Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation
and Restoration Strategy
June 2001
Prepared for:
Columbia Basin Trust
Environment Sector Steering Committee
Prepared by:
Cathy Scott-May
Lee-Anne Walker
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................................I
1.0
BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
PURPOSE AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................. 1
3.0
METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................. 2
4.0
ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES.............................................................................................................. 3
4.1
CONTEXT FOR ASSESSING ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES ........................................................................... 4
4.2
THE CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 4
4.3
ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES ........................................................................................... 5
4.3.1
Low Elevation Ecosystems ........................................................................................................... 5
4.3.2
Mid-Elevation Ecosystems ........................................................................................................... 6
4.3.3
Upper Elevations .......................................................................................................................... 7
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
DECISION MAKING PROCESSES ................................................................................................... 7
IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITIES AND ASSESSMENT OF RISK ................................................................. 7
IMPACT OR EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING ............................................................................................. 8
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................... 8
6.0
CONTINUUM OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS .............................................................................. 9
7.0
MANAGEMENT TRENDS................................................................................................................. 10
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.0
8.1
8.2
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
10.0
GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING AND DOWNSIZING ........................................................................... 10
PARTNERSHIPS ..................................................................................................................................... 10
ZONATION ............................................................................................................................................ 11
MARKET-DRIVEN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................. 11
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................. 11
CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................................. 11
COMMUNITY INPUT ............................................................................................................................. 13
TYPES OF GAPS.................................................................................................................................. 15
VALUE-ADDED FUNDING .................................................................................................................... 15
STRATEGIC GAPS ................................................................................................................................. 16
COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION GAPS .......................................................................................... 16
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR TRUST INVOLVEMENT ............................................................ 17
10.1 ROLLING PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 17
10.1.1
Broad-level rolling priorities ..................................................................................................... 18
10.1.2
More specific rolling priorities.................................................................................................. 18
10.2 FOCUS ON COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT ............................................................................................ 19
10.2.1
Partnering to support greater responsiveness.......................................................................... 19
10.2.2
Capacity Building ....................................................................................................................... 19
10.2.3
Partnering with the Trust’s own community programs............................................................ 21
10.3 CATEGORIES OF LAND O WNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT .......................................................................... 23
10.3.1
Private lands ............................................................................................................................... 23
10.3.2
Protected areas ........................................................................................................................... 23
10.3.3
Crown lands available for resource development .................................................................... 24
10.4 FOCUS ON EDUCATION AND STEWARDSHIP........................................................................................ 24
-i-
10.5 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING............................................................................................................. 25
10.5.1
Coordinated collective review. .................................................................................................. 25
10.5.2
Community participation in monitoring.................................................................................... 25
10.5.3
State of the Basin Report............................................................................................................ 26
10.6 COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED A PPROACH AT THE PROJECT LEVEL ............................................ 26
11.0
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 27
- ii -
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
1.0
DRAFT
BACKGROUND
The Environment Sector Steering Committee (EnSSC) of the Columbia Basin Trust (the Trust) is
in the process of developing a strategy for their long-term involvement in terrestrial ecosystem
conservation and restoration. The Trust’s Columbia Basin Management Plan provides broad
direction through the defined goals and objectives. With respect to its environmental mandate, the
goal is to maintain healthy ecosystems in a naturally functioning state and to improve the
functioning of those that have been altered and degraded. During development of the
Management Plan, residents identified key environmental objectives for the Trust to pursue in the
early stages of Plan implementation, including
• support for locally initiated fish and wildlife improvement programs,
• purchase or help establish conservation easements on key parcels of land,
• determine the feasibility of returning salmon to the Columbia River, and
• promote energy conservation and the development of innovative, cost-effective energy
sources.
Pursuit of the Management Plan goals and objectives are guided by the following principles:
• involve people of the Basin;
• respect the rights of others, including First Nations;
• do not relieve government or any other organizations of their obligations;
• focus on the whole Basin and respect its diversity;
• aim for sustainable activities;
• invest responsibly and use the investment revenue within the Basin;
• acknowledge and support those affected by the Treaty, without compensating;
• play a creative role in positive change; and
• seek equitable outcomes from all Trust activities.
2.0
PURPOSE AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Given that the Trust’s environmental goal and objectives are broad, the purpose of this initiative
has been to help clarify priorities as a means of defining options for a workable long-term
strategy. A key part of the strategy is to identify an appropriate niche for the Trust in relation to
the many other agencies and organizations that are also undertaking/supporting ecosystem
conservation and restoration activities.
For the purposes of this project, it has been assumed that the Trust is looking to identify
opportunities that
1. reflect ecological and community priorities to the extent possible. This includes balancing
the need to make strategic choices as well as retaining a degree of responsiveness in order
to support the diversity of community perspectives,
2. will result in Trust funds being used to empower communities through their direct
involvement in identifying and/or implementing conservation and restoration activities,
and
3. are compatible (i.e., not in direct conflict) with the government framework (e.g., land use
plan, Forests Practices Code) for an acceptable balance between social, economic and
environmental values. It is recognized that the government framework is not unanimously
supported. However, it is outside the scope of this project to develop a broad community
view on the overall acceptable balance between economic, social and environmental
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 1
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
values for the Trust. In fact, the “community” consultation that was undertaken for this
project was limited to conservation-type organizations. In a small number of cases,
community groups identified issues and/or options that are outside of the government
framework
As overall Trust resources are anticipated to increase, it has been assumed that Trust involvement
in environmental issues is likely to grow in scale from the current $550,000 (of which $150,000 is
available for terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration).
3.0
METHODOLOGY
The approach used has been to explore potential gaps in current and future conservation and
restoration efforts and available funding. Efforts to identify potential gaps have been based on
consideration of
• stated ecological and community priorities,
• existing initiatives and management trends,
• use of decision-making processes, and
• a continuum of management options.
The identified gaps were then considered relative to
• the Trust’s mandate, goals and objectives,
• the Trust’s stated principles, particularly empowering communities, working through
partnerships and providing incremental funding, and
• known available resources, with the assumption that some additional capacity will exist
in the future.
The potential gaps were identified and analyzed through discussions with government agencies,
local consultants and community conservation-type organizations. The general outline of
activities included
1. Consultation with government agencies and other funding organizations. The
primary vehicle was a one-day workshop, but significant input was also received via
preliminary discussions and preparations leading up to the workshop. This largely
identified the current government framework, state of agency/organization knowledge,
existing initiatives and priorities and resulted in various categories of gaps being
identified that the Trust might pursue.
2. Consultation with community groups and consultants. Discussions were held with
known conservation-type community organizations to identify their priorities, relative to
a general overview of the current knowledge of Basin priorities, and the significance of
the various types of gaps to their issues and needs.
3. Subsequent consultation on potential options for implementation. As potential gaps
and opportunities for the Trust were identified, follow-up discussions were undertaken
with other funding organizations and government agencies to consider implementation
issues and opportunities for a cooperative approach. As these ideas emerged, they were
discussed at upcoming community meetings. In some cases, discussions were held with
representatives from groups that had already been consulted if an idea might have
particular implications to that community group.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 2
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
The discussions with agencies/organizations and community groups were limited to a conceptual
level (as opposed to addressing particular implementation details). These iterative discussions
were undertaken to ensure the options and recommendations contained in this report are broadly
viewed as reasonable and worth considering through subsequent discussions once the Trust
chooses which options it wishes to pursue in more detail.
4.0
ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES
A clearly defined and widely agreed to assessment of ecological priorities for ecosystem
conservation and restoration does not currently exist for the Basin. This has been noted by a
number of sources, including other funding agencies as well as representatives from various
government agencies. The EnSSC recognizes this gap as it is currently assessing if and how the
Trust should become involved in a systematic ecological risk assessment of the Basin. While a
small number of “community” representatives identified this as a concern, most community
groups are focused on particular projects or areas of interest rather than conceptual frameworks.
Funding agencies are interested in defining the concepts of conservation and restoration and then
establishing priorities as a basis for allocating funding. The few community group representatives
who spoke of these issues are seeking such information to help define how they might approach
any given conservation or restoration project and as a basis for providing their input to initiatives
such as this one. Efforts to provide ecologically based approaches to conservation and restoration
have often resulted in more questions than answers. For example, if pre-contact ecosystems are
used as the reference point, do we have the necessary information and means to conserve and
restore to that state? An even more basic question being asked is – does a pre-contact ecosystem
make sense in a post-contact society?
Some funding and government agencies are exploring the ecological bases for these questions as
a starting point for working with communities to define desired future states, including the
acceptable balance between environmental, economic and social values. However, desired future
states evolve over time as new information emerges and societal values shift. Desired future
states can also vary with the scale of the planning process in that the implications of an agreement
at a Basin scale are not always accepted at the local level. Therefore, defining the desired future
state is a continually evolving process that has considerable implications for how society defines
its “ecological priorities”. As noted above, this type of conceptual discussion was not the primary
interest of most community groups that were consulted. Additionally, with the history of regional
land use planning in the Kootenay-Boundary region, most community groups appear to be
focused on a more local scale.
Although a systematic ecological risk assessment of the Basin has not been completed, some
documentation on ecological needs and priorities does exist resulting from other initiatives. As
this project is addressing program-level opportunities at a Basin scale, it was felt that the existing
knowledge was sufficient to support discussions with community groups. The following is an
overview of the ecological priorities for conservation and restoration that was used in discussions
with community groups and as one source of input for the development of options and
recommendations regarding Trust involvement in terrestrial ecosystem conservation and
restoration.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 3
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
4.1
DRAFT
CONTEXT FOR ASSESSING ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES
Government agencies work within a definition of sustainability that includes a defined balance
between ecological, economic and social needs. Numerous initiatives have been used at various
scales to define the “acceptable balance” which has, and will likely continue to evolve over time.
