MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK
VERSION 5.0
8/15/2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The West Coast of Vancouver Island is one of the richest and most diverse marine ecoregions in the
world. Its rich habitat contributes to an abundance of life and is home to a variety of marine-based
uses, activities, and values. Over $630million annually is produced from marine-related activities and
over 1 million people visit the area annually due to its outstanding recreational opportunities. The Nuuchah-nulth people have lived in the area for thousands of years, and have developed a culture based on
being “ocean people.”
The ecological, economic, social, and cultural values in the area face a variety of threats and
opportunities. Central to addressing the threats and realizing opportunities is governance: the ability to
make effective decisions in an efficient manner based on the best available information. This is
especially challenging in the ocean, where there are multiple levels of government and many different
communities and user groups.
West Coast Aquatic is an innovative governance body designed to take on the challenge of improving
governance by bringing diverse groups together. In 2012, it successfully completed the WCVI Coastal
Strategy, the second integrated coastal and ocean management plan in Canada. The Strategy outlines
priority issues and action areas, including Marine Spatial Planning.
Marine spatial planning (sometime abbreviated as “MSP”) is a way of managing the benefits and
impacts that flow between humans and marine areas. The goal of marine spatial planning is to match
human uses and activities with suitable areas in the marine ecosystem in order to improve the health
and wealth of a given area.
To do this, marine spatial planning uses maps and other planning tools to determine what uses,
activities, or designations are appropriate within different places. Marine spatial planning is like building
a puzzle: fitting together the many different pieces of biophysical and ecological features with current
and potential uses and activities to produce a cohesive picture of how an area will develop sustainably
over time.
This purpose of this document is to:
1. provide a transparent opportunity for our board members and their constituents, partners, and staff
to understand and track answers to key questions encountered in doing Marine Spatial Planning;
2. create a legacy for planners in other areas and for future planners in our area; and
3. reflect an adaptive management approach and allows us track our learning over time.
WCA is using the planning cycle shown on the right to
guide the development of marine spatial plans. While laid
out in a linear way, most of these steps happen
concurrently and iteratively.
WCA has used best practices and elements of planning
from global, Canadian, and local sources, blending ‘topdown’ and ‘bottom up’ approaches. WCA uses a highly
participatory approach in the planning process and has
engaged a variety of partners to develop planning
information, tools and methods.
In order to facilitate the marine spatial planning process
and to conduct planning at relevant scales, there is a
nested hierarchy of planning areas. First sub-regions are
defined within the WCVI marine ecoregion, then planning
units are outlined within the sub-regions. Finally, area
designations are described within planning units at the
local level.
Marine planning will produce information and recommendations at the various levels.
Product
Level
Social-Ecological Assessment
Regional
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management Strategy
Regional
Marine Spatial Planning Framework
Regional
Marine Atlas
Regional and sub-regional
Ecosystem service models, risk assessments, and conflict and
Regional, sub-regional, and
compatibility assessments
local
Identification of significant ecological and human use areas
Sub-regional and areadesignations
Marine Spatial Plans: Narrative description of known characteristics
Planning Unit
Marine Spatial Plans: Overall management emphasis (including
Planning Unit
community, conservation, or integrated marine emphasis)
Marine Spatial Plans: Recommended, not recommended and
Planning Unit
conditionally recommended uses and activities.
Marine Spatial Plans: Designations for significant areas
Local level
The recommendations on management emphasis, recommended uses and activities, and area
designations are nested and not mutually exclusive of each other. They provide an increasing level of
detail and guidance to resource managers.
Area designations include:
1. Ecologically Significant Area (special
features, productive features,
representative features and restoration
areas)
2. Culturally Significant Area
3. Significant Tourism and Recreation Areas
4. Significant Aquaculture Area (shellfish
and finfish)
5. Significant Marine Transportation Routes
6. Significant Community Development
Area
7. Significant Industrial Use Area
8. Significant Fishing Area.
Example of marine spatial plan: Coloured shapes
and lines designate 8 types of significant areas and
corridors
Those applying and implementing the three planning approaches (management emphasis,
recommended uses, and area designations) are guided by a set of design principles as well as regulatory
and other relevant guidelines included with this Framework.
In addition, specific steps and methods are outlined for developing ecologically significant areas and
identifying significant human use areas. Both approaches involve a combination of local knowledge and
modeling. In the case of identifying ecologically significant areas, local and other knowledge sources are
combined as features that are inputted into the MARXAN tool. Features are grouped into
representational, productive and service, and special. Low, medium and high targets for each group are
outlined. In the case of human use areas, local and other knowledge sources are used to determine
capability and suitability. For uses or activities that are highly migratory, a notation is made in all of the
designation areas regarding the migratory use.
As significant ecological and human use areas are defined, the key challenge is how to maximize
compatibility between uses and activities as well as minimize risks to the marine environment. Two
approaches are described in this Framework.
The first approach uses a conflict and compatibility assessment to determine which different uses and
activities may be conflicting, compatible, or synergistic, and whether that occurs in all cases or just in
specific locations. For compatible or synergistic significant areas, designations are non-exclusive and
can overlap. Where conflicts occur, a staged conflict resolution process is outlined to find solutions or
mitigation measures. Where the designations or specific uses are irreconcilable then the statutory
authorities may assign priority to designations based on their fit with the character and management
emphasis of the planning unit area.
In reducing risk to the marine environment and optimizing space available for uses and activities, a
habitat and species risk assessment approach is used. In this approach, the risk of uses and activities is
assessed in relation to ecological habitats and species. Due to the potential number of risk analyses to
be completed, a staged screening process is used to determine priority uses and activities and species
and habitats. As with conflict and compatibilities between human uses, ecological and human use
designations are non-exclusive and can overlap. Where conflicts occur, the intention is to find solutions
or mitigation measures. Where the designations or specific uses are irreconcilable then the statutory
authorities may assign priority to designations based on their fit with the character and management
emphasis of the planning unit area.
The above information and tools are used to produce several scenarios representing different possible
futures. To help decision-makers understand the key differences between scenarios, evaluation metrics
are used. Metrics are measurable indicators related to the overall planning goals. The evaluation
metrics are developed using models and GIS analyses. The results are displayed in a number of ways
including: percent coverage of an area, number of uses and activities within an area, changes in
resolution of issues or conflicts, percent of risk, or number of opportunities, for example.
The final section of this Framework describes the steps and methods used to identify indicators more
generally. Indicators are important for:
 Conducting risk assessments on the state of the system and key drivers and pressures affecting it;
 Monitoring the state of the system and the pressures on it, and,
 Analyzing and understanding the consequences of marine planning options and decisions.
An eight step process is described for establishing indicators. It includes developing conceptual models
of the human and ecological systems. The models provide a structure that serves as the foundation for
describing components, functions and interactions in the system. Goals and objectives from regional
planning documents are related to the elements within the structure of the conceptual models.
The main components and associated features relevant to each element or habitat type of the
conceptual model and reflective of goals/objectives from relevant planning documents are described,
and relevant literature is reviewed to identify candidate indicators and criteria for selecting indicators.
Experts are also identified, and invited via survey and/or workshop to modify or add candidate
indicators and then apply the selection criteria to rate them.
Revised and rated candidate lists are then used to develop, test and implement a monitoring strategy.
The monitoring strategy is to be developed cooperatively with a variety of partners.
WCA’s initial effort in applying this Framework is focused on Barkley and Clayoquot Sounds. This
framework may be used for spatial planning in other WCVI areas over time as opportunities arise. To
the greatest extent possible, the development of marine spatial designations and plans will be
implemented with awareness of the need to reflect both the local and current WCVI contexts, and the
broader contexts within which the WCVI exists.
While the framework applies from the high-tide out to sea, land use plans will be considered when
developing marine spatial designations. Future research and work will create closer linkages between
marine spatial planning and terrestrial planning.
WCA’s MSP Framework is meant to be applied in the spirit of increasing compatibility, opportunity, and
benefits, while decreasing the risks and realities of negative impacts and conflicts. WCA’s approach to
planning information and outputs is that they are most appropriately viewed as the best currently
available information and recommendations about uses and values. They are not intended to be
implemented by one overarching authority through one static plan that will be reviewed every five or
ten years; instead they are the foundation for on-going adaptive management and diverse
implementation strategies.
Marine spatial plans and tools resulting from this Framework may be implemented by a variety of
parties and regulatory authorities through a) regulation, official plans, or other formal mechanisms, b)
education, further research, developing and using tools and providing information, and c) projects,
partnerships, research and other initiatives that further implementation. Evaluation and adaptive
management approaches and terms will be specified when marine spatial designations are formalized in
plans or agreements.
WCA provides a forum to make on-going changes and adaptations to the planning information and
outputs in response to:
 new or newly available information and research;
 applications and development proposals;
 changing technologies or use patterns; and,
 changing environmental conditions.
WCA hopes that you enjoy the document and look forward to your comments and suggestions.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction and Purpose of this Document ...................................................................... 1
2
Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 3
3
Spatial Planning Approaches and Tools ........................................................................... 11
4
Area Designations and Associated Objectives, Uses and Activities .......................... 19
5
Identifying Ecologically Significant Areas ....................................................................... 29
6
Identifying Areas for Human Use Designations ............................................................. 43
7
Identifying and Evaluating Risks to the WCVI Ecosystem ........................................... 46
8
Reducing Conflicts and Increasing Compatibilities Between Human Uses ............ 51
9
Comparing and Evaluating Spatial Planning Scenarios .............................................. 56
10
Steps and Methods for Identifying Indicators ................................................................. 64
Appendix 1 – Definitions .................................................................................................................... 81
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
1
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
The West Coast of Vancouver Island is one of the richest and most diverse marine ecoregions in the
world. The coastline is roughly the length of Portugal or the Oregon coast and is characterized by an
extensive array of fjords, bays, islands, reefs, and deepwater canyons and shelves. It has some of the
highest rainfall in North America, contributing to an extensive network of lakes, rivers, wetlands, and
estuaries.
This rich habitat contributes to an abundance of life: ancient coastal rainforests, the second largest fish
catch in North America, and presence of a third of the world’s marine mammal species, as a few
examples. In addition, it is located at the intersection of many external features: southern species
migrating north, northern species migrating south, and a trans-Pacific ocean current, resulting in
exceptional diversity.
This abundance and diversity is home to a variety of marine-based uses, activities, and values. Over
$630million annually is produced from marine-related activities and over 1 million people visit the area
annually due to its outstanding recreational opportunities. In addition, Nuu-chah-nulth people have
lived in the area for thousands of years, and have developed a culture based on being “ocean people.”
The ecological, economic, social, and cultural values in the area face a variety of threats and
opportunities. Central to addressing the threats and realizing opportunities is governance: the ability to
make effective decisions in an efficient manner based on the best available information. Yet the area
faces the same challenge as many coastal regions throughout the world: it is managed and used by a
complex array of government agencies, business sectors, indigenous peoples, communities, non-profits,
and researchers. Bringing these groups together around a shared vision and plan represents an
enormous task.
West Coast Aquatic is an innovative governance body designed to take on the challenge of bringing
groups together. In 2012, it successfully completed Canada’s second integrated coastal and ocean
management strategy. The strategy outlines priority issues and action areas, including Marine Spatial
Planning.
As we set out to complete Marine Spatial Plans in the area, we quickly discovered that it is a very
complex activity and there are no easy templates to follow. We also recognized the importance of
creating a process that would generate shared learning through extensive engagement, dialogue, and
partnerships. Creating marine spatial plans has therefore been an evolutionary process.
We wrote this document for three reasons.
4. To provide a transparent opportunity for our board members and their constituents, partners, and
staff to understand and track answers to key questions encountered in doing Marine Spatial
Planning.
1|Page
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013

As we started into MSP, we found we encountered a number of core questions. Is it necessary
to ‘zone’ the seascape for different uses and activities? How do you identify important human
use areas and ecologically significant areas? What happens when different uses and activities
conflict with each other or pose a risk to the environment? We realized that to answer these
and other questions, Board members and their constituents, as well as our partners, needed to
understand and help shape the answers. We started to compile the briefing and decision notes
we were presenting to our Board into one document, which eventually became this Framework.
It has provided a touchstone ensuring that we share a common understanding and approach
over time.
5. To create a legacy for planners in other areas and for future planners in our area.
 When we set out to create marine spatial plans on the West coast of Vancouver Island, we were
interested in learning from others’ experiences. Planning in the marine environment is a very
complex activity, and there has not been a lot of examples that take the kind of comprehensive
approach that we wanted to take. Generally we found some overall principles and steps, but
not a lot of detail. As our work evolved, we found a high degree of interest from other areas in
our approach. We committed to setting out a ‘Cook book’ that others could follow.
6. To reflect an adaptive management approach and allows us track our learning over time.
 We view spatial planning as an adaptive management process. So, the way we approach and
answer some questions changes as we try things out and learn. If we find more efficient or
effective ways of doing things, then we will pursue them. This document allows changes to be
tracked easily over time. It will be updated periodically.
We hope that you enjoy the document and look forward to your comments and suggestions.
2|Page
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
2
2.1
OVERVIEW
MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Marine spatial planning (sometime abbreviated as “MSP”) is a way of managing the benefits and
impacts that flow between humans and marine areas. The goal of marine spatial planning is to match
human uses and activities 1 with appropriate areas in the marine ecosystem in order to improve the
health and wealth of a given area.
To do this, marine spatial planning uses maps and other planning tools to
determine what uses, activities, or designations are appropriate within
different places. Marine spatial planning is like building a puzzle: fitting
together the many different pieces of biophysical and ecological features
with current and potential uses and activities to produce a cohesive
picture of how an area will sustainably develop over time.
A more technical definition is that marine spatial planning is “a way of
improving decision making and delivering an ecosystem-based approach
to managing human activities in the marine environment. It is a planning
process that enables integrated, forward looking, and consistent decision
making on the human uses of the sea. Marine spatial planning is
analogous to spatial or land use planning in terrestrial environments.
Ecosystem-based, marine spatial planning seeks to sustain the
benefits of the ecological goods and services that the oceans provide
to humans as well as all living organisms on the planet” (Eller and
Douvere, 2006).
2.2
THE BENEFITS OF MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Marine spatial planning is beneficial for a number of reasons.
 Protecting important ecological, social, economic and cultural
values.
 Encouraging economic diversification and development in a
manner that is compatible with the local and regional
environment and existing uses, activities, and values.
 Concentrating residential, commercial, and industrial growth in the marine environment within
appropriate areas, subject to the provision of appropriate services and guided by community plans.
1
Throughout this document, “uses” require tenure to access a specific part of the marine environment (such as
tenures for aquaculture, commercial recreation or a private dock). “Activities” do not require tenure but may be
regulated through other means (such as commercial fishing) or not at all (such as surfing). See Appendix 1 for
further definitions and explanations of planning and other technical terms.
3|Page
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013




2.3
Reducing conflicts and increasing compatibilities and synergies between marine uses and activities.
Improving resource management efficiency and effectiveness.
Promoting and supporting a cultural and business climate characterized by learning, ingenuity, and
consistency
Enabling more stability and security of access to resources over the long term as communities and
sectors develop and grow
WEST COAST AQUATIC’S ROLE AND INTENTION IN MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
West Coast Aquatic is a forum for governments, communities, and businesses to work together to
improve the health and wealth of the West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI) marine area. Through
WCA, key players on the West Coast have set out a Coastal Strategy. The Coastal Strategy includes
priority action areas, one of which is marine spatial planning.
Working with its government, sector, institutional and community partners, WCA has developed this
Framework and accompanying tools, models and information for spatial planning on the West Coast. As
these building blocks are approved, WCA will continue to work with its partners on implementing them.
WCA’s MSP Framework is meant to be applied in the spirit of increasing compatibility, opportunity, and
benefits, while decreasing the risks and realities of negative impacts and conflicts. This spirit is reflected
in WCA’s Terms of Reference and the WCVI Coastal Strategy (2012).
2.4
WCA’S APPROACH TO MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
Planning approaches range from top-down models, in which government planners and experts drive the
process, to participatory models, where communities and sectors drive planning.
West Coast Aquatic is a blended approach, recognizing that the following are all keys to success:




