State of Protected Heritage Areas Report

State of ProtectedHeritage Areas Report


April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2007April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2007

Bottom LandscapeSnowy Mountain, Mount Revelstoke National Park of Canada (Parks Canada)

Lake and mountains (Parks Canada)Motherwell Homestead National Historic Site of Canada (Parks Canada)Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada (Parks Canada)

Château Frontenac National Historic Site of Canada (P. St.-Jacques, 1994)Fall foliage (Parks Canada, Michael Wood, 1997)Waves (Parks Canada, André Cornellier, 1991)

parks canada agency


April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2007

AnimatorLower Fort Garry

NHS (MB)by D. Dealy, 2002

PuffinTerra Nova NP (NL)

by M. Finkelstein, 1980

FlowersUkkusiksalik NP (NU)by L. Narraway, 2005

PresentationAberdeen Pavilion

NHS (ON)by J. Butterill, 1994

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (2007)

Catalogue No.: R61-15/2007ISBN: 978-0-662-05120-6

www.pc.gc.ca

S TAT E O F P R O T E C T E D H E R I TA G E A R E A S R E P O R T 2 0 0 5 – 2 0 0 7 | 1

Table of ContentsMINISTER'S MESSAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S MESSAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

STATE OF NATIONAL SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Status of National Park Establishment in Unrepresented Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Status of NMCA Establishment in Unrepresented Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

State of Ecological Integrity in National Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Ratings of Conditions and Degree of Impairment of Commemorative Integrity in 39 National Historic Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Indicators Developed for Measuring Public Appreciation and Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Visitor Satisfaction and Participation in Learning Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2 | PA R K S C A N A D A A G E N C Y

Over the two-yearperiod covered bythis report, ParksCanada began anew chapter in itshistory of preservingand presentingCanada’s protectedheritage areas.Under the directionof the HonourableRona Ambrose andthe HonourableJohn Baird, the

Agency achieved many successes in the protectionand presentation of Canada’s rich heritage. Severalchallenges still confront the Agency, and somechange will take years to notice, but ourGovernment is determined to achieve the importantmandate entrusted to us by Canadians.

I am pleased to highlight that Parks Canada haspursued its efforts to protect and present Canada’snatural treasures in the negotiation of variousagreements with Aboriginal peoples, provincial,territorial and community partners to extend thenetwork of protected natural heritage, paving theway for the creation and completion of nationalparks or national marine conservation areas before itis too late.

Protected natural areas are at risk. All across thenational parks system, initiatives are under way toenhance and maintain the ecological integrity of ournational parks, and, in order to achieve satisfying

and sustainable results, to involve all our partnersand stakeholders in that process.

The Agency has received funds for ecologicalintegrity and is making progress in restorationprojects that will lead to improvements in aspects ofecological integrity in each national park. Inaddition, ecological integrity monitoring andreporting systems play an increasing part in thedecision making process in park management. Insome cases, the Agency is trying to reverse hundredsof years of impacted ecosystems.

Canada’s built heritage is also at risk. The situationis urgent: once a piece of our history is lost, it is lostforever. The Parks Canada’s team is at work in allcorners of the country to build on our existingsuccesses to ensure that our invaluable built heritageis protected for generations to come.

Canada is a dynamic society in constant evolutionand Canadians are passionate about their culturalheritage. To better reflect Canada’s journey throughhistory and Canada’s contemporary identity, ParksCanada has acted to ensure that our system ofnational historic sites is representative of allCanadians.

Canadians are highly enthusiastic about the creationof new protected areas, preservation initiatives andcommemorative activities put forth by Parks Canadaacross the nation. They have a strong sense ofconnection, through meaningful experiences, totheir national parks, national historic sites andnational marine conservation areas. And thanks tothe work of dedicated Parks Canada employees,

Minister’s Message



valued partners and conscientious citizens, theseprotected places are enjoyed in ways that leave themunimpaired for present and future generations.

