how 2011 abbr_gleam_public_pdf_forslideshare
TRANSCRIPT
Prioritizing Great Lakes Restoration
David AllanThe University of Michigany g
www.epa.gov/glnpo/image/www.glfc.org/multimedia/photos.php#
Road MapRoad Map
• Threats to the Lakes: an overviewThreats to the Lakes: an overview
i h l i i d d• Assessing the relative magnitude and spatial distribution of multiple stressors –P j GLEAMProject GLEAM
• Prioritizing Great Lakes restoration and conservation opportunitiespp
Threats to the Lakes: An OverviewThreats to the Lakes: An Overview
• DiverseDiverse– Nonpoint runoff, toxics, invasives, development
• Changing in importance over time• Changing in importance over time– May be diminishing, stable, or increasing
• Differ by location– E.g., upper vs. lower lakes
• Multiple stressors are at work, and their relative strength varies from place to placeg p p
Environmental StressorsEnvironmental Stressors
• An environmental stressor is a variable which, owing to e o e a s esso s a a ab e c , o g ohuman activity, exceeds its range of normal variation, affecting species, biological communities, or ecosystems
• The source of the stressor is the human activity causing the stress
• Ecological indicators (biodiversity, ecosystem function) help establish a stressor response relationship
Categories of StressorsCategories of Stressors
• Runoff from the landRunoff from the land• Toxic chemicals
i hi• Fishing pressure• Invasive species• Coastal development/Habitat loss• Water withdrawalWater withdrawal• Climate change
Multiple StressorsMultiple Stressors
• We’ve just seen seven broad categories ofWe ve just seen seven broad categories of stressors– Each includes many specific stressorsEach includes many specific stressors– Some are likely to be more important than others– Few (any?) will be equal everywhereFew (any?) will be equal everywhere
• How do we assess the cumulative influence of multiple stressors across the Laurentianof multiple stressors across the Laurentian Great Lakes?
Project GLEAM: Mapping Individual Stressors Across the
Great LakesGreat Lakes ALLAN, J.D., SMITH, S.D.P., MCINTYRE, P.B., HALPERN, A AN, J. ., SMITH, S. .P., MCINTYR , P. ., HA P RN,
B., BOYER, G., BUCHSBAUM, A., BURTON, A., CAMPBELL, L., CHADDERTON, L., CIBOROWSKI, J., DORAN, P., EDER, T., INFANTE, D., JOHNSON, L., LODGE D READ J RUTHERFORD E SOWA SLODGE, D., READ, J., RUTHERFORD, E., SOWA, S.,
STEINMAN, A., JOSEPH, C. And MARINO, A.
GLEAM OverviewGLEAM Overview
Great Lakes Environmental Assessment &MappingGreat Lakes Environmental Assessment & Mapping project
• Map the intensity of multiple stressors across the• Map the intensity of multiple stressors across the Great Lakes (1‐km2 resolution)
• Develop weightings of relative impact of each stressor by habitat type, based on expert judgment
• Derive a cumulative stress map summing all individual stressors
Choice of StressorsChoice of StressorsKey stressor characteristics:
• Mappable at 1 km2 resolution
• Coverage for all 5 lakesCo e age o a 5 a es
• Distinct pathway of impact from other stressors
CATEGORY STRESSORHypoxia (low oxygen)
CATEGORY STRESSORInvasive zebra and quagga mussels
Stressor Progress
Aquatic
Hypoxia (low oxygen)Light pollutionChannel dredgingShipping LanesIndustrial ports and harbors
Invasive and
Invasive zebra and quagga musselsBallast water invasion riskInvasive sea lampreyEmerging fish diseases (VHS, etc.)Invasive wetland plants (Phragmites, etc.)q
Habitat Alterations
pTributary dams (altered flow/sediment retentionTributary dams (barriers to fish passage)Shoreline hardeningShoreline extensions (docks, piers, etc.)
NuisanceSpecies
p ( g , )Invasive nearshore plants (Eurasian milfoil, etc.)Harmful algal blooms (Microcystis, etc.)Nuisance benthic algal blooms (Cladophora, etc.)Invasive plankton (Hemimysis, etc.)
Submerged cables and pipelinesMarinas and recreational boating
Climate Change
Warming water temperaturesDecreasing ice coverCh i t l l
Invasive fish (round goby, etc.)