Local knowledge, community involvement, and a sense that the process and plan are rooted in the
area and its culture, history and people;
Producing a rational framework that aligns with government mandates and can be understood and
implemented in the course of regulatory responsibilities;
Business and sector knowledge and perspective on what is practical, feasible and conducive to a
prosperous and sustainable economy; and,
Other partnership resources and perspectives, such a non-profit groups, funders, and researchers.
With that in mind, WCA staff collect information and views from all relevant parties, develop draft
products based on the input, seek feedback on the drafts through its Board, and then the Board seeks
broader feedback on the drafts from their constituents. The Board then finalizes the products and
recommends endorsement by their constituents and/or relevant government authorities as appropriate.
4|Page
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Board constituents then contribute feedback on implementation through Board members and/or staff.
• Committ to working
together on MSP
• Provide spatial and
other information
Govts, businesses,
communities
2.5
Staff
• Develop draft products
• Provide feedback on
products and approve
for release
Govts, businesses,
communities
• Provide input
• Integrate input and
recommend final
product for
endorsement by
constituents and
relevant authorities
Board
Constituents and
Relevant Authorities
• Endorse plans and work
with WCA Board and
staff regarding
implementation
Board
THE MAIN STAGES INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING A MARINE SPATIAL PLAN
Planning is a series of structured, connected and
achievable steps that move us towards a desired future
state. While there are many different ways to approach
these steps, WCA is using the planning cycle shown on
the right to guide the development of marine spatial
plans. While laid out in a linear way, most of these steps
happen concurrently and iteratively.
The first stage involves defining and understanding the
main issues and securing commitment to marine spatial
planning. This normally involves one or more key parties
playing a leadership role in gathering the mandate,
agreements, and resources (including funding) required.
Once these are put in place, operations are set up. This
includes personnel, partnerships, work plans, data
sharing agreements, protocols and other necessary
infrastructure to carry out the commitment.
The second stage is to gather and analyze information –
both spatial and non-spatial. Models may also be needed to help describe and predict what is
happening in the seascape. Information is used to produce key products such as a vision, goals, and
objectives, description of planning units, an MSP Framework describing planning tools and approaches
such as area designations, risk assessment and guidelines.
With this information and direction pulled together, in a third stage planners and participants describe,
evaluate, and choose between options. These are generally grouped into three scenarios showing
different possible futures within the overall vision and goals outlined earlier. Participants negotiate the
trade-offs associated with different scenarios and a preferred scenario is described and recommended.
The final stages are to endorse and implement the marine spatial plan, monitor indicators, evaluate
progress against indicators, and adapt as necessary.
5|Page
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
2.6
STEPS TO PRODUCING A SPATIAL PLAN
Planners and participants go through a series of steps to produce a final spatial plan. While the steps are described
sequentially, typically each step informs the others and none is finalized until the whole package is complete.
Step 1: Zone types, or
designations, are set out.
Section 2 of this Framework
includes WCA's zoning designations.
The activities and uses allowed to occur within zoning
designations are described, as well as any values to be
protected or objectives to be achieved.
Section 2 of this Framework includes
information on each of WCA's zoning
designations.
Step 3. Guidelines or rules for
where and how different zones
and activites are sited are
described and/or developed.
Siting guidelines provide more detail on how zone
designations and activities relate to each other (i.e. if
there is a 50m buffer around an activity).
WCA staff have written a separate
report describing siting guidelines
relevant to its zoning designations.
Step 4: Design principles are
developed
Design principles help guide the process of applying
the zoning designations to different parts of the
region.
Section 3 of this report includes an
outline of design principles.
Step 2: More detail about each
zoning designation is developed.
Step 5: Region is divided into
neighborhood areas, or planning
units.
6|Page
Zoning designations describe groups of similar kinds of
activities or values (i.e. housing, transportation,
industrial use, parks, etc.).
The character, features, and values of each area are
described
Step 6:The management emphasis
of each neighborhood is outlined
Management emphasis outlines the mix of different
zoning designations that fit within the character of
neighborhood areas.
Step 7: The zone types or
designations that are appropriate in
each neighborhood area are
described
Appropriate uses are determined by looking at
management emphasis, existing uses, biophysical
capacity, suitability, risk, and social preference.
WCA is producing documents
describing planning units and their
values. Info is also included in
WCA's marine atlas.
WCA will add draft management
emphases to the planning unit
documents after review and
discussion.
Section 8 of this Framework details
the methods used to describe
appropriate uses. Other sections
outline the models and tools used.
Step 8: Several different scenarios ,
or options, are put forward
Scenarios show different amounts and locations of
various zoning designations within neighborhoods.
WCA will produce different
scenarios based on input from
governments, sectors, and
communities.
Step 9: Scenarios are evaluated and
discussed
Scenarios can be compared to see how each
performs against different ecomic, social, and
ecological values.
Section 9 of this Framework outlines
the metrics that WCA is developing to
evaluate options.
Step 10: Preferred scenarios are
implemented
Various authorities and sectors apply the scenario
through legal and voluntary means.
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
WCA is working with governments
and sectors on how they can best
implement plans.
2.7
INFORMATION AND MODELS USED IN WCA MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
In general…
All of the stages of Marine Spatial Planning described above require good
biophysical, social, cultural, economic, administrative, and
historical/current use information. This information should come from
local knowledge interviews, government datasets, academic or nonprofit research and studies, consulting reports, sectors, and other
reliable sources. The information is usually assembled within a socialecological assessment, an atlas and a narrative report on the region and
its areas.
Each stage also involves analysis of existing information and, in some
cases, the creation of models that help describe or predict different
values.
For example, local knowledge and habitat and species data are analyzed
to produce maps of potential ecologically significant areas as well as
important human use areas. Information and models can be useful in
understanding the capability and suitability of various uses and activities
in different areas. For example, depth, salinity, proximity to freshwater
or infrastructure, local or First Nations support, economic feasibility and
other factors may be required for an area to be both capable and
suitable for a particular human use designation.
Information about the impacts and benefits of various sectors needs to
be analyzed to determine the singular and cumulative risks to specific
areas, as well as the opportunities.
In producing options, some planners take the view that different uses
and activities are not compatible and need to be separated. Others
focus more on trying to find compatibilities between various uses so that
they can overlap.
Whichever approach you take, information is needed on the nature of
the relationships between the different uses in the seascape.
If the aim is increase compatibilities and reduce conflict, this information
needs then to be used as part of a conflict resolution process.
When looking at different possible combinations of designations, models
and evaluation metrics are useful to better understand impacts and
trade-offs between different options/scenarios.
Over time, it is important to monitor changes in the ecosystem.
2.8
By WCA…
WCA has produced a SocialEcological Assessment, an Atlas for
Barkley and Clayoquot Sounds and
narrative descriptions of Barkley
and Clayoquot Sounds. Narrative
descriptions of planning units in
Kyuquot and Nootka Sounds are
also complete.
Section 4 describes how ecologically
significant areas can be identified.
Section 5 in this report describes
how human use areas can be
identified. Models related to
capability and suitability are
described in the reports on the
individual models used.
Section 6 in this report describes the
habitat risk assessment model
proposed to be used, which shows
impacts of different options/
scenarios in terms of risks to
habitat. WCA will work with sectors
to reduce risks where appropriate.
WCA’s goal is to weave together as
many area designations as possible.
To do this, WCA is building a conflict
and compatibility table and map
describing the relationship between
various sectors. Further, a conflict
resolution approach is described in
Section 7. Through this approach,
WCA will work with sectors to
reduce conflicts and increase
compatibilities.
Section 8 of this Framework
describes metrics and how they
may be used.
Section 9 outlines a process for
identifying ecological and human
well-being indicators.
HOW WILL MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING OUTPUTS BE IMPLEMENTED?
7|Page
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
WCA’s approach to planning information and outputs is that they are most appropriately viewed as the
best currently available information and recommendations about uses and values. They are not
intended to be implemented by one overarching authority through one static plan that will be reviewed
every five or ten years; instead they are the foundation for on-going adaptive management and diverse
implementation strategies.
Accordingly, marine spatial plans and tools resulting from this Framework may be implemented by a
variety of parties and regulatory authorities through three main pathways.
First, recommendations for marine spatial designations may be solidified through regulation, official
plans, or other formal mechanisms. For instance, federal, provincial, First Nations and local
governments may implement marine spatial plans through mechanisms such as Official Community
Plans, Integrated Fisheries Management Plans, marine protected area designations and management
plans, archeological designations, Land Act policy and tenuring, treaty implementation requirements or
interim measure agreements and other mechanisms.
Second, recommendations for marine spatial designations may be implemented through education,
further research, developing and using tools and providing information. For example, an applicant for a
tenure, permit, or licence may use an ‘application and referral response toolkit’ to determine
appropriate places to apply for their use. Managers and sectors who review the application may use the
tool to determine how it may impact other values.
Third, businesses, community organizations, institutions, and individuals are also important partners in
implementing marine spatial plans. For example, existing users or managers may use a simple mobile
app version of the area designations to see what areas are closed or should be avoided at different
times, or what practices are recommended, in order to reduce risk and conflict. They may also
participate in projects, partnerships, research and other initiatives that further the implementation of
the designations.
WCA provides a forum to make on-going changes and adaptations to the planning information and
outputs in response to:
 new or newly available information and research;
 applications and development proposals;
 changing technologies or use patterns; and,
 changing environmental conditions.
2.9
HOW DOES THE MARINE PLANNING FRAMEWORK REFLECT EXISTING GUIDELINES
AND STANDARDS?
There are currently no local or global guidelines or standards regarding marine spatial planning.
However, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) published a
step-by-step approach to marine spatial planning in 2009 (Eller and Douvere, 2009). The approach
outlined in the UNESCO document has been tailored to the circumstances of the WCVI region. Further,
8|Page
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
the Province of British Columbia has produced several marine plans for coastal waters, including the
Kyuquot Sound Coastal Plan (2003) and the Nootka Coastal Land Use Plan (2001) on the West coast of
Vancouver Island. Local planning processes such as those undertaken by the province, local government
and Maa-nulth Treaty First Nations can also provide guidance on standards. The following table
compares frameworks used in these processes with WCA’s approach.
WCA Area Designation
Framework (marine plan)
Ecologically Significant Areas
Cultural Management
Community Development
Tourism and Recreation
Aquaculture
Marine Transportation
Industrial Use
Fishing
Nootka Coastal Land Use Plan
(marine plan)
Conservation
Community Development
Rural Development
Public Recreation
Commercial Recreation
Aquaculture
Industrial Commercial
General Management
Huu-ay-aht Draft Land Use Plan
(terrestrial plan)
Protected Areas
Stewardship
Residential
Commercial
Community Facilities
Rural Residential
Commercial
n/a
Resource Management
Stewardship Management
The World Commission on Protected Areas, ratified by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature in 1994, established a definition and guidelines regarding protected areas. The ecologically
significant, culturally significant and significant tourism and recreation designations in this framework
reflect the definitions and guidelines set out by the IUCN, as outlined in the table below.
World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN)
Ia. Strict nature reserve/wilderness areas
managed mainly for science or wilderness
protection
Ib. Wilderness Area: protected area managed
mainly for wilderness protection
II. National park: protected area managed mainly
for ecosystem protection and recreation
III. Natural monument: protected area managed
mainly for conservation of specific natural
features
IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: protected
area managed mainly for conservation through
management intervention
V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: protected area
9|Page
West Coast Aquatic
Ecologically Significant Area (Sub-Category A-C)
Ecologically Significant Area (Sub-Category A)
Ecologically Significant Area (Sub-Category B-C) with
overlapping Culturally Significant and Significant
Tourism and/or Recreation designations.
Ecologically Significant Area (Sub-Category A) with
overlapping Culturally Significant and Significant
Tourism and/or Recreation designations.
Ecologically Significant Area (Sub-Category D)
Ecologically Significant Area (Sub-Category C) with
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
managed mainly for landscape/seascape
conservation or recreation
VI. Managed resource protected area: protected
area managed mainly for the sustainable use of
natural resources.
overlapping Significant Tourism and/or Recreation
designation.
Ecologically Significant Area (Sub-Category A-D) with
overlapping designations for aquaculture,
transportation, fishing, community development,
and industrial use.
Along with material on marine spatial planning approaches and protected area standards and
designations, there are regulatory guidelines and industry best management practices for siting and
suitability guidelines within Canada. This information helps to properly design future use marine plans
by understanding the appropriate distances activities and uses must be from other human uses, and
ecosystem features and species. West Coast Aquatic has compiled the guidelines and regulations in a
document, Regulations and Guidelines for Designing and Establishing Area Designations, which serves as
an appendix to this Marine Spatial Planning Framework document.
2.10 WHERE WILL MARINE SPATIAL PLANS BE DEVELOPED IN THE WCVI AREA?
WCA’s geographic scope corresponds with Nuu-chah-nulth Ha-houlthee, which extends seaward from
Cape Cook on Brooks Peninsula to Solander Island, to the international boundary along the entrance to
Juan de Fuca Straits, then true north to Sheringham Point.
WCA’s initial effort is focused on planning units within Barkley and Clayoquot Sounds. This framework
may be used for spatial planning in other WCVI areas over time as opportunities arise.
While the framework applies from the high-tide out to sea, land use plans will be considered when
developing marine spatial designations. Future research and work will create closer linkages between
marine spatial planning and terrestrial planning.
2.11 RECOGNITION OF CONTEXT AND SCALE
The WCVI is a large area representing a defined marine ecosystem. However, ecological, economic,
social and administrative processes often are not contained by ecosystem boundaries. Many issues and
sectors are managed at local, Provincial, national, or international scales. Further, the marine, social,
and economic environment is dynamic, changing through time.
Marine spatial designations are affected by, and affect, other areas and decisions. They also need to be
adaptive to new information and changes over time.
To the greatest extent possible, the development of marine spatial designations and plans will be
implemented with awareness of the need to reflect both the local and current WCVI contexts, and the
broader contexts within which the WCVI exists.
2.12 MONITORING, EVALUATION & TERM
10 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
In partnership with others, WCA is establishing a marine ecosystem monitoring framework. The
framework will include ecological and human well-being indicators. The framework will include a
process for reporting results to the public.
In terms of monitoring the performance of marine spatial plans, evaluation approaches and terms will
be specified when marine spatial designations are formalized in plans or agreements.
2.13 DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
The sections in this planning framework address key issues related to the technical aspects of marine
spatial planning.









Section 2 of this report introduces the three spatial planning approaches used in the Barkley and
Clayoquot Sound Plans.
Section 3 describes the designations proposed for marine spatial planning in the WCVI area.
Section 4 describes how ecologically significant areas can be identified.
Section 5 in this report describes how human use areas can be identified.
Section 6 in this report describes the habitat risk assessment model proposed to be used, which
shows impacts of different options or scenarios in terms of risks to habitat.
Section 7 presents an approach to conflict resolution.
Section 8 in this report outlines a structured approach to evaluating different spatial scenarios.
Section 9 outlines the steps for identifying and selecting indicators and developing a monitoring
strategy.
Appendix 1 contains definitions for technical language used in this framework.
The planning framework is complemented by additional documents.




An Atlas for Barkley and Clayoquot Sound.
Reports on planning units in Barkley Sound and Clayoquot Sound.
Reports on planning tools and models which provide more detail on each.
A report on conflicts and compatibilities.
2.14 REFERENCES
Eller, C. and Douvere, F., eds. 2006. Visions for a Sea Change: Report of the First International
Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the
Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides, 46: ICAM Dossier, 3. Paris: UNESCO, 2007
Ehler, C and Douvere, F. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: A step by step approach towards ecosystem
management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM
Dossier No. 6.
3
SPATIAL PLANNING APPROACHES AND TOOLS
11 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
3.1
INTRODUCTION
The Overview section of this Framework describes the stages and steps involved in marine spatial
planning. This section describes the spatial planning approaches, scale, and outcomes in more detail.
Three approaches are described: management emphasis, recommended uses and activities, and area
designations. The outcome of applying these approaches is a description of the uses, activities, and
values that are emphasized, recommended, and designated for different areas.
As described in Section 1, these outcomes are implemented through:




integration into the management plans and policies of relevant levels of government;
consideration by resource managers or advisory bodies involved the decision making, such as
the tenuring process;
consideration by proponents in developing applications and investing in an area; and,
guiding operational decisions.
As also mentioned in Section 1, a main principle or intention underlying the application and
implementation of these approaches is increasing compatibility and viability and decreasing risk.
3.2
MATCHING PLANNING APPROACHES TO SCALE
The WCVI marine region has a number of sub-regions, including five major sounds, a shelf area, and a
deep water area. Areas such as Barkley or Clayoquot
Sounds are large, relatively remote and are characterized
by a great amount of diversity. In order to facilitate the
Example of planning units in Barkley Sound
marine spatial planning process and to conduct planning
on a more detailed scale, smaller more manageable
planning units are needed within each sub-region.
For example, we have outlined a total of twenty-one
planning units in Clayoquot Sound and twenty-five
planning units in Barkley Sound. They range in size from
three square kilometers to about one hundred and eighty
square kilometers. These are relatively cohesive areas
that have similar biophysical characteristics, social and
cultural values, and patterns of human uses and activities.
You might think of them as being similar to the different
parts of town in a larger city.One of the main goals of
marine spatial planning is matching human uses and
activities to areas that are capable and suitable for them.
To accomplish this, we use three planning approaches at
the planning unit scale, namely:
12 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013



describing a management emphasis for the planning unit;
describing recommended, not recommended and conditionally recommended uses and
activities; and
where appropriate, applying area designations.
These three approaches are nested, are not mutually exclusive of each other, and provide an increasing
level of detail and guidance to resource managers. Each of the three approaches is outlined below,
including examples of how they are intended to be used and how they are determined.
3.2.1 MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS
What is it? The Management Emphasis describes the overall character of a planning unit. Planning
units may have a secondary management emphasis if useful and appropriate.
Management emphasis will be described as follows.
 Community Emphasis: These planning units are core areas designated for the growth and
development of existing communities and their numerous associated uses and activities. As
diversity and intensive use and activity characterize these areas, reducing conflicts may be
achieved through the application of the area designation framework. Official Community Plans
(OCPs) are the main implementation mechanism for area designations within these planning
units.
 Conservation Emphasis: These planning units are comprised primarily of important ecological,
social, recreational and/or historical values which should be preserved for their present and
future value and function. Uses and activities (including those in adjacent planning units) in
these areas should be compatible with identified conservation features.
 Integrated Marine Emphasis: Planning units which do not have a specific conservation or
community emphasis but are important contributors to economic development of the area are
designated as having an integrated marine emphasis. This includes areas which are important
to a diverse range of economic uses and activities as well as more remote areas where there is
limited development potential. These planning units may have a primary or secondary
emphasis identified, such as fishing, forestry, aquaculture, public recreation or another marine
use or activity.
How is it used? The management emphasis of a planning unit serves to guide management decisions
about the kinds of uses and activities that will occur in the unit. Uses and activities that occur in a
planning unit should align with the intention of the management emphasis. However, it is important to
note that the management emphasis is not restrictive. Uses and activities may still be considered as
long as they do not undermine or degrade the intention of the management emphasis.
How is it determined? A planning unit’s management emphasis is determined by considering core
values held for the area such as biophysical features, cultural values, social preference, existing uses and
activities, and future development potential. The following specific information is used:
13 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
1. ecosystem components, services, and values that support human uses and activities within a
planning unit or within nearby areas;
2. existing and potential conflicts that effect the ability of the planning unit to support capable and
suitable uses and activities;
3. social and cultural values held by local communities for the planning unit; and
4. existing and potential for future uses and activities that contribute to the goals and objectives of
the Coastal Strategy.
3.2.2 RECOMMENDED USES AND ACTIVITIES
What is it? Uses and activities will be categorized in planning units as follows.



Recommended: The use or activity is considered to be acceptable and appropriate.
Applications should be accepted for consideration by the appropriate authority. The acceptance
of an application does not guarantee that it will be approved, as site specific and other factors
will be considered.
Conditionally Recommended: The use or activity is considered to be acceptable and
appropriate only under certain conditions. Tenure applications should be accepted provided
that they meet the terms of relevant management provisions outlined in the marine spatial
plans. The acceptance of an application does not guarantee that it will be approved, as site
specific and other factors will be considered.
Not Recommended: The use is considered to be not suitable, not appropriate, or does not
match the area’s capability. Applications for uses or activities that are not recommended should
generally not be accepted. However, it is important to recognize that evolving knowledge,
technology, regulations and management approaches may increase the compatibility of a “not
recommended” use or activity within a planning unit.
Recommendations will be made for the following uses:
 Adventure Tourism/Commercial Recreation
 Aquaculture – Finfish
 Aquaculture – Marine Plant
 Aquaculture – Shellfish
 Commercial – General
 Community and Institutional Use
 Floating Home Community (note the Province of BC currently does not accept applications for
floating home communities; a planning process is underway regarding float cabins and the results
will inform recommendations).
 Industrial – General
 Log Handling
 Marinas and Yacht Clubs
 Private Moorage
 Residential
14 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013

Utilities
Recommendations will also be made for activities that are governed by non-tenuring regulations, such
as fishing and marine shipping and transportation.
There are a handful of activities that are not regulated (surfing, boating, diving, bird-watching, etc.) and
therefore will not be included in this approach. Where there are issues with these activities, other
strategies may be useful, such as education, technology development, or voluntary measures.
How is it used? Recommendations regarding uses and activities provide a further level of detail in
guiding management decisions, planning, and the adjudication of applications. Recommendations
regarding the appropriateness of uses and activities may assist proponents in making decisions about
whether to apply in an area. Managers may use the recommendations as an initial screen when
considering uses and activities or as the basis of conditions in management plans and tenure
documents. Management decisions should be consistent with recommendations around uses and
activities.
How are they determined? Recommended uses or activities for a planning unit are determined by
considering the following information:
1. A use or activity is generally identified as being recommended in a planning unit if:
a. The area is capable and suitable for the use or activity;
b. The use or activity is considered to be compatible with existing values and resources and
supported by social preference; and,
c. The use or activity exists in an area and is suitable for further expansion.
2. A use or activity is identified as being conditionally recommended if it is capable, suitable or
acceptable for an area only under certain conditions. For example, the use/activity may be
recommended conditional upon demonstrating that it addresses:
a. existing or future potential conflicts;
b. environmental impacts; and,
c. issues around density of use.
A use or activity is also identified as being conditionally recommended if it currently exists in an
area but is not recommended for further expansion.
3. A use or activity is identified as being not recommended if:
a. there are regulations that prohibit the use or activity from occurring in an area;
b. the planning unit does not have the biophysical capability to support the use;
c. the area is not a suitable place for the use to take place;
d. the use conflicts with uses that are in alignment with the management emphasis of the
planning unit; and,
e. there is a high risk and likelihood of unacceptable environmental impact..
15 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
3.2.3 AREA DESIGNATIONS
What is it? WCA area designations outline areas on a map based on their importance for a particular
type of use, activity, or value. The area designations are as follows.
1. Ecologically Significant Area (special
features, productive features,
Map showing sample area designations
representative features and
restoration areas)
2. Culturally Significant Area
3. Significant Tourism and Recreation
Areas
4. Significant Aquaculture Area
(shellfish and finfish)
5. Significant Marine Transportation
Routes
6. Significant Community
Development Area
7. Significant Industrial Use Area
8. Significant Fishing Area.
The purpose, objectives and uses and activities for each area designation are described in detail in
Section 3 of this Framework.
Criteria were used to determine how to combine various uses and activities within area designations,
including:




