1. 1 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

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

3. 3 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

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

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

6. 6 Cumulative Impact Thresholds: What are they?

7. 7 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

8. 8 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

10. 10 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

11. 11 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

12. 12 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

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

14. 14 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

15. 15 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

16. 16 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

17. Candidate Access Threshold Example Indicator Enhanced Resource Development Areas General Resource Management Areas Special Resource Management Areas Landscape Road and Trail Density 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

18. 18 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

19. 19 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

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