Management in a planning vacuum: co-operation in the Quetico--BWCA-Voyageurs International Boundary region.

Abstract

This paper stems from a University of Waterloo graduate workshop on shared management issues faced by Quetico Provincial Park in Ontario, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota. In the absence of an integrated planning framework across the US-Canada border, protected areas management issues tend to be tackled informally. The different political environments of the three areas have compounded problems of co-ordination in this biophysical region. The parks have common interests in fire management and species-at-risk management. For example, the 1999 blow-down requires co-operation by U.S. and Canadian authorities, as does any attempt at woodland caribou reintroduction. However, visitor management priorities inevitably differ: the U.S. Parks are operating near capacity, whereas the static economies of Quetico and surrounding communities could benefit from more tourism initiatives. Suggestions are offered for improved management through enhanced co-ordination betwee n these areas.

Cet article est le resultat d'un atelier d'etude superieure de I'Universite de Waterloo sur les problematiques de la gestion partagee auxquelles sont confrontes le parc provincial Quetico, en Ontario, et l'aire de nature sauvage Boundary Waters Canoe et le parc national Voyageurs, au Minnesota. En l'absence d'un cadre de planification integre d'un cote l'autre de la frntiere canado-americaine, les problemes do gestion des zones protegees sont regles de maniere plutot informelle. Les environnements politiques differents de ces trois aires causent des problemes accrus de coordination dans la region naturelle. Les parcs ont un interet commun pour la gestion des feux et des especes en penl. Ainsi, par exemple, en 1999, la zone de chablis exigeait une cooperation entre les autorites americaines et canadiennes, tout comme les tentatives do reintroduction des caribous dans les boises. Cependant, les priorites quant la gestion des visiteurs different inevitablement: les parcs americains fonctionnent presque pleine ca pacite, tandis que leconomie statique de Quetico et ses collectivites environnantes pourraient beneficier de nouvelles initiatives touristiques. Des suggestions sont faites pour ameliorer la gestion grace a une meilleure coordination entre ces zones.

Keywords

multi-jurisdictional management, protected area planning, northwestern Ontario, northern Minnesota, boroal forest

Introduction

Parks and protected areas do not exist in isolation of their regional context; they are perpetually being influenced by activities and management initiatives occurring around their borders (Dearden, 1988; Nelson, 1993). Activities conflicting with protected area mandates -- such as forest harvesting adjacent to reserves -- influence ecological, tourism and other values that are important to protected areas sustainability and management (Woodley et al., 1998). Mutually contiguous protected areas also dramatically influence the characteristics of adjacent land units. Issues that face one reserve will invariably influence its neighbours (Dearden, 1988; Mihalic and Syroteuk, 1996; Schafer, 1999). Thus, it is often in the best interest of protected area managers to work together on shared issues (Glick and Clark, 1998; Yaffee, 1996). However, cross-jurisdictional management can be very challenging due to differing values, management systems and political objectives (Cantrill et a!., 2000; Danby and Slocombe, 2002 ; Francis, 1993; Noss and Cooperrider, 1994; Yaffee, 1997). An excellent example of cross-jurisdictional management issues occurs in the centre of North America, straddling the Canada--United States border. Here lies one of the largest intact protected regions on the continent. It is comprised of Quetico Provincial Park in Ontario, and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA) and Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota. In the absence of another name, we are calling this region the Northwoods Wilderness Frontier (Figure 1).

The region functions as an ecological unit where diverse ecosystems meet. The area is in a transition zone where the Great Lakes St. Lawrence and Boreal forests meet the eastern edge of the prairies (Kronberg et al., 1998). Although this vast protected region is very diverse and is home to a multitude of species, there is little integrated management. Most attempts at cooperative management and solutions are informal and ad hoc. In light of this, the purpose of this paper is to examine the individual reserves within their regional context in order to identify priority management issues and, in particular, to identify those that are shared as well as those that differ. Following this, strategies are recommended that address these issues.

