Technical Planning Meeting: Evaluation
Metrics
Thursday, February 28, 2013
In attendance:
Jenn Spencer (WCA)
Kevin Head (WCA)
James Costello (Mainstream Canada)
Mike Collyer (Parks Canada)
Joey Bernhardt (NCP)
Lynn Yamanaka (DFO–working on PNCIMA)
Odd Grydeland (WCA Board, Aquaculture)
Glen Rassmussen via email (DFO)
Meeting objectives:


Review suite of evaluation metrics as a suitable representation and measure of WCA goals
Review a selection of the inputs used to calculate the evaluation metrics (including InVEST
model inputs) and provide recommendations on the inputs used.
Summary of Recommendations Provided Through the Technical Session:
Item
1. Suite of metrics for goal: Healthy and
Abundant Species and Habitats
2. Metric: % of conservation area/sound
3. Habitat risk assessment stressor
1
Recommendation
 Current metrics for healthy and abundant
species and habitats is suitable
 1 measure missing from this goal: a metric
to properly reflect Marxan results that
result in spatial compatibilities between
conservation and economic uses/activities.
 Define the word conservation or
protection when using it for a metric
 Discuss salmon stressor with Commercial
Fishing Caucus and 1. remove salmon
seine and gillnet fishery as a stressor, or 2.
merge as 1 stressor.
 Ensure that sport fishing areas are


