The Northeastern and Upper Midwestern Terrestrial Habitat Classification and Habitat Map Final Report Prepared for: Submitted by: The Northeastern Area Association of State Regan Smyth, Jim Drake, and Shannon Menard Foresters January 2013 Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Northeastern and Upper Midwestern Terrestrial Habitat Classification (NMTHCS) ................................ 2 GIS-based Map of Wildlife Habitat Systems across the Eight Midwestern States ................................... 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1. Review of existing vegetation maps ............................................................................................. 4 2. Development of Observation GeoDatabase ................................................................................. 5 3. Map Validation / Accuracy Assessment ........................................................................................ 5 4. Development of Supporting Biophysical Data Sets ...................................................................... 6 5. Completion of Regional Habitat Systems Map ............................................................................. 6 6. Representation of Vegetation Structure ....................................................................................... 7 Results and Products ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Discussion...................................................................................................................................................... 9 References .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix A: Ecological System Descriptions Appendix B: Map Review and Revision Summary Acknowledgements Many people assisted at various stages of this long, complicated project. We would like to thank the Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters, in particular our main contacts Ian MacFarlane and Tom Luther, for the funding and comments and review along the way, without which this project would not have existed. State Wildlife Action Plan Coordinators assisted in getting us data and steering us towards state experts who could provide additional input. Cotton Randall helped greatly to familiarize us with Ohio data. Dave Diamond, Lee Elliott, Mike Leahy, and Paul Nelson provided invaluable review of the Missouri classification. Don Faber-Langendoen assisted with many aspects of the project from reviewing the classification to creating the map legend. Sue Gawler and Lesley Sneddon shared their results and experience from a similar project in the Northeast so that we could learn from their work. Finally, Mary Russo was, as usual, our go-between with our central database, making it look easy to pull data out and put data in, as necessary. 1 Introduction In 2010, the Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF) contracted with NatureServe to (1) complete a habitat classification of Northeastern and Upper Midwestern Terrestrial Systems, and (2) provide an updated GIS-based map of those wildlife habitat systems across the eight Midwestern states. This work was supported by the Doris Duke Charitable Trust, state Natural Heritage programs and wildlife agencies as a means to develop regionally consistent data for State Forest Resource Plans and State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). NatureServe ecologists worked to classify, describe, and map upland and wetland wildlife habitats across the Midwest United States using standardized ecological classifications including the US National Vegetation Classification System (US-NVC) and the NatureServe Terrestrial Ecological Systems classifications. These classifications are used to link together individual state forest and habitat classifications. Available mapped information was reviewed and updated in order to best depict these standardized natural resource concepts. These regionally consistent digital maps are now available for use in conservation and natural resource management decisions across the Northeast and Midwestern states. This document provides an overview of the methods and results of the Midwest phase of the classification and mapping project. (A similar effort for the Northeastern states was completed in 2008, with additional map edits occurring through 2012.) The classification and map seek a balance between the state-based habitat classifications and consistency across the region. This will assist conservation partners in working on common goals that cross state boundaries. Applications could include assessment of natural resource conditions and provision of ecological services, planning for habitat enhancements and restoration, or prioritizing investments in open space conservation. By updating the existing maps and classifications, with clear links to the multi-leveled US-NVC and Ecological Systems concepts, this product allows for map displays and analyses at varying levels of detail. The consistent classification and map will allow wildlife managers and foresters to better collaborate regionally to maximize the impact of their investments. Northeastern and Upper Midwestern Terrestrial Habitat Classification (NMTHCS) The first component of this project was to review and revise the vegetation classification to be used for the final map and to establish the link between these classification units and those used for each state’s SWAP habitat classification. The concept and distributions of the individual Systems have been developed and refined over the past decade by NatureServe ecologists with input from other experts in federal, state, and local partner organizations. We began with a list of 102 Ecological Systems attributed to the eight states in our project area and reviewed and revised it to ensure it agreed with our current understanding of the concepts and distribution of the Systems. Changes to the distribution or concepts of Systems were made, as appropriate. Individual SWAP habitat classifications are not the same from state to state so comparing data from one state to another is difficult. We established the relationship of Ecological Systems to SWAP units to 2 create a uniform classification system across the region so users could compare data across state lines. We began by collecting SWAP habitat classifications from all eight states in the project area. We then determined how each SWAP unit compared to Ecological Systems. We only used the SWAP habitat units that represented natural or near-natural vegetation communities. We did not consider agricultural, developed, or non-natural successional habitats such as Cave/Mine, Old Field, or Deep Lake habitat units. After completing the crosswalk to Systems, we established the relationship, of Associations, the finest level of the National Vegetation Classification, to SWAP habitat units. We did not use Associations in our mapping effort but this crosswalk provides a more detailed method of comparing data across state lines, if users desire. Appendix A contains full classification information on all Ecological Systems attributed to the project area. There are 107 natural/semi-natural Systems that are included in the map legend and three unmapped Systems that are also attributed to the project area. GIS-based Map of Wildlife Habitat Systems across the Eight Midwestern States The primary output of the second component of this project is an updated GIS-based map of wildlife habitat systems across the eight Midwestern states, appropriate for use at regional and sub-regional scales. This map utilizes the NMTHCS to provide information on the distribution and extent of habitats in a form that facilitates effective communication about habitats across jurisdictions, both within the Midwest and in adjacent regions. The map is provided to users as a 30-meter resolution grid, with each pixel classified as a unique ecological system type. Ecological Systems represent recurring groups of biological communities that are found in similar physical environments and are influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes, such as fire or flooding. They are intended to provide a classification unit that is readily able to be mapped, often from remote imagery, and readily identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. While the finest level of thematic resolution of the habitat map is at the Systems level, the data contain attribute information that allows display of habitat types at different categorical scales, including US- NVC Divisions, Subclasses, Classes, and Formations, as well as classes used in the National Landcover Data Set, and upland versus wetland vegetation. Intended uses of the habitat classification and map product include, but are not limited to: - Exploration of regional biodiversity patterns - Improved communication about habitats across state and other jurisdictional boundaries - Identification of habitats likely to be found within a specific project area - Regional assessments of the extent and condition of particular