cumulative landscape pressures on skeena salmon ... · 4/17/2014 · and biotic processes: may be...
TRANSCRIPT
Cumulative Landscape Pressures on Skeena Salmon: Developing Conservation Unit Habitat Report Cards
Knowledge Management & Cumulative Effects Forum
Knowledge Management Toolkit Session
Smithers, BC
April 17, 2014
Marc Porter (ESSA)
Cumulative Effects
Slide Courtesy of Bev Ritchie Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Aggregate stressors that negatively affect Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) (e.g. salmon and their habitats)
Includes pressures from projects subject to EIA, human activities not
subject to formal EIA, & effects of natural ecological drivers (physical and biotic processes: may be exacerbated by climate change)
2
DFO’s Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) 6 linked strategies and associated action steps
Strategy 2 (assessment of habitat status)
• Document characteristics of habitats used by salmon Conservation Units (CUs)
• Select habitat indicators and develop benchmarks of concern for assessing habitat status
• Monitor and assess habitat status
• Establish linkages to develop an integrated data
system for watershed management
Indicator Framework for Strategy 2 of WSP (assessment of habitat status)
Focused on a two-tiered Pressure-State approach:
1. Pressure indicators: Human activities or natural processes that can directly or indirectly induce qualitative or quantitative changes in environmental conditions
2. State indicators: Physical, chemical, (or biological) attributes measured to characterize environmental conditions on the ground
Skeena Salmon CU Habitat Report Cards
Specific PSF Project Objectives:
1. To develop a synoptic overview of current habitat pressures (individually and cumulatively) affecting salmon Conservation Units (CUs) in the Skeena basin (across > 50 CUs within 5 species)
2. Develop “report cards” that summarize the relative habitat risks for individual Skeena salmon species CUs
3. Provide the assembled raw & derived habitat information to Skeena stakeholders through a variety of formats/media for viewing & analyses
5
• Project goal for the Pacific Salmon Foundation (PSF): undertake a “first cut” evaluation of the regional pressures/threats to Skeena salmon habitats o to date DFO has not yet undertaken any broad Strategy 2 habitat
assessments for salmon CUs in northern BC watersheds
CUs – evolutionary distinct population units
Habitat use life stage transitions for different salmon species
Streams (1) Estuary Streams (2)
Estuary Marine Environment
Chinook / Coho
Streams (1) Lakes Estuary
Estuary Marine Environment
Sockeye (lake rearing)
Streams (1) Estuary
Estuary Marine Environment
Pink / Chum
(estuary rearing)
Habitat Indicators – e.g., stream environments
Marine Environment /
Estuary
Water
temperature
Water
chemistry
Riparian
vegetation
Channel
stabilitySediment
EggsSpawners
Riparian
disturbance
Land cover
alterations
Hard
surfaces
Road
development
Floodplain
connectivity
Water
extraction
Stream
discharge
Wetland
disturbance
Instream
cover
Fry / Parr
(see Figures 3, 4, or 5)
Red – habitat pressure indicators
Light gray – habitat state indicators
Dark gray – salmon life stages
Riparian
vegetation
Proposed list of habitat indicators for WSP Strategy 2 monitoring
Skeena Watersheds - Habitat Pressure Indicators
Habitat Indicator Scale Data Sources
Road development watershed DRA, FTEN
Total land cover alteration watershed
LCC2000-V (agriculture, urban), VRI (forestry, fire,
mining, urban), DRA (roads), FTEN (roads, forestry),
RESULTS (forestry), NTS (rail), Crown Tenure (Utility
Corridors and Right of Ways), Current & Historical Fire
Polygons (fire), BTM (mining)
Forest disturbance watershed VRI, RESULTS, FTEN
Equivalent Clear Cut Area
(ECA) (total) watershed VRI, DRA, FTEN, LCC2000-V
Licensed water allocations watershed LMB Water License Points of Diversion
Permitted waste water
discharges watershed MOE Wastewater Discharge and Permits database
Migration obstacles CU migration
corridor FISS Obstructions layer, FWA Obstructions layers
9
Benchmark
• A standard (quantified metric) against which habitat condition can be measured or judged and by which status can be compared over space and time to determine the risk of adverse effects.
