U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Transcription

1 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Model Applications to Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Council Parcels to Simulate Restoration Affects to Estimate Breeding Pair Numbers Prior to Restoration and After Restoration. Introduction The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) often receives requests from our partners for information on habitat restoration and protection projects and the impact of these projects on species of importance to our partners. Recently HAPET was approached by the Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) to model predicted breeding duck response to tracts purchased and restored with LSOHC funding. Objectives Our overall objective was to estimate the net benefit of LSOHC Investments to breeding waterfowl within the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of MN. This was accomplished in three steps: 1) First we Applied duck pair/wetland basin regression models to existing wetland basins and provide estimates on LSOHC parcels of duck numbers by county prior to habitat restoration. 2) Next, we applied duck pair/wetland basin regression models to existing wetland basins and restorable wetlands basin data to provide estimates on LSOHC parcels of duck numbers by county after habitat restoration. 3) Last, we determined the difference between pre and post restoration to predict the net benefits to breeding waterfowl. Procedural Background The USFWS Four Square Mile Survey (FSMS) has been conducted annually in the U.S. PPR by the USFWS Regions 3 and 6 National Wildlife Refuge System since The resulting long-term dataset was compiled to evaluate breeding duck pairs and provide estimates of breeding duck populations on lands managed by the USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System in the Prairie Pothole Region. With intentions to identify priority landscapes for conservation, this long-term dataset was used to develop breeding duck pair/wetland basin regression models to provide predictions of waterfowl pair numbers for individual wetland basins. These breeding duck pair/wetland basin regression models have been a baseline for the development of several popular and well accepted decision support tools in making habitat conservation restoration and protection decisions. Our Process Our analysis was based upon the application of duck pair and wetland basin relationships to modified National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data (Cowardin et.al. 1979) and Restorable Wetlands Inventory (RWI) data. The NWI data exists for the whole state, but the RWI data only covers a portion of the western part of the state. Other data and model limitations to the application of this process limited the extents of the analysis. The breeding duck pair/wetland basin regression models were developed from

2 2 FSMS data based in the PPR. The extents of application of these models were limited to the PPR. Therefore, only parcels that are within the boundaries of these baseline data layers could be used in the analysis. The extents of the data layers and the locations of the LSOHC tracts used in the analysis are shown in Figure 1. There were roughly 670 LSOHC tracts that were within the extents of the data limitations and were used in this analysis. The LSOHC tract boundaries were cleaned up, assigned unique tract names, assigned to a county that they occurred within, and limited to include tracts within the areas within the extents of the data layers. Figure 1. LSOHC Tracts and the Area.

3 3 A wetland basin data layer was created from NWI polygon data that were mapped according to the classification and definitions in Cowardin et al. (1979) and simplified by collapsing wetlands with multiple polygon wetland basins to a singular wetland basin polygon (basin) with the characteristics of the deepest water regime of the basin (Johnson et. al. 1997, Cowardin, L.M, 1982). For example, a lake with shallower wetland portions such as shallow bays or weedy vegetated areas within the lake basin were collapsed into one singular wetland basin polygon classified as a lake. This collapsed NWI basin data was used to simulate existing wetland conditions. The duck pair/wetland basin regression models were applied to the NWI basin data to provide estimates of duck pairs per wetland basin. The Restorable Wetlands Inventory (RWI) is a complement to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) completed in late-1980s by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The RWI project identifies the completelydrained depressional wetlands that were not mapped by the NWI. Restorable wetlands mapping is based upon protocols established for NWI allowing seamless integration of the two datasets. Since the RWI data layer has no attributes indicating the basin depth or the length of time that the basin is inundated with water, RWI basins were assigned the class of Seasonal wetlands and processed as basins that are seasonally inundated with water. The RWI data layer was combined with the collapsed NWI basin data layer to simulate restored conditions. Restorable wetlands inventory data that were delineated on LSOHC tracts were assumed to be restored wetland habitats in the analysis. The duck pair/wetland basin regression models were applied to the combined RWI/NWI basin data layer to provide estimates of duck pairs per wetland basin. Results The resulting data estimates for each LSOHC tract were compiled and summarized by county. The number of wetland basins on LSOHC tracts increased by approximately 2,509 basins and 4,257 acres (Appendix 1). The estimated number of dabbling duck pairs on LSOHC tracts increased from approximately 3,143 prior to restoration to approximately 5,082 duck pairs for an increase of approximately 1,939 pairs (Appendix 2). The estimated number of diving duck pairs on LSOHC tracts increased by approximately 60 pairs (Appendix 3). The number of wetland basins on LSOHC tracts before and after restoration is listed by county in Appendix 4. The estimated number of dabbling duck pairs on LSOHC tracts before and after restoration by county is listed in Appendix 5. The estimated number of diving duck pairs on LSOHC tracts before and after restoration by county is listed in Appendix 6. Summary of habitat projects on roughly 700 plus tracts of interest to the LSOHC involved approximately 3,022 wetland basins. After potential restoration of wetland habitats on these tracts, 2,509 additional wetlands would be restored. The estimated results of restoration would add an additional 4,257 acres of wetland habitats resulting in an 80% increase in basin numbers and a 44% increase in wetland basin acres. Restoration of wetland habitats would result in an increase of dabbling duck pairs from 3,143 to 5,082 or an increase of 62%. Estimated diving duck response to restoration would be an increase from 150 breeding pairs to 209 breeding pairs, or an increase of 39%.