Current knowledge as to what constitutes a healthy ecosystem is one source of input to the
determination of the desired balance.
As ecosystems are dynamic, it is suggested that the definition of a healthy ecosystem is best
viewed in relation to a number of factors, including both geographic and temporal aspects relating
to
• Rarity – if the ecosystem is rare or components of it are rare (e.g., red and blue-listed
species and associated habitats),
• Ecological resiliency – likely ability to recover from impacts,
• Extent of representation in protected areas (although this depends on the management
regimes for such protected areas),
• Spatial distribution of ecosystems as they relate to structural function and ecological
interdependency,
• Trends in indicator species (e.g., ungulates, goshawks),
• Mosaic of ecosystem ages, and
• Human activity trends - type, extent and intensity over time as well as future projections
and immediacy of development.
The above criteria are then compared to the best available information about natural disturbance
patterns and reference areas for any given ecosystem to determine its overall health.
4.2
THE CONSERVATION BIOLOGY FRAMEWORK
In order to identify program opportunities that are compatible with the current government
framework, the principles of conservation biology were considered as they might apply to the
land base (parks/reserves, Crown Land open for resource extraction activities, private lands).
Current deployment of these principles include the following:
•
creation of core protected areas (parks, reserves and defined private lands managed for
such purposes) to serve as reference ecosystems, a genetic pool and, as might be feasible,
a form of compensation for impacted ecosystems, if and until restoration can occur;
•
providing connectivity by managing important corridors between the protected areas to
allow for migration, etc. (recognizing there is controversy in applying this concept);
•
use the best available information on specific species and their ecological roles to manage
for broader interests, including identifying and managing high productivity and critical
habitats that are known to support a key specie but will also meet the needs of many
others (e.g., winter habitats for deer/elk/etc, forested areas adjacent to avalanche tracks
and berry patches for grizzly bears); and
•
address rare and vulnerable species and their habitat needs. Where possible, use
management of these species for addressing broader issues, (e.g., management for
mountain caribou to provide for the needs of at least some other old growth dependent
species).
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 4
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
4.3
DRAFT
ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL PRIORITIES
For the purpose of discussing priorities and gaps with community groups, an overview
assessment of ecological priorities focused on low, mid and upper elevations.
4.3.1
Low Elevation Ecosystems
The cumulative effects of settlement, dam construction/operations, and past resources
management/extraction activities (including fire suppression) in low elevation areas of the Basin
have resulted in these ecosystems being highly impacted and generally at greatest overall risk.
Low elevation areas are generally under-represented within the protected areas system and, in
some cases, reference ecosystems have been lost. The dispersion of human settlement and
associated activities has greatly affected the structure, function and health of specific ecosystems.
A lack of connectivity is an important contributing factor. In turn, this has implications on usage
and quality of high productivity and critical habitats (e.g., winter ranges, calving areas) as well as
key habitats for red and blue-listed species. The urgency associated with listed species makes it
necessary to focus on ecosystem components while also considering ecosystem scale function.
The barriers to movement that are associated with settlement and resource development are also
seen as compromising the ability to adapt to climate change.
In most ecological risk assessments, privately held lands are associated with high risk as there is
limited ability to influence or require management regimes that would ensure these lands
positively contribute to ecosystem conservation and restoration. However, it should be noted that
some lands are sensitively managed, but it is dependent on the desires of owners who will change
over time. Most private land is concentrated in the lower elevations and along the major rivers
and lakes. Given that many funding sources are limited to crown lands, the opportunities to
address the risks and needs associated with low elevation ecosystems is further challenged.
Finally, the dispersed human settlement and resource use activities in the low elevation lands also
provides broad access to the upper elevation areas.
While low elevation ecosystems are consistently identified as being priority areas for ecosystem
conservation and restoration, many sources have identified the drier zones and
wetlands/marshes/riparian areas as being of particular concern.
(i) The Drier Zones
The drier areas, such as the East Kootenay Trench and Pend O’Reille, have
consistently been identified as a high priority. The priority ranking relates to both the
high percentage of listed species as well as the high productivity and critical habitats
associated with these areas. The presence of listed species speaks to the difficulty of
distinguishing between conservation and restoration, as conservation of such species
often requires habitat restoration. Clearly there are restoration issues resulting from
fire suppression but forest encroachment is also linked to tenure issues. As well,
some of these areas also require conservation/restoration of the riparian and wetland
systems as a result of livestock and other settlement/resource use
From a restoration stand point, most sources clearly point to the East Kootenay
Trench as a priority. While few would argue with the significance of indicators such
as the number of listed species and extent of high productivity and critical habitats,
some questions exist as to whether the Trench is a higher priority relative to other
areas, particularly when conservation needs are considered alongside restoration. The
focus on the Trench may also reflect the more advanced planning that has been
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 5
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
completed; the socio-political climate of the East Kootenays (which some feel is
more conducive to implementation that perhaps other areas of the Basin) and the
relatively minor impacts to timber harvesting opportunities that result. When most
people are asked how the Trench plan compares to other areas in terms of
conservation, the priority ranking is often less clear.
(ii) Wetlands/Marshes/Riparian
These ecosystems have also been consistently identified as a priority due to the
historical impacts and losses associated with dam construction/operations, settlement
and past resource use/extraction activities. Additionally, barriers to movement have
restricted access to these ecosystems for a variety of wildlife that are normally
associated with terrestrial ecosystems. The Trust, like other organizations, has made a
distinction between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The impacts to, and
significance of the wetlands/marshes/riparian ecosystems is generally not questioned,
however the fact that they can fall between administrative systems may also speak to
the priority that is being assigned them.
4.3.2
Mid-Elevation Ecosystems
Mid-elevation ecosystems have been and are being impacted by the cumulative effects of
resource development, including road building, timber harvesting and intensive reforestation,
mining, grazing and recreation. At a broad scale, loss and fragmentation of old growth is of
particular concern from a conservation focus as restoration can require a very long-term horizon.
In some areas, there is concern about transition from mature forests to old growth. The historic
distribution of age classes of trees (where some stands are predominately old with little mature
component), combined with timber harvesting and fire suppression that has impacted forest
health can affect the amount and distribution of mature stands. This has particular implications
for old growth dependent species. As a result, there is considerable priority given to managing for
mountain caribou in terms of the amount of old growth, presence of specific old growth attributes
and the connectivity of habitats over time. This reflects caribou’s status as being blue-listed but
also that it is used as keystone specie, namely that managing for caribou may also help address
other old-growth dependent species.
Access, in terms of amount and type/intensity of use, is also a significant issue broad-scale in
mid-elevation ecosystems. Wildlife harassment, displacement, mortality and predator/prey
relationships are all issues associated with access. When combined with impacts to critical
seasonal habitats, access becomes a key factor for grizzly bear. Like mountain caribou, grizzly
bear is a priority specie in the Basin.
Management of, and for environmental values has moved away from single species management
and towards an emphasis on overall biodiversity. This includes considering priorities at a variety
of scales. In the mid-elevation areas, there are pockets of plant communities and habitats that are
a priority based on significance and/or rarity. These ecosystems are sometimes within the Crown
Land base that is available for use and resource extraction.
Mid-elevation ecosystems tend to be better represented within the protected areas system than are
low elevation ecosystems. However, many remain under-represented. Additionally, there are
questions about the degree to which parks are able to serve the core protected area function
intended under the principles of conservation biology. Some have noted that protected areas
require a buffer and connectivity between such core areas to meet their intended function and that
these aspects may not be realized through current management. BC Parks is moving to
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 6
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
conservation risk assessment and a greater emphasis on their conservation mandate, but they
currently lack the necessary information and tools to articulate, the priority issues and needs at
this point.
4.3.3
Upper Elevations
The accumulation of ecological information is usually linked to resource development activities.
As a significant portion of the land base is above the “operability line” or the highest elevation at
which intensive timber harvesting occurs, there is a lack of detailed information on many aspects
of the upper elevation ecosystems. A number of rare plant species are known to exist in alpine
areas and the severe climate and conditions affect the overall resiliency of the ecosystems. The
upper elevation are most strongly represented within the protected areas systems, although as
noted above, there are some questions as to whether such protection status and the associated
current management is sufficient.
Access (including recreational use) is growing and driving the increased attention that is being
given to the upper elevation ecosystems. Some have suggested that a conservation focus should
target the almost 40% of the land base that is above operability but not in protected status and is
currently without the planning and inventories associated within the timber operable areas. It was
suggested that actions in such areas may generate the greatest gains to overall ecosystem
conservation goals at a Basin scale.
5.0
DECISION MAKING PROCESSES
A generic decision-making process includes
• identification of and invitation to participants,
• creating an overall vision, including identification of priorities,
• information gathering and assessment,
• definition of draft goals and objectives,
• communication and consultation,
• refinement of goals, objectives and further information collection,
• identification of options for action, potential implications (risks to ecosystem health,
human health and economic/social implications – both temporal and spatial) and
recommendations,
• communication and consultation,
• decisions on actions to be taken,
• communication,
• implement decisions,
• monitoring and evaluation,
• communication and consultation,
• implement principles of adaptive management, as well as
• communication and consultation.
While the application of the generic decision-making process varies by issue and the organization
that is using it, the areas identified as most in need of attention by government agency
representatives and funding organizations include:
5.1
IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITIES AND ASSESSMENT OF RISK
As was noted in Section 4, identification of priorities and the linkages to ecological risks is of
importance, particularly to agencies/organizations attempting to effectively allocate finite
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 7
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
resources. This is particularly important to those funding organizations that have, or intend to
move away from the call-for-proposal approach to working with communities and make greater
use of strategic planning processes to identify priorities that are broadly supported.
