Download PDF - COINAtlantic

More documents

Recommendations

Info

11 th International Symposium for GIS and Computer Cartography for Coastal Zones Managementthe pre-agreement analyses. Total bycatch was well below the annual quota agreed upon and analysis of the locationof trawl effort suggests that the new boundary is being respected. There is also evidence from the data that trawlingeffort has moved to areas of lower coral and sponge bycatch, especially in Hecate Strait.Table 1. Total area in each 200 m depth class, area inside the trawl footprint by depth class, and percent of each depth classcovered by the groundfish bottom trawl footprint.Depth class (m)Area in depthclass (km 2 )Area in trawlfootprint (km 2 )% of depth class infootprint0-199 69,304 23,460 34%200-399 20,553 8,908 43%400-599 4,174 2,354 56%600-799 2,924 1,709 58%800-999 2,740 991 36%1000-1199 3,592 167 5%all 103,287 37,590 36%AcknowledgmentsThis work would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of Fisheries and Oceans Canada,especially data and analyses provided by Norm Olsen, and including Barry Ackerman, Groundfish Trawl Coordinator,and Tameezan Karim, Regional Groundfish Manager. The successful outcome of this collaboration work islargely thanks to the patience and perseverance of John Driscoll, Living Oceans Society, Brian Mose, Deep SeaTrawlers Association, Bruce Turris, Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society, and Scott Wallace,David Suzuki Foundation. The GIS software used by Living Oceans Society was made available through a grantfrom the ESRI Conservation Program.ReferencesArdron, J.A. (2005), Protecting British Columbia’s Corals and Sponges from Bottom Trawling. A report by Living Oceans Society,Sointula, Canada, 21p.British Columbia Marine Conservation Analysis (2011), Marine Atlas of Pacific Canada: a product of the British ColumbiaMarine Conservation Analysis (BCMCA), Vancouver, Canada, 242p.Driscoll, J., C. Robb, and K. Bodtker (2009), Bycatch in Canada’s Pacific Groundfish Bottom Trawl Fishery: Trends and EcosystemPerspectives. A Report by Living Oceans Society, Sointula, Canada, 23p.Finney, J.L. (2009), Overlap of predicted cold-water coral habitat and bottom-contact fisheries in British Columbia. MRM thesis,School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.Fuller, S.D., C. Picco, J. Ford, C.-F. Tsao, L.E. Morgan, D. Hangaard, and R. Chuenpagdee (2008), How We Fish Matters: Addressingthe Ecological Impacts of Canadian Fishing Gear, A report by Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society, andMarine Conservation Biology Institute, Delta, Canada, 25p.Province of British Columbia (2002), British Columbia marine ecological classification: marine ecosections and ecounits. Preparedby Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management Decision Support Services Branch for the Coastal Task Force ResourcesInformation Standards Committee, 63p.Sinclair, A., B.A. Krishka, and J. Fargo (2007), Species trends in relative biomass, occupied area and depth distribution for HecateStrait Assemblage Surveys from 1984-2003. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2749: iv +141p.Wallace, S. (2007), Dragging Our Assets: Toward an Ecosystem Approach to Bottom Trawling in Canada, A report by DavidSuzuki Foundation, Vancouver, Canada, 45p.194
Using GIS to evaluate sites for a network of MPAs in British ColumbiaCarolyn Robb, Kim Wright & Karin BodtkerLiving Oceans Society, #1405-207 W. Hastings St., Vancouver, BC, V6B 1H7, Canadacrobb@livingoceans.org, kwright@livingoceans.org, kbodtker@livingoceans.orgAbstractAs a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada has committed to building a network of MarineProtected Areas (MPAs) that effectively conserves at least 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. On Canada’sPacific coast, 197 MPAs have been designated by provincial and federal authorities, covering approximately 3% ofCanadian Pacific waters. This research uses GIS to assess which sites are appropriate for network inclusion by analyzingtheir size and spacing, overlaying their boundaries with updated information on commercial fishing closures,and evaluating the extent of conservation-focused fisheries closures outside of the current suite of MPAs. Resultssuggest that almost 90% of MPAs in the Canadian Pacific are designed to exclude resource extraction but that only2.5% of MPAs fully or partially meet those objectives. Outside of the existing MPAs, no areas are identified thatcould be eligible for network inclusion as “no take” areas.IntroductionMarine Protected Areas (MPAs), in particular those that exclude resource extraction, are an increasingly recognizedtool for protecting marine biodiversity (Mosquera et al., 2003; Lester and Halpern, 2008; Stewart et al., 2009).Scientific advice states that to fully realize the benefits of MPAs, they must be planned and implemented through abroader network planning process (Jessen et al., 2011). As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity,Canada has made an international commitment to develop a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2020.Led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), federal and provincial authorities are working to create “an ecologicallycomprehensive, resilient, and representative national network of marine protected areas that protects the biologicaldiversity and health of the marine environment for present and future generations” (Government of Canada,2011). Part of this process will be to determine which existing MPAs should be incorporated into the networks onCanada’s three coasts and whether