Guide for preparing CE Info - Bulkley Valley · [email protected] • Box 4274 Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Canada ! Anintegratedassessment#of#the#cumulative#impacts#of#climate# changeand’industrial’development’on’salmon’in’Western’BC!!

[email protected] • Box 4274 Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Canada

An integrated assessment of the cumulative impacts of climate change and industrial development on salmon in Western BC

Guide to preparing information for cumulative effects assessment

September 17 2013

Prepared by:

Dave Daust and Karen Price, Consultants

Don Morgan, BC Ministry of Environmen


Page | 2 Guide to preparing information for cumulative effects assessment

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 3

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1. Cumulative effects assessment in British Columbia .................................................................. 4

1.2. Conceptual basis for CEA ........................................................................................................... 4

1.3. Conceptual basis for decision-‐making using CEA ....................................................................... 5

1.4. Decision-‐making process ........................................................................................................... 7

1.5. Content of guide ........................................................................................................................ 8

2. Creating a Sub-‐regional Values Overview .......................................................................................... 8

2.1. Sources of information for a Sub-‐regional Values Overview ................................................... 10

3. Creating a Knowledge Summary ...................................................................................................... 11

3.1. Methods for summarizing knowledge ..................................................................................... 12

3.2. Knowledge maps ...................................................................................................................... 12

3.3. Risk curves ............................................................................................................................... 13

4. Risk-‐based management .................................................................................................................. 15

5. Additional steps in cumulative effects assessment ......................................................................... 16

6. Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................................................ 17

7. Notes and References ...................................................................................................................... 18



Executive Summary Values are the things that the people and government of British Columbia care about. In natural resource management, societal values are expressed as objectives for valued ecosystem services (e.g., maintain grizzly bear population abundance). Values are identified through laws, regulation, policy, First Nation-‐ and government-‐led land-‐use plans, consultation and new enabling government agreements. Conducting cumulative effects assessment requires summarizing 1) societal values and 2) relevant traditional and scientific knowledge within an assessment area, among other tasks.

A Sub-‐regional Values Overview provides 1) a synopsis of all valued ecosystem services to be considered in CEA for a specific area and 2) related management objectives. The overview helps to set the scope of assessment. A Knowledge Summary synthesizes best available information for one valued service, including its legal and policy context. It describes societal objectives for the valued service and summarizes knowledge necessary to assess impacts. The objectives provide direction on the types of impacts to assess and on the levels of risk deemed acceptable. Knowledge is represented in knowledge maps and risk curves. Knowledge maps depict the main factors, including human activities, climate change and natural forces that influence the valued service. Risk curves serve as specific hypotheses describing how ecosystem services respond to changes in selected important factors. More specifically, risk curves depict the probability of failing to achieve the management objective for a valued service (e.g., increasing road density increases the probability of not achieving a viable grizzly bear population).

Thus in CEA, knowledge summaries provide the basis for calculating risk to each valued service. Risk levels guides management action.

Acknowledgements The material in this guide is drawn from a background report “Guide: making decisions that reflect public values and current knowledge” written by Dave Daust and Karen Price, and on background work conducted by Don Morgan and Doug Lewis in support of developing a values framework for cumulative effects assessment. The concepts in the background guide were further developed in a workshop “Translating Science into Decision Making” held on April 3, 2012. We would like to acknowledge workshop participants from the Ministries of Forests, Lands and Resource Operations, and Environment who helped develop the ideas expressed here: Blair Ells, Barry Watson, Ann Hetherington, Laura Bolster, Rick Heinrichs, Chris Schell, Matt Sakals, Kevin Eskelin, Mark Beere, Doug Steventon, Dana Atagi, Troy Larden, Dan Bate, Dave Coates, Jeff Lough, Len Vanderstar, Karen Diemert, Bill Jex, Ken White, Greg Tamblyn, and Dave Wilford.



