Czc2010 Day 2 b

9

T U E S D A Y , 2 7 J U L Y 2 0 1 0 - A F T E R N O O N 13:00 - 13:30 Duffy 135

PLENARY

LOCAL VOICES AT THE FRONT LINE – STRENGTHENING COASTAL COMMUNITIES Melanie Wiber, Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of New Brunswick and Randall Angus, Director of Integrated Resource Management, Mi'kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island This presentation will highlight on-the-ground experiences and ongoing issues relating to coastal community engagement in ocean and coastal management. The presentation will explore the knowledge, capacity building and policy change needed to increase community inclusion in these processes. Moderator: Kathryn Parlee, Environment Canada

13:30 - 15:00 PAPER SESSIONS WORKSHOPS DISCUSSION CAFÉ Room: McDougall 243 Session theme: COASTAL COMMUNI-TIES AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT Chair: Madelaine Patterson, Coastal Community-University Research Alliance

Room: McDougall 328 Session theme: COASTAL MANAGE-MENT STRATEGIES Chair: Wayne Barchard, Environ-ment Canada

Room: McDougall 242 Session theme: AQUACULTURE Chair: Neil MacNair, Prince Edward Island Dept of Fisheries and Aquaculture

Room: McDougall 329 Session theme: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES IN SUPPORT OF ICOM Chair: Ray MacIsaac, Fisheries and Oceans Canada A Discussion Café on this topic will take place this afternoon.

Room: McDougall 246 Topic: LINKING CULTURES TO PROTECT MOTHER EARTH: GOVERNANCE FOR CONSERVATION Convenors: Marianne Janowicz and Hugh Akagi, Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership (BoFEP)

The Workshop will explore the evolution of the Western concepts of Conservation. It will also explore the foundations of Aboriginal culture (traditional govern-ance structures and oral traditions), seeking ways of reforging the relationship among cultures to protect Mother Earth.

Presenters:

Room: Kelley 211 Topic: THE C-CHANGE INTER-NATIONAL COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ALLIANCE (ICURA) PROJECT Convenor: Dan Lane, C-Change ICURA

The C-CHANGE project consists of interdisciplinary teams drawn from communi-ties, universities and the private sector in both Canada and the Caribbean. The teams are working to identify and map affected infrastructure, to assess their vulnerabilities, to develop risk management scenarios, and to prepare Commu-

Room: Schurman Market Square Topic: TRANS-BOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS: MAKING COMPLEX SYSTEMS UNDER-STANDABLE Lead: Susan Russell-Robinson, USGS

This Discussion Café is a follow-up to the Panel held this morning (Tuesday, 27 July) from 10:30 to noon on this topic.

Questions to be discussed include: • What indicators

do the three trans-boundary efforts have in common?

• Are there combinations of similar indicators that could be used to

13:35 - 13:55 Building capacity for Integrated Coastal Management: civil society engagement in high schools, Velta Douglas, University of New Brunswick

Coastal manage-ment: bridging the land-water divide, Marc Ouellette, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

The growth and challenges of aquaculture in Prince Edward Island, Kim Gill, Prince Edward Island Dept of Fisheries and Aquaculture

Ecosystem-based management and science tools for coastal communi-ties, Jon Grant, Dalhousie University

13:55 - 14:15 Institutional gaps in Canadian community-based management: the case of the Fundy Fixed Gear Council, Hubert Saulnier and Carolea White, Fundy Fixed Gear Council

Linking land to ocean in coastal planning: a comparative study of municipalities in Iceland and Norway, Morten Edvardsen, Norwe- gian University of Life Science

Overview of the oyster enhancement program conducted by the Prince Edward Island Shellfish Association, Frank Hansen, PEI Shellfish Association

Piloting the mapping of socio-cultural values and place attachment on a small island, Irene Novaczek, Institute of Island Studies

14:15 - 14:35 Alternative dispute Thinking outside the The development of Community

10

resolution: can it advance the stated policies of Integrated Management in Canadian fisheries and oceans?, Courtenay Parlee, Coastal CURA

sandbox: why management strategies for sandy beaches benefit from a plover’s eye view, Sue Abbott, Bird Studies Canada

the salmon aquaculture industry in southwestern New Brunswick, Bay of Fundy, 1978 to the present: changes in selected farm parameters and management policies, Blythe Chang, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

governance perspectives support social-ecological systems and resilience, Lisette Wilson, Dalhousie University

• Peter Wells, Dalhousie University, International Ocean Institute- Canada and BoFEP

• Gkisedtana-moogk, Wampanoag elder

• Alma Brooks, Maliseet elder

Note: Workshop continues until 15:00.

nity Adaptation Action Plans to address the anticipated changes.

Presenters: • Community

adaptation to coastal climate change: Canada and the Caribbean, John Clarke, University of Ottawa

• Project research methodology, Dan Lane, University of Ottawa

• C-Change partner and community of interest, Don Poole, City of Charlottetown (TBC)

• Caribbean community experience and work to date, Patrick Watson and Michael Sutherland, University of West Indies

• Discussion / questions

Note: Workshop continues until 15:00.

make indices? • What capacity

building efforts between Canada and the United States, or between the three trans-boundary indicator efforts, would greatly advance data collection or monitoring to deliver best indicators to local and regional decision-makers

• What indicator tools need to be developed or improved to greatly increase ease of use and widen the pool of users?

14:35 - 14:55 Learning to share: communication and information flow regarding the south west New Brunswick finfish aquaculture industry, Donna Curtis, University of New Brunswick

Designing integrated coastal zone programs for reducing non-point source pollution, Timothy Hennessey, University of Rhode Island

Aquatic invasive species - research priorities, Jeff Davidson, Atlantic Veterinary College

The Green Shores rating and certifica-tion system for coastal develop-ments, Brian Emmett, Archipelago Marine Research

11

T U E S D A Y , 2 7 J U L Y 2 0 1 0 - A F T E R N O O N 15:00 - 15:30 NUTRITION BREAK: McDougall Hall, Schurman Market Square 15:30 - 17:00 PAPER SESSIONS COMMUNITY FORUM DISCUSSION CAFÉS FIELD TRIP

Room: McDougall 243 Session theme: COASTAL ISSUES Chair: Patricia Manuel, Dalhousie University

Room: McDougall 328 Session theme: MARINE PROTECTED AREAS Chair: Laura Park, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Room: McDougall 242 Session theme: COASTAL PROCESSES Chair: Terence Day, Okanagan College

Room: McDougall 329 Topic: COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND COASTAL MANAGE-MENT Convenor: Coastal Community-University Research Alliance (Coastal CURA)

The Community Forum will focus on practical issues faced by coastal communities, and lessons learned by these communities, in dealing with the management of coasts and oceans across Canada (and beyond). The forum will facilitate discussions among coastal commu-nities, community organizations, NGOs, researchers and other participants, to explore next steps in policy and practice, and opportuni-ties for building on connections across the country. Questions for discussion may include:

HELD CONCURRENTLY

Room: Schurman Market Square Topic: SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL VALUES IN SUPPORT OF INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN MANAGEMENT Lead: Ray MacIsaac, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

This Discussion Café is a follow-up to the Paper Session held this afternoon (Tuesday, 27 July) from 13:30 to 15:00 on this topic.

Room: Schurman Market Square Topic: LIFE AFTER THE OCEAN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH NETWORK (OMRN): WHO SPEAKS FOR OUR OCEANS AND COASTS? Lead: Dan Lane, Ocean Management Research Network (OMRN)

MUSSEL AQUACUL-TURE IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND: AN EDUCATIONAL CRUISE DOWN THE MONTAGUE RIVER Organizer: PEI Dept of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development

The cruise will stop at one of the aquaculture leases in the Montague River to witness a typical mussel harvest-ing operation and see how the farmers are managing the recent tunicate fouling problem. Delegates will also get a chance to examine how the lobster fishery on the Island operates and discuss the state of the fishery. An educational lobster trap will be hauled. Dinner is included.

15:35 - 15:55 Communication networks for Integrated Manage-ment: a case study of the Placentia Bay/ Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area, Amy Tucker, Memorial University

Exploring areas of ecological significance along the Atlantic Coast of Nova Scotia for conservation planning, Aimee Gromack, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Analysis of the short and long-term processes involved in coastline erosion, Nathan Crowell, Applied Geomatics Research Group

15:55 - 16:15 A temporal and spatial assessment of persis-tent marine debris accumulation seaward of the Cardiff Bay Barrage, South Wales, UK, Michael Phillips, Swansea Metropolitan University

Management planning for Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, Norm Sloan, Parks Canada

Coastal morphology and the implications of sand mining: West Point, Prince Edward Island, Michael Davies, Coldwater Consulting Ltd

16:15 - 16:35 Mapping of eelgrass (Zostera marina) landscapes: data for a spatially complex mosaic, Jeffrey Barrell, Dalhousie University

Commercial fisheries closures in Marine Protected Areas on Canada's Pacific Coast: the exception not the rule, Carrie Robb, Living Oceans Society

Coastal erosion and climate change / variability impacts in the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, British Columbia, Hawley Beaugrand, University of Victoria

12

16:35 - 16:55 Challenges of success-ful integrated coastal zoning: lessons from the southern part of the Gulf of Thailand, Suvaluck Satumanatpan, Mahidol University

Basin Head post Marine Protected Area designation: monitoring and management, Ray MacIsaac, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Geomorphology, sedimentology, and management issues: Hog Island (Pemam-giag) sandhills, Prince Edward Island, Norm Catto, Memorial University

• What are the most significant barriers to the participation of coastal communities in integrated ocean and coastal management?

• What are the top three priorities to improve the role of coastal communities in integrated ocean and coastal manage-ment institutions?

• What role should governments, research organiza-tions, coastal communities, NGOs, and others play in overcoming the barriers and tackling the above priorities?

Note: Forum continues until 17:00.

This Discussion Café will pose several questions: • How can the study of

the human dimen-sions of oceans and coastal policy be delivered?

• What is the role of the government in the study of the human dimensions of oceans and coastal policy?

• What are the roles of researchers, coastal communities, industry, and stakeholders in contributing to oceans and coastal policy?

The Discussion Café will include members of the OMRN Network Secretariat (including Maureen Woodrow, Executive Director, and Kaitlin Fahey, Coordina-tor), as well as OMRN Board Members, Work-ing Groups members, and members present.

The growth and challenges of

aquaculture in Prince Edward Island

Kim GillPEI Fisheries, Aquaculture and Rural Development

Aquaculture – What is it?

