DOCSLIB.ORG

Wetland and Grassland Retention and Restoration As an Effective Carbon Management Strategy in Alberta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wetland and Grassland Retention and Restoration As an Effective Carbon Management Strategy in Alberta Wetland and Grassland Retention and Restoration as an Effective Carbon Management Strategy in Alberta The Business Case Jon Alcock, Viresco Solutions June 30th, 2017 1 | END-TO-END SUSTAINABILITY VIRESCO SOLUTIONS Disclaimer The following report is intended to present ideas for consideration and discussion and is not intended to be prescriptive. This report documents the carbon management and climate adaptation services of Alberta’s wetland and grassland ecosystems. The report is a compilation of ideas and does not reflect the opinions of AB NAWMP, DUC or Viresco Solutions. 2 | END-TO-END SUSTAINABILITY Contents Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 7 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 9 1.1 The Importance of Biological Offsets ................................................................................................ 10 2.0 The Regional Context ............................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.0 Current State .................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1.1 Freshwater Mineral Soil Wetlands in the Prairie and Parkland Regions ................................... 12 2.1.2 Boreal Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.3 Perennial Grasslands in the Prairie and Parkland Regions ........................................................ 14 2.1.4 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 15 3.0 Wetlands and Grasslands as a Carbon Management Tool ................................................................... 16 3.1.0 GHG emissions and Carbon Sequestration in Parkland and Prairie Freshwater Mineral Soil Wetlands (PPFWMSWs) .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Existing PPFWMSWs - Carbon Sequestration, Storage and GHG Emissions .............................. 18 3.1.2 Restored FWMSWs, Switchover Times and Legacy ................................................................... 19 3.1.3 Emissions from FWMSW - Functional and Physical Losses ........................................................ 20 3.2.0 Boreal Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 20 3.2.1 Existing Boreal Wetlands - Carbon Sequestration, Storage and GHG Emissions ....................... 20 3.2.2 Restored Boreal Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 21 3.2.3 Emissions from Boreal Wetlands - Functional and Physical Losses ........................................... 22 3.3.0 Perennial Grasslands in the Prairie and Parkland Regions ............................................................ 22 3.3.1 Existing Perennial Grasslands - Carbon Sequestration, Storage and GHG Emissions ................ 22 3.3.2 Restored Perennial Grasslands and Carbon Sequestration ....................................................... 23 3.3.3 Emissions from Perennial Grasslands - Functional and Physical Losses .................................... 24 3.4.0 Integrated Resource Management ................................................................................................ 24 4.0 Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................ 24 4.1 Ecosystem Retention ........................................................................................................................ 25 3 | END-TO-END SUSTAINABILITY VIRESCO SOLUTIONS 4.2 Restoration ........................................................................................................................................ 26 5.0 Tools for Retention and Restoration ..................................................................................................... 27 6.0 NGO-Sponsored Programs in Canada ................................................................................................... 33 Boreal Programs ...................................................................................................................................... 36 7.0.0 Business Case ..................................................................................................................................... 38 7.1.0 Costs and Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 38 7.1.1 Value of Carbon Retained from Ongoing Sequestration Services – Cost:Benefit Analysis ........ 38 7.1.2 Value of Carbon Stored in Existing Lands – Cost:Benefit Analysis ............................................. 39 7.2.0 Value of Carbon Lost due to Conversion - Cost:Benefit Analysis ................................................... 40 7.2.1 Impact of Ongoing Ecosystem Losses on Current Efforts to Reduce GHG Emissions in the Energy Sector ...................................................................................................................................... 44 8.0 General Discussion on Costs of Restoration ......................................................................................... 46 9.0 Additional Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 47 9.1 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation .................................................................................................. 47 9.2 Flood and Drought Alleviation .......................................................................................................... 48 9.3 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 49 9.4 Biodiversity........................................................................................................................................ 49 9.5 Socio-economic ................................................................................................................................. 