1. Introduction 1.1. Cumulative effects assessment in British Columbia

British Columbia’s land base provides a wealth of economic and social benefits. Faced with an increasing number and diversity of development projects, sustaining these benefits requires an understanding of the cumulative effects of development (past, present and potential future) on the resilience of natural resource systems and on their capacity to provide the ecological services that sustain society.

Historically, cumulative effects assessment (CEA) has been used in Canada and BC to determine if development will have acceptable environmental impacts. Existing approaches have several well-‐established shortcomings, including an inability to properly assess cumulative effects from a project-‐by-‐project approach1. Instead, a regional approach is needed. Thus, the province of British Columbia has initiated a multi-‐year, multi-‐agency project to explore and test a framework to support the improved assessment of cumulative effects in natural resource decision-‐making. The framework consists of four main activity areas:

§ identifying the values that inform decision-‐making; § expanding existing monitoring programs to improve their ability to evaluate the state of the

environment and of social and economic systems, and to evaluate the effectiveness of historic management strategies;

§ developing assessment methods suitable for different types of decisions; § developing decision-‐support techniques that convey needed information to decision-‐makers2.

This document presents a background on preparing information for cumulative effects assessment. The intended audience is for government, non-‐government or First Nation’s interested in conducting cumulative effects assessment

1.2. Conceptual basis for CEA Human social systems exist within the context of natural systems (Figure 1) and benefit from services provided by the natural ecosystem (Box 1). Society assigns worth to some of these benefits (i.e., “valued ecosystem services” or more briefly “valued services”); however, some important ecosystem services are not widely recognized as valuable (e.g., flood control) and hence are not specified in land use plans. Development activities can positively and/or negatively affect the delivery of valued services (e.g., harvesting provides timber, but reduces old forest habitat). Managers use knowledge about natural resource system3 function to try to obtain benefits, associated with certain services, while limiting negative impacts to other services.

Box 1.



Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem services are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. They include the provisioning services (e.g., game, fibre, fresh water), cultural services (e.g., spiritual, aesthetic and recreation value of wilderness) and regulating services (e.g., limiting floods and fires) that directly benefit society as well as the supporting services (e.g., pollination, nutrient cycling) required to maintain these benefits4.

Valued Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem services that are recognized as valuable by society. Synonymous with valued components used in federal CEA, but apply equally to processes and components.

CEA is a form of systems analysis. Systems consist of elements or components and the processes that link them (see Glossary). Systems analysis tries to understand the organization of the system, and the roles of the components and processes in contributing to system function and resilience. CEA uses valued ecosystem services to create specific analytical lenses for examining systems. It asks, for example, how do system processes and components influence grizzly bear populations. Analytical lenses need to be sufficiently broad to capture influential components and processes.

Figure 1. Diagram showing interaction of the human system with natural ecosystems, creating a coupled social-‐ecological system or a “natural resource system”. Social-‐ecological systems are complex, integrated systems in which humans are part of nature. Society assigns value to some ecosystem services and manages development activity in order to obtain or retain those services (Resilience Alliance 2012).

1.3. Conceptual basis for decision-‐making using CEA Making decisions on behalf of the public requires understanding public values and knowing how alternative decisions might affect those values. The role of values and knowledge in CEA must be clearly separated. Values reflect beliefs and interests and determine how people assign worth to different types

Natural Resource System



and levels of ecosystem services5; values set the vision for desired future conditions (Box 2). Existing land use plans describe societal values as sets of goals and objectives for different resources. A similar approach is outlined here except that we use the term ecosystem services rather than resources. Values are reflected in laws, regulation, policy, land use plans and government agreements with First Nations.

Box 2.

Values refer to ecosystem services deemed important by the public and to the goals and objectives that guide their management.

Objectives: describe in general terms the desired condition of valued ecosystem services. Goals are broad objectives.

Risk: the probability of failing to achieve societal objectives for a valued ecosystem service.