Aquaculture in PEI• Mussels

– PEI cultures 80% of the total in North America• Oysters

– PEI produces the world famous Malpeque Oyster

• Finfish– Pond culture and land-based tank systems

produce Rainbow Trout, Atlantic Salmon and Atlantic Halibut

Aquaculture in PEI• Total production of 29,500 tonnes• Total value of $29,659,000• Aquaculture provides direct employment

for 2500 Islanders, many year-round• Aquaculture takes place in rural

communities– Shellfish grown in rivers and bays– Finfish grown in land-based systems

PEI Mussel Industry • Mussel culture is a self-sustaining world class

industry • 41.1 million lbs produced in 2009• Value of $24.7 million• 1500 people employed• 10,400 acres of production

PEI Mussel Production

Main mussel production areas

PEI Mussel Industry• Mussels are produced using a unique method

called the longline system

Seed collection

Seed harvest

Grow out

Harvest

Seed harvest

Challenges• Mussel seed

– Starfish Predation– Green algae fouling– Tunicate fouling– Transfers from

tunicate restricted areas

– Too much seed or too little seed

• Mussel grow-out– Starfish predation– Fouling by tunicates

and other species– Blooms of toxic algae

species– Sea duck predation on

newly socked mussels– Access to new areas

for expansion

PEI Mussel Industry - Challenges

Aquatic Invasive Species

Starfish Predation

Algae FoulingDuck

Predation

Meeting the challenges head on…

PEI Oyster Industry• Oyster fishery has a long history, and there

remains good potential to expand culture activities

• 5 million pounds harvested in 2009• Value of $5.1 million• 477 lease holders, 760 lease sites representing

6,481 acres• Approx. 75 utilize off-bottom technology• 1070 licensed fishers - 750 fishers active• Oyster landings - 75% public fishery, 25%

leases

PEI Oyster ProductionPEI Oyster Landings & Values 1980 - 2008

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Year

000's Lbs $ 000's

Main oyster production areas

PEI Oyster Industry • Oysters are produced by either spreading them

on the bottom, in the water column in racks or bags, or near the water’s surface in floating bags

or OysterGro cages

PEI Oyster Industry - Challenges

• “Quality” – reduction in numbers of choice grades

• Fouling – tunicates, second set (mussels and oysters) and other organisms

• Predation – oyster drills, starfish, moonsnails

• Land-use impacts• MSX• New shellfish closure events

ChallengesAnoxic Events

Shell “shape”

Oyster Drill Predation

Fouling

Resolving our oyster issues…

Finfish

• Land-based production– High quality, disease-free ground water

• Specialized in hatchery products– Closely linked to larger industries in Atlantic Canada

• 6-7 million eggs (2006)• 5.2 million fingerlings (2007)• Landed value of the industry approx. $1.7 million

and economic value of approx $4.3 million

Land based tanks -outdoor

Land-based tanks - indoor

Pond cages

Land-based Halibut Facility

Finfish Challenges

• New Import/Export regulations under NAAHP (replacing FHPR)

• Limited to land-based operations – Sea cages are not ideal in PEI estuaries with

the environment

Questions?

Science clients

Government / Industry: Technical measurements executed in-house, farmed out, universities

Coastal communities: ENGO’s, universities, sharing with regulators

Regulatory framework is poorly developed re coastal communities

How does information flow – public meetings, web, printed material

What are the steps?

How are decisions made – zoning boards, municipal councils, provincial and federal governments

How can coastal residents be engaged?

Lots of gaps

Science support for coastal communities:

Development phase – decisions support tools (DST) / predictive modellingscenario building

Implementation – monitoring

Both cases: Ecosystem-based management needs1. OBJECTIVES2. METRIC TO MEASURE PROGRESS3. BOTH AT EBM SCALE

Local and far-field locations

Technical requirements:

Method is readily accessible with affordable equipment

Sampling and analyses are reliable via trained participants

Data format is readily accessed and transferred between parties

Data are gelolocated

Data are interpretable by trained participants

Measurements are sensitive to environmental change and sustainability

Data are sensitive to far-field impacts

Many marine impacts are in the form of eutrophication:Nutrification, dredge spoil, pulp and paper, fish plants, aquaculture

Redox stratification in marine sediments

Organic input stimulates oxygen consumption, exceeding oxygen renewal, leading to hypoxic conditions

RPD = redox potential discontinuity

The benthos integrates impacts in time and space!

Pearson-Rosenberg model of benthic disturbance & succession

Pearson-Rosenberg-Rhoads with SPI

Sediment profile imagery(SPI)

Quantifying sediment profile images

Benthic habitat quality index from SPI

http://www.acapsj.com/Home.html

The precedent: ATLANTIC COASTAL ACTION PROGRAM

Diver collected SPI

False colour SPI

aRPD is at 0 cm

GPSVisualizer – simple online GIS via Google Earth

aRPD depth – larger circles more oxygenated

User-friendly GIS: GEOPDF

Ancillary data: surface sediment photography

Presence of

FaunaMicrobial mats (sulfide indicators)Sediment typeSeaweeds, shells, etc.

White sulfur bacteria on sediment surface

Reasonable expectations

Participation in scientific data collection as well as interpretation of the results

Confidence that validated environmental information is available and that adaptive management changes can be made on this basis

Interaction in the management process, including ecosystem-based management

Linking land to ocean in planning

A case study of local planning elements in Isafjordarbaer (Iceland) and Stranda (Norway)

Morten Edvardsen

CZC 2010 Charlottetown, PEI

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Two main issues raised in this short presentation:

1) how spatial or land use planning (LUP) is linking up with water resource management (WRM), alternatively marine resource management (MRM)

and

2) how local authorities try to handle natural hazards in the coastal zone

Both issues are briefly discussed on the basis of case

studies in the municipality of Isafjordarbaer, in the

Northwest of Iceland, and the municipality of Stranda,

in the West of Norway.

Lin

kin

g la

ndto

oce

an

in p

lannin

g

2

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

1

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

3

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

General and world-wide problem:

Establishing links between the marine areas and the land

areas and related management and planning systems.

Water resource management (WRM) not strongly

related/connected to spatial or land use planning (LUP).

Marine resource management (MRM) is often even worse

off.

WRM and MRM often ”living their own lives” in the

bureaucracy, and so is LUP.

A major present challenge in coastal areas:

Establish strong links and inter-actions between WRM, MRM

and LUP.

4

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The coastal zone: the human habitat with most

human activities and most populated one.

Which logically represents largest threaths to the

environment

The coastal zone is also area most hurt by climate

changes

As a consequence: the coastal zone should be the

Priority 1 area for management and planning efforts

and resources.

Logical ?: Yes.

Reality ?: No.

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

5

Logic and reality

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Typical present spatial coastal area uses, most of these would be conflicting with the others

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Coastal zone spatial (and potential conflicting) uses

Shipping (sea traffic)

Commercial fishing

Aqua culture/sea farming (salmon, cod, sea shells, seaweeds, etc)

Oil/gas exploration and exploitation activities

Industrial activities, incl marine resources production plants

Bridges, sub-merged higway tunnels, pipelines and cables, etc

Beach recreational housing

Tourism

Outdoor recreation, incl yachting, kayaking, hunting, fishing, diving

Nature, marine and coastal heritage conservation

Housing

Exploitation of sand, sea gravel, minerals

Resipient (sewage, waste water)

Military defense purposes and activities

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Major problem to integrated approach:

Division of responsibilities and powers between the

sea and the land area management.

The situation different from state to state, but in

Iceland and Norway problems are now relatively

small due to two factors:

1) The European Union rules for river basin manage-

ment and planning to include the adjacent sea area

to 1 Nautical Mile (NM) off the coast base line in the

basin.

(The 2000 EU Water Framework Directive, adopted

in Iceland in 2009 and Norway in 2007)

and that

2) Both Iceland and Norway have a history of

including the sea area close to land, in formal

spatial land use plans.

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

8

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Iceland:

Local (municipality) formal and legally

binding master planning maps can

designate spatial use categories in sea,

up to 115 meters from shoreline.

Norway:

Local (municipality) and regional (county

council) formal spatial plans can designate

spatial use categories in sea up to 1 NM

outside of the shore base line (!)

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

9

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

10

The red boundary is showing the sea area in theBokna Fjord (Stavanger, Norway), which can be zoned in formal and binding localplans

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Locations of Case municipalities (Google Earth image manipulated)

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

11

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Iceland case municipality: Isafjardarbaer (marked in red)

Population: 3900Area: 2416 km2

Location: 66 0 N; 23 0 W

12

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The Isafjardarbaer Municipal center: Isafjordur Town,

located on a sandspit in the Skutulsfjördur Fjord, surrounded by high cliffs

13Photo: http://hsvest.is/

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Isafjordur and mountains in winter,

(observe the hillside debris and slush flow marks)

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

14

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Map showing NW fjords in Iceland, separated by mountains and steep hills

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

15

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Norway case municipality: Stranda

Population: 4546Area: 866 km2 (incl sea surface)Location: 620 N; 60 E

16

Map of Norway, the County of Möre and Romsdal marked in red

Map of county, the Municipality of Stranda, marked in red

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

3D map of the Storfjord system

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

17

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Community of Stranda with ferry port.

The small town is situated at the Synnulven Fjord, leading Eastwards (right) to the Geiranger Fjord

18Photo: G V Blindheim, Architect MNAL, Aalesund, Norway

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The Geiranger Fjord (inner part of Storfjord), is a UNESCO World Heritage Site

Photo: Knut Slinning

http://www.fjordnorway.com/no/AKTIVITETER/Helse-og-velvare/?view=article

19










NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The coastal Express (11 000 GRT, 120 meters long), is passing a cliff overhang in Storfjorden,

across from Stranda Center

20

Photo: Author, 2010.

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Linking land to sea; the coastal zone

A useful and easily acceptable definition of the coastal zone is the following:

“The coastal zone is the coastal waters as far as they are influenced by land, and land as far as this is influenced by the sea - -”.

By this definition, coastal zone planning seems to be theright instrument for establishing this link.However, what goes into the CZP is crucial for theoutcome.

One single authority and planning system for both land and sea would be most helpful.

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no 22

In the Nordic countries, the planning powerswere following the private ownership boundaries

into the sea

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The Icelandic planning system

23

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The Norwegian planning system

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

24

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The Land use maps

Master Plan, Land use map (typical scales: 1: 5000 – 1: 50000)

Local Zoning Plan (typical scales: 1: 500 – 1:2000)

Both these types are legally binding (in Iceland and Norway)

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

25

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Local Zoning Plan Stranda Center

26

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Formal Master Plan (Coastal Zone part, Fanafjord, City of Bergen, Norway).

