freshwater conservation planning systematic conservation planning and the role of software: from...

Freshwater conservation planning

Systematic conservation planning and the role of

software: from data to implementation and management

Society for Conservation Biology

Port Elizabeth

26-29 June 2007

Jeanne Nel

[email protected]

Outline

• Framework for freshwater conservation planning

• Planning units for freshwater

• Mapping biodiversity pattern

• Incorporating biodiversity processes

• Quantitative targets

• Conservation design

• Scheduling catchments for implementation

• Integration with terrestrial conservation

• Implications of climate change

• Try to cover “high road” (plenty of data, time and funding) and “low road” (no data, or rapid assessment) options

Framework for freshwater conservation planning

• Same overarching goals and principles to terrestrial

• No single “recipe” as methods depend on:

• Data availability

• Expert knowledge

• Skills & training of the conservation planning team

• Time & budgetary constraints

• Attention needs to be given to:

• Supporting process data layers, especially connectivity

• Rehabilitation

• Supporting process layers are space hungry – make more palatable for implementation through:

• Multiple-use zoning

• Scheduling

Planning units

• Sub-catchments small enough to match variability of biodiversity pattern

• Immediately captures some degree of connectivity

• These are still generally larger than terrestrial planning units

Biodiversity pattern

• River types

• Focal fish species

• Focal invertebrate species

• Wetland types

• Free-flowing rivers

• Special features

• Riparian forests

• Scenic gorges and waterfalls

• Large intact wetlands

Biodiversity pattern: river types

• Top down vs bottom up approaches (Kingsford et al. 2005)

• Based on variables that drive heterogeneity vs those that respond to heterogeneity

• Drivers generally based on hydrology and geomorphology, for which surrogates can be derived

• Response variables generally use biota and water chemistry, are data intensive and often confounded by human impacts

• General trend is to use hydrogeomorphological classification

………..AND supplement wherever possible with freshwater focal species

Classification approaches:• Higgins et al. 2005. Conservation Biology 19(2): 432-445 • Kingsford, R.T. et al. 2005. Available from: http://www.ids.org.au/~cnevill/RiversBlueprint.pdf

Application of classification approaches:• Nel et al. 2007. Diversity and Distributions 13: 341-352 • Thieme et al. 2007. Biological Conservation 135: 484-501

Biodiversity pattern: river types

VEGETATION

HYDROLOGICALVARIABILITY

LANDSCAPE-LEVEL CLASSIFICATION

STREAM GRADIENTS

RIVERTYPES

STREAM-LEVEL CLASSIFICATION

Spatialoverlay

Spatialoverlay

GEOLOGY

CLIMATE

…clean slivers & assess ”false heterogeneity”

Biodiversity pattern: River types

• Hydrological variation• Low road: model water balance using mean annual precipitation and

evapotranspiration; provides sub-catchment level hydrology

• Middle road: model using hydrological gauge data; generally only available for main rivers

• High road: use topocadastral data which ID’s perenniality based on seasonal surveys

• Stream gradients• Low road: use elevation thresholds to ID high-elevation, mid-elevation and

lowland streams

• High road: Model stream slope based on rivers and DEM GIS layers & assign geomorphological zonation:

Lumped geomorphological zone

Rowntree and Wadeson (1999) zones

Source zone Source zones

Mountain stream Mountain headwater & mountain streams

Upper foothills Transitional zones and upper foothills

Lower foothills Lower foothills

Lowland river Lowland river

Example of river types……

River type nameTotal length (km)

Length intact (km)

Target (km)

Perennial-South Western Coastal Belt-Mountain stream 13 0 2545

Perennial-South Western Coastal Belt-Upper foothills 17 0 3338

Perennial-South Western Coastal Belt-Lower foothills 14 0 2900

Perennial-Western Folded Mountains-Mountain stream 115 98 22929

Perennial-Western Folded Mountains-Upper foothills 375 308 75042

Perennial-Western Folded Mountains-Lower foothills 60 38 11906

Perennial-Western Folded Mountains-Lowland river 36 22 7231

Non-perennial-Great Karoo-Mountain stream 22 16 4368

Non-perennial-Great Karoo-Lower foothills 53 17 10649

From:

