Monitoring the Moraine project Ecological Monitoring Workshop

1
Monitoring the Moraine project Ecological
Monitoring Workshop

• Friday, December 8th, 2006
• Rexall Centre, York University
• Toronto Ontario

2
Agenda

• Introduction
• Guest speakers
• Marlene Doyle, EMAN
• Josh van Wieren, Parks Canada
• Break
• Proposed monitoring ideas presentation
• Lunch
• Breakout sessions aquatics, wetlands,
  terrestrial
• Plenary and discussion

3
Introduction
4
Oak Ridges Moraine

• Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Conservation Act and
  Plan were true products of citizens action
• Plan approved April 22,2002 - an Environment
  First Plan

5
Timeline
Plan review
ORM legislation
2001
2014
2007

• Missing provincial oversight
• defending the ORMCP
• municipal by-laws
• technical guidelines

Not all OPs approved No monitoring framework
Were here in late 2006
6
Monitoring the Moraine Project

• Citizens need to have a
• voice at the review in 2014
• Collaborative and community-led
• Engaging and sustaining community volunteers in
  monitoring across the Oak Ridges Moraine
• Integration of environmental monitoring, policy
  monitoring and web-based data management
• Monitoring results will be measured against the
  policies of the ORM Conservation Plan

7
Monitoring the Moraine Project

• A project between
• Citizens Environment Watch
• environmental monitoring
• Save The Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition
• policy monitoring
• The Centre for Community Mapping
• web-based data management

policy
environment
MTM
data
8
Project Deliverables
Project is funded for 3 yrs

• Phase 1 (complete)
• Designing the project and monitoring framework
• Phase 2 (current phase)
• Building the tools

• Ongoing activities
• Engaging the community
• Sharing and using the findings

9
Phase 1 Designing the Project

• Consultations
• Stakeholders meeting
• Community workshops
• Monitoring advisory committee
• Monitoring framework
• Monitoring gap analysis

10
Target Areas
Hamilton Township Alnwick-Haldimand
Vaughan King Township
Aurora Richmond Hill Whitchurch-Stouffville Gwillm
bury
Scugog Clarington City of Kawartha Lakes
11
Province of Ontario Conservation Authorities

Big Picture View
System
Province of Ontario Conservation
Authorities Municipalities on Moraine Community-Le
vel Monitoring
Legend Monitoring Levels Monitoring
Theme Monitoring Focus

System/ Site Transition

Conservation Authorities Community-Level
Monitoring

On the Ground
Site/Community Level
The four key phases of community-based
monitoring. Framework developed by the Canadian
Community Monitoring Network
Community Level Vision, Mission, Goals, Issues
Terrestrial
ORMCP
Policy
Aquatic
Community-Level Strategic Monitoring Plan
Human Well-Being
12
Monitoring Gap Analysis

• Survey Questions
• Who is monitoring on the Oak Ridges Moraine?
• What and where are they monitoring?
• How are they monitoring?
• How is the data stored and used?

13
Monitoring Gap Analysis

• Results
• 54 responses

14
Monitoring Gap Analysis

• Main Findings
• Level of monitoring matches organizational scope
• Usually, standard protocols within existing
  networks
• Higher monitoring activity in west than east
• Aquatic gt Terrestrial gt Wetland monitoring
• Few responses from community groups
• NGOs tend to monitor biological indicators

15
Monitoring Gap Analysis

• Gaps
• Coordinated monitoring on the moraine as a
  landscape
• Strong coordination communication between
  agencies
• Communication of existing monitoring initiatives
  and information to community
• Limited community-based monitoring
• Invasive/non-native species disease/pest
  monitoring

16
Monitoring Gap Analysis

• Recommendations
• Collaborative projects/partnerships
  vertically/horizontally
• Targeted and coordinated project delivery
• Build capacity of local groups
• Build networks to share information, e.g. Lake
  Ontario Modeling Team
• Monitoring the Moraine Project

Federal
Provincial
CAs / NGOs
Community
17
Pilot Projects

• Gauge the feasibility of certain protocols
• Opportunities for collaboration
• Check Your Watershed Day
• Terrestrial biodiversity monitoring with
  universities

18
Phase 2 Building the Tools

• Develop the monitoring program
• Produce educations manuals
• Develop workshop format and materials
• Work with COMAP to develop technology tools

19
Ecological MonitoringGoals of Todays Workshop

• Provide overview of monitoring goals/objectives
• Advise MTM project partners on protocols that
  community members can and want to do
• Assist MTM project partners to create meaningful
  monitoring programs using these protocols (ie
  ensure that useful data is generated)
• Provide input into information sharing techniques
• Identify partnerships/collaborations

20
Guest Speakers
21
Proposed Monitoring Ideas Presentation
22
Proposed Monitoring Ideas

• Goals
• Timeline
• Benefits of collaboration
• Monitoring locations
• Information sharing
• Criteria for proposed monitoring activities
• Proposed activities

23
Monitoring Program Goals

• Baseline data
• Early warning/red flags
• Build community capacity
• Use of and incorporation of data into other
  monitoring programs (and vice versa ie 2-way
  sharing)
• Establish a foundation of long-term monitoring by
  volunteers on the moraine

24
Timelines

• 2007 roll-out 2 monitoring programs 2 pilots
• 2008 roll-out 2 additional monitoring programs
  based on pilot studies (total of 4 programs)
• 2009 continue with 4 monitoring programs and 1
  additional pilot
• 2010 review of data and develop plan for
  presenting information in 2014
• 2014 review of legislation
• Each year technical and summary reports, etc.