Some feel it is also necessary to explain the relationships between environmental/human health
and social/economic risks. The challenges associated with identifying ecological priorities have
been discussed in Section 4. With respect to risk assessment, most agencies express concern
about the costs associated with defining indicators, the ability to achieve the necessary broad
agreement on indicators and whether an objective, science-based risk assessment will provide
information that supports decision-making, rather than merely raise further questions. Many feel
that risk assessment needs to be pursued via a cooperative approach involving a diverse group of
agencies, funding organizations and an independent peer review process in order to yield useful
results.
5.2
IMPACT OR EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING
Most agencies are relatively confident of their ability to accomplish compliance monitoring,
although there is some concern about who is actually doing the monitoring and the resulting need
for consistency and audits. Conversely, impact or effectiveness monitoring is recognized as a
significant gap. As management for environmental values is increasingly moving to addressing
risk and adaptive management, impact monitoring is seen as increasingly important. However,
considerable work would be required to achieve agreement on the definition of baseline and
indicators. In this regard, there is a relationship between impact monitoring and assessment of
risk. It was also noted that some monitoring frameworks have been developed that support
public/community involvement in the process, which is seen as an approach that would be
consistent with the Trust’s emphasis on empowering communities.
5.3
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
All agencies/organizations are challenged in consulting with “communities”, particularly given
the consultation fatigue that exists in this region. How each organization defines “community”
can greatly influence the input they receive. Agency/organization representatives noted that if one
organization uses a more narrow definition of community through its consultation effort, then it
may bring forward ideas that are incompatible with other organizations. Coordination between
agencies/organizations in conducting community consultation could help minimize future
demands on overwhelmed volunteers. A coordinated approach could also ensure that all
participating agencies/organizations receive consistent input. Such an approach does not
necessarily restrict organizations to joint consultation efforts. Rather it could involve a planned
and integrated process that ensures community groups are not overly taxed and that input
received from one initiative is shared with others to avoid duplication.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 8
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
6.0
DRAFT
CONTINUUM OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
There was widespread agreement among agencies that a significant gap lies in the area of
communication, awareness and education. To this extent the decision-making processes are
linked to the continuum of management tools that includes:
Awareness of Needs
Education on the Issues
(includes professional development,
interested lay people and general public)
Identification of Options
for Self-Directed Action
Monitoring and
Evaluation
provides
feedback to all
stages
Identification and Implementation
of Incentives for Positive Actions
Definition and Enforcement
of Restrictions to Protect the Environment
Increasing Effort
Currently, there is some effort to use the media and other broad communication tools to create a
basic level of awareness for environmental issues and specific concerns. Additionally, subject to
available resources, agencies/organizations are targeting specific stakeholder groups for
awareness/educational efforts to ensure a specific initiative can be effectively implemented. The
gap lies in comprehensive and pro-active efforts that broaden the definition of the traditional
stakeholder groups and draws on existing information to tailor the approach to individual
experiences and situations. This gap exists because it would require significant resources and
most agencies have moved to an issue-driven public awareness and education approach, rather
than a comprehensive and pro-active one.
There is some concern about the effectiveness of identifying options for self-directed actions.
Hence, the apparent limited use of this approach. In some cases, the issues are deemed to be
critical and, therefore, the time required to use this approach is seen as prohibitive. Broader
support was expressed for defining incentives for positive actions, although in some cases the
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 9
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
time required to realize benefits is also viewed as too long. Funding agencies, such as the Trust,
can use their available resources as incentives through cost sharing. However, there is a fine line
between offering an incentive and molding the priorities and projects of others through the
influence of having funds to allocate. To achieve the objective of supporting incentives, it may be
necessary to work in true partnership with other agencies/organizations as well as community
groups.
The use of restrictions to protect the environment includes a broad range of activities, most of
which are pursued by regulatory agencies. However, there is broad support for land acquisition
and conservation covenants which uses private property rights and the legal system to restrict
certain activities on identified parcels of land. Most agencies recognize that the use of restrictions
should be a last resort that follows efforts to systematically move through the continuum of
management options. However, limited resources and perceived urgency can result in moving
quickly to restrictions and bypassing at least some of the points along the continuum. In some
cases, moving to restrictions is a strategic choice in order to garner support for earlier points
along the continuum and so the goal is to move back along the continuum. In most cases, the use
of restrictions results in identification of further restrictions. An example is government’s
decision to cap the percentage of crown land that is classified as protected. One response to that
has been growing support for land acquisition to “protect” key parcels of land through private
property rights.
7.0
7.1
MANAGEMENT TRENDS
GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING AND DOWNSIZING
In terms of the continuum of management options, identification of options for self-directed
action and incentives for positive actions are the stated desired future direction for many
agencies. However, most suggest that the restructuring and downsizing of agencies will result in
agency involvement in the “up front” planning stages and the “back-end compliance monitoring”
(likely through an audit approach) with a greatly reduced level of involvement in the actual onthe-ground activities that occur in the “middle”. Therefore, some feel the use of restrictions will
continue to be a focus as that dovetails with the emphasis on compliance monitoring. One
underlying principle that is driving this trend is “user pay” so that those who are profiting from
the resource should assume broader responsibility for assessing and addressing resulting impacts.
7.2
PARTNERSHIPS
Partnerships with community and user groups are a consistent theme, as is
partnership/coordination between agencies and funding organizations. Reduced government
resources require agencies to turn to those groups and/or individuals who have the greatest vested
interest in environmental protection (e.g., water users) and tap into the available volunteer
commitment (public involvement in monitoring water quality in their watershed). In turn,
community groups are generally not looking to government to define their opportunities for
involvement and are seeking to define priorities at a more local scale. However, both sides of the
equation (community and professional involvement) are required to achieve society’s
environmental goals. With further reductions in government resources anticipated as well as a
significant number of professionals retiring in the near future, the connection between
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 10
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
professionals and volunteer community resources may be negatively impacted in the future as
access to government staff may get reduced.
The goals of most agencies and funding organizations are overlapping and so broad that no one
organization can unilaterally achieve them. A partnership approach can be complicated by
legislation that assigns regulatory responsibility to agencies that are being downsized while
autonomous funding organizations are being created. This is creating tensions. Most people feel
this trend will persist over time and so a cultural shift is required to achieve partnerships that can
effectively address environmental issues.
Although partnerships are widely supported, most funding organizations are limited to providing
incremental funding so as not to relieve government agencies of their responsibilities. Creating an
operational definition of incremental funding is challenging, particular given that agency
resources are being downsized and their mandates frequently restructured.
7.3
ZONATION
In the near past, resource management focused on integrated use by all users across the crown
land base. Most feel this approach is shifting to zonation that seeks to separate activities that are
seen to be incompatible. The enlargement of the protected areas system and ongoing discussions
about enhanced resource development zones are two examples. The access planning process that
was initiated in the Golden area is intended to be pursued across the whole region. Through that
process, zonation is used to address conflicts between a variety of users, including public and
commercial recreation.
7.4
MARKET-DRIVEN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
While government initiated land-use planning was once seen as the driver in defining a desired
future state and the accompanying management guidelines, market-driven management
approaches are emerging as leaders in some issues and areas of the province.
8.0
8.1
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
CONTEXT
As noted earlier, all government agencies and funding organizations are challenged in defining
“community priorities”. It is particularly difficult to reflect community priorities within a
terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration strategy when most community groups do not
think in terms of separate categories for terrestrial, aquatic, stewardship and education. Rather,
their priorities often span all four categories. Furthermore, it was suggested that few community
groups take a strategic approach to defining priorities and, in fact, one representative felt his own
priorities are “almost whimsical in nature”. While community groups are interested in realizing
support for their priority projects, some question the emphasis on public opinion and consultation
in this region as they feel the main criteria should be “what is best for the environment”. On the
other hand, community groups include professionals and others with substantive experience and,
within the context of being volunteers, are very capable of, and interested in defining strategic
priorities.
The diversity of community perspectives is one reason that government agencies and funding
organizations find it challenging to incorporate community priorities into any given initiative.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 11
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
Community groups recognize that others may not share their priorities but not all groups are
interested in working with a broad range of groups to jointly define priorities. Conversely, some
groups actively pursue coalitions to address complex issues. This is due, in part, to the fact that
some community groups are interested in helping to shape or change government policies, while
others choose to “stay outside of the politics” and focus on local projects.
Consultations with both community groups and government agency/funding organizations
illuminated the difficulty in distinguishing between “community” and “agency” priorities. While
community groups may not always agree with provincial government policies and/or decisions,
they generally have contacts within agencies and funding organizations with whom they work
closely to realize mutual goals. In some situations projects that have been submitted to a funding
organization from a community group had their origins within government agencies. Given that
some funding organizations do not give funds directly to government agencies, representatives
from such agencies often contact a suitable community group or consultant to seek someone who
is willing to take on a particular project idea. Conversely, some proposals that were submitted as
agency/organization priorities were actually initiated by community groups. In these cases, a
community group has proposed an idea that was deemed to be valuable by agency/organization
staff. As a result, the staff person assumed the responsibility for developing and submitting the
proposal.
In some circumstances, potential conflicts between “community” and “agency” priorities may be
more an issue of defining incremental funding. An example is a community group that was
seeking support from a funding organization for a particular project. The funding agency defined
the project as the responsibility of a particular government agency and, therefore, outside of the
mandate of the funding organization. To some people’s view, the funding agency chose to pursue
other projects that did not reflect the priority of that particular community group. As the Trust’s
Management Plan identifies that the Trust is not to relieve any level of government or other
organization of their obligations, the Trust may also find issues of incrementality can be in
conflict with specific community priorities. In such a situation, the Trust could try to facilitate
discussions between agencies/organizations and community groups to clarify issues and
opportunities and/or to act as advocates for community groups. The ability to do so would depend
on whether all parties were interested in the Trust playing such a role and the Trust had the
necessary resources.
