Previous Page:
2.5 Change in Average Stand Age
Next Page:
2.7 Status of Linear Features

Scroll for more

Getting Started

Navigating this Report

 

This report consists of two companion reports—one for the Northern Operating Area and one for the Southern Operating Area. All the features necessary to navigate within each report as well as switch between reports are included in the bookmark on the left of the screen. These features include:

Main Menu

The main menu is accessed through the hamburger menu in the "bookmark" on the left-hand side of the page. This report is divided into five chapters. From this menu, you can access each of the main chapters and their sections from anywhere in the report.

Tip: The down arrowhead expands when you are viewing a chapter within the hamburger menu. You can quickly navigate to any section within a chapter by making a selection from the expanded menu.

North and South Reports

Click these icons to navigate between the reports for the Northern Operating Area and Southern Operating Area. 

 

Information Guide

Click on the "information" icon in the left menu to access the report navigation guide. You can access this at any time without leaving the page you’re on.

The "page turner" arrows at the bottom left of your screen will sequentially take you through the report, page by page. For example, press the right arrow to move from Section 2.1 to Section 2.2.

Tip: If you’re interested in the full report, we encourage you to start with the Introduction found in Chapter 1, and use the page turner function (arrows on the bottom left of the page) to sequentially navigate through the report.

Introduction

Charlie Sikkema
Undisturbed natural areas, or native habitats, are important to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functions[1]. Habitat loss due to human disturbance is a primary threat to biological diversity[2]. 
  • In addition to the direct loss of native habitat, proximity of human footprint can change environmental conditions in nearby native habitat, known as edge effects, indirectly impacting biodiversity. 
  • Some wildlife species, such as the Dark-eyed Junco and Chipping Sparrow, can use habitat that is adjacent to human footprint[3]. Other species prefer habitat that is more distant from human footprint, Woodland Caribou being the most well-known example.
  • Most measured ecological edge effects have effective distances <50 m from human footprint, with a few extending 200 m or more. The distance of 500 m is generally well away from any edge effects, although there are still some broader regional effects of footprint, such as introduction of non-native species, altered fire regimes, and access for hunting. 
  • Within its Southern Operating Area, Tolko has established a target that the area of old interior forest in harvest year 10 (2031) will not decrease by more than 10%. Tolko will be within 80% of this goal by adhering to the spatial harvest sequence[4].

Status and trend of native habitat and interior native habitat at three distances (i.e., 50 m, 200 m, 500 m) from human footprint is summarized for Tolko’s Southern Operating Area.

 
little blue heron

Dark-eyed Junco can tolerate some habitat alteration.

Nancy S

Woodland Caribou is associated with undisturbed coniferous forests and peatlands.

Many lichens, such as Gray's Pixie-cup, are sensitive to disturbance.

Results

Status of Native Habitat

The status of native habitat (circa 2021) at increasing distances from human footprint in the Southern Operating Area was:

0 buffer

82.3%

50-m buffer

63.4%

200-m buffer

31.4%

500-m buffer

4.2%

 

Highlights

  • Native habitat (circa 2021) covers 82.3% of the Southern Operating Area.
  • While more than 60% of the Southern Operating Area is composed of native habitat at least 50 m away from human footprint, this decreases to 31.4% at least 200 m from human footprint. Only 4.2% of interior native habitat is at least 500 m from human footprint.
  • Human development activities occur throughout the Southern Operating Area. It is the distribution of this footprint, especially linear footprint, throughout the landscape that contributes to the fragmentation of native vegetation, reducing the area of interior native habitat.
Use Ctrl + Scroll to zoom the map
Legend
Interior Native Habitat. Distribution of native habitat, circa 2021, in the Southern Operating Area. Interior native habitat is buffered from human footprint using three base edge distances (50 m, 200 m, 500 m), adjusted to account for successional recovery and linear feature width. Click on distances in the legend to turn different buffer widths on and off. Zoom in on the map for a detailed view of the distribution of interior native habitat.

Change in the Area of Interior Native Habitat: 2010–2021

  • The Southern Operating Area had very little native vegetation >500 m from human footprint: 5.0% in 2010, declining to 4.2% in 2021. Native vegetation >200 m from human footprint declined from 37.4% to 31.4% over that time span.  
  • As shown in Section 2.2, White Spruce and mixedwood stands were the vegetation types most impacted by human footprint from 2010 to 2021, but all upland stand types lost substantial amounts of interior habitat over that time.
 
Change in Interior Native Habitat

Change in Interior Native Habitat. For the Southern Operating Area, the change in the area of interior native habitat from 2010 to 2021, expressed as a percentage of the total area of undisturbed vegetation in 2010, measured at four distances from human footprint: 0–50 m (lightest green), 50–200 m, 200–500 m, and >500 m (darkest green). Hover over each segment of the bar for a summary of: 1) the percentage of native vegetation area at the selected distance from human footprint, and 2) the percentage of native vegetation within each distance category (i.e., 0–50 m, 50–200 m, 200–500 m, and >500 m). 

References

1.

Potapov, P., M.C. Hansen, L. Laestadius, S. Turubanova, A. Yaroshenko, C. Thies, W. Smith, I. Zhuravleva, A. Komarova, S. Minnemeyer, and E. Esipova. 2017. The last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Science Advances 3(1):e1600821.

2.

Sanderson, E.W., M. Jaiteh, M.A. Levy, K.H. Redford, A.V. Wannebo, and G. Wolmer. 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52(10):891-904.

3.

Bayne, E., H. Lankau, and J. Tigner. 2011. Ecologically-based criteria to assess the impact and recovery of seismic lines: the importance of width, regeneration, and seismic density. Report No. 192. Edmonton, AB. 98 pp.

4.

Tolko Industries Ltd., Vanderwell Contractors (1971) Ltd., and West Fraser Mills Ltd. 2021. Lesser Slave Lake regional forest management plan. Prepared by FORCORP Solutions Inc.

We are grateful for the support of the ABMI's delivery partners.

InnoTech Alberta logo.
University of Alberta logo.
University of Calgary logo.