• Benchmarks (red, yellow, green) for habitat pressure indicators represent thresholds to be avoided, beyond which decision makers would pursue actions to reduce pressures on salmon habitats
• For our analyses benchmarks define levels of risk of habitat degradation
10
Strategy for defining habitat benchmarks
Develop rigorous science-based benchmarks for all habitat indicators = ultimate objective; however this requires substantial effort beyond the scope of the project Interim Approach • Use existing science/expert-based thresholds specific to
fish values where possible, identify concerns • If no existing benchmarks, use a ranking approach based on
data distributions (e.g. percentile based) to identify the watersheds across CUs at the greatest relative risk for each indicator
• Vet the interim benchmarks with the Skeena TAC • Eventually update as new benchmarks are developed and
agreed to via agency provincial & regional initiatives
11
Skeena habitat indicator thresholds (examples – science based)
ROADS
RIPARIAN
LOGGING Low Risk (<= 15%) Moderate Risk (>=15%) High Risk (>=20%
0 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
12
Skeena habitat indicator benchmarks (examples - relative ranks)
STREAM CROSSINGS
FOREST DISTURBANCE
INSECT DISTURBANCE
13
What is a green, amber, or red watershed?
• Green status: Watersheds with lower level of relative risk of watershed impairment from watershed pressures
• Amber status: Watersheds with moderate level of
relative risk of watershed impairment
• Red status: Watersheds with higher level of relative risk of watershed impairment
14
2) ZOI for CU tributary spawning (green subset area)
Skeena CU life stage-specific Zones of Influence (ZOIs)
3) ZOI for CU migration corridors (watersheds adjacent to corridor from lake outlet to estuary)
1) ZOI for CU rearing lakes (includes all upslope areas affecting rearing juveniles)
15
Zone of influence (ZOI): Areas adjacent to and upstream/upslope of habitats used by a salmon CU that represents the defined geographic extent for assessing habitat pressures
Pressure indicator habitat risk classifications within CU ZOIs (examples):
16
Babine Lake Sockeye CU
Skeena CU habitat pressure indicator “sliders”
17
Middle-Upper Skeena Pink CU Ecstall Chinook CU
Impact Categories
Integration of 13 watershed-scale habitat pressure indicators into 7 (relatively) independently important Impact Categories for assessing “cumulative” risk:
18
Pressure indicator roll-up rules for scoring Skeena watersheds for “cumulative” habitat risk across Impact Categories
19
Risks from cumulative pressures on CU watersheds (example – Babine CU rearing lake ZOI)
Habitat Indicator Scale Data Sources
Stream spawning length CU Spawning distribution (TAC)
Length of lake shore
spawning areas CU Lake spawning areas – sockeye (TAC)
Ratio of lake influenced
spawning to total spawning CU Sockeye spawning distribution (TAC)
Accessible habitat CU MOE Fish Passage Model, MTS Consulting
(2011)
Area of nursery lakes CU FWA, DFO designated lakes
Nursery lake productivity CU DFO designated nursery lakes, DFO (S. Cox-
Rogers)
Migration distance CU DFO designated nursery lakes, FWA
Flow sensitivity CU BC MOE ecoregional flow sensitivity mapping
Skeena salmon CUs Vulnerability Indicators
20
• Measures of existing habitat quantity & quality
example CU Vulnerability Indicators
• Measures of habitat quantity & quality • Currently relative across CUs within
Skeena; potential to develop quantitative benchmarks based on CU escapement goals
21
Integrated Cumulative Habitat Pressures / Vulnerability CU Relative Rankings
Spawning ZOI
Rearing ZOI Migration ZOI
• Life history stage specific • Roll up based on limiting
factor for each element (pressure & vulnerability)
22
23
Key TAC inputs to the Skeena “report card” analyses:
Component Skeena TAC Inputs
Zones of Influence (ZOIs) • Identification of Skeena estuary boundary • Species CU ZOI rule sets (migration, spawning,
rearing)
Freshwater habitat indicators
• Skeena estuary: eelgrass extents, proposed development
• Locations acid-generating mines • Proposed developments • Local habitat “state” datasets, narratives
Pressure indicator thresholds
