SER Restoration Resource Center App

Overview

The goal of the Conservation Infrastructure project was to build an invasive fish barrier in Kejimkujik to prevent further expansion of Chain pickerel, protecting a large important area of the Park. Although the location and scope changed multiple times throughout this project, adaptive management allowed us to build two barriers in Cobrielle Brook, protecting the ecologically important and unique Cobrielle and Mountain Lakes system from Chain pickerel.

This is a Parks Canada project.

Project Details

Lead Entity:

Parks Canada

Lead entity types:

Other Public Sector

Partner Organizations:

-Nova Scota Mi'kmaq -Park Visitors -DFO -Provincial biologists -Local fish and game groups

Adaptive management

Describe adaptive management processes and mid-course corrections taken to address unforeseen challenges and improve outcomes in each of the following categories:

Ecological:

physical separation is the only method of truly preventing invasive fish movement

Social:

engagement with Mi’kmaq, should start immediately

Project Website:

https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/index

State of Progress:

Implementation activities complete, monitoring ongoing

Official acknowledgments:

SER (under development)

Project Start:

2017-01-01

Project End:

2019-11-01

Main source of funds:

National government and public institution

Project motivation:

Expected ecological or biodiversity benefits
Compliance (e.g., mining, oil and gas, wetland, biodiversity)
Other motivation

Compliance motivations:

Other biodiversity compliance

Other Motivations:

To build an invasive fish barrier in Kejimkujik to prevent further expansion of Chain pickerel, protecting a large important area of the Park.

Global Regions:

Northern America

Countries:

Canada

Ecosystem Functional Groups / Biomes:

Rivers and streams biome

Overlap with area of conservation concern:

Project overlaps with other Protected Area (e.g., other local)
Project overlaps with a Key Biodiversity Area

Unplanned disturbances or events:

Other (please provide details)

Planning and Review

Technical planning tools:

Other published planning tool (please provide details)

Other Tools Used:

Species at Risk Recovery Plans, including the Pygmy Snaketail (dragonfly), Atlantic Whitefish, American Eel, Blanding’s turtle and Eastern ribbonsnake.

Landscape/seascape scale planning:

Assessment of local and regional context to facilitate alignment of project goals and objectives with factors operating at the landscape/seascape scale.

Goals and Objectives

Was a baseline assessment conducted:

YES

Which of the following components were included in the baseline assessment?:

Species composition, including threatened and invasive species
Ecosystem functions (e.g. productivity, recruitment, disturbance regimes)

Was a reference model used:

were_goals_identified:

YES

Goals and objectives:

Biodiversity: Protection
Ecosystem: Integrity

Stakeholder Engagement

Were Stakeholders engaged?:

YES

Stakeholders engaged:

Individuals
Ethnic or other minority groups
National government

Stakeholder engagement activities:

The restoration project is defined from an ecological, social and economic point of view

Representation in project governance:

Local communities
Indigenous people

Elements of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) incorporated into the project:

Not applicable

Ecosystem Activities and Approaches

Categories of ecosystem restoration activities and approaches utilized:

Rehabilitation
Ecological restoration

Specific type of rehabilitation and/or restoration approach implemented:

Reconstruction or heavily assisted recovery (e.g. introduction of nearly all biota, major landform modification, major hydrological modification)

Restoration activities implemented:

Control of invasive species

Restoration activities implemented - invasive species:

Species control measures, physical or mechanical (e.g. cutting, pulling, burning, covering, digging up, plowing, scalping, mowing, capturing, hunting)

Species used in project - composition:

Mix of native and nonnative species

Monitoring and Data Sharing

Does the project have a defined monitoring plan?:

YES

Monitoring effectiveness:

The monitoring program was planned while the restoration project or program was designed, rather than after implementation

Monitoring duration:

Opportunistically

Monitoring agents:

Public institute

Monitoring agents:

Public institute

Monitoring methods:

Species abundance and composition, both native and nonnative

Monitoring funding:

National government and public institution

Data sharing:

Reports to public or other grey literature

Restoration evidence:

In an internal report

Long Term Management

Long-term resourcing and support:

National government resourcing

Name:

Canada: Conservation Infrastructure: Taking a Stand on Invasive Fish