1

Cumulative Impact Management:

Cumulative Impact Indicators and Thresholds

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

• Indicators and thresholds:

– ‘Speed limits’ for Cumulative Impact Management (CIM)

• Case Studies:

– Applying local information and knowledge in development of made-for-Northeast BC thresholds

• Moving Forward:

– Using thresholds in Northeast British Columbia as part of a broader Sustainable Resource Development Strategy

3

Cumulative Impact Indicators: What are they?

• Used to describe or monitor environmental or land use conditions

– Provide common language for planning, assessment, management, monitoring, and research

– Should be simple and easy to use

– Should be numerical and easily calculated

• Complementary suite of land use and habitat indicators most practical for CIM

4

Cumulative Impact Indicators:Recommended Suite for Northeast BC

• Land use Indicators

– Access density

– Stream crossing index

• Habitat Indicators

– Core area

– Patch and corridor size

5

Cumulative Impact Thresholds:What are they?

• Objective, science-based standards

– Linked to cumulative impact indicators

• Clearly define desired outcome and ‘acceptable change’

– Recognize social, economic, and political factors

• Can be used to evaluate acceptability of both project-specific and regional cumulative impacts

• Already used in BC:

– Air and water quality thresholds

– Efficient and results-based

– Tied to enhanced review and management decisions

6

Cumulative Impact Thresholds:What are they?

7

Cumulative Impact Thresholds:Tiered Thresholds

• Reflect increasing degrees of concern

• Provide a clear and integrated framework for assessment and management

• Incorporate ecological, social, and economic values

• Operating rules clear for all parties

• Provide flexibility

– Different land management regimes

– Full spectrum of development proposals

8

Cumulative Impact Thresholds:Tiered Thresholds

• Cautionary Thresholds

– Early warning

– ‘Enhanced protection measures’ and monitoring

– Ensures local data available

• Target Thresholds– Acceptable value or range

– ‘Restrictive protection measures’ and monitoring

• Critical Thresholds– Maximum acceptable value

– Impact management designed to keep indicator below this value

10

Understanding the Landscape: Case Studies

• Detailed evaluations in Blueberry and Sukunka Case Study areas

– Document land use, fish and wildlife trends

– Test CIM indicators and thresholds

– Evaluate utility of readily-available data

– Simulate future resource trends

11

Understanding the Landscape: Case Study Findings

• Readily-available resource data limits 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

• Published access density relationships may not apply directly to Northeast BC

• ALCES simulations provide valuable historical and future insights

12

Impact Management:Candidate Thresholds

• Made-for-Northeast BC values developed as starting point

• Tiered thresholds linked to LRMP management zones

– Measure of ‘acceptable change’

– Results-based management

– Focused on project review, but generally applicable

Northeast BC LRMP Zones

Protected Areas

Special Management Zones

General Resource Management Zones

Enhanced Resource Development Zones

Environment PriorityDevelopment Not Allowed

Environment and Wilderness PriorityLimited Development

Special Protection Measures

Multiple Use PriorityExtensive Development

Enhanced Protection Measures

Development Priority Extensive Development

Standard Protection Measures

Management IntentResource Management Zone

14

Candidate Thresholds:Acceptable Change

• Protected Areas/Special Management Zones

– Managed to protect wildlife or wilderness values

– Primary source habitat for all species

– Relatively undisturbed areas for wilderness and backcountry recreation

– ‘Very Low Risk’

– Thresholds established below lowest detected effect level for the most sensitive species

15

Candidate Thresholds:Acceptable Change

• General Resource Management Zones

– Managed for wide variety of resource uses

– Secondary source habitat for most species

– Mixture of undisturbed and modified areas

– ‘Low Risk’

– Thresholds established below lowest detected effect level for most species

– More protective thresholds in defined Landscape Units

• Candidate woodland caribou thresholds

• Identified wildlife grizzly bear and bull trout thresholds

16

Candidate Thresholds:Acceptable Change

• Enhanced Resource Development Zones

– Managed for intensive resource development

– Neutral or sink habitat for most species

– Primarily human-modified areas

– ‘Moderate Risk’

– Thresholds established to sustain most species

– More protective thresholds in defined Landscape Units

• Candidate woodland caribou thresholds

• Identified wildlife grizzly bear and bull trout thresholds

Candidate Access Threshold Example

IndicatorEnhanced Resource Development Areas

General ResourceManagement Areas

Special ResourceManagement Areas

Landscape Road and Trail Density

Cautionary:Median 0.6 km/km2

Cautionary: Median 0.4 km/km2

Cautionary:Median 0.2 km/km2

Target:Median 1.0 km/km2

Target:Median 0.6 km/km2

Target:Median 0.3 km/km2

Critical:Median 1.2 km/km2

Critical:Median 0.9 km/km2

Critical:Median 0.4 km/km2

18

Impact Management:Using Thresholds

• Develop definitions of acceptable change

• Use candidate thresholds as a foundation

• Evaluate ecological, social, and economic implications

• Develop standardized methods

• Provide required land use data

• Implement a pilot study to validate thresholds and optimize analysis, reporting, and review methods

• Continue monitoring to refine thresholds and impact management

19

Thresholds and CIM:Sustainable Resource Management

• Generalized landscape and watershed thresholds (e.g. access density) and local/species-specific thresholds can be applied to all activities in region

– Local: OGC Project Screener

– Sub-regional: ‘Identified Wildlife’ guidelines

– RMZs: Regional planning and management

– Provincial: ‘State of the Environment’ reporting

• Ongoing monitoring of indicator status and species response

Sustainable Resource Management

MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA

Protected Areas

Special Management Zones

General Resource Management Zones

Enhanced Development Zones

Environment Priority‘Very Low’ Risk

Precautionary Tiered Thresholds

Environment and Wilderness Priority‘Very Low’ Risk

Stringent Tiered Thresholds

Multiple Use Priority‘Low’ Risk

Moderate Tiered Thresholds

Development Priority ‘Moderate’ Risk

Least Stringent Tiered Thresholds

CaribouRange –

Species-specificTiered Thresholds

‘Very Low’ Risk