Download CIM Case Studies

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 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
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 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
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 …..
45000
Blueberry Agricultural Clearing
40000
Blueberry Forest Harvest
Blueberry Petroleum Development
Cleared Area (ha)
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1950
1970
1998
Year
11
Blueberry Case Study:
Access Trends …..
4.5
Average Density (km/km2)
4
3.5
Other Corridors
Cutlines
Trails
Roads
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1950
1970
1998
Year
12
Blueberry Case Study:
Moose Natural Disturbance …..
1:
Total HEI: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 0.6
1:
0.4
1:
0.3
Page 2
0.00
1950
25.00
50.00
Y ears
2000
75.00
100.00
9:03 PM Fri, Dec 06, 2002
2050
13
Blueberry Case Study:
Moose Combined Disturbance …..
1:
Total HEI: 1 - 2 0.5
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1:
0.3
1:
0.0
0.00
Page 2
1950
25.00
50.00
Y ears
2000
2
75.00
100.00
10:27 PM Fri, Dec 06, 2002
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 …..
1:
Total HEI: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 0.3
3
1
3
1:
0.2
1:
0.1
Page 2
4
5
3
1
1
2
5
4
5
3
2
4
4
5
2
1
2
0.00
1950
25.00
50.00
Y ears
2000
75.00
100.00
8:52 PM Thu, Dec 05, 2002
2050
17
Blueberry Case Study:
Caribou Combined Disturbance …..
1:
Total HEI: 1 - 2 - 3 0.5
1:
0.3
1
2
3
1:
Page 2
0.0
0.00
1950
1
25.00
2
3
1
50.00
Y ears
2000
2
3
1
2 3
75.00
100.00
8:23 PM Thu, Dec 05, 2002
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