Examples of zoning for a seaplane port, marinas, sailing regatta lanes, marine protection area, public recreational areas, (private) recreational housing, etc

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Bridging the gap:

A single planning and spatial resource management

system, covering both land and marine spaces and

resources

A single cross-sectoral (combinding land and sea) spatial

data base and mapping system (GIS)

One unified zoning power (planning) administration,

preferably based in a municipal or county council,

ensuring citizen participation and involvement

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

28

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

2

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

29

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Part 2: Natural hazards mitigation and planning

The climate and topography of Iceland and Norway create

serious hazards of rock falls, landslides and avalanches.

When avalanches or landslides fell into narrow fjords, the

population along the fjords are exposed to the additional

hazard of a tsunami.

In Iceland 200 persons have been killed in such disasters

since 1900.

In Norway 1400 persons are recorded killed after such

disasters since 1850.

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

30

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Communities in the Iceland Westfjords were severely hit by snow avalanches in the Winter of 1994-95.

Sudavik: 14 deadFlateyri: 20 dead.A large number of houses destroyed.

In Sudereyri is a large number of houses damaged due to a tsunami created

by a large avalanche across the fjord.

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

31Home destroyed in Sudavik. Photo: À Jónsson,

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Avalanche deflection dams (triangle) at Flatyeri, serving the built-up area with housing, shops and

schools below.

32Photo: Author

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Cut from the Isafjordur hazard zoning map (IMO, January 2003, Map 12)

33

Danger Zones Lower level of risk Risk per 1000 years Building restrictions

C 3 x 10-4 per year 0,3 No new houses, user restrictions

B 1 x 10-4 per year 0,1 No new homes. Schools, etc reinforced

A 0,3 x 10-4 per year 3,0 No new homes. Schools, etc reinforced

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The map below is a part of the formal Isafjordur Master Plan; a legal document, where the map symbols (lines, colors, etc) all signify specific land uses (”zoning”),

empowering the hazard zones

34

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Graphic display of snow, ice and debris flow path model at Isafjordur Town

(Conway S J et al 2010: Geomorphology: 114:556-572)

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

35

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

36

A tsunami is hitting Aardalstangen communitycenter (Sognefjord, Norway) after a rock slide

across the fjord.

No persons injured.

Aug 19, 1983. Photo: Kurt Johansen, Aardal Municipality , Source:

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Newspaper headlines March 18, 2010:

”recreational home and highway buried under 10 000 metric tons of snow - - - ”

(Sunndal, Norway, Photo and text: Aftenposten)

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

37

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Major disasters in the Möre and Romsdal County, Norway:

The Loen disaster 1905: 61 dead due to tsunami action, 50 000 m3 rock materials.

38

The Tafjord disaster 1934: 40 dead due to tsunami action, 1 million m3 rock, 64 meters wave.

The Loen disaster 1936: 74 dead due to tsunami action, 3 million m3 rock materials, 70 meters wave.

Loen 1905

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

The Aaknes site; a ”timer bomb” of 40 (-70) millions m3 of rock

39

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

A comparable disaster in Canada: The Frank / Turtle Mountain disaster, Alberta

1903;

30 million m3, 70 persons dead

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

40

Source: Geological Survey of Canada, photo number GSC 132916

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

On-line GIS presentation of rockfalls and avalanches in Stranda

”Skrednett”, NGU

Geological Survey of Norway

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

41

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no 42

Rock slab movement surveillance at the top ofAaknes site in Stranda, Norway

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Illustration of possible landslide at Aaknes

43

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

- - and the resulting tsunami hitting the Hellesylt community; a wave 45 meters high

(one estimate indicates 80 meters).

44

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Mitigative actions:

Both in Iceland and Norway the dangers of landslides and

avalanches are met by

* Mapping of incidents and accidents (State supported GIS

systems)

* Establishing hazard surveillance and monitoring

systems (operating locally, supported by State)

* Establishing an organization for alarms and evacuations

(State and regional Civil Defense authorities)

* Identifying the hazard zones in formal master and

detailed local plans, prohibiting new housing and

construction (municipalities)

* constructing deflections dams where housing cannot

be moved (State funded)

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

45

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

In Möre & Romsdal County, Norway, there are 3 potentially disasterous rockfalls sites:

46

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no

Some of the references:

Decaulne A 2007: ”Snow-avalanche and debris-flow in the fjords of north-western Iceland,

mitigation and prevention”, Natural Hazards, : 41: 81-98

European Environment Agency 2008: ”European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive”

European Environment Agency 2000: ” European Union Water Framework Directive”

IMO (Icelandic Meteorological Office) 2010: ”Avalanches in Iceland”,

http://en.vedur.is/avalanches/articles/

ICG 2010. International Centre for Geohazards , at NGI, Norway. http://www.geohazards.no/

Iceland National Planning Agency 2010: ”Skipulags stofnun”,

http://www.skipulagsstofnun.is/focal/webguard.nsf/key2/english.html

Ministry of Environment 2010. ”Planning (in Norway)”,

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/Selected-topics/planning.html?id=1317

Nordic Council of Ministers 2009: ”Marine spatial planning in the Nordic region”, TemaNord : 528:17

NVE 2010. Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, ”Floods and landslides”,

http://www.nve.no/en/Floods-and-landslides/

Aaknes/Tafjord Emergency Center 2010,

http://stranda.kommune.no/artikkel.aspx?AId=1489&back=1&MId1=568

DETTE E

R T

ITTELEN

PÅ P

RESEN

TASJO

NEN

47

http://en.vedur.is/avalanches/articles/

http://www.geohazards.no/











http://stranda.kommune.no/artikkel.aspx?AId=1489&back=1&MId1=568

NO

RW

EG

IAN

UN

IVERSIT

Y O

F L

IFE S

CIE

NCES

www.umb.no 48

Thank you for your attention!

Morten Edvardsen

( [email protected])

Professor in Urban and Regional Planning,

Norwegian University of Life Sciences,

Aas, Norway

mailto:/[email protected]

Overview of the oysterenhancement program conductedby the PEI Shellfish Association

Coastal Zone Canada Conference July 27, 2010

The PEI Oyster Industry

P1,070 licence holders

P700 active fishers

P477 lease holders on 6,481acres

PApproximately 300 lease holders active, 80use off-bottom technology

PLandings 65% public fishery, 35% leases

P15 oyster dealers

Objectives of PEI ShellfishAssociation

P The objective of the PEI Shellfish Association is tofoster the development of the shellfish fishery andprotect the interest of oyster fishermen of PEI.

P To encourage and promote the oyster industry andcollect general information and other material whichmay be of interest to the oyster industry.

P To promote research, development and education andto make recommendations to the Provincial andFederal Governments as well as to conduct projectson oyster shellfish improvements.

PEI Shellfish Association Enchancement Program

Ellerslie PEI

Oyster Enhancement Program

P Ongoing for last 35+ years.

P Program to enchance oyster production on publicbeds.

P Aquaculture techniques are used to collect and growseed for the enhancement program

P One of the main activities is to collect seed to berelayed on natural oyster beds.

P Also includes oyster relays, cultivation and shellspreading.

P Oyster larvae monitoring isconducted during the spawningseason. < Collectors are dipped in a

cement mixture and deployedon lines in the BidefordReserve. After the oyster setoccurs, collectors are dippedin a lime solution to controlstarfish and sea squirts.

P In fall, collectors are harvestedand some put into trays to beoverwintered for spreading thefollowing year. The remainderare spread immediately onpredetermined public beds.

Enchancement ActivitiesSpat Collection

Harvesting and threshing oystercollectors

P Shell spreading projects arecarried out in designatedareas to establish new shellbeds that will eventuallyproduce a natural oyster bed. Shell is purchased andspread on predeterminedsites.

P Bedeque Bay, CascumpecBay and North River areareas that have beensuccessfully enhanced withthis type of project.

Enhancement ActivitiesShell Spreading

Enhancement Activities

Cultivation

P Shellbed cultivation isa commonly utilizedpractice to exposeoyster shell from thebottom sediments.

P The clean shellprovides an excellentsubstrate for larvaloysters to set on andhas been proven to bea successful techniqueto naturally enhanceoyster beds.

P Shallow water: With the possibility of oystersbeing frozen into the ice in lowtide, relays have beenconducted to move theseoysters to deeper water -normally adjacent to the samearea.

P Deep water: Deep water relays areconducted in deep water areas(eg. channels) and moved toshallow beds where the oysterscan be more easily harvested.

Enhancement ActivitiesRelays

P Starfish are an important predatorof shellfish. Starfish traps havebeen developed and used for thelast several years.

P The traps work very well, but withlarge numbers of starfish presentin the system it is difficult toremove enough animals to reducetheir impact.

Predator ControlStarfish

P Codium (oyster thief)attaches to oystersand as it matures itbecomes buoyant.

P With a strong windand tide the plant cancarry the oysters toshore or other areas.

Pest ControlCodium fragile

P Sea squirts (sea grapes) havebeen around for many years andhave been successfully controlledby using a lime dip. < Clubbed tunicates are infesting

mussel operations in MalpequeBay and have been foundadjacent to our spat collectionlines in the Bideford River. Clubbed tunicates can also becontrolled by a lime dip.

< Other types of tunicates aroundthe island are the violet tunicate,golden star tunicate and vasetunicate.

Pest ControlTunicates

PEI Shellfish AssociationsActivities

P 8000 oyster spat collectors deployed.

P 900 tubs of spat (18,000,000 oysters) were relayed tovarious rivers on PEI.

P 2,400 bags of seed were overwintered in Bideford River.

P 529 tubs (6 peck per tub) of one year old oysters werepurchased and spread in various rivers.

P An oyster relay (1,610 tubs) was conducted in BedequeBay.

P Continually adding broodstock to the Bideford Reserve.

P Major oyster promotion carried out at the Tyne ValleyOyster Festival and the PEI International ShellfishFestival.

PEI Shellfish Association

Reasons for success

P Support from the Industry

P Financial and technical support from the Province

P Continued support from DFO

P Municipal support from Summerside, Charlottetown andother PEI municipalities

Challenges

PNutrient loading (water quality)

PSiltation

PAccess to launching sites

PMonitoring of survival of seed atvarious sites

Nutrient Loading

PUse of fertlizers andexcess nitrates haveincreased algal bloomsin PEI estuaries.

Siltation and Erosion

Landing Sites

PLoss of sites due tolandownerrestrictions

PCongestion due toincreased use atcertain sites

Thank You

Irené NovaczekInstitute of Island Studies

Social & Cultural Values Mapping in the coastal zone - a PEI case study

Q: WHAT DO PEOPLE VALUE?

A: More than just money

Why do values matter in coastal and ocean management?

Motivate individual and collective actions

Motivate reactions to proposed management activities & developments

If made visible, can be a tool for proactive planning & decision-making that will be widely acceptable

How can we identify values attached to place?