I look forward to working with all of you as we builda culture of heritage conservation in this country.

The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for Parks Canada Agency

Original signed by

On behalf of theParks CanadaAgency, I am proudto submit this 2007State of HeritageAreas Report to thepeople of Canada.The Report is verytimely, particularlyas we begin toapproach the 2011centennialcelebration of Parks

Canada’s founding—the first organization in theworld that was specifically charged with theresponsibility of looking after a country’s treasurednational parks.

The Report is a wonderful reminder of the task thatParks Canada has been carrying out, successfullyand with great pride, for almost one hundred years:the stewardship of some of the most special andmost beautiful places on the planet; places that arebeloved by Canadians, and are inextricably boundup with our very identity.

Perhaps the best evidence of how much Canadianscare about their national parks and protectedheritage areas is simple popularity, there is morethan 21 million person-visits to parks Canada’snational parks, national historic sites and nationalmarine conservation areas every year. Canadians aredetermined to protect and present these specialplaces. This report is an objective assessment of thecondition of the protected areas entrusted to Parks

Canada’s care, and it will guide our actions in theyears to come.

One of the strengths of the Report is that it lays outthe extent of the challenges that lie ahead of us inprotecting and presenting our heritage areas forfuture generations. The key to success is partnership,and fortunately, some of Parks Canada’s greateststrengths come from the way it workscollaboratively with its partners. Parks Canada haslong demonstrated the value and effectiveness ofsharing leadership with provincial, territorial andmunicipal governments, Aboriginal peoples,community stakeholders, partners in the privatesector, and visitors themselves.

During the almost one hundred years of ParksCanada’s existence, Canadian society has changeddramatically—it would have been remarkable if ithad not. We are more diverse and more urban. Ourpopulation is aging and, despite the ever-increasingpopularity of our heritage areas, there is a realpossibility that many Canadians, especially thosewho live in urban regions, may never in their livesvisit a national park or protected heritage area.

Parks Canada’s partnership approach, and theculture of conservation the Agency is fostering, ishelping to move Canadians from understanding toinvolvement, to engagement and action forprotection. This is visible in every facet of theAgency’s activities: from the establishment of newnational parks, national historic places and nationalmarine conservation areas, to the conservation andpresentation of heritage areas. They are part of the

Chief ExecutiveOfficer’s Message



Agency’s success as it makes progress in restorationprojects that will lead to improvements in aspects ofecological integrity in national parks, and to thecommemorative integrity of historic sites.

Canadians love their national parks and protectedheritage areas. Canada enjoys what I believe is thefinest system of national parks and protectedheritage areas in the world. This Report will helpensure that future generations of Canadians cancontinue to experience it in all its glory.

Alan LatourelleChief Executive OfficerParks Canada Agency

Original signed by


STATE OF NATIONAL SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMS (Details of performance can be found in Parks Canada’s 2006-2007 Performance Report.)

Establish Heritage Places

Des

crip

tion

The establishment of heritage places covers systems planning, negotiating with stakeholders for inclusion in the national systems, obtaining ministerial approval and establishing national parks and national marine conservation areas of Canada, and establishing national historic sites and other heritage places.

Sub

Act

ivit

y

National Parks and National Marine Conservation Areas

National System ofDesignations/Commemoration ofPlaces, Persons and Events ofNational Historic Significance

Other Designated Heritage Places

Pla

nned

Res

ults

Create national parks and national marine conservation areas in unrepresented regions.

Complete or expandsome existing parks.

Designate and commemorate places,persons and events of national historic

significance, particularly in under-represented priority areas.

Designate other heritage places (e.g., HistoricPlaces Initiative, Federal Heritage Buildings,

Heritage Rivers, Railway Stations, PrimeMinister Grave Sites, World Heritage Sites,

Man and Biosphere).