Managing Beyond Boundaries

The management of protected areas is a challenging endeavor, with often complex and contradictory strategies (Eagles, 2002; Killan, 1993; Priddle, 1982). The complexity of problems in a single jurisdiction is compounded if management decisions have to be endorsed by managers from multiple jurisdictions. Management efforts across international borders offer an additional layer of challenges (Mihalic and Syroteuk, 1996; Slocombe, 2002). Cross boundary protected areas exist in numerous jurisdictions around the world, although formal cooperative management is uncommon (Breymeyer et al., 1996; Danby, 1997; Slocombe pers. com. 2002). Relevant to the discussion in this paper, we briefly note three North American examples.

Glacier-Waterton National Parks on the Montana (U.S) and Alberta (Canada) border is the oldest and perhaps the best known example of transborder protected areas. The two parks are officially recognized as an International Peace Park (Mihalic and Syroteuk, 1996). Integration of management between the two protected areas includes Biosphere Reserve coordination, endangered species conservation and the exchange of staff for training management activities. These coordinated approaches, along with others, help foster greater management cooperation between the reserves (Mihalic and Syroteuk, 1996).

The Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek World Heritage Site, comprised of Kluane National Park and Reserve in the Yukon, Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Wilderness Park in British Columbia, and both Wrangle-St. Elias and Glacier Bay National Park and Preserves in Alaska, share the international border in northwestern North America. Although there are many shared management concerns--such as search and rescue activities, law enforcement, and tourism management--formal coordinated management in this region is limited (Slocombe, 2002). Danby and Slocombe (2002) found that greater cooperative management and an integrated framework were needed to promote more effective management in this World Heritage Site.

An example of inter-provincial cooperation of protected areas can be seen between Woodland Caribou and Atikaki Provincial Parks on the Ontario-Manitoba border. Although management between the two jurisdictions has been informal in the past, initiatives for coordinated management strategies in this region are being developed. Examples include increased knowledge and mitigation of forest fires, and the preservation of threatened species such as woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Co-operation of conservation initiatives are slowly developing, although a joint application for World Heritage Site recognition has been submitted (OMNR, 2002). Most arrangements are still very informal, and immediate local (in this case provincial) issues take priority over inter-jurisdictional management.

The Parks of this case study

This research focused on three protected areas along the Canada--U.S. border, west of Lake Superior in northwestern Ontario and northern Minnesota. This area has a long human history of both Aboriginal and Euro-North American use (CHRS, 2002). The protected areas are almost entirely on the Canadian Shield, and are within a natural transition zone between the Great Lakes St. Lawrence forest biome of the south--dominated by tree species such as White Pine (Pinus strobus), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) and Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)--and more northerly Boreal forest--dominated by Jack Pine (Pinus banksiana), Black Spruce (Picea mariana) and Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides) (Heinselman, 1996). In addition to the natural transition between ecosystems in this region, visitor use has historically flowed freely across the border, with canoe trippers paddling back and forth between Ontario and Minnesota, making the region appear seamless.

Quetico Provincial Park, Ontario

Provincial parks in Ontario are classified into six categories: natural environment, waterway, nature reserve, historical, recreation, and wilderness. One hundred thousand hectares is the minimum area for a wilderness park (Ontario Parks, 2002). At 475,000 ha, Quetico Provincial Park--which lies along the Ontario-Minnesota border approximately 160 kilometres west of Thunder Bay--is the third largest wilderness park in Ontario. It is characterized by hundreds of lakes, beautiful Canadian Shield topography, and vast unspoiled wilderness. The present landscape was formed by ice sheets and has since evolved into an area with a unique composition of Great Lakes St. Lawrence, boreal, and even a few prairie plant species (OMNR, 1977; Walshe, 1980). The area has a rich history of use by First Nations people and Euro-Canadians.

Issues facing park managers today include the re-introduction of fire as a natural component of the regional ecology, as well as balancing the needs of recreational users and appropriate conservation targets. In addition, managers must incorporate First Nations rights and values into park management policies and boundary zone issues, which is done through an Agreement of Co-existence" (OMNR, 1995).

