Download Powerpoint

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
--Hydrology
--Sediment
mechanics
--Channel
Recovery
dynamics
--Riparian
function
Environment
Geology and Climate
Environmental
Actions
Processes
--Appropriate
scale and
hierarchy
--Metrics
--Extent
--Grain
Habitat
Assessment
Environmental
Pattern
Habitat
Description
Appraisal for a
species
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
Habitat
Observations
Species-habitat knowledge
base
EDT
Biological
Performance:
Productivity,
Capacity and
Diversity
Species-population knowledge
base
CRI (population
models)
Population
Observations
Protection
Current
Restoration
Environmental Conditions
Restoration Template
Degradation Template
Space (stream mile)
Assessment provides restoration and
protection priorities
EDT prioritizes habitat based on
biological performance
Habitat Priorities for Johnson Creek: Coho Capacity
Biological Value of Restoration
Biological Cost of Degradation
Columbia R & Estuary
Willamette
Lower Johnson
Middle Johnson
Upper Johnson
Crystal
Kelley
-200%
-150%
-100%
-50%
0%
0%
50%
Change from current
100%
150%
200%
Habitat Assessment Process
I. Prepare EDT Input Table
Attributes
EDT
EDT Habitat Input
Environmental
Description
Reaches
Mo
nth
s
Monthly shaping of flow,
temperature and width
= Snap-shot of
conditions
Hydrography:
HUC-6/Reaches
Environmental
Attributes (45)
Habitat Assessment Process
II. Rate the Habitat
hs
M
Life stage-survival rules
t
on
1. Water chemistry
1.1. Dissolved oxygen
1.2. Salinity
1.3. Toxic chemicals
EDT Habitat Input
Description
4. Habitat
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
Habitat diversity
Obstructions
Key habitat (quantity)
Structural entrainment
5. Productivity
5.1. Food
6. Community effects
6.1. Competition
6.1.1. With hatchery fish
6.1.2. With other species
6.2. Predation
6.3. Harassment
6.4. Pathogens
Factors
Habitat Descriptors
Reaches
Environmental
Biological
Capacity &
Productivity
Descriptors
Reaches
3. Geomorphology
3.1. Channel stability
3.2. Sediment load
Attributes
Reaches
Mo
nth
s
2. Water condition
2.1. Flow
2.2. Temperature
Habitat Assessment Process
III. Rate the Watershed
Life history/Population structure
Factors
vity
Progeny
Capacity
Produc
ti
Biological
Capacity &
Productivity
Reaches
fe
Li
ge
a
St
Beverton-Holt Function for a salmon
population
pl
a
en
m
ce
t
Re
Spawners
Population
Capacity and
Productivity
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?
Validation of EDT for Spring Chinook in the
Validation
EDT forbroods.
Spring Chinook in the Yakima River.
Yakima
River.of1981-94
1981-94 broods.
Comparison of predicted and observed performace parameters, Yakima
Adult Abundance
Smolt Abundance
Productivity
Population Model Observed Model
Observed Model Observed
American
310
393
13,001 insufficient data 4.2 insufficient data
Naches
873
948
45,332 insufficient data 2.6 insufficient data
Upper Yakima 1 2,479
2,095
111,107 insufficient data 2.7 insufficient data
TOTAL
3,662
3,436
169,440
180,530
2.9
3.1
1
Includes Teanaway population
2
Weighting factor is equilibriumabundance
Source: Bruce Watson, YIN
Case Study: Johnson Creek,
Portland, OR
Johnson Study Area Map
Habitat Assessment of Johnson Creek, Portland, OR
Analysis Date: May 8, 2002
Coho
Habitat
Harvest
Scenario Scenario Capacity Productivity
Reference None
8,269
24.0
Johnson Creek-entire
Coho
Current
Pre-1993
189
1.2
32
1%
Johnson Creek-entire
Coho
Current
Post 1992
474
2.1
247
6%
Johnson Creek-entire
Coho
Current
None
614
2.5
0
11%
EDT
Population Estimates
Species
Focus Area
Johnson Creek-entire
Coho Production in Johnson Creek
Current Habitat Conditions
450
Replacement
Pre 1993 Harvest
Post 1993 Harvest
No Harvest
400
350
Progeny
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
Spawners
250
300
350
400
Neq
7,924
DI
100%
Combined priorities for rehabilitation of Johnson Creek habitat for coho salmon
Priorities
Combined priority rank for all areas for Johnson Creek coho
Biological Value of Restoration
Biological Cost of Degradation
Columbia R & Estuary
Willamette
Lower Johnson
Middle Johnson
Upper Johnson
Crystal
Kelley
High Priority
High Priority
Low Priority
Combined Priority Rankings for coho for Middle Johnson Creek
Combined priority ranks of Willamette River for Johnson Creek coho
Biological Value of Restoration
Biological Cost of Degradation
Biological Cost of Degradation
Biological Value of Restoration
Industrial
Portland Harbor
Downtown
Ross Island
Sellwood
High Priority
Low Priority
Johnson8
Johnson9
Johnson10
Johnson11
Johnson12
Johnson13
Johnson14
Johnson15
Veterans
Wahoo
High Priority
High Priority
Low Priority
High Priority
Geographic Area: Johnson15
Johnson 15 extends from SE190 to footbridge at Gresham City
Reach: Park. Riparian is some trees w/ blackberry/canary grass. Very
deep and slow
4
Restoration Benefit Category:1/
B
Productivity Rank:1/
Stream:
4
Average Abundance (Neq) Rank:1/
(lowest rank possible - with ties)1/
17
Life History Diversity Rank:1/
Preservation Benefit Category:1/
B
Productivity Rank:1/
Overall Preservation Rank:1/
5
Average Abundance (Neq) Rank:1/
(lowest rank possible - with ties)1/
16
Life History Diversity Rank:1/
Reach Code:
Potential % change in productivity:2/
247.8%
Potential % change in Neq:2/
Potential % change in diversity:2/
41.7%
58.4%
4 % loss in productivity with degradation:2/
5
% loss in Neq with degradation:2/
4
% loss in diversity with degradation:2/
-6.5%
-10.1%
-11.9%
Reach 15 Attributes
Overall Restoration Potential Rank:1/
Johnson Cr.
2.60
Johnson15
Reach Length (mi):
6
8
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
Prespawning migrant
Sep-Nov
34.9%
Prespawning holding
Oct-Dec
5.8%
Key habitat quantity
Withdrawals
Temperature
Sediment load
Predation
Pathogens
Oxygen
Obstructions
Harassment/poaching
Habitat diversity
Food
Flow
Competition (other sp)
Competition (w/ hatch)
Productivity
change (%)
Chemicals
% of life
history
trajectories
affected
Channel stability
Life stage
Relevant
months
Life Stage Rank
Change in attribute impact on survival
1-age transient rearing
2+-age transient rearing
All Stages Combined
0.0% 10
-5.4%
8
35%
1/ Ranking based on effect over entire geographic area.
Loss Gain
2/ Value shown is for overall population performance.
Notes: Changes in key habitat can be caused by either a change in percent key habitat or in stream width.
KEY
NA = Not applicable
None
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
Example of how EDT can relate to watershed actions
EDT habitat
assessment
Restoration
Priorities
Protection
Priorities
Impervious
surfaces impairing
processes
Impervious areas
not impairing
processes
Prioritize and restore
Impervious areas
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