Knowledge, from traditional sources, experience or science, considers the function and state of a natural resource system and its capacity to provide ecosystem services. Knowledge about the effects of development, within the context of natural processes and climate change, determines the types and levels of activity that generate benefits while limiting risk to valued services (Box 2). Risk can be defined in general terms as the “probability of harm that matters”. CEA defines failure to achieve public objectives as “harm that matters”, and the probability of failing to achieve objectives as risk. Thus, risk assessment under provincial CEA is tied directly to societal objectives. This document focuses on assessing risk, rather than benefit, however, the same basic approach can be used to assess benefit.

Values and scientific knowledge come together in CEA decision making when a designated decision maker makes a determination (Figure 2). Valued ecosystem services define the scope or context of impact assessment—what services to consider. Goals and objectives describe the desired state of services. Knowledge uses what is known about system function, resilience and current state to project the benefits and risks to valued services from alternative management decisions.

!!!!!!!Desired!State!

Projected!State!!!.!

Natural'Resource'System'

Components)Species'

Landforms'

Human)Processes)

Mining'Forestry'Road'constr’n'Hun;ng'Etc.'

Natural)Processes)

Climate'variability'Soil'development'Plant'growth'Fire,'floods,'beetles'Etc.''

Knowledge))

Societal)Values))

!Decision!Making!

Context!

Clean'Air'Clean'Water'Vibrant'Economy'Job'Opportuni;es'Government'Revenue'Abundant'Wildlife'Forest'&'Timber'Recrea;on'Opportuni;es'Etc.'



Figure 2. Diagram showing role of values and knowledge in decision-‐making. Values are socially-‐defined and set the context and scope for an assessment of a natural resource system. Objectives define a socially-‐desired state for a value. Knowledge characterizes the influence of anthropogenic and natural changes to the landscape and determines the projected state of each value; indicators of state influence risk (or benefit) to each value. Resource management decisions weigh risks and benefits against public objectives.

1.4. Decision-‐making process Making informed decisions requires collaboration among the groups of people with varying expertise: decision-‐makers rely on topic experts and a core CEA team. Using a structured process that allows for appropriate engagement with stakeholders6, these groups identify, assemble and assess the necessary information (Figure 2). Communication among the three groups is essential.

Decision-‐makers with appropriate authority ultimately make the decision and bear the responsibility. They allocate resources to, and guide, the CEA. Where First Nations are affected, First Nation decision-‐makers and support staff must be involved in the decision-‐making process. A small “core team” of support staff (e.g., three people) takes responsibility for communicating with decision-‐makers, stakeholders and topic experts, and for conducting analyses. They synthesize and analyze information about public values and about benefits and risks of activities and present information in a clear format that is directly relevant to the decision-‐maker. They are the “translators of ideas and perceptions”7. Core team members typically have moderate expertise with several valued services (e.g., grizzly bears), but are not necessarily experts. The core team should be well versed with developing conceptual models and conducting cumulative effects assessment. Topic experts provide advice to the core team and sometimes directly to decision-‐makers (e.g., interpretation, Figure 2) about impacts of activities on specific values. They identify critical literature, provide advice about analysis and review knowledge models.



Figure 2. Members of the decision-‐making team8. Each group, shown in italics, participates in all circles that surround them. The main contributions of each group to the decision-‐making process are shown in rectangular boxes. Arrows show the flow of information, however feedback and iteration are typical.

1.5. Content of guide The remainder of this guide presents methods for generating the information needed for a CEA. It describes methods for creating a Sub-‐regional Values Overview and a Knowledge Summary9 for specific valued services. It concludes with a brief section describing other steps in cumulative effects assessment not discussed here.

2. Creating a Sub-‐regional Values Overview The first step in CEA summarizes the valued ecosystem services and related management goals and objectives within a region of interest (Box 3). The Sub-‐regional Values Overview provides a synopsis of public values for decision-‐makers, based on the notion that development of public land and resources should be consistent with public values. Valued services determine the potential scope of knowledge to be gathered; goals and objectives inform definitions of risk that help focus knowledge acquisition and assessment.

