V.Y. Kirichenko, O.A.
Chernyagina
Kamchatka Branch of Pacific
Abstract: A shift in natural resource use priorities is
creating genuine threats to those sectors of the Kamchatskaya
Oblast and the Koryakskii Autonomous Okrug economy that are based on the use of renewable
resources. This article presents the
results of the authors' initial analysis of a map developed to show total
anthropogenic impact on natural systems.
The results obtained to date speak to the need to reexamine existing
notions about the status of natural systems on the peninsula and in adjacent
territories, and they also point to the urgent need to revise environmental
statutes regulating anthropogenic impacts in river watersheds.
Kamchatskaya
Oblast and the Koryakskii Autonomous Okrug are territories with a high volume of wilderness, one
of the few unspoiled areas left on our planet. The region's wilderness status
is not only a result of being at great distance from Russia's industrial centers
but is also a consequence of the region's traditional economic orientation of
using renewable resources and of maintaining a well developed network of
protected territories. With the onset of the third millennium, a noticeable
intensification of natural resource use is observed that is being accompanied
by a shift in natural resource development priorities. The area directly and
indirectly affected by non-renewable resource extraction is expanding along
with the infrastructures built to service those sectors: roads, gas pipelines,
power lines. This is resulting in a degradation of natural systems and is reducing
total wilderness area. There is a formal recognition of the need to conserve
biodiversity and the conditions necessary for renewable biologic resources
because these renewable resources are the basis for the Kamchatskaya
Oblast and Koryakskii Autonomous Okrug
economies.
Economic assessment and forecasting are not part
of the planning process for land based mineral resource development facilities,
for oil and gas deposits in salmon rivers and on the shelf of western
This article presents the initial results of an
analysis of a map of total anthropogenic impact on the natural ecosystems of
Table 1.
Direct Threats to
|
Threat Category |
Threat Type |
Mapping |
Data Access and their Availability |
||
|
|
Importance |
||||
|
Habitat Conversion & Degradation |
• Housing & Urban Development • Industrial Development • Commercial Development • Farms & Plantations • Forestry • Natural System Modifications • Recreation Areas • Military Activities •
Altered Fire
Regime |
Very Good |
Very Important |
Very Good |
+ |
|
Good |
Average |
+ |
|||
|
Low |
± |
||||
|
Very Good |
Good |
- |
|||
|
Transportation Infrastructure |
•
Utility Lines •
Energy Lines •
Communication Lines •
Roads •
River
Shipping Lanes •
Flight Paths |
Very Good |
Very Important |
Very Good |
+ |
|
Good |
+ |
||||
|
Good |
Low |
± |
|||
|
Energy & Mining |
• Mining • Oil & Gas Drilling • Renewable Energy •
Water Diversion |
Good |
Important |
Good |
± |
|
Biological Resource Harvesting |
• Logging • Fishing • Grazing and Ranching • Hunting •
|
Good |
Very Important |
Õîðîøàÿ |
+ |
|
Average |
Average |
- |
|||
|
Good |
Good |
- |
|||
|
Average |
Average |
- |
|||
|
Recreation & Work in Natural Habitats |
•
Motor-Powered
Recreation & Work •
All Forms of Tourism •
Scientific Research •
Military Training |
Average |
Low Importance |
Average |
± |
|
Pollution |
•
Solid Waste •
Nutrient Loads •
Toxics •
Noise •
Thermal •
Light •
Radioactive Materials |
Average |
Important |
Important |
- |
|
Average |
- |
||||
|
Low |
Good |
- |
|||
|
Average |
|||||
|
Very Good |
|||||
|
Low |
Low Importance |
Low |
- |
||
|
Invasive & Other Problematic Species
& Genes |
•
Vegetation •
Animals •
Illness & Pathogenic Organisms |
Low |
Important |
Average |
- |
|
Low Importance |
Low |
- |
|||
|
Change in Natural Processes |
• Climate Change • Grazing Patterns •
Fire Regimes |
Low |
Important |
Low |
- |
|
Average |
Very Important |
Average |
- |
||
The uneven study of the influence of various
impact types and the absence of a uniform classification system and methodology
transforms an integrated analysis of anthropogenic impacts and threats into a
complex, multilevel task. We have
attempted to solve this problem by calculating the impact area for each threat
type, without accounting for specific impacts on natural environment
components. Our attention, in working on this task, was focused on the direct
impact of human infrastructures and populations and whose range of impacts has
an immediate influence on flora and fauna. Base line materials are combined
into 22 layers of data that have been ordered in significance of impact (Table
2).