• Nel et al. 2006. Available from: http://www.waternet.co.za/rivercons/

Biodiversity pattern: Wetland delineations

• Orthophotos and user-interpretation – works very well but time-consuming and mentally tedious

• Remote sensing:

• Fine-resolution (< 30 m) imagery hold potential but is still relatively expensive

• 30 m resolution imagery with wetness potential models (based on seasonality, geology, topography) has been used in South Africa, but with disconcerting levels of accuracy

• Amalgamation of existing GIS layers:

• Delineations from ad hoc site visits by ecologists

• Wetlands marked on 1:50 000 topocadastral maps

• 30 m resolution waterbodies corrected for dams, and enhanced using wetness potential models)

Relevant literature:• Ewart-Smith et al. 2006. Available from the Water Research Commission, South Africa, Report K8/652.• Goetz et al. 2006. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 42(1):133-143.

Biodiversity pattern: Wetland types

• Floristic vs hydrogeomorphological classification frameworks

• Hydrogeomorphological frameworks classify according to ecological functional type and tend to be more commonly used

• South African National Classification Framework:

• Hierarchical

• Based primarily on hydrogeomorphological criteria

• Biotic criteria are used as secondary descriptors

Vegetation group

Alluvial

Dune Strandveld

Fynbos

Nama Karoo

Renosterveld

Salt Marsh

Salt Pans

Sand and Dune Fynbos

Succulent Karoo

Drainage Landform (shape and/or setting)

Non-isolated Valley bottom

Floodplain

Depression linked to channel

Seep linked to channel

Isolated Depression not linked to a channel

Seep not linked to a channel

Level 1: Primary descriptors

Secondary descriptors

Relevant literature:• Ewart-Smith et al. 2006. Available from the Water Research Commission, South Africa, Report K8/652.

Biodiversity pattern: Wetland types

• Functional type is based on drainage, landform and/or setting

• Can use surrogates based on river buffers, soil depth and slope

• Slope from United States 90 m digital

elevation data;

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/j/z/jzs169/Project3.htm

• Soil from General Soils Pattern Map of

South Africa which provides soil and

terrain information at a 1:250000 scale.

Available from www.agis.agric.za.

• Results are strongly limited by scale of

environmental surrogates

Functional Surrogate

Valley bottom Wetlands occurring on slopes of 0-2.4° and soils < 450 m that are not “Depression” or “Floodplain”

Floodplain Wetlands intersecting a 100 m GIS buffer around lowland river reaches

Depression Pans from 1:50000 topocadastral

Seep linked to channel Wetlands occurring within a 100 m GIS buffer of a 1:50,000 river, on slopes of > 2.4° and soils > 450 mm that are not “Depression” or “Floodplain”

Seep not linked to a channel Wetlands occurring outside a 100 m GIS buffer of a 1:50,000 river, on slopes of > 2.4° and soils > 450 mm that are not “Depression” or “Floodplain”