Decision-‐makers & Stakeholders

Topic experts

Core Team

Knowledge

Synthesis & Analysis

Interpretation

Concerns & Issues

Decision



Box 3. Sub-‐regional Values Overview

§ lists valued ecosystem services for a region

§ describes dependencies among valued services (e.g., via a hierarchical diagram)

§ summarizes objectives for each valued service

§ summarizes legal/non-‐legal management direction for each valued service*

§ identifies all information sources for easy reference and transparency

*strategies, indicators and targets are not a direct expression of public values, but rather a historic interpretation of how to balance values when trade-‐offs are considered.

Creating a Sub-‐regional Values Overview involves synthesizing and organizing values and related objectives from applicable land use plans and legislation:

1. identify and gather First Nation, regional and provincial plans and legislation that contain objectives for the region of interest

2. identify all valued services and arrange them in a value map (Figure 3) 3. summarize management objectives for each valued service (e.g., maintain old forest), paying

attention to linkages among valued services; record source (Table 1) 4. list any strategies, indicators or targets (e.g., maintain > 30% old seral); record source 5. have interested parties review summaries

Different Sub-‐regional Values Overviews should be created for sub-‐regions having different social or ecological contexts and hence different values. Boundaries used in strategic land-‐use plans (e.g., First Nation land-‐use plans, and Land and Resource Management Plans) provide a good starting point. Valued services within an area include those identified by its residents and those identified by people from outside of the area.

Value maps (Figure 3) show that some services are valued for their own sake as well as contributing to broader valued services (e.g., focal species contribute to biodiversity), while other services exist mainly to support a broader value (e.g., natural ecosystem pattern supports biodiversity). Interpreting effects on subordinate services requires considering the context provided by the superior services in the hierarchy.



Figure 3. Example portion of value map. Arrows can be read as “contribute to”.

Table 1. Example portion of value overview table.

Valued Ecosystem Service Objectives listed in plans

Natural ecosystem pattern -‐-‐representative ecosystems -‐-‐seral stage distribution -‐-‐old growth

LRMP 2.1.4 “Manage natural seral stage distribution … using knowledge of natural disturbance patterns.” LRMP 2.1.4. “Identify and map suitable sites for maintaining representative, natural functioning areas.” LRMP 2.1.4 “Maintain old-‐growth attributes on specified sites”

Natural species composition (lack of invasive sp.)

Not in plans but needed for ecological integrity

Grizzly bears -‐-‐habitat -‐-‐human/bear interaction (access)

LRMP 2.2.3.1 “maintain forest attributes suitable for high capability grizzly bear habitat. LRMP 2.2.3.1 “ avoid negative bear/human interactions” LRMP 2.2.3.1 “Minimise development of new access”

2.1. Sources of information for a Sub-‐regional Values Overview Legal and non-‐legal objectives and values come from a variety of documents. Even though some of the plans and legislation were not specifically developed for the type of development under consideration, they still provide the best available information about public values for an area. The bulk of documented information about public values comes from the following sources:

Terrestrial EI

Connectivity

Natural ecosystem pattern

Coarse filter (biodiversity)

Representative ecosystems

Unroaded areas

Structural attributes

Seral stage distribution

Natural sp. composition

Fine filter (biodiversity)

Focal species

Grizzly bears



• Strategic land use plans include regional land use plans created by the Commission on Resources and Environment and Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs)10. Many of these plans were based on a consensus model. They provide high level direction (broad objectives) for the allocation and management of public lands and resources.

• Strategic land use agreements with First Nations, reflecting government-‐to-‐government negotiations, often include similar information as LRMPs.

• Other management plans, such as watershed management plans and air-‐shed management plans also record public values but are not usually consensus-‐based.

