ALCES Based Project Reports
| Year | Title (Author, Description) | File Download |
| 2011 |
Phase 1. An Assessment of the Cumulative Effects of Land Uses within the Ghost River Watershed, Alberta - ReportCornel Yarmoloy and Brad StelfoxSociety is increasingly aware of how our rivers, and the landscapes that support them, deliver not only water, but a suite of societal and ecosystem services which are needed to sustain our quality of life. Eastern Slope watersheds, such as the Ghost, supply diverse recreational needs, timber products, energy resources, support biological diversity and provide ecosystem services such as carbon storage, drinking water and flood control. Human land use development and recreational activities can potentially reduce the effectiveness of these valued services through incremental negative impacts on natural processes. Reductions in the ability of natural systems to provide clean water to downstream communities, such as Calgary, results in an increasing need for water treatment infrastructure and associated monies. Such costs are passed onto consumers through increasing taxes and metered water costs. As demonstrated in other geographies, the significant burden on downstream tax payers for potable drinking water can be reduced through the effective management of headwater areas rather than building and maintaining increasingly larger and more costly water treatment facilities. To support their vision of preserving and enhancing the integrity of the ecosystem functions in the Ghost watershed, the Ghost Watershed Alliance Society (GWAS; www.ghostwatershed.ca) sponsored a quantitative assessment of how past, current and future cumulative impacts of land use on multiple-use forest reserve and private lands within the Ghost-Waiparous watershed could potentially affect sustainability of forests, water, wildlife and recreational resources (Phase 1). The GWAS engaged ALCES Landscape and Land-use Ltd. (ALCES� Group; www.alces.ca) to conduct this initial assessment. |
Contact ALCES for Cornel Yarmoloy and Brad Stelfox, 2011 |
| 2010 |
Cost of Construction and Maintenance of Infrastructure relevant to the Upper Bow BasinMr. Jonathan HolmesContains metrics pertaining to cost of construction and maintenance of infrastructure. Summary. This analysis is a comparative study of three different documents (see below under “studies used”) to find the best available estimates of costs and revenues of new development from the perspective of municipalities. The above estimates are certainly not perfect, but hopefully detailed review of the assumptions underpinning these numbers will show that they are realistic for the Upper Bow Basin. These coefficients are meant to be used for both the BAU simulation as well as for best practices. In particular, they are sufficient to estimate the capital costs of denser or “clustered” development. From a municipality’s perspective, the key change from clustered development is a reduction in the costs of constructing roads and water pipelines to connect far-flung areas. Since water pipeline length is very closely related to urban roadway length, it is possible to estimate the cost-savings of urban development using the quantity of roadway required for these communities as the driver. Another way of showing the consequences of best practices is to measure the substitution of one landuse type for another. Because rural development has different rates of revenues and costs, an 3 of 15 increase in density of residential development would have consequences on a municipality’s financial position, and this can be captured using the information provided here. However, best practices which alter the costs impacts of a specific landuse without changing its landuse type are not analyzed in this report. For example, the additional costs of water conservation for a given piece of land are not quantified. If required, this can be done separately. (Note: For a discussion of a limited number of best practices, we recommend reading the CMHC report). |
Contact ALCES for Mr. Jonathan Holmes, 2010 |
| 2009 |
Valuation of water quantity for the Bow River BasinJonathan HolmesAn approach, and computation of estimating water quantity for the Bow River Basin in Alberta |
Contact ALCES for Jonathan Holmes, 2009 |
| 2009 |
Athabasca Landscape Team Caribou Management OptionsTerry Antoniuk, John NishiAthabasca Caribou Landscape Management Options Report Athabasca Landscape Team May 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Woodland caribou are listed as "threatened" under both Alberta's Wildlife Act and the federal Species at Risk Act. The Athabasca Landscape Team (ALT) was established in June 2008 by the Alberta Caribou Committee Governance Board (ACCGB) and tasked with developing an Athabasca Caribou Landscape Management Options report for boreal caribou ranges in northeast Alberta (hereafter Athabasca Landscape area). The ALT was asked to develop management options to recover and sustain boreal caribou in all populations in the Athabasca Landscape area, consistent with the provincial woodland caribou Recovery Plan (2004/05 – 2013/14), but not to consider detailed technical, political or economic challenges. The ALT determined that there is insufficient functional habitat to maintain and increase current caribou distribution and population growth rates within the Athabasca Landscape area. Boreal caribou will not persist for more than two to four decades without immediate and aggressive management intervention. Tough choices need to be made between the management imperative to recover boreal caribou and plans for ongoing bitumen development and industrial land-use. The four Athabasca ranges — Richardson, West Side Athabasca River (WSAR), East Side Athabasca River (ESAR), and Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR) — reflect