Per

form

ance

E

xpec

tati

ons

1. Increase the number of represented terrestrialregions from 25 in March 2003 to 34 of 39 byMarch 2008, and increase the number of repre-sented marine regions from two in March 2003 toeight of 29 by March 2008.

2. Expand three national parks byMarch 2008 and increase the targeted land holdings in threeunfinished national parks.

3. Designate, on average, 24 newplaces, persons and events per year,of which, on average, 33% relate toat least one of the strategic priorities(i.e., Aboriginal people, ethnoculturalcommunities and women).

4. On average, 30 commemorativeplaques placed annually.

5. List 10,000 designated historic places onthe Canadian Register of Historic Placesby March 2009, and 17,500 by 2014.

6. Designate, in partnership with others,historic places (Federal HeritageBuildings, Heritage Rivers, Heritage RailwayStations, Prime Minister Grave Sites),nominate World Heritage Sites, and sup-port nomination of Man and BiosphereReserves, as opportunity permits.

Sta

tus

1. Caution: New Parks The Agency will not meet the target of 34/39 terres-trial regions represented by March 2008. There arecurrently 28 natural regions of Canada representedby national parks.

Progress was made on several active candidatenational parks including the East Arm of Great SlaveLake (NWT), the South Okanagan-LowerSimilkameen (BC) and Mealey Mountains (NL).

Funding limitations and the complicated nature ofthe park establishment process have resulted in achange, for the next planning period, to the perform-ance expectation for representation of naturalregions. The new target is 30 of 39 represented byMarch 2008.

Caution: National Marine Conservation AreasParks Canada will not meet its target of 8/29 marineregions represented by March 2008. Currently 2 of29 marine regions are represented. Capacity issues(funding) have limited progress. As a result, the goalhas been reduced to 4 of 29 in the 2007/2008Corporate Plan.

Advances have been made on Gwaii Hanaas and theSouthern Strait of Georgia and other proposals con-tinue to be explored in the Magdelan Islands (QC)and the South Coast Fjords (NL).

Because the Agency does not act alone in establish-ing parks and marine areas and because the estab-lishment environment is very complex, the Agencywill be challenged to meet its targets.

See Appendix 1 and 2 for details on progress to establish new parks and new national marine conservation areas.

2. Reasonable Progress:ExpansionProgress was made only on theexpansion of Nahanni NationalPark Reserve.

2. Reasonable Progress:CompletionLand was added to the BrucePeninsula (57.4 hectares) and GulfIslands National Park Reserve(7.567 hectares). Parks Canadabought every parcel of land thatwas offered for sale by “willingsellers”. No land was offered forsale within the identified bound-aries for Grasslands National Parkof Canada.

3. Caution: In 2006/2007, 22 desig-nations were made (12 arising from theDecember 2004 meeting of theHSMBC, and 10 from its June 2005meeting). The average number of des-ignations per year for the past 3 yearsis 16. The Parks Canada Agency doesnot have full control of or influenceover the proposal submission processor the timing of designations.

4. Reasonable Progress: A total of18 plaques were unveiled in 2006-2007. The average annual number ofplaques placed, over the past threeyears is 28.3, slightly below the targetof 30. The Parks Canada Agency doesnot have full control of either the timingof designations or unveiling cere-monies.

The HSMBC and Parks Canada havestreamlined a number of procedures toimprove efficiencies in addressing thebacklog of unveiled plaques (i.e., 418designations awaiting plaquing). ParksCanada does not have the capacity tofully address the backlog in the shortterm but is developing a longer-termstrategy to address the backlog.

5. Reasonable Progress: As of March2007, an additional 1,941 designated his-toric places were listed on the Register fora total of 5,244 (i.e., 29.5% of the 2014target is complete).

6. Reasonable Progress: There were nonew World Heritage Sites or Man andBiosphere Reserve designations in2006/2007. Proposals, supported by ParksCanada, for two new Biosphere Reserves(Bay of Fundy, NB and ManicouaganUapishka, QC, and an expansion of the1000 Islands / Frontenac Arch, ON) wereprepared for the Canadian Commission forUNESCO.