Table 2.
Base
Line Data Layers Used for Calculations
|
Spot
Locations |
Spatial
Locations |
||
|
1.
|
Licensed Mineral Deposits |
11. |
Agricultural Lands |
|
2.
|
Helicopter Landing Pads |
12. |
Coniferous Timber Harvest |
|
3.
|
Recreation Sites |
13. |
Cities, Villages greater than 1000 People |
|
Linear
Locations |
14. |
Villages from 100-1000 People |
|
|
4.
|
Road Network (Category 4) |
15. |
Villages from 50-100 People, Dachas, Resorts |
|
5.
|
Road Network (Category 5) |
16. |
Villages from 20-50 People, Geologic
Prospecting Parties |
|
6.
|
Energy Networks |
17. |
Villages with less than 20 People, Abandoned
Villages |
|
7.
|
Communication Networks |
18. |
Airports (Class 5) |
|
8.
|
Gas Pipeline Right of Way |
19. |
Airports (Unclassified) |
|
9.
|
Coastal Shore Zones |
20. |
River Shipping Lanes |
|
10. |
Recreational River Rafting |
21. |
Ministry of Defense Sites |
|
|
22. |
Mineral Mining |
|
Following a summary and analysis of data on
anthropogenic impact zones contained in normative documents, of expert opinions,
and of specific methodological manuals [5-14], the types of threats identified were correlated with specific impact dispersal models. The
results of these summaries are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Supplemented by additional materials at our
disposal, these summaries are the basis for a compilation of characteristics
for those zones that have an impact on natural systems (Table 5).
Table
3
Distribution
Models for the Influence of Anthropogenic Impacts (Transgressions)
|
Distribution Radius, km |
Critical Impact |
Strong
Impact |
Significant
Impact |
Moderate
Impact |
Low Impact |
|
Model No. |
|||||
|
Model No. 1 |
0,03 |
0,1 |
0,4 |
1 |
2 |
|
Model No. 2 |
0,05 |
0,3 |
0,7 |
1,5 |
4 |
|
Model No. 3 |
0,15 |
1 |
2 |
3,5 |
8 |
|
Model No. 4 |
0,3 |
1,5 |
3 |
5 |
12 |
|
Model No. 5 |
0,5 |
2 |
4 |
7 |
16 |
|
Model No. 6 |
1 |
5 |
10 |
25 |
50 |
Table
4
Division
of Source Data According to Impact Model Types
|
Model No |
Source of Impact |
|
Model No. 1 |
•
Helicopter
Landing Pads •
Recreation
Sites •
Recreational
River Rafting •
Coastal
Shore Zones •
Coniferous
Timber Harvest •
Villages
with less than 20 People, Abandoned Villages •
Ministry of
Defense Sites* |
|
Model No. 2 |
•
Energy
Networks •
Communication
Networks •
Gas
Pipeline Right of Way •
Agricultural
Lands •
Villages
with 20-50 People, Geologic Prospecting Parties |
|
Model No. 3 |
•
Road
Network (Category 5) •
Villages
with 50-100 People, Dachas, Resorts •
River
Shipping Lanes |
|
Model No. 4 |
•
Licensed
mines •
Villages
with 100-1000 People •
Airports
(Unclassified) •
Mineral
Mining |
|
Model No. 5 |
•
Road
Network (Category 4) •
Cities,
Villages greate than 1000 People |
|
Model No. 6 |
•
Airports
(Class 5) |
*Given an
absence of reliable data on the degree of impact on natural systems, only
moderate and low impact zones are evaluated.