• Certification schemes for forest products and related sustainable forest management plans also reflect public values. In some cases, broad public values are defined by the scheme; in other cases, regional values are identified as part of the certification process11.

• Legal Objectives set by Government under the various legislation that supports legal orders (e.g., Land Act, Government Actions Regulation).

• Provincial-‐scale plans and policy describe the vision, objectives and policies that guide different government agencies.

• The Forest and Range Practices Act and related regulations set provincial-‐scale objectives as well as practice requirements. Legislated practice standards often fall below standards for best practices and may be seen as minimum requirements; both legislation and best practices should be considered.

Public values can be clarified by involving First Nations and the affected pubic. Plan implementation monitoring committees (for LRMPs), where they exist, can help to interpret plan values. Scientists can help to identify subordinate services needed to support broader valued services.

3. Creating a Knowledge Summary The Sub-‐regional Values Overview lists the valued ecosystem services that should be considered in CEA. A Knowledge Summary needs to be created for each valued service selected for detailed analysis.

The Knowledge Summary stores conceptual models12 (as knowledge maps and risk curves) that describe how management decisions affect specific valued services, based on best available knowledge (Box 4) 13. It is based on scientific understanding and data, traditional knowledge and experience (anecdotal evidence) and is supported with references and contact information. It tries to avoid value-‐based interpretations, recognizing that everyone has a particular bias. The Knowledge summary also includes societal objectives for the valued service from the Sub-‐regional Values Summary, because objectives are needed to determine the types of consequences to consider in risk assessment and the levels of risk deemed acceptable. The Knowledge Summary is intended to be a “living document”, growing in scope and accuracy over time.

Box 4. Knowledge Summary

§ summarizes societal objectives for the valued service; used to determine risk variables and acceptable risk;

§ describes factors* affecting the valued service, including o human activities (e.g., industrial development, recreation, etc.);



o natural forces (e.g., stand-‐replacing disturbance, landslides); o climate change;

§ presents a knowledge map showing pathways of influence among factors; § presents graphical response relationships (i.e., risk curves) depicting the response of a

valued service to the most influential, relevant factors, along with assumptions and uncertainty.

*The term “factor” refers to an influential system components, processes or states and includes positive as well as negative effects.

3.1. Methods for summarizing knowledge Knowledge can be summarized with increasing levels of rigour: review existing literature and reports; seek advice from readily accessible colleagues with moderate expertise; convene workshops with recognized, credible experts14; develop mathematical models that combines the factors that affect risk (e.g., Bayesian Belief Network15). All levels of rigour aim to produce an explicit depiction of the relationship between risk and development for a valued service.

One knowledge summary can provide information for a valued service in several sub-‐regions because ecological responses and societal objectives may be similar. Where knowledge is sufficient, differences in responses among regions should be distinguished in the summary (e.g. grizzly populations dependent on fish versus mammal prey).

Expert workshops provide a useful way of synthesizing knowledge (Box 5). The core team and domain experts should participate in workshops; decision-‐makers and interested stakeholders should participate in workshops addressing areas of possible disagreement and controversy.

Box 5. Expert workshops

Expert workshops provide a rapid means of assimilating and focussing knowledge. Ecological literature and models are rarely sufficiently comprehensive or directly relevant; results must generally be extrapolated. While expert judgement is necessary, expert predictions can be inaccurate. Workshops that stimulate debate and that encourage use of logical constructs and explicit consideration of model scope and uncertainty can improve predictions16. Developing knowledge maps and risk curves encourages debate and logical arguments. Workshops also create a block of time to focus deeply, and serve to share knowledge among participants.

The knowledge summary consists of knowledge maps and risk curves.

3.2. Knowledge maps Knowledge maps17 depict the factors, including human activities, climate change and natural forces that influence natural resource systems (e.g., Figure 4). They are supported with descriptive text. Steps for generating these diagrams (usually in a workshop context) follow:



1. identify all possible factors (system components and processes), even ones that cannot be controlled, because they may increase uncertainty;

2. identify the factors that have the largest effect on system function; 3. identify the subset of the relatively important factors that can be influenced by management.