There are 11 properties on Canada’s tenta-tive list of World Heritage Sites to be for-mally nominated for consideration byUNESCO. A nomination, supported by ParksCanada, for the Joggin’s Fossil Cliffs inNova Scotia was submitted to the WorldHeritage Committee in January 2007. TheAgency is actively supporting the nomina-tion process for Aisinai’pi (Writing-on-Stone), Alberta, Quttinrpaaq, Nunavut andAtikaki/Woodland Caribou/Accord FirstNations (Pimachiowin Aki) Manitoba.

Conserve Heritage Resources

Maintenance or improvement of ecological integrity in national parks; the sustainable use of national marine conservation areas and the protection of unique marine ecosystems; the maintenance andimprovement of commemorative integrity in national historic sites managed or influenced by Parks Canada; and the protection and management of cultural resources under the administration of Parks

Canada that are not associated with national historic sites.

National Parks and National Marine Conservation Areas National Historic Sites and CulturalResources Other Heritage Resources

Maintain and improve the ecological integrity of national parks and the sustainability of national marineconservation areas.

Maintain or improve the commemorativeintegrity of national historic sites; maintain

or improve the state of other culturalresources administered by Parks Canada.

Support and encourage commemorativeintegrity of national historic sites; contributeto maintaining and improving the state ofheritage resources not administered by

Parks Canada.

7. National park and NMCA management plans will be on schedule and consistent with managementplan guidelines by March 2010.

8. Develop fully functioning EI monitoring and reporting systems for all national parks by March 2008.

9. Develop selected indicators and protocols for measuring NMCA ecological sustainability use by March 2009.

10. Improve aspects of the state of EI in each of Canada’s 42 national parks by March 2014.

11. Meet targets for five measures of environmental impacts of Parks Canada’s operations: greenhousegas emissions, petroleum storage tanks, contaminated sites, halocarbons and polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs).

12. Complete NHS management plans,consistent with management planguidelines, by December 2006.

13. Improve 80% of the elements of com-memorative integrity rated as poor to atleast fair condition within five years ofthe original assessment.

14. Improve the state of other culturalresources managed by Parks Canadaby March 2014.

15. Other owners of national historic sitesare aware of CI and have access toinformation on best practices in main-taining CI.

16. Provide advice, recommendations or certification of interventions to built cultural heritage consistent with TheStandards and Guidelines for theConservation of Historic Places inCanada as opportunity permits.

7. Reasonable Progress: As of March 2007, 33 of 42 national parks had approved management plansconsistent with the 2000 Guidelines for Management Planning. Three national parks operate underinterim management guidelines and the remaining six are engaged in the planning process. In 2006-2007,one plan amendment was tabled in Parliament. The Agency expects to meet the target of 2010.

The management plan for Fathom Five Marine Park was approved in 1998. The plan review has beenrescheduled for 2008. The management plan for Saguenay-St. Lawrence was tabled in Parliament in2000. The review is scheduled for 2008. The Agency treats these two protected heritage areas,established before the passage of the National Marine Conservation Areas Act, as national marine con-servation areas. The management planning process for parks and national marine conservation areascan be complex and time consuming. Extensive consultation with local communities, stakeholdersand aboriginal peoples is required. However, the Agency expects to meet the 2010 target.

8. Caution: Two national parks currently meet initial conditions for a fully functioning ecological integritymonitoring and reporting system with the expectation that 2/3 of the parks will do so by March 2008.The remaining 1/3 of parks will have most of the elements of an ecological monitoring and reportingsystem in place by March 2008. The parks in the far north are the least advanced due to access costs andstaff turnover. There will still be challenges in some parks and the program will continue to develop.

