ecosystem services in the bridge and seton watersheds seed...

Ecosystem Services in the Bridge and Seton Watersheds Seed Project No. 16.W.BRG.02

Coldstream Ecology, PO Box 1654, Lillooet, BC V0K 1V0 250.256.0637 www.coldstreamecology.com

March 31, 2016

Prepared For: The Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program

Prepared By: Coldstream Ecology Ltd.

Prepared with financial support of the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program on behalf of its program part-ners BC Hydro, the Province of BC, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and public stakeholders

mailto:[email protected]

Ecosystem Services in the Bridge Seton Watershed

CONTRIBUTIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CONTRIBUTIONS

Lead Author

• Coldstream Ecology: Alyson McHugh

Contributions

• St’át’imc Government Services: Dr. Sue Senger (SGS Environment) • Artist: Annalee Kornelsen

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Dr. Sue Senger and St’át’imc Government Services (SGS) Environment for their contributions of the Bridge Seton Watershed spatial data sets, input on the feasibility assessment and feedback on communication icons.

The author would like to thank Annalee Kornelsen for her open mindedness and creativity. She is the artist that Coldstream has worked with over the past 1.5 years to develop communication tools depicting topics covered in this report. These images are copyrighted and licensed under the Creative Commons ‘Attribution’ license. Therefore they cannot be distributed, reproduced or used outside of this specific report without the expressed permission from Coldstream Ecology, Ltd.

The author would also like to thank Vanessa Salazar of Coldstream Consulting Ltd for layout and cover page design.

This project would not have been possible without funding by the Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program (FWCP). The FWCP is a partnership between BC Hydro, the Province of B.C. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Nations and public stakeholders to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife impacted by the construction of BC Hydro dams.

ii


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document defines the need to inventory ecosystem services in the Bridge Seton Watersheds. Broadly, ecosystem services can be defined as the benefits that people, plants and animals receive from ecosystems that make life possible while also providing a quality of life worth living. Ecosystem services are increasingly being used to inform land and water management decisions by integrating the benefits that nature provides to society into decision-making. The primary objective of this research was to assess the feasibility of developing a baseline inventory to determine the extent of impact from hydroelectric activities. The purpose of this report is to summarize the outcome of the SEED grant funding. The report will provide an introduction and background information on ecosystem services in the Bridge-Seton watersheds, describe the methods used in the feasibility assessment, discuss the outcome of the preliminary research and determine whether we recommend feasibility and intention to submit an application to conduct a full assessment in future years.

To this end, Coldstream Ecology has completed the following objectives:

• Described ecosystem services;

• Identified important ecosystem services in the Bridge Seton watersheds;

• Established public interest and working relationships with project partners such as SGS based on ecology and human health and well-being, for incorporating ecosystem services inventory, monitoring and reporting frameworks into development decisions in in the Bridge Seton Watershed and St’át’imc Territory; and

• Identified potential local and regional data sets and data integration possibilities; and

• Developed a preliminary project proposal for future submission.

Based on the key findings from the objectives, we have determined that the project is feasible. Therefore, we recommend future assessments:

• Explore and define the ecosystem services directly relevant to the Bridge Seton Watersheds in collaboration with BC Hydro and communities within the St’át’imc Territory;

• Inventory watershed ecosystem services using accepted metrics and standards to establish a baseline of information;

• Assess ecosystem service loss and changes to ecosystem services at the watershed scale relative to that baseline;

iii


• Conduct long-term adaptive monitoring and reporting frameworks based on ecosystem services and the changes to ecosystem service flows observed over time and space;

• Integrate information on ecosystem services into adaptive management and monitoring, construction, operation and development decisions for the FWCP, BC Hydro and other proposed projects in this northern St’át’imc Nation and FWCP project area.

Based on the recommended future assessments, it is our intention to submit subsequent funding applications for a large project to the FWCP in 2017. We hope that the information contained in this SEED report will assist the FWCP in determining whether to help fund the collaborative development of an ecosystem services inventory and spatial database for the region. It is also hoped that this may stimulate further discussion on the integration of ecosystem services into the decision making processes for hydropower and other resource development projects in the Bridge Seton Watershed and other watersheds, in an effort to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and human well-being.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contributions and Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... ii

Contributions ....................................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................. ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ iii

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... v

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION AND METHODS ............................................................................................. 1

1.1 BAckground and introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 2: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES DEFINED ............................................................................................ 2