A knowledge map and associated description of factors that affect a valued service serves several functions:

§ records of the scope of factors considered18; § highlights important factors that should be used to estimate risk (or benefit); § highlights factors that are influenced by industrial development and human activity; § highlights factors that set important context; § highlights factors that contribute to uncertainty; § provides a checklist of development activities that valued services are susceptible to.

Figure 4. Simplified example concept map of factors influencing a grizzly bear population. Grey boxes show factors influenced by development.

3.3. Risk curves Risk curves depict the probability of failing to achieve an objective for a valued service19 (Figure 5). Such mathematical approaches may seem like they require more data than other approaches, but rather they simply make apparent the absence of data and the need for simplifying assumptions20.

Creating risk curves (usually in a workshop context) includes the following steps:

Grizzly

Human activity • Firearms • Leaving vehicle • Hunting ungulates

Towns Camps

Mortalit

Human

Human/bear

Open road density

Traffic

Local grizzly

Salmon



1. define one or more response variables (Y) that describe risk to objectives for a valued service (e.g., probability of failing to maintain a near-‐natural grizzly bear population density);

2. define one or more influence variables that characterize the most influential factors affecting the valued service (e.g., road density within high-‐value grizzly-‐bear habitat);

3. develop a graphical relationships between each Y and X, including uncertainty bands;

4. describe assumptions about the social, ecological and development context and document the sources and rough magnitudes of uncertainty that contribute to uncertainty bands.

Figure 5. Example risk curve: probability of sustained decline (i.e., loss of viability) of grizzly bear population versus inaccessible area.

Response variables (Y) should depict meaningful consequences to a valued service. For example, for grizzly bears, response variables may include the probability of losing a stable population and/or the probability of losing a viable population. These response variables are directly relevant to regional and provincial objectives to maintain stable populations21 and federal objectives to prevent extirpation22. They describe risk in terms of probabilities of two outcomes of differing consequence. While it is possible to rate the severity of consequences, and to develop an overall estimate of risk, consequence ratings are subjective. The aim of the knowledge summary is to minimize subjectivity and to be transparent in presenting information. In subsequent steps of cumulative effects assessment, decision-‐makers address the specific consequences deemed important by the public, when making decisions.

Influence variables (X) usually characterize some aspect of human activity23, including climate change. Although climate change cannot be easily “managed”, it influences estimates of future risk.

Risk depends on the temporal and spatial scale considered. In general, temporal and spatial scales should capture

§ the duration of impact (i.e., until influence variables stabilize) § the extent of impact (e.g., how far toxic dust blows or toxic water flows)

Prob

ability of p

opulation de

cline

0 0

1

100 Percent inaccessible area

(>10 km2 fragments with no roads or trails)

80

Assumptions § limited off-‐road access § roadside resident females

killed first § no change to salmon or

habitat Sources of Uncertainty § variation in habitat quality § distance to population centre § attractiveness of area to

humans § bear behaviour



§ ecologically meaningful time periods (e.g. multiple generations of a population; recovery period of old forest structure)

§ ecologically meaningful spatial scales (e.g. population ranges)

4. Risk-‐based management Management actions for each valued service can be tied to risk levels. Risk curves are divided into four risk categories: low, moderately low, moderately high and high (Figure 7). Each category has a set of associated management actions that are recommended to address risk (Table 2). Boundaries that separate risk categories are referred to as reference points or management triggers because they trigger different management responses. In certain cases, management triggers can be set within a risk class.

Figure 7. A conceptual overview of risk curves and associated management triggers applied to a value. Risk categories define management actions and who needs to involved in the decision-‐making process.

Table 2. General types of management actions associated with different risk categories.