4 4 For More Information Contact: Dan Hertel U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat and Population Evaluation Team Co. Hwy 82 Fergus Falls, MN (218) Cited References: Cowardin, L. M., and D. H. Johnson Mathematics and mallard management. Journal of Wildlife Management 43: Johnson, R. R., and K. F. Higgins Wetland resources of Eastern South Dakota. Brookings: South Dakota State University. 102 pp. Cowardin, L. M Some conceptual and semantic problems in wetland classification and inventory. Wildlife Society Bulletin 10:57-60.

5 5 Appendices: Appendix 1. Wetland Basins on LSOHC Tracts Before and After Restoration by County Wetland Basins Before Restoration After Restoration Difference after Restoration All All All Count Sum Count Sum Count Counties Counties Counties of of of of of in in in Basins Acres Basins Acres Basins Sum of Acres Total ,653 Total ,909 Total ,257 Appendix 2. Dabbling Pair Estimates on Lessard-Sams OHC Tracts. Before Restoration All Blue Counties Winged in Mallard Teal Gadwall Pintail Shoveler Woodduck Dabbling Total After Restoration All Counties in Mallard Blue Winged Teal Gadwall Pintail Shoveler Woodduck Dabbling Total Difference Between Before and After Restoration All Blue Counties Winged in Mallard Teal Gadwall Pintail Shoveler Woodduck Dabbling Total

6 6 Appendix 3. Diving Pair Estimates on Lessard-Sams OHC Tracts. Before Restoration All Counties in Canvasback Redhead Lesser Scaup Ruddy Ringneck Diving Total After Restoration All Counties in Canvasback Redhead Lesser Scaup Ruddy Ringneck Diving Total Difference Between Before and After Restoration All Counties in Canvasback Redhead Lesser Scaup Ruddy Ringneck Diving Total

7 7 Appendix 4. Wetland Basins on LSOHC Tracts Before and After Restoration by County Wetland Basins Before Restoration County Count of Basins Acres After Restoration County Count of Basins Acres Difference after Restoration County Change in Count of Basins Change in Sum of Acres Becker Becker Becker Big Stone Big Stone Big Stone Blue Earth Blue Earth Blue Earth Brown Brown Brown Carver Carver Carver Chippewa Chippewa Chippewa Clay Clay Clay Cottonwood Cottonwood Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Faribault Faribault Faribault Freeborn Freeborn Freeborn Grant Grant Grant Jackson Jackson Jackson Kandiyohi Kandiyohi Kandiyohi Lac qui Parle Lac qui Parle Lac qui Parle Le Sueur Le Sueur Le Sueur Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lyon Lyon Lyon Mahnomen Mahnomen Mahnomen Martin Martin Martin McLeod McLeod McLeod Meeker Meeker Meeker Murray Murray Murray Nicollet Nicollet Nicollet Nobles Nobles Nobles Norman Norman Norman Otter Tail Otter Tail Otter Tail Pipestone Pipestone Pipestone Polk Polk Polk Pope Pope Pope