2.1 What are Ecosystem Services? ....................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Goods and Services ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Ecosystem Services in the Bridge Seton Watershed ........................................................................ 2

2.2.1 Production or Provisioning Services ............................................................................................. 4

2.2.2 Regulating Services...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Cultural Services .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.4 Supporting Services ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Linking Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Watershed Quality .................................................... 8

2.4 Human Health and Well-Being ....................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 3: WHY MONITOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE BRIDGE SETON WATERSHED? .......................... 9

3.1 Global ecosystem integrity and health is declining.......................................................................... 9

3.2 Current Mitigation, Restoration and Rehabilitation Practices are Not Effective and are Costly ...... 10

3.3 Urgent Global Need...................................................................................................................... 10

3.3.1 Local and Global Call to Monitor and Report Ecosystem Service Change .................................... 11

Chapter 4: FEASIBILITY OF INVENTORY AND MONITORING .................................................................... 12

4.1 Monitoring to Inform Management Decisions and Policy Actions ................................................. 12

4.2 Baseline Data for Bridge Seton Watershed ................................................................................... 12

4.3 Mapping ecosytem services.......................................................................................................... 13

v


4.4. ST’AT’IMC Truvian System Integration for Ecosystem services ..................................................... 13

Chapter 5: PROJECT OUTCOME AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 15

5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 16

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 17

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................... 19

vi


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND METHODS

1.1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Ecosystem services are increasingly being used to inform land and water management decision-making and project planning. The primary objective of this research was to assess the feasibility of developing a baseline inventory of ecosystem services in the Bridge Seton Watershed. This information would then, in a future assessment, be used to determine the extent of impact from hydroelectric activities. The purpose of this report is to summarize the outcome of the SEED grant funding.

To this end, Coldstream Ecology has completed the following objectives:

• Described ecosystem services;

• Identified important ecosystem services in the Bridge Seton watersheds;

• Established public interest and working relationships with project partners such as SGS based on ecology and human health and well-being, for incorporating ecosystem services inventory, monitoring and reporting frameworks into development decisions in in the Bridge Seton Watershed and St’át’imc Territory;

• Identified potential local and regional data sets and data integration possibilities;

• Developed background material for a project proposal for future submission; and

• Assessed project feasibility and recommended next steps

1.2 METHODS

Methods utilized in this research project to conduct the feasibility assessment include: 1) conducting a literature review; 2) meeting with SGS on several occasions to first communicate what defines ecosystem services, and then assess and establish interest in conducting an ecosystem services inventory; 3) soliciting feedback from SGS on Coldstream’s newly developed Ecosystem Service communication tools; and 4) exploring potential data sets, data integration possibilities and long term data management goals in the local and regional area.

Chapters 2 – 4 discuss the results from the research, and Chapter 5 describes the project outcome and recommendations going forward.

1


CHAPTER 2: ECOSYSTEM SERVICES DEFINED

2.1 WHAT ARE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES?

Broadly, ecosystem services can be defined as the benefits that people, plants and animals receive from ecosystems. A functioning ecosystem delivers specific services in perpetuity that sustain and improve human and non-human life (Brummett et al 2012). Thus, the foundation of human well-being is reliant on the contributions of functioning ecological systems. First Nations have recognized the contributions of nature to human well-being forever. These collective contributions are now being recognized and called ecosystem services (Miranda et al 2002) in scientific lexicon.

2.1.1 GOODS AND SERVICES

Ecosystem Services have been defined as the market and non-market benefits individuals, households, communities and economies receive from ecosystems. They are delivered to society as ecosystem goods (e.g., clean water, food, shelter, electricity) and ecosystem services (e.g. purifying drinking water, carbon sequestration waste decomposition, flood regulation, climate regulation, recreation) and both humans and non-humans rely on them for survival. From here forward in this report, they are referred to as ecosystem services.

The most basic example of a vital service is a daily supply of clean fresh water. Simply put, terrestrial and freshwater systems together provide the services of gathering, purifying, providing, and delivering the good, which is water, to not only downstream communities but to BC Hydro facilities such as Carpenter, Downton and Seton storage reservoirs. Another vital service is Carbon Sequestration. The terrestrial environment, (e.g., forests), sequester carbon from the atmosphere and store it as biomass and other forms. Another simple example is the production of food. The local and regional terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem services in the Bridge Seton Watershed contribute to the provision of food for local people, which is accessed via hunting and fishing. Ecosystem food production (i.e., the good) is completely reliant on the services that both aquatic ecosystems (e.g., water-related services) and terrestrial ecosystems provide (e.g. the production of necessary browse material to support moose populations).

