Cumulative Impact Management: Cumulative Effects Case Studies

1
Cumulative Impact ManagementCumulative Effects
Case Studies

• Presented by
• Salmo Consulting Inc. and
• AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.
• in association with
• Diversified Environmental ServicesGAIA
  Consultants Inc.Forem Technologies Ltd.
• May 29-30, 2003

2
Introduction

• A component of the Cumulative Impact Management
  (CIM) framework
• Detailed evaluations in Blueberry and Sukunka
  Case Study areas
• Document land use, fish and wildlife trends and
  identify apparent thresholds
• Test CIM indicators
• Evaluate utility of readily-available data
• Simulate future resource trends
• Identify implementation issues

3
Case Studies Blueberry Area

• 2,690 km2 area northeast of Wonowon
• 50 year multi-sector development history
• Boreal Plains
• Beatton River watershed
• Overlaps 4 RMZ in FSJ LRMP area
• Jedney Enhanced Resource Mgmt
• Agriculture/Settlement
• Grazing Reserve
• Alaska Highway Corridor

4
Case Studies Blueberry Area
5
Case Studies Sukunka Area

• 1,200 km2 area south of Chetwynd
• 20 year multi-sector development history
• Rocky Mountain Foothills
• Sukunka River watershed
• Overlaps 6 RMZ in Dawson LRMP area
• South Peace (Burnt River) Enhanced Resource Mgmt
  zone
• Sukunka and Pine River Corridor Special Mgmt zones

6
Case Studies Sukunka Area
7
Case Studies Methods

• Developed GIS database
• Forest cover
• Government digital data
• Land use
• Government TRIM digital data
• Historical air photos
• Resource trends
• Fish and wildlife surveys and reports
• Wildlife harvest

8
Case Studies Trends

• Land Use
• Access corridors (roads, trails, seismic lines,
  pipelines, power lines, rail lines)
• Clearings (wells, facilities, cut blocks,
  agricultural, mines, residential)
• Cumulative Impact Indicators (access density,
  stream crossing index)
• Resource
• Focus wildlife species
• Moose, woodland caribou, elk, grizzly bear
• Wildlife habitat suitability ratings
• 4 class system based on forest cover and age
• Cumulative Impact Indicators (core area, patch
  size)

9
Case Studies Trends

• Evaluated relationship between habitat and land
  use trends and wildlife population index (harvest
  success)
• Future trends in Blueberry area
• Forecast using existing ALCES model
• 100 years 1950 to 2050

10
Case StudiesFuture Scenarios ..

• Forecast changes from natural processes
• Natural disturbance regime (fire and natural
  succession)
• Forecast changes from human disturbance
• Land use trends extrapolated from past history
• Low, Moderate, High growth scenarios
• Simulation (what-if?) modelling for combined
  changes
• Wildlife habitat effectiveness
• Variable effect management methods
• Best Practices,

11
Blueberry Case StudyClearing Trends ..
12
Blueberry Case StudyAccess Trends ..
13
Blueberry Case StudyMoose Natural Disturbance
..
1950
2000
2050
14
Blueberry Case StudyMoose Combined Disturbance
..
2050
2000
1950
15
Blueberry Case StudyMoose Population Trends..

• Moose harvest variable but generally declining
• Harvest influenced by environmental factors,
  regulation changes, and improved access (OHVs)
• Gradual decrease in harvest success
• Success inversely related to level of disturbance
• Success directly related to amount of core
  (undisturbed) habitat

16
Blueberry Case StudyMoose Population Trends..

• Increased cumulative impact risk ..
• Most moose now inhabit edge areas where
  disturbance and human mortality risk is higher
• Steady, slow loss of habitat to permanent
  infrastructure
• . not translated into population declines
• Population stable between 1982 and 1998
• Combined disturbance in range of natural
  variability
• Restrictive harvest restrictions
• Increased availability of early seral stages
• Possibly reduced predation

17
Blueberry Case StudyCaribou Natural Disturbance
..
2050
2000
1950
18
Blueberry Case StudyCaribou Combined
Disturbance ..
2050
2000
1950
19
Blueberry Case StudyCaribou Population Trends..

• Population numbers low
• Initially limited by natural fire patterns
• Regional populations significantly lower than
  historical levels
• Caribou presence occasional by early 1980s
• Increased cumulative effects risk
• Combined disturbance outside range of natural
  variability
• Woodland caribou unlikely to persist in Blueberry
  study area

20
Understanding the Landscape Case Study Findings

• Readily-available data limited analyses
• Access density and core area indicators both
  statistically related to moose and elk population
  indices
• Predictive power equivalent to more detailed and
  costly habitat indicators
• Increased cumulative effects risk not translated
  into population declines for these species
• All indicators suggest that probability of
  woodland caribou persistence in Case Study areas
  is low
• Both natural and human causes

21
Understanding the Landscape Case Study Findings

• ALCES simulations provide valuable historical and
  future insights
• Published access density relationships may not
  apply directly to Northeast BC
• No clear thresholds evident
• Comparatively low population and human activity
• Research in developed landscapes needed to
  document regional fish and wildlife response

22
(No Transcript)