Multi-species monitoring using winter track surveys in the Sahtú Settlement Region Tulita November 26-27, 2014
Day 1 - Agenda • Introductions • Overview of CIMP funding proposal • Discussion of objectives, questions and hypotheses • Overview of existing snow track monitoring programs • What types of information should we record? • Who should conduct the surveys? Who should coordinate? • Identification of survey routes for a pilot program 2
CIMP funding proposal • CIMP = Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program • Used to be managed by the federal government, now part of GNWT Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) • Coordinates, conducts and funds the collection, analysis and reporting of information related to environmental conditions in the NWT • NWT CIMP supports research and monitoring activities that address the cumulative impacts of human activities on the environment. • 2014-15 Priority Valued Components of CIMP are: • Water quality and quantity; 3 • Fish and fish habitat; and • Caribou
CIMP funding proposal Why did we apply? • Concerns about cumulative effects • Monitoring programs lacking for many wildlife species • Need broad scale monitoring • Collaborative – Communities / Industry / Government • Standardization so data can be pooled 4 (Image: ConocoPhillips) (Image: Husky Ltd.)
Why survey winter tracks? • Many different species can be recorded in a single survey • Can be surveyed on foot or by snow mobile • Non-invasive (no capture or handling of wildlife) • Can collect pellet / scat / hair samples when they are encountered – contribute to genetic studies • Relatively large areas can be surveyed at low cost • Harvesters have expertise in identification of tracks and other signs left by wildlife • Existing programs from other provinces that can be used to develop standard methodology 5
Multi-species monitoring using winter track surveys in the Sahtú Settlement Region • Objectives: • Establish a long-term collaborative standardized monitoring program that involves communities, industry and government • Contribute to monitoring boreal caribou population trend • Collect data on distribution and relative abundance of multiple species • Assess cumulative effects of natural and human disturbance on boreal caribou and other wildlife 6 species
CIMP Caribou Blueprint • CIMP monitoring and research gap priorities for boreal caribou: • Establish a comprehensive regionally-based cumulative effects monitoring for boreal caribou population trends and those human and natural factors that affect them • Calculate and track landscape metrics in the boreal caribou range • Determine when disturbed habitat (human or natural) becomes functional again for boreal caribou • Determine the impact of the following human and natural factors on boreal caribou demographics and/or habitat: • Fire • Predation • Alternative Prey 7 • Range condition – habitat quality and/or quantity • Developmental footprint – physical and functional habitat loss
CIMP funding proposal – winter track surveys • Applied for multi-year (3 yr) funding in January 2014 • Secured $59,235 in CIMP funding for the 1 st year • Additional $20,000 in ENR funding • Funding for years 2-3 not guaranteed • Partners: GNWT-ENR, SRRB, RRCs, ConocoPhillips, Husky, Explor, MGM 8
Program design • Conduct surveys by snow mobile along seismic lines and trails • Take geo-referenced pictures of wildlife tracks and sign encountered 9 ABMI/Fiera
Banff Snow Track Monitoring Program • Landscape divided up into cells • Track surveys conducted by ski along existing trails • Presence or absence of wildlife on trail segments • Predict number of cells where present 10 Whittington et al. 2014 Whittington and Heuer 2012
11
12
13
14
15
What can we measure using track surveys? • Relative abundance – number of tracks per km surveyed 3 10 6 2 5 8 0 10 4 1 7 3 16
What can we measure using track surveys? • Distribution • Presence or absence of a species in a given area • Can be used to estimate occupancy or probability of use of an area 17 Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative
Relationship between occurrence or relative abundance of wildlife species and landscape characteristics 18
Program structure Community Program Community monitoring coordination Monitors coordinator 1 Tulita 2 1 Norman Wells 2 1 GNWT-ENR + SRRB Deline 2 1 Fort Good Hope 2 1 19 Colville Lake 2
Why is standardization of methods important? • Many factors can contribute to variation in monitoring results • We want to control as many sources of variation due to sampling methods as possible • If everyone uses the same methods and follows the same protocols: • Data from different observers, locations or years can be pooled together • We combine data to scale up from local areas to a regional level • There are many methods that have been tested and refined that we can use in the Sahtu • Pilot studies are required to determine sources of variation and sampling effort required to detect changes of interest 20
Why is replication important? • Long-term - Repeating surveys of the same areas/routes year after year allows us to assess whether there are changes in presence and abundance over time • Temporal replication within years - Repeating surveys of the same route more than once per winter allows us to assess whether a species was present in the area but we just missed it: • 2 surveys = 3 possibilities • Present and detected – 1 1 • Present but not detected the first/second time – 1 0 or 0 1 • Not present – 0 0 • Spatial replication – • surveying a wider area (more grid cells) provides more data and more confidence in detected trends • sub-dividing survey routes into smaller segments, and looking at 21 detection on each segment improves precision for estimates of detection probability and occupancy
Program development Year 1 • Determine objectives and survey protocols (this workshop) • Conduct pilot tests • Refine survey protocols and develop study design and methods manual Year 2-3 and beyond • Expand program to all 5 Sahtu communities • Encourage industry participation • Secure longer-term funding • Repeat annual surveys • Produce annual and multi-year reports • Use results to inform decisions about wildlife and habitat management, land use planning, environmental assessment, 22 cumulative effects management and assessment
Deliverables for Year 1 • Community workshop to define monitoring objectives, survey design, survey methods, and survey route identification • Pilot tests of field protocols • Technical report detailing survey design, power analysis, methodology, logistics, costs, annual budget, and deliverables • Plain-language summary of study design, field protocol manual and track identification guide for monitors 23
Program budget • Year 1 – Use of CIMP Funds: Activity Budget Community workshop for program design $17,000 Pilot tests (field trials) $22,000 Technical report - survey design, power analysis, $10,000 methodology, logistics, costs, annual budget, and deliverables Plain-language summary of draft study design, $10,000 field protocol manual and track identification guide Total $59,000 24 • Additional $20K in funding from ENR
Program budget • Year 2/3 – Use of CIMP funds: Activity Budget Pre-field season community meeting and training $20,000 sessions – 5 communities Field season – surveys + coordination $30,000 Fall results workshop – held in one community, $10,000 rotating basis Total $60,000 • Up to $180,000 in additional funding might be required for a full program: • 5 communities: 2 monitors + 1 monitoring coordinator per community; 10 survey days conducted by each monitor • 2 oil and gas companies: 2 monitors per company, 10 survey days per 25 monitor • ENR to do surveys in areas of the landscape where there are gaps
Objectives What do we want to achieve through this program? • Monitor changes in abundance and distribution of multiple wildlife species • Evaluate relationship between wildlife abundance and distribution and landscape disturbance (fire + human) • Assess relation between predator and prey distribution • Others?? 26
Questions What questions do we want to answer with the data? • Is the abundance of certain wildlife species changing over time? • Is the distribution of wildlife species changing over time? • Are these changes related to changes in the landscape or habitat? • Are there wildlife species that are commonly found together or more commonly found in one habitat type versus another? • Others?? 27
Hypotheses What kind of changes or patterns do we think are already occurring? What do we think explains these patterns? Examples • Caribou will avoid areas with lots of seismic lines • The abundance of wolves is increasing • Wildlife are moving away from areas with development activity • Others?? 28
Examples of other snow track monitoring programs • Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute • Explor • Husky • Conoco • Enbridge 29
Recommend
More recommend