Example of wetland types……

Drainage Landform Vegetation group Wetland type Total area (ha) Intact area (ha) TargetChannelled Valley bottom Alluvial Channelled-Valley bottom-Alluvial 3173 1155 635Channelled Valley bottom Dune Strandveld Channelled-Valley bottom-Dune Strandveld 329 0 66Channelled Valley bottom Fynbos Channelled-Valley bottom-Fynbos 1794 610 359Channelled Valley bottom Nama Karoo Channelled-Valley bottom-Nama Karoo 70 70 14Channelled Valley bottom Renosterveld Channelled-Valley bottom-Renosterveld 199 60 40Channelled Valley bottom Sand & Dune Fynbos Channelled-Valley bottom-Sand & Dune Fynbos 1656 26 331Channelled Valley bottom Succulent Karoo Channelled-Valley bottom-Succulent Karoo 3462 2806 692Channelled Floodplain Alluvial Channelled-Floodplain-Alluvial 12069 0 2414Channelled Floodplain Fynbos Channelled-Floodplain-Fynbos 3420 3420 684Channelled Floodplain Renosterveld Channelled-Floodplain-Renosterveld 649 0 130Channelled Floodplain Sand & Dune Fynbos Channelled-Floodplain-Sand & Dune Fynbos 4177 0 835Channelled Seep Alluvial Channelled-Seep-Alluvial 1709 951 342Channelled Seep Fynbos Channelled-Seep-Fynbos 1533 538 307Channelled Seep Nama Karoo Channelled-Seep-Nama Karoo 65 42 13Channelled Seep Renosterveld Channelled-Seep-Renosterveld 866 408 173Channelled Seep Sand & Dune Fynbos Channelled-Seep-Sand & Dune Fynbos 1337 40 267Channelled Seep Succulent Karoo Channelled-Seep-Succulent Karoo 5844 4789 1169Unchannelled Seep Alluvial Unchannelled-Seep-Alluvial 45 20 9Unchannelled Seep Fynbos Unchannelled-Seep-Fynbos 107 74 21Unchannelled Seep Nama Karoo Unchannelled-Seep-Nama Karoo 12 12 2Unchannelled Seep Renosterveld Unchannelled-Seep-Renosterveld 190 62 38Unchannelled Seep Sand & Dune Fynbos Unchannelled-Seep-Sand & Dune Fynbos 49 16 10Unchannelled Seep Succulent Karoo Unchannelled-Seep-Succulent Karoo 360 318 72Unchannelled Depression Alluvial Unchannelled-Depression-Alluvial 507 477 101Unchannelled Depression Fynbos Unchannelled-Depression-Fynbos 23 16 5Unchannelled Depression Nama Karoo Unchannelled-Depression-Nama Karoo 82 82 16Unchannelled Depression Renosterveld Unchannelled-Depression-Renosterveld 51 0 10Unchannelled Depression Salt Marsh Unchannelled-Depression-Salt Marsh 260 260 52Unchannelled Depression Salt Pans Unchannelled-Depression-Salt Pans 120 46 24Unchannelled Depression Sand & Dune Fynbos Unchannelled-Depression-Sand & Dune Fynbos 63 23 13Unchannelled Depression Succulent Karoo Unchannelled-Depression-Succulent Karoo 274 274 55

From:• Nel et al. 2006. Available from: http://www.waternet.co.za/rivercons/

Biodiversity pattern: Focal fish species

• Umbrella, keystone, flagship, threatened, rare or endemic species

• Point locality & expert knowledge

• What is the status of the population at each locality

• Exclude marginal river reaches; select ones with the most suitable habitat & containing populations large enough to be “viable”

• Modelled distributions and probability of occurrence

• Core populations based on abundances

• Needs to be accompanied by persistence considerations

Relevant literature:• Brewer et al. 2007. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27:326–341.• Filipe et al. 2004. Conservation Biology 18:189-200.• Nel et al. 2006. Available from: http://www.waternet.co.za/rivercons/• Winston & Angermeier 1995. Conservation Biology 9:1518-1527.

Example of fish sanctuaries and connector areas

From:• Nel et al. 2006. Available from: http://www.waternet.co.za/rivercons/

Biodiversity pattern: other focal species

• Data almost non-existent

• Invertebrates often exist at family level; rarely species level problematic

All families (90) Focal genera (25)

• But see Linke et al. 2007

Relevant literature:• Linke et al. 2007. Freshwater Biology 52:918–938.

Biodiversity pattern: special features

• The low road option of incorporating expert knowledge!