While there is a certain amount of blurring between “community” and “agency” priorities, it is
also true that agency/organization decisions do not always support local community priorities.
The reasons for this may be numerous, including
• local community priorities may be in conflict with each other;
• local community priorities are only considered as one of many factors in the some
decision-making processes. A greater emphasis may be given to “strategic” priorities that
are based on community input but may have been identified on a larger scale;
• a lack of communication between community groups and agencies/organizations which
may result in conflicts that are more perception than substance;
• local community priorities are in conflict with provincial, regional or sub-regional
policies and/or legislation that must be used by agencies/organizations;
• the need for agencies/organizations to act on the basis of the “greater good” and so very
localized priorities may not be ranked sufficiently high enough; and
• attitudes and approaches of individuals within the agencies/organizations that may not
encourage input from “non-professionals” in the decision-making process. Such attitudes
may reflect a perceived lack of resources for working with communities in a meaningful
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 12
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
way and a sense of being cornered by legislative requirements which the respective
individuals can not change.
As the Trust is seeking to empower communities through both its spending and investment
programs, it is important to understand community priorities for terrestrial ecosystem
conservation and restoration, while recognizing the challenges in doing so. Therefore, a number
of conservation-type community organizations were consulted through this project in order to
seek input on priorities for terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration as well as advice to
the Trust on its potential future involvement.
8.2
COMMUNITY INPUT
A focused consultation was undertaken that targeted community groups that have historically
been involved in terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration activities. The range of
community groups spanned Rod and Gun-type clubs, naturalists, those interested in a particular
area or issue (e.g., Friends of Parks) as well as conservation groups with broad geographic and
thematic interests (e.g., East Kootenay Environmental Society). However, there are many other
groups that have an interest in the subject, for example industry associations and educational
institutions, that are part of the community but not generally considered “community groups”.
Additionally, there are community groups interested in aquatic issues as well as economic and
social issues that are directly linked to ecosystem health, which were also not part of the
consultation effort.
The stated community priorities reflect the breadth of the community organizations that were
consulted through this project. However, common themes did emerge.
Coordination among funding organizations/government agencies. Government
agencies, as well as the majority of funding organizations are supported through
public funds. As a result, community groups expect such agencies and organizations
to work together on ecosystem conservation and restoration issues and, in doing so,
to make it easy for community groups to work with them. It is felt that the Trust
needs to be part of a coordinated approach, particularly given the modest resources it
currently has to contribute.
Capacity Building. Greater clarity is required as to what funding sources are
available and how to access them. In some cases, community organizations expressed
the need for assistance in developing proposals, including technical advice on how to
“fix a problem” that the community has identified. Community groups also need
assistance in “dealing with the red tape”. For example, involving youth can be very
difficult because of regulations but is a desired approach by some groups. Finally, it
was noted that while it is relatively easy to get start-up funds, it is considerably more
difficult to get operational funding, either for an organization or a particular project.
Most community groups stressed the limitations they face as volunteers and some are
interested in receiving funding that would enable them to hire administrative support.
Education and Stewardship. Trust involvement in education was very broadly
supported. Both agencies/organizations and community groups feel there is a
significant gap in providing pro-active community education on a range of ecosystem
conservation and restoration issues. As noted in section 6, many feel the information
already exists but it is rarely tailored and presented in a manner that speaks to the
individual experiences of any given audience. Community groups also spoke of the
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 13
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
need to use education as a means to develop an “environmental ethic”. It was
suggested that the Trust could show leadership not only through funding such a
program, but also in how it functions as an organization, including the decisions
made through the investment portfolio and other aspects of the spending program.
Low elevation ecosystems. Community groups identified low elevation ecosystems
as a priority for a variety of reasons, including:
• impacts resulting from dams, partly because of the severity of the impacts.
Additionally, many people view dam impacts as a logical fit for the Trust
given the history of why it was created;
• concern for riparian areas because it is felt that little is left and such areas
provide key habitats;
• recognition for the impacts caused by human settlement and the associated
issues around private lands (e.g., addressing urban sprawl, fostering an
environmental ethic in relation to economic growth, predator/human
conflicts, controlling dogs and other domestic animals that impact wildlife);
and,
• familiarity as these are the places people live and spend the majority of their
time in.
Wildlife habitat conservation, restoration and enhancement. There is an obvious
link between these issues and low elevation ecosystems as that is where many of the
critical habitats are located. While these issues were a consistent theme, some clear
distinctions exist based on the diversity of the groups that were consulted. Some
groups are focused on big game species, which includes habitat enhancement
(i.e., habitat management to potentially expand an area’s productivity beyond what
would “naturally” exist). Other groups and individuals appear to have a greater
interest in species at risk, as well as high productivity habitats such as ungulate
winter ranges. Most community groups were supportive of land acquisition and
stewardship (via conservation covenants) as one means to address wildlife habitat
issues, although some expressed concern that such lands should remain open to the
public. As available funds are seen to be a limiting factor in pursuing land acquisition
and stewardship, the Trust is considered a key resource.
Protected areas and connectivity. As there are a number of community groups that
focus on park management issues (National and/or provincial), their priorities are
guided by the geographic areas of interest and the role such protected areas are to
play relative to overall ecosystem conservation and restoration. While some of these
organizations are solely focused on issues within the boundaries of their parks of
interest, others identified buffer zones and connectivity between parks as priority
issues in order to ensure the values associated with the core areas can be protected.
Connectivity was also identified as being important in a broader sense within the low
elevation ecosystems. For example, identifying and maintaining wildlife corridors
through settled areas, particularly as they would link riparian/wetlands/marshes with
the upper elevation habitats.
Access management. Community groups identified three issues that are associated
with access management including
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 14
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
•
•
•
9.0
DRAFT
planning for backcountry recreation and tourism to address conflicts with
wildlife and other environmental values, while maintaining reasonable access
(i.e., public input into road deactivation);
addressing the spread of noxious weeds; and
public education to support the cultural shift required for road deactivation
and access management.
TYPES OF GAPS
In considering potential options for Trust involvement in terrestrial ecosystem conservation and
restoration, three main types of gaps were identified and discussed with representatives from
agencies/organizations and community groups.
9.1
VALUE-ADDED FUNDING
The Trust could continue its involvement in terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration
through partnering with existing programs, thus enabling those initiatives to better realize the
goals that are shared with the Trust/residents of the Basin. In doing so, the Trust likely realizes a
greater impact from its funding, particularly if the partnering organizations actively pursue
additional funds/resources through leveraging their own plus the Trust’s resources. To date, the
Trust has used this approach with the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program
and the Grazing Enhancement Fund, as well as the Fisheries Partnership for the aquatic and
stewardship programs.
A key issue for the Trust is to participate in a manner that is incremental to baseline
responsibilities. The Trust’s Management Plan identifies the need to not relieve any level of
government or other organizations from their respective obligations. Some of the existing
programs are associated with industry responsibilities. For example, the Columbia Basin Fish and
Wildlife Compensation Program reflects a BC Hydro responsibility as outlined through the
respective water licenses. Similarly, Forest Renewal BC activities are funded via a portion of
stumpage fees to address past timber management impacts. Some have suggested that if these
programs have insufficient funds to address the issues, then the respective industries should be
required to contribute additional resources, rather than have the Trust contribute funds. Others
counter that it is difficult to clearly define a cause and effect relationship because of the
cumulative impacts on environmental values from human use of natural resources. In reality, any
Trust involvement in ecosystem conservation and restoration involves a form of compensation for
economic development and/or settlement activities. Therefore, operationally defining
incrementality is very challenging, will likely evolve over time and may, in some situations, need
to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
There are a number of ongoing programs that have been created to address priority issues in the
Basin that are generally defined on the basis of categories of human activities, including but not
limited to the following:
• The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program – address footprint
impacts (reservoirs) created by BC Hydro dam construction.
• Forest Renewal’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Restoration Program – addressing impacts of
past timber management practices on the crown land base.
• Grazing Enhancement Fund – to support improved management of grazing on crown land
in order to minimize impacts on the environment.
• The Green Fund – a new program to support improved agricultural practices.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 15
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
•
•
•
DRAFT
Habitat Conservation Trust Fund – funding for fish and wildlife projects that is supported
through hunting and fishing licenses.
The Science Council research programs – support research, including areas that address
environmental impacts.
Various foundations.
Overall, community groups voiced support for the approach of working in partnership with
existing organizations. It should be noted that in many cases, the Trust’s delivery agents are better
known to the community groups than is the Trust itself. While it was not within the mandate of
this project to conduct an evaluation of potential partners, community groups did provide
perspectives on some of the organizations that they are most familiar with. In particular,
community groups expressed consistent support for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
Compensation Program (CBFWCP) as both a current and future partner for the Trust. The only
exceptions were those groups that have not previously been involved with the CBFWCP and so
had no opinion to offer (e.g. some groups associated with provincial parks). Some frustration was
expressed about the limited opportunities for community groups to work with the fisheries
component of the CBFWCP because virtually all of the funding is committed to the large-scale
fertilization projects in both Kootenay and Arrow Lakes. Understandably, the Grazing
Enhancement Fund is not well known outside of areas such as the East Kootenay Trench.
Concerns have been expressed about the work associated with completing application forms for
some organizations, including Forest Renewal BC. Few comments were received about other
potential partner organizations.
