Management Effectiveness Reporting in Parks Canada: Assessing Ecological Integrity. Stephen Woodley Chief Ecosystem Scientist, Parks Canada

Transcription

1 Management Effectiveness Reporting in Parks Canada: Assessing Ecological Integrity Stephen Woodley Chief Ecosystem Scientist, Parks Canada

2 Parks Canada who are we World s Oldest Protected Area Agency 5500 employees Manage 80 % of Federal Land in Canada On behalf of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure their ecological and commemorative integrity for present and future generations.

3 Responsibilities for Land Management 42 national parks representing 28 of 39 natural regions and covering 310,000 sq kms 3 marine conservation areas representing 3 of 29 natural marine regions 153 Historic Sites administered by Parks Canada including 9 historic canals

4

5 Assessing Management Effectiveness in Parks Canada Parks Canada measures outcomes focussed on its mandate: Ecological Integrity protection of nature Commerative Integrity protection of history and culture Visitor Experience Public Education Corporate Plan Management Expectation Maintain or Improve the Ecological Integrity of All National Parks from March 2008 to March 2013.

6 Ecological integrity With respect to a park, a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes National Parks Act, May 2000

7 How Monitoring is Connected to the Management System in Parks Canada Corporate Plan State of Park Report (5 years) Scoping Document (5 years) Park Management Plan (5 years) National SOPHA Report (2 years) Monitoring Ecological Integrity Visitor Experience Visitor Education Annual Implementation Report Monitoring is Part of Sound Management

8 Parks Canada Ecological Integrity Monitoring Program Key Design Principles Focused on answering 2 questions What is the state of Ecological Integrity? How successful are our management actions for ecological integrity? Aims to be a) comprehensive, b) scientifically defensible, c) relevant to management, d) cost efficient and d) publicly communicated Focused on a small number of indicators, supported a larger number of measures Built on a set of measures looks at ecosystem structure, function and known stressors acting on the system

9 Parks Canada EI Monitoring Framework Biodiversity Structure & Processes Stressors Species Lists native species alien species Focal Species mortality/natility immigration/emigration viability/persistence Species at risk Trophic Structure size class distribution predation levels Local Ecosystems suite of measures that monitor most important structure and process changes at a local ecosystem scale Landscapes suite of measures that monitor most important structure and process changes at a landscape ecosystem scale Inside Park most critical in-park stressors Outside Park (GPE) most critical GPE stressors Outside Park (Long Distance) most critical long distance stressors We use this framework to select a set of measures for each major ecosystem indicator

10 Each Ecological Integrity Indicator is supported by an ecological model, a range of statistics and assessment rules EI Indicator Concerned EI Impaired High EI Public environment Science environment feedback models statistics measures/data EI Framework human dimension stressors

11 Ecological Integrity Information is available through a desk-top Dash Board Indicators Condition and Trend Example Gros Morne National Park has 6 ecosystem-based indicators, each with a condition and trend

12 Each Indicator is Supported by a Set of Measures Example Jasper National Park has 6 measures to support the indicator for Aquatic Ecosystems

13 Benefits of Ecological Integrity Monitoring to Parks Canada Essential Management Information like basic accounting Critical Information for Visitor Education Allows the Agency to deal with stakeholders and partners from a strong knowledge perspective Credible, science based, efficient and effective

14 Case study - Managing Elk and Wolves to stop Aspen Decline in the Rocky Mountains early 1990

15

16 Elk and Fire Effects on Aspen Low elk density Moderate and high elk density

17 ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS FOR EASTSLOPE CENTRAL ROCKIES ECOSYSTEM Wildlife Behavior -Displacement -Habituation -Migration -Corridor Use HUMANS (Current/ Traditional Use) WOLF- GRIZZLY Predation/Food Source ELK-BEAVER-BISON-PINE BEETLE MONTANE BIRDS Mortality -Hunting -Road and Railway -Habituated Individuals Herbivory/Food Source ASPEN-FESCUE LODGEPOLE PINE HEDYSERUM-SOAPBERRY WILLOW Fire, Logging Development

18 Relative Faunal Abundance Through Time 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Prehistoric Faunal Remains Historic Killed BNP-Bow 1999 Goat Sheep Moose Deer Elk Bison

19 Banff Townsite Lower Bow Valley

20 High Predation Risk Low Kootenay Plains c.1907 Banff Townsite 1995

21 Wolf and Elk Distribution in the Bow Valley of BNP, winters 1997 to 1999 and East, Central, and Western Analysis Zones

22 Cascade Corridor Restoration Present Before 1997

23 Cascade Pack Tracking Sequences

24 Results--Movement Cougar Crossing Index Sulphur Golf Airfield Vermilion Compound Year

25 Cascade Wolf Pack Home Range Expansion Home Range 100% MCP =1847 km 2 93/97 Home Range 100%MCP =607 km 2

26

27 Banff Results Predator access restored Elk reduced in lower Bow from 1200 to 200 Willow and aspen regenerating first time in 40 years

28 Case Study 2: Ecosystem Restoration - Upper Columbia Valley Ecosystem

29 Columbia Valley: 100 years ago 1906 Columbia Valley 1999 Columbia Valley

30 Fire History Study : frequent low-intensity fires 1920s & 1930s: high intensity wild fires 1940s to present: fire suppression

31 Restoration Sites

32 PB Guard Campground Block Provincial Block (Winter 2002) Federal Block (Winter 2003) Photograph from September 11, 2003 showing Redstreak restoration areas.

33 Prediction key wintering area for Bighorn Sheep will return 10 adult sheep GPS radiocollared each year, Objectives: Determine seasonal home ranges and critical habitats Locate seasonal movement corridors Establish restoration priority areas Monitor sheep response to restoration

34 Radio-Telemetry Results Kootenay Valley Summer Range Columbia River Lambing Range Winter Range Village of Radium Hot Springs Fall and Spring Migration Sinclair Creek Mineral Lick Nov May June July Aug Oct

35 Bighorn Response?

36 Lessons Learned 1. Monitoring must answer a question of interest to management to be relevant and to persist 2. Most monitoring program ignore fundamental questions of power and statistics. What is the power to accurately detect change for how much money. 3. Monitoring must ensure quality assurance and quality control fundamentals 4. Data management and data access is part of program design 5. There are more views than science views. We incorporate Traditional Knowledge where appropriate. 6. We monitor so that we can report to Canadians the condition of their parks and the success of management efforts.