northeast Area Association of State Foresters Forest Resource Planning Committee

May 2009

Susan C. Gawler, Ph.D.Regional Vegetation Ecologist

Partners

2006-2008: Major Products for the 13-state region

• Terrestrial regional habitat classification system

• Follow-up funding to create a detailed terrestrial habitat GIS dataset for the region (underway)

• Standardized GIS dataset of currently secured lands (i.e., protected or conserved areas) throughout the region

• Standing NE regional habitat mapping coordinating committee

• Regional aquatic habitat classification system

• Aquatic habitat GIS dataset

2009: Mapping & Project Expansion on the way

Project stages

1. Develop classification

2. Map classification over 13-state region

3. Expand classification and map to remainder of USFS Eastern region (8 additional states)

Northeast Terrestrial Habitat Classification System

Terrestrial Habitat Classification

1. Based on Ecological Systems 2. Added classes for altered habitats and land-

use types3. Systems component is hierarchical with

upper levels of Formation and Group4. Compatible with GAP and Landfire

approaches in northeast.

Terrestrial Habitat Classification

1. Based on Ecological Systems 2. Added classes for altered habitats and land-

use types3. Systems component is hierarchical with

upper levels of Formation and Group4. Compatible with GAP and Landfire

approaches in northeast.

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES

A WORKING CLASSIFICATION OF U.S. TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS

2003

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K.Snow, and J. Teague.

Ecological Systems:

• groups of biological communities (associations or types) that co-occur on the landscape

• share similar physical environments

• influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes

• practical, mid-scale units that inform resource management decisions– mappable & identifiable – intermediate geographic

scales (101 - 103 ha)

– temporally persistent (>50 yrs)

examples

Northern Appalachian-Acadian Rocky Heath Outcrop (ME)

Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest (WV)

Terrestrial Habitat Classification

1. Based on Ecological Systems

2. Added classes for altered habitats and land-use types

3. Systems component is hierarchical with upper levels of Formation and Group

4. Compatible with GAP and Landfire approaches in northeast.

Ruderal Forest - Northern and Central Hardwood and Conifer

Ruderal Upland - Old Field

Residential - Rural / Sparse

Terrestrial Habitat Classification

1. Based on Ecological Systems

2. Added classes for altered habitats and land-use types

3. Systems component is hierarchical with upper levels of Formation and Group for flexible scaling.

4. Compatible with GAP and Landfire approaches in northeast.

systems can be aggregated into higher-level units where these are useful:

Formation*

(n=15)

Macrogroup*

(n=35)

Habitat System

(n=143)

Northeastern Upland Forest

Central Oak-Pine Forest

Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest

* From the FGDC-standard levels of the National Vegetation Classification.

Terrestrial Habitat Classification

1. Based on Ecological Systems

2. Added classes for altered habitats and land-use types

3. Systems component is hierarchical with upper levels of Formation and Group

4. Compatible with GAP and Landfire mapping approaches in northeast.

Northeast Landfire map

December 2008

LANDFIRE

•Mapping ecological systems

•Focuses on upland habitats

•Developing field keys to systems

•Developing automated classification tools

See: www.landfire.gov

What was missing from Fall 2007 draft classification?

• Ability to address some mid-scale to large-scale characteristics important to wildlife, primarily STRUCTURE

– Successional stages in forest systems– Understory characteristics – Grassland modifiers

Terrestrial Habitat Classification

1. Based on Ecological Systems 2. Added classes for altered habitats

and land-use types3. Systems component is hierarchical

with upper levels of Formation and Group

4. Compatible with GAP and Landfire approaches in northeast.

5. Modular structure with Ecological Systems plus Structural Modifiers

Structural Modifiers• Forests

– Canopy closure– Deciduous vs evergreen– Canopy layers– Developmental stage– Extent of understory layers

• Shrubland– Open/closed– Height

• Herbaceous (incl. grasslands)– Open/closed– Native/introduced– height

Result: flexibility

Habitat types:Formation, Macrogroup, System

Structural Modifiers: Cover, height, etc.