Risk: Low Moderately low Moderately high High

Leadership: Industry professionals Industry professionals Government Government

Activity type: Prevent Avoid Mitigate Compensate

Planning: Broad scale Fine scale / BMP Detailed risk assessment

Recovery plans

Monitoring: Existing inventory &

remotely-‐sensed

Better data

(remote + field)

Even better data Intensive research & monitoring

Management: Based on strategic plans

BMPs BMPs + legal Substantial legal control

Education: Web and poster-‐based

Opportunistic interactive

Targeted interactive Targeted interactive

Enforcement: Basic Basic Enhanced Extreme

As long as a minimum target is met in the Low and Moderate-‐Low risk condition (shades of green on Figure 7), government relies on Best Management Practices and industry professionals to ensure that strategies specified in existing land-‐use plans, such as Forest Stewardship Plans, are followed, and that activities amongst multiple tenure holders are coordinated to ensure that minimum targets for a

Management Target

Indicator of development

Risk to

valued

service

Management Trigger



management area are achieved. However, applications that are proposed in management areas where risk levels are moderately high or high may require referral to government and exemption by the statutory decision-‐maker. Management targets, where they exist, can also be placed on the risk curve (Figure 7). Management targets are required levels of performance for an indicator established as a matter of policy (policy target) or associated with a legal requirement (legal target). Management targets typically include social choice and have been negotiated through land use plans or strategic engagement agreements with First Nations.

5. Additional steps in cumulative effects assessment The CEA process consists of several analytical steps (Table 3) that are embedded within a larger decision-‐making process. The major steps of summarizing values and knowledge (steps 1 and 4) have been discussed above. Existing values and knowledge provide a starting point for assessment, but often need to be refined for specific situations.

Table 3. Analytical steps and products in CEA 1. Construct a Sub-‐Regional Values Summary documenting all values defined by the public. 2. Describe foreseeable development in a Foreseeable Future report24. 3. Identify susceptible valued services based on Foreseeable Future report and record in a Valued

Services for Assessment report. 4. Develop a Knowledge Summary with knowledge models for each susceptible valued service

(e.g., used to predict risk and benefits). 5. Conduct the assessment24.

This guide has focused on developing information needed to assess ecological and decision-‐making risk. Additional guides will discuss other aspects of CEA, including:

§ Data and information management for CEA,

§ Selecting Values for Assessment,

§ Broad-‐scale Assessment methods, and

§ Providing information to decision-‐makers.



6. Glossary of Terms Condition indicator: a signal of the state of an ecosystem service.

Components: attributes or elements of the natural resource system.

Ecosystem Services: benefits that people obtain from ecosystems.

Factors: system variables that affect valued services; they can be divided into categories reflecting human activities, natural processes and climate change.

Goals: broad objectives.

Indicator: a quantifiable variable used to describe/measure changes in system state25.

Influence variables: factors that have a large influence on the state of a valued ecosystem service and determine whether objectives will be achieved; used in risk curves.

Knowledge maps: are concept maps with boxes representing system components and processes and arrows meaning “influence”.

Management target: a desired state (level of performance) for an indicator established as a matter of policy (policy target) or associated with a legal requirement (legal target).

Management trigger: a reference point associated with known level of risk that triggers different management responses; establishing management triggers may require stakeholder consultation.

Natural Resource System: a combination of 1) the ecological system that provides ecosystem services, including natural resources, and 2) the socio-‐economic system that governs the extraction, delivery, and processing of natural resources.

Objective: desired state of a valued ecosystem service.

Pressure indicator: a signal of the level of a human activity (usually) or natural process that affects a valued service.

Processes: actions or events that influence component state; processes can be either human or natural in origin, and can be considered supporting or disturbing.

Risk: the probability of harm that matters; the probability of failing to achieve an objective (assumes objectives matter).

Risk curve: explicit hypothesis describing the relationship between risk to a value and an influence variable.