2.2 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE BRIDGE SETON WATERSHED

Ecosystem services within a watershed are broad, many and varied. They comprise the benefits that households, communities and economies receive from nature and they support and maintain humans and non-humans alike. Figure 1 (below) broadly illustrates many of the different ecosystem services in a watershed. Table 1, in Appendix A, presents additional examples of freshwater aquatic ecosystem services provided by functional watersheds. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) separates them into four categories: provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services, and cultural services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program 2005). These categories are depicted below in sections 2.2.1 – 2.2.4.

2


Figure 1.0. A broad illustrated depiction of various ecosystem services in a watershed.

3


2.2.1 PRODUCTION OR PROVISIONING SERVICES

Ecosystems produce or provide many goods to society as food, extractable renewable raw materials, freshwater, biological resources that aid in supporting human health, and non-renewable raw materials. Examples (of which are not intended to be comprehensive) of goods and services included in this category are as follows:

• Food: fish, grains, wild game, fruit, vegetables; • Renewable raw materials: fuel, fibre, fodder; • Freshwater supply: use and storage for consumption and non-consumption (e.g. power and

transport); • Biological resources: biochemicals that can be developed as pharmaceuticals for medicine or

commercial use; and • Abiotic resources: metals, rock, stone, and lime.

Figure 2.0. A broad illustrated depiction of provisioning ecosystem services in a watershed.

4


2.2.2 REGULATING SERVICES

Ecosystems processes are naturally regulated, and the services render a habitable environment as the benefit. Services that contribute to natural regulations include:

• Climate regulation; • Natural air and water filtration; • Water treatment and regulation; • Disease regulation; • Water purification; • Buffering flood flows; • Erosion control through water /land interactions; • Flood control; and • Flushing flows.

Figure 3.0. A broad illustrated depiction of regulating ecosystem services in a watershed.

5


2.2.3 CULTURAL SERVICES

Cultural services comprise the nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems. They include, but are not limited to:

• Cultural heritage; significant sites, historic sites; • Sense of place; • Spiritual and religious; • Aesthetics; • Recreation and ecotourism; • Inspirational; and • Educational.

Figure 4.0. A broad illustrated depiction of cultural ecosystem services in a watershed.

6


2.2.4 SUPPORTING SERVICES

Supporting services provide for the production of all other ecosystem services and enable ecosystems to flourish. Biodiversity facilitates these services in supporting resistance and resilience in surrounding ecosystems. Examples include:

• Biodiversity; • Soil formation; • Nutrient cycling; • Primary Production

Figure 5.0. A broad illustrated depiction of supporting ecosystem services in a watershed.

7


2.3 LINKING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, BIODIVERSITY AND WATERSHED QUALITY

Ecosystem services and biodiversity are inherently connected. Biodiversity plays an important role in the creation, support and maintenance of all ecosystem services (Kandziora et al 2012). In turn, land and water ecosystem services also conserve biodiversity. A reduction in ecosystem function, and consequently services, has been directly linked with a decrease in the diversity of species, or biodiversity. Biodiversity and water quality, are directly related to both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem services. They are viability and health indicators of the result of ecological services that supply water, and filter and absorb pollutants, (Lautenback et al 2012) and buffer coastal communities from extreme weather events, for example. As the climate continues to rapidly change, the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem services will play an important role in ecosystems’ ability to adapt to change and remain resilient, while continuing to provide essential services to society. Benefits derived specifically from freshwater ecosystems are also dependent on certain services that local and regional terrestrial ecosystems provide (Brauman et. al 2007). Table 1 in Appendix A describes aquatic ecosystem services relevant to the Bridge Seton Watershed.

2.4 HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

Ecosystem services contribute to human welfare and their economic value is essential to the global economy (Costanza 1997; Costanza, et al. 1997; Hooper et al. 2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program 2005). They are vital to climate change adaptation and mitigation and have been directly linked to human health and well-being (Myers et al 2013). The collective goods and services that ecosystems and biodiversity supply and maintain ultimately sustain human well-being (UNDP 2012, Myers et al 2013).