50 10.0 Links with Provincial and Federal Priorities ........................................................................................ 51 10.1 Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy ............................................................................................. 51 10.2 Federal Green Infrastructure Fund ................................................................................................. 52 10.3 The Next Agricultural Policy Framework ........................................................................................ 52 10.4 Aichi Conservation Targets ............................................................................................................. 53 10.5 Provincial Land Use Framework ...................................................................................................... 53 10.6 Regional Plans – Regional Environmental Management Frameworks and Biodiversity Management Frameworks ...................................................................................................................... 54 10.7 Flood/Drought Management .......................................................................................................... 55 10.8 Caribou Recovery Strategy .............................................................................................................. 56 10.9 First Nations and Indigenous Groups .............................................................................................. 57 10.10 Social License/Sustainability ......................................................................................................... 57 11.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 57 4 | END-TO-END SUSTAINABILITY 12.0 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 58 References .................................................................................................................................................. 60 Appendix 1: GHG emissions and Cost Benefit Calculations ........................................................................ 69 Cost Calculations ..................................................................................................................................... 71 Sequestration capacity of current ecosystems
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Extra-Limital Population of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs, Cynomys Ludovicianus, in Central Alberta
    46 THE CANADIAN FIELD -N ATURALIST Vol. 126 An Extra-Limital Population of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, Cynomys ludovicianus, in Central Alberta HELEN E. T REFRY 1 and GEOFFREY L. H OLROYD 2 1Environment Canada, 4999-98 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3 Canada; email: [email protected] 2Environment Canada, 4999-98 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6B 2X3 Canada Trefry, Helen E., and Geoffrey L. Holroyd. 2012. An extra-limital population of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, Cynomys ludovicianus, in central Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 126(1): 4 6–49. An introduced population of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, Cynomys ludovicianus, has persisted for the past 50 years east of Edmonton, Alberta, over 600 km northwest of the natural prairie range of the species. This colony has slowly expanded at this northern latitude within a transition ecotone between the Boreal Plains ecozone and the Prairies ecozone. Although this colony is derived from escaped animals, it is worth documenting, as it represents a significant disjunct range extension for the species and it is separated from the sylvatic plague ( Yersina pestis ) that threatens southern populations. The unique northern location of these Black-tailed Prairie Dogs makes them valuable for the study of adaptability and geographic variation, with implications for climate change impacts on the species, which is threatened in Canada. Key Words: Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, extra-limital occurrence, Alberta. Black-tailed Prairie Dogs ( Cynomys ludovicianus ) Among the animals he displayed were three Black- occur from northern Mexico through the Great Plains tailed Prairie Dogs, a male and two females, originat - of the United States to southern Canada, where they ing from the Dixon ranch colony southeast of Val Marie are found only in Saskatchewan (Banfield 1974).
    [Show full text]
  • Future Possible Dry and Wet Extremes in Saskatchewan, Canada
    !"#"$%&'())*+,%&-$.&/01&2%#& 34#$%5%)&*0&6/)7/#89%:/0;& </0/1/&& '$%=/$%1&>($&#9%&2/#%$&6%8"$*#.&?@%08.;&6/)7/#89%:/0& 3&29%/#(0;&A&A(0)/,;&B&2*##$(87&&CDEF&& 6G<&'"+&H&EFIJCKE3EF& & Future Possible Dry and Wet Extremes in Saskatchewan, Canada Prepared for the Water Security Agency, Saskatchewan E Wheaton Adjunct Professor, University of Saskatchewan and Emeritus Researcher, Saskatchewan Research Council Box 4061 Saskatoon, SK, 306 371 1205 B Bonsal Research Scientist, Environment Canada Adjunct Professor, University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK V Wittrock Research Scientist, Saskatchewan Research Council Saskatoon, SK November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roughts and extreme precipitation are extreme climate events and among the most costly and disruptive environmental hazards.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10. Amphibians of the Palaearctic Realm