Consulting with other planning process designations to understand how uses and activities were
categorized in other regions;
Categorizing activities and uses that share similar values or have similar capability and suitability
needs;
Categorizing activities and uses into similar area designations where there are similar levels of
ecosystem risk from the use or activity;
In some cases, categorizing uses and activities having similar permitting and regulating bodies.
Within a particular planning unit, areas are designated and each one is identified by a unique number
(i.e. Community Development Area 1). Details are provided on the specific rationale for each area.
Specific protected features or values and seasonal or other temporal factors are also described.
How is it used?
The area designations and accompanying information provide a more detailed guidance to managers,
applicants and users about the values and priorities in specific locations. Area designations may be used
in management plans as well as during strategic or business planning. Area designations are meant to
assign priority to uses, activities, and values in areas that are significant to them. However, a
designation does not mean it will exclude other uses, activities, or values. Other uses or activities may
16 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
occur within these areas if they are compatible with the area designation. Increasing compatibility is a
key goal in applying and implementing area designations.
How is it determined? As outlined in Section 2.9, detailed guidelines for applying the area designation
framework will be used to accurately reflect current siting regulations and industry best management
practices and guidelines..
3.3
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Those applying and implementing the three planning approaches (management emphasis,
recommended uses, area designations) are guided by the following design principles.
Capability: The biophysical characteristics of an area should be capable of supporting the uses and
activities conducted within them.
Suitability: The biophysical, social, economic, cultural characteristics, existing use and future
preferences of an area (including the needs and impacts of the activities) should be reflected in the
planning approaches.
Synergy/Compatibility: The planning approach should the reduce potential for conflicts and increase
the potential opportunities for compatibilities and synergies between uses, activities, and values.
Diversity, Representation and Replication: A diversity of biophysical and ecological features should be
represented, with enough replication and geographic separation to make them viable and resilient to
catastrophic events or disturbances. In the case of ecologically sensitive areas, there should be a
minimum representation and replication of defined biophysical and ecological features.
Connectivity: Area designations and recommended uses should be placed such that they allow for
efficient and natural flows of goods, services, people and natural processes. Consideration should be
given to reducing energy use and the need for infrastructure. Consideration should also be given to
linkages with existing planning directives on the adjacent upland area.
Size and Shape: Area designations should be designed so that they match natural boundaries or
features, and are of a size that matches as closely as possible the actual needs of associated uses. They
should also be sized and shaped to provide for easy management and identification on the water.
Character: The selection and location of area designations should build on and enhance the unique
character, natural values, and spirit of an area.
Cumulative Impacts and Benefits: When considered as a whole, the planning approach should produce
the greatest aggregate benefit in terms of ecological, social, and economic values. The planning
approach should enhance rather than detract from overall benefits, and should not individually or
cumulatively undermine the ability of the ecosystem as a whole to produce a diversity of benefits for
future generations.
Adaptation: The planning approach should allow for periodic reviews to accommodate changes in
technologies, preferences activities, and environmental conditions over time.
Monitoring and enforcement: The planning approach should consider monitoring & enforcement of
objectives and regulations.
Regulations and Guidelines: The planning approach will reflect existing regulations, and should
consider best management practices and locally accepted practices.
17 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Importance: The planning approach should reflect areas and issues that are important, requiring
priority attention or reflecting windows of opportunities.
18 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
4
AREA DESIGNATIONS AND ASSOCIATED OBJECTIVES, USES AND ACTIVITIES
Area designations for WCVI Marine Spatial Plans are:
1. Ecologically Significant Area (special features,
productive features, representative features
and restoration areas)
2. Culturally Significant Area
3. Significant Tourism and Recreation Areas
4. Significant Aquaculture Area (shellfish and
finfish)
5. Significant Marine Transportation Routes
6. Significant Community Development Area
7. Significant Industrial Use Area
8. Significant Fishing Area.
Map showing sample area designations
The purpose, objectives, and activities for each
designation are described below. The objectives come from the Vision, Goals and Objectives identified
in the West Coast Vancouver Island Coastal Strategy (2012).
19 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
1: ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREA
The purpose of the Ecologically Significant Area designation is to preserve and/or restore areas that are
integral to marine ecosystem health and abundance.
Impacts of uses and activities on identified features in the Ecologically Significant Area designation are
expected to be negligible, which means that impacts are unlikely to be measurable against background
variability, and habitat and ecosystem interactions may be occurring but are unlikely to exceed changes
that occur naturally. Audio or visual impacts are also expected to be negligible and intermittent,
blending in with the natural land and seascape.
It is recognized that ecological value and significance is not limited to specific areas. The ESA designation
does not attempt to constrain ecological value, but instead focus on areas that are significant, as
identified in the process outlined in Chapter 5. The general significance of marine ecology will be noted
as being present throughout all relevant planning units.
Primary Objectives






Protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats
Provide a high degree of protection for ecologically significant areas and features
Restore and, where necessary, enhance degraded habitats, including water quality, and species
Use ecosystem-based management and include ecosystem values in planning and decision-making
Maintain genetic, species, and ecosystem level diversity and productivity
Retain the natural beauty of the area
To reflect these different objectives and the different types of Ecologically Significant Areas, ESAs may
be designated into one of four sub-categories.
ESA Sub-Category
A. Special
Features
B. Productive and
Service
Features
Includes features that are significant because
they are:
 unique, rare, sensitive, vulnerable or special
in some other way.
 pristine (not having undergone major
physical alteration by direct human activity)


20 | P a g e
contributing to the productivity and diversity
of the area, such as spawning, nursery,
rearing or foraging areas, or estuaries,
biogenic habitat, reefs and other key physical
habitat
providing key ecosystem services, such as
mitigating coastal erosion and maintaining
water quality
Contributes mainly to
objective:
 Protect endangered or
threatened species and
their habitats
 Maintain genetic, species,
and ecosystem level
diversity and productivity
Maintain genetic, species, and
ecosystem level diversity and
productivity
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013

C. Representative
Features


D. Restoration
Areas

enhancing resilience or resistance to
disturbances or significant changes and/or
contributing to a precautionary approach
representative of habitat and species in the

plan area
well situated for research or policy evaluation
(such as being a natural benchmark against
which to compare impacted areas) or
education.

a priority for restoration or currently
undergoing sensitive restoration activities.
This includes locations with high ecological
capability but currently low suitability due to
existing impact, or areas undergoing sensitive
restoration activities.
Ensure that Ecologically
Significant Areas are
representative of known
habitat types and species
distributions in the plan
area
Generate awareness and
understanding
Restore and, where
necessary, enhance degraded
habitats, including water
quality, and species
Uses and Activities



Uses and activities that disrupt or impact identified features are not recommended in order to
maintain or restore ecosystem functions
Structures are not recommended except for fish and wildlife enhancement, research, navigation,
and safety, or some other structure that contributes to the purpose and objectives of the area
designation
Adjacent marine and land uses should provide adequate environmental protection measures as
determined by responsible agencies
21 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
2: CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT AREA
The purpose of this designation is to ensure that cultural, spiritual, and heritage values, sites and
activities are afforded a level of protection from potentially conflicting uses and activities. The
application of the Culturally Significant Area designation is intended to complement existing legal
requirements for the protection of cultural sites.
Note that all types of fishing are addressed in Designation 8: Significant Fishing Areas, except where a
First Nation fishing area is specifically designated for cultural use in regulation, in which case it would be
designated both a fishing area and a Culturally Significant Area.
Impacts of uses and activities to habitats or populations are expected to be minor, which means that the
impacts are measurable against background variability, but full ecological recovery occurs within existing
natural cycles. Audio or visual impacts are also generally transient or minor, blending in with the natural
land and seascape.
It is recognized that cultural activities (such as canoeing) are not constrained to specific sites, and can
cover different parts of the seascape. The CSA designation does not attempt to capture all cultural
activities, but instead focuses on significant stationary ones. The general significance of cultural activities
will be noted as being present throughout all relevant planning units.
Primary Objectives




Protect key cultural and spiritual values and places
Increase cross-cultural understanding and acceptance
Maintain strong Nuu-chah-nulth and other cultures, including strengthening historical knowledge
and teaching, cultural activities, and language
Generate awareness and understanding
Uses and Activities




Public activities may be limited on a case by case basis in order to maintain or restore cultural,
spiritual or heritage values
Private uses and activities are generally discouraged
Adjacent marine and land uses should provide adequate setbacks for cultural and environmental
protection measures as determined by responsible agencies
Permanent structures or exclusive uses are not allowed, other than those required for cultural use,
fish and wildlife enhancement, research, navigation, or safety
22 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
3: SIGNIFICANT TOURISM AND RECREATION AREA
The purpose of this designation is to protect and facilitate access to areas that are of high recreational
or scenic value. A high degree of protection from development is implied in this designation, and the
dominant activity is wilderness or local scale tourism and public recreation. (Note that recreational
fishing is included in Designation 8: Significant Fishing Area, and not in this designation).
Impacts of uses and activities to habitats or populations in this designation are expected to be minor,
which means that the impacts are measurable against background variability, but full ecological
recovery occurs within existing natural cycles. Audio and visual impacts are also generally transient and
minor, blending in with the natural land and seascape.
It is recognized that tourism and recreation activities are not constrained to specific areas and can cover
most of the seascape. The STRA designation does not attempt to capture all marine tourism and
recreation, instead focusing on areas that are particularly significant. The general significance of marine
tourism and recreation will be noted as being present throughout all relevant planning units.
Primary Objectives





Protect key recreational values and places
Consider and reflect stable and predictable recreational opportunities in resource management
plans
Promote emerging opportunities (tourism and recreation)
Enhance existing economic sectors (tourism and recreation)
Generate awareness and understanding
Uses and Activities




Significant and unique features, viewscapes and natural outdoor recreation sites are protected for
public recreational enjoyment, education and research, and general appreciation
Permanent structures or exclusive uses are not recommended, other than basic facilities required
for wilderness tourism and recreation, cultural use, fish and wildlife enhancement, research,
navigation, or safety.
Consideration should be given to best practices in design and overall impacts and benefits when
reviewing applications for new structures or other permanent facilities.
Small scale wharves, navigation aids and mooring buoys in the foreshore should be encouraged over
large scale facilities.
Existing industrial uses such as log storage and landing sites may be phased out where they are no
longer required.
23 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
4: SIGNIFICANT AQUACULTURE AREA
The purpose of this designation is to recognize and identify areas suitable for aquaculture operations.
This designation is divided into two sub-categories:
A. Shellfish and Marine Plant Aquaculture
B. Finfish Aquaculture
Impacts in this designation are expected to be low to moderate, with recovery occurring in the short to
medium term. Audio or visual impacts are moderate.
Primary Objectives




Promote emerging opportunities (aquaculture)
Enhance existing economic sectors (aquaculture)
Maintain and enhance opportunities for coastal communities to access and benefit from local
aquatic ecosystems, while achieving sustainable social, cultural, and economic benefits for British
Columbians and other Canadians
Generate awareness and understanding
Uses and Activities



Beach, line, netpen, and other aquaculture uses
Other uses and activities which are in irreconcilable conflict with aquaculture are not recommended
Aquaculture is regulated through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Integrated Aquaculture
Management Planning process.
24 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
5: SIGNIFICANT MARINE TRANSPORTATION AREA
The purpose of this designation is to recognize shipping corridors and provide safe routes for marine
travel, especially in congested and high use areas, as well as mooring spots, safe harbours and
anchorages. This designation is associated with Designation 7: Significant Industrial Areas, where ports
and industrial uses occur, and with Designation 6, where marinas, smaller docks and wharves,
residential, and commercial activities occur.
It is recognized that transportation activities vary in their level of impact, though generally
transportation activities in this designation are considered to have low to moderate impact on species
populations and habitats, with recovery occurring in the short to medium term. Audio or visual impacts
are intermittent.
It is also recognized that local marine transportation is not constrained to marine roadways and can
cover most of the seascape. The SMTA designation does not attempt to capture all marine
transportation, but instead focus on major routes. The general significance of marine transportation will
be noted as being present throughout all relevant planning units.
Primary Objectives




Improve shipping and transport safety and efficiency
Develop the means to build and maintain modernized infrastructure (navigational aids, emergency
response, etc) that support multiple activities
Use local organizations and knowledge to assist in planning for and responding to risks and impacts
Generate awareness and understanding
Uses and Activities




Boating, ferries, water taxis, tugs and barges, cruise ships, and shipping
Navigational markers and anchorages
Uses or activities that impede or pose a safety risk to marine transportation are not recommended
Transportation activities are generally regulated by the Federal Department of Transportation.
25 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
6: SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA
The purpose of this designation is to identify marine space that recognizes and accommodates growing
residential and commercial uses and activities within or adjacent to existing communities, and that
required marine infrastructure (such as smaller wharves and docks, marinas, waste facilities, etc.) is in
place. This designation could include float home communities if a decision is made by appropriate
authorities that they are an acceptable use. Detailed planning and specific designations within this
designation are achieved through Official Community Plans, Port or Harbour Authority Plans, or
Foreshore Agreements, for example.
It is expected that the impacts of uses and activities on habitats or populations in this designation may
be moderate or high, which means that full ecological recovery from impacts occurs in the medium or
long term, and are measurable against background variability. Audio and visual impacts may also be
moderate or high.
Primary Objectives




Build safer, more attractive, and more environmentally friendly communities with better
investments
Develop the means to build and maintain modernized infrastructure (docks, wharves, energy,
harbours, navigation aids, emergency response, etc) that support multiple activities
Maintain and enhance opportunities for coastal communities to access and benefit from local
aquatic ecosystems, while achieving sustainable social, cultural, and economic benefits for British
Columbians and other Canadians
Generate awareness and understanding
Uses and Activities






Orderly development of rural residential, recreational, tourism and commercial development in a
manner which maintains the rural character of the area
Combination of rural and resource use, including cottages, single family dwellings, small and
medium scale resorts, and campgrounds
Associated marine infrastructure such as public and private wharves and docks and marinas
Shoreline/foreshore development should consider the protection of fish habitat, environmentally
sensitive areas and no net loss of productivity
Shoreline/foreshore development should consider impacts on and from coastal erosion, flooding,
and hazards (such as tsunamis)
Float homes may be considered, subject to approval by the Province of British Columbia, the Alberni
Clayoquot Regional District, First Nations and other regulatory agencies.
26 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
7: SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USE AREA
The purpose of this designation is to recognize and identify marine areas that are suitable for supporting
high impact uses and activities, such as log sorts, booming grounds, mills, mining and related
infrastructure, ports, processing, energy development, communications and other transmission cables,
and other industrial activities. It is expected that the impacts of uses and activities on habitats or
populations in this designation may be high, which means that full ecological recovery from impacts
occurs in the long term, and impacts are measurable against background variability. Audio and visual
impacts may also be high.
Primary Objectives






Promote emerging opportunities (mixed industrial)
Enhance existing economic sectors (mixed industrial)
Develop the means to build and maintain modernized infrastructure (docks, wharves, energy,
harbours, navigational aids, emergency response, etc) that support multiple activities
Maintain and enhance opportunities for coastal communities to access and benefit from local
aquatic ecosystems, while achieving sustainable social, cultural, and economic benefits for British
Columbians and other Canadians
Encourage multiple use of existing or new facilities to accommodate mixed industrial uses on a
limited footprint or separated on a temporal basis.
Generate awareness and understanding
Uses and Activities











Log sorts, log dumps, booming grounds, mills
Mining and related infrastructure
Ports
Processing
Energy development
Communications and other transmission cables
Other industrial activities
Uses and activities generally connect with other related uses and activities, such as shipping and
transportation
Other uses and activities are acceptable as long as they are not in irreconcilable conflict with
industrial use or activity
Shoreline/foreshore development will have due regard for the protection of fish habitat,
environmentally sensitive areas and no net loss of productivity and other environmental regulations
Shoreline/foreshore development will consider impacts on and from coastal erosion, flooding, and
marine hazards such as tsunamis
27 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
8: SIGNIFICANT FISHING AREAS
The purpose of this designation is to recognize and identify important fishing areas. This includes First
Nation, commercial, and recreational fishing.
It is recognized that fishing activities vary significantly in their level of impact. Generally fishing activities
in this designation may be considered to have low to moderate impact on species populations and
habitats, with recovery occurring in the short to medium term. Audio or visual impacts are transient.
It is also recognized that some fisheries target fish that are highly migratory, and therefore fishing may
occur in very different areas season to season. The SFA designation does not attempt to capture these
kinds of fisheries. Instead their significance will be noted as being present throughout all relevant
planning units during their fishing seasons.
Primary Objectives



Enhance existing economic sectors

Secure food, social and ceremonial harvesting areas and consider and reflect aboriginal rights and
Treaty obligations as a priority in resource management plans

Promote and preserve healthy marine habitats that are important to fishing by avoiding impacts to
these habitats

Allow for harvesting of species and the compatibility with other uses and activities provided the
habitats within the area do not have a negligible impact

Plan and manage activities so that they are done responsibly in appropriate times and places,
reducing conflict and negative impacts and improving synergies
Consider and reflect stable and predictable opportunities in resource management plans
Maintain and enhance opportunities for coastal communities to access and benefit from local
aquatic ecosystems, while achieving sustainable social, cultural, and economic benefits for British
Columbians and other Canadians
Uses and Activities







Commercial, recreational and aboriginal fishing by all gear types and for all species
Other uses and activities are acceptable as long as they are not in irreconcilable conflict with fishing.
Uses and activities which are permanent and exclusive are not recommended, with the exception of
navigation or safety aids.
Maintain and enhance coastal infrastructure to support fisheries including: docks and wharfs,
shipyards, and navigational aids
Support distribution channels (air, land and sea) to local and global markets
Promote new and emerging fisheries.
Fishing is subject to regulatory plans under the Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s Integrated
Fisheries Management Planning processes.
28 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
5
5.1
IDENTIFYING ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
INTRODUCTION
A major goal of marine planning is ensuring that ecosystems are healthy and abundant. Achieving this
goal is important both for other species and for the goods and services that ecosystems provide to
communities and businesses. “Healthy and abundant species and habitats” was the most consistently
cited goal statement in WCA’s assessment work.
This section presents the background information and methodology for identifying candidate
ecologically significant areas (ESAs). The intent is to provide a clear and transparent account of the
assumptions and the inputs into the process for identifying and locating potential ecologically significant
areas (ESAs). This paper addresses five key issues:





Identifying what key ecological features should receive enhanced protection
Setting protection targets for key features
Analyzing information about multiple features and targets to find candidate ESAs
Incorporating local and sector knowledge into the decision making process for determining the final
size, shape, and configuration of ESAs
Minimizing impacts on human uses and activities.
This section is complemented by Section 5 regarding risk and vulnerability assessment. Risk assessment
determines the extent to which an ecological feature is threatened by specific or cumulative activities.
5.2
BACKGROUND
The National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas defines ecologically and
biologically significant areas as “spatially defined areas that provide important services – either to one
or more species or populations in an ecosystem, or to the ecosystem as a whole” (Government of
Canada, 2011). Ecological and biologically significant areas are meant to address one or more of seven
criteria, as referenced by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (Anon 1994): uniqueness or
rarity; special importance for life-history stages of species; importance for threatened, endangered or
declining species and/or habitats; vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity or slow recovery; biological
productivity; biological diversity; and naturalness.
Federal and provincial governments are finalizing the draft Canada – British Columbia MPA Network
Strategy that aims to protect representative ecosystems as a way to ensure the IUCN criteria are met.
Some of the sites captured within ESA designation may meet the criteria for establishing Marine
Protected Areas under the final Canada- British Columbia MPA Network Strategy. In the event that one
or more ESAs meet the criteria for establishing an MPA, West Coast Aquatic may recommend those ESA
designation(s) for consideration in that process.
29 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
The diverse, complex and fluid nature of the marine environment makes identifying and selecting
specific targets for key ecological features a challenging task. Local, sectoral, and traditional ecological
knowledge is important to addressing this challenge. Computerized decision support tools can also
assist in selecting candidate areas. Further, an extensive body of peer reviewed scientific research exists
that is specific to defining, identifying and selecting ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSAs)
in British Columbia’s marine environment. The work was undertaken during the development of the
National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas and provides a useful knowledge
foundation upon which to build.
5.3
IDENTIFYING CANDIDATE AREAS FOR ESA DESIGNATION
5.3.1 DISCUSSION
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans conducted a study of the tools capable of analyzing marine
data to identify areas that contain ecological attributes suitable for conservation and determined
Marxan to be the most appropriate tool (Evans et al., 2004).
Marxan is a tool that can synthesize data from varying sources and determine locations which meet the
requirements for conservation. Marxan is useful in determining areas that are important for
conservation at the minimum “cost” to other users. In large complex analyses Marxan can be run
multiple times to identify multiple configurations of potential sites that meet the targets established for
conserving important features. Those sites that are selected most often are the sites that may be
considered to best meet the parameters for site selection. As a result they are considered significant for
the protection of ecological values.
There are a variety of reasons to use Marxan, as noted in the Marxan Good Practices Handbook: “Using
Marxan enhances the rigor, transparency and repeatability of processes that are inherently complex and
potentially subjective. It enables the production of spatially efficient reserve network options that meet
explicit representation and economic targets…It ensures targets for conservation features are met for a
minimum “cost” – be that monetary, area, or other socio-economic factors defined by the user…Within
Marxan, targets for conservation features, penalties (weightings) of conservation features and costs can
all be varied easily, allowing for iterative solutions. Marxan produces a range of reserve configurations
that meet conservation objectives increasing the chances of finding solutions that maximize
conservation interests while minimizing negative economic, social or cultural impacts and can lead to
the identification of unforeseen solutions. Marxan also has the flexibility to support participatory
planning processes and to help negotiate acceptable outcomes amongst multiple stakeholders” (Ardron
et al., 2010)
BCMCA provides a BC coast wide demonstration of the use of Marxan to identify ecologically and
biologically significant areas, or areas that could be candidates for area designation as Ecologically
Sensitive Areas.
30 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
An alternative to using Marxan is a community and sector based approach. WCA conducted spatial
knowledge interviews with over 200 individuals, including harvesters, First Nations, guides, researchers,
and others with knowledge of the area. The interviews included questions related to identifying spatial
areas or features important to protect.
Ban et al. (2009) compared the results of using community-based and science-based approaches for
prioritizing marine areas for protection. In the case study described in the article, there was a significant
overlap in the areas selected through both approaches.
5.3.2 WCA APPROACH
Step 1: Conduct an inventory of areas currently under a protected area or conservation designation,
including the level or category of protection.
Step 2: Review the features identified by BCMCA to determine if they are relevant to the unique
ecological values and scale appropriate for the plan area. Refine the features to ensure they are
appropriate for WCVI sounds.
Step 3: Set a range of low, medium and high targets for representative features, productive features
and special features appropriate for use in WCVI sounds (see Appendix 1). Conduct a Marxan analysis
using WCA features and target ranges to inform discussions regarding candidate ESAs.
Step 4: Use results from Marxan Analysis (based on the WCA target ranges) to identify three scenarios
of candidate areas for ESA designation. Compare with and incorporate areas identified through local
knowledge and sector mapping interviews.
Step 5: Conduct an analysis of the relationship between specific human use activities and candidate
ESAs, including a coarse filter regarding potential impacts on human uses and risk assessments where
warranted (This step is described in more detail in Section 6: Risk Assessment).
Step 6: Ensure that sectors, communities, and relevant organizations have the opportunity to review
and comment on the results of the ESA scenarios in terms of socioeconomic and ecological impacts.
Step 7: Apply candidate ESA and other area designations, showing overlaps and developing overall
spatial planning scenarios. (This step is part of the overall marine spatial planning process, in which
appropriate uses in different planning units are determined).
Step 8: Combine, refine, and choose a preferred scenario based on structured decision making
approach, including use of metrics to evaluate between different options. (This step is part of the
overall marine spatial planning process, in which trade-offs between overall designation options occur).
Step 9: Make information and recommendations about ESAs (and other designations) available to
various governments and sectors for consideration in operational decisions and for regulatory
implementation.
31 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
5.4
IDENTIFYING KEY ECOL OGICAL FEATURES FOR PROTECTION
5.4.1 DISCUSSION
WCA reviewed several methods for identifying what ecological features should be protected.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada considered methods for classifying marine habitats and identifying key
features, :
 ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs);
 ecologically significant species;
 degraded areas;
 depleted species; and,
 community properties.
A review of various systems rated the EBSA approach highest when measured against seven criteria that
included appropriateness, feasibility and reproducibility (Gregr et al. 2012).
DFO produced an EBSA analysis for the West Coast of Vancouver Island (Jamieson et al. 2012). While
aspects of the approach are useful, unfortunately its application at the scale of Barkley, Clayoquot, or
other WCVI Sounds is limited as it does not include near shore areas.
The BC Marine Conservation Analysis (BCMCA) held a series of ecological expert workshops, engaging
regional scientists and experts to solicit lists of best-available data and recommended ecological
features that should be represented when identifying areas for the protection of marine values for
British Columbia’s Pacific coast. This report is available at http://bcmca.ca/wp/wpcontent/uploads/BCMCA_Marxan_Workshop_Proceedings_2010_06.pdf.
BCMCA’s list of biophysical and ecological features for the representation of ecosystems was developed
through a collaborative process and open and transparent forums that included First Nations, scientists
and stakeholders to ensure that science informed the decisions and that input from all parties was
considered. The ecological expert and human use workshop reports are available at
http://bcmca.ca/maps-data/document-library/. The terms of reference for the process may be found at
the following web address: http://bcmca.ca/our-process/user-engagement/. BCMCA included DFO’s
EBSA features in its recommended features, which can be found at http://bcmca.ca/maps-data/browseor-search/.
WCVI areas like Barkley and Clayoquot Sounds generally have similar features to other parts of BC, but
may not have some features present and may have some unique features not captured in BCMCA list.
Further, spatial data layers for features are necessary in order to include them in Marxan, influencing
the choice of features.
5.4.2 WCA APPROACH
32 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013


5.5
Utilize the BCMCA/EBSA list of features as a starting point
Adapt and customize the list to the unique scale and nature of WCVI Sounds, recognizing that spatial
data layers are required for the features to be used in a Marxan analysis.
SETTING PROTECTION TARGETS
5.5.1 DISCUSSION
Both national and international targets have been suggested for the overall coverage of marine
protected areas within varying scales of space. A review of the existing areas designated for
conservation reveals varying levels of spatial and temporal regulation. There is a broad range of
recommendations on the selection of conservation targets with a range of 10%-50% suggested set aside
for marine protection. The National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas
commits to set aside, “at least 10% of coastal and marine areas” (Government of Canada, 2011).
The end choice of target levels is limited by lack of scientific information or certainty about the levels of
protection required for specific features. This is especially relevant for species that are not commercially
harvested or well studied.
BCMCA developed targets for biophysical and ecological features through two processes:
1. Expert workshops and surveys
2. Project team discussions
The BCMCA targets reflected low, medium, and high protection scenarios. For example, one scenario
might include 10% (low) protection for most features, another scenario would have 20% (medium), and
another 30% (high). Map results for each scenario were then produced to show the outcomes of
implementing low, medium, or high protection targets. The ecological expert and human use workshop
reports are available at http://bcmca.ca/maps-data/document-library/.
While the same range of target levels were applied to many features, in some cases a particular feature
received a higher range of protection targets. This happened more frequently through the expert rating
approach, as experts familiar with a feature placed higher emphasis on its protection. The project team
looked at the overall suite of features and took a more standardized approach, resulting in less diversity
in the ranges applied to each feature. The final target ranges under both approaches are available by
contacting BCMCA.
5.5.2 WCA APPROACH


Use a combination of local knowledge and MARXAN to identify possible areas.
Use a features and target based approach, with targets generally reflecting low, medium and high
protection to produce several scenarios of candidate ESAs.
33 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013