9.2
STRATEGIC GAPS
Representatives from both agencies and community groups feel there are aspects of ecosystem
conservation and restoration that are generally not being addressed. While the Trust is seen as a
potential funding source to help address these strategic gaps, such gaps likely exist for substantial
reasons including
• the complexity of the issues;
• perceived lack of public support for addressing the issues;
• a substantial investment of funding and other resources may be required; and/or
• it may be difficult to identify a delivery agent for the Trust and the complexities may
challenge the Trust in attempting to address the issues themselves.
9.3
COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION GAPS
There are a variety of government agencies and funding organizations with a mandate for
involvement in aspects of terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration. However, the issues
cross not only the mandates of these organizations, but also those that focus on economic, social,
education and cultural issues. Therefore, in order to address the complexities of ecosystem
conservation and restoration, most organizations must step outside of their defined mandates and
partner with others. The Trust’s broad mandate is challenging, but also may provide a unique
opportunity to support a coordinated and integrated approach to the issues. How the Trust could
support such an approach depends on Trust resources, the interests of other organizations and
how these can best be matched to community needs.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 16
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
10.0
DRAFT
POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR TRUST INVOLVEMENT
The following options have been derived from the consultations with community groups,
government agencies and funding organizations. The options build on the stated community
priorities and their relationship to the known ecological priorities of the Basin, as well as the
organizational opportunities/constraints that may exist both within the Trust and other Basin
agencies/organizations. The options consist of different approaches to an overall strategy for
Trust involvement in terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration. The main approaches
include
• identifying a rolling set of priorities that can be addressed over time;
• a focus on community empowerment; and
• a reflection of categories of land ownership and management.
Given that many community groups as well as government agency and funding organizations
representatives identified community education/stewardship, effectiveness monitoring and overall
coordination as key gaps, options for addressing these specific priorities are also discussed.
10.1 ROLLING PRIORITIES
Many community groups encourage the Trust to clearly convey how it will be involved in
ecosystem conservation and restoration, as many are currently unclear. For those individuals
and/or groups that are focused on particular projects, many simply want to know where is the best
place to apply for funding. If the Trust is not a potential funding source for their priority project,
they want that made clear so that no time is wasted in developing and submitting proposals to the
Trust or their delivery agents. The individuals and/or organizations that take a more strategic
approach and broad view of ecosystem conservation and restoration issues also want the Trust to
define its niche. Some feel it is not essential for the Trust to reflect their particular priorities, as
there is room and need for organizations to address the issues from a variety of perspectives and
angles and the Trust is only one of many players in these issues. For these people, what is
important is that the Trust make some strategic decisions, communicate them clearly and work in
cooperation with others that are attempting to address other aspects of the issues. Additionally, it
is important for the Trust to not be working at cross-purposes with community groups.
The Trust currently has modest resources relative to the identified needs and priorities for
terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration. Given this reality and the Trust’s expressed
interest to reflect community priorities, a rolling set of ecosystem conservation and restoration
priorities could be defined. The priorities could cover a defined period (e.g., ten years) and
address the range of community interests over time, but may not support all community priorities
within any given year. A percentage of available funds could be identified for each priority, as
future Trust resources are uncertain at this point. Support for any given program might last three
to five years within the overall ten-year period. This approach is similar to that of the Trust’s
Social Sector Steering Committee. In this scenario, the Trust could make a multi-year funding
commitment to one or more programs, with a clearly defined end date, unless substantially more
funding becomes available that would allow the Trust to add to its programming rather than move
onto other priorities. A potential concern with this approach is that the early programs may reflect
the highest priorities but would be implemented when the Trust has a relatively small amount of
resources to commit.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 17
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
10.1.1
DRAFT
Broad-level rolling priorities
Broad-level rolling priorities could be defined based on the types of human activities (e.g., dam
impacts, timber harvesting impacts) as this largely defines how potential delivery agents are
created and funded. The particular priorities within those broad categories could be refined
through the work of the partnering organization. The Trust could provide additional support, if
necessary, to ensure the partnering organization(s) can effectively involve communities in
refining the priorities, either through direct involvement in a priority setting process and/or via
funding for community-initiated proposals.
Using categories of human activity as a means for defining broad-rolling priorities may not
support the cumulative impacts that result from all human activity, however it does reflect the
current approach to funding programs. One difficulty is defining future priorities when programs
are constantly changing. Additionally, some community priorities may not be adequately
captured through existing programs, for example tourism/recreation or reclamation of old smallscale mine sites. However, a partner could be sought for Trust initiated programs when no
suitable program exists. Finally, not all existing programs are oriented to supporting communityinitiated projects, which has been stated as an objective for the Trust. While the Trust could offer
some incentives for increasing community involvement, there may be resistance to undertaking
substantive change if the Trust contributions are likely to be modest and without a long-term
commitment. Such resistance may stem from a sense that the Trust’s view of community
empowerment may not be the only legitimate approach, rather than a lack of desire to involve
communities. Therefore, investing the time to blend views on such issues would likely require a
commitment to long-term partnership.
10.1.2
More specific rolling priorities
Another approach would be to define a more specific set of rolling priorities up front and then a
suitable delivery agent partner sought for the various programs. Clearly any one of the potential
program areas could be a sole focus for the Trust over many years and probably consume all of its
resources. Therefore, the basis for this approach is still “value-added”, focus but with a clearer
up-front definition of the Trust’s involvement within what are broader issues. Some examples of
potential program areas that could be included in a long-term strategy include
• Growth management planning, including building the capacity of local governments and
communities to understand the issues, risks of the status quo and potential options.
• Information gaps including research, inventory, mapping and analysis.
• Information management, including coordination of past, present and projected future
ecosystem conservation and restoration efforts in the Basin.
• Community education targeting specific issues, such as bear awareness, need for
controlling loose dogs, importance of maintaining key wildlife trees on private lands,
working with government agencies that are involved in access management planning to
support a pro-active educational program that precedes the process in order to make it
more effective, etc.
• Incentives for the rails-to-trails and other trail network initiatives to consider and address
ecological impacts.
• Rare and endangered species.
• Ungulate Winter Range conservation and restoration.
• Noxious weeds.
• NDT4 restoration, including support for expanding to areas outside of the East Kootenay
Trench.
• Wetlands and riparian program.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 18
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
10.2 FOCUS ON COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
Given the Trust’s stated interest in empowering communities, it could choose to develop a
strategy that uses responsiveness to community priorities as a primary driver for focusing its
involvement in terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration.
10.2.1
Partnering to support greater responsiveness
The Trust could choose to partner with existing programs/organizations with the primary goal of
bolstering that program’s ability to respond to community initiated projects. Hence, Trust funds
could be earmarked for proposals that have been received from community groups. Enhancing the
partner delivery agent’s program may also be achieved, depending on the nature of the
community priorities. In this scenario, the Trust may be looking more for a contracted delivery
agent that provides a technical review and administrative service, with the Trust defining the
criteria for community involvement and social considerations. However, as noted in Section 8.1,
community-initiated projects do not necessarily capture the full range of community priorities as
there is a complex relationship between community and agency/organization priorities.
10.2.2
Capacity Building
There is clearly need to support community groups in their involvement in ecosystem
conservation and restoration issues and projects. In particular, some community groups have
expressed the need for support in the “up-front” stages of planning and decision-making. This
includes not only strategic planning initiatives that determine priorities, but also requests for
proposals from community groups. Most community groups, particularly those without any paid
staff, struggle to keep up with the evolving organizations, funding sources and respective
priorities/programs that are involved in ecosystem conservation and restoration. A number of
people noted that “there are so many organizations that start with Columbia Basin we can’t tell
the difference between them”. Another common view is that almost all of the funding
organizations and certainly all of the involved government agencies are publicly funded.
Therefore, it is felt that all the organizations should be working together, and in doing so, make it
easy for community groups to work with them.
(i) Requests for Proposals
A number of community groups identified the need for assistance in not only
knowing where to apply for funding, but also how to develop a solid proposal.
Currently, there are a number of organizations providing capacity building. Some
take the form of extension officers, while others offer the opportunity to contact staff
prior to submitting applications. A third approach is to have seed funding available to
enable groups to hire someone to assist with a specific proposal. Finally, some
community groups have formed relationships with knowledgeable consultants so that
the consultant writes the proposal for no-charge with the understanding that if the
group is successful in receiving funds, the consultant will be hired to do the project.
This “free enterprise” solution has worked for a number of community groups,
particularly because it ensures implementation of the project is carried out as per the
proposal and by a knowledgeable person. However, it can cause issues of fairness
and due process for the funding organizations if they direct award a considerable
amount of work to any one consultant.
It appears that not all community groups take advantage of the assistance that
currently exists. At this point, it is unclear whether community groups are unaware of
the existing assistance, feel it is unnecessary or the existing help is viewed as too
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 19
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
difficult to access. Most community organizations have a core group of active people
that do the majority of the work. In some cases, the core people are professionals
with experience in writing proposals and, therefore, may not have need of support.
Some community groups are cautious about gaining greater skills in proposal writing
as the do not want their volunteer activities to become a second full-time job. For
some groups, the goal is to undertake one project per year and they are mindful of
their capacity to do more. As a result, greatly increasing their capacity to write
proposals may not match their goals.
While it has been suggested that some funding organizations should and are thinking
of moving towards use of a single application form and proposal intake process, if
that occurs, it will likely take some time. An alternative could be for the Trust to
work with a number of Basin programs and organizations to facilitate a coordinated
intake of expressions of interest. Community groups could submit a very brief outline
of their project idea, methodology and estimated cost as well as indicate if they are in
need of technical assistance in writing a full proposal. The Trust could provide
funding for a review of the expressions of interest that would identify the most
suitable program(s) that the community group might apply to. The review could also
include a discussion with funding organizations to determine
• if they concur that the community projects identified as being suitable for
their programs do in fact fit their mandate and are seen as worthy of moving
to the full proposal stage;
• what key questions the targeted funding organization(s) would expect to have
answered through the full proposal; and
• whether the funding organizations have resources to assist the community
groups who are seeking support for developing the full proposal.
