Katie SP Gale1*, Alejandro Frid2, Lynn Lee3, Rebecca Martone4, Julie-Beth McCarthy5, Chris McDougall6, Carrie Robb1, Emily Rubidge1, Janelle Curtis7 1Fisheries
and Oceans Canada, Institute of Ocean Sciences; 2Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance; 3Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area, and Haida Heritage Site; 4Province of British Columbia; 5Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Regional Headquarters; 6Haida Oceans Technical Team, Council of the Haida Nation; 7Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Biological Station
*
[email protected]
Marine Protected Area (MPA) network planning is underway in the Northern Shelf Bioregion (NSB), British Columbia, Canada, co-led by the Governments of Canada, British Columbia, and 17 First Nations. Planning is guided by the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the Government of Canada’s National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas1, the goals and principles in the Canada–BC Marine Protected Area Network Strategy2, network objectives and design guidelines developed by the Marine Protected Area Technical Team (MPATT)3, and valuable input from stakeholders. Of the six network goals, Goal 1 is of primary importance: “To protect and maintain marine biodiversity, ecological representation, and special natural features”
1
What should be protected?
2
Location of the Northern Shelf Bioregion in British Columbia, Canada.
The NSB MPA network planning process incorporates many steps. Numbered boxes in the above flowchart are explained in more detail below.
Where are the important features?
How much should be protected?
3
Ecological Conservation Priorities (E-CPs) are the
Spatial data layers (“features”) were identified for
Spatial targets were determined for each feature, based
species, areas, habitats, and features to be protected in network planning.
each E-CP. Areas of aggregation, such as those important for feeding, breeding, or rearing, were prioritized.
on the following for each E-CP:
Species were scored and identified4 based on their vulnerability, ecological role, and conservation status. In total 195 species were identified as E-CPs.
Data were assembled for 83% of E-CP Species and 53% of E-CP Areas. Features will either be used as Marxan inputs for site selection analyses, or will be tracked and assessed post-hoc.
First Nations Cultural Conservation Priorities (FNCCPs) are areas that have cultural significance to First Nations communities, and include areas that would benefit from protection and that meet certain criteria:
Vulnerability, ecological role, and conservation status Alignment with the MPA network objectives Type, scale, quality, and quantity of available spatial data Expert advice and peer review E-CP Type Species
Areas
Areas were identified to protect areas of biodiversity, resilience, representativity, and ecological significance. • Areas of climate resilience • Representative habitats • Degraded areas • Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas
Assigned Target Class Low Medium High Low
Target Range 10-20% 20-40% 40-60% 10-30%
High
20-60%
Estuaries
10-30%
Pacific Marine Ecological Classification System Biophysical Units
Coarse Inversely Features proportional to area
7
Example Petrale Sole Abundance Pacific Herring Spawn Killer Whale Critical Habitat Benthic Fish Diversity Hotspots
Putting it all together
The decision-support tool Marxan is used to identify areas of high conservation value by identifying areas that meet targets for multiple features while minimizing cost (e.g., spatial footprint or economic value).
• Areas important for • Areas important for culture harvesting and spirituality • Areas important for culturally significant species
4
How should sites be configured?
Size and spacing guidelines were developed5 using home ranges and estimated larval dispersal distances of E-CPs. Areas important for connectivity are being identified using adult movement, larval dispersal distances, and habitat associations of E-CPs. guidelines5
Replication and representativity are based on global best practices for protected area planning.
5
Do existing protected areas contribute to network objectives?
We evaluated6 the proportion of each E-CP protected by the 115 current and proposed MPAs in the NSB, adjusted by the potential cumulative effects from allowable human activities within each protected area.
6
What are the trade-offs?
Areas of high human use were identified using a Marxan analysis with value metrics for the following activities: • Commercial fishing • Forestry • Vessel traffic • Recreational fishing • Aquaculture
Marxan runs will be based on Ecological Conservation Priorities and First Nations Cultural Conservation Priorities, and include spatial area and human use values (box 6) as costs. Parameters are determined using the targets and size and spacing guidelines described in boxes 3–4. Existing MPAs (box 5) will be incorporated. The Marxan outputs will be used as a starting point for discussions with planners and stakeholders.
Example Marxan output, showing selection frequency of invertebrate features only. Areas with higher selection frequency include 1 km2 planning units that are selected most often as part of a solution. High frequency areas may meet targets for a large number of features, and/or may capture unique features not found elsewhere.
What’s next? Draft network scenarios will incorporate additional knowledge and stakeholder and community input. Structured decision making will be used to evaluate the scenarios in a defensible and transparent manner. A network action plan for implementing the network scenarios will be completed in spring 2019. References 1. Government of Canada. 2011. National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. 31 p. 2. Canada – British Columbia Marine Protected Area Network Strategy. 2014. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/pdf/ ENG_BC_MPA_LOWRES.pdf. 3. http://www.mpanetwork.ca/bcnorthernshelf 4. Gale KSP et al. in revision. A framework for identification of ecological conservation priorities for marine protected area network design and its application in the Northern Shelf Bioregion. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 5. Martone R et al. in revision. Design Strategies for the Northern Shelf Bioregional Marine Protected Area Network. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 6. Martone R et al. submitted. Assessing the contribution of established protected areas towards meeting MPA network objectives in the Northern Shelf Bioregion. In State of the Physical, Biological and Selected Fishery Resources of Pacific Canadian Marine Ecosystems in 2017. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
Acknowledgements This poster represents the work of many people who have contributed to, reviewed, and progressed the work on Marine Protected Area network planning in British Columbia. Specifically, but not limited to: the co-chairs (Sheila Creighton, Kristin Worsley, Steve Diggon) and all members of the Marine Protected Area Technical Team (MPATT); collaborators working on connectivity and climate change (Natalie Ban, Sarah Friesen, Chris Blackford, Charlotte Whitney); and the members of the Science Advisory Team.
