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.