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Minnesota

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA) forms a ribbon of protected areas along much of the Ontario-Minnesota Border. The reserve represents a significant portion of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence and boreal forest regions in the U.S. It is also the largest Northwoods lakelands region in the U.S. Due to its unique characteristics within the U.S. with rugged Precambrian shield and vast waterway system, and its proximity to large mid-western urban centres, it is the most heavily used backcountry area in North America (Heinselman, 1996). The BWCA is the second largest protected area in the lower 48 states (434,000 ha). Even with its considerable size, high summer visitation by canoe trippers is posing a threat to the ecological integrity of the BWCA on heavily used routes, as well as compromising the solitude of wilderness visitors (Stankey et al., 1990).

Fire has been a management priority in BWCA ever since the early 1950's when technology facilitated effective suppression activities. The ecological impact of this form of management has been dramatic (Heinselman, 1996). In recent years, a more natural fire regime has been identified as important in maintaining ecological processes. Prescribed fire is also being proposed as a management tool in Minnesota to reduce fuel loads in the large 1999 blowdown area (USDA, 2000).

The management of species at risk is also a major issue in the BWCA region, with many threatened species living in the area, such as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). The woodland caribou that once roamed this boundary region were extirpated in the 1940's (Heinselman, 1996; Racey et al., 1998). The potential of woodland caribou reintroductions to BWCA has been evaluated (Jordan et al., 1996) but any species reintroduction would need the cooperation of all land managers in the Northwoods Wilderness Frontier region for success to be realized, as caribou no longer exist in any of these reserves. These ungulates, and the factors that limit them such as fire and deer-borne disease, are not respectful of political boundaries.

Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota

Voyageurs National Park, located adjacent to International Falls/Fort Frances on the Ontario-Minnesota border is considerably smaller than the two other reserves. At only 89,034 ha it does not have the wilderness character of Quetico or BWCA. Voyageurs does have other special values, such as a booming recreational industry (both summer and winter), and unique vegetation mosaics, comprised of Great Lakes St. Lawrence and boreal forests, with significant influence from the nearby prairies (Heinselman, 1996; Kronberg et al., 1998). These two unique features also pose the greatest threats to this national park. Heavy use from recreational houseboats and motorboats in the summer, and snowmobiles in the winter are having significant impacts on the natural values in the park. Due to its close proximity to dry prairies, Voyageurs National Park is particularly prone to vegetation community alterations as a result of climate change (Kronberg et al., 1998; Suffling and Scott, 2002). Some mitigative approaches such as fi re control can be used in the short term to address vegetation change, but other longer-term and more appropriate management decisions based on more extensive research and monitoring initiatives will have to be made regarding sustainable vegetation management (Kronberg et al., 1998).

Shared Issues

As these protected areas are in close proximity to one another, they share many of the same management concerns. Visitor management, species at risk, and fire management are the three concerns that we believe are the pressing issues facing protected area managers in this region that could be addressed in a collaborative fashion. As none of these issues exist solely in one reserve, a coordinated approach would likely have greater impact in mitigating these problems.

Visitor Management

All of the reserves have visitor management issues. As BWCA and Voyageurs N.P. operate near capacity during summer, issues on the American side of the border arise from overuse and recreational impacts on ecosystems. Although certain areas in Quetico receive large numbers of Americans crossing the border by canoe from BWCA, this does little to economically stimulate neighbouring communities such as Atikokan in Ontario (Reilly pers. com, 2002). Given the uneven distribution of visitor activities, plans could be devised to distribute the visitors more evenly, encouraging increased entry to Quetico from its Canadian side. This would be desirable as a stimulus to economically depressed communities such as Atikokan.

Species at Risk

Issues relating to species at risk cannot be undertaken solely by individual protected areas. Modular approaches may result in the source-sink phenomenon, in which one area acts as a source for threatened species, whereas adjacent jurisdictions, with less protection, are areas from which individuals of the species are lost. In the case of species at risk conservation, the total area protected in these reserves is greater than the sum of their parts. Management or reintroduction of extirpated species (e.g. woodland caribou) has to be coordinated to be effective.