Nonpoint SourceP ll ti
Nitrogen loadingPhosphorus loadingSediment loading (tributary)C bi d fl (CSO )
gChanging water levels
Coastal Development
Coastal road densityCoastal development (residential, commercial)Coastal miningCoastal power plants
Pollution Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)Pharmaceutical loading
Toxic
Areas of Concern (AOCs)Toxic metals – biomagnifying (mercury, etc.) Toxic pesticides (Atrazine etc )Coastal power plants
Coastal recreational use (swimming, etc.)
Fisheries
AquacultureCommercial fishingRecreational fishing (charter)
ToxicChemical Pollution
Toxic pesticides (Atrazine, etc.)Toxic metals – non‐biomagnifying (copper, etc.)Toxic organics – biomagnifying (PCBs, etc.)Toxic organics – non‐biomagnifying (PAHs, etc.)Emerging toxic chemicals (PBDEs, etc.)
Fisheries Management
Recreational fishing (non‐charter)Native fish stockingNon‐native fish stockingDiporeia decline
Water Withdrawals
Water withdrawals (inland and groundwater)Water withdrawals (Great Lakes)
Completed In progress Not completed/not feasible
Survey: Relative impact of stressorsWe surveyed experts to weight individual stressors.
We want weightings that are:‐ Stressor specific
‐ e.g., mercury is twice as harmful as nitrogen‐ Habitat specific
‐ e.g., mercury in wetlands is twice as harmful as mercury in open wateropen water
‐ Quantitative‐ “Ecosystem impact” is quantified for 5 criteria: temporal frequency, spatial extent, ecological scope, magnitude of change, recovery time
‐ Survey uses scenario comparisons to elicit how to combine y pthese criteria for overall impact
11
Cumulative Stress
‐ For each stressor, cumulative stress (CS) merges
‐ Intensity value for each pixel from stressor map (Si)
‐ Relative weight of each stressor from expert survey (Wi)Relative weight of each stressor from expert survey (Wi)
‐ Intensity and weight are normalized to 0‐1 range
‐ Sum across all stressors
CS = Sum (Si ∙ Wi)
GLRI Priority: Working with partners on outreach
Prioritizing Restoration and Conservation Opportunities
Some closing thoughts
Unique ChallengesUnique Challenges
• ScaleScale– The Great Lakes are large relative to most other restoration targetsrestoration targets
• Complexity• Complexity– The Great Lakes face a wider range of threats relative to most other restoration targetsrelative to most other restoration targets
Image courtesy Michigan Sea Grant
The Value of DataThe Value of Data
Of the most important threats:Of the most important threats:– Which are most important? And where?– How does the ranking of threats vary from g ynearshore to offshore, from the upper lakes to the lower lakes?h h l fl f l l– What is the cumulative influence of multiple
threats?• Where are our restoration priorities?• Where are our restoration priorities?• Where are our conservation priorities
Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles
• Clarity of goalsClarity of goals– What do we want to achieve? What is feasible to achieve? Who are “we”?achieve? Who are we ?
• Best practices are identified, agreed upon and followedfollowed
• Success is evaluated using metrics of l i l ditiecological condition
• The ecosystem is self‐sustaining
A Restoration StrategyA Restoration Strategy
• Follow the Precautionary Principle – don’t allowFollow the Precautionary Principle don t allow restoration to become crisis management
• Prioritize risk identify the greatest threats• Prioritize risk – identify the greatest threats
• Place matters – recognize that the types and level of h i i h l ithreat varies with location
• Networking is critical – rapid progress depends on sharing of data, methods and ideas
With the help of many!• Core Working Group
b• Key team members– S. Smith, P. McIntyre, C. Joseph, A. Marino, A. Prusevich– Students: R. Biel, J. Olson, K. HansonStudents: R. Biel, J. Olson, K. Hanson
• Data providers– Dozens of staff from GLERL, USGS, Environment Canada, OMNR,
USFWS, TNC, GLFC, MDNRE, IFR, GLEI, NFHAP– Academic scientists from USA & Canada
Suggestions or Data to Share?Suggestions or Data to Share?sdpsmith AT umich.edudallan AT umich.edu
http://www.greatlakesmapping.org 19