HABITAT UNITS

Hab. Unit

A

habitat Unit

C

Hab. Unit

B

Central Appalachian Pine-Oak Rocky Woodland habitat (system)

Oak-Pine habitat (macrogroup)

Upland shrubland habitat

Pine warbler habitat:

Laurentian-Acadian Northern Pine-(Oak) Forest [stage: >= mature]

But how about the habitat classes we’re already using?

• Habitat System units crosswalked to habitat classes in each state’s State Wildlife Action Plan

• And to NLCD classes

• Being crosswalked to types used by state Heritage Programs

Examples of SWAP crosswalks: NJ

Tidal salt marsh  Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Tidal Salt Marsh

Upland forests - deciduous   Northeastern Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Upland forests - deciduous   Introduced Upland Vegetation - Tree

Upland forests - deciduous  

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Calcareous Ravine

Upland forests - deciduous   Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest

Upland forests - deciduous  

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Hardwood Forest

Upland forests - deciduous  

Ruderal Forest - Northern and Central Hardwood and Conifer

Upland forests - hemlock ravine  

Laurentian-Acadian Pine-Hemlock-Hardwood Forest

Upland forests - pitch pine-oak  

Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Pitch Pine Barrens

Examples of SWAP crosswalks: PASWAP Habitat   NETHCS Habitat System

Birch (Black-gum) Rocky Slope Woodland  

North-Central Appalachian Acidic Cliff and Talus

Black-gum Ridgetop Forest   Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest

Dry Oak – Heath Forests  Allegheny-Cumberland Dry Oak Forest and Woodland

Dry Oak – Heath Forests   Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest

Dry Oak – Heath Woodland  

Central Appalachian Pine-Oak Rocky Woodland

Dry Oak – Mixed Hardwood Forests  

Northeastern Interior Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Dry White Pine (Hemlock) – Oak Forest   Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest

Dry White Pine (Hemlock) – Oak Forest  

Laurentian-Acadian Northern Pine-(Oak) Forest

http://www.rcngrants.org/node/38

http://www.rcngrants.org/node/38

Scroll to bottom of page for attachments

Project stages

1. Develop classification

2. Map classification over 13-state region

3. Expand classification and map to remainder of USFS Eastern region (8 additional states)

http://www.rcngrants.org/node/9

14 State Steering committee, 18 months, monthly call

Data driven but uses existing data only, no field check component

Consistent with Landfire – SE GAP

Performed by Ecoregion or Groups of ecoregions

Product is one regionally consistent map

2009 MAPPING PROJECT

General Process

• Remote data layers:– Landform, NLCD, soils/geology, exposure,

precipitation, NWI wetlands, etc.

• Training points– Heritage program data & FIA data

• Modeling using Random Forest to derive System/landscape relationships

High Allegheny Plateau: Geology

High Allegheny Plateau: Aspect -3 versions

Categorical

Quantitative

Shaded relief

High Allegheny Plateau: Land Cover

THREE MAIN SOURCES

NHP Element Occurrences

NVC community mapping & plots

FIA Plots

Compilation of Known Occurrences

We attach the following variables to known occurrences:

All Known Occurrences are tagged with a 1) Ecological System name and 2) the following Point Attributes and..

3) The following polygon attributes

Modeling/mapping steps: upland forests

• Use Classification and Regression tree analysis (CART) to explore relationships of habitats to the data, and use RandomForests to build habitat models

• Use separate analyses for Upland/Wetlands, Matrix/Patch

• Matrix: Apply habitat models to 100 acre hexagons tesselated across the ecoregion, & use “landscape units” and other environmental data to further refine the mapping within hexes

• Patch: Model small patch habitats separately, and overlay them on the matrix & large patch systems

Non-natural landcover and

wetlands masked out

Cliff & talus model dropped on

Refining habitat mapping within

the hexes:Darker brown color

denotes parts of the hexes mapped

to the matrix AHNHF habitat

type that are likely to be

moister/richer, based on

landscape units, distance to NHD water features, &

solar radiation

Example of Final Product

Timeline:

• 2007-2008 – developed classification• 2006-2008 – Landfire map for NE• 2007 – SE GAP refines methodology• 2009 – mapping NE 13 states

(TNC/NatureServe)• 2009?2010? – extend classification & mapping

to remaining 8 states in USFS Eastern Region: USFS, GAP, TNC, NatureServe partnership with state resource agencies

We look forward to moving ahead with state forestry partners!