5.6
Customize the approach to set standard target ranges for three category of features reflecting the
sub-designations within the WCA Area Designation Framework:
1. Representational features: represent general marine habitats or species distributions.
 L=10, M=20, H= 30
2. Productive and service features: contribute in a significant way to ecosystem productivity or
biodiversity.
 L= 20 M=40, H=60
3. Special features: unique, rare, endangered, sensitive or otherwise special.
 L= 60, M= 80, H= 100
The use of targets is solely for the purposes of using Marxan and providing the WCA board with
different scenarios for its consideration in selecting ESAs. Targets do not imply or purport to
represent a final determination of what is needed for the sustainability of each feature, nor do they
guarantee an upper or lower goal to be achieved, inside or outside of the integrated marine
planning context.
REFERENCES
Anon. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories , IUCN and the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Ardron, J.A., Possingham, H.P., and Klein, C.J. (eds). 2010. Marxan Good Practices Handbook, Version 2.
Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Victoria, BC, Canada. 165 pages. www.pacmara.org.
Ban, Natalie C., Picard, Chris R., and Vincent, Amanda C. J. 2009. Comparing and integrating communitybased and science-based approaches to prioritizing marine areas for protection. Conservation Biology,
23 (4). pp. 899-910. ISSN 1523-1739
Evans, S.M.J., Jamieson, G.S., Ardron, J., Patterson, M., and Jessen, S. 2004. Evaluation of Site Selection
Methodologies for Use in Marine Protected Area network design. Report prepared for the Pacific
Scientific Advice Review Committee, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Gregr, EJ, J Lessard, and J Harper. Submitted. A spatial framework for representing nearshore ecosystems. Progress
in Oceanography.
Government of Canada. 2011. National Framework for Canada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. 31 pp.
Jamieson et al. 2012. Pending publication regarding proposed Ecologically and Biologically Significant
Areas in marine waters of West coast of Vancouver Island.
34 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
5.7
TABLE 1 – WCA FEATURES AND TARGETS FOR BARKLEY AND CLAYOQUOT SOUND MARXAN ANALYSIS
Theme
Feature
Targets
Data Layer
Low
Med
Feature Class
High
Existing Closures
Parks and Protected Areas
Pacific Rim National Park
cost sfc
Special
Existing Closures
Parks and Protected Areas
Provincial Parks
cost sfc
Special
Existing Closures
Parks and Protected Areas
Tribal Parks
cost sfc
Special
Existing Closures
Parks and Protected Areas
lock in
Special
Existing Closures
Parks and Protected Areas
cost sfc
Special
Existing Closures
Parks and Protected Areas
Ecological Reserves
Rockfish Conservation
Areas
Tofino Mudflats, Wildlife
Management Area
cost sfc
Special
Existing Closures
Parks and Protected Areas
Tonquin Municipal Park
cost sfc
Special
Existing Closures
do not use
Special
Existing Closures
Parks and Protected Areas
Sites of Historical
Significance
cost sfc
Special
Existing Closures
Fisheries Closures
Existing Closures
Fisheries Closures
Clayoquot Biopshere
Reserve
Sanitary shellfish closures
commercial fishing
closures
Rationale/Notes
do not use
Representational
cost sfc
core protected areas have already
been incorporated into parks
degraded water quality or other
conflicting uses/activities
Special
Physical Rep.
Physiography
9 substrate classes
10
20
30
Representational
9 substrate classes (1 - hard, 1a bedrock dominant, 1b - boulder
dominant, 2 - mixed/unconsolodates,
2a - primarily soft with patchy
cobble/gravel, 2b - sand to gravel, 3 soft, 3a - sand.shell, 3b - mud
Physical Rep.
Oceanography
Shorezone bioband types
10
20
30
Representational
20 bioband types - habitat data not
available for all of study area
35 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Physical Rep.
Estuaries
Estuaries
20
40
60
Productive
Compare with shorezone to ensure
consistency - this layer is polygons
whereas shorezone is lines.
Physical Rep.
Bathymetry
Depth
10
20
30
Representational
Physical Rep.
Depth
10
20
30
Representational
Physical Rep.
Slope
Unique and distinctive
areas
Physical Rep.
Reefs
Physical Rep.
tidal flow
tidal model
do not use
Physical Rep.
productive areas
spring chlorophyl-a
do not use
3 depth classes: 0-20, 20-50, 50-200,
(omit >200m as not common in study
area)
3 classes: flat (0-5%), sloping (5-20%)
and steep (>20%)
Have to re-calculate at a finer scale do not use
If rugosity cannot be calculated at
appropriate scale, may be able to
identify features using local
knowledge.
Data is not available at an appropriate
scale.
Data is not available at an appropriate
scale.
do not use
Red listed species. This feature exists
in most of the study area. Targets are
too high to be used in Marxan. Based
on the information available, a spatial
approach at this scale is not effective
for protection of this species.
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
36 | P a g e
Killer whale
Killer whale
Grey whale
High Rugosity
do not use
20
Bigg's Transient Killer
whale foraging areas
Bigg's Transient Killer
whale visitation rates
Grey whale migration
routes
40
Productive
60
Productive
Special
do not use
Special
do not use
Representational
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Red listed species. Data available for
Clayoquot Sound only. Only have
visitation rates, don't know if this
represents feeding, simply passing
through or other. Based on
information available, a spatial
approach at this scale isn't effective
for protection of this species
Blue listed species. Feature is outside
of study area.
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
37 | P a g e
Grey whale
Important feeding areas primary
Important feeding areas secondary
Grey whale
Grey whale annual
foraging areas
Grey whale
Grey whale
Humpback whale
Grey whale rubbing areas
Humpback whale
migration routes
Humpback whale
Important feeding areas primary
Important feeding areas secondary
Harbour Porpoise
Important feeding areas
Humpback whale
Harbour Porpoise
Sea otters
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
See above.
Blue listed species. Are these the
same as feeding areas and are they all
of the same relative importance?
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
Sea otters
Sea otters
Estimated carrying
capacity for sea otters
Sealion habitat
Representational
Blue listed species.
Blue listed species. Outside of study
area.
Representational
Blue listed species. Only target
primary as secondary covers most of
the study area.
Representational
See above.
Representational
Blue listed species.
do not use
Representational
do not use
Representational
Representational
Blue listed species. This feature exists
in most of the study area. Based on
the information available, a spatial
approach at this scale is not effective
for protection of this species.
Blue listed species. As range is
expaning southwards, do not include.
Blue listed species. Based on
estimated carrying capacity.
Representational
Blue listed species. Used to determine
suitable habitat, conversation with
BCMCA, Ed, Linda.
Representational
Steller sea lion is a blue listed species.
The feature exists in most of the study
area.
do not use
10
20
30
do not use
10
Harbour Porpoise foraging
areas
Current sea otter range
Suitable habitat for sea
otters
Sealions
10
Blue listed species. Combine primary
and secondary feeding areas into one
layer and target the same.
20
10
20
do not use
do not use
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
30
30
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine
Mammals
Marine Birds
Sealions
Sealion haulout
Harbour Seal
Sealion hauloutintermediate and seasonal
Harbour seal haulouts and
rockeries
Harbour seal freshwater
habitat
Harbour Seal
Harbour seal habitat
Marine Birds
Approximate Marble
Murrelet capture locations
Sealions
Harbour Seal
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
do not use
Representational
do not use
Representational
Steller sea lion is a blue listed species.
Use BCMCA buffer (200 m) and buffer
for points, combine with haulout.
Use BCMCA buffer (200 m) and buffer
for points.
This feature is not in the study area.
The feature exists in most of the study
area.
Blue listed species. Not an indicator of
distribution. Data exists for Clayoquot
Sound only.
do not use
Marbled Murrelet nesting
sites
Steller sea lion is a blue listed species.
Use BCMCA buffer (200 m) and buffer
for points combine with intermediate
do not use
Representational
Blue listed species. Nesting sites area
terrestrial, forage areas are far from
nesting sites. Could potentially
inlcude buffer if any of these sites are
close to marine areas. Check with
Doug Bertram (CWS).
Figure out what species, use BCMCA
buffer.
Marine Birds
Marine Birds
Marine Birds
Marine Birds
Marine Birds
Marine Birds
Seabird nesting sites
Seabirds nesting and
activity areas
Marine Birds
Marine Birds
Alcid distribution
do not use
Representational
Marine Birds
Marine Birds
Important Birding Areas
do not use
Representational
Target polygons as is.
covers entire study area - not useful in
Marxan analysis
covers entire study area - not useful in
Marxan analysis
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Oystercatcher nest sites
10
20
30
Representational
BCMCA recomended buffer 2 km,
check to see if there are more in
BCMCA dataset
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Important shorebird
resting areas
10
20
30
Representational
buffer one point that's not in host
areas by 300 m and add to host areas
38 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
layer
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Marine Birds
Staging shorebird host
areas
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
Shorebirds
Black Oystercatcher
Brandt's and Pelagic
Cormorant
Cassin's and Rhinocerous
Auklet
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Common Murre
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Glaucous-winged Gull
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Pigeon Guillemot
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Storm Petrels
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
Marine Birds
Shorebirds
Tufted Puffin
10
20
30
Representational
target polygons as is
Representational
target river mouths (point data with
100 meter buffer), combine all species
into one layer
Representational
target river mouths (point data with
100 meter buffer), combine all species
into one layer
Representational
target river mouths (point data with
100 meter buffer), combine all species
into one layer
Representational
target river mouths (point data with
100 meter buffer), combine all species
into one layer
Representational
target river mouths (point data with
100 meter buffer), combine all species
into one layer
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
39 | P a g e
Salmon- Chinook
Salmon- Coho
Salmon- Sockeye
Salmon- Chum
Salmon- Pink
Chinook
Coho
Sockeye
Chum
Pink
10
10
10
10
10
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
Fish
Salmon- Steelhead
Steelhead
10
20
30
Representational
target river mouths (point data with
100 meter buffer), combine all species
into one layer
target river mouths (point data with
100 meter buffer), combine all species
into one layer
Fish
Cutthroat Trout
Cutthroat Trout
10
20
30
Representational
Fish
Hake
Hake habitat - summer
10
20
30
Representational
Fish
Hake
Hake habitat - year round
10
20
30
Representational
Fish
Herring
Fish
Herring
Fish
Pacific sandlance
Fish
Sharks
Fish
Sharks
Herring spawn locations
Cumulative herring spawn
habitat index
Pacific sandlance spawning
locations
Basking shark sightings
Important areas for
juvenile sixgill shark
Fish
Sharks
Invertebrates
Dungeness Crab
Invertebrates
Pacific, Spot Prawn
Invertebrates
Pink Shrimp
Expert Shark sightings
Important areas for
Dungeness Crab
Important areas for Pacific
spot prawns
Important areas for Pink
Shrimp
Invertebrates
Clams
Clam beaches
40 | P a g e
20
40
60
Productive
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
do not use
10
20
Representational
30
do not use
Species has very large range but only
one point in the study area. Based on
the information available, a spatial
approach at this scale is not effective
for protection of this species.
Representational
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
check on Tzartus Island and
Numikamis Bay - Community Dialogue
Session - PALB
Observational data. Species have very
large range. Based on the information
available, a spatial approach at this
scale is not effective for protection of
this species.
Invertebrates
Clams
Invertebrates
Geoducks
Invertebrates
Oysters
Invertebrates
Oysters
Invertebrates
Coral
Marine Plants
Eelgrass
Marine Plants
Eelgrass
Marine Plants
Giant and Bull Kelp
Marine Plants
Giant and Bull Kelp
Terrestrial
Important foreshore and
marine areas used by
Wolves
Important foreshore and
marine areas used by
Wolves
Important foreshore and
marine areas used by
Wolves
Invasive Species
Invasive species
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
41 | P a g e
Razor clam distribtuions
Important areas for
Geoducks
Important areas for
Olympia oyster
Important areas for Pacific
oyster
Coral
distribution/observations
Seagrass and Eelgrass
distribution
Seagrass and Eelgrass
distribution (shorezone)
Kelp distribution
Kelp distribution
(shorezone)
Wolf marine crossing
corridors
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
10
20
30
Representational
20
40
60
Productive
20
40
60
Productive
20
40
60
Productive
20
40
60
Productive
20
40
60
Productive
0
0
0
Blue listed species. coast wide
importance? Not an indicator of
distribution in the sounds
separate surfgrass and eelgrass
separate giant kelp, bull kelp and
general kelp
tracking features
Protecting only part of a corridor is not
useful. Data is point, buffer by 100200m to see if that captures the land
on both sides, need to contact source
for clarification. Target of zero to flag
for manual analysis.
Wolf hunting and travel
corridors
do not use
Representational
See above.
Wolf rearing areas
do not use
Representational
See above.
tracking features
don't target but report on how much
of the solution has green crab
Green crab
0
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
0
0
Rare +
Endangered
Species at risk
BC red listed species animals
60
80
100
Special
Rare +
Endangered
Species at risk
BC red listed species plants
60
80
100
Special
Rare +
Endangered
Species at risk
BC blue listed species animals
10
20
30
Representational
Rare +
Endangered
Species at risk
BC blue listed species plants
10
20
30
Representational
42 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
might be duplicating other features,
buffer birds, buffer uncertainty factor
for others, tally as amount of area that
polygon interescts planning unit, don't
include land based plants, use eflora
to determine terrestrial vs marine
plants
might be duplicating other features,
buffer birds, buffer uncertainty factor
for others, tally as amount of area that
polygon interescts planning unit, don't
include land based plants, use eflora
to determine terrestrial vs marine
plants
might be duplicating other features,
buffer birds, buffer uncertainty factor
for others, tally as amount of area that
polygon interescts planning unit, don't
include land based plants, use eflora
to determine terrestrial vs marine
plants
might be duplicating other features,
buffer birds, buffer uncertainty factor
for others, tally as amount of area that
polygon interescts planning unit, don't
include land based plants, use eflora
to determine terrestrial vs marine
plants
6
6.1
IDENTIFYING AREAS FOR HUMAN USE DESIGNATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Some of the key goals of WCA’s Coastal Strategy (2012) relate to maintaining and diversifying social,
cultural, and economic wealth. This may be achieved through various mechanisms. Depending on the
activity, area designations can help identify suitable areas, reduce conflict, and provide security and
stability for different uses.
This note is concerned specifically with capturing socially, culturally, and economically important areas
through the application of designations. It focuses on how to identify areas for different activities.
6.2
BACKGROUND
WCA has collected information on human uses through local knowledge and sector interviews, existing
data sets, and regulations and management plans. Mapping human uses and converting them to
designations shows the distribution of uses and overlap of activities, both with other activities and
ecologically significant areas.
In many cases WCA data sets show specific human uses and sector activities covering large expanses
within the Sounds. However, only a percentage of the large expanses of individual human uses and
sector activities are consistently used and in some cases suitable for that activity. For instance, an entire
Sound may be available for recreational use, but only certain areas are suitable and used. Understanding
this detailed level of information about human uses is important. It allows us to more accurately
understand conflicts and compatibilities between uses and with ecological values.
6.3
DISCUSSION
There are three key challenges in representing human uses:
1) Properly identifying areas for different human uses.
a. Adequate data
b. Addressing data gaps arising from confidential information
c. Recognizing that use patterns may reflect management restrictions rather than area
capability or suitability
d. Recognizing that use patterns may shift over time and in unforeseen ways.
2) Representing uses that cover large areas, or that rely on species that are highly migratory.
3) Making sure uses are not unnecessarily restricted from designations. The latter is important to allow
uses flexibility and adaptation to changing circumstances.
43 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
To address the first challenge, WCA is gathering, combining, and verifying data on historic and current
use, sector preferences, and biophysical suitability.
Linking biophysical characteristics with human uses can show the full amount of area that potentially
may be used. For example, if a fishery is focused on a species that uses a particular habitat type, then
the habitat type can be used to narrow the biophysical capability for the fishery; e.g. mapping intertidal
rocks can be used as a proxy for the gooseneck barnacles fishery, as gooseneck barnacles grow on most
intertidal rocks.
The initial capability study can then be refined using suitability criteria established in partnership with
the human use group. For example, gooseneck barnacle fishermen identify distance from landing dock,
accessibility and anchoring, size of rock, and other suitability criteria. These can then be applied to
narrow the range of potential areas. If any of the factors affecting suitability change (for example, new
technology makes it possible to access rocks that were previously inaccessible), then the area can be
added back in.
This approach requires maps of habitat types as well as information about the species or particular use
associated with the different habitat types. It works best with species or uses that do not move around
a lot, such as shellfish or float cabins. It can help address issues associated with confidential information
as well as allow sectors more flexibility for changing circumstances.
Uses associated with migratory species are more challenging. They require very large coverage areas.
To address this, a notation can be made in all of the designation areas regarding the migratory use.
Some areas can be selected as priority use for the migratory use, based in part on an analysis identifying
conflicts and compatibilities between the migratory use and other uses (see Section 7). Where a conflict
may occur, efforts can be made to reduce the conflict, as per the conflict resolution process outlined in
Section 7 of this framework.
Uses with large coverage areas that fill most or all of the plan area can create a designation map that
looks visually ‘clogged’. To address this, a more transparent map layer can be used to represent
migratory uses. A fancier version of this would be to apply levels of transparency based on frequency or
density of use in a year.
Another key challenge is making sure uses are not unnecessarily restricted from designations. In many
cases uses are compatible, or can become compatible, and in other cases human uses need flexibility to
adapt to changing circumstances.
One solution is to take an approach in which designations are non-exclusive and can overlap, except in
the case of irreconcilable conflicts and unacceptable risks. Where the designations or specific uses are
irreconcilable then priority is assigned to designations based on their fit with the character and
management emphasis of the planning unit area.
44 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
6.4
WCA APPROACH
Step 1. Develop a policy and procedures to respect and protect sensitive human use data.
Step 2. Gather data on historic and current use, sector preferences, and capability or suitability studies
through spatial knowledge interviews, existing use datasets, and literature reviews.
Step 3. Conduct capability and suitability studies where warranted and where resources permit.
Step 4. Seek verification from human use sectors.
Step 5. Convert the data to proposed designations and use for other required analysis.
Step 6. Apply a ‘non-exclusive and priority-based ’ approach to designations.
Step 7. Seek feedback from human use sectors.
45 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
7
7.1
IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING RISKS TO THE WCVI ECOSYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
A major goal of marine planning is ensuring that ecosystems are healthy and abundant. Achieving this
goal is important both for other species and for the goods and services that ecosystems provide to
communities and businesses.
An important first step in protecting, restoring, or maintaining ecological and socioeconomic values is to
understand the vulnerability of them to individual and cumulative stressors. Some activities or
processes are compatible with different values and may only put stress on a few features and processes.
Other activities may create a lot of stress on one or more features. Activities may also pose little stress
by themselves, but cumulatively may produce significant stress. It is important to be specific about the
nature of impacts and not to use a broad brush.
To do this, it is important understand the level of risk different stressors pose. Risk can be measured by
looking at both the magnitude of impact (also called exposure) of a stressor, and the sensitivity of an
ecological or socioeconomic value to disturbance by that stressor. Overall adaptive capacity and
vulnerability can be measured by looking at the cumulative risks associated with multiple stressors.
This paper describes proposed approaches to assessing risk and vulnerability as well as some of their
applications. While it focuses mainly on risks to ecological values, it also includes a brief discussion at
the end about developing a parallel approach for socioeconomic values.
7.2
BACKGROUND
Coastal environments provide a number of important benefits such as protection from storms, food
from fisheries and aquaculture, carbon storage, waste filtration and conversion, and opportunities for
recreation. However, as human uses of the marine environment continue to expand and intensify, the
sustained delivery of these benefits and services can become threatened.
The condition of a habitat is key to its ability to provide benefits and services. A method is needed to
provide governments, stakeholders, communities, and experts with a clear and repeatable way to assess
the risk posed to marine habitats and the potential consequences of exposure for the delivery of
benefits and services. The approach requires map layers of habitats and human stressors, as well the
best available science2. This information should come from peer-reviewed sources at the global scale as
2
For the exercise of evaluating risk in the marine planning process, we seek the best available science to inform
our assessment. For this assessment, “best available science” is defined as scientific data, regardless of source,
that are available at the time of a decision or action and which are determined to be the most accurate, reliable,
and relevant for use in that decision or action. We use specific criteria such as: a. being of quality reference (peer
reviewed, statistically-based and local knowledge), b. meeting a suitable quantity of resources, and c. representing
the geographic and climatic qualities of the study area, as well as species being assessed. Further information on
data quality standards is found in the Habitat Risk Assessment Literature Review documents.
46 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
well as local information. Outputs should help identify risk ‘hotspots’ on the seascape, prioritize areas
for risk mitigation strategies, and inform the design of marine spatial plans.
Risk assessment is a framework that has a long history in the field of ecotoxicology and is now emerging
as a valuable method in marine ecosystem management (Astles et al. 2006, Hobday et al. 2011). In the
context of marine ecosystem management, risk assessment evaluates the probability that human
activities will undermine desired marine management objectives.
7.3
INVEST METHODS FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The Natural Capital Project developed Marine InVEST, a decision-support tool, to help planners
incorporate knowledge of ecosystem services into management of coastal and marine regions. The
purpose of InVEST is to reveal how resource management options will affect the environment, human
well-being and the economy.
InVEST is composed of computer models which incorporate biological, physical and socio-economic
information. InVEST uses process models to show how alternative management options will produce
changes in multiple ecosystem services, such as shoreline protection, carbon storage, recreation,
aquaculture and wave energy. InVEST has been used in several decision-making contexts including landuse planning in Hawaii and China and water fund management in Colombia. Marine InVEST is now being
used in the marine environment on the West coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and the coast
of Belize.
InVEST includes a Habitat Risk Assessment (HRA) model to address ecological risk assessment. InVEST
defines risk as the likelihood that human activities will reduce the quality of nearshore habitats to the
point where their ability to deliver ecosystem services is impeded. Researchers have made significant
progress in evaluating human impacts on marine ecosystems in recent years. However many of these
approaches cannot be generalized
because they are focused on the
effects of a single sector (i.e. fisheries
e.g. Astles et al. 2006, Hobday et al.
2011), or have limited transparency
and flexibility because they are based
on expert opinion (Halpern et al.
2008, Teck et al. 2010). The HRA
model in InVEST builds on these
approaches and allows users to
evaluate the impact of a variety of
human activities on key coastal
habitats in a transparent, repeatable
and flexible way.
The risk of human activities is a
Figure 1: Risk Assessment Approach in the HRA
47 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
function of a habitat’s exposure to the activity and the consequence of exposure (see figure 4). To
determine exposure, users are required to provide model input data such as base maps of habitat
distribution and human activities, the timing and intensity of the activity, and the effectiveness of
current management practices. To determine consequence, users are required to provide model inputs
such as observed loss of habitat and the ability of habitats to recover.
The model is flexible and can accommodate data-poor and data-rich situations. Data may come from a
combination of peer-reviewed sources at the global scale and locally available fine-scale data sources.
Model results can be updated as better information becomes available.
For more information and complete documentation of the Risk Assessment model, visit: http://ncpdev.stanford.edu/~dataportal/invest-releases/documentation/2_2_1/habitat_risk_assessment.html
7.4
REFINING THE INVEST RISK ASSESSMENT ROUTINE USING WCA’S APPROACH TO
ESTIMATING VULNERABILITY
In the short-term risk can be assessed for the particular selected activities and indicators that are
accounted for in the broader InVEST decision tool for the WCVI. This can be supplemented and
expanded to include additional stressors and indicators over time (see Briefing Note 6 and Okey and
Loucks 2011). It can also be enhanced by using the bottom-habitat types identified in a habitat
characterization model (Gregr et al 2012). The habitat characterization model provides maps of the
spatial distribution of different ocean bottom habitat types, which is a key piece of information in
understanding risk and vulnerability.
Vulnerability is an important supplement to risk assessment because it factors in the adaptive capacity
of an area or indicator to the various risks facing it.3 Vulnerability assessments can result in maps
showing the level of vulnerability of different planning areas or indicators, giving a quick visual
representation of areas needing attention. Such maps would be useful for decision-makers and
stakeholders in monitoring levels of vulnerability over time, applying for/ responding to new activities in
vulnerable planning areas, and setting mitigation and restoration priorities.
To assess vulnerability, WCA proposes an expert-panel approach that builds on experts work to identify
indicators (see Briefing Note 6). The approach includes a combination of surveys and workshops to get
experts to rate the sensitivity (consequence) of (1) the WCA strategic indicators and (2) habitat types
(the biota in habitat types) to the broader set of stressors / pressures. Sensitivities (consequences) are
Vulnerability is the risk, or potential impact (sensitivity * exposure), of an area or indicator to a stressor
divided by the inverse of the adaptive capacity of that area or stressor. Adaptive capacity can be
approximated by the sum of the risk or potential impacts of all the stressors on that area or indicator.
Vulnerability of individual areas or indicators to each stressor can be summed to estimate overall
vulnerability. This approach is described in more detail in Okey and Loucks (2011).
3
48 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
matched to the scale of planning areas, and the InVEST risk assessment routine is then modified to
incorporate a broader set of exposure maps to incorporate all stressors / pressures. With exposure and
sensitivity (consequence) information for on all the stressors / pressures and all the strategic indicators
and bottom types, adaptive capacity can be calculated, and the routine can be modified to estimate
vulnerability in addition to potential impacts. The HRA routine can be modified to accept sensitivity
(consequence) estimates from the WCA expert-based approach.
7.5
DISCUSSION
The InVEST Habitat Risk Assessment (HRA) model provides users with a clear, transparent, and
repeatable way to assess the risk posed to marine habitats by human activities and the potential
consequences of exposure for the delivery of ecosystem services. The model requires map layers of
habitats and human stressors, as well the best available science on ecological traits of habitats and
management strategies. This information can come from peer-reviewed sources at the global scale as
well as local information. Outputs from the model can be used to identify risk ‘hotspots’ on the
seascape and inform the design of marine spatial plans.
The HRA produces maps that display the relative risk of a variety of human activities on habitats among
alternative future scenarios. Outputs from the model are useful for understanding the relative risk of
human activities and climate change to habitats within a study region and among alternative future
scenarios. Model outputs can help identify areas on the seascape that are risk ‘hotspots’. These
‘hotspots’ are areas where the combination of human activities may create trade-offs among ecosystem
services by posing risk high enough to compromise habitat structure and function. The model can help
to prioritize areas for conservation and inform the design and configuration of spatial plans for both
marine and terrestrial systems.
West Coast Aquatic has developed an expert-based approach to assessing the vulnerability of WCVI
marine ecosystems (all areas and ecosystem elements) to each of the identified stressors associated
with human activities and to all combined. The HRA routine can be expanded to incorporate all
stressors, indicators, habitat categories, and WCA planning areas, and thus can be modified to estimate
vulnerability in addition to risk, or potential impacts, in a more comprehensive way. Such merging of
approaches will allow more complete accounting of changes in ecosystem services, thereby addressing
the criticism of selective accounting of changes in ecosystem services.
WCA and the Natural Capital Project can begin this vulnerability and risk assessment work using the
existing InVEST risk assessment routine, and then continue to work toward refining that routine to
incorporate all identified stressors in the system, to make the approach spatially comprehensive, and to
include the indicators chosen during the WCA process to represent ecosystem health.
Both risk (i.e. potential impacts) and vulnerability can be used to prioritize attention to particular areas
of high vulnerability, interest, or use. Vulnerability can be expressed spatially, in matrix form, and
otherwise. Vulnerability maps would be useful for decision-makers and stakeholders in monitoring
49 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
changes over time, applying for/responding to new activities in planning areas, and informing priorities
for mitigation and restoration strategies.
The same level of risk assessment and vulnerability modeling has not been developed for socioeconomic
values. However, if socioeconomic values (features and processes) and associated stressors can be
identified, then it may be possible to take a similar or parallel approach. This approach would be
valuable and take time to develop.
7.6
WCA APPROACH
Step 1: Using expert-based approach, determine the priority habitats and species to be assessed for risk
and determine the priority human uses to be assessed.
Step 2: Use the InVEST HRA methodology to conduct risk assessments on key habitats and species from
selected sectors, documenting sources and bases for ratings.
Step 3: Review risk assessments with relevant sector, agency, and other personnel. Run sensitivity
analysis on the ratings where warranted.
Step 4: Run the risk assessment model to produce mapped results.
Step 5: Over time, refine and modify the InVEST HRA routine and methodology to include the full suite
of stressors and selected WCA indicators, and the full bottom habitat characterization model. Use this
information to estimate vulnerability in a manner that is useful for monitoring, decision-making, and
informing priorities for mitigation and restoration strategies;
Step 6: Over time, build partnerships to develop a socioeconomic risk / benefits model that parallels the
ecological approach.
7.7
REFERENCES
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H.,
Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (1): 21-­­28
Gregr, EJ, J Lessard, and J Harper. Submitted. A spatial framework for representing nearshore
ecosystems. Progress in Oceanography.
Hobday, A. J., Smith, A. D. M., Stobutzki, I. C., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J. M., Deng, R. A., et al.
(2011). Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fisheries Research, 108(2-3), 372-384.
doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.013
Kareiva, P.M., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C., Polasky, S. (eds.) Natural Capital: Theory and
Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press in press.
50 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K., Daily, G.,
Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T., Shaw, R. 2009. Modeling multiple
ecosystem services and tradeoffs. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1): 4-­­11.
Nelson, E., Polasky, S., Lewis, D.J., Plantinga, A.J., Lonsdorf, E., White, D., Bael, D., Lawler, J.J.
2008. Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation
on a landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105 (28): 9471-­­9476.
Okey, T.A. and L.A. Loucks, Editors. 2011. A Social-Ecological Assessment for the West Coast of
Vanocuver Island. Published online by the Tsawalk Partnership of West Coast Aquatic.
Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Camm, J., Csuti, B., Fackler, P., Lonsdorf, E., Montgomery, C., White, D.,
Arthur, J., Garber-­­Yonts, B., Haight, R., Kagan, J., Starfield, A., Tobalske, C. 2008. Where to put
things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological
Conservation 141 (6): 1505-­­1524.
Tallis, H., Polasky, S. 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for
conservation and natural-­­resource management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
1162: 265-­­283.
Williams, A., Dowdney, J., Smith, A. D. M., Hobday, A. J., & Fuller, M. (2011). Evaluating impacts of
fishing on benthic habitats: A risk assessment framework applied to Australian fisheries. Fisheries
Research, In Press, Corrected Proof. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.028
8
8.1
REDUCING CONFLICTS AND INCREASING COMPATIBILITIES BETWEEN HUMAN USES
INTRODUCTION
Planning tools such as area designations can be used to reduce conflicts and increase compatibilities
between human uses by separating incompatible activities in space and time. Area designations can be
used to match uses to suitable places and protect values from inappropriate development. There are
also other strategies that can be useful in addressing conflicts and compatibilities.
One challenge in identifying spatial or other strategies is that planning in the marine environment
should take into account the four dimensional nature of the ocean and its uses. Features, resources,
and uses exist on the seabed, the water column and the surface, and at different times.
This note focuses on describing how area designations and other methods can be applied to reduce
conflicts and increase compatibilities. It addresses the issue of how to account for the multidimensional nature of the ocean and its uses. It also outlines options for conflict resolution in cases
where uses are incompatible with each other.
51 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
8.2
BACKGROUND
Section 2 outlines WCA area designations and associated objectives and activities. In addition to area
designations, objectives and activities, WCA has identified large and smaller scale planning areas. Larger
scale areas include the WCVI outer shelf area, the surfline to shelf area, and each of the major Sounds
(Kyuquot/Checlesaht, Nootka/Esperanza, Clayoquot, and Barkley), from the high tide mark to the
surfline. Watersheds are an additional planning area. Coastal use planning has previously been
undertaken in Kyuquot/Checlesaht and Nootka/Esperanza Sounds. Efforts in the last two years have
focused on Barkley and Clayoquot.
Approximately 20 to 25 smaller planning areas have been established within Barkley and Clayoquot
Sounds. Detailed descriptions of each planning area have been developed, including general
management emphasis of each area based on current uses, community preference, and biophysical
suitability.
West Coast Aquatic has gathered information on the distribution of biophysical features and resources,
and human uses and activities in the marine environment. An atlas has been compiled to make this
information accessible.
West Coast Aquatic has also studied conflicts, compatibilities and synergies to understand how these
features, resources, uses, and activities interact. This information, gathered from sector, community
and local knowledge interviews, has been compiled into a Conflict and Compatibilities Table. The table
identifies and explains conflicts, compatibilities and synergies between different uses and activities
happening in Barkley and Clayoquot Sounds.
8.3
DISCUSSION
8.3.1 IDENTIFYING COMPATIBILITIES AND THE NATURE OF CONFLICTS
The multi-dimensional nature of the ocean and its uses not only presents planners with challenges but
also with opportunities. If sufficiently detailed information and analysis is available, uses that occupy
the same space and that may at first appear to be in conflict may in fact be compatible.
For example, if an Ecologically Significant Area and a Significant Fishing Area designation overlap, it
would appear that this could lead to conflict and a trade-off between either priority. However, if the
value being protected in the Ecologically Significant Area is coral and the predominant species and gear
for the Significant Fishing Area designation is sardine and salmon by seine net, which have a minimal risk
of impacting coral, then we can see that there is no conflict since coral and fishing by seine net occur in
different places in the four dimensions (one on the ocean floor and the other near the surface). On the
other hand, if the fishing activity involved a method that presented a high risk to damaging coral, then
there would be a conflict. In many cases different types of fisheries are already regulated to avoid
specific ecological features.
52 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Similarly, if a Significant Industrial Use Area designation and Significant Tourism and Public Recreation
Area designation overlap, it would again appear that this would lead to conflict. However if the
industrial use is a drop area for heli logging which is only used in winter and the recreational activity is
kayaking which mainly happens in summer, then there is no conflict since the use and activity occur at
different times. Information and education could be used to mitigate any risks of conflict with winter
kayakers.
So, knowing specific information about the four dimensions of uses and features can help avoid
conflicts. It is likely that a significant portion of perceived conflicts can be addressed through this kind of
attention to detail.
The Conflict and Compatibilities Assessment Tool developed by WCA identifies and explains conflicts,
compatibilities and synergies between different uses and activities. This can be used as a tool to assess
whether there are conflicts between the different activities contemplated within each designation, and
the specific nature of the conflict. The tool can identify the relative level of conflict (High, Medium, Low)
as a means of identifying which conflicts should be addressed as priorities. It can also identify
appropriate measures for resolving specific conflicts and increasing compatibilities, as outlined in the
table below.
Measures to Increase Compatibility
1. Using area designations to separate conflicting uses and group compatible ones.
2. Change the timing of the conflicting uses so that they do not overlap
3. Improve education and dialogue related to the perceived or real conflict
4. Put in place Best Management Practices or regulations that reduce the source of the conflict
and increase compatibilities
5. Improve or develop infrastructure to increase compatibility or synergy
6. Undertake research & monitoring to understand whether the conflict is perceived or real
7. Use or develop technology that reduces the source of the conflict and increase
compatibilities and synergies
8. Other
Converting the tool into a user friendly version would enable planners and stakeholders to identify
where conflicts and compatibilities between proposed activities and designations are likely to occur.
Compatible designations should be allowed to overlap in space-time. But what happens when conflicts
cannot be resolved by looking at the four dimensional nature of the marine environment?
8.3.2 RESOLVING CONFLICTS AND INCREASING COMPATIBILITY
The default process for resolving conflicts is that the statutory decision maker who issues tenures,
licences, or permits makes the decision. The statutory decision maker may consult with a variety of
parties and then announce their final decision, and/or refer to an existing policy.
53 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
In advance, or in support, of the decision by statutory decision-makers, a number of steps may be taken,
as outlined in Figure 2. The steps should be used sequentially.
The first step is often to find solutions through dialogue
between the conflicting user groups. Solutions found
through dialogue can include non-spatial strategies, such as
communication, education, technology, research and
partnerships, or regulation. For example, waste effluent
might conflict with shellfish harvesting for domestic,
recreational, or commercial purposes. Through education,
environmentally safe disposal alternatives, new
technologies, or research, the conflict could be reduced or
eliminated. Similarly a regulation requiring reductions in
Figure 2 Conflict Resolution Steps
waste effluent could eliminate the conflict and enable the
activities to co-exist. West Coast Aquatic provides a forum to facilitate solutions, develop and
administer projects and partnerships, and provide recommendations regarding policy or regulations.
If conflicts cannot be resolved through dialogue, a more formal process, called structured decision
making, may be useful. This approach generally has six stages:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Define the nature of the problem
Define what the decision-makers desire as outcomes (performance measures).
Generate options
Analyze the options to see how they measure against the outcomes
Choose the option that best meets the desired outcomes
Implement.
Technical analysis and modeling can help show the consequences of different decisions or scenarios.
For example, WCA is working with the INVEST tool, which is designed to provide present and future
snapshots of impacts on both human uses and ecosystem values, such as habitat and water quality. The
models can predict impacts on human uses from degraded ecosystem services and vice versa, as well as
giving some indication of the trade-offs between different uses.
Modeling results can be useful in facilitating dialogue between groups and in helping them understand
trade-offs as well as find solutions. They can also be useful in providing decision-making authorities with
a better understanding of the costs/benefits of different decisions in relation to performance measures.
If conflicts cannot be resolved through dialogue or structured decision making approaches, it then
becomes important to consider the larger planning area in which the conflict occurs. Planning areas are
locations that have common qualities, such as biophysical features, values, administration or human
uses and activities, similar to neighborhoods in a city. Planning areas are helpful in grouping activities
that are mutually beneficial, or synergistic. The character of each planning area can be identified as a
54 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
‘management emphasis’ which acts as a vision to help guide decisions and development for the area
over time.
The ‘management emphasis’ of each area could be defined as resource use and extraction,
conservation, settlement, mobility, recreation, servicing/infrastructure, and other similar notations.
An example of this option is as follows. If there is an irresolvable conflict between an Ecologically
Significant Area and a particular industrial use activity, in a planning unit that has conservation as a
management emphasis (such as the Broken Group, which is both a National Park Reserve and a Rockfish
Conservation Area), then decision-makers would be guided to consider that the Ecologically Significant
Area should take precedence. If the conflict occurred in an area with a resource use and extraction or
settlement emphasis, then decision makers would be guided to consider the industrial use activity
taking precedence. This would not negate any obligations for the industrial use activity to be
implemented according to regular laws, standards and policies, such as DFO’s ‘no net loss’ policy on
habitat alteration.
Further conflict resolution steps generally involve a decision by an independent third party, such as a
review committee or arbitrator, or use of compensation mechanisms. The use of compensation
mechanisms would require regulatory decision-makers to put in place the structures allowing for their
use. For example, in situations where a new use displaces an existing use, the relevant authority could
require the applicant for a new use to pay compensation to the existing users. This approach requires
that user groups are organized into single cohesive representative bodies with the capacity to collect,
pay, and receive funds. Compensation could occur either through:



8.4
Market – based mechanism, where the value of compensation is a matter of negotiation between
the parties based on the perceived market value of the area.
Independent valuation, where the value of compensation is set by an independent agent who
established the value of the area to the party being displaced.
Creation of equivalent opportunity, where the applicant creates an equivalent amount of
opportunity in another location or through other means.
WCA APPROACH
Step 1. Conduct sector, community and agency interviews to develop a Conflict/Compatibility
Assessment Tool. The tool allows users to easily determine whether a conflict exists or potential exists,
the level and nature of an existing or potential conflict, and if there are specific locations related to the
conflict. The tool also documents measures that the parties feel may be most appropriate for resolving
identified conflicts.
Step 2. When applying area designations, allow compatible uses or minimal-moderate conflicts to
overlap, with notation regarding the nature of the specific conflict and how it may be addressed.
Step 3. Where conflicts are identified in the Conflict/Compatibility Assessment Tool, the following steps
will be followed.
55 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
3A: Facilitate dialogue, develop and administer projects and partnerships, and provide
recommendations regarding policy or regulations.
3B: Use a structured decision-making approach combined with technical analysis and models.
3C: Consider the ‘management emphasis’ of the planning neighborhoods where the uses are in conflict
and make a recommendation based on it.
3D: With agreement of the parties, arrange an independent arbitration or review process to determine
which use has precedence in the area of conflict.
3E: Research and report on potential market based mechanisms to resolve the dispute.
Step 4: Where appropriate, make recommendations to the statutory decision-maker, outlining the
process and steps used, the views of the parties, and the reasons for the recommendations.
9
COMPARING AND EVALUATING SPATIAL PLANNING SCENARIOS
INTRODUCTION
This note discusses the role of evaluation metrics in comparing and evaluating the consequences of
alternative marine spatial planning scenarios. We outline below how evaluation metrics will be applied,
an overview of methods for developing evaluation metrics, and the process for WCA approval of metric
inputs. The WCA Board is required to approve different inputs used in the analysis of evaluation metrics
to have metrics successfully support marine planning and tradeoff conversations. Approval of certain
metric inputs avoids situations where the inputs used are debated during tradeoff conversations and we
cannot successfully use the outputs to support collective decision-making.
BACKGROUND
The goals of marine planning are to maximize compatibilities between uses, and design a spatial plan
that is most successful at accomplishing the seven WCA regional goals (see Table 1). To determine a
spatial plan that best meets these goals, the WCA marine planning process includes developing and
publicly presenting alternative marine plan scenarios. Each spatial scenario will display a layout of
where activities, uses and conservation could occur, with general changes between where different
types of activities and uses are situated and how they are managed.
We will apply evaluation metrics to each spatial scenario to analyze how scenarios compare to each
other and how each scenario will help us to accomplish the WCA regional goals through marine
planning. For example: the metric % of high habitat risk can help us track the WCA goal of having
Healthy and Abundant Species and Habitats between spatial scenarios; while % of shoreline at highest
risk to coastal erosion or flooding can help us track the goal related to Safe Waterways and Modern
Infrastructure. The WCA regional goals and associated evaluation metrics assigned to each goal are in
Table 1.
56 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
57 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Table 1: WCA Regional Goals and Evaluation Metrics
Evaluation Goals
Evaluation Metrics (completed and in development)
% coverage of high habitat risk, % of high habitat risk in protected areas, %
Healthy and Abundant coverage of conservation protection, % of grey whale habitat in each sound
species and habitat
with conservation protection,
Economic development
and diversification
% of areas designated for economic purposes, # Predicted tourist user days,
Awareness, knowledge,
skills and technology
No current spatial metric
% of shoreline at highest risk to coastal erosion or flooding
Safe waterways, and
modern Infrastructure
% of community viewscapes with pristine views, % of main travel routes with
pristine views, % of area with healthy water quality (measuring human fecal
Vibrant communities, coliform), % of clam harvesting areas available for access (still under
recreation, and culture development)
Governments,
communities businesses % of high risk coastal vulnerability areas with coastal use and development, #
working together
of conflicts per scenario, # of compatibilities per planning unit or per scenario
Monitoring,
enforcement, adaptive
management
No current spatial metric
All goals
% coverage of each area designation applied to WCA planning scenarios (ex.
% of Cultural Management Areas, % of Industrial Areas etc)
DISCUSSION
Criteria for Selecting Evaluation Metrics
WCA’s suite of evaluation metrics will ideally show a sampling of results that convey measures reflective
of WCA’s regional goals in each scenario and will include about 10-12 metrics total. Some of the metrics
have already been designed; others are still in development through winter 2013. WCA has selected
criteria to properly screen for evaluation metrics we develop, including:
 metric must be something that decision-makers and stakeholders are interested in knowing and
iuseful for informing decision-making. They must relate to WCA’s Regional Goals (see Table 1);
58 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013





ideal if the metric can be evaluated with InVEST marine models;
must have suitable data to evaluate metric (in some cases, suitable data to build a model);
capacity within WCA or other agencies to collect relevant data over the long-term to monitor
our successes with management decisions;
metrics need to be spatially explicit; and,
metrics need to be flexible/broad enough to be relevant to all sector groups.
Methods for Developing Evaluation Metrics
The evaluation metrics are developed using InVEST models and GIS analyses. The results are displayed in
a number of ways including: percent coverage of an area, number of uses and activities within an area,
changes in resolution of issues or conflicts, percent of risk, number of maximizing opportunities, etc..
For some goals such as Healthy and Abundant Species, we have suitable data and access to a variety of
InVEST marine models to produce a significant number of metrics. Other goals are more complicated
for developing suitable metrics, specifically because of limited data sources, difficulty in finding metrics
that are spatially representative, and challenges to present metrics that are inclusive of all sector groups
(i.e.: financial wealth of all sectors combined). One gap in sound-wide metrics is finding suitable metrics
for the economic development and diversification goal. We are working closely with InVEST staff to
receive guidance when selecting and developing metrics for WCA’s economic goal, while sticking to our
criteria outlined above.
WCA has produced an online document which outlines all methods and data inputs used to create each
evaluation metric. The document also provides an overview of the InVEST models that are used to
develop evaluation metrics and the inputs used to run the models. This document is being updated as
new metrics are developed and revised. The document is available upon request.
Approval of Evaluation Metric Inputs
The WCA Board must agree to the inputs used to create the evaluation metric to effectively use the
analysis results as decision-support tools when developing and negotiating future marine plans for both
Sounds. The data inputs in some cases can be interpreted as subjective to certain user groups;
therefore full agreement on all inputs is required to successfully use the results and to avoid debating
the science and data inputs used to complete the analysis.
The process for reviewing and approving inputs for the evaluation metrics includes two types of reviews:
WCA Board Review and Sector Reviews. The following provides a brief summary of the review
processes. Sectors and the WCA Board will both be involved in the process to approve inputs for the
Habitat Risk Assessment model which is used to create metrics for Goal 1.
Approval by WCA Board
Board approval is required for metrics in situations where: a. many Board members can offer useful revisions
based on expertise and experience, b. the topic is of importance or interest across many sectors and c. metric
59 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
results could be debated if inputs are not agreed upon in advance. Not all metric inputs will require WCA
Board approval and staff will bring forward inputs that are anticipated to require approval. The inputs most
requiring board review and approval will be inputs that are subjective and can be perceived differently by those
on the WCA Board. WCA staff will provide the best available information to support the board in making
decisions. Where necessary, WCA staff will provide research references or survey results to support the
conversation and decision-making.
The WCA Board will be asked to review evaluation metric inputs as they are developed through winter
2013 and may be requested to further approve data where staff determines important.
Reviews by Sector Groups--for Habitat Risk Assessment
The InVEST Habitat Risk Assessment model has a number of inputs which require thorough research and
review. The initial review of all model inputs will occur with sector groups and experts in the fields of the
stressors being assessed. Once the review with sectors and experts is complete, the results will be brought
forward to the WCA Board for comments and approval. Steps for the review process for the Habitat Risk
Assessment Model are outlined as follows.
Step 1: Confirm review process with WCA Board and involvement from important jurisdictions and industries.
Step 2: WCA and Natural Capital Project biologists will provide a draft document of model inputs (HRA scores)
to sectors whose risk to habitats is assessed. WCA and Natural Capital Project staff will work directly with
sectors to review and discuss edits to scores.
Step 3: Staff compile sector review comments and additional research to provide a final set of inputs for the
HRA model. We have methods in place to ensure consistent and rigorous standards for assigning scores and
editing scores based on received feedback. Any input areas that are not resolvable after the initial review with
sectors will be highlighted for discussion in a WCA Board meeting forum.
Step 4: Final set of HRA inputs are presented to the WCA Board for discussion and final approval. There may be
non-resolvable inputs, in which case WCA staff will look to the WCA Board for guidance toward resolution.
WCA APPROACH
1. Continue to work with InVEST to research and complete a suite of sound-wide metrics by
September 2012.
2. WCA staff to present some draft metric results and support WCA board agreement on first
round of data inputs for InVEST models and metric analyses (December 2012).
3. Work with sectors or jurisdictions to make edits or improvements based on feedback from
Board (January 2013).
4. WCA staff to complete other metric development and present second round of data inputs
requiring WCA board agreement (January/February 2013).
5. Revise based on Board feedback and outcomes of decisions.
6. Complete all current scenario metric results for Barkley and Clayoquot Sound by Feb 2013.
7. Apply metric analyses to each marine spatial scenario through Spring 2013
8. Bring all results forward to the WCA Board and prepare for public consultation and tradeoff
phase (End of Spring 2013)
60 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
9.1
INTRODUCTION
As part of West Coast Aquatic’s (WCA) development of a Coastal Strategy for the West Coast of
Vancouver Island, WCA has recognized the need to identify valuable ecological, social and economic
elements and indicators. These are important for:
 Conducting risk assessments on the state of the system and key drivers and pressures affecting it;
 Monitoring the state of the system and the pressures on it, and,
 Analyzing and understanding the consequences of marine planning options and decisions
This section focuses on the role of indicators when analyzing and understanding the consequences of
alternative marine spatial planning options in Barkley and Clayoquot Sound on the West Coast.
9.2
BACKGROUND
To properly understand the application of the Sound-wide metrics in WCA‘s marine planning process,
two key components of the marine spatial planning process are outlined:
1. Common Goals: A set of goals and objectives are described in WCA’s Coastal Strategy to reflect
needs and values of all jurisdictions, communities and sectors of the West Coast (see table 1.0)
The goals are intended to guide planning designs, support conversations when mitigating
conflicts and ground final plan recommendations to ensure the plan represents everyone.
Sound-wide indicators and metrics will always reflect these goals.
2. Scenario Planning: The structure of the planning process involves scenario planning which
shows spatial options for future marine plans in the WCVI area. With jurisdictions and sector
groups, WCA is jointly designing scenarios or options for distribution of activities, uses and
conservation within the two Sounds. The scenario options will include the status quo and
alternative future scenarios showing the distribution of uses, activities and conservation.
To measure how each scenario aims to accomplish the goals and objectives, we are applying ecological,
social, and economic indicators with suitable metrics that can be reflected in each scenario. The suite of
metrics will represent scenarios at a sound-wide scale. These metrics aim to:
 Spatially depict changes in management in each scenario,
 Show tradeoffs between ecosystem services,
 Show improvements in spatial conflicts, and
 Distinguish tradeoffs between sitings of uses and activity in each scenario.
We have selected criteria for selecting metrics which include:
 Must be something that decision-makers and stakeholders are interested in knowing and useful
for informing decision-making. They must relate to WCA’s ‘Common Goals’; see below.
 Ideal if the metric can be evaluated with InVEST marine models
 Must have suitable data to evaluate metric (in some cases, suitable data to build a model)
61 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013