Fire Management

Fire is the dominant driver of change in the boreal forest, which comprises the majority of the Northwoods region (Heinselman, 1996; Ontario Parks, 1998). It has dramatic effects on all terrestrial species, their distribution and densities. Although fire suppression has been effective since the 1950's, its adverse effects on ecological integrity outweigh any benefits related to aesthetics values and natural resource protection (Gordon, 1996; McRae et al., 2001; Woodley, 2002). This form of management is inappropriate for wilderness areas such as these, where ecological values should be the top priority (White, 1987). Small scale prescribed burns help, but controlled disturbance events do not replicate the stochastic nature of the large natural fires needed to maintain ecological systems such as Jack pine forests (Heinselman, 1973; Schaefer and Pruitt, 1991; Schindler, 1998). Management strategies must address this serious issue, as the ecological integrity of these areas depends on a diverse fire regime. Mana gement between reserves, especially Quetico and the BWCA, could allow larger fires by combining management efforts and establishing a large core natural fire zone in the heart of the two reserves along the international border.

Summary and Recommendations

We have outlined selected transboundary issues facing the protected areas in Northern Minnesota and Northwestern Ontario: the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Quetico Provincial Park, and Voyageurs National Park. Together the three protected areas form a large, almost contiguous reserve along the international border. Identified issues include threatened and endangered species management, fire management, and visitor use and distribution. These are only a select few of the many complex issues that managers must deal with on an ongoing basis. We believe that these concerns would be best tackled in a coordinated fashion, as these issues do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, cooperative management may facilitate a greater understanding of both the potential and the limitations of current management approaches. The examination of the issues leads to some general recommendations that are outlined below. These recommendations are based on both academic and professional literature relating t o conservation biology and conservation and protected area planning. Examples of mitigative approaches used in other jurisdictions were also drawn upon. In addition, a general concern for appropriate management in the region directed our recommendations.

1. Recognize the region.

The three protected areas form a unique, mostly contiguous environment, and many issues facing each of the individual parks are common to the whole region. Currently, the three parks are not recognized as a regional core. A first step in recognizing the region would be to agree on a name that represents all three areas (e.g. the Northwoods Wilderness Frontier). Given the breadth of transboundary issues facing park managers, the three protected areas could formalize an inter-jurisdictional committee to address the regional issues. Such a committee would include protected area managers from all three parks and representatives from a variety of governing agencies. This committee could address specific issues such as fire, rare and endangered species, and tourism through working groups or sub-committees. Such initiatives could include:

* Establishing a strategy for managing the ecological role of fire throughout the region. A less restrictive political environment in Canada is likely to make Quetico Provincial Park managers the most effective coordinators of this effort.

* Developing interpretive outreach programs and projects to raise awareness of species at risk in the region. Managers of the BWCA and Voyageurs could take a leading role with these initiatives because of greater experience with threatened and endangered species management and greater funding, and increased data availability under US federal jurisdiction.

* Marketing and promoting regional recreational opportunities using a new name.

2. Identify and act upon regional opportunities.

Various regional opportunities could be pursued to realize goals set by an inter-jurisdictional committee. Existing informal staff exchanges could be expanded to include educational field seminars in each protected area, to raise awareness among the local populations, lobby groups, and decision makers. This would facilitate the examination of similarities and differences between the biomes and the species that occupy them. Such a program could help participants better understand ecological interrelationships and the need to protect endangered and threatened species. Participant fees could go towards paying guide salaries and/or into a fund for species protection and recovery. U.S. authorities in the BWCA could share their considerable experience via comprehensive programs and data collection initiatives, which could be particularly effective in assessing threatened species habitat requirements.

Opportunities with respect to fire include the promotion of ecological values and integrated research across inter-jurisdictional boundaries, which could then be used as a model of collaborative work in other jurisdictions facing similar issues related to complex bio-physical process management.