The ongoing loss of biodiversity and consequent reduction in ecosystem services has global human health implications. For example, potential sources of pharmaceuticals (which are used to study disease), and the wild relatives of important food crops that the majority of global population depends on are being lost as ecosystem services are degraded. Diseases are becoming more prevalent as communities are being forced to substitute natural food for processed foods. Consequently, ecosystem service and biodiversity loss has been linked to infectious diseases, and human dietary health and nutrition problems (Myers et al 2013).

8


CHAPTER 3: WHY MONITOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE BRIDGE SETON WATERSHED?

3.1 GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY AND HEALTH IS DECLINING

Current standards of practice for development projects and mitigation are not improving or reducing the global decline in biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and health. Consequently, the benefits, including human health benefits, which society depends upon in the form of ecosystem goods and services, are also declining. This is more pronounced with regards to freshwater ecosystems. The majority of the world’s people lives within 50km of a water source that is impounded, diverted, polluted or running dry and has consequently been classified as impaired (Barlow 2013). Many of the world’s aquifers are becoming depleted and watersheds are not necessarily providing water any longer. By 2030, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) predicts that nearly half of the world’s population will be under sever water stress (UNDP 2012). Furthermore, the rate of the degradation of these life-supporting services is increasing, rather than slowing down. In addition, climate change will likely exacerbate the rate of degradation, although changes will have both positive and negative effects on different regions.

As of 2005, two-thirds of all the fresh water flowing into the oceans was obstructed by approximately 800,000 hydropower projects (i.e., more than 45,000 large dams; 750,000 small dams). This was over a decade ago and these numbers have increased; we have many more here in BC alone. This hydropower demand adds to additional stressors on freshwater and aquatic systems. These stressors (e.g., climate change, changing land use, changing nutrient cycles, and changing demands on water resources) will continue to increase and are often associated with environmental costs (eutrophication, loss of drinking water source, the possible spread of toxic algae, loss of habitat, water abstraction, an increase or decrease in sediment load, loss of water flow, etc.). The most likely outcome of debates regarding multiple uses and values of aquatic ecosystems in the 21st century is not the conservation of species and freshwater ecosystems, but rather the degradation of functional freshwater ecology, fisheries, in addition to local disenfranchisement (Brummet et al 2012). This degradation is happening in part, because it is rare that the goods and services that ecosystems provide have been accounted for or fully valued in today’s economic paradigm and decision-making frameworks (Maberly and Elliot 2012, Healthwaite 2010, TEEB 2010).

Many of the benefits that ecosystems provide are typically overlooked because they are not currently captured as part of the market economy, and rarely accounted for in day to day decisions by businesses and citizens. However, water storage projects influence the environment in both positive and negative ways, and these influences have associated monetary costs as well as benefits (Hearnshaw et al 2010). For example, reservoirs give off substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Therefore it is be important for governments and citizens to incorporate the value of the services, and the affiliated costs of affecting the flow of ecosystem services in decision-making. Ecosystem services should therefore be accounted for, and ultimately valued in some way both locally and globally.

9


3.2 CURRENT MITIGATION, RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION PRACTICES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE AND ARE COSTLY

Mitigation is the most widely utilized global practice for minimizing adverse environmental effects to ecosystems in hydroelectric development projects. The World Commission on Dams notes (2000) that in the case of fish passage mitigation has failed or only worked sporadically. Additionally, only 20% of the ecosystem impacts were mitigated effectively. The significance, as well as the cumulative effects of the failed mitigation practices is still largely unknown for most of the hydroelectric projects (WCD 2000). Failed mitigation ultimately costs society money. The UNDP recognizes “Methods of accounting for national wealth usually fail to reflect the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services to the economy, and the potential cost of replacing these if they are lost or damaged, for example if a water purification plant needs to be built to replace the services provided by a destroyed wetland,” (2012). Mitigation, rehabilitation costs, and the costs of industrial business are far more than anticipated, and society is increasingly bearing those costs, rather than industry.

In a recent report commissioned by the TEEB for Business Coalition, TruCost (2013) conducted an assessment estimating the total unpriced environmental costs of global region sectors. A region sector is a particular industry in a particular region, e.g., water supply in North America. One hundred direct environmental impacts were condensed into 6 categories of unpriced natural capital consumption: water use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, waste, air pollution, land and water pollution, and land use. Out of the top 20 region-sectors, results indicated that none would be profitable if environmental costs were fully incorporated into the costs of doing business (TruCost 2013). Another study recently released estimated the annual global ecosystem service loss at US $740 billion (UNDP 2012). Current investments in infrastructure and mitigation are capturing only part of the environmental costs to society, and they comprise mostly the short-term costs (Brummett et al 2012). The majority of the costs are displaced, from the time of the project planning, construction, and operation into the future. We are seeing this now in the Bridge Seton Watershed, with ongoing maintenance required for the next several years, potentially lasting over a decade. The long–term costs to ecosystem services, and how these changes affect the health and well-being of the local people need to be included in planning.

