1

Cumulative Impact Management:

Cumulative Effects Case Studies

Presented by:Salmo Consulting Inc. andAXYS 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

Key Species Present AbsentArctic grayling √

Bull trout √

Moose √ √

Elk √

Caribou √

Deer √

Grizzly bear √

Marten √

Listed Warblers √ √

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

Key Species Present AbsentArctic grayling √

Bull trout √

Moose √

Elk √

Caribou √

Deer √

Grizzly bear √ √

Marten √ √

Listed Warblers √

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 Studies:Future 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 Study:Clearing Trends …..

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

1950 1970 1998Year

Cle

ared

Are

a (h

a)

Blueberry Agricultural Clearing

Blueberry Forest Harvest

Blueberry Petroleum Development

12

Blueberry Case Study:Access Trends …..

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1950 1970 1998

Year

Ave

rage

Den

sity

(km

/km

2 )

Other CorridorsCutlinesTrailsRoads

13

Blueberry Case Study:Moose Natural Disturbance …..

9:03 PM Fri, Dec 06, 2002Page 20.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00

Years

1:

1:

1:

0.3

0.4

0.6Total HEI: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 -

1950 2000 2050

14

Blueberry Case Study:Moose Combined Disturbance …..

10:27 PM Fri, Dec 06, 2002Page 20.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00

Years

1:

1:

1:

0.0

0.3

0.5Total HEI: 1 - 2 -

11

11

22

22

205020001950

15

Blueberry Case Study:Moose 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 Study:Moose 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 Study:Caribou Natural Disturbance …..

8:52 PM Thu, Dec 05, 2002Page 20.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00

Years

1:

1:

1:

0.1

0.2

0.3Total HEI: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

33

4 4

44

55

5 5

205020001950

18

Blueberry Case Study:Caribou Combined Disturbance …..

8:23 PM Thu, Dec 05, 2002Page 20.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00

Years

1:

1:

1:

0.0

0.3

0.5Total HEI: 1 - 2 - 3 -

1

1 1 1

2

2 2 2

3

3 3 3

205020001950

19

Blueberry Case Study:Caribou Population Trends…..

• Population numbers low – Initially limited by natural fire patterns

– Regional populations significantly lower than historical levels

– Caribou presence ‘occasional’ by early 1980’s

• 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