FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS A Broad Scale Cumulative Impact Assessment Framework for the Cariboo-Chilcotin Rick Dawson, Robin Hoffos, Mark McGirr 7/31/2015 This draft report from the Cumulative Effects Framework Project summarizes work that has been completed to date. It is intended to facilitate discussion and solicit feedback, and does not represent a formal position or commitment of the Government of British Columbia. Acknowledgements Work and inputs from numerous people were incorporated into this assessment. Mark McGirr did the GIS work for the analyses, provided excellent maps and designed a system for replicating the analysis across the region. Crispin Guppy’s literature surveys for the wildlife species and early assessment approach were a starting point for development of assessment methodology for moose, marten and grizzly bear. Robin Hoffos and Clinton Webb further developed the wildlife assessments and initiated assessments for forest biodiversity and hydrology. Cris, Robin and Clinton’s work provided a sound starting point for this project. Clinton Webb’s ongoing work on the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan spatial and numerical databases ensured access to accurate, well organized data for biodiversity seral stage assessments and “no-harvest areas”. Discussion with local wildlife staff Pat Dielman and John Youds helped with development of grizzly bear and moose assessments. Input from species experts helped to refine the models. Tony Hamilton provided the approach for hazard assessment for grizzly bears. Doug Jury, John Youds, Ray Coupe and Mike Ryan provided input on components of the moose model. Larry Davis and Richard Weir provided input on the marten habitat model. Larry Davis completed a detailed peer review of the moose and marten assessments in January 2014. The 2012 marten capability mapping done by Madrone Environmental Services Limited and overseen by Tony Button was incorporated into the marten analysis. The hydrology section is based on work done by Doug Lewis, Michael Milne and B. Grainger. Ecological importance ratings for fish in the hydrology risk analysis were done by Tom Wilkinson and Rob Dolighan. Salmon information for the grizzly bear account came from the following Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff: Don Lawrence, Keri Benner, Tim Pankratz, Paul Welsh and Shane Kalyn. Cover Photo of Chilko River by Leo Rankin 2 Preface to July 2015 Report Edition The Cumulative Environmental Effects assessment for the Cariboo Region is a work in progress. While the previous edition provided ecologically meaningful assessments for six values, it also identified limitations to the assessment methodologies and input data. Since the last edition of this report (February 2014), significant improvements to the analysis methodology for moose winter habitat have been implemented based on additional thought by the authors, input from a local working group and a peer review. This edition incorporates and explains these improvements. Over the next 6 to 12 months, provincial groups of value and assessment specialists will be working to develop provincial cumulative effects assessment standards for a number of key values to ensure provincial consistency while allowing a degree of flexibility for special considerations within regions around the province. While the assessment methodology described in this report is a major input into the provincial process, users of this information in the Cariboo must anticipate some changes in the substance and formatting of the assessment results in the future. We expect that the basic results from any new assessment methodologies will not dramatically change from the results presented here, but will potentially clarify, standardize and improve the meaningfulness of the results. 3 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7 Valued ecosystem components ................................................................................................... 8 Study area .................................................................................................................................... 8 Selection of indicators ............................................................................................................... 14 Underlying concepts .................................................................................................................. 14 User’s guide............................................................................................................................... 19 Regional cumulative effects assessment ................................................................................... 21 Risk summaries ............................................................................................................................. 24 Forest biodiversity risk summary .............................................................................................. 24 Hydrological stability risk summary ......................................................................................... 35 Moose risk summary ................................................................................................................. 52 Mule deer risk summary ............................................................................................................ 65 Grizzly bear risk summary ........................................................................................................ 74 Marten risk summary ................................................................................................................ 85 References ..................................................................................................................................... 95 Appendix 1: Forest biodiversity.................................................................................................... 99 Appendix 2: Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 105 Appendix 3: Moose ..................................................................................................................... 122 Appendix 4: Mule Deer .............................................................................................................. 132 Appendix 5: Grizzly Bear ........................................................................................................... 136 Appendix 6: Marten .................................................................................................................... 141 4 Introduction This report describes a decision support tool designed to assess relative environmental risks to large areas of land and water. It offers a systematic approach for assessing a cumulative view of landscape condition in support of First Nations consultation in British Columbia. The decision support framework described here is intended to provide an initial assessment that informs the selection of engagement level and assists in the determination of impacts and mitigation. This is part of the provincial obligation under the Tsilhqot’in Framework Agreement implementation plan and the Updated Procedures for Consultation with First Nations. The tool will also have broader applicability for assessment of environmental impacts of development in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in general. This project has built on the work of Guppy (2010) and Hoffos (2011) by refining their assessment models and providing a systematic and comprehensive approach to describing risk. The tool is applied to a study area consisting of seven landscape units in the West Chilcotin for this report, and results for the entire Cariboo-Chilcotin are available online. This project focused on development of sound assessment methodology and standardized descriptions of risk factors for broad-scale assessments. The risk description approach was designed to be efficiently applied to multiple areas, and to be easily understood by decision-makers and other resource professionals. The overall environmental condition within defined assessment units is described relative to identified valued ecosystem components (VECs), and will be updated as required to reflect landscape changes and new knowledge. Using this information, technical staff should be better able to assess current and future risk to wildlife species based on landscape changes. Activities and areas where risk is greatest can be identified and used to guide the development of mitigation and accommodation measures. Clients can also be advised early in their application process of the potential risks which may affect their investment choices. The application of this initial assessment tool will also provide First Nations and other users with more consistent and comprehensive information with which to categorize and respond to referrals. This could lead to greater efficiency by providing a common information base to all parties involved in consideration of development proposals, and helping to focus on the most relevant issues. The chosen VECs include the coarse-level environmental filters of forest biodiversity and hydrological