Download Giles Seutin

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Pleistocene Park wikipedia , lookup

Transcript
Case Studies in EI Measurement:
Fathom Five & Banff National Parks
Gilles Seutin
Parks Canada
World Park Congress 2003
Summary
• Monitoring at Parks Canada
• Fathom Five National Park
• Banff National Park
• Challenges
• Lessons Learned
Monitoring at Parks Canada
• Currently more than 700 projects
• Increase over the last 10 years
In general:
• Ad-hoc, project-based
• Poor indicators of overall park management
objectives/effectiveness
• Weak links to greater ecosystem monitoring
From Project Outputs…
Project Management Plan
Recommendations for adjustments
measurable targets
Output
monitoring
Project
Report
… to Management Outcomes
Park Management Plan
assessment and recommendations
measurable management targets
EI
monitoring
State of Park
Report
Great Lakes
Ecosystem
Bruce/Fathom
Five Ecosystem
FFNP – Monitoring Framework
Ecological Sustainability
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Social
Water Level
Water Quality
Species at Risk
Visitor Use
1 indicator
Shoreline Dev.
2 indicators
Residential Dev.
5 indicators
2 indicators
2 indicators
Reason
Invasive Species
Education
• Affect nearshore
aquatic habitat
1 indicator
2 indicators
Target
• 0 new cribLower
docks
Trophic
Partnerships
2 indicators
2 indicators
• no loss of fish habitat
Dock Facilities
Fish Population
3 indicators
Cultural Resources
1 indicator
FFNP – Indicators
Phytoplankton Species Composition
700
Dinophyceae
Iron (size a)
Cryptophyceae
600
Diatomeae
80%
Iron (size b)
500
Chrysophyceae
Chlorophyta
60%
Cyanophyta
ppm
Percentage Composition
100%
Iron Concentrations in Zebra Mussel Tissue
400
300
Background: 250 ppm
40%
200
20%
100
0%
0
July
August
Sampling Period
October
ZM-1
Wetmore
ZM-2
ZM-3
ZM-4
Eagle Cove Sw eepstakes Lighthouse
Size classes : a - 1.75 cm, b - 2.25 cm
ZM-5
Little Tub
FFNP – Report Card
Physical
Chemical
Biological
Social
Sustainability Sustainability Sustainability Sustainability
Water level
Water Quality


Shoreline
Development
?
Lower Trophic
Levels

Fish Community

Education

Partnerships

Invasive Species
Visitor Use

?
?
Species at Risk
Cultural
Resources

Banff National Park
BNP – Ecosystem Model
TERRESTRIAL
AQUATIC
PARK-WIDE:
Climate and air quality,
Geology and landforms,
Species and genetic
diversity, productivity
ALPINE
WETLANDS
RIVERS &
STREAMS
ALPINE
LAKES
SUBALPINE
MONTANE
THERMAL
SPRINGS
BNP – Conceptual Model
HUMANS
Patterns of Use, Access,
Development, Understanding
Habitat Fragmentation
Wildlife
Behavior
-Displacement
-Habituation
-Corridor Use
-Human Conflict
GRIZZLY BEARLYNX, WOLVERINE
Predation/
Food Source Herbivory/
Food Source
MOOSE, ELK, small
mammals, BIGHORN SHEEP
WILLOW- HEDYSERUM -LICHEN
GRASSLANDS -BUFFALOBERRY
WHITEBARK PINE
Mortality and
Translocation
-Hunting
[outside the park ]
-Road/Rail
-Problem
Wildlife
Fire Control
and Use,
Blister Rust &
Non-Native
Plant
Introduction
BNP – Indicators
Indicator: Area burned
40000
Wildfire
35000
Burn Area (ha)
Objective: Maintain
and restore native
vegetation
communities
30000
Prescribed
Fire
25000
20000
Target
15000
10000
5000
Target: 50% of longterm fire cycle
0
80
18
00
19
20
40
60
80
19
19
19
19
Decade Start Year
BNP – Report Card
Objective
Indicator
Target
Condition
Maintain and
restore native
vegetation
communities
Area of land
burned
Maintain 50%
of long-term
fire cycle
() Burned area
achieved for
park overall
Forest
composition
() Whitebark
pine in decline
Comparison
Fathom Five NP:
• Linked to ecoregional monitoring
• Comprehensive
• Good communication of results
Banff NP:
• Linked to management objectives
• Targeted
• Uses conceptual models by ecosystem
Both:
• Few monitoring targets
Challenge: Comprehensiveness
Monitoring of
Mgnt. Issues
• direct management-related issues
• short term results (2003-2008)
• PMP provides direction, active management
PARK MONITORING PROGRAM
Monitoring of
Core EI Indicators
• comprehensive assessment of park EI
• medium to long term results (> 10 years)
• monitoring framework/EIS provides direction
Challenge: Coordination
Typical Indicators
National
(System-wide)
Bio-Regional
(Ecozone)
Local
(Park-specific)
water/air quality, AVHRR,
phenology, land use changes
focal species, ecosystem
monitoring, fragmentation
PMP-driven indicators,
local human use issues
Challenge: Agree on Framework
and Approach
Biodiversity
Functions
Stressors
Species richness
Succession
Land-use patterns
Population dynamics Productivity
Habitat fragmentation
Trophic levels
Decomposition
Pollutants
Nutrient retention
Climate
Goal
Objective
Indicator
Target
Ecological Manage damage Vegetation trampling VTI not to
Integrity
to vegetation
index (VTI)
exceed 4.0
Challenge: Communicate Results
Park SOP Report Card
songbirds
Realm
System
preyEcosystems
base
Terrestrial
changes
Forests
Wetlands
Freshwater Ecosystems
prey base
Streams
Lakes
changes
forest floor
invertebrates
Biodiversity
prey base
changes
climate change
changes in vegetation
structure/composition
Ecosystem Function
salamanders
bark/leaf
invertebrates
leaf litter nutrient
concentration
herbivory
Human Stressors – In Park
forest canopy
Human Stressors – Outside Park
nutrient
availability
and uptake
foliar nutrient
concentrations
?
climate change
subcanopy
< 1m
chopsticks
Other stressors
subcanopy
> 1m
?
forest floor
mineralization
acid rain
soil Ca/N
nutrient
leaching
Code
stressor effect
Management Concern
Symbol
Condition Change
ecological effect
immediate management
condition is worsening
process indicator
action is requiredstream water
monitoring
there is an important
no change in condition
management concern
there
is a minor
condition
Conceptual
model showing relationships
betweenis improving
management
concern indicators and two ecosystem
monitored ecological
no management
condition trend unknown
?
stressors –concern
acid rain and climate
change
unmonitored
factors
monitored
indicator
soil process
stressor
biotic process
Lessons Learned
Need linkages to management objectives
Need comprehensive coverage of EI
Need system-wide consistency
Need integration with greater ecosystem reporting
Need clear indicators and targets
Need effective communication of results
Need integrated data management