The opportunity exists to promote and market the Northwoods Wilderness Frontier because of its unique, unspoiled character. This could be achieved through direct marketing (i.e. travel media) and indirect marketing (e.g. visual and literary art promotion).

3. Identify shared interests and develop common goals.

Managers of the three parks have indicated that maintaining the ecological integrity of the region while providing recreational opportunities is an integral part of their responsibilities (Reilly pers. com, 2001). With respect to fire, learning opportunities include understanding the dynamics of fire at multiple spatial and temporal scales.

The three protected areas should form a regional partnership to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats. A charter or agreement on threatened and endangered species could be drawn to clearly indicate common interests and list appropriate goals. The "Framework for Cooperation" (Canadian Wildlife Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001) for species protection and recovery between the U.S. and Canadian federal governments may act as a model from which a regional approach could be organized.

The three parks could also strive towards recognizing the protected areas complex as a prime tourist destination. This might be achieved by enhancing existing tourism attractions and services in the region and by marketing to domestic and international audiences that demand such wilderness. An overall visitor quota system could be put into place to alleviate over-use in BWCA and Voyageurs N.P. by re-distributing visitors throughout the entire Northwoods Wilderness Frontier.

4. Identify and work to resolve shared problems.

While some problems are park specific, others are regional. Identification and resolution of such problems could be addressed by a regional committee. For instance, lack of information has hindered ecologically sound fire management policies (van Mantgem et al., 2001). Cooperating on research initiatives and improved sharing of information related to fire could result in improved fire management practices.

The fragmentation and loss of habitat is a common problem for threatened and endangered species management. Therefore, the three protected areas should work together to safeguard existing wildlife corridors between the parks from major human disturbance and development.

Inter-park travel is another shared regional problem. Existing transportation infrastructure in the region does not effectively connect the communities adjacent to the parks. New and innovative ways of facilitating visitor movement along an advertised circle route--with the protected areas at the core--could be the main attraction within the region.

5. Identify and resolve tensions.

Due to the inter-jurisdictional nature of the region, specific management objectives will at times conflict with one another. In order to work together more effectively, it is important for committee members and park staff to understand the commonalities and differences between the three protected areas.

Conclusion

The integration of management activities across borders is recognized as both an opportunity and an obstacle to effective regional management of protected areas (Danby and Slocombe, 2002; Glick and Clark, 1998). Transboundary management in the Northwoods Wilderness Frontier will be a complex and demanding undertaking. Differing management systems, limited funding, and human resources have worked against a more coordinated approach to management. Moreover, multi-jurisdictional management will require cooperation and compromise from all management agencies involved. Existing policies related to species at risk and fire management may have to be revised, as borders and boundaries play an important part in framing policy decisions (Landres et al., 1998). In addition, cross-border ecosystems in this region will have to be looked at as a whole. Effective reintroduction initiatives of extirpated species may require an area that is larger than any of the individual reserves (Jordan et al., 1996; Racey et al., 1998). Visitor management and distribution may be more challenging, as human values, including economic interests, will likely be an over-arching influence on any policy developments (Paelke, 2000).

Formal cooperation has not yet materialized to take advantage of the significant potential that exists between the three protected areas. The result has been a very informal, or absent management approach to shared concerns. This planning vacuum has hindered the development of a cooperative management framework for dealing with transborder issues, which will have to be addressed in order to overcome the complexity of inter-jurisdictional management.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof. D. Scott Slocombe of Wilfrid Laurier University for insight on transborder management issues in protected areas and for providing some hard to find references. We would also like to thank Beth Dempster and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the paper.