25
Benefits of Collaboration
26
Benefits of Collaboration
27
Monitoring Locations

• Four target areas (see map)
• Watershed-based
• Public spaces
• Accommodate locations suggested by volunteers and
  other groups within four target areas
• Sites to be located in natural core, natural
  linkage, countryside and settlement areas

28
Information Sharing

• Technologically based
• Paper-based
• Technical reports
• Summary/layman reports
• Promotional/outreach materials
• Annual status report
• Media
• Other communications
• Annual recognition event
• Presentations

29
Criteria for Choosing Protocols

• Appropriate for concerns across the moraine?
• Is there a need identified through the community
  workshops and the gap analysis?
• What do volunteers want to do?
• Is the protocol appropriate for volunteers?
• Is it within the scope of the MTM project? (ie
  budget, timelines, staff capacity)
• Is the protocol compatible with other protocols
  and monitoring programs?
• Does the protocol have a proven track record?
• Is this information going to be useful for
  decision-makers?

30
Proposed Activities

• Aquatic Benthic macroinvertebrates and water
  flow (Check Your Watershed Day)
• Wetlands ?
• Terrestrial 20x20 terrestrial biodiversity
  monitoring plots

31
Aquatic Monitoring

• Indicator
• Benthic Macroinvertebrates
• Aquatic bottom-dwelling animals
• Respond to changes in water/sediment quality
• Commonly used indicator
• Varying range of tolerances to pollution
• Relatively easy to collect and ID
• Commonly found

32
Aquatic Monitoring

• BMI Protocols
• CEW
• TRCA
• OBBN

33
Aquatic Monitoring CEW Protocol

• PROS
• Developed based on sound science (TRCA protocol)
• Applied to wadeable streams
• Used by community members
• Appropriate for urban streams
• Used since 2001across GTA
• Relative easy method of site assessment
• Community-tailored training materials program
• CONS
• Not standardized across Ontario
• No existing database

34
Aquatic Monitoring TRCA Protocol

• PROS
• Developed based sound science
• Applied to wadeable streams
• Used by CAs and community members in TRCA
  jurisdiction
• Appropriate for urban streams
• Historical data
• Relative easy method of site assessment
• Existing online database
• Partnership with CEW training materials
  program
• Published in academic papers
• CONS
• Not standardized across Ontario
• Database application exclusive to TRCA

35
Aquatic Monitoring OBBN Protocol

• PROS
• Developed based sound science (MOE EMAN CO)
• Standardized across Ontario
• Linked to national program, CABIN
• Applied to wadeable streams
• Used by CAs across ORM (except TRCA)
• Existing online database
• Published in academic papers
• Participant and trainer certification
• CONS
• Database functionality
• Limited urban applicability
• Limited resources use by community
• No historical data

36
Aquatic Monitoring OSAP

• PROS
• Developed based sound science
• Sites relatively accessible
• Used by community members (pilot project)
• Low tech, affordable, takes 1 day
• Currently under development as its own module
  within OSAP
• High participant satisfaction (evaluations)
• CONS
• Database functionality
• No historical data

37
Wetland Monitoring

• Indicator ???
• Existing Indicators
• Birds
• Frogs
• Wetland vegetation
• Water quality
• Existing Protocols
• MMP
• WQI

38
Terrestrial Monitoring

• Indicator
• Tree/Shrub Species health
• Easy to identify
• Sites easy to locate
• Good indicator of fauna health
• Commonly used indicator

39
Terrestrial Monitoring EMAN

• Protocol
• EMAN 20x20 Forest Biodiversity Plots
• PROS
• Developed based on sound science (SI)
• Used across Canada by various groups CAs,
  academia, community groups
• Established training materials and program
• CONS
• Training resources not appropriate for community
  use

40
Breakout Sessions
41
Aquatics Breakout Questions
42
Aquatics
43
Aquatics
44
Aquatics
45
Wetlands Breakout Questions
46
Terrestrial Breakout Questions
47
Terrestrial
48
Acknowledgements
many people and organizations for providing or
offering in-kind support
49
More Information

• Monitoring the Moraine Project
• www.MonitoringTheMoraine.ca
• Citizens Environment Watch (CEW)
• www.CitizensEnvironmentWatch.org
• Save The Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition
• www.stormcoalition.org
• Centre for Community Mapping (COMAP)
• www.comap.ca