Download the Federally and provincially listed Terrestrial, Freshwater, and Related Species at Risk in the Maritimes document - PDF / HTM

An Overview of Expert Opinion Maps in Atlantic Canada

Why Expert Opinion Range Maps?

Conservation Data Centres across Canada have poor to fair location information for the species of greatest conservation concern “Species at Risk” (SAR) – both federally and provincially listed (Lautenschlager and Anions 2004 – Survey of the NatureServe Canada Network of Consrvation data Centres for Data and Expertise Critical to Federal Species at Risk Needs 116 pages). After trying (three separate times) to predict the occurrences of SAR using a combination of bio-geo-physical information and previous known locations, we concluded that observational information, even when combined with bio-geo-physical information was a poor predictor of where SAR are likely to be found in the Maritimes. (Primarily because of the limited amount of observational information available for a significant number of species.) At that point, our Field Naturalist, Sean Blaney suggested that Expert Opinion Range Maps (X-maps) would be much more useful predictors of where SAR occur across the Maritimes.

Methods

Our groups focus is on species and ecological communities of conservation concern in the Atlantic Region. For this exercise we focused on federally and provincially listed SAR for the Maritimes. Prince Edward Island has not identified SAR for that province – therefore, we focused on COSEWIC listed, plus species identified as at risk by New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Team leaders for both Botany and Zoology were identified and they started by identifying recognized species specific experts for the approximately 60 species of interest in the Maritimes. They then worked with one or more expert/species developing species specific maps outlining where the experts believed that species might be found in the Maritimes. The initial hard copy maps, developed at this time, were then transferred into GIS, and resulting GIS maps were reviewed by the experts – to ensure that we accurately captured the experts thinking relative to potential ranges for these species.

Results

Very “broad brush” range maps for individual SAR were developed during this exercise. Because the initial focus was on predictions for federal properties – a GIS layer was also developed for federal property “identifiers” (DFRPs). We then used GIS (both X-maps and DRRPs) to indicate what species might be on any individual federal property [CFS, Ag. Can., Defense (MARLANT & 14 Wing Greenwood), Environment Canada (CWS)], and recently on First Nations properties in the region. In addition to results, those receiving those results were also provided with habitat descriptions for the SAR identified as potentials on their properties. They were instructed to use that habitat information to help narrow down the broad-brush suggestions to more likely possibilities for their individual properties. For instance, they were told that just because the X-map suggested they could have Atlantic Salmon on their property, if the property in question does not have water connected to the Bay of Fundy or the Atlantic Ocean, they don’t have to worry about Atlantic Salmon.

Discussion

Field tests to date have been limited but promising. We have found SAR in predicted areas, often hundreds of kilometers from the nearest previously known locations. We are also working to refine the first generation maps developed for the Maritimes so that they are less broad-brush; for instance by only including GIS based wetland layers in the predictions for plants that are known to occur only in wetlands. In addition, we have started working with the Newfoundland & Labrador provincial government, on developing X-maps for that province.
Unlike other CDCs, which are provincially funded, we are presently seeking funds that will allow us to complete X-maps for N&L and refine the maps developed for the Maritimes. Essentially, this will ensure X-map coverage for the entire Atlantic Region. At a national level, if there is truly an interest in SAR, I believe it would be wise to develop similar maps for all of Canada. I would be happy to work with Conservation Data Centres and others on developing a proposal to do just that.

Conclusion

To date, our X-maps have been very useful, and they are likely to become a major tool for contributing to appropriate conservation decisions in the Atlantic Region. Specifically, in the future we intend to use a combination of observational data (with “buffers”), soil landscapes (containing observational data and properties of interest), and X-maps to help with predictions of where SAR are likely to occur throughout the Region. This is not to downplay the value of gathering and maintaining observational data, but it recognizes that we presently have limited observational data and that is expected to be the case into the near-future.
Therefore, observational data needs to be collected and maintained. In the long run observational data will expand toward the borders of the X-maps, while the X-map boarders will shrink toward observation information. In other words as additional observational information is collected the X-maps will be adjusted to accommodate the new information. However, depending on survey intensity, it may be decades before observational data becomes sufficient, until then, the X-maps will provide a sound foundation for potential places where additional SAR observations may be found.