there are sites outside of existing MPAs that could also contribute. This researchassesses which MPAs and fisheries closures might be for network inclusion by examining their protection status andcomparing their size and spacing to design standards.MPA network design standards state that networks should include ecologically and biologically significant areas,represent the full range of ecosystems, incorporate multiple replications of each ecological feature, ensure connectivitybetween features, and be adequately sized and protected (Government of Canada, 2011). Scientists have providedmore specific advice for meeting these criteria and suggest that 30% of each bioregion should be representedwithin an MPA network by areas that prohibit all resource extraction, termed ‘no take’ MPAs, and that contributingMPAs, of all protection levels, should be approximately 10 to 20 km in diameter and spaced 20 to 200 km apart(Jessen et al., 2011).In the Canadian Pacific, there are currently 197 MPAs that may be appropriate for bioregional networks. TheMPAs have been established on a site-by-site basis by a variety of government agencies and, as a result, have arange of sizes, objectives, and restrictions. The majority of the MPAs have been classified based on internationalguidelines developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Day et al., 2012). These classificationsare derived from the management intent of an MPA and give information on the level of protection intendedfor an MPA (Robb et al., 2011). Within the IUCN guidelines, MPA types Ia, Ib, II, and III, have the most strictrestrictions on human activities, excluding all resource extraction (Day et al., 2012).The existing suite of MPAs covers only 3% of Canada’s Pacific waters and does not currently meet the goal of anetwork that effectively conserves at least 10% of coastal and marine areas. Therefore, Canada will have to designateadditional MPAs or identify areas beyond the existing MPAs that can contribute to an effective network. Accordingto IUCN guidelines (Day et al., 2012), fishery management areas must have broader conservation objectivesin order to be considered for MPA classification. The federal guidelines for a national network of MPAs state that,195
Page 1 and 2:
CoastGIS Conference 2013: Monitorin
Page 3 and 4:
Sponsors
Page 5 and 6:
Steering Committee Secretariat main
Page 7 and 8:
Santos Basin, BrazilA.F. Romero, R.
Page 9 and 10:
Coastline development and associate
Page 11 and 12:
Visual resource management system f
Page 13 and 14:
11 th International Symposium for G
Page 15 and 16:
Use of Terrestrial-LiDAR for quanti
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Community beach monitoring: utilisi
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Data policy implications arising fr
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Global ocean observing system for w
Page 35 and 36:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
ResultsMetadata11 th International
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Coastal vulnerability index to glob
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
generating probabilities contours f
Page 58 and 59:
maps, the most critical conditions
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Statistical and spatial toolbox for
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Global oceans and marine planning
Page 74 and 75:
Analysis11 th International Symposi
Page 76 and 77:
Building scenarios and visualizatio
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Using a 3D physics-based visualizat
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Documenting situated tsunami risk p
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
SeaSketch11 th International Sympos
Page 94 and 95:
A structured model to enable coasta
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Developing and testing approaches f
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
A dynamic GIS as an efficient tool
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
GIS spatio-temporal modeling of hum
Page 108 and 109:
ResultsCollected data11 th Internat
Page 110 and 111:
The use of GIS and geospatial techn
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Ocean Radar for Monitoring of the C
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Geophysical investigations of marin
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
A semi-supervised learning framewor
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Simulation of maritime paths taking
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
COINAtlantic: Sharing through open
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Implementation of the marine data i
Page 136 and 137:
Perspectives11 th International Sym
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
References11 th International Sympo
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155: 11 th International Symposium for G
Page 156 and 157: Conclusion11 th International Sympo
Page 170 and 171: Tools and best practices for coasta
Page 178 and 179: Washington Coastal Atlas: creating
Page 182 and 183: The African Coastal and Marine Atla
Page 198 and 199: Methods11 th International Symposiu
Page 202 and 203: Methods11 th International Symposiu
Page 208 and 209: Acknowledgments11 th International
Page 216 and 217: Long-term continuous observations o
Page 220 and 221: Comparing endmember extraction meth
Page 224 and 225: Integration of scientific data as a
Page 230: Conclusions11 th International Symp
show all

Download PDF - COINAtlantic

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?