3.3 URGENT GLOBAL NEED

The contributions of biodiversity and ecosystem services to humans and society are increasingly being recognized as paramount (Munns et al 2009, Daily et al 1997, Constanza et al 1997, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program 2005). In 2005, 1,360 experts from ninety-five countries contributed to The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), which evaluated the state of the world’s ecosystems. In this consensus document, the authors concluded “any progress achieved in addressing the Millennium Development Goals of poverty and hunger eradication, improved health, and environmental sustainability is unlikely to be sustained if most of the ecosystem services on which humanity relies continue to be degraded,” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA] Program 2005). Concurrently, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that “Nature’s Goods and Services are the ultimate foundations of life and health,” (MEA and World Health Organization 2005). Follow up projects such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2010) and the TEEB for Business

10


Coalition have raised awareness of ecosystem services, garnered global acceptance and have produced toolboxes and guides to immediately begin gathering information and reporting on ecosystem services to inform decision-making. Many of these toolboxes are free and available to guide inventory efforts.

3.3.1 LOCAL AND GLOBAL CALL TO MONITOR AND REPORT ECOSYSTEM SERVICE CHANGE

The leading body of international research on ecological monitoring points to a critical need to gather data regarding ecosystem services that will inform environmental decisions at various spatial and temporal scales. Environmental management that is inclusive of ecosystem services will benefit humans and other organisms more than traditional reductionist approaches which tend to isolate the system, or project, from the larger environment (Munns et al 2009). This is especially important in assessing environmental impacts in a rapidly changing climate. Using adaptive monitoring, evaluating the changes to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem services is the most socially and technically acceptable method to conduct environmental risk evaluations (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010; Chapman 2012).

Indeed, a paradigm shift in fish conservation and the management of biodiversity and freshwater aquatic ecosystems is underway combing traditional fisheries management with the concept of ecosystem services (Cowx and Portocarrero Aya 2011). Specifically, the following list (which is not intended to be comprehensive) provides examples of supranational institutions, national and international institutions and global think tanks that all strongly recommend the immediate and sustained monitoring of ecosystem services for biodiversity health and watershed quality:

• United Nations General Assembly • United Nations Humans Rights Council • United Nations Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) • United Nations Development Program (UNDP) • United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) • World Health Organization (WHO) • International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) • World Resources Institute (WRI) • The GLOBE International Commission on Land Use Change and Ecosystems • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) • World Business Council for Sustainable Development • World Wildlife Fund (WWF) • The Nature Conservancy (TNC) • Environment Canada • Statistics Canada • Canadian council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME) • NSERC Canada • US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) • US Department of Agriculture (USDA) • US Fish and Wildlife Service • US Agency for International Development (USAID) • The Center for Sustainable Water Management in the U.K.

11


CHAPTER 4: FEASIBILITY OF INVENTORY AND MONITORING

4.1 MONITORING TO INFORM MANAGEMENT DECISIONS AND POLICY ACTIONS

“The Most effective and productive scientific monitoring is adaptive, and is based on assessment endpoints that comprise ecosystem services, in other words, the benefits of Nature to human beings.” Peter Chapman, 2012

The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that the ecosystem services and goods are maintained, and to expose a problem if one occurs in project planning, construction or operation. If and when a problem is identified, then a management intervention can be planned to minimize or mitigate observed environmental effects.

Adaptive monitoring should be based on (Chapman 2012): 1. Value-based monitoring; 2. Stressor of Potential Concern (SPC) based monitoring (e.g. what is the effect of a stressor on

ecosystem services SPU values?); and 3. Effects-based monitoring (e.g. the state of an ecosystem in terms of SPU (Service Providing Unit)

values compared to reference or baseline conditions.

The following questions can be used to guide the management of resources and ecosystems using an effects-based approach (Brauman 2007) that incorporates biodiversity and ecosystem services:

1. How do human activities, or the activities within the Bridge Seton Watershed, affect ecosystem service production in the regional or local study areas?

2. How has ecosystem service changed relative to baseline conditions? 3. How will ecosystem services change with the proposed projects?