Raymond, C., and G. Brown. 2007. A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes toward tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 15(5):1-22

Raymond, C., and G. Brown. 2007. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward Mapping Place Attachment. Applied Geography. 27:89-111.

Brown, G., C. Smith, L. Alessa, and A. Kliskey. 2004. A comparison of perceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biological importance. Applied Geography

24(2):161-180.Brown, G. and P. Reed. 2000. Validation of a forest values typology

for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 46(2):240-247.

Social and Cultural Values Mapping To locate diverse human values

in relation to place.

To make local knowledge visible and accessible

To integrate local values with other data (geological, biological, economic) for the purpose of informed decision-making

Will it work on the coast in Atlantic Canada as a tool for coastal management and climate change adaptation planning?

• Collaboration among IIS, SGSLCS and DFO

• Focus group trials in PEI, NS and NB in winter 2009

• Random mail out survey trial, winter 2010

The island province of PEI offers a manageable geographic space with clear boundaries and jurisdictional powers within which to conduct research .

The values(from Brown 2005)

Part of the survey instrument: a map and sticker dots that were used to indicate the particular values people attached to places on the map.

Selecting 200 random addresses Result: half permanent & half seasonal residents

Survey Responses: 60 returned, 57 usable / complete

Sorting Maps & Questionnaires

A completedsurvey map

Georeferencing the data using GIS

Entering Data Points in QGIS

Photo: Peter Rukavina

Aggregated values

Each point referenced to respondent age, gender,education,profession, home location

We can display results one value at a time eg:Places with historic value OR by demographic

Men’s Values Women’s Values

Some general findings…• High numbers of highly educated and retired

persons; few fishers and farmers• Women mapped more points than men• Seasonal residents mapped almost twice as

many points as permanent residents• All groups were similar in terms of the

proportion of points mapped for each value• BUT the general geographic location of those

points varied

Seasonal residents mapped

more points on the shore

“There's nothing more soothing

than walking on the beach or swimming - very therapeutic.”

“While change is inevitable, I

hope Islanders will preserve as much of their natural heritage as feasible.”

The shore has changed … since the

causeway was built to Robinson‟s Island in

the 1950s

Qualitative data provided

Local environmental historyFuture visions

Explanations of values

What has intrinsic value …Places mentioned as having „intrinsic‟ value includedwoodlands, beaches, estuaries, bays, and dunes.

ConcernsRespondents expressed concern over rampanthousing development, the abuse of thedunes, pollution, forest clear-cutting, protection ofarcheological sites, and preservation of biodiversityand wildlife.

Aesthetic values

“Generally, the landscape that folds into the North Shore is especially spectacular against sunset or sunrise. I love the sounds and smells and omnipotence of the Gulf, the speed with which the weather can change, the windstorms and the calms…”

Values mapped

Land vs stream/estuary and ocean

Predominant land values

Predominant water values

Where to from here?

• Community collaboration : use in local planning and public education

• Climate change scenario modelling• Overlap sea level rise, flood & erosion

predictions on values mapped• Use to engage public in planning for

adaptation

Thanks ! to the research team

Dr Ann HowattDr Joshua MacFadyenFogho IkedeChrissy CerminaraDr Greg Brown (advisor)Dr Darren Bardati (advisor)

AcknowledgementsThe SCVMP team would like to thank the

following groups for their contributions: Department of Fisheries and Oceans SGSL Coalition for Sustainability UPEI Library: Mark Leggott and staff North Shore Municipality & Friends of

Covehead Watershed Provincial Department of Environment,

Energy & Forestry, Resource Inventory and Modelling Section

Presented by Sue AbbottBird Studies Canada - Atlantic Region

Thinking outside the sandbox:

Why management strategies for sandy beaches benefit from a plover's eye view

Environment Canada

• Sandy beaches are most heavily used type of shore (Schalcher et al. 2007).

Sandy Beaches: Globally threatened habitats

• Public spaces facing intense and diverse pressures.

• Sandy beaches trapped in “coastal squeeze” (Schlacher et al. 2007).

Jen Rock

BSCunknown

Beach-dependent wildlife caught in the middle

Environment Canada

H. Toom H. Toom H. Toom

H. Toom H. ToomB. Caverhill

Added-value for our communities

• Buffers against storm surges and sea-level rise;

• Accessible places for learning and exploration;

• Outdoor spaces for healthy living;

• Support local economies.

(Schwartz 2005)

• Small (18 cm) migratory shorebird.

• Beach breeding habitat lost and degraded largely due to recreation and development.

• Endangered (federally and in most provinces)

Piping Plover: beach-dependent species at risk

breedingwintering

Charadrius melodus melodus

H. Toom

Eastern Canada: >200 beaches identified as critical habitat in proposed Recovery Strategy

Distribution of critical habitat in E. Canada.(Environment Canada 2010)

Piping Plover: Useful umbrella species

• Use of beaches coincides with critical life cycle phases of other flora and fauna;

• Sensitive to human activities that can negatively affect other flora and fauna, e.g.:- ATV use - development- dogs off-leash - waste

• Dependent on natural coastal processes.

(Hecker 2008, Environment Canada 2008)

Environment Canada

Managing with a plover‟s eye view

Key principles practiced from Carolinas to Maritimes:

•Timing: avoiding management activities during sensitive periods.

•Location: appropriate placement of infrastructure (if needed) and recreational zones.

•Protection: Managing habitat (and humans).

•Monitoring

Environment Canada

Managing with a plover‟s eye view

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Migration preparation

Plovers arrive

Nest initiation

Incubation

Hatching & Rearing

Fledging

Timing Location Protection Monitoring


• Be aware of sensitive breeding habitats.

• Reduce habitat degradation by planning infrastructure, access points, and recreation zones.

Managing with a Plover‟s Eye View

Reduce disturbances in sensitive habitats:

• Evaluate activities that may disturbhabitat and schedule appropriately.

• Keep vehicles off beach year-round.

• Implement waste control strategy.

• Educate beach and enforcement staff.

• Post wildlife habitat signs.

• Utilise resources (e.g., volunteers)to help inform public.

Canadian GeographicNov/Dec „06





• Monitor biodiversity to inform management.

• Strengthen collaborations with monitoring programs on beaches, such as:

Environment Canada

- Piping Plover recovery programs

- Natural history clubs

- Canadian Sea Turtle Network‟s jellyfish survey

- Important Bird Area Caretakers

Conclusions

• Sandy beaches and dunes face intense pressures.

• High ecological, cultural, and economic value.

• >200 beaches will be listed as critical habitat.

• Stewardship responsibility.

• Timing, location, protection and monitoring: key elements of wise management.

• Benefits coastal biodiversity and long-term integrity of beach system.

Conclusions

• Regional resources for beach managers.

• E. Canada Piping Plover Working Group meeting.

• Share challenges and successes with others.

Acknowledgements

The Government of Canada Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk

Program support:

Other program partners:

Walmart-Evergreen Green Grants

TD Friends of the Environment

Fisheries and OceansCanada

Pêches et OcéansCanada

The development of the salmon aquaculture industry in the coastal area of southwestern

New Brunswick, Bay of Fundy, 1978 to present:

B.D. Chang1, K. Coombs2, & F.H. Page1

1 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Biological Station, St. Andrews, NB2 New Brunswick Department of Agriculture and Aquaculture, St. George, NB

Species

• Predominantly Atlantic salmon to date

• Other species have also been grown:

– rainbow trout, Arctic char, halibut, haddock, and cod

• IMTA currently at several farms in SWNB (Chopin, Robinson et al.)

– Salmon, mussels, kelp





Bay of Fundy finfish aquaculture leases 2009

Québec

Maine

NewBrunswick

PEI

Nova Scotia



Finfish aquaculture in SWNB 2009

• Number of leases: 94

• Number of active salmon farms: ~56

• Number of non-salmon leases: 10

• Total area of leases: 1 600 ha (16 km2)

– % of total SWNB area: 0.3%

– % of nearshore SWNB area (<50 m depth): 1.3%

• Production (2008): 26 000 t ($192 million)

• Employment (2008): 1 400 direct + 800 indirect

First salmon farm

• Federal-Provincial-private sector collaboration

• Started 1978 at Lords Cove, Deer Island

• First harvest of Atlantic salmon in 1979: 6 t





Growth in number of farms & production

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

45 000

1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Pro

du

cti

on

(t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nu

mb

er

of

mari

ne g

row

ou

t sit

es

Salmon production

Number of finfish leases

Number of operating salmon farms

1978-83: Slow growth•Financial constraints•Smolt shortage

1983: 5 farms, 72 t

1984-86: rapid growth• Financial assistance (Can-NB)• Private hatcheries

1986: 29 farms, 727 t• Moratorium

ISA outbreak•Started 1996-97

• Continuing ISA• Implementation of new ABMA framework & other fish health management practices• peak production in 2006 (41 000 t)

Rapid growth in early-mid 1990s

Recovery:• Implementation of ABMAs & other fish health management practices



Growth in number of farms & area

No. of farm

leases

Total area(ha)

Average farm area

(ha)

No. of operating

farmsTotal

no. of fish

Average no. of fish per

farmVolume

(t)Value

(C$million)

1980 2 n/a n/a 2 10 800 5 400 13 0.11985 19 23 1.3 19 332 000 17 500 399 4.81990 50 289 5.9 49 4 600 000 93 900 7 265 71.91995 66 762 11.7 66 9 540 000 144 500 14 490 111.62000 86 1 215 14.3 82 15 650 000 190 900 29 100 181.52005 91 1 410 15.7 67 19 130 000 285 500 35 000 225.02008 95 1 624 17.3 56 17 360 000 310 000 26 000 192.1

Salmon production

Year

Salmon farming activityFinfish leases

What makes a good farm site?



For growing farmed salmon (Saunders 1995):

• protection from wind and waves • suitable year-round temperatures • adequate flushing (currents & depth)

Some of these criteria would suggest that nearshore, shallow sites would be best:

• e.g. protection from wind and waves

Other criteria would suggest that sites should be further offshore and deeper:

• e.g. sufficient flushing/currents and ample depth; minimum water temperatures

What makes a good farm site?