known caribou locations and the presence of suitable peatland habitat. A 20 kilometre (km) buffer was added to these combined ranges to identify ‘planning areas’ that reflect the influence of adjacent habitats and populations of predators and other prey on caribou population dynamics. Available information suggests that there is limited movement between the four ranges or populations. Discrete caribou habitat areas are primarily found in large peatland complexes, but lichen-rich pine forests are also used. These peatlands occur within a matrix of upland mixedwood forest that is avoided by caribou, but provides habitat for other prey species (i.e., moose, white-tailed deer and beaver) that in turn support wolves, black bear, and other potential predators. The selection for peatlands appears to be a spatial separation strategy critical to the survival of boreal caribou. All monitored caribou populations in the Athabasca Landscape area are currently in decline, and recent trends and simulation modeling results indicate that there is a high risk that the populations will not persist for more than forty years. Current extrapolated caribou abundance in the landscape area (ca. 900 animals) is well below the number that would be expected in the absence of industrial land-use. Predation appears to be the immediate cause of recent declines, and available information indicates that this is directly or indirectly linked to land-use features, including roads, harvest blocks, leases, pipelines and power lines, seismic lines, and agricultural/residential clearings that have led to an increase in moose and deer populations within and around caribou ranges. The ALT undertook two analyses from which it developed the management options presented in this report. The first was a rating of the relative risk to caribou persistence within each planning area and range based on a series of eight risk criteria. These criteria Athabasca Landscape Team i Athabasca Caribou Management Options Report included both biological and land-use factors believed to influence short- or long-term persistence and habitat function. Table 2 in this report defines each criterion and summarizes how it was used, along with relevant assumptions and comments. The overall risk rating for each planning area is provided in the Table included at the end of this Executive Summary. The second analysis conducted for each planning area or range by the ALT involved simulation modeling using ALCES®. Modeling was conducted to forecast likely caribou populations and habitat conditions under three scenarios including Non-Industrial, Business as Usual, and Alternative Futures. Scenarios for Alternative Futures were designed so that multiple simulations would identify the management lever, or combination of levers, that could maintain or increase boreal caribou numbers over the next 50 years. Land-use footprint, associated with oil sands (bitumen) extraction and forest harvest, is likely to increase throughout the Athabasca Landscape area over the next 50+ years. The highest risk to caribou occurs in areas that are underlain with thick bitumen deposits (which includes portions of all planning areas). Small population size is also associated with higher risk, as in the Richardson and CLAWR areas where both potential and existing populations are considered to be less than 150 individuals. Risk for caribou persistence is lower (but still rated as medium) in the WSAR and the eastern portion of the ESAR planning areas. The ALT’s analyses show that the time for management action in the Athabasca Landscape area is now. Risk of extirpation increases yearly, and further delays in management action implementation will compound the current challenges. ALT analyses demonstrate that an aggressive suite of management options (likely totalling hundreds of millions of dollars) will need to simultaneously focus on reducing predation risk and restoring functional caribou habitat within each planning area. It is important to reiterate that evaluation of political and economic implications of management options was considered outside the scope of the ALT. Likewise, consultation and engagement of parties that would be affected by the recommended management options has not been completed. Nevertheless, the ALT concluded that a suite of management options would be needed to maintain and increase current caribou distribution and population growth rates. Landscape scale management will be required to successfully sustain caribou in the Athabasca Landscape area. The ALT proposes that this region be managed as two zones. In Zone 1 Areas, described in more detail below, caribou recovery would be the priority designated land use, and all management options identified below would be implemented. Elsewhere within planning areas (Zone 2), all management options excluding future footprint restrictions would be implemented. The exception is portions of the ESAR – Bitumen Fairway sub-planning area underlain by thick bitumen deposits where appropriate best practices would be implemented. The suite of management options identified by the ALT includes: Athabasca Landscape Team ii Athabasca Caribou Management Options Report ¥ establish large (thousands of square kilometre) Zone 1 Areas in portions of each planning area where recovery of functional habitat (footprint is reduced well below today’s levels through aggressive and coordinated reclamation and future industrial footprint is restricted to levels below current conditions); and caribou mortality control (wolves and other prey are controlled for 50+ years) would be the designated and enforceable management priority; ¥ elsewhere within caribou planning areas (Zone 2 Areas): control wolves and other prey for 100+ years; conduct coordinated reclamation; and implement