Search

Protected areas (PAs) are a key component of most conservation strategies because they are thought to enhance biodiversity value relative to similar habitats in working landscapes. To examine whether PAs in Nova Scotia are functioning to enhance the biodiversity value of the landscapes in which they are embedded, we surveyed breeding bird communities in forested wetlands inside and outside of a large PA during 2018 and 2019. We found significantly higher species richness and diversity at sites in the working landscape relative to those inside the PA. Bird communities from different wetland types inside the PA were distinct from each other and those outside the PA, whereas bird communities at outside sites were homogenized and comprised of more early-successional species. There were numerous species of conservation concern at both inside and outside sites, indicating that both types of sites are playing important conservation roles. Abundances of these key species were driven by a combination of local (e.g., water table depth, herb, and shrub cover) and landscape scale factors (e.g., edge density and human disturbance). The higher abundance of long-distance migrants and insectivores at inside sites suggests PAs are providing critical additional support to key guilds that are in steep decline.

American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) were used as a case study to assess whether Ontario’s Endangered Species Act proponent-driven regulatory approach resulted in successful imperilled species management outcomes. American Eel observation databases and proponent-prepared mitigation plans and monitoring data were used to assess whether: (i) facilities within the distribution range were registered, (ii) effects monitoring protocols were adequate to evaluate adverse effects of facilities, (iii) proponents implemented mitigation actions that followed best management practices (BMPs), and (iv) effectiveness monitoring designs were adequate to evaluate effectiveness of mitigation actions. Less than half of the facilities (8 of 17) within the extant species range were registered. Few eels were observed at each facility, precluding proponents from effectively evaluating the facilities’ effects. Mitigation actions following BMPs were only implemented for eel out-migration at three facilities. Half of the registered facilities implemented effectiveness monitoring, but experimental designs did not follow best practices and standards. To improve this proponent-driven approach, regulators could reduce ambiguity in regulation language and provide clearer, quantitative requirements for facility registration, effects monitoring, mitigation actions, and effectiveness monitoring. Proponents could improve monitoring efforts to establish species occurrence and generate baseline data to measure facility effects and mitigation action effectiveness.