Cumulative Impact Management Cumulative Effects Case Studies Presented

Cumulative Impact Management: Cumulative Effects Case Studies Presented by: Salmo Consulting Inc. and AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. in association with Diversified Environmental Services GAIA Consultants Inc. Forem Technologies Ltd. May 29 -30, 2003 1

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 2

Case Studies: Blueberry Area • 2, 690 km 2 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 3

Case Studies: Blueberry Area Key Species Arctic grayling Present √ √ Bull trout Moose √√ Elk √ Caribou √ Deer √ Grizzly bear √ Marten √ Listed Warblers Absent √√ 4

Case Studies: Sukunka Area • 1, 200 km 2 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 5

Case Studies: Sukunka Area Key Species Present Arctic grayling √ Bull trout √ Moose √ Elk √ Caribou √ Deer √ Grizzly bear √√ Marten √√ Listed Warblers Absent √ 6

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 7

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) 8

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 9

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, 10

Blueberry Case Study: Clearing Trends …. . 11

Blueberry Case Study: Access Trends …. . 12

Blueberry Case Study: Moose Natural Disturbance …. . 1950 2000 2050 13

Blueberry Case Study: Moose Combined Disturbance …. . 1950 2000 2050 14

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 15

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 16

Blueberry Case Study: Caribou Natural Disturbance …. . 1950 2000 2050 17

Blueberry Case Study: Caribou Combined Disturbance …. . 1950 2000 2050 18

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 19

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 20

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 21

22