enhanced best practices; and ¥ as the viability of cow-calf penning or predator-prey exclosures is uncertain, the Richardson planning area is the most appropriate location to test this option. The table below provides a summary of the management options that would recover and sustain current caribou abundance and distribution in each Athabasca Landscape planning area. All identified options would need to be implemented as an integrated suite. Simulations showed that successful combinations of management levers were common to all planning areas, although the extent and duration of management actions differed slightly between areas. Simulations and risk ratings demonstrate that larger or more intact planning areas such as WSAR and Richardson have higher probability of success than do smaller, or less intact planning areas such as CLAWR and ESAR in the bitumen fairway. The ALT concluded that ‘Zone 1 Areas’ should be established to increase the probability of successfully recovering caribou in each planning area. Although implementation will require further consultation with stakeholders and consideration of the current land-use policy and regulatory system in the province, the value of Zone 1 Areas is that they would apply a cumulative effects management approach where caribou recovery would be the designated and enforceable land-use priority. From an ecological perspective, Zone 1 Areas need to be of sufficient size (thousands of square kilometres) to recover and sustain an isolated caribou population. In these areas, combined footprint would be reclaimed and future footprint restricted to very low levels (below current conditions) concurrent with continuous predator control until functional habitat is restored. Six candidate areas have been identified in portions of the WSAR, Richardson, ESAR-W, ESAR-E, and CLAWR planning areas. To achieve provincial caribou recovery goals, the ALT boreal caribou management objective, and offset current declines of woodland caribou populations in the Athabasca Landscape area, all planning areas should receive protection through designation and implementation of Zone 1 Areas. Indeed for small planning areas with high relatively high industrial land used and anthropogenic footprint like the CLAWR area, all suitable range should be considered as a Zone 1 Area in order to ensure persistence of caribou. However, if political considerations preclude this approach, the ALT recommends that priority for establishing Zone 1 areas should be in planning areas with greater chance of success for population recovery (i.e., the order listed in the table below). Ultimately, population size and management effectiveness is related to the amount of functional or intact habitat. If two planning areas are similar in most respects, and choices have to be made between them, the ALT concluded that the area with larger, more continuous, or relatively intact habitat has a greater chance of success. Athabasca Landscape Team iii Athabasca Caribou Management Options Report A more quantitative evaluation of candidate Zone 1 Areas based on the concepts of risk management and viable populations should be undertaken to understand the relationship between area and extirpation risk and to optimize the location and size of candidate areas. Mortality management and functional habitat restoration through coordinated reclamation and appropriate best practices are required management options in Zones 1 and 2 of each planning area. Habitat restoration on its own will not achieve success, because unmanaged predation by wolves will cause ongoing decline in caribou numbers in the near term (i.e., several decades minimum), despite restoration efforts. Similarly, mortality management aimed at increasing caribou survival will help caribou persist, but will have to be continued indefinitely if functional habitat is not restored. These two management strategies – restoration of functional habitat and mortality management – must be applied together. It is important to note that the benefits of habitat restoration will not be realized for decades because there is a 30-50 year lag time following reclamation before forest becomes old enough to be considered low quality for other prey, and suitably old to be used by caribou. At minimum, mortality management will need to be continued for this entire lag period. For this reason, long-term risk will be minimized if both habitat restoration and mortality management begin as soon as possible. The suite of successful management options evaluated by the ALT provides new landscape-scale strategies to sustain caribou, but there are also several key challenges: ¥ establishing legislated boundaries and management guidance for Zone 1 Areas; ¥ conducting landscape-scale reclamation programs coordinated among multiple stakeholders; ¥ aggregating decisions for landscape-scale caribou management that are made by individual government departments into a broader integrated cross-government strategy; ¥ consultation and engagement of stakeholders who would be affected by the recommended management options contained in this report; and ¥ building awareness of decision-makers, land users, and the general public to maintain social and financial support for required management actions, research, and monitoring over the long term. The ALT suggests that the current Lower Athabasca Regional Planning initiative under the Alberta Land-Use Framework is an appropriate forum to address these challenges for the Richardson, ESAR, and CLAWR planning areas. The management strategies identified by the ALT will require further leadership and work by the ACC Governance Board and collaboration with others to identify solutions to policy challenges and to develop clear implementation rules and processes that are consistent with existing and proposed legislation. |
