Integrated restoration prioritization–A multi-discipline approach in the Greater Toronto Area
Keywords:
natural cover, strategic, tool, targets, impairment, restore, implementationAbstract
Ecosystem restoration planning requires an integrated approach considering many components of the natural system when prioritizing where and what to restore. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and partners have developed a multi-discipline and multi-benefit approach to restoration planning that facilitates effective restoration works, which contribute to realizing regional watershed objectives pertaining to natural system functions. Through various long term monitoring and modeling initiatives, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has amassed a wealth of knowledge on terrestrial biodiversity, aquatic ecosystems, hydrology, and headwater conditions. The aim of Integrated Restoration Prioritization is to identify impairments and threats to ecosystem function as a means to improve the delivery of ecological goods and services. Consolidating data and comparing discrete areas based on different parameters and thresholds can help direct decision making for future restoration initiatives. The first iteration of the Integrated Restoration Prioritization analyzed existing datasets, identified gaps, and made recommendations for future monitoring. This approach will assist with delisting Beneficial Use Impairments #14 Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat and #3 Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations within the Toronto Remedial Action Plan area. Further, the Integrated Restoration Prioritization will assist in implementing the recommendations made in watershed planning documents pertaining to fisheries and natural heritage management. Specifically, the Integrated Restoration Prioritization will identify where impairments to ecological function are located, ensure habitats and corridor linkages are protected or restored, and prioritize local and upstream catchments that could contribute most to improving the natural system if restored.
References
Benayas, J. M., Newton, A.C., Diaz, A., Bullock, J.M., 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science (New York, N.Y.) 325, 1121–4.
Crouzeilles, R., Beyer, H.L., Mills, M., Grelle, C.E., and Possingham, H.P., 2015. Incorporating habitat availability into systematic planning for restoration: a species‐specific approach for Atlantic Forest mammals. Diversity and Distributions 21(9), 1027–1037.
Dauer, D. M., Ranasinghe, J. A., and Weisberg, S. B., 2000. Relationships between benthic community condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use patterns in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23(1), 80–96.
Evans, N.R., Thom, R.M., Williams, G.D., Vavrinec, J., Sobocinski, K.L, Miller, L.M., Borde, A.B., Cullinan, V.I., Ward, J.A., May, C.W., and Allen, C., 2006. Lower Columbia River restoration prioritization framework. Report PNWD-3652 of Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory prepared for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. Portland, Oregon.
Fahrig, L., 2003. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34, 487–515.
Forman, RTT., 2008. Urban Regions: Ecology and Planning Beyond the City. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
Grimm, NB, Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J.M., 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319,756–760.
Hanna, K., and Webber, S., 2010. Incremental planning and land-use conflict in the Toronto region’s Oak Ridges Moraine. Local Environment 15(2), 169–183.
Margules, C. R., Pressey, R.L, 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–53.
Marzluff, J. M., Ewing, K., 2001. Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of Birds: A General Framework and Specific Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes. Restoration Ecology 9, 280–292.
McKinney, M. L., 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127:247–260.
McPhearson, T., Pickett, S.T., Grimm, N.B., Niemelä, J., Alberti, M., Elmqvist, T., Weber, C., Haase, D., Breuste, J., Qureshi, S., 2016. Advancing Urban Ecology toward a Science of Cities. BioScience 66,198–212.
McRae, B. H., Dickson, B.G., Keitt, T.H., Shah, V.B., Mcrae, H., 2008. Using Circuit Theory to Model Connectivity in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation. Ecology 89, 2712–2724.
Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2004. Canadian Rockies Ecoregional Assessment, Version 2.0. Ontario, Canada. science.natureconservancy.ca/initiatives/blueprints/canrockies_w.php
Noss, R. F., Dobson, A., Baldwin, R., Beier, P., DellaSala, D., Francis, J., Locke, H., Nowak, K., Lopez, R.R., Reining, C., Trombulak, S., Tabor, G., 2012. Bolder thinking for conservation. Conservation Biology 26 (1), 1–4
Opdam P, Steingröver, E., and Van Rooij, S., 2006. Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75, 322–332.
Opdam P, Verboom, J. and Pouwels, R., 2003. Landscape cohesion: An index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18,113–126.
Pressey, R. L., Cowling, R. M., Rouget, M., 2003. Formulating conservation targets for biodiversity pattern and process in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 112, 99–127.
Rosenberg, D. M., Resh, V. H. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York, USA.
Sarkar, S., Pressey, R.L., Faith, D.P., Margules, C.R., Fuller, T., Stoms, D.M., Moffett, A., Wilson, K.A., Williams, K.J., Williams, P.H., Andelman, S., 2006. Biodiversity conservation planning tools: Present status and challenges for the future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31(1),123–159.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2012. Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Page 64 Outlook. Montreal, Canada. https://www.cbd.int/doc/health/cbo-action-policy-en.pdf
Tambosi, L.R., Martensen, A.C., Ribeiro, M.C., Metzger, J.P., 2014. A framework to optimize biodiversity restoration efforts based on habitat amount and landscape connectivity. Restoration Ecology 22(2), 169–177.
Theobald, D.M., Crooks, K.R., and Norman, J.B., 2011. Assessing effects of land use on landscape connectivity: Loss and fragmentation of western US forests. Ecological Applications 21, 2445–2458.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2007a. Terrestrial Natural Heritage. Our Natural System. http://www.trca.on.ca/the-living-city/land/terrestrial-natural-heritage/
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2007b. Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/26746.pdf
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2017. Environmental Monitoring. https://trca.ca/conservation/environmental-monitoring/aquatic-habitat-and-species/
Wehrly, K., E., Wiley, M., J., and Seelback, P., W., 1999. A Thermal Habitat Classification for Lower Michigan Rivers. State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan, Canada.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Manuscripts must be original. They must not be published or be under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. It is required that the lead author of accepted papers complete and sign the MSU Press AEHM Author Publishing Agreement and provide it to the publisher upon acceptance.
