# Presentation: 423426

## Notice: The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Scientists in EPA have prepared the EPA sections, and those sections have been reviewed in accordance with EPA’s peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication.  The EPA contributed funding to the construction of this website but is not responsible for it's contents. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

**Notice: The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Scientists in EPA have prepared the EPA sections, and those sections have been reviewed in accordance with EPA’s peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation and publication.  The EPA contributed funding to the construction of this website but is not responsible for it's contents. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.**

## Building a Regional Monitoring FrameworkIntegrating Local Programs and the Ontario Niagara Escarpment Monitoring Program

**Robert Milne**
- Wilfrid Laurier University
**Lorne Bennett**
- University of Guelph

**Graham Whitelaw**
- University of Waterloo
**James Hamilton**
- Wilfrid Laurier University

## Slide 3

## Slide 4

## Slide 5

## Slide 6

## Slide 7

## Objectives 

- Review the Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment (ONE) Monitoring Program and existing regional and local monitoring programs concerning natural heritage
- Determine regional monitoring gaps and limitations of the ONE program
- Consider potential for integration between regional agencies including Niagara Escarpment Commission and Conservation Authorities

## Relationship between Monitoring, Evaluating Cumulative Effects and Planning Decisions

- (after Ramsey, 1996)

## Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment (ONE) Monitoring Program Framework

| Monitoring Objectives |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Terrestrial Ecology | Water | Recreation |  | Open Landscape Character | Land Use | Public Access |
| Monitoring Questions |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Natural processes and habitats? Regenerating fields and former aggregate areas? | Quality and quantity of ground water?Quality and quantity of surface water? |  | Recreational activities and opportunities?Recreational demands and carrying capacity? | Open landscape character? | Permitted uses and activities? Permitted land management practices? | Road access and trail access?Stress on access points? |
| Monitoring Components |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Cliff face, valleys, forests, wetlands | Streams, ponds, groundwater |  | Public and private parks, conservation areas | Access points, walking trails | Designated areas, land classes | Landform, vegetation, views, land use, heritage |
| Indicators |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Targets |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Techniques |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Information Management • Analysis and Reporting • Management Actions |  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Levels of Monitoring 

**Temporal  **
- Academic research
- Breeding Bird Atlas
- Forest Bird Monitoring Program
**Spatial**
- Site
- Habitat/Subwatershed
- Regional/Watershed

## Levels of Monitoring 

**Organizational**
- Regional Agencies
- Lead agency - Niagara Escarpment Commission
- Conservation Authorities
- Credit Valley Conservation
- Halton Region Conservation Authority
- Regional Municipalities
- Region of Peel
- Halton Region

- Provincial
- Ministry of the Environment
- Ministry of Natural Resources
- Federal
- Canadian Wildlife Service
- Bird Studies Canada
- Local and Volunteer
- Halton - North Peel Naturalists
- North Peel Naturalists
- South Peel Naturalists

## Levels of Monitoring 

**Environmental**
- Biological
- Species – indicators, species at risk
- Habitat or Community - suite of species
- Ecological
- Processes – biophysical measures, exchanges, interactions
- Socio-ecological
- Planning – assessing impact and policy of human system on the biophysical

## Target Species-levelMonitoring Plots

## Species-LevelBaseline Plots - Birds 

## Species-Level Monitoring Plots by Habitat Type - Birds

## Slide 17

## Species-LevelMonitoring Plots  - Frogs

## Species – level Vegetation Plots

## Slide 20

## Process-LevelMonitoring Plots

## Slide 22

## Impact MonitoringPlots

## Slide 24

## Slide 25

## Forest Bird Monitoring ProgramSouthern Ontario

## Species-Level Monitoring Plots by Habitat Type - Birds

## Species-LevelMonitoring Plots- Frogs

## Process-LevelMonitoring Plots

## Gap Analysis and Summary 

- Spatial Gaps
- Concentration of avian plots in South-central Ontario and ‘cottage country’
- Concentration of monitoring plots along Niagara Escarpment and Credit River
- Species Gaps
- Concentration on avian species
- Increasing recognition of importance of amphibians and vegetation
- Little recognition of mammals

## Gap Analysis and Summary

- Habitat Gaps
- Concentration of avian plots in upland forests
- Poor representation of other habitats especially grasslands, savannas, and plantations
- Eco-Process Gaps
- Increasing recognition of community dynamics and health through process monitoring
- Integrated plot programs by Credit Valley including forest health and bird populations
- Cessation of bird productivity studies

## Gap Analysis and Summary

- Planning Gaps
- Limited long-term monitoring programs through lead agency, Niagara Escarpment Commission
- Increasing integration of programs between regional agencies
- Delayed incorporation of results into planning policy