4.2 BASELINE DATA FOR BRIDGE SETON WATERSHED

Baseline data must be used to inform effects-based environmental assessments. Baseline information or reference conditions explicitly for ecosystem services in the Bridge Seton Watershed are currently not reported, but some data are available. For example, the Bridge Seton Watershed is already classified into land cover classes via BEC zones, as well as some water-based classes, such as streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands and reservoirs. SGS has agreed to provide this information to inform the baseline watershed assessment. Therefore at this time a baseline inventory could be initiated with these classification data. This inventory must be established prior to being able to assess effects to ecosystem services from BC Hydro facilities.

Metrics used to conduct ecosystem service assessments are complimentary with other data that are collected in long term monitoring programs. In fact, some ecosystem service assessments rely on some of the traditional metrics and parameters regularly studied and monitored. As mentioned earlier, the watershed land and water classification systems are a good starting point for data collection. In

12


addition, due to many years of monitoring through the WUP, through SGS monitoring programs and other projects in the Bridge and Seton Corridors, has a substantial amount of the required information is already available to begin to build an ecosystem services inventory and set of baseline information.

4.3 MAPPING ECOSYTEM SERVICES

Ecosystem services have been expressed in many ways since the emergence of the concept three decades ago. If ecosystem services are to be characterized and tracked over time, the measured units must be clearly defined, consistently measured and work with both standard ecology and economic principles (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). Ecosystem services metrics must comprise end points or final ecosystem services for valuation. In other words, ecosystem functions needs to relate directly to services. Final ecosystem services have been defined as “components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being,” (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007).

Ecosystem services are also associated with important place-based quality differences. Thus services should be quantified in a spatially explicit way, for example using GIS mapping tools and integrated databases. Each service should be mapped at a fine resolution (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007) to identify possible trade-offs of specific services. Several units are used to quantify ecosystem services. A serviceshed is a geographic area that provides a specific ecosystem service to a specific beneficiary (Tallis et al. 2012). For example using water-related series, the catchment area upstream of the place where the benefits are realized or accessed is the serviceshed. This concept is particularly useful for identifying who is benefiting from the services, and therefore who is likely to me impacted by development options. Service Providing Units (SPUs) is also another way of expressing ecosystem services (Chapman 2012). Currently, SGS Environment has been building a map – based information portal, which could house and facilitate the use of any ecosystem services inventory that is developed.

4.4. ST’AT’IMC TRUVIAN SYSTEM INTEGRATION FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

The St’át’imc Truvian system is a web-based portal that combines map-based data with project management software to facilitate information sharing and collaborative planning. This is particularly relevant because an ecosystem service inventory and set of baseline information would ideally be spatially explicit. The user-friendly interface and integration of GIS map layers allows for easy visualization of various values and resources at scales ranging from the stand-level through to landscapes. These values are essentially ecosystem services. More importantly, this St’át’imc system allows for traditional knowledge and cultural values to be mapped and managed in a secure interface that will support decision-making without compromising data ownership. This system will support communities and working groups by delivering the best available spatially explicit, place-based information into planning processes. Ultimately, it will facilitate project level trade off analyses and scenario planning at local and regional scales for specific ecosystem services. Some basic features of the Truvian system that could be integrated with ecosystem services are pictured below:

13


14


CHAPTER 5: PROJECT OUTCOME AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

Several infrastructure developments have occurred and are ongoing in the Bridge Seton watershed. The current project plans and mitigation efforts will continue to affect current watershed ecosystem services. Consequently, this is a unique opportunity to address essential local and regional ecosystem services and directly link them to human well-being. Because of the ongoing and long term work in the area, these data can be used to establish and conduct a cumulative effects assessment of ecosystem services to the Bridge Seton Watershed and incorporate monitoring and reporting for ecosystem services into environmental assessments in a holistic, regional framework. While this report falls short of recommending specific ecosystem service indicators and conducting an actual baseline assessment, it should be used as a starting point for communicating the importance of ecosystem services to stakeholders, and subsequently the development of a full proposal to being to incorporate ecosystem services, and sources of human well-being related to nature, into proposed projects. These indicators that would populate the baseline inventory should be developed at the local level to make sure they are directly relevant to local ecology, people and management decisions.

