Resilient Sites for Species Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Resilient Sites for Species Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region The Nature Conservancy • Eastern Conservation Science Mark G. Anderson, Melissa Clark, and Arlene Olivero Sheldon ©Linda Cullivan, USFWS ©USFWS ©Adam Mann, USFWS © R.G. Tucker Jr, .USFWS © Greg Breese, USFWS ©USFWS © John Alderman, VA Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries Please cite as: Anderson, M.G., M. Clark, and A. Olivero Sheldon. 2011 Resilient Sites for Species Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. 122pp. This project was supported by a grant to the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (#2008-03 Regional Focal Areas for Species of Greatest Conservation Need based on Site Adaptive Capacity, Network Resilience and Connectivity) and through funding from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and The Nature Conservancy. The work was made possible by data and contributions from the network of Natural Heritage Programs and NatureServe. Project Summary: Resilience concerns the ability of a living system to adjust to climate change, to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with consequences, in short: its capacity to adapt (IPCC 2007). In this project, we aimed to identify the most resilient examples of key geophysical settings (sand plains, granitic mountains, limestone valleys, etc.), in relation to species of greatest conservation need, to provide conservationists with a nuanced picture of the places where conservation is most likely to succeed under climate change. The central idea was that by mapping key geophysical settings and evaluating them for landscape characteristics that buffer against climate effects, we could identify the most resilient examples of each setting. Our approach was based on observations that 1) species diversity is highly correlated with geophysical diversity (Anderson and Ferree 2010), and 2) that species take advantage of the micro-climates available in complex landscapes and 3) if the area is permeable, species can move to adjust to climatic changes. Developing a quantitative estimate of site resilience was the essence of the project, and we accomplished this by measuring the landscape complexity and permeability of every 30 by 30 square meter of the region, creating comprehensive wall-to-wall data on the physical components of resilience. We applied the information to known species sites and compared the scores between sites with a similar geophysical composition to identify the most resilient sites for each setting (Facing page –front map). Further, we analyzed broad east-west and north-south permeability gradients to identify areas where ecological flows and species movements potentially become concentrated. These areas may need conservation attention to allow the biota to adjust to a changing climate (Facing page – back map). The Most Resilient Sites for Species of Greatest Conservation Need. The map encompasses 17 separate geophysical settings and shows the sites that score the highest for landscape complexity and local connectedness within in each setting. Only settings that contain SGCN species are shown (about half of the region). See also Map 5.18. Key Areas for Ecological Flows. The map shows areas where processes and species movements potentially become concentrated due to the regional pattern of land uses and natural cover. Sites important to Species of Greatest Conservation Need are overlaid as darker hexagons. See also Map 5.22. Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the expertise contributed by several individuals including Brad McRae of The Nature Conservancy’s Washington office and Brad Compton University of Massachusetts both who have created powerful new tools for measuring connectivity. They were always willing to listen to our questions, provide guidance in using the tools correctly, and, in some cases, run the analysis for us. Charles Ferree also contributed immensely to the mapping and modeling of landforms, and in calculating the landform variety and elevation range metrics. We would like to particularly thank NatureServe and the network of Natural Heritage Programs for access to their species databases. Without the continued field work and information management conducted by Natural Heritage Programs and NatureServe this report would not be possible. We thank the following individuals for the assistance with obtaining this critical data: NatureServe: Lynn Kutner, Kat Maybury, Margaret Ormes, and Adele Tomaino; CT NHP: Nancy Murray and Karen Zyko, DE NHP: Karen Bennett, NH NHP: Don Kent, NY NHP: D.J. Evans, NJ DEP Jason McNees, C. David Jenkins, Jr. , Bob Cartica, Gretchen Fowles, Elena Williams, Peter Winkler, and Kathleen Walz, PA NHP Susan Klugman and Jeff Wagner, ME NHP: Molly Docherty, MD NHP : Lynn Davidson, MA NHP: Henry Woolsey and Sarah Haggerty, RI NHP: Rick Enser and David Gregg, VT NHP: Bob Popp and Steve Parren, VA NHP: Tom Smith, and WV NHP: Barbara Sargent. Finally, we would like to thank members of the Conservancy’s resilience team that provided assistance with data gathering, analysis, editing, and review during this project; especially the scientists and partners for the Central Appalachian region (Judy Dunscomb, Tamara Gagnolet, Thomas Minney, Angela Watland, Nels Johnson, Rodney Bartgis, Amy Cimarolli) and the Northern Appalachian region (Barbara Vickery, Mark Zankel, Dirk Bryant, Philip Huffman, Andrew Finton, Megan de Graaf, Daniel Coker, Louise Gratton, Rebecca Shirer, Rose Paul, Daryl Burtnett, Andrew Cutko, Steve Walker). These teams provided critical feedback regarding analysis methodology and the utility of various outputs. Finally, state and federal agencies provided many of the underlying datasets used in this project, and we would like to particularly thank the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium for their work on the national land cover datasets and the U.S.G.S for their work on the National Elevation Dataset (NED). We would also like to thank John Kantor for help with the selection of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 – Identifying Species and Their Locations .............................................................................................. 3 Characterizing the Species ............................................................................................................................ 3 Species Location ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 3 – Defining Sites and Geophysical Settings .............................................................................................. 8 Analysis Unit 1,000 Acre Hexagon ............................................................................................................. 8 Geophysical Settings ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Clustering Hexagons into Geophysical Settings ......................................................................................... 13 Mapping the Full Range of each Setting ..................................................................................................... 13 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 4 – Estimating Resilience ................................................................................................................................. 19 Section 1: Landscape Complexity............................................................................................................... 19 Background .................................................................................................................................... 19 Landscape Variety ......................................................................................................................... 20 Elevation Range ............................................................................................................................. 24 Wetland Density ............................................................................................................................ 24 Landscape Complexity Combined Index ....................................................................................... 28 Section 2: Landscape Permeability ............................................................................................................. 31 Local Connectedness ..................................................................................................................... 32 Regional Flow Patterns .................................................................................................................. 39 Integration with Other Metrics ....................................................................................................... 42 Section 3: Combining Resilience Factors ................................................................................................... 44 A Common Scale ........................................................................................................................... 44 Landscape