Strategy: defines the target level of an indicator (e.g., leave 70% structure around fish streams); similar to management target.



Value maps: concept maps with boxes representing values and arrows meaning “contribute to”.

Valued ecosystem services: a subset of ecosystem services that people care about (e.g., biodiversity, grizzly bears)26.

7. Notes and References

1 Duinker, P.N. and L.A. Greig. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environmental Management 37(2): 153-‐161.

2 Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Framework Discussion Paper provides more detail and is available upon request.

3 The Natural Resource System is a combination of 1) the ecological system that provides ecosystem services, including natural resources, and 2) the socio-‐economic system that governs the extraction, delivery, and processing of natural resources.

4 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-‐ being: current state and trends. R. Hassan, R. Scholes, and N. Ash (editors). Island Press, Washington, D.C.

5 Based on the Oxford Dictionary definition: “principles or standards of behaviour; one’s judgement of what is important in life…” Accessed March 29, 2013 from http://oxforddictionaries.com

6 Individuals and organizations (e.g., managers, scientists, private citizens, nongovernmental organizations) with a vested interest in a shared enterprise (Williams et al. 2007).

7 Page 61 of Burgman, M. 2005. Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. University Press, Cambridge, UK. 488 p.

8 Based on Fall, A., D. Daust and D. G. Morgan. 2001. A Framework and software tool to support collaborative landscape analysis: fitting square pegs into square holes. Transactions in GIS, 5(1):67-‐86.

9 For simplicity, we only present one approach for developing knowledge models; for details see Price K, and D. Daust 2009. Making monitoring manageable: a framework to guide learning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39: 1881-‐1892.

10 Forest Practices Board. 2008. Provincial land use planning: which way from here? FPB/SR/34

11 Forest Stewardship Council, Canadina Standards Association, Society of American Foresters, etc.

12 Models explicitly represent our ideas about how things work (e.g., including important components and processes). They help to clarify problem scope, logic, uncertainty and terminology. They can be expressed in words, diagrams, mathematical functions or computer code. Models help to clarify understanding and can be used to predict outcomes of management.



13 Tear, T.H., P. Kareiva, P.L. Angermeier and others. 2005. How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measureable objectives in conservation. Bioscience 55(1): 835-‐849.

14 Government staff may have considerable expertise, but where issues are contentious, experts that are perceived to be neutral and credible are essential.

15 Burgman, M.A. 2005. Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. University Press, Cambridge, UK. 488 p.

16 Burgman 2005.

17 A variety of different types of diagrams can be used to show important components and processes in systems and linkages among them. We use a modified version of a concept map where all arrows can be read as “influence”. See also impact maps and influence diagrams in Fussel and Klein 2006.

18 Large mistakes in analysis can occur by omitting important variables.

19 In more general terms, risk is the chance within a time frame of an adverse event with specific consequences (Burgman 2005).

20 Page 59 of Burgman 2005.

21 Provincial objectives aim to maintain the abundance and diversity of grizzly bears.

22 E.g., to achieve objectives of the Species at Risk Act (2002). Online: http://laws-‐lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-‐15.3/page-‐1.html

23 Variables also include natural factors and climate change, but risk assessments usually focus on human activity.

24 Morgan, D.G. and D. Daust. 2013. Broad-‐scale Assessment in Support of Cumulative Effects Decision-‐Making. Report to BC Ministry of Environment and Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operations Cumulative Effects Project Management Team.

25 Based on “a variable that measures or describes the state or condition of a value” (see CSA 2002).

26 Based on “a characteristic of interest”; see Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2002. Sustainable forest management: requirements and guidance. Canadian Standards Association, Ont. Publ. Z809-‐02

Documents

Guide for preparing CE Info - Bulkley Valley · [email protected] • Box 4274 Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Canada ! Anintegratedassessment#of#the#cumulative#impacts#of#climate# changeand’industrial’development’on’salmon’in’Western’BC!!