Other factors:

• separation from adjacent salmon farms• 1985 guideline recommendation: minimum 300 m• Aquaculture Act (1991) and subsequent policy: 300 m• lack of good info on what distance is required for fish health

• separation from fixed fishing gear, other fisheries activities and fish habitat

• minimum 300 m separation from herring weirs, lobster pounds, and wharves

• integration with other resource users

Distance to shore



02468

101214161820

<0.3 0.3 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3Distance to shore (km)

No.

of f

arm

s

1985

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


No.

of f

arm

s

1984

0

10

20

30

40

50

<0.3 0.3 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3

Distance to shore (km)

No.

of f

arm

s

1990

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<0.3 0.3 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3

Distance to shore (km)

No.

of f

arm

s

1995

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


No.

of f

arm

s

2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


No.

of f

arm

s

2005-07

Initially: all farms close to shore, in shallow waters- Early cage technology only suitable for protected locations

Later: some farms further offshore & deeper-Few nearshore sites available-Better cage technology, larger/deeper cages

But most farms are still quite close to shore

Geographic distribution of salmon farming

Passam

aquoddy Bay

Deer

I.Maine

Cobscook

Bay

GrandMananIsland

The Wolves

New Brunswick

Campobello I.

Maces Bay

0

Bay of Fundy

10 20

km

1980



198519901995200020052009

Highest density: Letang area

Lowest density: Maces Bay area



Development of Management Areas

Policy & legislation development: 1991



• NB Aquaculture Act proclaimed & Site Allocation Policy put in place:

• Emphasis on encouraging new entrants• i.e. promoting growth in number of farms & companies• priority given to commercial fishermen

• “Each proposed site will be evaluated on its own merits…” (i.e. site-by-site basis)

• Designated 5 small areas where restrictions or prohibitions on new site applications

• acknowledgement that some bay-wide/cumulative effects can occur, at least in some bays

Restricted zones: 1991



Total 24 km2

(<1% of SWNB area)

The need for bay-scale fish health management (1)



• Heavy sea louse infestations

started in SWNB in 1994

• 10 Sea Louse Management Zones created in 1995

• based on local knowledge of water

currents and site interactions• coordinated chemical treatments• but most farms multi-year-class (i.e. no fallowing between year-classes)

• First application of bay-scale management in SWNB

The need for bay-scale fish health management (2)



• ISA first appeared in SWNB in 1996

• Experience in Norway and Scotland indicated that bay-scale management was an essential part of ISA management

• coordinated fish health management within bays

• single-year-class (SYC) farming within bays

• However, in 1996, 60% of farms in SWNB were multi-year-class

• New Site Allocation Policy introduced in 2000

• mainly to address ISA management needs

• included ABMA framework and SYC farming

Aquaculture Bay Management Areas (2000)



• 21 ABMAs (revised to 22 in 2001)

• based on oceanographic, fish health & business considerations• but did not agree with earlier oceanography-based recommendations which recommended far fewer ABMAs (3-7)• recognized that this was probably too many ABMAs

• included single-year-class farming on 2-year rotation• limited holdovers allowed

• priority for new sites: existing operations needing an additional site to achieve SYC farming within ABMA framework (no new entrants)

• Also included larger restricted areas where no new farms allowed due to aquaculture or fisheries issues

ABMAs 2001: 22 ABMAs (2-yr rotation)



Red: odd year-class ABMAs

Green: even year-class ABMAs

Blue: multi-year-class ABMAs

ABMAs primarily for fish health management

SYC farming on 2-yr rotation- but limited holdovers allowed

Impact of 2000-01 ABMA structure on ISA management

• ISA continued to infect farmed salmon in SWNB:– Probable reasons:

• Holdovers

• Too many ABMAs (ABMAs too small)

• How to better define ABMAs for ISA management:– Experience in Norway and Scotland suggested that ISA could

spread through water at a spatial scale of one tidal excursion

– Circulation model was used to estimate tidal excursion areas around farms (Greenberg et al.)

– Used overlaps of tidal excursion areas to assist in delineation of a revised ABMA framework



Tidal excursion overlaps



Most tidal excursion areas overlap at least one other farm

Norway and Scotland experience indicated that ABMA boundaries should be drawn to minimize water exchange across ABMAs

ABMA framework 2001: tidal excursion overlaps



21 instances where the tidal excursion of a farm intersects a farm(s) in another ABMA.

Suggests that this (and holdovers) may have been a factor in the continuing spread of ISA: i.e. too many ABMAs.

Revised ABMA framework (from 2006)



• 2004-05 Federal-Provincial-Industry Task Force recommended a revised ABMA structure, which was implemented starting 2006:

• Fewer ABMAs: 6

• SYC farming with 3-yr rotation• Includes mandatory fallowing of farms and BMAs prior to restocking (no holdovers)

• priority for new sites: existing operations needing an additional site to accommodate new ABMA framework (no new entrants)

ABMA framework 2006: 3-year rotation



Stocking years:

ABMA 1: 2006, 2009, 2012

ABMA 2a/2b: 2007, 2010, 2013

ABMA 3a/3b: 2008, 2011, 2014

ABMA 4: now part of ABMA 1

ABMA 5: year-class not designated

ABMA 6: non-salmonids only

ABMAs 2006: overlaps of tidal excursion areas



Only 4 cases where the tidal excursion of a farm intersects a farm(s) in another ABMA.

All involved BMAs 4 & 6.

No cases of ISA disease reported since fall 2006.

Steps toward integrated coastal zone management



1991 site allocation policy:

• “The Province of NB is committed to ensuring the integration of new aquaculture sites with the commercial fishery and other resource users.”

• designated a few small areas where there were restrictions on aquaculture growth due to fisheries concerns or concerns for high aquaculture production levels

•but otherwise, proposed sites evaluated on a site-by-site basis

• minimum 300 m separation between adjacent farms and between farms and weirs, lobster pounds & wharves

Steps toward integrated coastal zone management



2000 site allocation policy:

• ABMA framework for all farms, for fish health (i.e. not just site-by-site basis)

• designated larger areas where no new sites allowed (but expansions of existing farms will be considered)

• Controlled Growth Areas: concern for ability of existing farms to grow• Exclusion Areas: fisheries concerns (herring weirs & lobsters)

Restricted zones: 2000-01 to present



Total 888 km2

(16% of SWNB area)

Further steps

• SWNB Marine Resources Planning: 2004 –

• Mission Statement:

• A Marine Resources Plan which will guide the decisions on the use of marine space and activities and will be implemented by all regulatory agencies with marine jurisdiction for the Southwest Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick. The plan will ensure that competing demands for marine resources are addressed while acknowledging legitimate community needs and access to resources, and recognizing the principles of social, economic and environmental sustainability.



Total 5660 km2



Final remarks

• Salmon aquaculture has grown rapidly since its beginnings ~30 yr ago– Has actually grown faster & larger than predicted

• Total area of leases in 2009 = ~1 600 ha– 0.3% of SWNB area

– 1.3% of nearshore SWNB area (<50 m depth)

– Measurable geochemical changes in sediments generally confined within lease area



Final remarks (cont’d)

• However, there are indications that some effects may extend beyond lease boundaries:

– Increased algal growth in intertidal areas near 2 farms in SWNB (Robinson et al.)

– Benthic biodiversity changes beyond farm boundaries in Letang area (Pohle et al.)

– Risk of ISA spread at distances of one tidal excursion• Combined area of tidal excursion areas of all farms = 400 km2

– 7% of SWNB area




• Industry management has progressed from site-by-site basis to consideration of bay-level and wider issues:

– ABMAs: include all finfish farms (primarily for fish health)

– Combined Controlled Growth & Exclusion Areas = 888 km2

• 16% of SWNB area

– SWNB Marine Resources Planning underway




• Future developments:

– Industry would like to return to peak production levels of a few years ago

– There is little available area left for new sites in the nearshore area of SWNB

– Some unused sites may find other uses or be consolidated (especially in high farm density areas)

– The potential for offshore/exposed sites needs further investigation

Acknowledgements

• NB Dept. Agriculture & Aquaculture: G. Smith, H. Madill, B. Hill, M. Beattie

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada: G. Cline, E. Parker

• NB Dept. Natural Resources: J. Dickie

• NB Dept. Environment: T. Lyons

• NB Salmon Growers’ Association





Predicted SWNB salmon production in 2000

Source Production (t)

SNB Aquaculture DevelopmentCommittee (1985)

5 000

Price Waterhouse (1989) 5 000-10 000

Price Waterhouse (1990) 8 000-12 000

NBDFA (1990) 15 000

NBDFA (1996) 21 735

Stats Can (2001) - actual 29 100

Industry grew much faster than predicted

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

45 000

1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Pro

du

cti

on

(t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nu

mb

er

of

mari

ne g

row

ou

t sit

es

Salmon production

Number of finfish leases

Number of operating salmon farms

2000

Community Governance Perspectives Support Social-Ecological Systems and

ResilienceLisette Wilson

Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS

Anthony CharlesSaint Mary’s University, Halifax, NS

Coastal Zone Canada 2010

University of Prince Edward Island; 23-25 July, 2010

Social-Ecological Systems

• Definitions: – Integrated system of nature and society with

reciprocal feedbacks (Berkes & Folk, 1998)

– Relationship between social and ecological systems using knowledge systems to respond to environmental feedback (Berkes et al., 2003)

– Holling (1973) and others –adaptive renewable cycle, panarchy, resilience and transformability

Resilience 1 Social

The ability of groups or communities to cope with external stresses and disturbances resulting from social, political and environmental changes (Adger, 2000);

2 Social-Ecological

(a) the magnitude of shock that the system can absorb and remain within a given state;

(b) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, and

(c) the degree to which the system can build capacity for learning and adaptation (Folke et al., 2002)

Research Questions and Frameworks

• Framework for this study:

– MEA (2005): Ecosystem Services (provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting)

– Governance Initiatives: Community-based

• Research Questions

– What are the social-ecological linkages between ecosystems and communities within and around the Annapolis Basin

– How do coastal communities identify and/or understand resilience within and across these systems?

Coastal CURA• Community-University Research Alliance of First

Nations communities, fishery-related groups and university participants

Four goals:

Increased community engagement in

coastal management

Sharing knowledge for improved

governance of coastal resources

Innovative research initiatives and

effective capacity building

Improved networking between

communities involved in coastal governance

SMU

FFGC

BRFN

MRC

MCPEI

UNB

FNFA

AFN

http://www.coastalcura.ca

Annapolis Basin

Digby

Cornwallis Industrial Park

Annapolis Royal

Annapolis River

Bear River

Bay of Fundy

ParticipantsBear River First Nation (BRFN)

Clam Diggers Association (DCHA)

Harvesters Association (Area II)

Fundy Fixed Gear Council (FFGC)

Annapolis Watershed Resource Committee (AWRC)

Clean Annapolis River Project

Bay of Fundy Marine Resource Centre (MRC)

Saint Mary’s Bay Marine Resource Centre (BRC)

Upper Bay Marine Resource Center (UBMRC)

Bay of Fundy Ecosystem Partnership

Issues

• Water Pollution (land based sources)

• Habitat destruction (stream and river banks)

• Depleted fish stocks, risks to habitats, prices

• Access to beaches (aquaculture leases)

• Safe spaces for information access & dialogue

• Political and financial support for community based organizations and groups

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES LINKS :

A COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE

Democratic Institutions

Partnerships and Networking

Learning Process

Creativity and Diversity

Commitment

Hope for the Future

Resilience: From a

Community Perspective

Despite the difficulties faced by you or your organization how were you able to continue with your day to day activities?