• Science/expert based: agreed to ranges • Relative rankings: adjustments to rule-sets for
skewed, highly skewed data distributions
Cumulative pressure scoring
• Indicator groupings into Impact Categories for analyses
• Impact Category rule-sets for roll-ups to watershed cumulative risk assessments
Vulnerability indicators • Mapping of Skeena salmon species spawning locations, lengths
Positives in approaches taken for development of CU reports:
• Workable initial frame for discussing quantifying habitat pressures /
threats to watersheds
• Generated buy-in from local stakeholders & an interest in continuing further collaborative work to refine and improve
• Identification of gaps in supporting data (e.g. VRI coverages, etc.), working to resolve through new analyses
• Defining species life history stage-specific ZOIs allowed us to focus (cookie cut) our analyses on watersheds used by each Skeena salmon CU
• Quantification of habitat “vulnerability” indicators (while coarse) provided for broader context (i.e. relative CU risk status represents an integration of habitat pressures and potential population sensitivity to those pressures)
• Approaches for rolling up/aggregating indicators simple and transparent; still closely linked to base data to allow for further interpretation/simple adjustment (e.g. as opposed to complex nested algorithms that may obscure underlying data)
24
Habitat data “products” for Skeena stakeholders:
25
1. CU-specific habitat report cards for all Skeena salmon species • Summaries of pressures on habitat used by Skeena salmon CUs for
migration, spawning, rearing and incubation, as well as their relative vulnerability to those pressures
2. Skeena Salmon Habitat Mapper Online Tool
26
- Interactive mapping/queries for all Skeena salmon species/CUs
- Watershed indicator risk scores - Download of report cards
(pdfs) & associated reports - Downloads of raw & derived
habitat datasets
http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/habitat-mapper/
Skeena Salmon Habitat Mapper
27
• Developed with the purpose of bringing the hard-copy Skeena CU Habitat Report Cards online, and to give the user an extra level of insight into the data that could not be achieved through a one dimensional document
• Maintains the style of the maps and figures used in the report cards but
allows interaction with features on the map (i.e. filtering, highlighting, querying) through dynamic GIS layers
Architecture
Front-end
o Flex (open-source) – using the ArcGIS API for Flex to display and
interact with the ESRI web services
Back-end (ESRI development stack)
o ArcGIS Server – web server, dynamic layers
o ESRI Map Services – layer content and style
o File Geodatabase – data storage
28
Types of detailed information accessible through the Habitat Mapper (examples): - Watershed and CU habitat statistics - Locations for and info on current habitat pressures & development activities - Locations and info on proposed future developments - CU habitat vulnerabilities
29
Acknowledgements: The Pacific Salmon Foundation and ESSA Technologies Ltd. would like to sincerely thank the members of the Skeena Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for giving of their time and knowledge to guide the development of these CU habitat report cards. Their assistance was invaluable. The following people participated in one or more workshop and many also contributed data to the project: Mark Cleveland, Sandra Devcic, David DeWitt, Alana Dickson, Hannes Eddinger, Jessica Hawryshyn, Walter Joseph, Derek Kingston, Greg Knox, Siegi Kriegl, Chrissy Melymick, Lana Miller, Don Morgan, Johanna Pfalz, Ken Rabnett, and Bruce Watkinson. We would also like to offer our thanks to the following additional people and organizations for generously providing data towards this project: Selina Agbayani (WWF-Canada), Matthew Beedle, James Casey (WWF-Canada), Barb Faggetter, North Coast-Skeena First Nations Stewardship Society, Craig Outhet (NCFSNSS), Ron Ptolemy, Skeena Wild Conservation Trust, Russell Smith, Jack Stanford, World Wildlife Fund Canada. ESSA analysts: M. Porter, D. Pickard, S. Casley, N. Ochoski, K. Bryan. This project was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.