9. Caution: Minimal progress was made in 2006/2007 to meet the planned result of having selectedindicators and protocols for measuring national marine conservation area ecological sustainability byMarch 2009. Parks Canada is pursuing pilot opportunities with international partners such as theUnited States and Mexico. All three countries are attempting to learn how to put this concept into practice.

10. Reasonable progress: The Agency can point to restoration project successes. It has initiated morethan 70 restoration projects to improve aspects of the ecological integrity in its national parks.

11. Reasonable progress (Contaminated Sites): The Agency is on-target to meet its objectives ofassessing and ranking contaminated sites in national parks or historic sites/canals and to developremediation or risk management plans for all sites by 2009.

On Target (Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction): The Agency has met reduction targets.

Insufficient Information (Petroleum Storage Tanks): New storage tank regulations are expected infall 2007. New targets that relate to the new storage tank regulations will be established.

Caution (PCB’s and Halocarbons): The Agency will focus on full knowledge and implementation ofregulations to ensure proper service and disposal. Extensive inventories of low risk individual assetswill not be maintained. In 2006/2007 preliminary work was begun on guidelines for service and dis-posal. Work is expected to be completed in 2007/2008.

See Appendix 3 for details on state of national parks.

12. Reasonable Progress: The Agencyhas completed management plans for131 of 151 sites requiring plans. 17 ofthe remaining 20 plans relate to sites inAtlantic Canada where agreements andprotocols for First Nation consultationand engagement were deemed inade-quate subsequent to the Haida Nationand Taku River First Nation Cases(court decisions). The KMK, the consul-tation arm of the Mi’kmaq First Nationand other First Nation groups in theAtlantic provinces are working with theAgency to determine how best to pro-ceed. The target date of December2006 has been extended to March2008 in the 2007/2008 CorporatePlan. The Agency does not have fullcontrol over the timing of approval andtabling of management plans.

13. Caution: Parks Canada has achieved aself-assessed 69.5% (3-year average)rate of improving commemorativeintegrity elements rated poor to at leastfair condition within 5 years of the orig-inal assessment.

14. Insufficient Information: ParksCanada lacks proper inventories andcondition ratings for several classes ofresources. For historic objects, whilethere is a national inventory and 76%of objects are rated in good condition,these ratings need to be updated.

See Appendix 4 for results ofCI evaluations.

15. Reasonable Progress: Parks Canadasurveys other owners of national his-toric sites every 2-3 years. Based onthe last survey in 2004-2005, 46% ofowners were aware of the term com-memorative integrity and 64% statedthat they had access to information andbest practices in maintaining commem-orative integrity. In preparation for thenext survey of other owners, ParksCanada is refining its measures andsetting targets for understanding of andaccess to commemorative integrityadvice.

16. Reasonable Progress: 18 interven-tions to commercial heritage propertieswere certified in principle, recommen-dations for appropriate interventions to127 federal heritage buildings weremade, and the transfer in ownership of3 designated railway stations wasapproved.

Promote Public Appreciation andUnderstanding Enhance Visitor Experience

Promotion of public appreciation and understanding involves programsand activities that are aimed at reaching Canadians in their communitieswhere they live, work and learn and inviting them to become more involvedin the protection and presentation of the nation’s natural and cultural heritage.

Enhanced visitor experiences are sought by setting the stage for visitors to enjoy meaningful, high-quality experi-ences through the provision of information, infrastructure, facilities, programs, services and personnel. This

includes pre and on-site trip planning information, reception and orientation services, interpretation programming,campgrounds, hiking trails and other recreational services, visitor safety programs and ongoing post visit information.

National Parks and National MarineConservation Areas National Historic Sites

Encourage the support and involvement of Canadians and stakeholdersand their knowledge and appreciation of Canada’s heritage places.

Encourage experiences and emotional connections, meet visitor expectations and facilitate learning opportunities.

17. Develop indicators, expectations and protocols for measuring publicappreciation and understanding of Canadians and stakeholders byMarch 2007.