Insights on SES and resilience from a local perspective:

• Reciprocal relationship between ecosystem services & stewardship

• Different scale and implications for information exchange –local early warning system

• Key links e.g. MRC, AWRC, bringing different organizations, habitats, interests together

• Resilience - gaps in terms of how resilience factors combine under different situations and how to work with this concept

Policy Implications and Next Steps

• Reciprocal paths (ecosystem services/stwardship)

– Support existing groups and associations to build stronger networks across different habitats and issues (early warning and response systems)

• Recognition of different knowledge sources and skills

• Question

– How can government and academic institutions empower communities to continue being responsible stewards of their environment?

Acknowledgements • Coastal CURA

• Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University

• SSHRC

• Killam Trust Fund

• PEO Peace Fund

Arthur Bull, Sherry Pictou, Bill Whitman, Carolea, White, Melanie Wiber, Terry Farnsworth, John Kearney, Hubert Saulnier, Ken Weir, Denise Sullivan, Andy Sharpe, Jon Percy, Ken Wilson

Learning to Share:Communication and Information Flow Regarding South West New Brunswick

Finfish Aquaculture Industry


Prince Edward Island

July 27, 2010

Coastal CURA

• Community University Research Alliance

• Partners

• Case Study ResearchSWNB

Management Models

• Community based management

• Co-management

• Integrated Management

Capture Fishery & Aquaculture

• Capture Fisheries

• Aquaculture

• Other Activities

Integrated Management in SWNB

• Aqua Site Allocation Policy

• Fisheries-Aquaculture Working Group

• SWNB Marine Resource Planning Initiative

………………………………………………………………………………………….…………...

Time Line Document Analysis

Tidal Energy SEA

2007 2008 2009

•Document Collection

• Build Time Line

•Example

SEA Introduced

Public Consultation

Fishing Locations

NOT shared

Test Sitesprior to SEA

closure

Successes & Failures

Policy Adopted

Stakeholder InformationSharing

Sector to SectorDialogue

Final Consult Behind Closed Doors

2000…… 2007 early 2007 late 2008

Aquaculture Site Allocation Policy

Successes & FailuresAquaculture

Propeller Cages

…2007 2007 late 2008 2008 late

Continued requests &

discussions for aquaculture

vessels to use cages over propellers

Formal request to Capture

Fisheries from Salmon

Growers to meet to discuss

traffic lanes

Raised with provincial

government, discussions

stopped

Informal discussion between sectors –

fishermen show an example of what they are

requesting

Aquaculture installs cages on

all vessels

Successes & FailuresSea Lice

Treatments

2009 spring 2009 summer 2009 fall 2010 winter 2010 summer

Capture fisheries informed pesticide use approved for

open sea pens

Media “battle” begins between

capture fisheries & aquaculture

Bath treatments conducted &

testing results presented to public

Communication breakdowns

Illegal use of pesticide – dead &

dying lobsters found

Testing options to treat in contained

area H2O2

Discussions start again, meetings,

multi-stakeholder forum

Addressing the Warning Signs

• Watching for signs– Unwilling to share

– Unwilling to listen

• Addressing breakdowns

• Take action

Power of Information & Knowledge

• Positions of Power

• Choice

• Value in Sharing– Open dialogue

– Problem solving

• Inclusion

Communication Networks for Integrated Management:

A Case Study of the Placentia Bay/Grand Banks Large Ocean

Management Area

Coastal Zone Canada 2010 ConferenceAmy TuckerJuly 27, 2010

Outline

Why study communication in integrated management?

Theoretical framework Study area Study aim Methods Results Conclusion

Ocean Challenges Multiple growing demands and inefficiency of

past governance approaches have led to: Failing oceans health Declining fish stocks Increasing numbers of species at risk and

invasive species Marine habitat loss Declining biodiversity Growing conflict Complexities of governance

Integrated Management (IM)

Facilitates decision making for the conservation and sustainable use of coasts and oceans

Intended to overcome fragmentation Brings together stakeholder groups to

develop common objectives and strategies

Participation and Communication Arrangements often

include planning committees

Communication imperative in working toward effective participation

Lack of understanding about how communication functions

Placentia Bay Integrated Management Planning Committee

Theoretical Framework Interactive governance (Kooiman et al. 2005) IM processes can facilitate interactive

governance through stimulating communication (Chuenpagdee et al. 2008)

Locate limitations and opportunities for governance

Social network analysis focuses on patterns of relationships between actors (Scott 1991)

The Placentia Bay/Grand Banks Large Ocean Management Area

One of 5 priority LOMAs

Used by a range of coastal and ocean industries/interests

Boundaries determined using ecological and administrative considerations

Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Mandate and Goals

Mandate: act as a forum facilitating collaboration and cooperation between stakeholders with respect to activities, issues, and opportunities related to oceans management in the PBGB LOMA

Overarching goals: Collaborative and effective governance Sustainable use Healthy ecosystems

PBGB LOMA Committee Federal and provincial government

departments (9) Fishing industry (5) Coastal Management Areas (CMAs) and

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) (4) Other industry (petroleum, hospitality,

shipping, fishing/petroleum) (4) Academic institutions (2) Non-government organizations (NGOs) (2)

PBGB LOMA Process Has met infrequently

since first meeting in 2007

Narrow down overarching goals to operational objectives and actions

Currently at various stages of objective development

Has two working groupsSource: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Study Aim To provide an

understanding of how communication functions in an IM initiative

To examine the role that communication plays in participation and governance

Methods

Literature reviewSemi-structured interviews carried out

with all stakeholder group representatives

Social network analysis and visualization

Results: Communication about coastal and ocean issues and LOMA Communication within groups:

All of them discuss coastal and ocean issues, while most discuss the LOMA

Communication with the public: Most discuss coastal and ocean issues, while

most do not discuss the LOMA

Reported CommunicationLegend

CMA & MPA

Fisheries

Government

Other Industry

NGO

Academic

Reported CollaborationLegend

CMA & MPA

Fisheries

Government

Other Industry

NGO

Academic

Atlantic Coastal Zone Information Steering Committee

Eastern Scotian Shelf LOMA

Gulf of St. Lawrence LOMA

Provincial Coastal and Ocean Network

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Committee on Oceans Management

Regional Oversight Committee on Oceans Management

One Ocean Corporation

Eastport Marine Protected Area Steering Commitee


Coast of Bays Coastal Planning Committee

Placentia Bay Traffic Committee

Regional Advisory Committee on Oil Spill Response

C-NLOPB Strategic Environmental Assessment Working Groups

Mi’kmaq Alsumk Mowimsikik Koqoey Association

Federal Government Departments (5)

Provincial Government Departments (3)

Petroleum Board (1)

Industry Associations (8)

Union (1) Non-Government Organizations (2)

Academic Institutions (2)

Canada

Newfoundland

and Labrador

Atlantic Canada

Community

Region

Communication Network

Regional Economic Development Boards (10)

Mi’kmaq Alsumk Mowimsikik Koqoey Association

Federal Government Departments (5)

Provincial Government Departments (3)

Petroleum Board (1)

Industry Associations (8)

Union (1) Non-Government Organizations (2)

Academic Institutions (2)

Atlantic Coastal Zone Information Steering Committee

Eastern Scotian Shelf LOMA

Gulf of St. Lawrence LOMA

Provincial Coastal and Ocean Network

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Committee on Oceans Management

Regional Oversight Committee on Oceans Management

One Ocean Corporation

Eastport Marine Protected Area Steering Commitee


Coast of Bays Coastal Planning Committee

Placentia Bay Traffic Committee

Regional Advisory Committee on Oil Spill Response

C-NLOPB Strategic Environmental Assessment Working Groups

Northeast Avalon Atlantic Coastal Action Program

Regional Economic Development Boards (10)

Additional Industry

Schools and Youth

Municipalities Fish Harvester Committees

Community Based Groups

Communication NetworkCanada

Newfoundland

and Labrador

Atlantic Canada

Community

Region

Why communicate/participate and how to improve?

Benefits of participation Opportunities to improve communication Opportunities to improve participation

Conclusion Communication about coasts and oceans is

strong Information needs to be simplified, reiterated

and made relevant May need to reach out to additional groups Ensure that all groups are involved in the

communication network Move toward collaborative governance

Acknowledgements

My supervisory committee: Ratana Chuenpagdee Kelly Vodden Reade Davis

My colleagues at the International Coastal Network

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NL Region, IM Section The PBGB LOMA Committee

References Chuenpagdee, R., Kooiman, J. & Pullin R.S.V. 2008. Assessing

Governability in Capture Fisheries, Aquaculture and Coastal Zones. Th e Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies

7(1): 1-20. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pullin, R. (2005). Fish for

Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, NL.

Scott, J. 1991. Social Network Analysis: An Approach and

Technique for the Study of Information Exchange. Sage: London, U.K.

Questions?

A temporal and spatial assessment of persistent marine debris seaward of the Cardiff Bay Barrage, South Wales, UK.

Coastal Zone Canada 2010.

Professor Mike Phillips (and Kathryn Tate)Head of School,Built and Natural Environment,Faculty of Applied Design and Engineering.

Temporal and spatial assessment of persistent marine debris…..

Coastal Zone Canada 2010, PEI, July 25th – 29th.

Presentation• Problem• Management • Location of Study• Methodology• Results• Conclusions

( )240

xx 614 −

















100 metres

50 metres (maximum)

Highest High Water Strandline

Current High Water Strandline

Strandline Zone

Accumulations

Edge of usable beach,eg. sea wall or dunes





Category Type A B C D

1 Sewage RelatedDebris

General 0 1-5 6-14 >15

Cotton Buds 0-9 10-49 50-99 >100

2 Gross Litter 0 1-5 6-14 >15

3 General Litter 0-49 50-499 500-999 >1000

4 Harmful Litter BrokenGlass

0 1-5 6-24 >25

Other 0 1-4 5-9 >10

5 Accumulations Number 0 1-4 5-9 >10

6 Oil Absent Trace Noticeable Objectionable

7 Faeces 0 1-5 6-24 >25

National Aquatic Litter Group (NALG) Classification



Location of study area

Spring tidal range: 11m

1:1 year wave height (Hs): 1·5m

1:1 year wave period (Tz): 5·6s

Coastal environment: Rhaetic Limestone cliffs, Marl bedrock



METHODOLOGY

•Monthly strandline litter surveys along groyned beach (Aug – Dec 1997 and Aug - Dec 2005).