The community groups would then receive a response to their expression of interest
indicating
• the most likely funding source(s) for their idea;
• the respective application form(s) and deadline date(s);
• a list of key questions that would need to be addressed through a full
proposal; and
• suggestions on who to contact for assistance in preparing the proposal.
This proposed approach has received support from community groups who are
looking for clarity as to where they should apply for funds and if their idea merits the
time it takes to write a full proposal. A coordinated intake of expressions of interest
would also enable funding organizations to assess whether in fact more capacity
building support is required, or if the issue is more one of coordinating and making
more effective use of what already exists. Additionally, a review of expressions of
interest would give funding organizations and government agencies a “heads-up” on
community priorities and identify any that may require a collaborative approach to
address at the full proposal stage.
In the first few attempts, the Trust might make a small amount of seed funding
available in case some project ideas are received that do not fit with the existing
capacity building support. As noted earlier, some funding organizations have or are
moving away from the request for proposal process as their resources can not match
the expectations that are raised. As a result, such organizations would not be
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 20
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
participants in this coordinated effort to review expressions of interest. However,
community groups remain interested in seeking funding for their particular projects
and there are a variety of foundations and other funding sources that will continue to
use the request for proposal process. Such organizations could be invited to
participate.
A more simplified option of providing support for community groups in the request
for proposal process is to use the Trust website as a means to provide information on
a wide variety of funding organizations and programs. In this scenario, a community
group could go to an Environmental Sector page of the Trust website and find a
listing and basic information about current funding programs (not just those directly
associated with the Trust). Perhaps there could be direct links to the websites of the
other funding organizations so that groups could easily pursue more detailed
information.
(ii) Community involvement in strategic planning
Some funding organizations have, or are planning on moving away from the request
for proposal process as they feel it can create expectations that can not always be met
by the available funding. Instead, such organizations seek to involve community
groups in defining strategic priorities and then allocate their resources on that basis.
Who is defined as a community group and the extent of their involvement may vary.
In this scenario, the Trust could provide resources to enhance community
involvement within the priority setting exercises and then contribute funds for the
resulting projects. The scale of the planning process greatly influences the definition
of “community” whose priorities are to be realized, the type of resulting projects and
their contribution to ecosystem-scale issues. Secondly, projects that are not funded
through such a process still remain as someone’s priorities. Finally, many community
groups have grown weary of strategic planning processes and so participation may be
an issue, particularly if there is any doubt as to the credibility of the process. A key
question for the Trust is whether it would have funds to allocate to projects that
would result from the strategic planning processes it would provide support to.
10.2.3
Partnering with the Trust’s own community programs
Given the fragmented nature of existing programs that address aspects of terrestrial ecosystem
conservation and restoration, if community empowerment is a Trust priority, then partnering with
only one or two programs may exclude some community groups and/or some of their priority
issues. An alternative for supporting community involvement in the decision-making process
would be to partner with the Trust’s Basin Communities Initiatives and Affected Areas Program.
Those programs are intended to support community priorities and empower communities by
bringing the decision-making process into the communities via locally elected representatives.
Most community groups were either unaware of the existence of the Trust’s local government
programs and/or that they could seek funding for environmental projects through them. As most
community groups have historically worked with provincial and/or federal agencies on ecosystem
conservation and restoration initiatives, the lack of understanding of the local government
programs is understandable. Additionally, one elected local government representative stated that
the local government programs are not available for environmental-type projects, only economic
and social community priorities. However, the Trust has not placed any such restrictions on the
Basin Communities Initiatives and Affected Areas Program
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 21
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
The Trust could use an incentive approach in partnering with the local government programs for
“Green Communities” projects that would be eligible for incremental funding through the
Environment Sector Steering Committee. Community definitions of “green communities
projects” are likely to be quite varied. As a result and given limited resources, the Committee may
need to consider what types of projects a Green Communities Program could support and still
effectively address the goal of ecosystem conservation and restoration. This might involve the
development of clear eligibility guidelines. Based on consultations with community groups,
potential projects might include but not be limited to
• the creation of urban green spaces (including non-indigenous species, i.e., lawn-type
grasses);
• support for recycling;
• campaigns for alternatives to private vehicles;
• education relating to bears and the need to control domestic dogs;
• growth management planning, including the identification and implementation of
incentives to increase the densification of existing urban areas (i.e., make high density
communities “live-able”) in order to address urban sprawl;
• support for addressing noxious weeds;
• education related to organic and native plant gardening;
• identification of wildlife and general connectivity corridors through settled areas and
support for land acquisition of key parcels of land;
• sponsorship of local awareness, education and stewardship events and programs; and
• education and incentives for private land management, especially in riparian areas.
Given the current allocation of funding, small rural areas and those communities who do not
received funds through the Affected Areas Program, receive substantially less funding for the
local government programs. Therefore, using a matching funds approach would penalize those
areas that receive lesser funds to begin with. An alternative could be to use not only the quality of
the proposed project, but also the percentage of the local government funds that were being
committed to the project as factors in considering allocating incremental funding through a Green
Communities Program.
The Trust’s Environment Sector Steering Committee may require some assistance for
undertaking a technical review of the proposals. The early phases of the project will likely
involve a modest amount of available funding and may generate a small number of applications.
The Ministry of Environment (MELP) has indicated a willingness to discuss supporting the Trust
in a technical review, perhaps in conjunction with other organizations that have technical
capacity. If the program grows substantially, the Trust may need to hire a technical review team
as the breadth of proposals may be beyond the technical capacity of any existing funding
organizations. For example, organizations that have fisheries and wildlife expertise may not have
technical capacity related to air quality, water and waste management, etc and the review process
may become too demanding for MELP’s involvement.
The attitudes and experience of local governments will likely have an impact on the effectiveness
of the program. Some communities, such as Revelstoke, may be better positioned to take
advantage of the program. One local government planner suggested that having a small number
of communities take advantage of the program in the first few years should not be viewed as a
negative situation. It was suggested that communities will learn from each other and in some
areas it may take a cultural shift for local governments to become actively involved. The Trust
could help facilitate that learning and sharing of experiences both through its Board members but
also through annual discussions on program implementation.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 22
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
10.3 CATEGORIES OF LAND OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT
One means of focusing the Trust’s involvement in ecosystem conservation and restoration is to
work within the various categories of land ownership and management. In very general terms, the
Basin is divided into private land. Crown land that is available for resource development and
protected areas. While the environmental issues do not respect such boundaries, these divisions
are, to some extent, ingrained in our culture and the administration of many government agencies
and funding organizations. Therefore, the Trust may choose to recognize these realities, but might
pursue programs that encourage a blurring of the administrative boundaries in order to support
more effectively addressing the issues over the longer-term.
10.3.1
Private lands
Many people view private land as a gap in terms of both funding and as a focus for ecosystem
conservation and restoration, at least relative to the associated impacts on the environment.
Therefore, the Trust might consider focusing on private lands and then developing a rolling set of
priorities for a long-term strategy that best addresses the most common and urgent human
settlement and private land issues. One goal for such a program might be to encourage linkages
with initiatives that are ongoing on adjacent Crown lands. This would encourage addressing the
cross-boundary nature of the issues. For some, this represents a good fit for the Trust given its
“community” focus and the make-up of its Board of Directors as having strong representation
from local governments. Although local governments may not be the only organization that the
Trust could and should partner with to deliver programs that have a human settlement/private
land focus, clearly the support and involvement of local governments would be an asset. Some
community groups, as well as some levels within local governments are supportive of a greater
role for local governments in such issues. One means of pursuing these issues, at least initially is
to take an incentive approach by partnering through the Trust’s Basin Communities Initiatives
and Affected Areas Program, as described in Section 9.1.2 (iii).
10.3.2
Protected areas
It has been suggested that some key funding sources focus on Crown lands that are available for
resource development and, therefore, do not participate in projects that are within protected areas.
Subsequent discussions have identified that protected areas may not be excluded from all such
funding sources. Rather the necessary relationships between the respective agencies,
organizations and community groups may not yet have developed in a manner that fosters the
required understanding of issues and processes. There has also been a relatively recent
management shift away from “parks as islands” to a more integrated view of the role for parks.
To some extent, the structure of community organizations mirrors that of government, namely
there are organizations that are focused on the geographic area of the protected areas and they are
not always connected to how other groups are approaching similar issues outside of the parks.
This, together with the recent increase in the amount of land that is within the protected areas
system likely warrants such issues being identified as a current strategic gap.
The Trust could explore opportunities to work with the variety of protected areas-oriented
community groups, perhaps through an umbrella association. However, it should be noted that
this concept was not discussed with such community groups, as it may have raised expectations,
so it is unclear if these groups would welcome this approach. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness
Society is a national umbrella organization that might offer support to a Columbia Basin umbrella
group. The Trust could offer such an umbrella organization initial funds to develop a business
plan that identifies priorities across protected areas in the Basin and the linkages to priorities
outside of the parks. The planning process could also define how the umbrella organization would
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 23
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
use a multi-year funding commitment from the Trust to leverage other resources, including
sources that would support projects within the parks as well as linking to related and ongoing
initiatives outside of parks in order to gain efficiencies. One goal of the program might be to
realize greater integration of ecosystem conservation and restoration activities within and outside
of protected areas. This could include phasing out the program after a period of time so that the
Trust would no longer make a distinction in its involvement on the various types of Crown lands.
