A RENEWED RESOURCE CONSERVATION FUNCTION WITHIN THE PARKS CANADA AGENCY June 2002

1
Key Elements of the PCA Monitoring and Reporting
Program
EI Indicator
Concerned
High EI
EI Impaired
EI Framework
human dimension
models
statistics
stressors
measures/data
Fourth Annual Meeting of the Networks Austin,
February 7-11, 2005
2
(No Transcript)
3
PCA Monitoring Background

• pre-1995 gt 20 years of ad hoc monitoring
  monitoring theory developed EI monitoring
  framework
• 2000 - Panel on Ecological Integrity
  recommendations ministerial response Parks
  Canada response - First Priority
• Revised Parks Canada Act 2001
• Problem analysis and program development
  proposals
• Nov 2003 - Recommendations to Executive Board
• Dec 2003 Program Launch based on Executive
  Board direction

4
PCA Legislation

• Parks Canada and Ecological Integrity
• Maintenance or restoration of ecological
  integrity, through the protection of natural
  resources and natural processes, shall be the
  first priority of the Minister when considering
  all aspects of the management of parks.
• Section 8. (2) Canada National Parks Act (2001)

• Ecological Integrity
• .ecosystem integrity means, 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.
• Section 2. (1) Canada National Parks Act (2001)

5
Why Monitor?

• All national parks will produce a park management
  plan (PMP) every 5 years the PMP is to be
  proceeded by a State of the Park (SOP) report
  SOP to report on state of EI of the park and how
  it is changing
• Every 2 years the state of all parks will be
  reported to parliament in a State of Parks and
  Heritage Areas (SOPHA) report

We monitor so we can provide useful and
comprehensive information for park reporting
6
Key Program ElementsExecutive Direction

• bioregional approach
• 6-8 EI indices per park/bioregion - iceberg
  model
• improved data management systems
• management involvement and approval
• stakeholder involvement in program development

What is the state of park EI?
What are we doing to improve it?
condition monitoring
effectiveness monitoring
7
PROGRAM STRUCTURE
                     
8
Monitoring Science

• Monitoring questions
• Experimental design
• Sampling, power, and trends
• Data management
• Monitoring research
• External science input
• Social science input
• Monitoring protocols
• Citizen science, TEK

9
Monitoring and Links with Key Planning and
Reporting Documents

SOPR

Scoping
Management
(5 years)
Document

Plan



(5 years)

(5 years)
Ongoing Ecological
Integrity Monitoring

National

SOPHA

Annual
Report

Implementation
(2 years)

Report

10
Program Co-ordination
Typical Measures GPE population trends and land
use (StatsCan), climate data, water/air quality,
AVHRR (NDVI, phenology)
National (System-wide)
regional-scale human use issues, focal species,
core long term ecosystem measures, fragmentation,
regional PMP issues
Bioregional
SOPHA
SOP
PMP-driven measures, local human use issues,
local SAR, park visitors
Local (Park-specific)
11
 
MONITORING LANGUAGE

• 30 - High EI
• 30-20 - Concerned
• 20 - EI impaired

62
 
12
Targets, Baselines and Thresholds
precautionary principle
42
Dry Weight Loss of Wood Decomposition
Standard (percent dry weight loss)
13
Ecosystem Conceptual Models

• describing, monitoring and communicating park EI
  vision

• reduce ecosystem complexity models capture and
• measure park EI vision
• EI monitoring models provide a logical frame
  for
• developing and assessing EI measures, and
  combining them
• into EI indicators
• communicating monitoring results models can be
• presented at many levels for many different
  audiences
• internal and external communication

14
FOREST STANDS
15
LTEMPs
16
The Holy Grail

• To find a parsimonious suite of inter-related EI
  measures that provide a comprehensive summary of
  park EI at an acceptable financial and human
  resources cost

17
Communicate!

• Main reason for monitoring is reporting key
  program objective to provide clear and effective
  reporting SOPRs/SOPHARs
• External communications to a wide range of
  technical and on-technical audiences
• Internal communications combining agency
  knowledge key to program success
• Park intranet
• Bioregional process
• Protocol sharing

18
Monitoring Knowledge
19
EI Indicator
Concerned
EI Impaired
High EI
Public environment
Science environment
feedback
EI Framework
human dimension
models
statistics
stressors
measures/data
20
Forest EI Indicator
Concerned
Critical
Healthy
Stand Level Forest EI
Landscape Level Forest EI
Models
tree productivity, songbird index, salamander
populations change, foliar nutrient index,
decomposition efficiency
FF BioD Index (SAR, top predators, ungulates),
CFBioD Index (ecosystem representation),
connectivity, productivity
Measures
dbh, canopy condition, species composition,
chopstick dry weight loss, songbird/salamander
density, relative soil arthropod abundance,
foliar nutrient concentrations
SAR and other species population assessments,
relative ecosystem abundance, Fragstats, AVHRR
Data
21
6-8 Park EI Indicators
forests
streams
wetlands
lakes
estuaries
intertidal
dunes
lagoons
22
National Office Challenge Refine and confirm
these 6-8 national indicators
SOPHA Reporting on Park EI
6-8 Indicators (6-8 questions)
41 national parks
23
Program Iteration
24
Program Sustainability

• Long term component of the monitoring program
  inherently susceptible to collapse at 8-12 years
  (low return on investment, loss of original
  champions)
• Given inherent potential for collapse and size of
  PCA investment need to develop the program to
  minimize the risk
• Engage managers from the beginning to ensure we
  build a useful and affordable system manage
  expectations
• A useful system will become a day-to-day tool
  that will support itself
• Design long term component with stress
  comparisons to provide useful data in the short
  term
• Focus on effectiveness monitoring in the short
  term will provide more immediate return on
  investment in program

25
EI Monitoring Program Challenge

• USEFUL clear messages about the state of park EI
  and effectiveness of park management activities
• COMPREHENSIVE indicators from all major park
  ecosystems and management needs, using
  scientifically robust methods, and that are
  effectively synthesized and communicated
• ACHIEVABLE sustainable in the long term in both
  financial and human resources implementable in
  the context of park technical and scientific
  capacities.