9.3
Capacity within WCA or other agencies to collect relevant data over the long-term to monitor
our successes with management decisions
Metrics need to be spatially explicit
Metrics need to be flexible/broad enough to be relevant to all sector groups
DISCUSSION
A suite of sound-wide metrics will ideally show a sampling of results for all common goals in each
scenario and will include about 10-12 metrics total. Table 1.0 outlines a list of metrics for common
goals. Some have currently been designed; others are still in development. For some goals such as
Healthy and Abundant Species, we have enough data and access to a variety of InVEST marine models to
display a significant amount of metrics. Other goals are more complicated to find suitable metrics,
specifically because of limited data sources, difficulty in finding metrics that are spatially representative
and challenges to present metrics that are inclusive of all sector groups (i.e.: financial wealth of all
sectors combined). One gap in sound-wide metrics is finding suitable metrics for the economic
development and diversification goal. We are working closely with InVEST staff to receive guidance
when selecting and developing metrics for WCA’s economic goal, while sticking to our criteria outlined
above.
Common Goals
Metrics
% coverage of Habitat Risk, % of Habitat Risk in protected areas Salmon abundance, %
Healthy and Abundant coverage of conservation protection, % of indicator species in each Sound with current
species and habitat
conservation protection
Economic development % coverage of Tourism/Recreation, predicted tourist user days, % coverage of fishing areas,
and diversification
salmon abundance, annual harvest weight from aquaculture
Awareness, knowledge,
skills and technology
Safe waterways, and
modern Infrastructure
% coverage of coastal vulnerability, % of conflicts within navigation routes
Vibrant communities,
% of pristine visual quality, % of healthy water quality, % of public access to foreshore,
recreation, and culture salmon abundance
Governments,
communities
businesses working
together
% of high risk coastal vulnerability areas with coastal development, visual quality, number
of conflicts per scenario
Monitoring,
enforcement, adaptive
management
62 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Table 1.0: Potential Sound-wide Metrics for depicting differences between marine plan scenarios
Staff will have the suite of metrics complete in September 2012 and will host a WCA Board workshop to
discuss uses and inputs of the metrics. The objectives of the workshop include:




Receiving feedback on the suite of metrics,
Outlining all peer-reviewed science and inputs used to calculate results,
Having each sector group agree to science and inputs used,
Reaching WCA board consensus on the suite of metrics.
To use the metrics as a decision-support tool, it is imperative that we are transparent with the science
and data that was used to inform each metric. Each sector group and jurisdiction will need to review
and agree to the inputs, so results are not disputed and effectively used to resolve conflict and inform
options with marine planning scenarios.
9.4
WCA APPROACH
9. Continue to work with InVEST to research and complete a suite of sound-wide metrics by
September 2012,
10. In Fall 2012, host a WCA board workshop to discuss and agree on metrics and inputs used,
11. Work with sectors or jurisdictions to make edits or improvements based on feedback at
workshop
12. Complete final sound-wide metrics by November 2012,
13. Apply to each marine spatial scenario and prepare for public consultation and tradeoff phase.
63 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
10 STEPS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING INDICATORS
INTRODUCTION
This briefing note describes Phases I and II in identifying indicators of ecological and human well-being.
We outline eight step processes for selecting a set of indicators to represent the status and pressures in
the human well-being system. In this approach, a hierarchical model of each system is outlined from
multiple sources including reviews of documents relevant to the area and academic literature.
Documents include government reports and plans, sectoral analyses and strategic plans, scientific
literature, meeting reports, and expert judgement and opinion.
STEPS
Step 1. Develop a guiding conceptual model of the human and ecological systems. The models provide
a structure that serves as the foundation for describing components, functions and interactions in the
system. Goals and objectives from regional planning documents can also be related to the elements
within the structure of the conceptual models.
Step 2. Identify the main valued components and associated features relevant to each element or
habitat type of the conceptual model and reflective of goals/objectives from relevant planning
documents;
Step 3. Review relevant literature to identify candidate criteria for selecting indicators;
Step 4. Review relevant literature to identify candidate indicators. Where relevant indicators are not
available in the literature, draft potential indicators;
Step 5. Identify lists of experts relevant to groups of indicators;
Step 6. Design and conduct surveys, workshops and reviews to:
a) Scope the candidate indicators
b) Review and modify, expand, or contract the candidate indicators;
c) Apply selection criteria to rate and ‘short-list’ the indicators.
Step 7. Compile, analyze, and review the results.
Step 8. Develop, test and implement a monitoring strategy.
64 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
10.1 STEP 1 GUIDING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
We adapted the ecosystem elements developed for the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management
Strategy (ESSIM) framework (DFO 2007) by expressing their categories of ecosystem elements within
three overlapping realms of ecosystem integrity (Figure 1). This denotes the multiple roles of certain
elements in supporting different structural and functional realms of health or integrity, and it shows the
interconnection amongst elements. This framework is also consistent with the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management (IOC ICOM) framework (Belfiore
et al. 2006).
Figure 1. The eight general elements of West Coast of Vancouver Island ecosystems arranged in relation
to the three general realms of ecosystem quality, structure, and function. The three ecosystem realms
overlap such that some ecosystem elements function to support more than one of the three ecosystem
elements. The straight lines on the left denote that each element and realm change through time.
We took a similar approach for human well-being. We used the framework we developed for Valued
Socio-Economic Components in the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area planning process
(Day and Prins 2012), the details of which are available in that report. In short, we used both a ‘bottom
up’ approach, building the realms and elements from a review of the various documents from the area,
as well as a ‘top-down’ approach, reviewing literature related to human well-being. Figure 1 describes
65 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
the results.
Human Well-Being in B.C.’s Coast
Social/Cultural
Realm
Institutional Realm
Relationships emerging
from human activities,
the character of the
individuals or groups
participating, and the
non-physical
atmosphere in which
the activities take place
Formal plans, programs,
agreements, policies,
rules, and mechanisms
that structure the network
of human activities
Economic Realm
Physical/
Technological Realm
Activities centered
around the production
and exchange of goods
and services to meet
the needs of
participating individuals
and groups
The physical features of
the natural and artificial
environments in which
human activities take
place
our realms of the B.C. coastal socioeconomic system
Figure 3 Four Realms of Human Well-Being in BC’s Coast
Four realms of B.C. coastal human well-being
We then identified elements for each realm, as shown in Figure 2. In the following section, Figure 3
includes information on the functional role of each element.
Social/Cultural
Realm
Institutional Realm
Economic Realm
Physical/Technological
Realm
Social Relationships
Resource and
Environmental
Management
Access
Human Use and Conservation
Areas
Culture
Economic Development
Organization
Access/Distribution Channels
Human Capacity
Advisory Processes
Production
Industrial Equipment and
Facilities
Knowledge Sharing
Mechanisms
Marketing
Communication Networks
Maritime Traffic
Procedures
Distribution
Energy Facilities
Civic and Regional
Governance and
Management
66 | P a g e
Knowledge Sharing Facilities
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Residential and Civic
Environment
Cultural Facilities
Markets and Commercial
Infrastructure
Emergency Response and
Security Infrastructure
Figure 2 The elements associated with the four realms of the B.C. coastal human well-being. system
This framework provides a simple model of the higher level components of human well-being. It
provides a comprehensive set of ‘baskets’ within which objectives, features, and groups of indicators
can be organized and identified.
Literature cited
Belfiore, S., J. Barbière, R. Bowen, B. Cicin-Sain, C. Ehler, C. Mageau, D. McDougall, and R. Siron. 2006. A handbook for
measuring the progress and outcomes of integrated coastal and ocean management. IOC Manuals and Guides 46,
ICAM Dossier, 2. Paris, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO.
Day, A. and M.Prins. 2012. Preliminary List of Valued Social and Economic Components in PNCIMA. Report prepared for
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
DFO. 2007. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean Management Plan: Strategic Plan. Oceans and Habitat Branch, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, 68 pp.
10.2 STEP 2. IDENTIFY INDICATOR GROUPS, INCLUDING FUNCTIONS AND FEATURES
RELEVANT TO EACH ELE MENT AND REFLECTIVE OF GOALS/OBJECTIVES FROM
RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Indicator groups were identified under each of the realms and elements, as outlined in Appendix A:
Ecological Indicators and Appendix B: Human Well Being Indicators.
We also compiled further relevant information about indicator groups, including:
 linkage to the objectives of marine planning processes,
 the functions of each indicator group (for human well-being), and
 the valued characteristics, features, or attributes of each indicator group.
Linking indicators to specific objectives, functions, and features of indicator groups is important for a
number of reasons. First, it ensures that indicators are relevant to the ‘end goals’ of the human beings
impacted by them. Second, it ensures the indicators are related to the functional features and
processes that play a role in making the social, cultural, and economic system work and achieve the
desired ends. Third, the development of features for indicator groupings is important in maintaining
theoretical soundness.
67 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
The valued characteristics, features, or attributes of the indicator groups could be considered subcomponents of the groups. In human well-being, it is these features which are commonly voiced in
community or stakeholder meetings and articulated in planning documents as objectives, issues or
strategies, rough indicators of well-being, or sometimes in relation to the function they serve. Features
become measurable through the use of indicators. Each potential indicator describes a dimension of the
indicator group and its features.
Features help develop indicators that are more closely and explicitly linked to that which they purport to
measure or describe. The use of features essentially connects the dots between higher level concepts
and their grounded application, describing what it is about an indicator group that is important or
valued. Consequently, the incorporation of features makes more explicit some of the connections and
pathways within human well-being, enabling identification of both pressure and state indicators.
The complexity of producing a model of the elements, indicator groupings, objectives, functions and
features of a system as dynamic and organic as the ecological system and the human social, cultural and
economic system is enormous. The approach we have taken is necessarily a simple and partial
representation. However, the aspect of our work that is unique and valuable in relation to the Human
Well Being system is the grounded nature of the information used to construct it. Participants in the
social, cultural, and economic system can provide direct qualitative feedback to inform both the
theoretical framework for the socio-economic system and the assessment of the state of that system.
By reviewing participant and expert input, we have attempted to reflect, merge, and sort their ideas and
experience as the foundation for an overall organizing model.
Detailed tables series showing objectives, functions, and features in the Human Well-Being system
related to each indicator group are available upon request.
10.3 STEP 3. IDENTIFY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING INDICATORS
In the third step, we conducted a literature review to identify criteria for selecting indicators and to help
identify a list of candidate indicators within each of the indicator groups.
After reviewing various sets of criteria for selecting indicators, we initially adapted criteria from two
contributions to the ecological literature (Dale and Beyeler 2001, Rice and Rochet 2005). We then
expanded this list based on the work of the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) (O'Neill et al. 2008, Levin et
al. 2011), which included extensive reviews of indicators and the use of nineteen indicator criteria. We
also considered SARD’s development of cultural indicators for indigenous peoples’ food systems
(Woodley et al. 2009), WCA’s social-ecological assessment framework (Okey and Loucks 2011), NCSEAS’s
Ocean Health Index (Halpern 2012), and Washington State Academy of Sciences Committee review of
the Puget Sound Partnership’s development of social-ecological indicators (WASAS 2012).
We made sure to address several recommendations from these reports, including: separating criteria
related to scientific soundness from considerations of relevance or practicality; linking candidate
68 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
indicators to functional relationships, key attributes or features,, and pathways of effects; balancing and
identifying indicator types including structural, process, and results based indicators, and the
importance of a selection process guided by theory but grounded in relevance and practicality.
Based on these inputs, we produced a list of criteria for indicator selection. The criteria are grouped
under four headings. The criteria under the fourth heading are meant to be applied ‘post-hoc’ after a
shorter candidate list is selected through application of the first three sets of criteria.
Providing Scientifically Sound and Useful Information:
The indicators provide scientifically sound and useful information about the health of the
ecosystem
1) Theoretically sound (TS): “Scientific peer reviewed finding should demonstrate that
indicators are reliable surrogates for ecosystem key attribute(s)” (Kershner et al. 2011).
2) Sufficiently sensitive to spatial and temporal changes in a specific ecosystem key
attribute(s) (SS): Indicators should be sufficiently sensitive to variation in the ecosystem key
attributes they are intended to measure, to a theoretically or empirically expected degree.
3) Responds predictably to changes in a specific ecosystem key attribute(s) (REA): “Indicators
should respond unambiguously to variation in the ecosystem key attributes they are
intended to measure, in a theoretically or empirically expected direction” (Kershner et al.
(2011).
4) Responds predictably and is sufficiently sensitive to changes in specific management
action(s) or pressure(s) (RMAP): “Management actions or other human-induced pressures
should cause detectable changes in the indicators, in a theoretically or empirically expected
direction, and it should be possible to distinguish the effects of other factors on the
response” (Kershner et al. 2011).
5) Linkable to scientifically-defined reference points and progress targets (LT): “It should be
possible to link indicator values [and related trends] to quantitative or qualitative reference
points and target reference points, which imply positive progress toward ecosystem goals”
(Kershner et al. 2011).
Relevant, Meaningful, and Understandable
The indicators are relevant, meaningful, and understandable to managers, sectors, and
communities in the area.
6) Relevant to management goals and objectives (RMO): “Indicators should provide
information related to specific management [goals and] objectives” (Kershner et al. 2011).
7) Understandable by communities, sectors, and decision makers (UP): “Indicators should be
simple to interpret, easy to communicate, and public understanding should be consistent
with technical definitions” (Kershner et al. 2011).
8) Perceived as meaningful and reliable (MR): Indicators should be perceived by
communities, stakeholders, and decision-makers as meaningful and reliable in reflecting
changes. In the case of indicators of human well-being, indicators should ideally be
developed through participatory processes and should help decision makers understand real
dimensions of people’s lives and the relationships that move the social, cultural and
economic system.
9) Regionally/nationally/internationally relevant and compatible: Indicators should be
relevant, comparable, and/or compatible with those in other geographic areas
69 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Practical and Efficient To Implement
Measuring, analyzing, and reporting on an indicator is practical and efficient
10) Directly measurable and operationally simple (DMOS): “Indicators should be directly
measurable [and] the methods for sampling, measuring, processing and analyzing the
indicator data should be technically feasible” (Kershner et al. 2011).
11) High signal-to-noise ratio (HSN): “It should be possible to estimate measurement and
process uncertainty associated with each indicator, and to ensure that variability in indicator
values does not prevent detection of significant changes” (Kershner et al. 2011).
12) Historical data or information available (HD): “Indicators should be supported by existing
data to facilitate current status evaluation (relative to historic levels) and interpretation of
future trends (Kershner et al. 2011).
13) Continuous time series (CTS): “Indicators should have been sampled on multiple occasions,
preferably without substantial time gaps between sampling” (Kershner et al. 2011).
14) Broad spatial coverage (BSC): “Ideally, data for each indicator should be available
throughout its range in the study area” (Kershner et al. 2011).
15) Numerical (N): “Quantitative measurements are preferred over qualitative, categorical
measurements, which in turn are preferred over expert opinions and professional
judgments” (Kershner et al. 2011). (Note that the application of this criterion to indicators of
human well-being needs further discussion in light of the importance of qualitative
information for many indicators).
16) Spatial and temporal variation understood (STV): “Diel, seasonal, annual and decadal
variability in the indicators should ideally be understood, as should spatial heterogeneity or
patchiness in indicator values” (Kershner et al. 2011).
17) Cost effective (CE): “Sampling, measuring, processing and analyzing the indicator data
should make effective use of limited financial resources” (Kershner et al. 2011).
Part of Balanced Suite of Indicators
The final selection of indicators should be strive to avoid redundancy, promote complementing,
reflect comprehensive coverage of key attributes, and achieve balance.
18) Reflects linkages within the system (RL): Indicators which link with or connect higher
numbers of functional components of the system should be considered in relation to
indicators which only link to one functional component. Identifying such ‘multi-purpose’
indicators may be useful in selecting a short list of “vital sign” indicators from a more
comprehensive EBM list, for instance.
19) Complementary and balanced indicators (CBI): “This criterion is applicable in the selection
of a suite of indicators performed after the evaluation of individual indicators in a post-hoc
analysis. Sets of indicators should be selected to avoid redundancy, increase the
complementary of information provided, and to ensure coverage of key attributes”
(Kershner et al. 2011). Further, in order to offer as broad and balanced a perspective as
possible, a comprehensive list of indicators should reflect a diversity of indicator types:
 Incorporating a mix of state and pressure indicators
 Balancing structural, process, and results indicators. (An example of a structural
indicator would be a program in place to achieve a specific management goal, a process
indicator would be the current activity of such a program, and a results indicator would
70 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013