References

Breymeyer, A., R. Noble, S. Deets, N. Brand, K. Robbins and S. Vandivere. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Proceedings of an International Workshop. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Canadian Heritage River System. 2002. A hypertext summary of the Boundary Waters - Voyageur Waterway Canadian Heritage River and cultural history of the area. Available at: http://www.chrs.ca/Rivers/BoundaryWaters/ BoundaryWaters_e.htm [Accessed on: 07/07/2002]

Canadian Wildlife Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Conserving borderline species a partnership between the United States and Canada. Available at: http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection/CW66-198-2001E.pdf [Accessed on: 07/07/2002]

Cantrill, J., T. Potter, and W. Stephenson. 2000. Protected Areas and Regional Sustainability: Surveying Decision Makers in the Lake Superior Basin. Natural Resources Journal 40(1): 19-46.

Danby, R.K. 1997. International Transborder Protected Areas: Experience, Benefits, and Opportunities. Environments 25(1): 1-14.

Danby, R.K. and D.S. Slocombe. 2002. Protected Areas and Intergovernmental Cooperation in the St. Elias Region. Natural Resources Journal 42(2):247-282.

Dearden, P. 1988. Protected Areas and the Boundary Model: Meares Island and Pacific Rim National Park. The Canadian Geographer 32(1): 256-265.

Eagles, P. 2002. Environmental Management. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada, Second Edition, R Dearden and R. Rollins, eds. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press: 265-294.

Francis, G. 1993. Parks in a Regional Land Use Context: Some Issues of Organizational Arrangements. In Size and Integrity Standards for Natural Heritage Areas in Ontario, Proceedings from a Seminar S.F. Poser, W.J. Crins and T.J. Beechey, eds. Huntsville, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen's Printer: 114 -121.

Glick, D.A., and T.W. Clark. 1998. Overcoming Boundaries: The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In Stewardship Across Boundaries R.L. Knight and P.B. Landres, eds. Wahington D.C.: Island Press: 237-256.

Gordon, A. 1996. The sweep of the boreal in time and space, from forest formations to genes, and implications for management. The Forestry Chronicle 72(1): 19-30.

Heinselman, M. 1973. Fire in the Virgin Forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quaternary Research 3: 329-382.

Heinselman, M. 1996. The Boundary Waters Wilderness Ecosystem. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Jordan, P.A., J.L. Nelson and J. Pastors. 1996. Progress towards the experimental re-introduction of woodland caribou to Minnesota and adjacent Ontario. Rangifer 10(1): 169-181.

Killan, G. 1993. Protected Places, A History of Ontario's Provincial Park System. Toronto: Dundum Press Ltd.

Kronberg, B.I., M.J. Watt and S.C. Polischuk. 1998. Forest-Climate Interactions in the Quetico-Superior Ecotone (Northwest Ontario and Northern Minnesota). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 50(2): 173-187.

Landres, P.B., S. Marsh, L. Merigliano, D. Ritter and A. Norman. 1998. Boundary Effects of Wilderness and Other Natural Areas. In Stewardship Across Boundaries R.L. Knight and P.B. Landres, eds. Washington D.C.: Island Press: 117-139.

Nelson, G. 1993. Beyond Parks and Protected Areas: From Public Lands and Private Stewardship to Landscape Planning and Management. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada, Second Edition, P. Dearden and R. Rollins, eds. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press: 45-56.

Noss, R. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature's Legacy, Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

McRae, D.J., L.C. Duchesne, B. Freedman, T.J. Lynham and S. Woodley. 2001. Comparisons between wildfire and forest harvesting and their implications in forest management. Environmental Reviews 9(4): 223-260.

Mihalic, D. and M. Syroteuk. 1996. Wateron-Glacier International Peace Park. In. Transborder Protected Area Cooperation, L.S. Hamilton, J.C. Mackay, G.L. Worboys, R.A. Jones and G.B. Manson, eds. Canberra, Australia: Australian Alps Liaison Committee, IUCN: 39-42.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1977. Quetico Provincial Park Master Plan. Toronto, Ontario: Queens Printer.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1995. Quetico Provincial Park revised park policy. Toronto, Ontario: Queen's Printer.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2002. Woodland Caribou Provincial Park World Heritage Site Proposal. Unpublished OMNR document.