•Classify litter collected by material and container/non-container.

•Assess temporal and spatial litter trends and link to beach profiles

•Assess potential sources



Construction of breakwater September 1997

Barrage completed November 1999



Summary Containers No. of Items No. of Items Totals

Plastics

45 sheets 17bottles 0 lids 22bags 4 wire 30wrappers 40 polystyrene 31misc. 8 misc 78Total 97 178 275

Metalcans 85 foil 11other 8 other 11Total 93 22 115

Glass 1 16 17Paper 1 13 14

Misc.

Wood 0 2 2Cloth 0 51 51Rubber 0 3 3Ceramics 0 2 2Sewage 0 3 3

Totals 192 290 482

Non containers

bottles (drinking)

•Plastics 56.2% (range 46.3% -63.25%)

•Metal drink cans found in unusually high quantities compared with other recent studies (18%)

•High angling contribution to litter total

Litter totals Dec 2005



Litter Items/m

Bay 1 Bay 2 Bay 3 Bay 4

1997 average 0.11 0.45 1.49 2.032005 average 3.16 0.78 1.44 1.61

Number of litter Items

1 2 3 4

Backline 105 52 72 63Middle line 55

Lowest line 58 23 36 21Total 218 75 108 84Total/m 5.07 1.29 2.4 2.47

No significant difference between 1997 and 2005 litter totals (tcalc = 1.081)



Temporal Comparison of Rainfall and Total Litter

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

August Septem ber October Novem ber Decem ber

Time (Month)

Rainfall (m m )

Total Litter (Item s)

Variation of rainfall and total litter

y = 1.3297x + 115.48R2 = 0.8908

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 50 100 150 200 250

Rainfall (mm)

Tota

l mon

thly

litte

r (it

ems)

Total Litter (Items)Linear (Total Litter (Items))

In 2003 a boom placed across River Taff to intercept riverine litter

In first 10 months of operation 400 tonnes collected: 40 t mth-1

In 2004, audited figure was 1000 tonnes > 83 t mth-1

River Rymney suggested as significant source of litter along this coastline.



N

Northward longshore sediment transport – build up against breakwater on Barrage completion



Comparison between 1997 litter items/m and 2005 average litter items/m

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 1 2 3 4

Bay

No.

litt

er it

ems/

m

19972005 (average)

Litter accumulation patterns follow beach

level variations.



y = 2.5142x - 8.7732R2 = 0.7192

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

3.4 3.6 3.8 4

Mean Beach Height (m) AOD

No. o

f Litt

er It

ems

(per

m

)

y = 14.292x - 55.58R2 = 0.6522

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

3.9 3.95 4 4.05 4.1

Mean beach level (m)

No. o

f litt

er it

ems

1997

2005



y = 1.1073x - 12.863R2 = 0.8619

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

11.5 12 12.5 13

Mean cross-shore gradient (%)

No. o

f litt

er it

ems/

m

Series1Linear (Series1)

Litter accumulation is correlated to beach level

Litter accumulation is correlated to longshore gradient

Litter accumulation is correlated to cross-shore gradient

Therefore, both temporally and spatially, litter has behaved like a sediment



Conclusions• Plastics represented the

dominant material found 56.2% (range 46.3% - 63.25%);

• Metal containers (18%) represented higher quantities than other recent studies;

• No significant difference between 1997and 2005 litter totals (t = 1.081);

• Significant correlation between rainfall and total litter quantity (R2 = 89%) suggesting riverine source;



Conclusions contd• Significant correlation

between litter accumulation and mean beach level - R2 = 72% (1997) and 65% (2005);

• Significant correlation between litter accumulation and cross-shore gradient (R2 = 86%);

• On this beach, litter behaves as a sediment (and this should be tested at other locations).



Thanks for your attention.

Any Questions?

Mapping of eelgrass (Zostera marina) landscapes: data for a

spatially complex mosaic

Jeffrey Barrell

Dept. of Oceanography

Dalhousie University

[email protected]


Overview

• Spatial scale in ecology– Especially important coastally

– Broad-scale impacts

• Data structures

• Methods: remote sensing

• Modeling & analysis

Richibucto, NB

Background

• Eelgrass: common feature in Atlantic Canada

• Ecologically valuable, provides many ecosystem services, creating and modifying habitat: ecosystem engineer– Highly productive, food source

– Substrate, nursery, predation refuge

– Alters currents, stabilizes sediments

– Nutrient cycling & export

– Shoreline protection, water purification

Background

• Common in shallow, low-energy bays/estuaries

• Forms spatial mosaics / landscapes– Hierarchy of spatial scales; individual shoots to patches to landscape-scale

meadows

– Exhibits heterogeneity over several spatial scales

• Link between spatial coverage and ecosystem health

• Indicator species? Consider scale

10-1 meter scale

101 meter scale103 meter scale

Background

• Globally, seagrass has been in decline; under high stress due to a close interface with the human world– Sensitive to water clarity, temperature, salinity, physical disturbance,

etc.

– Effects of coastal zone development, population growth, climate change, etc....?

• How can we approach the management of these areas?– Ecosystem assessment, monitoring, conservation and restoration

• Good spatial data (and understanding of uncertainties) needed– Leading up to descriptive/predictive models

Spatial Scale

• Spatial dependence: Tobler’s First Law of Geography– “Everything is related to

everything else, but near things are more related than distant things”

– Present in most ecological data

– Spatial autocorrelation

• Spatial scale: function of resolution (level of detail), extent

~4 MB~300 KB~ 20 KB

Spatial Scale

• Why consider scale?– Before/after sampling

– Capture variation relevant to the feature or process

– Study design: data structure, sampling strategy

– Changing scale; interpolation, extrapolation

– Combining data from multiple sources

– Modeling

10 m resolution

100 m resolution

Modeling

• Predict response from predictor variables– Varying over multiple

spatial scales– Complex, nonlinear

interactions– Often physical– Multiple/uncertain data

sources

• Inverse problems– Infer causation from

observed properties

• Uncertainty on both sidesStructuring factors

Response variable

Predictive Modeling

• Describe seagrass spatial pattern as a function of environmental variables

– e.g. Depth, turbidity, rugosity, distance to aquaculture, wave exposure, etc.

– Sources: measured, derived, model output, etc.

• Relative Exposure Index:

Wind Velocity/Direction

Fetch Rasters Exposure Index

Seagrass Data

• Data structure

– Local vs. synoptic (point/area)

– Discrete vs. continuous

– Numerical, categorical

– GIS: raster/vector

• Seagrass data usually collected by aerial photography or diver survey

Lines

Points

Areas

Discrete(vector)

Continuous(raster)

Methods - Acoustics

• BioSonics single-beam sonar– 430 kHz; lacunae show a

strong acoustic signal

– Can be deployed from any small boat in shallow water

– DGPS

– Measures canopy height, % cover, bathymetry

Acoustic Methods

• Advantages:

– Quick & cheap

– Lots of data

– Repeatability

– Flexible sampling design: change of support

• Issues:

– Weather dependent

– At 1m depth, 1 ping covers 10cm diameter area

– How to use canopy height data; biovolume?

Methods – Remote Sensing

Satellite Imagery

• Quickbird satellite sensor– 0.6m resolution (B&W)

– 2.4m resolution (RGB)

Richibucto, NB

Source: Environment Canada, Mahoney and Hanson 2007

Spectral Bands

RedGreenBlue

Methods – Remote Sensing

Aerial Photography

• Balloon platform– Intermediate to local

sampling, satellites

– High resolution

• ~3cm pixels at 100m altitude

• Change of support

A B

C D

A) Seagrass at Kouchibouguac National Park, NB. B) Seagrass around oyster aquaculture lines, Richibucto, NB. C) and D) Intertidal seagrass /mussel beds, Eastern Passage, NS. Images were taken at low (C) and high (D) altitudes.

Aerial Photography Methods

• Advantages:– Very high resolution

– Multi-scale data by manipulating altitude

– More flexible, cheaper than satellites or aircraft-based photography

• Issues:– Limited extent

– Geometric uncertainty: ground control points, lens distortion

– Weather dependent; wind, waves, precipitation, light

– Difficulty positioning the camera

– Image classification

Thanks!

... and many more

Coastal erosion and climate variability impacts in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, British Columbia

Hawley E.R. Beaugrand & Ian J. WalkerGeography Department, University of VictoriaBoundary Layer Airflow & Sediment Transport LabPresentation to Coastal Zone Canada 2010

Rationale

• Increase in frequency & magnitude of extreme events in NE Pacific Ocean & coastal BC (Ruggerio et

al., 2001; Allan & Komar, 2006; Walker & Barrie, 2006; Cumming, 2007; Abeysirigunawardena & Walker, 2008; Walker & sydneysmith, 2008)

• Variation in climate & sea level teleconnected to ocean-atmosphere phenomena (e.g., ENSO, PDO) (Storlazzi et al., 2000; Ruggerio et al., 2001; Barrie & Conway, 2002; Allan & Komar,

2006; Walker & Barrie, 2006; Cumming, 2007; Abeysirigunawardena & Walker, 2008; Walker & sydneysmith, 2008)

• Cause annual to inter-annual changes superimposed on longer-term trends

Rationale

• Increased erosion/ sedimentation, landward migration or loss of beach-dune systems, higher tidal inundation, & ecosystem shifts

Rationale

• Sandy beach-dune ecosystems proportionately rare in BC

• Little habitat for specialized dune species

Purpose

• Improve understanding of morphodynamics of meso-tidal beach-dune systems & response to CV & CC

• Inform parks management approaches

1. Characterize site morphodynamic processes & regimes to assess rebuilding potential;

2. Examine erosion potential; and,

3. Explore correlations between regional CV signals & oceanographic elements.

Objectives

Background

• Convergent plate margin

• Uplift causes relative sea level fall at a rate of -0.9 +0.2 mm a-1

(Wolynec, 2004)

Background

• Aleutian Low Pressure System, PDO, ENSO

• Warmer (temperature increase in all seasons, 0.08 to 0.10˚C increase in mean temperature per decade) (per Walker & sydneysmith, 2008)

• More precipitation (more precipitation days, more winter rain, total annual increase of 2 to 3% per decade) (per Walker & sydneysmith, 2008)

Background

• Invasive species: European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) & American beachgrass (Ammophila breviluglata)

• Outcompete & displace native species, colonize the foredune more densely, create relatively fixed foredune, prevent transport to the inter- to backdune regions (Wiedemann & Pickart,