4. Habitat risk assessment habitats


5. % of parks with high risk

6. Marxan results (related to % of parks with
high risk metric)
7. Recreation metric inputs




2
8. Coastal Vulnerability

9. Water quality metric

incorporated into the fishing data for
habitat risk assessment
Consider including stressors:
-shipping
-tourism activities-sport fishing as an
individual stressor.
-wildlife and whale-watching
-clam harvest
-beach tramping
-sewage
Resolve weighting issues by lumping
similar commercial fishing activities
together
Consider including estuaries
Softbottom and hardbottom habitats have
different classifications for productivity
across depths. 0-20m is considered highly
productive. Should consider showing
results for these depths, rather than
softbottom as a whole.
Important to relay that “high risk” is only
for the habitats and stressors assessed in
the habitat risk assessment model.
Again, define parks/protected areas
Requested some level of awareness about
what stressors, including fishing, are
occurring within Parks and Protected
areas. (this will likely be relayed through
Marxan exercise and we should consider a
way to display the info)
Missing features to include in this metric:
-anchorages
-terrestrial infrastructure
-viewpoints or areas with scenic value
-whale-watching routes
Include other habitats (other than kelp and
eelgrass). Put in some other habitats as
well, maybe just as a sensitivity analysis
for the model.
A human use input to consider is First
Nation coastal sites, cultural and historical
value sites that are at risk to high CV risk
areas.
Recommendations to make the metric
reflect values for the area instead of the
area coverage of the impacted water.
Examples given: change in harvestable
beaches under different water quality
scenarios
Detailed Discussion Notes:
Topic
Comments
Discussion about metric: % of Grey Whale Habitat Protected
Grey Whale habitat
 Grey whale feeding areas are better to use than lumped “whale
metric
feeding areas” because humpbacks forage wherever feed is, grey
focus on certain fixed areas. You can nail down where grey whale
habitats are if you have that data
 Grey whale areas are known and available data, therefore It might
be the only whale habitat you can really quantify
 With the data you have, maybe clams or prawns can also be
assessed?
Discussion about metric: % of conservation areas protected/Sound
Use of word
 Discussed language of “conservation” or “protection” possibly
“conservation” in a
being a barrier, depending on how you use it for an analysis.
metric
 Requires a definition.
Discussion about metric not representing a theme for Healthy and Abundant Species and
Habitats + Economic Development
Develop metric to
 Would like to see a metric that directly shows the relationship
show relationship
between conservation and economic development.
between
 Could show current economic space and how future Marxan
Conservation +
scenarios impact that economic space
economic
 Or maybe we assess a. what kind of conservation objects are for
development
each protected area and b. where conservation areas and
economic development occurring in the same space and not
competing with conservation values. In other words, where uses
and conservation are compatible. Ex. RCA has finfish farms within
the boundaries.
 Suggested metric (or something similar): % of area with
conservation goals and economic &fishing zones compatible.
 Conservation/economic area metric will likely be a lot of extra
work. Suggested to map fisheries types and species types and
looking at where there are overlaps and conflicts or not
Discussion about metric inputs: habitat risk assessment
Habitat risk assessment
 The list of stressors is meant to reflect activities that impact the
stressor inputs
habitat
 Question: how regulations for activities are accounted for.
3
Response: there is a criteria in the assessment for
regulations/management effectiveness
 Parks Canada has seen higher abundance of species along west
coast trail vs. Port Renfrew. Port Renfrew has higher levels of users,
including sport fishermen in the water, and less bird and marine
mammal species (except for Orcas) with Port Renfrew, compared to
other areas along the West Coast Trail that are more remote.
Interested if the presence of sport fishing affects species Ex. from
Physical presence and noise pollution.
 Make sure sport fishing areas are incorporated into the fishing data
for habitat risk assessment
 Items missing from the list of stressors:
-shipping (if necessary)
-sewage
-Beach clam harvesting
-sport fishery
-wildlife viewing, whale-watching
- beach tramping
-sewage
 Removing stressors: Salmon gillnet and seine have more impact
on stock abundance than habitat. Suggestion to remove because
impact on habitat is VERY low and other mitigative strategies exist
for resolving abundance issues.
 Suggestions to resolve weighting challenges: Could group fisheries
a bit differently such as: (herring, salmon seine fisheries, gillnet)
(trapped fisheries, dive, including recreational fisheries), (shrimp
and groundfish trawl) (hook and line fishing, including recreational
fishery)
Habitat risk assessment
 No disputes about the 4 habitats we are including
habitats inputs
 Strong suggestions to include estuaries. Just make sure that
estuaries are excluded from soft bottom habitat to not calculate
twice.
 From aquaculture industry, there is a big difference from an
estuary and softbottom. Can be very different productivity wise.
Discussion about metric inputs: % of parks/conservation areas with high risk
Challenges: metric results
 We selected parks and protected areas because they have a goal
are restricted to the
related to habitat protection, either specific for rockfish habitat or
stressors we assess in %
general like a park which aims to protect ecological integrity
of parks with high risk
 Participants explained it is important to know what fishery
activities and other economic activities/uses are occurring in the
parks and protected areas
 This metric will identify predicted risk from the habitats and
stressors that we include in the analysis. For example: long-lining
is not included in the risk assessment, therefore areas where that
4
stressor is occurring will not be accounted for in the risk scores.
 Question: do you include allocation closure areas in this analysis?
Not for areas that exclude 1 user group, but allow for another,
because it is still an allocation issue.
 Do you account for overlaps of parks when calculating % cover?
Yes, we have.
 Question about how Marxan scenarios and risk will be combined
as marine plan options. For example: Do you target high conflict
areas or sensitive areas with low risk? We will provide different
different arrangements in the scenarios
Discussion about metric inputs: # of predicted tourist user days
Discussion about model
 Missing activities:
inputs that influence
-anchorages
tourism and recreation
-terrestrial infrastructure ex. aquarium, interpretive/visitor centre
model
(recommended to not lump these with community infrastructure
because they are high destination locations
-viewpoints or areas with scenic value (Radar Hill, Blow hole in
Ucluelet)
-whale-watching routes
 Comments that kelp and eelgrass as a feature in this do not
belong. Unless people actually seek these areas out specifically,
there is bias to the analysis if you do not include all the spatial
habitat area in some kind of category. We need an open water
category or something so as not to bias towards eelgrass and kelp.
 Suggested solution to bias with habitats: WCA staff can clip
eelgrass and kelp from the AOI and the remainder will represent
other ocean habitat categories
Discussion about metric inputs: % of high risk coastal vulnerability areas with coastal use and
development
Discussion about
 Why are kelp and eelgrass included here as human activities and
activities/uses that are at
infrastructure? Although these are ecosystem services, they do
high risk from coastal
not match with the metric.
vulnerability
 This was a typo—we have edited material to exclude eelgrass or
kelp
Discussion about metric inputs: % of area with water unaffected by fecal coliform
contamination from human waste
Suggestion to alter water
 Feedback was emailed with the suggestion to change the water
quality metric
quality model to reflect changes in a value that people relate to.
Examples of this include changes in clam harvest areas from water
quality impacts etc.
 We are looking into the best available data that we have and
better understanding criteria for Environment Canada water
quality closures before we develop a metric that can best fit this
suggestion.
5
6