Based on the SEED feasibility assessment, we conclude that it is feasible, possible, and desirable for FWCP to partner with Coldstream, SGS, and other organizations to begin to fully inventory and establish a baseline of information regarding ecosystem services in the Bridge Seton Watershed. This finding is based on the following:

• SGS is committed to being a partner and realizes the importance of conducting a baseline inventory of ecosystem services in the territory;

• SGS is developing a map-based portal system that spatially derived ecosystem services information would go into to facilitate informed decision-making;

• Communities would be able to use this portal system to conduct their own trade off analyses and assess how ecosystem services would change with different management options on both local and regional scales;

• There is much information already collected, and being collected currently in the WUP, through FWCP projects, through SGS monitoring initiatives, and in further programs in the Bridge Seton watershed that would contribute to a baseline inventory; and

• Due to current maintenance requirements for BC Hydro operations in the area, there is a need to establish this baseline data set as soon as possible.

Consequently, it is our intention to submit large proposal applications to the FWCP for this work starting in the fall of 2017.

15


5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the FWCP fund these applications and provide support for Coldstream to work with BC Hydro, FWCP, SGS and other stakeholders to begin to take steps on the integration of ecosystem services into decision-making. These steps include the following:

1. Conduct an Ecosystem Services Inventory for the Bridge Seton Watersheds

a. Identify measurable, quantifiable parameter end points that comprise the relevant ecosystem services.

b. Establish a baseline of information, or reference conditions regarding ecosystem services;

2. Directly and explicitly link this information to the St’át’imc Truvian data system; 3. Incorporate ecosystem services into adaptive, long-term monitoring programs by directly liking

ecosystem functions to services; 4. Assess and predict changes to ecosystem services and service loss within the Bridge Seton

Watershed; 5. Report on the status of ecosystem services in the Regional Study Area and the Local Study Area

in a way that can be integrated into watershed assessments and cumulative effects assessments;

6. Incorporate data from ecosystem services inventory, monitoring and reporting into management and policy decisions in the Bridge-Seton Watersheds with the goal of sustaining the flow of key ecosystem services in the Regional and Local Study Areas.

16


REFERENCES

Boyd, J. and Banzhaf S. 2007. What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units. Ecological Economics 63: 616 -626.

Brauman, K., Daily, G., Duarte, T., and Harold Mooney. 2007. "The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32: 67-98.

Brummett, R., Beveridge, M., and Ian Cowx. 2013. "Functional Aquatic Ecosystems, Inland Fisheries and the Millennium Development Goals." Fish and Fisheries (Oxford) 14 (3): 312-324.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2009. CCME Setting Strategic Directions for Water.

———. 2011. Selected Tools to Evaluate Water Monitoring Networks for Climate Change Adaptation. Ottawa, Ontario: CCME.

Chapman, P. 2012. "Adaptive Monitoring Based on Ecosystem Services." Science of the Total Environment 415 (0): 56-60.

Costanza, R., dArge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., et al. 1997. "The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital." Nature 387 (6630): 253-260.

Cowx, I., and M. Portocarrero Aya. 2011. "Paradigm Shifts in Fish Conservation: Moving to the Ecosystem Services Concept." Journal of Fish Biology 79 (6, Sp. Iss. SI): 1663-1680.

Daily, G. 1997. "What are Ecosystem Services?" AAAS Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition 163 (0): A6.

Hearnshaw, E., Cullen, R. and K. Hughey. 2010. Ecosystem Services Review of Water Projects. Lincoln University, New Zealansd: Australian Agriculrual and Resource Economics Society Annual Conference.

Heathwaite, A. 2010. "Multiple Stressors on Water Availability at Global to Catchment Scales: Understanding Human Impact on Nutrient Cycles to Protect Water Quality and Water Availability in the Long Term." Freshwater Biology 55 (Suppl. 1): 241-257.

Hooper, D., Chapin, F., Ewel, J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S. and J. Lawton, et al. 2005. "Effects of Biodiversity on Ecosystem Functioning: A Consensus of Current Knowledge." Ecological Monographs 75 (1): 3-35.

Lautenbach, S., Maes, J., Kattwinkel, M., Seppelt, R., Strauch, M., Scholz, M., Schulz-Zunkel, C., Volk, M., Weinert, J. and Carsten Dormann. 2012. "Mapping Water Quality-Related Ecosystem Services: Concepts and Applications for Nitrogen Retention and Pesticide Risk Reduction." International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services & Management 8 (1-2, Sp. Iss. SI): 35-49.

