Orientation: Cumulative Effects Assessment in the Cariboo

1. Orientation:Cumulative Effects Assessment in the Cariboo

2. Cumulative Effects: • “Changes to the environmental, social and economic values” • “Caused by the combined effect of past, present and proposed activities and events.”

3. Provincial Context Pilot projects: • Thompson – Okanagan • Skeena • Peace Cariboo Project: • 2010 – 2014 • response to William case • 3rd Iteration

4. Implementation Considerations • Screening, decision support and planning • Assess risk based on all developments • Use broad scale assessment units • Work in progress: β release

5. Inputs and Outputs • Existing Information: science and expert opinion • GIS queries • Maps and risk tables provided • Layered approach (risk tables, maps)

6. Transparency • Complete information is available in full report. • Model details • Indicator formulas • Weighting factors • Indicator ratings

7. Principles: Ecological Assessment Framework Biophysical Assessment Socio economic Assessment

8. . Principles: Scale Landscape, not site...but may inform site level decisions

9. Principles: Scale • Scale – multi landscape • Wildlife values: units 15,000 to 30,000 ha (approximately 350 units in region) • Hydrology: watersheds, basins, sub-basins • Mule deer: winter range

10. Assessment focus on current land condition Future developments can be added but forest estate does not grow Principles: Current and Future Conditions Now Future Proposal

11. Principles: Habitat • Habitat, not population

12. . Principles: Key Habitat Attributes Example moose assessment focus is winter habitat – selected components of habitat

13. Principles: Wildlife Habitat Concept Relationships Seral condition Habitat Capability Habitat Suitability Habitat Effectiveness Access

14. Values Coarse Filter • Hydrological Stability • Forest Biodiversity Wildlife Species • Moose • Marten • Deer • Grizzly Bear

15. Values Assessment • Hydrological Stability: Watershed processes and fish values • Forest Biodiversity: landscape scale forest structure and spatial distribution • Moose –Habitat interspersion, road location • Marten- Mature forest amount and distribution • Deer – Forest structure • Grizzly Bear – Access density, un-roaded areas and habitat quality including salmon availability.

16. Risk Assessment Tables: Components • Ecological Importance • Sensitivity and Hazards • Current Mitigation RISK = likelihood x consequence

17. Products: Assessment Tables Components

18. Products: Interpretive Maps Moose winter habitat Road density classes for Grizzly Bear

19. Products: Support Maps CCLUP designated areas Stand mortality from MPB

20. Products: Interpretations Example:Hydrology: “The Upper Chilko basin shows a very high sensitivity to factors affecting sediment delivery. However the hazard rating is currently very low because of the lack of the type of development activities which would affect sediment delivery.”

21. CEA Application • Identifies areas with concentrations of valuable habitat • Hazard ratings identify broad areas of concern requiring more planning at site or landscape level or more careful consideration in authorizations • Identifies specific factors in need of mitigation eg. Roads vs harvest impacts

22. Risk Relationship to Potential Management Actions OR OR

23. What is available?

24. Aggregate units summarize multiple LUs

25. ftp://ftp.geobc.gov.bc.ca/publish/Regional/WilliamsLake/cumulative_effectsftp://ftp.geobc.gov.bc.ca/publish/Regional/WilliamsLake/cumulative_effects

26. ftp://ftp.geobc.gov.bc.ca/publish/Regional/WilliamsLake/cumulative_effectsftp://ftp.geobc.gov.bc.ca/publish/Regional/WilliamsLake/cumulative_effects

27. What is available ?

28. Moose Assessment

29. Example: Moose Assessment - Indicators * Habitat changes based on comparison of current and unharvested landscape habitat suitability

30. Risk Summary: Moose

31. Detailed Assessment – Moose

33. Moose Forage Types

34. Natural Disturbance – not modelled

35. Hyrological Stability Assessment

36. Hydrological Stability • Multi-scale assessment • Ecological importance is assessed in relation to fish value of habitat • Hazard and sensitivity assessed for two processes: 1)stream flow and 2)sedimentation • Current mitigation provided by CCLUP no-harvest and modified harvest designations

37. Hydrology Indicators

38. Hazard vs Sensitivity Sensitivity – effects of natural watershed characteristics on hydrological process Hazard • Incorporates land use factors such as Equivalent Clear-cut Area (ECA) and roads • Uses a sliding scale where less sensitive hydrological units can absorb more roads and logging before showing high hazard

39. Hydrology –Sensitivity and Hazard

40. Runoff Generation Hazard Rating VL L M H VH VH VL L M H VH H Runoff Generation Sensitivity VL L M H VH M VL L M H VH L VL L M H VH VL 40 60 80 100 0 20 Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA)

41. Hydrology –Sensitivity and Hazard

42. Multi-scale Assessment

43. Ecological Importance • Fish Use • Key Fish Species: • bull troutcohochinookrainbow troutlake troutsockeyepink salmonchum salmonkokaneeburbotwhitefish • Sensitive Species: Bull Trout, Coho

44. Maps- Basin Sensitivity + Hazard Sensitivity Hazard

45. Overview Results - Basins

46. Sensitivity and Hazard Results

47. Quality of CE Assessment • Expert input to initial development • Peer review and expert input on technical content – ongoing • Validation using local data - ongoing • User input on utility – ongoing

48. Validation using moose census data

49. Quality of Interpretations • Quality of interpretations depends on: • Information quality and presentation • What each interpreter brings to the process • Help to do quality interpretations: • Community of Practise • User’s Guide

50. Next Steps • Complete biodiversity assessment • Ongoing refinements and updates • Implementation - through CoP • Integration with provincial pilots