• Features generally include:

• Rivers free of alien fish

• Intact river gorges & waterfalls (scenic and evolutionary value)

• Large known & intact wetland systems

• All were included as moderate protection zones in the final conservation design, PLUS

• Planning unit cost was “discounted” for all sub-quaternary catchments containing special features

Outline


• Planning units for freshwater – sub-catchments….see Hydrosheds



• Quantitative targets

• Conservation design





Biodiversity processes

• Four key considerations for freshwaters:

• Step 1: Select systems of high ecological integrity

• Step 2: Incorporate connectivity

• Step 3: Incorporate any additional spatial processes

• Step 4: Select persistent populations

Relevant literature:• Pressey et al. in press. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.• Pressey et al. 2003. Biological Conservation 112: 99–127.• Rouget et al. 2006. Conservation Biology 20(2): 549–561.• Sarkar et al. 2006. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 31:123–59.

Step 1: Select systems of high ecological integrity

• Incorporates numerous local-scale processes & large-scale processes associated with the natural flow regime

• Use as an initial screening mechanism in selecting for pattern targets

• Field-based biological assessments at site-level BUT labour intensive

• Land cover surrogates in riparian buffers & throughout the catchment

• BUT cumulative upstream impacts can be problematic

• Wherever possible use field-based data and modelling in combination

Relevant literature:• Amis et al. 2007. Water SA 33(2): 217-221.• Matteson & Angermeier 2007. Environmental Management 39:125–138.• Snyder et al. 2007. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41: 659-677.

Methods for mapping ecological integrity

• Used national data (Kleynhans 2000) • Flow

• Inundation

• Water quality

• Stream bed condition

• Introduced instream biota

• Riparian or stream bank condition

• Integrity categories• A (largely natural) to F (unacceptably

modified)

• Evaluated against site assessment data

• Used 30 x 30 m national land cover to calculate % natural vegetation, deriving:• Catchment disturbance index (sub-

quaternary catchment)

• Riparian disturbance index (within a GIS buffer of 500 m)

• Macro-channel disturbance index (within a GIS buffer of 100 m)

• Used 80% as threshold for “intact” vs “not intact”

• Downgraded any intact tributaries with > 5 % erosion within 500 m of channel

Main rivers in quaternary Tributaries (all other 500K rivers)

Map of ecological integrity

• 23% main rivers intact; 57% if tributaries are added

• Emphasizes the role of tributaries as refugia

• Main rivers need to be in a state that supports connectivity

From:• Nel et al. 2006. Available from:

http://www.waternet.co.za/rivercons/

Other application studies:• Linke et al. 2007. Freshwater Biology 52:918–938• Thieme et al. 2007. Biological Conservation 135: 484-501

Wetland integrity/condition

• Use NLC2000 to calculate % natural vegetation, deriving:• Catchment disturbance index (sub-quaternary catchment)

• Buffered core disturbance index (within a GIS buffer of 100 m)

• Core disturbance index (within a GIS buffer of 50 m)

• Assign the minimum of these three indices to each wetland

• Any wetland with a minimum natural vegetation of ≥ 90 % considered “Intact”, all others “Not intact”

• For 10 wetland types that cannot meet their conservation targets in “Intact” wetlands, lower the minimum natural vegetation threshold to 80 %

• 8 wetlands still cannot achieve targets……Need to look at rehab

Step 2: Incorporate connectivity

• 3 spatial dimensions:

• Longitudinal

• Lateral

• Vertical

• 1 temporal dimension

• natural flow regime

• temporal availability of surface water

• All 4 dimensions are highly inter-dependent

• Space hungry so try to allocate different protection levels

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group 1998 (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/Images/scrhimage/part1/part1a.jpg).Relevant literature:

• Freeman et al. 2007. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(1):5-14. • Pringle 2001. Ecological Applications 11(4): 981-998. • Ward 1989. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8: 2–8.

