puget sound pressures assessment

Puget Sound Pressures Assessment (PSPA)

h2ps://sites.google.com/site/pressureassessment/home

Sco2 Redman Science & Evalua?on Program

[email protected]

1

1. Which parts of Puget Sound ecosystem are most vulnerable to current pressures?

= parts of the ecosystem we care most about

Endpoints

PSPA helps us answer two ques?ons:

“Intrinsic Vulnerability” = endpoint’s vulnerability to one or more pressures

Lowland forests

Chinook

Large rivers

2

+

2. Given endpoints of concern, what are the greatest pressures on the ecosystem?

Source Stressor contributes to or delivers

Pressure =

Development Land

conversion contributes to

Dams Altered flows contribute to

3

Pressures Endpoints nega@vely impact

PuKng it all together …

Development Land

Conversion Unmanaged

lowland forests

Source + Stressor

contributes to

contributes to loss or degrada@on of ?

4

Development Land

Conversion Unmanaged

lowland forests

Source + Stressor

contributes to

contributes to loss or degrada@on of

1. Which endpoints are most vulnerable to exis@ng stressors?

2

1

2. Which stressors pose greatest risk to endpoints?

PSPA helps answer two ques?ons:

5

Source

Source

Source

To answer those two quesIons for all the endpoints and stressors we care about in Puget Sound, we rate each specific Stressor -‐ Endpoint pair

Stressor Endpoint ?Look across all Stressor – Endpoint pairs to understand which endpoints are most vulnerable and which stressors pose greatest risk to Puget Sound

6

How do we rate Stressor – Endpoint pairs?

Source

Source

Source Stressor

Endpoint

Intrinsic Vulnerability

SensiIvity

Intrinsic vulnerability modified by stressor intensity

Exposure

Is endpoint present?

How intense is stressor?

Poten?al Impact

= potenIal impact of stressor on endpoint within assessment unit

7

= vulnerability of endpoint to stressor

Stressor intensity

Endpoint distribuIon

Assessments Units: Salmon Recovery Watersheds (16)

8

Assessments Units: Marine Basins (7)

9

10

PSPA submodels

Func?onal impact

Recovery ?me

Resistance

Stressor intensity

DistribuIon

Frequency

Strength

Sources


Poten?al Impact


Expert judgment GIS Analysis

11

Submodel: Intrinsic Vulnerability How vulnerable is an endpoint to a stressor?

Ques?ons: 1.  How resistant is the endpoint to the

stressor? 2.  What is the func@onal impact of the

stressor on the endpoint? 3.  How long does it take the endpoint to

recover?

Assump?ons: •  No management of stressor •  Stressor is acIng directly on endpoint •  Stressor is strongly expressed


Func?onal impact

Recovery ?me

Resistance

12

Submodel: Stressor Intensity How intense is a stressor within an assessment unit?

Ques?ons:

1.  How is the stressor distributed within the assessment unit?

2.  How frequently does it occur? 3.  How strongly is it expressed in the

assessment unit?

4.  Which pressure sources contribute to the stressor?

Stressor intensity

DistribuIon

Frequency

Strength

Sources

13

PSPA submodels: Scores are combined to determine Poten?al Impact

Func?onal impact

Recovery ?me

Resistance

Stressor intensity

DistribuIon

Frequency

Strength

Sources


Poten?al Impact


14

Intrinsic vulnerability !  Most vulnerable endpoints !  Most potenIally significant stressors

Stressor intensity !  RelaIve intensity of each stressor across watersheds and

marine basins Where is each stressor the strongest? Where least strong?

So, what can PSPA results tell us?