19. a) 50% of visitors to national parksand national marine conservationareas participate in learning experi-ences.

20. a) 85% of visitors are satisfied, and50% are very satisfied with theirexperience at national parks andnational marine conservation areas.

18. 10% increase in the number of visits to targeted national his-toric sites by March 2008.

19. b) 80% of visitors to national historic sites participate in learningexperiences.

20. b) 85% of visitors are satisfied, and 50% are very satisfied withtheir experience at national historic sites.

17. Caution: As at year end proposed indicators, protocols and performance expectations were still under development.

See Appendix 5 for details on indicators.

19. a) On Target: Across three surveyedparks, an average of 71% of visitorsused at least one heritage presenta-tion product or service during theirvisit. No NMCA was surveyed in2006/2007.

20. a) On Target: Three of three surveyed parks met the targets of85% of visitors satisfied and 50% of visitors very satisfied with theiroverall visit.

18. Caution: It will be a challenge for the Agency to meet this per-formance expectation at all 4 sites. The Fortress of Louisbourg,that has seen a drop in visitation over the past 3 years, presentsthe biggest challenge. It is the most impacted by the value ofthe dollar, issues related to Canada-US border crossing andgeographic location (at the end of the road, at the end of thecountry). Special periodic events such as military re-enactmentspresent opportunities to have spikes in visitation.

19. b) On Target: Across 11 surveyed sites, an average of 89% ofvisitors used at least one heritage presentation product or serv-ice during their visit. Ten of eleven surveyed national historicsites met this performance expectation.

20. b) On Target: Eleven of eleven surveyed sites met the targetsof 85% of visitors satisfied and 50% very satisfied with theiroverall visit.

See Appendix 6 for results of visitor satisfaction and participation inlearning activities at surveyed locations.


The tables on the following pages provide an update on Parks Canada’s efforts to protect Canada’s naturaland historical heritage:

1. Status of National Park Establishment in Unrepresented Regions

2. Status of NMCA Establishment in Unrepresented Regions

3. State of Ecological Integrity in National Parks

4. Ratings of Conditions and Degree of Impairment of Commemorative Integrity in 39 National Historic Sites

5. Indicators Developed for Measuring Public Appreciation and Understanding

6. Visitor Satisfaction and Participation in Learning Activities

Appendices


Appendix 1: Status of National Park Establishment in Unrepresented Regions

Appendix 2: Status of NMCA Establishment in Unrepresented Regions

3. Interior Dry Plateau (South Okanagan Lower Similkameen Proposal) ................

7. Northern Interior Plateaux and Mountains (Wolf Lake Proposal) ........................ 14. Manitoba Lowlands (Manitoba Lowlands Proposal)............................................. 17. Northwestern Boreal Uplands (East Arm of Great Slave Lake Proposal W) .........

20. Laurentian Boreal Highlands ...............................................................................

21. East Coast Boreal Region (Mealy Mountains Proposal) .....................................

22. Boreal Lake Plateau (Lac Guiliaume-Delisle area) .............................................

23. Whale River .........................................................................................................

25. Ungava Tundra Plateau ......................................................................................

28. Southampton Plain ..............................................................................................

38. Western High Arctic (Bathurst Island Proposal W) ...............................................

W Lands withdrawn to provice interim protection

REGIONS UNREPRESENTED

NATIONAL PARK TERRESTRIAL

NATURAL REGIONSIdentify

Areas of

Interest

For illustrative purposes only

1 2 3 4 5

Select a

Specific

Park Proposal

Feasibility

Study

Negotiations

for Final

Agreement

Park or Reserve

Protected by

Canada National

Parks Åct

Status of park establishment in 2005/2006

Progress in 2006/2007

Pacific marine regions:

1 Heceate Strait

2 Queen Charlotte Shelf

3 Queen Charlotte Sound ................................................................................

4 Vancouver Island Shelf ..................................................................................

5 Strait of Georgia (Southern Strait of Georgia proposal) ................................

Arctic marine regions:

1 Arctic Basin ...................................................................................................

2 Beaufort Sea .................................................................................................

3 Arctic Archipelago .........................................................................................

4 Queen Maud Gulf ..........................................................................................

5 Lancaster Sound ...........................................................................................

6 Baffin Island Shelf .........................................................................................

7 Foxe Basin .....................................................................................................

8 Hudson Bay (Churchill River/Nelson River area) ..........................................

9 James Bay ....................................................................................................

Atlantic marine regions:

1 Hudson Strait ................................................................................................

2 Labrodor Shelf ...............................................................................................

3 Newfoundland Shelf ......................................................................................

4 North Gulf Shelf..............................................................................................

6 Magdalen Shallows (Îles de la Madeleine proposal) .....................................

7 Laurentian Channel .......................................................................................

8 Grand Banks .................................................................................................

9 Scotian Shelf .................................................................................................

10 Bay of Fundy..................................................................................................

Great Lakes marine regions:

1 Lake Superior (Lake Superior proposal) .......................................................

3 Lake Huron ....................................................................................................

4 Lake Erie .......................................................................................................

5 Lake Ontario (Prince Edward Point area) .....................................................

* a federal/provincial agreement was signed in 1988, but several essential steps are still required

REGIONS UNREPRESENTED

NMCA MARINE REGIONS

For illustrative purposes only

Identify

Areas of

Interest

1 2 3 4 5

Select an

NMCA

Proposal

Feasibility

Study

Negotiations

for Final

Agreement

Establish

Under

Legislation

Status of NMCA establishment in 2005/2006

Progress in 2006/2007

} (Gwaii Haanas proposal)* ......................................

I = an improvement in ecological integrity, D = a decline in ecological integrity, U = a previously unrated aspect of ecologicalintegrity, R = a revised assessment based on previously unavailable information, N/A = measure is not applicable

LEGEND: = GOOD = FAIR = POOR


Appendix 3: State of Ecological Integrity in National Parks

R

R U

R I

R

National Park

Cape Breton Highlands

Fundy

Gros Morne

Kejimkujik

Kouchibouguac

Prince Edward Island

Terra Nova

Forillon

La Mauricie

Mingan Archipelago

Bruce Peninsula

Georgian Bay Islands

Point Pelee

Pukaskwa

St. Lawrence Islands

Gulf Islands

Gwaii Haanas

Pacific Rim

Elk Island

Grasslands

Prince Albert

Riding Mountain

Wood Buffalo

Banff

Glacier

Jasper

Kootenay

Mount Revelstoke

Waterton

Yoho

Aulavik

Auyuittuq

Ivvavik

Kluane

Nahanni

Quttinirpaaq

Sirmilik

Torngat Mountains

Tuktut Nogait

Ukkusiksalik

Vuntut

Wapusk

Diversity Predator-Prey Species Loss

Developed

Area

Population

Density

Internal

Roads

Plant

Growth

Forest

Fires

R

I

I

R

R

R

I

I

I

U U

N/A

R N/A

D N/A U

I N/A

N/A

D

D

R N/A

U N/A

N/A U U U

N/A

U N/A U

D N/A

Water Quality

Land Species Land Processes Land Stressors

Water

Stressor


Appendix 4: Ratings of Conditions and Degree of Impairment of Commemorative Integrity (CI) in

39 National Historic Sites

Degree of impairment ratings:• No impairment means that all three

CI dimensions were rated as good.• Minor impairment means that at least one

CI dimension was rated less then good but no aspect of CI was rated as poor.

• Significant impairment means that one CI dimension was rated as poor.

• Major impairment means that two CI dimensions were rated as poor.

• Severe impairment means that all three CI dimensions were rated as poor.

