2. Personal background / bias:
- Peregrine Falcon Reintroduction Program (1978-1979)
- Biological/ecological inventories of >200 parks and natural areas
- Ecological Survey of the Niagara Escarpment (1991-1996)
- Ecological Survey of the Eastern Georgian Bay Coast (2001-2005)
- International Alvar Conservation Initiative (1996-2000)
- Provincial Natural Areas Ecologist – Ontario NHIC (1996-2001)
- Chippewas of Nawash SAR Inventory & Capacity-building (2007-
Ecosystem / Multi-species Recovery Teams
- Pitcher’s Thistle - Lake Huron Dune Grasslands RT (2004-
- Bruce Peninsula – Manitoulin Island Alvar Ecosystems RT (2005-
- Carolinian Woodland Plants RT (2007-
- Bobolink – Eastern Meadowlark Recovery Working Group (2010-
3. Personal background / bias:
Author / co-author
of draft/posted federal/provincial recovery strategies:
Single Species (9): Pitcher’s Thistle, Drooping Trillium, Wild Hyacinth,
Kentucky Coffee-tree, Heart-leaved Plantain, Dwarf Lake Iris, Nodding
Pogonia, Large Whorled Pogonia, Gattinger’s Agalinis
Multi-Species / Ecosystem (4): draft Bruce Peninsula – Manitoulin
Island Alvars (Dwarf Lake Iris, Lakeside Daisy, Hill’s Thistle, Gattinger’s
Agalinis); draft Pitcher’s Thistle – Lake Huron Dune Grasslands;
Carolinian Woodlands (Phase I & II); Bobolink – Eastern Meadowlark
4. Personal background / bias:
Southern Ontario
Most people think I’m a scientist. I don’t.
5. This presentation
Summarizes some of the advantages and
disadvantages of single-species and multi-
species/ecosystem approaches to recovery.
Highlights multi-species & ecosystem
recovery initiatives that build upon the
species-specific SARA recovery approach.
6. Recovery Strategies in Canada
• Single species approaches prevail
• RS Templates designed for single species
• Each species is theoretically represented by
a Recovery Team (many teams now inactive)
• In some cases no Recovery Team formed
due to low complexity (few sites, on
protected lands etc.)
• Most Recovery Strategies have not
developed Action Plans
7. Advantages of single-species RS’s
• Afford in-depth understanding of species-
specific biological requirements and threats.
• Recovery Teams can be of a manageable size,
and include key experts.
• Intensive population assessment and
monitoring can be undertaken for all known
extant sites.
• Recovery efforts can be more easily identified
and implemented, and can focus on key
populations for species survival.
8. Problems with single-species RS’s
• Typically a lengthy process to develop a
Recovery Strategy from draft to final posting
(averaging >3 years)
9. Problems with single-species RS’s
• Recovery Teams are typically small, drawn
from limited pool of experts, many of
whom serve on other teams (burn-out factor)
• Reduced opportunity to develop the
partnerships required for implementation
• Tendency to go dormant after an initial
period of activity
10. Problems with single-species RS’s
• Time- and labour-intensive to identify
critical habitat, especially for species
with many small, widely-dispersed
populations.
• Limited resources for implementation
– divided amongst 100’s of species
nationwide.
11. Problems with single-species RS’s
Strategies may not adequately address longer
term impacts of recovery activities on other
species, habitats and ecosystems.
12. When are single-species
approaches most effective?
On intact, functioning landscapes with relatively
low concentrations of SAR (e.g., Woodland
Caribou).
For critically imperiled species with extremely low
populations and few occurrences (e.g., Piping
Plover, Heart-leaved Plantain).
13. Multi-species & Ecosystem RS’s
Similarities:
– Both deal with multiple species (an
ecosystem strategy often nests individual
species strategies within the larger strategy)
– Both often involve the protection of a rare or
unique vegetation community type or
ecosystem
– Both often focus on ecological processes,
species interactions and landscape-level
considerations (e.g., habitat connectivity)
14. Multi-species Recovery Strategies
• In Ontario alone, at least 13 multi-species and
ecosystem recovery strategies drafted.
• Few have received federal/provincial approval
(Sydenham River, Garry Oak), but many are
being implemented anyway: (e.g., Turtles,
Tallgrass, Carolinian Woodlands, Ausable River
Aquatic, Thames River Aquatic, Pitcher’s Thistle
– Lake Huron Dune Grasslands, Bruce Peninsula
– Manitoulin Island Alvars, Lake Erie Sand Spit
Savannahs)
15. Problems with Multi-species RS’s
Clark & Harvey (2002) found that multi-species
approaches in U.S. generally:
- Displayed poorer understanding of species biology
- Were less likely to include adaptive management
strategies
- Were revised less frequently
They recommend: “explicit use of threat-similarity
analysis to identify appropriate groups of species for
concurrent management”
16. Multi-species & Ecosystem RS’s
In highly-impacted, fragmented
landscapes with high concentrations
of SAR, multi-species and ecosystem-
based approaches may be more
appropriate -- at least at the
implementation stage.