1996; Page, 2003)

Photos from Sibylla Helms (2009)

Methods

• Repeat cross-sectional surveys

• Temporal aerial photo analysis (1971 to 2007) using PCI Geomatica

Methods

• Analysis of regional wind regime (WRPlot)

• Calculation of potential aeolian sediment transport (per Arens et al., 2004) measured in m3 m-1 from 36- directional sectors over period 1971-1977 (only period of 24-hour record)

Methods

• TWL primary control of beach-dune erosion

• Product of observed water level & runup

Figure from Cumming (2007)

Methods

• Calculate wave runup per Ruggerio et al. (2001)

• Combine with observed water levels to calculate TWL (1970 to 1998)

Methods

• Calculate return levels by fitting data to GEV distribution & using block maxima approach (Extreme Values Toolkit, R-based package)

• Calculate recurrence interval, both as probability & as a simple ratio

Methods

• Correlation CV indices with wave & water level regime to define shared variance

• Used MEI, NOI, & PDO (monthly indices) and ALPI (annual index)

Results & Discussion


• Average total sediment transport potential = 9984.31 m3 m-1 a-1

• Resultant sediment transport potential = 3268.28 m3 m-1 a-1

• Resultant transport direction = 356.12˚• High rebuilding potential


• Shoreline progradation at rate 0.2 m a-1

• Dune sand surface extent 27.8 % reduction

• Due to relative sea level fall, invasive species & climate change trends


• Beach-dune junction at 5.55 m aCD

• Probability of an erosive event is 65% in any given year

• Simple ratio of erosive events is 3.53 times annually

Return Interval (years) 1 5 10 25 50 100

Return Level (m aCD) 5.59 6.19 6.36 6.50 6.57 6.62

95% Confidence Limit (m) +0.11 +0.23 +0.20 +0.22 +0.23 +0.25

95% Lower Bound (m aCD) n/a 5.95 6.18 6.36 6.40 6.46

95% Upper Bound (m aCD) n/a 6.37 6.56 6.73 6.81 6.88


• Periodic erosive events encourage dynamism (e.g., blowout formation)

• Not currently a threat to infrastructure


• Poor to moderately strong relationships between CV indices & most oceanographic elements

• NOI shares stronger relationships

• El Niño phase of ENSO expressed

Conclusions

• Bimodal wind & potential sediment transport regime (WNW in summer, SE in winter)

• Strong rebuilding potential

• Shoreline is prograding, erosion serves to facilitate dynamism

• Invasive species & CC responsible for loss of available habitat

• El Niño was shown to share the greatest variance with oceanographic elements

Future Research

• In situ sediment transport experiments

• Continuation of cross-shore monitoring program

• Simple linear regression of water levels, wave heights & wind speeds to see if longer-term trends exist

• Explore causal links between El Niño & coastal erosion

Acknowledgements

Ian Walker & UVic BLAST Lab

University of Victoria

Parks Canada

MITACS

Clayoquot Biosphere Trust

NSERC

Thank you! Questions?


Significant Wave Height (m)

PDO NOI MEI ALPI

r r r r

Mean - 0.058 0.150 - 0.085 0.063 - 0.017 0.383 0.374 0.023

Maximum - 0.046 0.204 - 0.066 0.119 - 0.003 0.482 0.103 0.297

Peak Wave Period (s)

PDO NOI MEI ALPI

r r r r

Mean 0.179 0.001 -0.231 0.000 0.198 0.000 0.187 0.166

Maximum 0.263 0.000 -0.217 0.000 0.288 0.000 0.202 0.146

Water Level(m aCD) PDO NOI MEI ALPI

r r r r

Mean 0.032 0.291 - 0.338 0.000 0.120 0.018 0.432 0.010

Maximum 0.045 0.219 - 0.264 0.000 0.153 0.004 0.347 0.033

Challenges of Successful Integrated Coastal Zoning:

Lessons from the Southern Part of the Gulf of Thailand

Suvaluck Satumanatpan*, Mahidol University

Pisase Senawongse, Tesco Environmental Consultant

Oranuch Silpamaneephan, Tesco Environmental Consultant

Phansa Chomchit, Tesco Environmental Consultant

Coastal Zone Canada, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

Canada. 25-29 July 2010

Concept of coastal zoning

• A number of tools have been used for improve coastal management in Thailand

• For zoning, under legislation based on mangrove areas, coral reefs, fisheries, and coastal environmental protected zones.



3

แผนที่

PattayaPhet-Prachuap

Existing Coastal EPAs

Overall categories of zoning in Thailand

Mangrove (law) 1. Conservation zone,2. Economic zone A3. Economic zone B

Coral reef (law) 1. Local management zone2. Recreation and tourist zone

(intensive & Eco-tourism zone3. Conservation zone for balancing

ecosystem and research

Fisheries (law) Protection 3 Km. from the shoreline, for preservation and nursery ground for marine faunas

Marine national parks (guideline for zoning)

Nature zone, tourism zone, Service zone, special management zone, General use zone, research zone

Zoning: developed from town planning control multiple use suitable to the condition of such area without causing adverse impact



•Area covers Phetchaburi and PrachuapKirikhan,thewestern coast of the Gulf of Thailand •Economic zone for fishery and tourism•Sandy sedimentation,flat topography



Overall environmental problems Encroaching public coastal area Overload wastewater, Surface and Coastal water pollution Municipal solid waste Coastal erosion



7

1

2

3

4

5

Water pollution, solid waste, air pollution, coastal erosion

6Water pollution, solid waste, air pollution, coastal erosion

Water pollution, solid waste, coastal erosion

Water pollution, solid waste, coastal erosion, encroaching channel

Water pollution, coastal erosion,

Water pollution

Water pollution

North



Methodology

•Develop 20 indicators from real protective measures (implemented since 2004 and to be terminated the enforcement on 31 July 2009•Participatory Monitoring •Analysis status of natural resources and environment before and after announcement EPA •Evaluation the level of successful against the proposed three objectives of the EPA

Level of successful

High No activities causing impactsEPA can resolve the degradation of environment effectively

Medium 1-3 activities causing negative impactEPA can resolve the degradation of environment for some extent

Low More than 3 activities causing negative impact EPA can not resolve the degradation of environment

Indicator Monitoring Level

1) Port larger than 60 tongross

Medium

2) Sand mining

3) Land reclamation except for public use, that may affected to water circulation, permitted only for the government project

Opposing were found in the crowded tourist area

X

4) Land reclamation except for coastal erosion protection, permitted only for the government project

No opposing, but lots of areas are facing severe erosion

Objective: control & reduce activities causing erosion


Factory located 200 m. from the shoreline

Medium

Livestock building with area greater than 10 m2 in the are of 200 m. from the shoreline, or for commercial purpose, or annoying according to public health legislation

Can’t detect but found using living building applied for edible-nest swiflet

X

Cemetery or crematorium constructed in the area of 200 m. from the shoreline

Waste system in the area of 200 m. from the shoreline

Reduce activities that cause pollution along the coast

High Water LineSet back

0 m.20 m.50 m.200 m.

Building <6m. High,20 m. from HW

Building <12m. High,50 m. from HW

FactoryLivestockFuneralWaste Treatment,200 m. from HW.

Building >12m. High,150 m. from HW

150 m.


Mining Medium

Harzadous substances transportationthrough piping system

Wasete water discharge compiling to standard

Opposing X

Coastal water quality degrade X

Building located in the area of 20 m from the shoreline (setback line)

Building higher than 6 m in the area of 20- 50 m from the shoreline

Building higher than 12 m in the area of 50-150 m

Objectives: Conserve the natures and scenery along the coast


Development project that likely to avoid EIA or IEE

Medium

Salt pan outside the resrticted area

Coral correction except for research

Any activities invade and destroymangrove forest

Illegal fishing (Trawling, Push net, shell dredging with engine)

Often found along the shoreline

X

Objectives: Conserve the natures and scenery along the coast

Evidence of Natural resources and environmentbefore and after EPA

•Population•Households •Tourists

•Landuse•Land forest•Mangrove•Coastal erosion •Surface water quality•Coastal water quality

2007200620052004200320022001Year

Num

ber

Population Household

Hua Hin2,439,159

Cha Am 3,912,817

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550

Nu

mb

er

of

to

uri

sts

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Number of tourists at Cha Am and Hua Hin from 1998-2007

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Beach

Grassland

Aquaculture

Saltpan

Terrestrial Forest

Mongrove Forest

Agricultural Area

Residential Area

Flood Plain Area

Industrial Area

Iron Wood Horsetail

Mining Area

Water resouces

Others

Land Use Pattern in 2002, 2004 and 2007

2007 2004 2002

Km2

Residential area is increasing

Severe Erosion> 5 m. /year

Moderate Erosion1-5 m. /year

MaruekathayawanPalace

Jetties

Groinesand Break water for coastal protection


Bo Phai Airport

Hua Hin Fishing Port


Jetties

4

5

3

4

Pranburin river

River 2002 2004 2007

Petchaburi 3-4 4-5 4-5

Pranburi 2-4 3-4 3-4

**Target for surface water quality should be moderate (class 3)

Petchaburi river

4

5

3

4

200420052007

Areas where facing degraded coastal water quality in year 2005

Coastal water quality has been clearly degraded continuously

Summary

7

1

2

3

4

5

6Fishery conflict

Saltpan intrusion

Water pollution

edible-nest swiflet

Coastal erosion

Mangrove forest invasion

Surface and Coastal water pollution Encroaching public coastal areaResidential expansionVisual expansionEncroaching channel

AfterBefore

• Reduce activities that cause coastal erosion and the loss from the construction of the protection structures

• Reduce activities that cause pollution along the coast • Conserve the natures and scenery along the coast• Building awareness of all sectors for environmental

conservation • Increase efficiency in environmental management

Challenges

Potential and Policy of

Area Development

Conservation &

Rehabilitation

Legal

enforcement

Public participation

•Integrate legislation & regulation in the same direction •Strengthening law enforcement•Press, training and education

•Improve process of working for provincial EPA committee •Support and strengthen EIA committee •Building co-operation among related organizations •Building knowledge and understanding of stakeholders to have real participation

•Severe coastal erosion •Mangrove forest rahabilitation•Fishery conflict•Water pollution •Expansion of edible-nest swifletcondominium •Visual pollution

•Appropriate for international tourist center •Sustainable for small and large scales fisheries •Protect and control environmental problems according to urban development to the local areas

Kob-khun-Kha(Thank you in Thai)

Date post:	20-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	paul-r-boudreau
View:	120 times
Download:	4 times

Czc2010 Day 2 b

Documents