Contact ALCES for Terry Antoniuk, John Nishi, 2009 |
| 2009 |
Estimating the cost of water quality for the Bow River Basin in AlbertaJonathan HolmesJonathan Holmes offer thoughts on approaches for computing water quality. |
Contact ALCES for Jonathan Holmes, 2009 |
| 2009 |
Alberta Caribou Committee Recommendations to the Deputy Minister of Sustainable Resource Development for the Athabasca Caribou LandscapeAthabasca Landscape TeamAlberta Caribou Committee Recommendations to the Deputy Minister of Sustainable Resource Development for the Athabasca Caribou Landscape |
Contact ALCES for Athabasca Landscape Team, 2009 |
| 2009 |
Valuaton of Recreation AttributesJonathan HolmesThis report by Jonathan Holmes lays out an approach for computing recreational value of landscapes Summary. Two concrete methods for calculating the non-market recreational value of a land base are presented: One based of landscape types, and the other on the mix of recreational activities used in the landscape. Both provide relatively easy and effective ways of quantifying the value of recreation in a given area over and above the total costs that recreational users had to pay, but I recommend the second method where possible because it is more precise and benefits from better regional estimates. In addition, I have included a discussion about how these estimates could be projected into the future using estimates derived from the ALCES model. The easiest way to do this is to assume that per hectare landscape values will remain constant over time for different landscape types, and to adjust the non-market value estimate based on landscape change. However, this assumes that other factors such as road penetration or the quantity of big game (in the case of hunters) have a small or negligible effect on the value of a landscape. While it would take more work, I believe that a more detailed projection of value (and therefore a better idea of what tradeoffs are in play) is possible in the case of hunting, and I discuss a few ways of doing this in a separate section. Unfortunately, projection of value for other types of recreation is difficult, because the relationship between landuse change and the recreational value of a landscape has been subject to few studies and reports to my knowledge. |
Contact ALCES for Jonathan Holmes, 2009 |
| 2009 |
Quantifying land use of oil sands production: a life cycle perspectiveSarah M Jordaan, David W Keith, and Brad StelfoxMethods for the inclusion of land use in life cycle assessment are not well established. Here, we describe an approach that compares land disturbance between spatially compact and diffuse activities that contribute to the life cycle of a single product, in this case synthetic crude from Alberta’s oil sands. We compare production using surface mining and in situ extraction technologies. In situ technologies disturb less land per unit of production than surface mining, but the spatial footprint of in situ production is more dispersed—increasing landscape fragmentation—and in situ production requires more natural gas which increases land use due to gas production. We examine both direct and peripheral land use of oil sands development by quantifying land disturbance using a parameterized measure of fragmentation that relies on ‘edge effects’ with an adjustable buffer zone. Using a life cycle perspective, we show that the land area influenced by in situ technology is comparable to land disturbed by surface mining when fragmentation and upstream natural gas production are considered. The results suggest that land disturbance due to natural gas production can be relatively large per unit energy. This method could be applied to other energy developments, for example, a comparison between coal mining and natural gas production when both fuels are used to generate electricity. |
Contact ALCES for Sarah M Jordaan, David W Keith, and Brad Stelfox, 2009 |
| 2009 |
Cumulative Effects Assessment of the North Saskatchewan River Watershed using ALCESDr. Michael Sullivan, ALCES Group - for the North Saskatchewan Watershed AllianceThe North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance (NSWA) was designated in 2005 as the Watershed Planning and Advisory Council (WPAC) for the North Saskatchewan River basin, under Water for Life: Alberta's Strategy for Sustainability. Part of its mandate as a WPAC is to prepare an Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP) for the North Saskatchewan River Basin (NSRB). This plan will include advice to the government of Alberta regarding the watershed values and trade-offs that are acceptable to a broad spectrum of stakeholders. As part of their work towards the IWMP, the NSWA desired to gain a better understanding of long-term, cumulative impacts of development on the watershed, and to highlight potential conflicts between development and sustainability. The NSWA engaged the ALCES® Group to undertake a high-level, strategic and exploratory cumulative effects modeling for the NSRB. Specifically, the NSWA-ALCES® cumulative effects assessment project is intended to simulate the effects of major land uses in the watershed (agriculture, forestry, urban, and petrochemical industry) on specific watershed “values†(i.e., biodiversity, landscape integrity, water quality, and water quantity) over a 100 year time span. |
Contact ALCES for Dr. Michael Sullivan, ALCES Group - for the North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance, 2009 |
| 2009 |
ALCES III Scenario Modeling Report - Athabasca Landscape Area, Appendix IIITerry Antoniuk, John Nishi, Karen Manuel, Mika Sutherland, Cornel YarmoloyALCES III Scenario Modeling Report - Athabasca Landscape Area, Appendix III |
Contact ALCES for Terry Antoniuk, John Nishi, Karen Manuel, Mika Sutherland, Cornel Yarmoloy, 2009 |