Upload
katina
View
40
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Habitat Assessment Modeling: Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment. Environment and Habitat. Environment: broad description of conditions at a location Not species specific Sets the metrics Defines appropriate scale, hierarchy, extent and grain - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Habitat Assessment Modeling: Ecosystem Diagnosis and
Treatment
Environment and Habitat
• Environment: broad description of conditions at a location– Not species specific
– Sets the metrics
– Defines appropriate scale, hierarchy, extent and grain
• Habitat: species specific description of conditions at a location– Species specific subset of environment
– Relates to biological performance of focal species
Habitat Rehabilitation Process
Actions
Recovery
Environmental
ProcessesEnvironmental Pattern
Geology and Climate
Environment
Appraisal for a species
Habitat Assessment
Habitat Description
--Hydrology--Sediment mechanics--Channel dynamics--Riparian function
--Appropriate scale and hierarchy--Metrics--Extent--Grain
Assessment: Species-focused rating of habitat
• How much habitat is there?– Quantity: Biological capacity
• How good is it?– Quality: Productivity– Connectivity: Life history trajectories– Breadth: Trajectory diversity
Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT)
• EDT rates the quality and quantity of habitat with respect to one or more focal species.
• EDT identifies restoration and protection priorities and limiting conditions– Where do we start?– What needs to be fixed?
• EDT is NOT a dynamic population dynamics model.– It rates a static depiction of habitat conditions.
• EDT does NOT PROVE ANYTHING.– It creates a testable working hypothesis as a basis for
action.
Habitat and population models: essential tools for recovery planning
PopulationObservations
Spe
cies
-pop
ulat
ion
know
ledg
eba
se
CRI (populationmodels)
HabitatObservations
Spe
cies
-hab
itat k
now
ledg
eba
se
BiologicalPerformance:Productivity,Capacity and
Diversity
EDT
Assessment provides restoration and protection priorities
Environmental Conditions
Spa
ce (
stre
am m
ile)
Current
Res
tora
tion
Tem
plat
e
Deg
rada
tion
Tem
plat
e
Protection Restoration
EDT prioritizes habitat based on biological performance
Habitat Priorities for J ohnson Creek: Coho Capacity
Columbia R & EstuaryWillamette
Lower J ohnsonMiddle J ohnsonUpper J ohnson
CrystalKelley
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%-200% -150% -100% -50% 0%
Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration
Change from current
Habitat Assessment ProcessI. Prepare EDT Input Table
Environmental Attributes (45)
Monthly shaping of flow, temperature and width
= Snap-shot of conditions
Hydrography: HUC-6/Reaches
Attributes
Rea
che
s
Mon
ths
EDT Habitat InputEDT Environmental Description
Habitat Assessment ProcessII. Rate the Habitat
BiologicalCapacity &Productivity
Descriptors
Rea
chesLife
Sta
ge
Attributes
Re
ach
es
Mon
ths
EDT Habitat InputEnvironmental
Description
1. Water chemistry1.1. Dissolved oxygen1.2. Salinity1.3. Toxic chemicals
2. Water condition2.1. Flow2.2. Temperature
3. Geomorphology3.1. Channel stability3.2. Sediment load
4. Habitat4.1. Habitat diversity4.2. Obstructions4.3. Key habitat (quantity)4.4. Structural entrainment
5. Productivity5.1. Food
6. Community effects6.1. Competition
6.1.1. With hatchery fish6.1.2. With other species
6.2. Predation6.3. Harassment6.4. Pathogens
Mon
ths
Factors
Rea
che
s
Habitat Descriptors
Life stage-survival rules
Habitat Assessment ProcessIII. Rate the Watershed
BiologicalCapacity &Productivity
Factors
Re
ach
es
Life S
tage
Life history/Population structure
Population Capacity and Productivity
Capacity
Spawners
Pro
gen
y
Beverton-Holt Function for a salmonpopulation
Validation of a habitat assessment model
• Does the biological rating metric comport with reality?
• Does it accurately predict distribution of the rating species?
• It it useful?
Source: Bruce Watson, YIN
Validation of EDT for Spring Chinook in the Yakima River. 1981-94 broods.
P o p u l a t i o n M o d e l O b s e r v e d M o d e l O b s e r v e d M o d e l O b s e r v e dA m e r i c a n 3 1 0 3 9 3 1 3 , 0 0 1 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a 4 . 2 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a
N a c h e s 8 7 3 9 4 8 4 5 , 3 3 2 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a 2 . 6 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a
U p p e r Y a k i m a 1 2 , 4 7 9 2 , 0 9 5 1 1 1 , 1 0 7 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a 2 . 7 i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a
T O T A L 3 , 6 6 2 3 , 4 3 6 1 6 9 , 4 4 0 1 8 0 , 5 3 0 2 . 9 3 . 11 I n c l u d e s T e a n a w a y p o p u l a t i o n2 W e i g h t i n g f a c t o r i s e q u i l i b r i u m a b u n d a n c e
A d u l t A b u n d a n c e S m o l t A b u n d a n c e P r o d u c t i v i t yC o m p a r i s o n o f p r e d i c t e d a n d o b s e r v e d p e r f o r m a c e p a r a m e t e r s , Y a k i m a
Validation of EDT for Spring Chinook in the Yakima River. 1981-94 broods.