Poten?al impact

Assessment-‐unit specific results (watershed or marine basin)

! Endpoint rankings ! Stressor rankings

Puget Sound-‐wide results

! Stressor and endpoint rankings

Stressor intensity

Poten?al Impact


15

!  PrioriIze strategies for collecIve a]enIon •  Sound-‐wide

•  Across the breadth of the AcIon Agenda •  Within topics, such as Strategic IniIaIves or ImplementaIon Strategies

•  At scale of LIOs

!  Inform funding prioriIes

!  Focus monitoring (new & improved ) •  Status & trends of pressures •  EffecIveness of acIons to reduce pressures

!  Inform research prioriIes •  InvesIgate areas of high uncertainty in PSPA •  Develop integrated models

How can we use these results?

16

•  Model-‐based

•  Criteria-‐driven evaluaIon •  SystemaIc accounIng for uncertainty •  Expert judgments & GIS-‐based analysis

!  Update the 2009 Puget Sound regional threats raIng

PSPA Process summary:

17

Next slides compare 2009 results to 2014 results

18

2009 Highly Rated Threats

•  Climate change

•  ResidenIal, commercial, port, shipyard development

•  Runoff from the built environment

•  Shoreline armoring

•  Roads, transportaIon, uIlity infrastructure

•  Dams, levees, Idegates

•  Invasive species •  Animal harvest

Very High

High

Very high Land cover conversion for transporta@on & u@li@es for residen@al, commercial, industrial for natural resource produc@on

Nonpoint source polluIon toxic chemicals conven@onal pollutants

Shoreline hardening

High Large spills Point source polluIon Changing ocean condiIon Spread of disease and pathogens

to na@ve species human pathogens

Timber harvest

Moderate Altered low and peak flows Shading of shallow water habitat Structural barriers to flow Marine species disturbance

19

Candidate priority stressors for PSP based on PSPA results for Vital Sign endpoints

20

2009 Highly Rated Threats

Climate change

ResidenIal, commercial, port, shipyard development

Runoff from the built environment

Shoreline armoring

Roads, transportaIon, uIlity infrastructure

Dams, levees, Idegates

Invasive species

Animal harvest

Very High

High

Changing ocean condi?on

Land cover conversion: Development Land cover conversion: Transporta?on & u?li?es Shoreline hardening

Very High

High

Land cover conversion: natural resource produc@on Nonpoint source pollu@on: toxic chemicals Nonpoint source pollu@on: conven@onal pollutants

Large spills Point source pollu@on Spread of disease & pathogens to na@ve species Spread of human disease and pathogens

Shading of shallow water habitat Marine species disturbance Timber harvest

Moderate

2014 PSPA Highly Rated Stressors (to Vital Signs)

21

Next slides show a few different ways to present informaIon about endpoints, Vital Signs and PSPA results

•  Small, high-‐gradient streams •  Headwater slope wetlands •  Headwater depressional

wetlands •  Lakes and ponds •  Large rivers •  Large streams •  Small, low-‐gradient streams •  Lowland slope wetlands •  Lowland depressional

wetlands •  Freshwater Idal wetlands •  Riparian vegetaIon

•  LoIc benthic invertebrates •  LoIc aquaIc vertebrate

communiIes •  AquaIc plant communiIes •  Chinook salmon •  Coho salmon •  Cu]hroat trout •  Kokanee •  Bald eagle •  River o]er •  Freshwater mussels

22

Endpoints Marine-‐nearshore Terrestrial Freshwater

•  Alpine grassland and shrublands

•  Subalpine unmanaged forests •  Subalpine managed forest •  Unmanaged lower elevaIon

forests •  Managed lower elevaIon

forests •  Oregon white oak woodlands •  Lowland grasslands •  Agriculture areas •  Urban open space •  Forest interior birds •  Pond breeding amphibians

associated with upland forest •  Forest salamanders •  Bobcat •  Roosevelt elk •  Coopers Hawk •  Long-‐legged myoIs bats and

Keen’s myoIs bats

•  River deltas •  Beaches •  Embayments •  Rocky shores •  Open water •  Eelgrass, kelp, and other

submerged vegetaIon communiIes

•  Herring •  Surf smelt •  Rockfish (adult) •  Benthic community •  Epibenthic community •  Pelagic community •  Demersal fish and

invertebrate community •  Mobile benthic

carnivores •  Sessile filter feeders •  Chum and pink salmon •  Rhinoceros auklet •  Killer whale