Table 5
Total
Impact of Various Models for the Distribution of Impact of Anthropogenic
Transgression on Natural Systems
|
Impact Type |
Distribution Radius, km |
Mammals |
Birds |
|||||||||
|
Model
No 1 |
Model
No 2 |
Model
No 3 |
Model No 4 |
Model
No 5 |
Model
No 6 |
Reduction in Numbers, % |
Reduction in Productivity, % |
Habitat Quality Reduction Coefficient |
Reduction in Numbers, % |
Reduction in Productivity, % |
Habitat Quality Reduction Coefficient |
|
|
Catastrophic |
In Actual
Area |
100 |
100 |
0 |
100 |
100 |
0 |
|||||
|
Critical |
0.03 |
0.05 |
0.15 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
90-100 |
90-100 |
0-0.1 |
90 |
90 |
0.1 |
|
Strong |
0.1 |
0.3 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
5.0 |
70-80 |
70-80 |
0.2-0.3 |
80 |
80 |
0.2 |
|
Significant |
0.4 |
0.7 |
2.0 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
10 |
50-60 |
50 |
0.4-0.5 |
50 |
50 |
0.5 |
|
Moderate |
1.0 |
1.5 |
3.5 |
5.0 |
7.0 |
25 |
30-40 |
40-50 |
0.6-0.7 |
30 |
30 |
0.7 |
|
Weak |
2.0 |
4.0 |
8.0 |
12 |
16 |
50 |
10-15 |
40-50 |
0.85-0.9 |
10 |
10 |
0.9 |
|
Insignificant |
Ïî ðàñ÷åòíîìó îñòàòêó ïëîùàäè |
0-10 |
0-40 |
0.1-1 |
0-10 |
0-10 |
0.1-1 |
|||||
*For this model an experimental assessment of impact on mammals and
birds is not carried out.
A standard calculation methodology is applied to
the ArcGIS module "Modeling" to estimate
"buffer zones." First a map was designed to establish "buffer
zones" for spot, linear and spatial sites identified as the most
pernicious sources of impact (Table 2). Then, using a map modeling methodology,
layers were combined and what was obtained was an "Integrated Map of
Anthropogenic Impact on the Natural Complexes of Kamchatka." An interim,
first order watershed map was prepared to illustrate total anthropogenic impact
on
Figure 1. Anthropogenic
Impacts and Threats to Natural Systems Calculated for the River Watersheds of
The maps produced make it possible to assess the impact of existing and
potential threats to natural systems for the territory and the level of impact
on river watersheds (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Assessments
of River Watershed Condition for
The results obtained from this first attempt to
assess territorial impact demonstrate the need to reexamine existing notions of
the condition of natural systems on the
Literature
1. Mitenko, G. V., V.
V. Snakin, A. A. Prisyazhnaya,
V. R. Khisanov, V. O. Yurin.
2006. A Total Anthropogenic Impact Map for Ecosystems of the Federal Provinces
of the
2. State Report on Environmental Conditions in Kamchatskaya Oblast and Koryakskii
Autonomous Okrug in 2003. 2004. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Ministry of
Natural Resources, Kamchatskaya Oblast and Koryakskii Autonomous Okrug
Branch. 206 p.
3. Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, J. Ervin, T. Boucher, and W. Ostlie. 2003. Conventions for Defining, Naming,
Measuring, Combining, and Mapping Threats in Conservation: An Initial Proposal for a Standard System. Draft
Working Paper. (www.conservationmeasures.org).
4. Proposed Taxonomy of Direct Threats 2005. (www.fosonline.org/CMP/Tax/
)5. Darenskii, A. A., Yu. M. Dunishenko, V. G. Svets. Methodology for Assessing Loss to Damaged Wildlife Habitat (Based on the Example of Khabarovskii Krai). http://www.biodat.ru/chm/impact/imp-6.zip
6. Kirillov,
A. V. Methodology for Assessing Injury and for Calculating Loss to Damaged or
Destroyed Wildlife or to their Habitat in the Yamalo-Nenetskii
Autonomous Okrug. Approved by Order
of the Governor of Yamolo-Nenetskii Okrug. www.biodat.ru/chm/impact/imp-2.zip
7. Kuznetsov, V. A., D.
F. Leont'ev. Zoning for Level of
Impact on Hunting Resources in the
8. Ravkin,
E. S. Rationale and Methodology for Assessing the Level of Environmental Loss
Caused by the Destruction and Damage to Wildlife Habitat in
10. SNiP
11. SNiP
2.07.01-89* - Municipal Planning. Planning and
Construction of Municipal and Village Communities.
12. SNiP 2.05.02-85 - Automobile
Highways
13. SanPiN 3.4.035-95 -
Sanitary Protection of Territories of the
14. ST SEV 4940-84 - Automobile Roads. Accounting
for Traffic Volume
15. Leman, V.
16. Romanchuk, A. V.,
A. V.Ulatov. 2005. Violations of Environmental Law During the Development of Mineral Resources in the Watershed
of the