10.3.3
Crown lands available for resource development
Some concern has been expressed with what is perceived to be a current emphasis on ecosystem
restoration, as opposed to pro-active conservation. There has been some support from community
groups for the suggestion that the Trust focus its involvement on the 40% of Crown land that is
above the timber harvesting operability line and outside of protected areas. It was felt that some
of the greatest conservation gains could be made in these areas.
Alternatively, the Trust could be involved on Crown lands by choosing priority issues (for
example as described in Section 8.1.1 Rolling Priorities) or via an emphasis on empowering
communities (for example as described in Section 8.1.2).
10.4 FOCUS ON EDUCATION AND STEWARDSHIP
It has been suggested that community education and stewardship are such critical gaps that the
Trust might consider solely focusing on these aspects of ecosystem conservation and restoration.
Providing quality community education that is pro-active and tailors information to specific
audiences so that it speaks to their experiences in a meaningful way can be both effective and
expensive. Further resources are required to move beyond awareness and education and help
foster an environmental ethic, including identifying options for self-directed action as well as
incentives for encouraging positive change. Within the broad categories of education and
stewardship, the Trust might identify a rolling set of priorities for a set period of time.
There is some concern that an intensive education and stewardship program will increase demand
for funding, which is already limited. Others suggest that an education and stewardship program
can help communities identify actions that do not necessarily require additional funding.
While education and stewardship are widely recognized as being important, some community
groups suggest the Trust carefully consider what role it wants to play in ecosystem conservation
and restoration issues so as to determine what messages it is comfortable delivering. As noted
earlier, the Trust will need to decide if it will take an activist role or be a partner for ongoing
initiatives, as it may not always be possible to do both. In fact the Trust could find itself in
“competition” with educational efforts by others that are giving a different message. Numerous
community groups have noted that the Trust is in the “business of generating power” and making
money from a variety of investments that has some environmental impacts. Therefore, some have
suggested that for the Trust to play a credible role in environmental education and stewardship it
needs to first look inwards to its own decision-making and ethics. Secondly, the Trust should
focus its educational and stewardship efforts on issues that the entire organization clearly
embraces, including initiatives that are supported by the Board of Directors and are in sync with
the choices being made through other sector steering committees and components of the
organization. Supporting the Bear Awareness Program was often identified as both a positive
project and one that enjoys support by a broad cross-section of community interests.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 24
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
10.5 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING
While most government agencies and funding organizations are reasonably comfortable in their
pursuit of compliance monitoring (i.e., were the guidelines/rules followed), few feel comfortable
in their understanding of the impacts of their activities (i.e., did the guideline/rule achieve the
desired outcome). One of the key issues in conducting effectiveness monitoring with respect to
terrestrial ecosystem conservation and restoration is that no one agency or organization has sole
jurisdiction for pursuing the issues.
10.5.1
Coordinated collective review
One option could be for the Trust to provide funding to support a pilot “collective review” of
programs and projects that have been supported by a range of government agencies and funding
organizations. Following completion of the field season, a small panel of representatives from the
various participating programs could review the collective package of activities that have been
pursued over the past year. The package of activities could be considered relative to an agreed
upon set of criteria for ecosystem conservation and restoration. In the pilot year, it is suggested
that the review be relatively coarse-level with the indicators focusing on defining agreement of
key aspects of ecosystem conservation and restoration, rather than objective and scientific
indicators of ecosystem health. The goal of the pilot would be to provide information that informs
each organization as to
• how it could individually respond to the outcomes of the collective review; and
• the relative merits and resources required to move along the continuum of impact
monitoring and towards a more detailed and analytical review.
The outcomes of the collective review could be summarized and shared with community groups,
particularly if funding organizations might consider making changes in their programs or
processes to respond to the outcomes.
Funding would be required to develop an agreed upon list of criteria, pulling together the
“package” of programs and projects and to do the initial coarse-level assessment for review by
the panel. An independent chair and/or technical person may need to be hired for the panel and be
responsible for writing the summary report. Finally, funds may be required to share and discuss
the outcomes with community groups. The Trust’s role on the panel could be to bring a
“community perspective” and assist in the definition of the criteria relative to community input
and priorities. The outcomes might assist the Trust in clarifying if their involvement is helping to
meet the overall Management Plan goal of ecosystem conservation and restoration, as a modest
amount of funding that targets community priorities likely requires that other organizations are
addressing other aspects of the issues.
10.5.2
Community participation in monitoring
Within the context of a coordinated approach, development of a framework for community
participation in effectiveness monitoring was identified as a suitable role for the Trust. In terms of
backcountry issues, a type of “neighbourhood watch” is already being pursued in some areas both
in terms of monitoring backcountry recreation/tourism use as well as indicators for impacts of
those uses. The annual bird counts conducted by naturalist organizations are another example of
potential community involvement in monitoring. There may also be opportunities to expand on
the concept of communities conducting their own water quality monitoring when provided the
necessary equipment and training.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 25
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
The Trust could use its website as a vehicle to linking to monitoring sites where people could
provide input on an array of indicators. This would require support for training of interested
community groups and would need to be linked to environmental education and stewardship
initiatives. It is suggested that community groups would likely want some assurances that their
time and input would be incorporated into future decision-making. Hence, pursuit of this
approach would need to be part of a coordinated monitoring initiative that includes the buy-in and
participation of various decision-making agencies.
10.5.3
State of the Basin Report
There is some interest in the Trust undertaking a State of the Basin report if it would provide
valuable information to the Trust, government agencies, other funding organizations and
communities about future options to consider in their respective and collective decision-making
processes. However, many have commented that a State of the Basin report would require
substantial resources and not all community groups support using Trust funds for such an effort at
the expense of on-the-ground projects. Some community groups are concerned that the pursuit of
information can be one means of ignoring the information we already have. Additionally, the
development of indicators could be a challenging process in terms of reaching agreement of what
they will be and how they would be used. Achieving up front buy-in and participation of
regulatory agencies is essential in order for the outcomes to be used, but this may not meet the
interests of all community groups. Greater support seemed to exist for long-term impact
monitoring at the project and/or program level to determine if management practices are having
the intended effect and to support adaptive management.
10.6 COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED APPROACH AT THE PROJECT LEVEL
The Trust could support a pilot initiative for developing and funding integrated and coordinated
projects at the community level in order to address a number of stated community preferences
including
• the desire for the Trust to integrate its activities across its defined sectors;
• to address the complexity of ecosystem conservation and restoration issues; and
• to work cooperatively with other agencies and organizations.
The Trust could seek up front support for a pilot from
• various levels of government;
• funding organizations; and
• community groups.
The Trust could support community groups in developing coalitions for building integrated
proposals that use ecosystem conservation and restoration goals as the core and include
economic, social, educational, cultural benefits that support the core goals. Potential pilot project
ideas may emerge from the Green Communities or other programs sponsored by the Trust.
Alternatively, it may be necessary to provide or seek technical and process support for interested
community groups to help them develop an expression of interest that
• identifies issues and the opportunities;
• defines coalition participants and terms of references; and
• develops the conceptual plan.
The Trust and all participating agencies and funding organizations could then jointly review the
ideas defined through the expressions of interest to short-list the proposals to a manageable
number. The Trust could then continue to provide or seek technical and process support for the
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 26
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
short-listed candidates to assist them in developing their detailed proposals. The Trust and all
participating agencies and funding organizations would then jointly review detailed proposals to
define those that can/will be supported. Each agency and funding organization would use their
own criteria to review the proposals and determine what if any aspects fit their mandates.
Following the individual reviews by other agencies and organizations, the Trust could use its
resources to fill the gaps in funding. Such gaps may exist because the requested funds exceed
those available through other sources and/or there may be aspects of the integrated proposals that
do not match the mandates of any other program. The broad Trust mandate gives it a unique
opportunity to provide the flexible funding that can fill such gaps.
The proposed pilot project would likely require the Trust to contribute substantial funds and may
involve working cooperatively with other sector steering committees, the local government
programs and/or contributing funds from the Basin Tier Initiatives in order to
• support meaningful proposals (given that other participating funding organizations will
likely not contribute all of their available funds to this initiative);
• telegraph that the considerable first time effort by all concerned could result in a
substantial impact; and
• address aspects of the integrated proposals that do not fit within the mandates of the
participating agencies and funding organizations.
11.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are the consultant’s attempt to integrate community and
professional perspectives on environmental issues, particularly terrestrial ecosystem conservation
and restoration, together with the realities of how the Trust and other Basin organizations are
structured and operate. As a result, there are a series of recommendations including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Recommended changes in the existing Trust environment sector delivery strategy
Recommendations for empowering communities
Recommendations for specific program areas
Recommendations for linkages with Trust investments
Recommendation for a comprehensive approach
Recommendations for monitoring
Recommendations for immediate action
Recommendations for communications
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 27
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
11.1 RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN THE EXISTING TRUST ENVIRONMENT SECTOR
DELIVERY STRATEGY
11.1.1
Integration of Aquatic, Terrestrial, Stewardship and Educational
Funding
As the categories of terrestrial, aquatic, stewardship and education do not appear to be meaningful
distinctions for community groups and many professionals voice concern about the widespread
use of such distinctions, it is recommended that the Trust integrate these aspects of their
programs. The Trust might consider developing monitoring criteria associated with the four
components so that over a five-year period the Trust would evaluate their programs to ensure
there has been involvement across all subject areas. Additionally, the Trust may choose to
distinguish between community education that is integrated with the other program elements and
an education program that is directed to school age children. The latter may need to be considered
separately.