8 8 Red Lake Red Lake Red Lake Redwood Redwood Redwood Renville Renville Renville Rice Rice Rice Scott Scott Scott Sibley Sibley Sibley Stearns Stearns Stearns Steele Steele Steele Stevens Stevens Stevens Swift Swift Swift Todd Todd Todd Traverse Traverse Traverse Waseca Waseca Waseca Watonwan Watonwan Watonwan Wilkin Wilkin Wilkin Wright Wright Wright Medicine Medicine Medicine Total , Total , Total ,256.57

9 9 Appendix 5. Dabbling Pair Estimates on LSOHC Tracts by County Before Restoration County Mallard Blue Winged Teal Gadwall Pintail Shoveler Woodduck Dabbling Becker Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carver Chippewa Clay Cottonwood Douglas Faribault Freeborn Grant Jackson Kandiyohi Lac qui Parle Le Sueur Lincoln Lyon Mahnomen Martin McLeod Meeker Murray Nicollet Nobles Norman Otter Tail Pipestone Polk Pope Red Lake Redwood Renville

10 10 Rice Scott Sibley Stearns Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse Waseca Watonwan Wilkin Wright Medicine Total After Restoration County Mallard Blue Winged Teal Gadwall Pintail Shoveler Woodduck Dabbling Becker Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carver Chippewa Clay Cottonwood Douglas Faribault Freeborn Grant Jackson Kandiyohi Lac qui Parle Le Sueur Lincoln Lyon Mahnomen

11 11 Martin McLeod Meeker Murray Nicollet Nobles Norman Otter Tail Pipestone Polk Pope Red Lake Redwood Renville Rice Scott Sibley Stearns Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse Waseca Watonwan Wilkin Wright Medicine Total Difference Between Before and After Restoration County Mallard Blue Winged Teal Gadwall Pintail Shoveler Woodduck Dabbling Becker Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carver

12 12 Chippewa Clay Cottonwood Douglas Faribault Freeborn Grant Jackson Kandiyohi Lac qui Parle Le Sueur Lincoln Lyon Mahnomen Martin McLeod Meeker Murray Nicollet Nobles Norman Otter Tail Pipestone Polk Pope Red Lake Redwood Renville Rice Scott Sibley Stearns Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse Waseca Watonwan Wilkin Wright

13 13 Medicine Total Appendix 6, Diving Pair Estimates on LSOHC Tracts by County Before Restoration All Counties in Canvasback Redhead Lesser Scaup Ruddy Ringneck Diving Becker Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carver Chippewa Clay Cottonwood Douglas Faribault Freeborn Grant Jackson Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Le Sueur Lincoln Lyon Mahnomen Martin McLeod Meeker Murray Nicollet Nobles Norman Otter Tail Pipestone Polk

14 14 Pope Redwood Renville Rice Scott Sibley Stearns Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse Waseca Watonwan Wilkin Wright Medicine Total After Restoration All Counties in Canvasback Redhead Lesser Scaup Ruddy Ringneck Diving Becker Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carver Chippewa Clay Cottonwood Douglas Faribault Freeborn Grant Jackson Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Le Sueur Lincoln Lyon

15 15 Mahnomen Martin McLeod Meeker Murray Nicollet Nobles Norman Otter Tail Pipestone Polk Pope Redwood Renville Rice Scott Sibley Stearns Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse Waseca Watonwan Wilkin Wright Medicine Total Difference Between Before and After Restoration All Counties in Canvasback Redhead Lesser Scaup Ruddy Ringneck Diving Becker Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carver Chippewa Clay

16 16 Cottonwood Douglas Faribault Freeborn Grant Jackson Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Le Sueur Lincoln Lyon Mahnomen Martin McLeod Meeker Murray Nicollet Nobles Norman Otter Tail Pipestone Polk Pope Redwood Renville Rice Scott Sibley Stearns Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse Waseca Watonwan Wilkin Wright Medicine Total