17


Mabery, S. and J. Elliot. 2012. " Insights from Long-Term Studies in the Windermere Catchment: External Stressors, Internal Interactions and the Structure and Function of Lake Ecosystems. " Freshwater Biology 57 (2): 233-243.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Miranda, M., Mohai, P., Bus, J., Charnley, G., Doward-King, E., Foster, P., Leckie, J. and WR Munns Jr. 2002. " Miranda, M; Mohai, P; Bus, J; Charnley, G; Doward-King, E; Foster, P; Leckie, J; Munns, WR Jr. 2002.Interconnections between Human Health and Ecological Integrity: Policy Concepts and Applications. " In Interconnections between Human Health and Ecological Integrity, 15. Pensacola, Florida: SETAC.

Munns, W., Helm, R., Adams, W., Clements, W., Cramer, M., Curry, M., DiPinto, L. et al. 2009. "Translating Ecological Risk to Ecosystem Service Loss." Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5 (4): 500-514.

Myers, S., Gaffikin, L., Golden, C., Ostfeld, R., Redford, K., Ricketts, T., Turner, W. and S. Osofsky. 2013. "Human Health Impacts of Ecosystem Alteration." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PNES Early Edition.

Tallis, H., Mooney, H., Andelman, S., Balvanera, P., Cramer, W., Karp, D. and Stephen Polasky, et al. 2012. "A Global System for Monitoring Ecosystem Service Change." Bioscience 62 (11): 977-986.

TRUCOST. 2013. Natural Capital at Risk. The Top 100 Externalities of Business. TEEB [The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity] for Business Coalition.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2012. The Future we Want: Biodiversity and Ecosystems— Driving Sustainable Development. United Nations Development Programme Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020. New York.

United Nations General Assembly. July 2010. Resolution A/RES/64/292.

United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). 2008. SEAA –Water : System of Environmental Accounting for Water: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Statistics Division.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Washington DC: USEPA Risk Assessment Forum.

Van Hecken, G. and Johan Bastiaensen. 2010. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Justified Or Not? A Political View." Environmental Science & Policy 13 (8): 785-792.

World Commission on Dams. 2000. The Report of the World Commission on Dams. Dams and Development. A New Decision Framework for Decision-making. Earthscan Publications. London and Sterling, VA.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2011. Resolution 64/24: Drinking Water, Sanitation and Health: World Health Organization (WHO).

18


APPENDIX A

TABLE 1: EXAMPLES OF FRESHWATER AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS

Category Ecosystem Services

Production Services

• Food provision: extraction of aquatic organisms for human consumption • Energy: non consumptive use of the aquatic environment for energy generation, i.e.,

hydropower • Water resources: abstraction of water for agricultural, domestic and industrial purposes • Freshwater supply: municipal and community water supply • Raw materials: extraction of minerals and organisms not for human consumption • Transport and navigation: use of waterways for shipping and communication

Regulation Services

• Climate regulation: balance and maintenance of the atmosphere, e.g. flooded forests and plant production

• Disturbance and prevention: flood and storm protection by natural flooding processes; • Water regulation: hydrological flow regulation (e.g. minimum river flows, flushing flows) • Disease regulation: parasite and toxic algal regulation • Bioremediation of waste; effluent cycling and removal of pollutants by capture and

sediments; fishes may maintain healthy aquatic systems that favour these processes • Fish as bioindicators

Cultural Services

• Cultural heritage and identity; value associated with freshwater environments themselves • Cognitive values: education and research resulting from freshwater ecosystems • Leisure and recreation: ornamentals and pleasure and sport fishing • Leisure and recreation: active and passive use of aquatic systems for non-consumptive

human pleasure, stimulation and well-being • Psychological and physiological values • Religious symbols • Dietary symbols, particularly demonstrating wealth

Support Services

• Control of pest organisms: invasive non-native species (e.g., algae, mussels, etc.) • Resilience and resistance; life support by the freshwater environment and its response to

pressures, including maintaining ecosystem balance • Biologically mediated habitat: habitat provided by aquatic organisms • Physical habitat: habitat provided by the physical (non-living) environment • Flood retention: management and control of flood risk • Flood forests: carbon capture • Nutrient cycling: the storage, cycling and maintenance of nutrients by aquatic environment • Nutrient transfer for upstream migration by anadromous species in nutrient poor regions • Food base for mammalian, bird and reptile predators • Existence: value derived from the aquatic environment without using it

(Adapted from Cowx and Portocarrero Aya 2011 and Hearnshaw et.al 2010).

19

ecosystem services in the bridge and seton watersheds seed...

Documents