1. Northeast Habitat Classification and Mapping Project: Status and View Ahead a presentation to the Northeast Area Association of State Foresters Forest Resource Planning Committee May 2009 Susan C. Gawler, Ph.D. Regional Vegetation Ecologist

2. Partners

3. 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

4. 2009: Mapping & Project Expansion on the way

5. 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)

6. Northeast Terrestrial Habitat Classification System

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 (10 1 - 10 3 ha) –temporally persistent (>50 yrs)

11. examples Northern Appalachian- Acadian Rocky Heath Outcrop (ME) Central Appalachian Dry Oak-Pine Forest (WV)

12. 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.

13. Ruderal Forest - Northern and Central Hardwood and Conifer Ruderal Upland - Old Field

14. Residential - Rural / Sparse

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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. 5.Modular structure with Ecological Systems plus Structural Modifiers

21. 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

22. 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]

23. 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

24. 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

25. Examples of SWAP crosswalks: PA SWAP 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

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

28. Scroll to bottom of page for attachments

29. 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)

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

31. 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

32. 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

33. High Allegheny Plateau: Geology

34. High Allegheny Plateau: Aspect -3 versions Categorical Quantitative Shaded relief

35. High Allegheny Plateau: Land Cover

36. THREE MAIN SOURCES NHP Element Occurrences NVC community mapping & plots FIA Plots Compilation of Known Occurrences

37. 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..

38. 3) The following polygon attributes

39. 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

40. Non-natural landcover and wetlands masked out

41. Cliff & talus model dropped on

42. 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

43. Example of Final Product

44. 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

45. We look forward to moving ahead with state forestry partners!