HA

BIT

ATS

SPEC

IES






23

Endpoints orange = lower rated in all results Marine-‐nearshore Terrestrial Freshwater






Keen’s myoIs bats






HA

BIT

ATS

SPEC

IES

•  Small, high-‐gradient streams •  Lakes and ponds •  Large rivers •  Large streams

•  Small, low-‐gradient streams

•  Freshwater Idal wetlands •  Riparian vegetaIon

•  LoIc benthic invertebrates

•  Chinook salmon •  Coho salmon •  Cu]hroat trout •  Kokanee

•  Unmanaged lower elevaIon forests •  Managed lower elevaIon forests

•  Forest interior birds

•  River deltas

•  Beaches •  Embayments

•  Open water

•  Eelgrass, kelp, and other submerged vegetaIon communiIes

•  Herring

•  Rockfish (adult) •  Benthic community

•  Demersal fish and invertebrate community

•  Mobile benthic carnivores •  Sessile filter feeders •  Chum and pink salmon

•  Rhinoceros auklet

•  Killer whale 24

Estuaries

Eelgrass

Herring

Orcas

Chinook

Land cover

RecreaIonal fishing

Birds

Swimming beaches

Freshwater quality

Marine water

Marine sediment

BIBI

Floodplains

Streamflow

Toxics in fish

PSP Vital Signs represented by Endpoints

Shellfish beds

•  Headwater slope wetlands •  Headwater depressional

wetlands •  Lowland slope wetlands •  Lowland depressional

wetlands

•  LoIc aquaIc vertebrate communiIes

•  AquaIc plant communiIes •  Bald eagle •  River o]er •  Freshwater mussels


•  Subalpine forests •  Oregon white oak woodlands •  Lowland grasslands •  Agriculture areas •  Urban open space

•  Pond breeding amphibians associated with upland forest

•  Forest salamanders •  Bobcat •  Roosevelt elk •  Coopers Hawk •  Long-‐legged myoIs bats and

Keen’s myoIs bats

•  Rocky shores

•  Surf smelt •  Epibenthic community •  Pelagic community

25

Endpoints not represented by PSP Vital Signs Blue = endpoints rated High -‐ Very High but not addressed with Vital Signs

!  Consider for Vital Signs or monitoring?

Orange = endpoints rated Low – Moderate and not addressed with Vital Signs

Marine-‐nearshore Terrestrial Freshwater











Keen’s myoIs bats






26

Estuaries

Shellfish beds

Eelgrass

Herring

Orcas

Chinook

Birds

Land cover

RecreaIonal fishing

Birds

Swimming beaches

Freshwater quality

Marine water Marine

sediment

BIBI

Floodplains

Streamflow

Toxics in fish

Endpoints that represent PSP Vital Signs

Commercial fishing

27

GeKng into the details of the results …

Uncertainty 28

Stressor contribuIon to Intrinsic Vulnerability: all Vital Sign endpoints

Land cover converted for development (com/res/ind)