Case Study: Johnson Creek, Portland, OR
Johnson Study Area Map
Coho Production in Johnson Creek Current Habitat Conditions
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Spawners
Pro
gen
y
Replacement
Pre 1993 Harvest
Post 1993 Harvest
No Harvest
EDT Population Estimates
Habitat Assessment of Johnson Creek, Portland, ORAnalysis Date:
SpeciesHabitat
ScenarioHarvest
Scenario Capacity Productivity Neq DICoho Reference None 8,269 24.0 7,924 100%
Coho Current Pre-1993 189 1.2 32 1%
Coho Current Post 1992 474 2.1 247 6%
Coho Current None 614 2.5 0 11%
May 8, 2002
Johnson Creek-entire
Focus AreaJohnson Creek-entire
Johnson Creek-entire
Johnson Creek-entire
Combined priorities for rehabilitation of Johnson Creek habitat for coho salmon
PrioritiesCombined priority rank for all areas for J ohnson Creek coho
Columbia R & EstuaryWillamette
Lower J ohnsonMiddle J ohnsonUpper J ohnson
CrystalKelley
Low Priority
Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration
High PriorityHigh Priority
Combined priority ranks of Willamette River for J ohnson Creek coho
Industrial
Portland Harbor
Downtown
Ross Island
Sellwood
Low Priority
Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration
High PriorityHigh Priority
Combined Priority Rankings for coho for Middle J ohnson Creek
J ohnson8J ohnson9
J ohnson10J ohnson11J ohnson12J ohnson13J ohnson14J ohnson15
VeteransWahoo
Low Priority
Biological Cost of Degradation Biological Value of Restoration
High PriorityHigh Priority
Reach 15 Attributes
Geographic Area: Johnson15 Stream:
Reach Length (mi):
Reach Code:
Restoration Benefit Category:1/ B Productivity Rank:1/ Potential % change in productivity:2/
Overall Restoration Potential Rank:1/ 4 Average Abundance (Neq) Rank:1/ Potential % change in Neq:2/
(lowest rank possible - with ties)1/ 17 Life History Diversity Rank:1/ Potential % change in diversity:2/
Preservation Benefit Category:1/ B Productivity Rank:1/ % loss in productivity with degradation:2/
Overall Preservation Rank:1/ 5 Average Abundance (Neq) Rank:1/ % loss in Neq with degradation:2/
(lowest rank possible - with ties)1/ 16 Life History Diversity Rank:1/ % loss in diversity with degradation:2/
Change in attribute impact on survival
Spawning Oct-Jan 5.8% -9.5% 6
Egg incubation Oct-May 5.8% -30.9% 4
Fry colonization Mar-May 9.9% -18.3% 3
0-age active rearing Mar-Oct 6.0% -49.9% 1
0-age migrant Oct-Nov 12.7% -3.9% 7
0,1-age inactive Oct-Mar 4.0% -55.7% 2
1-age migrant Mar-Jun 22.3% -1.0% 9
1-age resident rearing Mar-May 4.0% -21.4% 5
1-age transient rearing
2+-age transient rearing
Prespawning migrant Sep-Nov 34.9% 0.0% 10
Prespawning holding Oct-Dec 5.8% -5.4% 8
All Stages Combined 35% Loss Gain
1/ Ranking based on effect over entire geographic area. 2/ Value shown is for overall population performance. KEY None
Notes: Changes in key habitat can be caused by either a change in percent key habitat or in stream width. NA = Not applicable Small
Potential % changes in performance measures for reaches upstream of dams were computed with full passage Moderate
allowed at dams (though reservoir effects still in place). High
Extreme
58.4%
Johnson Cr.
2.60
Johnson15
247.8%
Key
hab
itat
quan
tity
6
8
With
draw
als
Har
assm
ent/
poac
hing
41.7%
Pre
datio
n
Sed
imen
t lo
ad
Tem
pera
ture
Pat
hoge
ns
Life
Sta
ge R
ank
Cha
nnel
sta
bilit
y
Che
mic
als
Com
petit
ion
(w/
hatc
h)
Oxy
gen
Flo
w
Foo
d
Hab
itat
dive
rsity
Life stage
Com
petit
ion
(oth
er s
p)
Obs
truc
tions
Reach:Johnson 15 extends from SE190 to footbridge at Gresham City Park. Riparian is some trees w/ blackberry/canary grass. Very deep and slow
4
% of life history
trajectories affected
Productivity change (%)
Relevant months
4 -11.9%
4 -6.5%
5 -10.1%
EDT habitat assessment
Restoration Priorities
Protection Priorities
Modified from Roni et al. (2002): A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. N.Am.J.Fish. Mgmt.22:1-20
Example of how EDT can relate to watershed actions
Impervious surfaces impairing processes
Impervious areas not impairing processes
Prioritize and restoreImpervious areas