Cumulative Impact Management Cumulative Impact Indicators and Thresholds

Cumulative Impact Management: Cumulative Impact Indicators and Thresholds 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 • Indicators and thresholds: – • Case Studies: – • ‘Speed limits’ for Cumulative Impact Management (CIM) 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 2

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 3

Cumulative Impact Indicators: Recommended Suite for Northeast BC • Land use Indicators – Access density – Stream crossing index • Habitat Indicators – Core area – Patch and corridor size 4

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 projectspecific and regional cumulative impacts • Already used in BC: – Air and water quality thresholds – Efficient and results-based – Tied to enhanced review and management decisions 5

Cumulative Impact Thresholds: What are they? 6

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 7

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 8

9

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 10

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 11

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 12

Northeast BC LRMP Zones Resource Management Zone Management Intent Protected Areas Environment Priority Development Not Allowed Special Management Zones Environment and Wilderness Priority Limited Development Special Protection Measures General Resource Management Zones Multiple Use Priority Extensive Development Enhanced Protection Measures Enhanced Resource Development Zones Development Priority Extensive Development Standard Protection Measures 13

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 14

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 15

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 16

Candidate Access Threshold Example Indicator Landscape Road and Trail Density Enhanced Resource Development Areas General Resource Management Areas Special Resource Management Areas Cautionary: Median 0. 6 km/km 2 Cautionary: Median 0. 4 km/km 2 Cautionary: Median 0. 2 km/km 2 Target: Median 1. 0 km/km 2 Target: Median 0. 6 km/km 2 Target: Median 0. 3 km/km 2 Critical: Median 1. 2 km/km 2 Critical: Median 0. 9 km/km 2 Critical: Median 0. 4 km/km 2 17

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 18

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 19

Sustainable Resource Management MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA Environment Priority ‘Very Low’ Risk Precautionary Tiered Thresholds Protected Areas Special Management Zones Environment and Wilderness Priority ‘Very Low’ Risk Stringent Tiered Thresholds Caribou Range – Species-specific General Resource Management Zones Tiered Thresholds ‘Very Low’ Risk Enhanced Development Zones Multiple Use Priority ‘Low’ Risk Moderate Tiered Thresholds Development Priority ‘Moderate’ Risk Least Stringent Tiered Thresholds 20

21