Land cover converted for transporta?on & u?li?es

Large spills

Persistent toxics Land cover converted for natural resource produc?on

Conven?onal pollutants

Non-‐persistent toxics


Pathogens and disease

Shoreline hardening

Altered peak flows

Altered low flows

Structural barriers to flow of water, sediment, etc. St

ressor con

tribuI

on to

vulne

rability

Highest contribuIon to V.S. vulnerability

29

Stressor

Summed Stressor Index Very High or High

Count of Assessment Units with Very High or High Stressor Index

Marine Basins Watersheds Marine Basins Watersheds

Conversion of land cover for natural resource producIon

Very High Very High 4 11

Non-‐point source, persistent toxic chemicals in aquaIc systems

Very High High 3 14

Non-‐point source convenIonal water pollutants

High Very High 1 16

Conversion of land cover for transportaIon & uIliIes

High High -‐ 7

Shoreline hardening High High 4 8

Shading of shallow water habitat Very High lower 4 -‐

Conversion of land cover for residenIal, commercial, and industrial use

moderate High 1 6

IntroducIon, spread, or amplificaIon of human pathogens

High lower 3 -‐

Species disturbance – marine High -‐ 4 -‐

Spread of disease and parasites to naIve species

High lower 2 -‐

Changing ocean condiIon High -‐

Timber harvest -‐ moderate -‐ 8

Poten?al Impact of Stressor on all Vital Sign endpoints

30

Key Stressors to Vital Sign endpoints: Watersheds poten@al impact + intrinsic vulnerability

Land cover conversion

Non-‐point pollu?on

Large spills

Point source pollu?on

Shore hardening

Structural barriers to flow

Timber harvest

PotenIal Impact for Vital Sign Endpoints

Intrinsic Vu

lnerability fo

r Vital Sign Endp

oints

Peak flows Low flows

31

Key Stressors to Vital Sign endpoints: Nisqually Watershed poten@al impact + intrinsic vulnerability



Large spills


Shore hardening


Timber harvest


Intrinsic Vu

lnerability fo

r Vital Sign Endp

oints

Peak flows Low flows

32

Key Stressors to Vital Sign endpoints: Marine Basins poten@al impact + intrinsic vulnerability


Intrinsic Vu

lnerability fo

r Vital Sign Endp

oints



Large spills


Spread of disease & pathogens

Shore hardening



Shading of shallow water

Marine species disturbance

Low flows

33

Key Stressors to Vital Sign endpoints: South Sound (marine) poten@al impact + intrinsic vulnerability


Intrinsic Vu

lnerability fo

r Vital Sign Endp

oints



Large spills


Spread of disease & pathogens

Shore hardening



Shading of shallow water Marine

species disturbance

Low flows

34

Priority Stressors to PSP Vital Signs

Overall RaIng Stressor Intrinsic Vulnerability PotenIal Impact

Very high Land cover conversion for transporta@on & u@li@es for residen@al, commercial, industrial for natural resource produc@on

Nonpoint source polluIon toxic chemicals conven@onal pollutants

Shoreline hardening

Very High Very High High

Very High High High

High High/Mod Very High

Very High Very High High

High Large spills Point source polluIon Changing ocean condiIon Spread of disease and pathogens

to na@ve species human pathogens

-‐ -‐ -‐ Medium

-‐ -‐ High

High High

Moderate Shading of shallow water habitat Marine species disturbance Timber harvest

-‐ -‐ -‐

Very High High Moderate

I pulled these from other slides. May not be correct.

35

Stressor Intensity: Marine Basins C. SHORELINE ARMORING

!  PSNERP GIS: % armored shoreline (length)

!  Frequency = Permanent

!  Intensity range: 0.16 (North Central) -‐ 1.0 (South Central)

What does this mean?

36 36

!  CCAP 2011 GIS: % land area = "developed“

!  Frequency = Permanent

!  Intensity range: 0.04 (Elwha) – 1.0 (Lake Washington/ Cedar/ Sammamish)

Stressor Intensity: Watersheds A1. LAND COVER CONVERSION FOR DEVELOPMENT (RES, COM, IND)

37

!  PrioriIze strategies for collecIve a]enIon •  Sound-‐wide

•  Across the breadth of the AcIon Agenda •  Within topics, such as Strategic IniIaIves or

ImplementaIon Strategies

•  At scale of LIOs

!  Inform funding prioriIes

!  Focus monitoring (new & improved ) •  Status & trends of pressures •  EffecIveness of acIons to reduce pressures

!  Inform research prioriIes •  InvesIgate areas of high uncertainty in PSPA •  Develop integrated models

How can we use these results?

puget sound pressures assessment

Government & Nonprofit