Cumulative Impact Management: Cumulative Effects Case Studies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 22
About This Presentation
Title:

Cumulative Impact Management: Cumulative Effects Case Studies

Description:

Moose, woodland caribou, elk, grizzly bear. Wildlife habitat suitability ratings ... Caribou presence occasional' by early 1980's. Increased cumulative effects risk ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:93
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: terr140
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Cumulative Impact Management: Cumulative Effects Case Studies


1
Cumulative Impact ManagementCumulative Effects
Case Studies
  • 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
  • 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
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
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 StudiesFuture 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 StudyClearing Trends ..
12
Blueberry Case StudyAccess Trends ..
13
Blueberry Case StudyMoose Natural Disturbance
..
1950
2000
2050
14
Blueberry Case StudyMoose Combined Disturbance
..
2050
2000
1950
15
Blueberry Case StudyMoose 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 StudyMoose 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 StudyCaribou Natural Disturbance
..
2050
2000
1950
18
Blueberry Case StudyCaribou Combined
Disturbance ..
2050
2000
1950
19
Blueberry Case StudyCaribou Population Trends..
  • Population numbers low
  • Initially limited by natural fire patterns
  • Regional populations significantly lower than
    historical levels
  • Caribou presence occasional by early 1980s
  • 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

22
(No Transcript)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com