20. Carolinian Life Zone
>94% upland forest lost
>70% of wetlands lost
>98% of prairies and savannahs lost
>150 designated Species At Risk
(25% of national total, 100X concentration)
>500 additional potential Species At Risk
+ Many globally significant ecosystems and
natural features
21. Carolinian Canada Coalition:
• COORDINATION
• COLLABORATION
• INTEGRATION
of recovery efforts in Carolinian Canada
22. Carolinian Woodland Plants
Recovery Team
formed in 2004 to develop single-species
recovery strategies for 9 priority taxa:
Drooping Trillium, Heart-leaved Plantain, Round-leaved Greenbrier, Wild
Hyacinth, Kentucky Coffee-tree, Large Whorled Pogonia, Nodding
Pogonia, False Rue Anemone and Crooked-stem Aster.
23. • BUT >50 designated SAR
require Canada’s
Carolinian woodland
habitats;
• Another >100 SAR occur
in associated Carolinian
ecosystems, often at the
same sites;
• 100’s more “potential”
SAR
24. Carolinian Woodlands Recovery Strategy
Ecosystem-based strategy
based partly on
single-species needs
Photo credit: Daniela Puric-Mladenovic
Site-based action planning,
implementation
26. Defining
How to do it? Your Project
Defining
· Project people
·
Your Project
Project scope & focal
targets
An approach to
conservation
Developing
Using Results to applied and refined
Strategies &
Adapt & Improve throughout the
Measures
world for >30 years
Implementing
Strategies &
Measures
27. CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Introduction
CAP Around the World
• The Nature Conservancy (U.S.) and
international partners (e.g., WWF)
• Federal government agencies in
Bolivia, Madagascar, Thailand,
China, Peru, Guatemala, etc.
• Parks planning in Egypt (Dan
Paleczny)
• NGO’s in Australia, Mexico, Kenya
• Great Bear Rainforest, B.C.; Lake
Huron (ON/MI)
Doria Gordon training Madagascar • Nature Conservancy of Canada
National Parks staff • >500 CAPs being implemented
worldwide
28. CCC – Conservation Action Planning
CAP Partners
Steering committee
• Typically higher-level managers of local agencies,
organizations and groups
• Defines the scope of the CAP, participants, roles, overall
goals and objectives, stakeholder liaison, leveraging
support, guiding implementation and monitoring.
Science / Ecology Team
• Typically consists of local biologists, naturalists, SAR
recovery team members & conservation practitioners
• Develops list of conservation targets, assessing their
viability, threats, key ecological attributes to monitor,
conservation objectives and strategies.
29. CCC – Conservation Action Planning
CAP Partners (cont’d)
Advisors
• Available to advise on specific questions, information
requests, issues
Implementation Partners
• Research, inventory & monitoring; stewardship; ecological
restoration; site securement and protection; education
and outreach; sustainable economic development
(ecotourism, agriculture, industry).
30. Shared ecological needs or threats
Conservation
Nested Targets
Targets
Northern Riffleshell, Snuffbox,
1. Rivers, streams,
Kidneyshell, Pugnose Shiner, Lake
(including Old Ausable
Chubsucker, River Redhorse, Blanding’s
Channel), associated
Turtle, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Spiny
wetlands and riparian
Softshell, Spotted Turtle, Stinkpot,
meadows
Northern Map Turtle
Heart-leaved Plantain, Prothonotary
2. Moist forests and Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Eastern
swamps Flowering Dogwood, Red-shouldered
Hawk
Hooded Warbler, American Ginseng,
3. Fresh upland Green Dragon, Broad Beech Fern,
deciduous / mixed Cucumber Tree, Cerulean Warbler,
forests Acadian Flycatcher, Woodland Vole,
Red-headed Woodpecker, Bald Eagle (?)
31. “Special needs” species
treated separately
Butternut, Eastern Flowering Dogwood: disease
SAR reptiles: road mortality
Nodding Pogonia: very rare, specific monitoring needs
Chimney Swift, Bobolink: anthropogenic habitats
32. Species, ecosystem, socioeconomic
knowledge drawn from RS’s & local experts
Discriminate Killing, Collection,
Excessive Predation, Parasitism
Hybridization with Introduced
Changes to natural succession
Construction or Maintenance)
Competition with Introduced
Disturbance (Recreation,
Degradation of Habitat
Habitat Fragmentation
Changes to Hydrology
Incompatible Forest
Road Mortality
Management
or Herbivory
Habitat Loss
Harvesting
Pollution
Associated Conservation
Disease
Species
Species
ELEMENT Target(s) (see Table 1.5 for Comments
key to codes)
Limited by semi-obligate out-breeding system (requires genetically
different individuals to produce seed); Forestry: clear-cutting, heavy
selective timber harvesting, damage; erosion due to tile drainage or
Crooked-stem 1. RS; 2. VF (edge); 3. TF O O O O O O
other agricultural activities; garlic mustard; trampling by off-road
Aster (forest edge and roadsides) E E E E E E
vehicles
Note: 19 of 22 known populations in 1999 Status Report found in Elgin
County
Limited by climate and lack of disturbance (e.g. fire); over-grazing;
O O O O O O O
Dense Blazing-star 1. PS; 2. IW O hybridization and genetic erosion (cultivated varieties available at
E E E E E? E E?