Olifants

Doring

Longitudinal connectivity

• Large rivers free of artificial barriers

• “High” protection level

• Habitat requirements explicitly mapped

• “High” & “Moderate” protection level

• Upstream management zones

• “Moderate” protection level

Lateral connectivity

• Modelled sub-catchments

• Allocated a “Very high” protection level if needed for pattern targets

• Riparian zones

• 50 m: mountain & upper foothill streams

• 100 m: lower foothills & lowland rivers

• Allocated a “High” protection level

• Wetland functioning zones

• Functional types were afforded different protections levels based on their functional importance & sensitivity

Landform (shape and/or setting) Functional importance

Sensitivity Protection level

Valley bottom Very high High High

Floodplain High Moderate Moderate

Seep linked to channel High Very High High

Seep not linked to a channel Moderate Very High Moderate

Wetland functioning zones

Need to investigate linking different buffer widthsto functional importance and sensitivity …………

Vertical connectivity

• Groundwater sustains river flow and refuge pools in the summer low flow periods

• Significant areas of groundwater-surface water discharge

• Areas where there is a medium to high prediction of groundwater to surface water interaction

• Modelled using 6 GIS surrogates: geological permeability, groundwater depth, springs, faults, presence of groundwater dependent vegetation, national estimates of baseflow contribution

• Significant areas of groundwater recharge

• Use 1 x 1 km national recharge data, based on the Chloride Mass Balance

• Areas with > 30 mm/yr recharge considered significant

• These were allocated a “Moderate” protection level

Relevant literature:• Baker et al. 2003. Environmental Management. 32(6): 706-719.• Brown et al. 2007. CSIR Report No. CSIR/NEW/WR/ER/2006/0187B/C, CSIR, Pretoria.

Vertical connectivityGroundwater-surface water discharge Groundwater recharge

Olifan

ts

Doring

Relevant literature:• Brown et al. 2007. CSIR Report No. CSIR/NEW/WR/ER/2006/0187B/C, CSIR, Pretoria.

Temporal connectivity

• Spatial dimensions are strongly dependent on temporal dynamics of the natural flow regime

• Rivers cannot be “locked-away”

• Environmental Flow Assessments try to balance human & ecological requirements

• Recommendations for Olifants, Doring and 2 major tributaries:

• Compromise middle reaches of Olifants for no further development of the Doring; & for some rehabilitation

• Tributaries of the Doring responsible for majority of Mean Annual Runoff included as upstream management zones & afforded “Moderate” protection levels

intactnot intact

Step 3: Incorporate any additional spatial processes• Steps 1 and 2 cater for generic processes of most freshwater systems

• There may be other specific processes that can be mapped, also termed:

• “Fixed spatial components" (Rouget et al. 2006) / “Spatial catalysts" (Pressey et al. in press)

• Commonly defined using environmental surrogates such as climate, topography, geology, soils and vegetation

• Freshwater-specific examples:

• Areas of significant water yield (Driver et al. 2005)

• Areas of high erosion potential (Adinarayana et al. 1999)

• Evolutionary barriers, e.g. waterfalls & gorges (Roux et al. 2002)

• Generally can be allocated a “Moderate” level of protection.

Relevant literature:• Adinarayana et al. 1999. Catena 37:309–318• Driver et al. 2005. Strelitzia 17: 1-45.• Pressey et al. in press. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.• Rouget et al. 2006. Conservation Biology 20(2): 549–561. • Roux et al. 2002. Conservation Ecology 6(2): 6. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art6

Step 4: Select persistent populations

• Accommodated by Steps 1 and 2, but serves as a further safe-guard where data exist

• Considers requirements specific to the persistence of each focal species, for example:

• Identifying and establishing linkages between all critical habitat

• Identification of spatial refugia and relevant linkages

• Replication within the planning region in areas that are unlikely to be influenced by the same natural or human disturbances

• Incorporating populations or metapopulations that are large enough to prevent extinction from random demographic and genetic events

Relevant literature:• Moyle & Yoshiyama 1994. Fisheries 19:6-18.• Poiani et al. 2000. BioScience 50(2): 133-146.

