| Citation |
Shaw, A., S. Masse, L. Pavelich, M. Machmer and R. Holt (2012) Ecosystem Restoration Strategic Plan: Phase 1 Selkirk Resource District, Masse Environmental Consultants Ltd., Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. and Veridian Ecological Consultants Ltd. Prepared for Selkirk Resource District Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Resource Operations. |
| Abstract/Description or Keywords |
This project provides an ecologically-based framework for the Selkirk Resource District (SRD) Ecosystem Restoration Steering Committee to pursue its long term Ecosystem Restoration (ER) goals. The report: 1) defines ecosystems of concern through a threats assessment approach; 2) provides a detailed threat activity summary with affected ecosystems of concern; 3) identifies ecosystem restoration techniques that address impacts to ecosystems of concern; and 4) discusses climate change and restoration goals. In order to identify ecosystems of concern in the Selkirk Resource District, a risk-based assessment of present and future threats and impacts was required. To achieve this, we adapted a methodology developed by Holt et al. (2003) in a report focusing on provincial and regional threats to biodiversity in BC for local use. The latter methodology was modified to reflect the specific area of interest and particular needs of this project. The approach involved the following: (a) Separating the Selkirk Resource District (SRD) into terrestrial and aquatic realms, and then dealing with both realms separately. Wetlands and riparian areas overlap with both realms, but were nested within the terrestrial realm for this exercise; (b) Stratifying the terrestrial and aquatic realms by geographic sub-basins based on watershed boundaries within the Selkirk Resource District: • Kettle/Granby Sub-Basin • Lower Columbia/Kootenay Sub-Basin • Upper Columbia Sub-Basin (c) Further stratifying the terrestrial and aquatic realms into ecological units based on the biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification (BEC) system: • Interior Dry • Interior Moist/Wet • Montane/Subalpine/Alpine (d) Then separating the ecological units into ecological subunits or ‘ecosystems of concern’ for both the terrestrial and aquatic realms: • Terrestrial • rock and talus, avalanche features, high elevation meadows, grasslands-shrub-steppe, dry forests, intermediate forests, wet forests, cottonwood forests, riparian areas, forested wetlands and non-forested wetlands. • Aquatic • streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. To assess past impacts plus present and future threats to potential ecosystems of concern in the SRD, a list of Threat Categories and associated Threat Activities from Holt et al. (2003) was filtered and modified for local use. The complete list used for this project included 12 threat categories further divided into 42 threat activities. Using the output derived from various sources, rankings for each ecological/ geographic unit combination were determined subjectively by our team and entered into a database. The output was a series of assessment tables with rankings for the top ten or more threat activities in each ecological unit/geographic sub-basin combinations. The top threats were then included in the threat activity summary. General types of impacts, the key ecosystems of concern that are affected by the threat impacts, key ecosystem attributes affected by the impacts and potential ER techniques were described. The ecological impacts associated with different stressors vary widely, depending on their geographic and temporal extent, the severity of the activity, and the particular ecosystem being impacted. In the case of some threats, the ecosystem itself is expected to respond in a particular way to a specific threat. For example, some systems are predicted to be moving towards a regime shift under climate change because they are located close to moisture tolerance threshold for key tree species. Other threats are highlighted because they are located in a particular location that has been subject to a variety of cumulative effects over a longer time period (e.g., areas of early settlement and development). There is often interaction between various threats which has tended to result in higher levels of impact at lower elevations and in the southern areas of the SRD. Ecosystem restoration techniques identified in the threats summary table address the key threats and impacts to the SRD. The restoration techniques broadly describe ways to restore ecosystems of concern. Restoration techniques are important components of an overall ecosystem restoration approach, as they may serve to repair or re-introduce degraded or missing parts in a “broken” system. However, it is important to acknowledge that single stand alone techniques may not restore underlying ecosystem function, structure and processes. Simultaneous implementation of a mosaic of restoration techniques coupled with resumption of the underlying driving processes (e.g., fire in NDT4 ecosystems, seasonal flooding regimes in cottonwood bottomland forests) will be required to fully achieve restoration on an ecosystem scale. An important component of restoration planning is incorporating the potential effects of climate change. Climate change is identified as a primary threat to all ecosystems, yet its potential effects are not well known or understood within the field of resource management or restoration (Utzig and Holt 2009). In this report a summary of climate change impacts by sub-basin and ecological unit is provided. The predicted climate change information can be applied and used to modify: • Wetland systems – these will likely become increasingly stressed through SRD and highest emphasis for restoration should be placed on systems where long term maintenance is likely (e.g., wetlands with a relatively predicable water source); • Streams / rivers – those already stressed by low flows either because they are already located in dry areas or experience high water demands should be prioritized; • Riparian systems – especially in southern regions of the study area, these may become increasingly stressed due to moisture reduction, particularly during summer (restoration of vegetation that promotes maintenance of wetland processes should be a high priority where possible); • Drier forested ecosystems – in southern zones and on dry sites in the mid and north of the region, consider potential future transition from forested to non-forested ecosystems (identify areas where the transition agent [e.g., fire] may cause significant resource losses [such as important wildlife habitat]and look for opportunities to buffer or otherwise reduce fire probabilityin high priority areas);. • All ecosystems – consider genetic diversity, and whether current provenance approaches are appropriate (also consider non-local species); • Movement corridors – identify known potential movement corridors and manage to promote resilience; • Identify crucial habitat for key species today – and assess whether appropriate for a ‘resistance’ strategy; • Consider target sites where future species may move – restore or maintain habitat and habitat structures in target areas ; • Build in resilience – consider a wider range of species than may have been applicable historically (e.g. consider promoting a move to more fire resistant tree species in areas where this has traditionally not been a goal). |