Location Assessed

Overall Ratings ( = Good = Fair = Poor)

Overall Rating of

Impairment

Resource Condition

Effectiveness of

Communications

Selected Management

Practices

Fortress of Louisbourg Significant

Hawthorne Cottage Minor

Province House Minor

Dalvay-by-the-Sea Significant

Halifax Citadel None

Prince of Wales Tower Significant

Coteau-du-Lac Minor

Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue Canal

Minor

Sir-Georges-Étienne-Cartier Minor

Louis-Joseph-Papineau Significant

Fur Trade at Lachine Minor

Navy Island Severe

Queenston Heights Major

HMCS Haida Major

Lower Fort Garry Minor

Riding Moutain Park East GateRegistration Complex

Major

Frenchman Butte Significant

Abbot Pass Refuge Cabin Minor

Banff Park Museum Minor

Battle of Fish Creek Significant

Bethune Memorial House No impairment

Québec Garrison Club Significant

Dredge No. 4 Significant

Forges du Saint-Maurice Minor

Fort Battleford Minor

Fort Gaspareaux Major

Fort St. Joseph Significant

Howse Pass Significant

Maillou House Significant

Port au Choix Minor

Red Bay Minor

Ryan Premises Minor

Sir Wilfrid Laurier Significant

St. Andrews Blockhouse Minor

Saint-Louis Forts andChâteaux

Significant

St. Peters Minor

St. Peters Canal Significant

Sulphur Mountain Cosmic Ray Station

Significant

Woodside No impairment


Appendix 5: Indicators Developed for Measuring Public Appreciation and Understanding

The performance expectation for Program Activity 3 was “to develop indicators, expectations and protocolsfor measuring public appreciation and understanding of Canadians and stakeholders by March 2007”. ParksCanada made considerable progress towards this goal in 2006-2007 but did not complete the full scope of thework until the fall of 2007.

The results and performance indicators for future performance measurement of the Agency’s activities arepresented below.

Public Appreciation and Understanding

Expected Result Performance Indicator

Canadians appreciate the significance of heritageplaces administered by Parks Canada andunderstand the importance of protecting andpresenting them.

• % of Canadians that appreciate the significanceof heritage places administered by Parks Canada.

• % of Canadians that understand the importanceof protecting and presenting heritage placesadministered by Parks Canada.

Outreach Education and Agency Communications


Targeted Canadian audiences are aware andunderstand Parks Canada administered places.

• Targeted Canadian audiences consider that theylearned something about the natural andhistorical heritage of Parks Canada’sadministered places.

Program Activity

Sub Activities

Engagement


Targeted Canadian audiences are engaged in theprotection and presentation of Parks Canada’sadministered places.

• Targeted Canadian audiences support theprotection and presentation of Parks Canada’sadministered places.

• Targeted Canadian audiences feel that they haveopportunities to influence and contribute to ParksCanada's activities.


Appendix 6: Visitor Satisfaction and Participation in Learning Activities

Participation in Learning Activities Visitor Satisfaction

2005-2006 2006-2007 2005-2006 2006-2007

National Parks

Cape Breton Highlands

Fundy

Kejimkujik Inland

Kouchibouguac

Mingan Archipelago

Point Pelee

Prince Edward Island

Pukaskwa

Saguenay-St. Lawrence MP

National Historic Sites

Bar U Ranch

Batoche

Battle of the Châteauguay

Bethune Memorial House

Lachine Canal

Cartier Brébeuf

Chambly Canal

Fort Anne

Fort Battleford

Fort Chambly

Fort George

Fort Langley

Fort St. Joseph

Fort St. James

Fort Walsh

Fort Lennox

Fortress of Louisbourg

HMCS Haida

Motherwell Homestead

Port Royal

Ryan Premises

Sault Ste Marie Canal

S.S. Klondike

Trent-Severn Waterway

Woodside

LEGEND: - met performance expectations - did not meet performance expectations

- no survey conducted or question not asked

State of Protected Heritage Areas Report

Documents

Transcript of State of Protected Heritage Areas Report