garden centres); herbicide application; mowing
Limited by low dispersal ability, low seed production, climate;
excessive opening of canopy; dumping; decreased soil moisture;
O O O O O? O? O
Drooping Trillium 1. VF; 2. MF O exotic earthworms; herbivory/browsing/grazing?; garlic mustard;
E E E E? E? E? E
honeysuckles
Note: selective logging at one Elgin site
Main threat is dogwood anthracnose fungus; fire suppression and
forest succession (closed canopy results in reduced EFD vigour and
Eastern Flowering 1. UF; fencerows and O O O O O O O
encourages fungal growth); reduced probability of seed dispersal;
Dogwood roadsides E E E E E E E
restricted gene flow (possibly reducing ability to develop natural
resistance to anthracnose); insects and pests
33. CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Methodology
CAP objectives and actions
must be:
Strategic
Measurable
Action-oriented / Achievable
Relevant / Realistic
Time-limited
34. CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Methodology
What specific measurable outcomes do we want to achieve?
Image credit: Daniela Puric-Mladenovic
Instead of By 2020, the area dominated by
“increase forest cover” native vegetation will be increased
by 50 ha, comprising an increase of
25% of total natural area
35. Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Key Ecological Attributes and other components
for monitoring:
- Specific SAR populations
- Extent of forest interior (forest species)
- Presence of key indicator species (prairies)
- Benthic organism composition (aquatic)
- Water temperature (aquatic)
- Buffer widths (riparian)
- Landowner participation in stewardship programs
- Etc.
36. CCC – Conservation Action Planning
CAP Partners
More than 80 organisations have contributed to the
development and implementation of Carolinian
Canada CAPs since 2008
$$$ millions in in-kind implementation of CAPs in the
first 4 years of the program
And GROWING!
37. CURRENT STATUS (October 2012)
Rouge
CCC Conservation Action Plan Network Valley
Grand
Ausable - River Hamilton -
Kettle Point - Forests Burlington Short
Pinery Hills
Upper
Thames
Norfolk
Sydenham Sand Six Niagara
River Plain
Walpole Nations River
Island Corridor
Elgin
Skunks Greenway
Misery
Completed by CCC & partners;
Essex Forests & Rondeau
Wetlands / Pt. Pelee
in implementation phase
Complete
Draft completed by CCC & by NCC
partners; implementation begun
Areas of
Western
Lake Erie In progress (CCC & partners) Interest /
Islands Action
38. CCC – Conservation Action Planning
Actions, Results, Monitoring
Strategic land acquisitions
Ecological restoration projects
Invasive species control
Seasonal road closures (Jefferson Salamander)
SAR surveys and monitoring
Municipal Official Plan input
SAR Teacher’s kit
Best Management Practices fact sheets, web site
Landowner SAR stewardship workshops, etc., etc., etc.
+
Annual Recovery Forum and monitoring report
39. • CAPs engage municipalities and contribute to
municipal natural heritage systems planning
and official plans.
• CAPs engage First Nations, conservation
authorities, stewardship councils,
agricultural organisations, naturalist clubs,
land trusts, the business community…
40. Benefits of CCC’s approach
• Relationships between
conservation partners are strong
and reciprocal
• We work to facilitate community
buy-in and participation
• A broad spectrum of sectors and
stakeholders participate in planning
and implementation.
41. Benefits of CCC’s approach
• CAPs serve to strengthen and coordinate
the Species At Risk and ecosystem
recovery efforts of partner agencies,
organizations and local groups
• Each CAP is tailored to the area in which it
is developed by the CAP team
• Building resilience, climate change
adaptation
42. Other Examples
Pitcher’s Thistle – Lake Huron Dune Grasslands
- research
- stewardship
“Beach and Dune Guidance Manual for Providence Bay”
Bruce Peninsula – Manitoulin Island Alvar Ecosystems
- research
- stewardship
- protection
- community engagement
43. Summary
1. Sound, scientific understanding of species-
specific needs and threats is essential to
recovery.
2. In intact, functioning landscapes with low
concentrations of SAR, single species
recovery approaches are likely to be most
appropriate and effective.
44. Summary
3. In highly-impacted, fragmented landscapes
with high concentrations of SAR, multi-species
and ecosystem-based approaches are more
likely to be appropriate, at least at the
implementation stage.
4. Ecosystem-based implementation is dependent
(in part) on species-specific knowledge.
5. SARA is an essential tool.
45. We cannot have informed or effective
ecosystem/multi-species recovery
without consideration of single-
species recovery needs.
Nor can we have informed, effective
single-species recovery without
consideration of multi-species and
ecosystem needs.
46. Finally, for the fiscally-minded:
In degraded landscapes, single-species recovery
is like paying only the interest ($$ millions) on a
growing debt ($$$ billions).
Recovering ecosystem functionality and integrity
is like paying off the principal.
We cannot stop paying the interest until we have
paid off the principal.