    CHAPTER 10. AMPHIBIANS OF THE PALAEARCTIC REALM Figure 1. Summary of Red List categories Brandon Anthony, J.W. Arntzen, Sherif Baha El Din, Wolfgang Böhme, Dan Palaearctic Realm contains 6% of all globally threatened amphibians. The Palaearctic accounts for amphibians in the Palaearctic Realm. CogĄlniceanu, Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovic, Pierre-André Crochet, Claudia Corti, for only 3% of CR species and 5% of the EN species, but 9% of the VU species. Hence, on the The percentage of species in each category Richard Griffiths, Yoshio Kaneko, Sergei Kuzmin, Michael Wai Neng Lau, basis of current knowledge, threatened Palaearctic amphibians are more likely to be in a lower is also given. Pipeng Li, Petros Lymberakis, Rafael Marquez, Theodore Papenfuss, Juan category of threat, when compared with the global distribution of threatened species amongst Manuel Pleguezuelos, Nasrullah Rastegar, Benedikt Schmidt, Tahar Slimani, categories. The percentage of DD species, 13% (62 species), is also much less than the global Max Sparreboom, ùsmail Uøurtaû, Yehudah Werner and Feng Xie average of 23%, which is not surprising given that parts of the region have been well surveyed. Red List Category Number of species Nevertheless, the percentage of DD species is much higher than in the Nearctic. Extinct (EX) 2 Two of the world’s 34 documented amphibian extinctions have occurred in this region: the Extinct in the Wild (EW) 0 THE GEOGRAPHIC AND HUMAN CONTEXT Hula Painted Frog Discoglossus nigriventer from Israel and the Yunnan Lake Newt Cynops Critically Endangered (CR) 13 wolterstorffi from around Kunming Lake in Yunnan Province, China. In addition, one Critically Endangered (EN) 40 The Palaearctic Realm includes northern Africa, all of Europe, and much of Asia, excluding Endangered species in the Palaearctic Realm is considered possibly extinct, Scutiger macu- Vulnerable (VU) 58 the southern extremities of the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian Subcontinent (south of the latus from central China.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland and Grassland Restoration
    Wetland and Grassland Restoration Name of Organization: North Dakota Natural Resources Trust Federal Tax ID#: 36-3512179 Contact Personrritle: Terry Allbee Address: 1605 E. Capitol Ave., Ste. 101 City: Bismarck State: North Dakota Zip Code: 58501-2102 E-mail Address: [email protected] Web Site Address: www.ndnrt.com Phone: 701-223-8501 Fax#: 701-223-6937 MAJOR Directive: 0 Directive A. Provide access to private and public lands for sportsmen, including projects that create fish and wildlife habitat and provide access for sportsmen; 0 Directive B. Improve, maintain, and restore water quality, soil conditions, plant diversity, animal systems and to support other practices of stewardship to enhance farming and ranching; X Directive C. Develop, enhance, conserve, and restore wildlife and fish habitat on private and public lands; and 0 Directive D. Conserve natural areas for recreation through the establishment and development of parks and other recreation areas. 1 Additional Directive: 0 Directive A. Provide access to private and public lands for sportsmen, including projects that create fish and wildlife habitat and provide access for sportsmen; X Directive B. Improve, maintain, and restore water quality, soil conditions, plant diversity, animal systems and to support other practices of stewardship to enhance farming and ranching; 0 Directive C. Develop, enhance, conserve, and restore wildlife and fish habitat on private and public lands; and 0 Directive D. Conserve natural areas for recreation through the establishment and development of parks and other recreation areas. Type of organization: 0 State Agency 0 Political Subdivision 0 Tribal Entity X Tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation, as described in United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps
    Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps DRAFT May 2009 South African National Biodiversity Institute Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Contents List of tables .............................................................................................................................. vii List of figures............................................................................................................................. vii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 2 Criteria for identifying threatened ecosystems............................................................... 10 3 Summary of listed ecosystems ........................................................................................ 12 4 Descriptions and individual maps of threatened ecosystems ...................................... 14 4.1 Explanation of descriptions ........................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Listed threatened ecosystems ................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Critically Endangered (CR) ................................................................................................................ 16 1. Atlantis Sand Fynbos (FFd 4) .......................................................................................................................... 16 2. Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of Palaearctic Grasslands
    Phytocoenologia Vol. 46 (2016), Issue 3, 233–239 Special Issue Palaearctic grasslands Stuttgart, November 2016 Editorial Classification of Palaearctic grasslands Monika Janišová*, Jürgen Dengler & Wolfgang Willner Abstract Along with a brief introduction to the four research articles of the Special Issue “Classification of Palaearctic grasslands”, we present a bibliometric analysis of publication trends regarding classification of Palaearctic grass- lands in journals included in the Web of Science database. Regional studies (covering only a part of a country’s territory) prevailed (51%), but supra-national studies were more numerous (34%) than national overviews (15%). Four European countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy and Slovakia) were included in the highest number of grassland classification studies (12 each). The publication of grassland classification studies in Web of Science journals continuously increased during the last 15 years. Festuco-Brometea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea were the most frequently studied grassland classes. Phytocoenologia and Tuexenia were the most popular outlets for origi- nal grassland classification studies, while Journal of Vegetation Science had a leading position in publishing meth- odological articles with relation to grassland vegetation. Methods of unsupervised hierarchical classification were most common in grassland classification studies. Publications outside the Web of Science were not analysed al- though they represent an important source of knowledge in grassland classification. Keywords:
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation–Microclimate Feedbacks in Woodland–Grassland Ecotones
    Global Ecology and Biogeography, (Global Ecol. Biogeogr.) (2013) 22, 364–379 bs_bs_banner RESEARCH Vegetation–microclimate feedbacks in REVIEW woodland–grassland ecotones Paolo D’Odorico1*, Yufei He1, Scott Collins2, Stephan F. J. De Wekker1, Vic Engel3,4 and Jose D. Fuentes5 1Department of Environmental Sciences, ABSTRACT University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, Aim Climatic conditions exert a strong control on the geographic distribution of USA, 2Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 3South many woodland-to-grassland transition zones (or ‘tree lines’). Because woody Florida Natural Resource Center, Everglades plants have, in general, a weaker cold tolerance than herbaceous vegetation, their National Park, Homestead, FL, USA, 4USGS, altitudinal or latitudinal limits are strongly controlled by cold sensitivity. While Southeast Ecological Science Center, temperature controls on the dynamics of woodland–grassland ecotones are rela- Gainesville, FL, USA, 5Department of tively well established, the ability of woody plants to modify their microclimate and Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State to create habitat for seedling establishment and growth may involve a variety of University, University Park, PA, USA processes that are still not completely understood. Here we investigate feedbacks between vegetation and microclimatic conditions in the proximity to woodland– grassland ecotones. Location We concentrate on arctic and alpine tree lines, the transition between mangrove forests and salt marshes in coastal ecosystems, and the shift from shrub- land to grassland along temperature gradients in arid landscapes. Methods We review the major abiotic and biotic mechanisms underlying the ability of woody plants to alter the nocturnal microclimate by increasing the tem- peratures they are exposed to.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem-Based Management Plan for Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park
    Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT PLAN Saskatchewan.ca Ecosystem-Based Management Plan February 19, 2020 Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT REFERENCE NUMBER: 1467-5 March 11, 2020 Revised: March 2021 Prepared for: Saskatchewan Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport 3211 Albert St Regina, SK S4S 5W6 Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park Page | 1 Approval Form The Ecosystem-based Management Plan for Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park (2020) is hereby approved for use by the Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport in the management of the ecosystem and landscape of Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park. March 11, 2020 Darryl Sande, RPF, Plan Author Date FORSITE Inc. Recommended for approval by: March 1, 2021 Thuan Chu, Senior Park Landscape Ecologist Date Landscape Protection Unit Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park Page | ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park (CHIPP) is a 183 square kilometre Natural Environment Park within the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan. The park encompasses the unique geological features and elevation of the Cypress Hills formation. The area contains a mix of Boreal and Montane forest elements as well as Prairie grassland elements. The area is surrounded by agricultural and pasture lands. The park is made up of a mix of natural forests and grasslands, which is classified into nine ecosites. Upland ecosites include plains rough fescue grassland on silty clay loam, lodgepole pine-dominated stands on sandy clay, white spruce stands on silty clay, aspen stands on clay loam, aspen-white spruce mixedwoods on silty clay soils, and aspen-lodgepole pine mixedwoods on clay loam.
    [Show full text]
  • Mixed Grassland (#156)
    MIXED GRASSLAND (#156) The Mixed Grassland ecoregion is the southernmost and driest of Canada’s prairie ecoregions. A northern extension of the shortgrass prairies that stretches south to Mexico, this ecoregion is characterized by the vast open grasslands of the Great Plains, with prairie potholes and several large shallow lakes. It provides habitat for over 35 species at risk and is an important region for waterfowl nesting. The semi-arid climate limits crop production. Approximately 42% of this ecoregion remains in natural cover and almost 11% is within conserved/ protected areas, including 4% in community pastures. LOCATION Arching from southcentral Saskatchewan to southcentral Alberta along the U.S. border, this ecoregion forms the northern part of the semi-arid shortgrass prairie in the Great Plains of North America. This ecoregion extends southward along the Missouri River into northeastern Montana, northwest and central North Dakota, and central South Dakota (in the U.S., this ecoregion is called the Northwestern Mixed Grasslands). CLIMATE/GEOLOGY The Mixed Grassland ecoregion generally has long, dry and cold winters, with a short, warm and a relatively wet spring and summer. The mean annual temperature is approximately 3.5⁰C. Mean summer tempera- ture is 16⁰C and mean winter temperature is approximately -10⁰C. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 240 to 350 millimetres, with higher rain and snowfall in the eastern portion. Overall, this ecoregion is semi-arid, and compared to other regions of the Prairies, it has rela- tively low amounts of snow cover. Western sections of the ecoregion experience a higher frequency of warming Chinook winds in the winter.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summer Vacation You'll Never Forget