Persistent populations• Replication

• Pattern targets can stipulate that each species must be represented at least twice by populations preferably on different major river systems

• Suitable habitat & populations • Core populations• River with the most suitable habitat & containing the largest

populations should be selected from point locality data for achieving pattern target

• Habitat requirements • Many of the larger-sized species require a combination of mainstem

and tributary habitat• For small-sized species, vulnerable to predation by invasive

species in the mainstem, connectivity was excluded

• Fish sanctuaries for pattern targets afforded the highest protection level (“Very high”); linkages between sanctuaries allocated a “Moderate” protection level

The importance of zones • So much land freaks managers out

• Allocating multiple-use zones can help, e.g. :• Freshwater focal area• Critical management zone• Catchment management zone

From:• Abell et al. 2007. Biological Conservation 134: 48-63.

How to incorporate all these processes

Sub-catchments as planning units

Ecological integrity

Species habitat suitability & population size

Species replication

[Habitat requirements]

Large, “free-flowing” rivers

Habitat requirements

High water yield areas

Riparian zones

Wetland functioning zones

Groundwater-surface water discharge areas

Groundwater recharge areas

Upstream management zones

ImplementationGuidelines on environmental flows

Outline


• Planning units for freshwater – sub-catchments….see Hydrosheds



• Quantitative targets & conservation design





Conservation targets

• River and wetland types

• Generally use 20%, based on length of river; area of river buffered by 100 m; area of sub-catchment; area of wetland

• Occurrence has also been used – e.g. at least one of river type X

• Combination of 20% and occurrence can also be used – e.g. 20% of each wetland type represented in at least 3 different systems

• Species

• Simplistic – at least once

• Replication – at least twice, preferably on different major systems

• Free-flowing rivers & special features

• 100% but for special features generally do not include the whole planning unit, only the feature itself

• Discount the planning unit cost to favor selection for other conservation targets

Spatial configuration for pattern targets

• Decision support software for achieving pattern targets, e.g. Marxan or C-Plan:

• C-Plan calculates irreplaceability better

• Marxan does costs and connectivity better

• Generally combine, but similar matrices so not much extra work

• Matrices

Sub-catchment id

River type A

River type A

River type A ………

Wet type A

Wet type B

Wet type B ………

Fish P/A

1

Extent of intact river type within sub-catchment Extent of intact wetland type within sub-catchment P/A

2

3

.

.

.

.

Spatial configuration for pattern targets• Planning unit cost used to achieve additional spatial efficiency

with:• Spatial catalysts (e.g. apply a discount to planning units containing free-

flowing rivers or water yield areas by)• Terrestrial priority areas• We hardly ever use area as cost; and have not yet integrated soic-economic

costs into our planning

• Boundary penalty• Strong boundary penalty to pass-

through sub-catchments will force connectivity

• Difficult to allocate multiple-use zones are selected planning units for pattern, connectivity or both

• Therefore tend to be conservative with the boundary penalty factor

Conservation design

• Using costs & boundary penalty, choose areas for pattern targets

Conservation design


• Add in areas requiring rehabilitation

Conservation design


• Add in areas requiring rehabilitation

• Add in supporting zones

Future work

• Testing the performance of surrogates

• Integration with terrestrial

• Wetlands and riparian zones of selected rivers integrate well with terrestrial planning units

• In areas where there are no river choices, select rivers first and then achieve residual terrestrial and wetland targets

• In areas where there are choices, investigate using terrestrial priorities in the sub-catchment planning unit cost

• Terrestrial priority areas may conflict with FW goals

• Scheduling

• Integrating socio-economic costs; particularly with target achievement

Climate change

• Aaaargh!!! ------Eren help!!!!

freshwater conservation planning systematic conservation planning and the role of software: from...

Documents

biological conservation

data intensive

topocadastral data

process data layers

hydrological gauge data

lowland streamshigh

main rivershigh road

approaches kingsford