11.1.2
Coordinated intake of expressions of interest (Section 9.2.2)
It is suggested that the Trust undertake more detailed discussions with other funding
organizations to explore if and how a coordinated intake of expressions of interest could
be implemented and/or development of a website that offers comprehensive information
about a wide range of funding sources. As was discussed in Section 9.2.2, it is suggested
that the Trust’s interest in capacity building first focus on supporting a coordinated
approach to existing resources in order to determine if, in fact, additional resources are
required (e.g., more extension officers or other support in identifying potential projects).
It is suggested that if the Trust chooses to take a more active role to increase capacity
building support for communities, that it do so in a manner that recognizes and fosters the
relationships between community groups and government agencies and funding
organizations. Given that there will soon be considerable changes in staffing of these
organizations through retirements, a capacity building initiative that targets community
groups might need to be linked to a mentoring program for professionals. The goal would
be to ensure that everyone involved in addressing the issues benefits from efforts to retain
collective memories of past decisions, initiatives and lessons that have been learned.
11.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES
In order to act on the Trust’s stated interest to empower communities, it is suggested that the
Trust define a percentage of its available resources for activities that focus on community
involvement. Within that allocation, funding decisions could be made for specific initiatives that
would be supported for the duration of the strategy (unless an evaluation indicated that there
should be major changes). In addition to the coordinated expression of interest option discussed
above, other potential strategies for empowering communities include:
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 28
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
11.2.1
DRAFT
Green Communities Program (Section 9.2.3)
It is suggested that the Trust pursue discussions with local governments with respect to
implementing a Green Communities Program. It should be noted that some local
government officials question their involvement with the two existing programs, the
Basin Communities Initiatives and Affected Areas Program. Therefore, the response to
expanding the programs may be mixed. The Trust is likely to have a modest amount of
funding available for a Green Communities program and access to other sources of
funding can be limited due to private land issues. Therefore, it is suggested that the
Environment Sector Steering Committee develop clear guidelines for any such program
in order to convey realistic expectations
11.2.2
Community involvement in strategic planning
Opportunities to support community involvement in strategic planning processes tend to
be program specific and will vary over time. Therefore, the Trust may need to evaluate
such opportunities as they arise based on a set of defined criteria. The Trust might
maintain a program which community groups can apply to for support of their direct outof-pocket expenses and other eligible needs. As noted earlier, such support would likely
need to be linked to financial support for the resulting priority projects, otherwise the
strategic planning process may raise expectations that could not then be met.
11.2.3
Education and Stewardship
Community education and stewardship have been identified as critical gaps. While some
have suggested that education and stewardship could be a sole focus for the Trust in the
area of ecosystem conservation and restoration, there is also a strong desire to see the
Trust funding on-the-ground projects. Therefore, it is recommended that the Trust pursue
education and stewardship as one program area as a means to support implementation of
other program areas (see Recommendations for Specific Program Areas).
11.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAM AREAS
It is suggested that the Trust identify a rolling set of programs that address specific priorities,
which together reflect an appropriate niche for the Trust. As was noted by some community
groups, it is suggested that an appropriate niche reflect not only what the ecological and
community needs are, but also who and what the Trust is. These people feel that the Trust’s
environmental priorities need to be integrated with, and be reflective of the Trust as a whole.
Many of the potential priorities are overlapping, with some addressing specific issues while
others focus on geographic areas. In reality, any series of funding programs that attempt to
address the complexities of ecosystem conservation and restoration will involve overlap. The
intent behind declaring a rolling set of priorities is to communicate areas of emphasis in which the
Trust wishes to make a positive contribution or “add value”. The potential program areas outlined
below reflect the issues as they have been defined by both government agencies and community
groups. In some cases, the potential programs reflect upcoming initiatives that might be suitable
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 29
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
for the Trust to partner with (e.g. an emphasis on red and blue-listed species). Others reflect how
community groups have chosen to organize themselves (e.g. protected areas focus as there are
numerous groups that are interested in such geographic areas). It is assumed that the Trust will
seek suitable delivery agent partners to implement any such potential programs and, as a result, a
further refinement of project-specific priorities would be addressed through that process.
Consistent with Trust policy, it is assumed that any overlap between programs would not be seen
as a limitation. Rather worthy proposals might receive funding from a number of sources,
including perhaps more than one Trust-supported program and that such decisions would be
based on criteria used to evaluate specific projects.
In terms of funding allocation, the Trust could first determine what percentage of its available
resources for environmental issues will be allocated to such priorities. Subsequently, the Trust
could then identify a schedule for implementing the programs (see Table 1) and a percentage of
the available resources for such priorities that will be assigned for any given program. Changes in
implementation of the defined set of rolling priorities would be considered through an ongoing
monitoring and evaluation of the strategy as a whole. The following potential priorities are based
on discussions with community groups, government agencies and funding organizations that were
consulted with respect to terrestrial issues. If the Trust chooses to integrate its aquatic and
terrestrial programs, then these priorities would need to be reviewed relative to specific aquatic
priorities.
Historic Impacts resulting from the Columbia River Treaty. Many people,
particularly community groups that are based in affected areas, continue to associate
the formation of the Trust with the historic impacts of the Columbia River Treaty.
For these people, the impacts of the dams have not been sufficiently addressed and,
as a result, there is support for the Trust to focus on historic impacts of the dams
resulting from the Columbia River Treaty. It should be noted that the historic impacts
are beyond those associated with fish and wildlife resources, for example recreational
and economic issues at a community level in affected areas were identified as a
continuing concern. Overall, some people feel that the Trust needs to have a greater
focus on affected areas before broadening its investment and spending programs to
other parts of the Basin. Therefore, entering into a longer-term partnership with the
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program has considerable support.
Growth Management. As noted in Section 9.3.1, many people view the Trust as
ideally suited to become involved in private land and human settlement issues
because of its focus on communities and the make-up of its Board of Directors.
Through a pro-active and incentive-based approach, the goal would be to identify and
support efforts to enable private lands to make a positive contribution to ecosystem
conservation and restoration. This would likely involve growth management planning
and funding resulting projects that could be linked to other priority programs. It is
suggested that the Green Communities Program be used to explore the realistic
opportunities for the Trust to support all levels of governments as well as community
groups in implementing a Growth Management Program. As a result, a Growth
Management Program may best be identified as a priority that would commence in
the next three or so years. In the meantime, the Green Communities Program and
particular community education programs could be used to build towards the
initiation of a Growth Management Program.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 30
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
Community Education. While education and stewardship are widely recognized as
being important, some community groups suggest the Trust carefully consider what
role it wants to play in ecosystem conservation and restoration issues so as to
determine what messages it is comfortable delivering. It has been suggested that the
Trust focus its educational and stewardship efforts on issues that the entire
organization clearly embraces, including initiatives that are supported by the Board
of Directors and are in sync with the choices being made through other sector
steering committees and components of the organization. Additionally, it is suggested
that community education programs be pursued in the early phases of the overall
strategy and target topics that might support the implementation of future programs.
Baseline Environmental Information. There will always be need for more research,
inventory, mapping and analysis to address environmental issues. As a result, the
Trust could have a particular program geared to supporting the collection of basic
information, or include it as an eligible category of projects within the other specific
program areas. Given that the Trust is corporately pursuing an information
management initiative, it has not been identified as a specific priority for the Trust’s
ecosystem conservation and restoration strategy.
Protected Areas Program. As noted in Section 9.3.2, an initial investment in a
Protected Areas Program might best focus on support for a strategic planning
process, with subsequent funding available for implementation. Therefore, the
majority of funds for a Protected Areas Program might best target the mid time
period of the strategy.
Land Acquisition. Numerous community groups are looking to the Trust to support
the purchase of key lands for conservation purposes. While there will be an ongoing
need for available funds to purchase such properties, the Trust could define as one of
its strategic priorities an initiative to support processes that identify key strategic
properties.
NDT4 Restoration. An early focus on NDT4 (e.g. the East Kootenay Trench)
restoration is possible because of the extensive planning work that is already in place.
Given that the East Kootenay Trench Restoration plan spans a 30 year horizon, there
is also an opportunity to identify it as a longer-term and/or future priority. It would
also be possible to support NDT4 restoration planning outside of the Trench in the
short-term, with implementation being a longer-term priority.
Rare and Endangered Species. Some community groups expressed concern over
specific species that are endangered (e.g. mountain caribou) and/or general interest in
addressing species at risk. There is likely to be increased involvement of the federal
government in these issues and, perhaps, opportunities for the Trust to partner on
such initiatives.
Ungulate Winter Range Conservation and Restoration. A number of community
groups are focused on key habitats for a range of ungulate species. These habitats are
often high productivity areas that are important winter range or calving areas.
Conservation and restoration of such areas remains a high priority for such groups.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 31
Terrestrial Ecosystem Conservation and Restoration Strategy
DRAFT
Wetlands/riparian. A number of community groups are interested in wetlands and
riparian issues. However, a key wetland area, the Creston Valley Wildlife Centre has
sought funds in the past but issues of incremental funding have been raised. As many
wetlands and riparian areas are privately owned, the Trust may need to first address
issues of incremental funding and how it wishes to be involved in these areas.
Rails to Trails Environmental Perspectives. The rails-to-trails planning is ongoing
and some have expressed concern that it is proceeding with little consideration for
environmental impacts. Some of the trails do and will cross through riparian areas
and may also provide greater access to backcountry areas that have historically had
little use. A rails to trails program could lead into greater involvement in overall
access management planning should such initiatives be pursued by governments.
Noxious Weeds. While public education is an important component of efforts to
address noxious weeds, it also requires support for on-the-ground projects. As the
need is ongoing, a noxious weeds program could be included at any point in the
strategy.
Columbia Basin Trust
Page 32