SPECIES, MULTI-SPECIES & ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY IN ACTION in Southern Ontario Jarmo Jalava Director of Ecosytem Recovery Carolinian Canada Coalition

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-

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

Personal background / bias:

Southern Ontario

Most people think I’m a scientist. I don’t.

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.

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

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.

Problems with single-species RS’s

• Typically a lengthy process to develop a Recovery Strategy from draft to final posting (averaging >3 years)

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

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.

Problems with single-species RS’s

Strategies may not adequately address longer term impacts of recovery activities on other species, habitats and ecosystems.

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).

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)

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)

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”

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.

Case study: Implementation

Carolinian Life Zone 0.25% of Canada’s land mass >40% of Canada’s plant taxa

= our most biologically diverse ecoregion

Carolinian Life Zone 0.25% of land mass (>95% private, <2% protected)

25% of Canada’s human population

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

• COORDINATION

• COLLABORATION

• INTEGRATION

of recovery efforts in Carolinian Canada

Carolinian Canada Coalition:

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.

• 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

Carolinian Woodlands Recovery Strategy

Ecosystem-based strategy

based partly on

single-species needs

Site-based action planning, implementation

Photo credit: Daniela Puric-Mladenovic

Species At Risk “HOTSPOTS”

Where to start?

Developing

Strategies &

Measures

Implementing

Strategies &

Measures

Using Results to

Adapt & Improve

Defining

Your Project

Defining

Your Project

· Project people

· Project scope & focal

targets

An approach to

conservation

applied and refined

throughout the

world for >30 years

How to do it?

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)

• Nature Conservancy of Canada

• >500 CAPs being implemented worldwide

Doria Gordon training Madagascar National Parks staff

CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Introduction

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.

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).

CCC – Conservation Action Planning

Conservation Targets

Nested Targets

1. Rivers, streams,

(including Old Ausable

Channel), associated

wetlands and riparian

meadows

Northern Riffleshell, Snuffbox,

Kidneyshell, Pugnose Shiner, Lake

Chubsucker, River Redhorse, Blanding’s

Turtle, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Spiny

Softshell, Spotted Turtle, Stinkpot,

Northern Map Turtle

2. Moist forests and

swamps

Heart-leaved Plantain, Prothonotary

Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Eastern

Flowering Dogwood, Red-shouldered

Hawk

3. Fresh upland

deciduous / mixed

forests

Hooded Warbler, American Ginseng,

Green Dragon, Broad Beech Fern,

Cucumber Tree, Cerulean Warbler,

Acadian Flycatcher, Woodland Vole,

Red-headed Woodpecker, Bald Eagle (?)

Shared ecological needs or threats

“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

ELEMENT

Associated Conservation

Target(s) (see Table 1.5 for

key to codes)

Hab

itat Frag

mentatio

n

Hab

itat Lo

ss

Deg

radatio

n o

f Hab

itat

Inco

mp

atib

le Fo

rest

Man

agem

en

t

Chan

ges to

natu

ral su

ccession

Disease

Chan

ges to

Hyd

rolo

gy

Distu

rban

ce (Recreatio

n,

Co

nstru

ction o

r Main

tenance

)

Discrim

inate K

illing, C

ollectio

n,

Harv

esting

Po

llutio

n

Ro

ad M

ortality

Excessiv

e Pred

ation, P

arasitism

or H

erbiv

ory

Co

mp

etition w

ith In

trod

uced

Sp

ecies

Hyb

ridiza

tion w

ith In

trod

uce

d

Sp

ecies

Comments

Crooked-stem

Aster

1. RS; 2. VF (edge); 3. TF

(forest edge and roadsides)

O

E

O

E

O

E

O

E

O

E

O

E

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

other agricultural activities; garlic mustard; trampling by off-road

vehicles

Note: 19 of 22 known populations in 1999 Status Report found in Elgin

County

Dense Blazing-star 1. PS; 2. IW O

E

O

E

O

E O

O

E

O

E?

O

E

O

E?

Limited by climate and lack of disturbance (e.g. fire); over-grazing;

hybridization and genetic erosion (cultivated varieties available at

garden centres); herbicide application; mowing

Drooping Trillium 1. VF; 2. MF O

E

O

E

O

E O

O

E?

O?

E?

O?

E?

O

E

Limited by low dispersal ability, low seed production, climate;

excessive opening of canopy; dumping; decreased soil moisture;

exotic earthworms; herbivory/browsing/grazing?; garlic mustard;

honeysuckles

Note: selective logging at one Elgin site

Eastern Flowering

Dogwood

1. UF; fencerows and

roadsides

O

E

O

E

O

E

O

E

O

E

O

E

O

E

Main threat is dogwood anthracnose fungus; fire suppression and

forest succession (closed canopy results in reduced EFD vigour and

encourages fungal growth); reduced probability of seed dispersal;

restricted gene flow (possibly reducing ability to develop natural

resistance to anthracnose); insects and pests

Species, ecosystem, socioeconomic

knowledge drawn from RS’s & local experts

CAP objectives and actions must be:

Strategic

Measurable

Action-oriented / Achievable

Relevant / Realistic

Time-limited

CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Methodology

Instead of “increase forest cover”

By 2020, the area dominated by native vegetation will be increased by 50 ha, comprising an increase of

25% of total natural area

What specific measurable outcomes do we want to achieve? Image credit: Daniela Puric-Mladenovic

CCC – Conservation Action Planning - Methodology

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.

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!

CCC – Conservation Action Planning

CURRENT STATUS (October 2012)

CCC Conservation Action Plan Network

Completed by CCC & partners;

in implementation phase

Draft completed by CCC &

partners; implementation begun

In progress (CCC & partners)

Ausable -

Kettle Point -

Pinery

Essex Forests &

Wetlands / Pt. Pelee

Western

Lake Erie

Islands

Norfolk

Sand

Plain

Upper

Thames

Skunks

Misery

Hamilton -

Burlington Short

Hills

Niagara

River

Corridor

Grand

River

Forests

Walpole

Island

Sydenham

River

Rondeau

Rouge

Valley

Completed

by NCC

Areas of

Interest /

Action

Elgin

Greenway

Six

Nations

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

CCC – Conservation Action Planning

• 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…

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.

• 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

Benefits of CCC’s approach

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Miigwetch, Merci, Thank You! Partners, OMNR SAR Stewardship Fund, EC’s HSP