measure the changes that have occurred regarding that management goal (see SARD,
2009)).
Describing both quantitative and qualitative features of the system
Including indicators that measure current status and those that focus on trends or time
series.
Incorporating the development of new and emerging technologies that would
significantly change the practicality associated with measuring an important indicator.
Literature cited
Belfiore, S., J. Barbière, R. Bowen, B. Cicin-Sain, C. Ehler, C. Mageau, D. McDougall, and R. Siron. 2006. A handbook for measuring the progress
and outcomes of integrated coastal and ocean management. IOC Manuals and Guides 46, ICAM Dossier, 2. Paris, Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO.
DFO. 2007. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean Management Plan: Strategic Plan. Oceans and Habitat Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, 68 pp.
Halpern, B. et al. (2012) An Index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature. Vol 000.
Kershner J, Samhouri JF, James CA, Levin PS (2011) Selecting Indicator Portfolios for Marine Species and Food Webs: A Puget Sound Case Study.
PLoS ONE 6(10): e25248. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025248. Accessed at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0025248
Levin, P. S., J. A., J. Kershner, S. O’Neill, T. Francis, J. Samhouri, C. Harvey, M. T. Brett, and D. Schindler. 2011. The Puget Sound ecosystem: what
is our desired future and how do we measure progress along the way? Puget Sound Science Update. pugetsoundscienceupdate.com
accessed on 19 January 2011. Puget Sound Partnership. Tacoma, Washington.
Loucks, L. and Day, A. (2011). Developing Socio-economic and Cultural Indicators for Coastal First Nations Integrated Marine Use Planning .
Report prepared for Coastal First Nations.
Okey, T. and L. A. Loucks, editors. 2011. Social-ecological assessment of the marine and coastal areas of the West Coast of Vancouver Island.
The Tsawalk Partnership, West Coast Aquatic, Port Alberni, BC.
Washington State Academy of Sciences Committee. (2012). Sound Indicators: A Review for the Puget Sound Partnership. Washington State
Academy of Sciences.
Woodley, E. et al. (2009). Cultural Indicators of Indigenous Peoples' Food and Agro-ecological systems. Report prepared by the SARD Institute
for the FAO and the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) with support from the Government of Norway and, indirectly, from the
Christensen Fund.
10.4 STEP 4: IDENTIFY CANDIDATE INDICATORS WITHIN EACH INDICATOR GROUPING
A broad literature review (see Okey et al. 2011) resulted in the identification of candidate indicators for
each of our ecological indicator groupings. Note that in many cases the literature did not phrase the
‘indicator’ in a specific enough way for it to be used as an indicator. For example, ‘bald eagle’ needs
more descriptors, such as abundance, distribution, level of toxins in, etc. in order for it to be used as an
indicator. The indicators were expanded and re-expressed into sets of candidate ecological indicators,
based on the expert judgement of Thomas Okey and the input of other experts
For human well-being indicators, this step is currently underway. At this stage, candidate indicators are
being developed in relation to the structural model of the systems outlined above. These candidate
indicators come from a review of literature and relevant planning documents and reports. Significant
gaps are being filled by the authors of this report in order to provide examples of candidate indicators
that can be reviewed and discussed by experts, practitioners, and managers.
10.5 STEP 5. IDENTIFY EXPERTS RELEVANT TO EACH INDICATOR GROUP
71 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Experts were identified for ecological indicators groups based on their experience with BC coastal
ecosystems or broader knowledge of the indicator groups. Over 300 experts were identified for
ecological indicator groups. For human well being, eight expert discussion areas were formulated
based on the realms, elements, and indicator groups described above, including:
 Governance
 Community life
 Health and Well-Being
 Economic Activity
 Finances and Trade
 Knowledge, Skills and Technology
 Resource Management
 Infrastructure and Facilities Management
Over 100 experts, practitioners and managers have been identified to produce a balanced knowledge
base for the discussion areas.
10.6 STEP 6. DESIGN AND CONDUCT EXPERT SURVEYS AND WORKSHOPS
The ecological expert process involved a series of surveys asking experts to (a) provide input on the
relative importance of indicator selection criteria, (b) expand and refine the candidate list of indicators,
(c) apply the criteria to rate candidate indicators. The results will be analysed and summarized in a
report, which will serve as the basis for a workshop with a Science Advisory Panel and selected experts
focused on indicator selection. The surveys used to accomplish these steps are available upon request.
Two stages were used to refine and select human well being candidate indicators. The first stage
includes a workshop format. The workshop will include experts, practitioners, and managers to review
the candidate indicators and add or modify as necessary. If possible, during the workshop participants
will apply the criteria to rank the list of candidate indicators. Participants will bring knowledge of
existing monitoring efforts to supplement information. In a second stage, a website will be available
through which participants may review, rate, and add candidate indicators. The website will function as
a survey vehicle.
10.7 STEP 7. COMPILE, ANALYZE, AND REVIEW THE RESULTS
The compilation and analysis of the results will be completed by the authors of this report. The results
will then be presented to a Science Advisory Committee and to the WCA board for discussion and
review. These bodies will also be involved in discussions regarding implementation strategies.
Based on their input, a final short list of indicators with application to the WCVI marine ecosystem will
be produced. The short-list may include a ‘vital signs’ short list and a more comprehensive EBM
indicators short-list.
72 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
10.8 STEP 8. PRODUCE REPORT WITH RECOMMENDED INDICATORS OF HUMAN WELLBEING
Results of the process to search for ecological indicators, including recommendations for a useful set of
indicators, will be presented as a report and will be available to various other marine planning
processes. The report will include practical options for monitoring, including prioritizing and using
existing currently monitored indicators during the short term, while developing the capacity to track
other indicators over time. The indicators / monitoring program will be designed to engage and involve
local communities, businesses, researchers, and other partners.
10.9 APPENDIX A REALMS, ELEMENTS, ATTRIBUTES, INDICATOR GROUPS FOR
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM
The following table contains realms, elements, and indicator groupings relative to identified goals and
objectives and key attributes and measures.
Realm- Biodiversity (DFO 2007) - Organization: Conserve the ecosystem structure – at all levels of
biological organization – so as to maintain the biodiversity and natural resilience of the
ecosystem (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Elements Objectives
Key attributes
Indicator Groupings
Communities /Assemblages
Protect, maintain and rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems so that they are healthy, diverse,
productive, and resilient (WCA 2012); Maintain genetic, species, and ecosystem level
diversity (WCA 2012); Conserve diversity of benthic, demersal and pelagic community
types (DFO 2007); Maintain biodiversity (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Community composition measured by species diversity, population
diversity, functional redundancy, response diversity (Belfiore et al. 2006,
Levin et al. 2011). Invasive species/pests (Belfiore et al. 2006).
Kelp forest communities
Seagrass communities
Intertidal communities
Soft bottom communities and beaches
Sponge reef communities
Fish communities
Plankton communities
Trophic Structure
Protect, maintain and rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems so that they are healthy, diverse,
productive, and resilient (WCA 2012); Maintain genetic, species, and ecosystem level
diversity (WCA 2012); Trophic structure is healthy (DFO 2007); Maintaining trophic
interactions (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Complexity of food web, Key predator/prey interactions, Keystone
species, Size spectra (Belfiore et al. 2006); Energy and material flow as
measured by primary production and nutrient flow / cycling (Levin et al.
73 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
2011)
Whole system indices
Fishing and catch indices
Species/ Populations
Healthy and abundant species and habitats (WCA 2012); Protect, maintain and
rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems so that they are healthy, diverse, productive, and
resilient (WCA 2012); Maintain genetic, species, and ecosystem level diversity (WCA
2012); Maintaining species distributions and abundance (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Biomass (key populations), Number of individuals (marine mammals),
Density (plants, benthic organisms), Distributions (patchiness,
aggregation), age structure, population structure, phenotypic diversity.
(Belfiore et al. 2006, Levin et al. 2011)
Seabirds and shorebirds
Charismatic large megafauna
Groundfish and demersal fishes
Forage fishes
Pacific salmon species
Commercial shellfish
Other invertebrates
Protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats (WCA 2012); At risk
species protected and/or recovered (DFO 2007), Maintaining species health (Belfiore et
al. 2006)
Species at risk of extinction (Belfiore et al. 2006)
At risk species
Invasive species … are being prevented and effectively addressed when they occur
(WCA 2012); Invasive species introductions are prevented and distribution is reduced
(DFO 2007)
Invasive species/pests (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Invasive & unusual species & marine diseases
Maintain genetic, species, and ecosystem level diversity (WCA 2012); Genetic integrity
(i.e., genetic fitness and diversity) is conserved (DFO 2007); Maintaining genetic
diversity (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Genetic diversity (Belfiore et al. 2006, Levin et al. 2011)
Genetic diversity, e.g. salmon
Realm: Productivity (DFO 2007) - Vigour: Conserve the function of each component of the ecosystem
so that its role in the food web and its contribution to overall productivity are maintained (Belfiore et
al. 2006)
Elements Objectives
Key attributes
Indicator Groupings
Primary and Secondary Productivity
74 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Protect, maintain and rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems so that they are healthy, diverse,
productive, and resilient (WCA 2012); Primary productivity and secondary productivity
are healthy (DFO 2007); Maintaining primary production and reproduction (Belfiore et
al. 2006)
Primary productivity: quantity (biomass) and quality (e.g., HABs),
Secondary productivity, Life history stages, Reproductive parameters,
Spawning survival rates, Mean generation time (longevity) (Belfiore et
al. 2006); Energy and material flow as measured by primary production
and nutrient flow / cycling (Levin et al. 2011)
Zooplankton and ichthyoplankton abundance,
biomass, and production rates
Phytoplankton
Macroalgae and microphytobenthos
Benthic secondary producers
Population Productivity
While considering existing uses and scale of risk, the protection, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of aquatic resources, their habitats, and interconnected life support
systems should take precedence in managing aquatic resources, to ensure ecosystem
sustainability and biodiversity (WCA 2012); Incidental mortality of all species is within
acceptable levels (DFO 2007); Biomass and productivity of harvested and other species
are healthy (DFO 2007); Maintaining mortalities below thresholds (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Fishing mortality, incidental mortalities (by-catch), natural mortality
(predation, diseases) (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Fishing and incidental mortalities of select target
and non-target species
Productivity, biomass, and abundance of select
target and non-target species
Realm: Marine Environmental Quality (DFO 2007) - Quality: Conserve geological, physical and
chemical properties of the ecosystem so as to maintain the overall environmental quality, i.e., water,
sediment, biota and habitat quality (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Elements Objectives
Key attributes
WCA working indicator groupings
Physical
Pollution, acidification, and other sources of stress on the
system are being prevented and effectively addressed when they occur
(WCA 2012); Physical characteristics of ocean bottom and water column support
resident biota (DFO 2007); Maintain water and sediment quality (Belfiore et al. 2006);
Maintain species health (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Water column properties, Oceanographic processes and variability (and
regime shifts), Sedimentation (e.g., Transport of suspended sediments)
(Belfiore et al. 2006); Hydrodynamics as measured by water movement;
vertical mixing; stratification; hydraulic residence time; replacement
time (Levin et al. 2011); Physical/Chemical Parameters (Sediments &
Water Column) as indicated by nutrients; pH; dissolved oxygen/redox
75 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
potential; salinity; temperature (Levin et al. 2011); Surface water and
groundwater quantity and consumptive water use and supply as
indicated by flow magnitude & variability, flood regime, stormwater,
groundwater accretion to surface waters, within groundwater flow rates
& direction, net recharge or withdrawals, depth to groundwater, and
water storage (Levin et al. 2011).
Climate and physical indices
Pollution, acidification, and other sources of stress on the
system are being prevented and effectively addressed when they occur
(WCA 2012); Wastes and debris are reduced (DFO 2007); Harmful noise levels are
reduced to protect resident and migratory species and populations (DFO 2007);
Maintaining species health (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Pollutants and contaminants (Belfiore et al. 2006).
Ship noise
Debris on shorelines and rivers
Chemical
Pollution and other sources of stress on the system are being prevented and effectively
addressed when they occur (WCA 2012); Chemical characteristics of ocean bottom and
water column support resident biota (DFO 2007); Maintaining water and sediment
quality (Belfiore et al. 2006); Maintaining species health (Belfiore et al. 2006)
Pollutants and contaminants (Belfiore et al. 2006), eutrophication
parameters, (Bio) accumulation of toxic compounds, Diseases and
abnormalities, seafood quality, nutrient flow and cycling (Levin et al.
2011); Physical/Chemical Parameters (Sediments & Water Column) as
indicated by nutrients; pH; dissolved oxygen/redox potential; salinity;
temperature (Levin et al. 2011); Trace Inorganic & Organic Chemicals
(Sediments & Water Column) as indicated by toxic contaminants,
metals, other trace elements & organic compounds (Levin et al. 2011).
Chemical contaminants or effects on wildlife
Chemical parameters of water quality
Sediment quality
Habitat
Minimize marine pollution and other negative impacts of human activities on air, earth,
water, and life (WCA 2012); Community, business, and government partners are
working together to protect naturally reproducing species and their habitats as a
priority, and, where needed, restoring and enhancing them (WCA 2012); Habitat
integrity is conserved (DFO 2007); Maintaining habitat quality (Belfiore et al. 2006).
Habitat types, Habitat alteration, Sea level change, Landscape and
bottomscape integrity, Sediment quality (nature/properties of
sediments), area or extent, measures of pattern (Belfiore et al. 2006);
Habitat area & pattern/structure as measured by area or extent;
measures of pattern/structure including: number of habitat types;
number of patches of each habitat; fractal dimension; connectivity
76 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
(Levin et al. 2011). Habitat Condition measured by abiotic & biotic
properties of a habitat, dynamic structural characteristics, water &
benthic condition (Levin et al. 2011).
Communities and assemblages (above), especially
biogenic habitats
Shoreline integrity
Habitat modification
Human stressors per habitat
Watershed condition
Literature cited
Belfiore, S., J. Barbière, R. Bowen, B. Cicin-Sain, C. Ehler, C. Mageau, D. McDougall, and R. Siron. 2006. A handbook for measuring the
progress and outcomes of integrated coastal and ocean management. IOC Manuals and Guides 46, ICAM Dossier, 2. Paris,
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO.
West Coast Aquatic. 2012. A Coastal Strategy for the West Coast of Vancouver Island. West Coast Aquatic, Port Alberni, BC, Canada.
DFO. 2007. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Ocean Management Plan: Strategic Plan. Oceans and Habitat Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, 68 pp.
Levin, P. S., J. A., J. Kershner, S. O’Neill, T. Francis, J. Samhouri, C. Harvey, M. T. Brett, and D. Schindler. 2011. The Puget Sound ecosystem:
what is our desired future and how do we measure progress along the way? Puget Sound Science Update.
pugetsoundscienceupdate.com accessed on 19 January 2011. Puget Sound Partnership. Tacoma, Washington.
10.10 APPENDIX B REALMS, ELEMENTS, FUNCTIONS, INDICATOR GROUPS FOR HUMAN
WELL-BEING SYSTEM
Realms, Elements, Indicator Groups
Realm: Social/Cultural
Element
(Function)
Social Relationships
Networks that connect individuals in common activities
and determine the character of human society
Indicator Group
Inter-Governmental Relationships
Government/Stakeholder Relationships
Stakeholder relationships
Family Relationships and Structure
Community Relations
Culture
The social climate in which relationships take place
reflecting and affecting/guiding human interactions,
defining a social group, connecting past and present
Norms, Beliefs, Values
Language
Engagement in Rituals, Practices, Events
Heritage and Traditional Knowledge
Identity
Human Capacity
The ability of individuals operating in the social system to
meet needs and desired outcomes for the smooth
functioning of activities
77 | P a g e
Leadership
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Labour
Personal Financial Capacity
Well-being: Spiritual/Mental/Physical
Population
Knowledge
Realm: Institutional
Element
(Function)
Resource and Environmental
Management
Formal institutional infrastructure to manage the
interaction of humans and the natural environment
ensuring both ecosystem and socio-economic health and
well-being.
Indicator Group
Conservation Policies and Plans
Legislation, Agreements, and Protocols
Integrated Management
Ecosystem based approach
Allocation
Regulations, Monitoring, and Enforcement
Assessment
Maritime Traffic Procedures
Emergency Response Plans and Strategies
Economic Development
Institutional infrastructure put in place to direct and
manage economic activity in relation to the needs of the
region both socio-economically and environmentally.
Trade and Economic Growth Plans
Financial Policies
Limits (Including Regulations)
Advisory Processes
The inclusion of stakeholders in the decision-making
process to maintain transparency and collaboration –
impacting stakeholder and community relationships, trust
in governance, and depth of knowledge base for decision
making.
Participatory decision-making
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
Mechanisms for the collection and sharing of knowledge
to be used by individuals or groups in economic,
social/cultural, or governance pursuits.
Partnerships
Educational Programs
Preservation of Cultural Identity
Data Collection
Information Sharing
Community and Regional Governance and
Management
Governance infrastructure to direct, plan, manage the
operations of communities to ensure that the social,
cultural, physical, and economic needs of members are
being fulfilled efficiently and equitably.
Administration
Plans
78 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Service Provision
Regulations
Programs/Social Infrastructure
Realm: Economic
Element
(Function)
Access
Indicator Group
The ability to gain the ingredients necessary to
participate in economic activities, determining which
activities take place and the extent to which those
activities develop.
Resource Access
Financial Access
Market Access
Technology/Knowledge Access
Labour Access
Energy Access
Organization
The way that businesses and economic activities are
structured, the resulting climate in which they operate,
and the state of the work environment, determining the
character of economic activity, the way that goods and
services are produced and exchanged, and directions of
economic and social growth.
Types of Economic Activity
Business Structures and Systems
Business Culture
Health and Safety
Research and Development
Production
The conversion of raw materials into marketable goods
or services, the nature and character of production
activities impacting the natural environment, business
culture, human capacity and well-being, and the
economic and social/ecological sustainability of the
activity
Costs
Productivity/Efficiency
Economic Output
Revenues/Profits
Growth
Sustainability
Marketing
Activities centred around accessing consumers and the
exchange of goods and services, impacting the
development of future economic activity, economic
culture, and the path of economic growth
Value-Adding
Advertising and Promotion
Distribution
The process of connecting products or services and
consumers through commercial exchange the success of
which determining the economic sustainability of the
activity – with impacts on culture, values, and social
relationships
79 | P a g e
Sales
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Extra-Regional Trade
Realm: Physical/Technological
Element
(Function)
Geographic areas used by humans
Natural areas providing humans the raw materials for
economic, social, and cultural activities
Indicator Group
Marine Resources
Mining and Energy Resources/Sources
Forestry Areas
Agricultural Areas
Cultural Areas
Conservation (Tourism) Areas
Access/Distribution Channels and
Equipment
Channels, facilities, and equipment which allow for the
transport of goods and participants in socio-economic
activities, necessary for the access of raw materials in
production and the distribution of goods in exchange, for
connecting individuals within and between communities
and regions beyond
Water: Ports
Water: Marinas, Docks, and Boat Ramps
Land: Vehicles, Roads and Rail
Water: Marine Transportation and Waterways
Air: Airports and Air Transport
Industrial Equipment and Facilities
Equipment and facilities used in the production and
harvesting of goods in order to bring them to market,
determine the capacity of producers to compete in the
marketplace and for the smooth functioning of
economies
Harvesting and Supporting Activities
Processing
Technology
Communication Networks
Networks that allow for economic, social, and cultural
communication: the transmission of information and
knowledge, efficient decision making, marketing and
advertising, sales, community relationships, etc.
Telephone
Mail/Delivery Service
Internet
Marine communication
Energy Facilities
Supply the power necessary for all economic activities,
and the efficient functioning of communities
Marine and Land Fuel Facilities
Energy Supply Operations
Education/Knowledge Sharing Facilities
Facilities that provide for the education, and sharing of
knowledge between members of communities,
participants in economic or cultural activities and
decision makers and stakeholders
Schools
Libraries/Knowledge Repositories
80 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013
Post-Secondary/ Training Facilities
Residential and Civic Environment/ Human
Settlements
The basic physical components of the human living
environment including housing, utility services,
community and civic structures, and the physical and
chemical atmosphere in which human takes place –
influencing human capacity, health and well-being, and
culture
Housing
Environmental Quality
Public works/Utilities
Health Facilities
Governance Facilities
Cultural Facilities
All physical facilities in which the experience and transfer
of cultural knowledge and traditions take place, important
to regional and personal identity, sense of community,
and social cohesion
Cultural/Recreational Facilities
Tourism Related Facilities
Markets and Commercial Infrastructure
Physical infrastructure necessary to commercial activity,
the exchange of goods and services – influencing the
culture of communities, the functioning of economies and
the physical shape of municipal environments
Commercial Development
Downtown Core/Community Centre
Emergency Response and Security
Infrastructure
The facilities and equipment necessary for maintaining
standards of security and safety, and responding to
emergencies in the region
Fire Service
Police Service
Security and Defence
Natural hazard response
Human hazard response
Day, A. and M.Prins. 2012. Preliminary List of Valued Social and Economic Components in PNCIMA. Report prepared for
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
APPENDIX 1 – DEFINITIONS
In process
81 | P a g e
WCA Framework for Marine Spatial Planning V5 15 August 2013