Ontario Parks. 1998. Quetico Provincial Park Fire Management Plan. Queen's Printer

Ontario Parks. 2002. Ontario Parks Homepage. Available at: http://www.ontarioparks.com. [Accessed on: 07/07/2002]

Palke, R. 2000. Biodiversity: The Policy Challenge. In Biodiversity in Canada: Ecology Ideas and Action, S. Bocking ed. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press: 273-296.

Priddle, G.B. 1982. Parks and Land Use Planning in Northern Ontario. Environments 14(1): 47-51.

Racey, G., A. Harris, L. Gerrish, T. Armstrong, J. McNicol and J. Baker. 1998. Forest Management Guidelines for the Conservation of Woodland Caribou: A Landscape Approach. Version 1.0 Draft. Unpublished OMNR document.

Schaefer, C.L. 1999. US National Park Buffer Zones: Historical, Scientific, Social and Legal Aspects. Environmental Management 23(1): 49-73.

Schaefer, J.A. and W.O. Pruitt, Jr. 1991. Fire and Woodland Caribou in Southeastern Manitoba. Wildlife Monographs 116: 1-39.

Schindler, D.W. 1998. Replication Versus Realism: The Need for Ecosystem-Scale Experiments. Ecosystems 1: 323-334.

Slocombe, D.S. 2002. Complexity, Science and Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation in Two Large Regions. In Managing Protected Areas in Changing World, SAMPA/PRFO Proceedings, S. Bodrup-Nielsen, N.W. R Munro, G. Nelson, J.H. M. Willison, T.B. Herman and P. Eagles, eds. Wolfville, N.S. and Waterloo, ON. Parks Research Forum of Ontario: 710 - 721.

Stankey, G.H., S.F. McCool and G.L. Stokes. 1990. Managing for appropriate wilderness conditions: The carrying capacity issue. In Wilderness Management, J.C. Hendee, G.H. Stankey and R.C. Lucas, eds. Colorado: North American Press: 214-239.

Suffling, R., and D. Scott. 2002. Assessment of Climate Change Effects on Canada's National Park System. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 74(2): 117-139.

USDA. 2000. Draft Environmental Impact Assessment, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Fuel Treatment. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. USDA Forest Service.

van Mantegem, P., M. Schwartz and M. Keifer. 2001. Monitoring Fire Effects for Managed Burns and Wildfires: Coming to terms with Pseudoreplication. Natural Areas Journal 21(3): 266-273.

Walshe, S. 1980. Plants of Quetico and the Ontario Shield. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

White, P.S. 1987. Natural Disturbance, Patch Dynamics, and Landscape Patterns in Natural Areas. Natural Areas Journal 7(1): 14-22.

Woodley, S. 2002. Planning and Managing for Ecological Integrity in Canada's National Parks. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada, Second Edition, P. Dearden and R. Rollins eds. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press: 97-114.

Woodley, S., G. Forbes, and A. Skibicki. 1998. State of the Greater Fundy Ecosystem. Available at: http://www.unb.ca/web/forestry/centers/cwru/soe/title.htm [Accessed on: 07/07/2002]

Yaffee, S.L. 1996. Ecosystem Management in Practice: The Importance of Human Institutions. Ecological Applications 6(3): 724-727.

Yaffee, S.L. 1997. Why Environmental Policy Nightmares Recur. Conservation Biology 11(2): 328-337.

Author Biographies

Most of the authors of this paper are graduate students -- Brian Kutas in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario; Harold Doran and Stephanie Janetos in the Department of Geography at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario; Karen Hung, Deanna Strath and Brett Woodman in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Roger Suffling is a professor in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo. The authors brought together original research on this region for a graduate student workshop -- Ecosystem Approach to Park Planning -- taught by Prof. Suffling in 2001. The group has a diversity of interests related to protected areas planning and management, including systematic conservation planning, disturbance ecology, and the role and dynamics of social institutions. Brian Kutas can be reached at kuta0842@mach1.wiu.ca