    A summer vacation you’ll never forget Dear Friends, Every two years enlightened people gather to celebrate and learn about caring for one of nature’s greatest gifts to humankind. That would be the Tall Grass Prairie. And the gathering would be the North American Prairie Conference. This year, the Conference will be in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Aug. 6 to 10. We invite you and your family to attend, and we’re pleased to bring you this preview of the conference from the pages of Woodlands & Prairies Magazine. Rich and fun-filled learning experiences fill the agenda, including many activities for children. On field trips you’ll see landscapes as they existed thousands of years ago in all of their glorious diversity. At conference sessions you’ll gain insights into what makes these landscapes tick. You’ll learn how the principals of ecological restoration apply to managing the land you care about… whether it’s your back yard, a back 40 or a public park. Join us for a summer vacation you’ll never forget. John P. Morgan, Chairman, 23rd North American Prairie Conference. Rollie Henkes, Editor, Woodlands & Prairies Magazine For a complete schedule, housing accommodations, a registration form and other details, please go to: www.napc2012.org See you in Winnipeg! 1 About Caring for Your Piece of this Good Earth Spring 2012 $6.00 SPECIAL ONLINE WOODLANDS EDITION & PRAIRIES MAGAZINE with Mrs. Woods © Oh Canada! SPECIAL REPORT: The North American Prairie Conference goes to the tip of the tall grass prairie. ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: Biological control of spotted knapweed and garlic mustard.
    [Show full text]
  • Tailoring Restoration Interventions to the Grassland-Savanna-Forest Complex in Central Brazil Isabel B
    OPINION ARTICLE Tailoring restoration interventions to the grassland-savanna-forest complex in central Brazil Isabel B. Schmidt1,2 , Maxmiller C. Ferreira3, Alexandre B. Sampaio4, Bruno M. T. Walter5,Daniel L. M. Vieira5 , Karen D. Holl6 Defining the reference system for restoration projects in regions characterized by complex vegetation mosaics is challenging. Here we use the Cerrado region of Brazil as an example of the importance of clearly defining multiple natural and anthro- pogenically altered states in grassland-savanna-forest mosaics. We define three main, natural vegetation types–grassland, savanna, and scleromorphic (cerradão) forest–to (1) distinguish between original and degraded states and (2) set appropriate targets for and guide restoration. We contend that the differences in Cerrado vegetation composition originally were driven by soil conditions and secondarily by fire frequency and precipitation patterns that differ from the core to the edge of the Cerrado region. Grasslands are found on the shallowest, least fertile soils and/or in waterlogged soils; scleromorphic forests are gen- erally located on deeper, more fertile soils; and savannas occupy an intermediate position. In recent decades, this biophysical template has been overlain by a range of human land-use intensities that strongly affect resilience, resulting in alternative anthropogenic states. For example, areas that were originally scleromorphic forest are likely to regenerate naturally follow- ing low- or medium-intensity land use due to extensive resprouting of woody plants, whereas grassland restoration requires reintroduction of grass and forb species that do not tolerate soil disturbance and exotic grass competition. Planting trees into historic grasslands results in inappropriate restoration targets and often restoration failure.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Grasslands, Shrublands, and Young Forest Habitats for Wildlife
    Darrel F. Covell UniversityChapter of New Hampshire 1. Introduction Cooperative Extension 131 Main Street, Room 216, Durham, NH 03824; [email protected] When we consider the tremendous diversity of habitats found in the northeastern United States (for the purposes of this publication, the “Northeast” refers to the geographic region that includes the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia), we must ask ourselves, “Why narrowly focus the attention of an entire guide on grassland, shrubland, and young forest habitats?”. The answer lies in the problems of species and habitat declines, which biologists have noted over the last few centuries, especially in recent decades. For instance, 22 of 40 shrubland birds have significant declining population trends in the Northeast; 7 grassland birds are listed as endangered or threatened in at least one state in the region; American woodcock populations have declined by 40% over the past 30 years; New England cottontails occur in only 20% of the area historically occupied; 5 species of butterflies are thought to be extirpated from New England and numerous others associated with shrubland habitats are dramatically declining throughout the region. But are these declines simply natural events or ones that have been influenced by human impact? Just how has our use of the land been a factor in these declines? Let’s explore these questions. “Grasslands” is a broad term that applies to many open land habitats. Typically we think of grassy areas with no shrubs or trees and no agriculture.
    [Show full text]