Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Environmental Monitoring:Environmental Monitoring:Environmental Monitoring:Environmental Monitoring:
Business and Information NeedsBusiness and Information NeedsBusiness and Information NeedsBusiness and Information NeedsStudyStudyStudyStudy
prepared for
Land Information and Inventory Coordinating CommitteeProvince of British Columbia
by
Daryl Brown, Daryl Brown Associates Inc.&
John Dick, Sustainable Visions
Draft #2.1March 30, 2001
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... III
ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................VI
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 11.2. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE.............................................................................. 11.3. METHODS .......................................................................................................... 31.4. REPORT ORGANIZATION...................................................................................... 3
2. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING: AN OVERVIEW ........................................................... 5
2.1. DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................... 52.2. MONITORING AND STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING ................................................. 52.3. INDICATORS AND INDICES.................................................................................... 62.4. THE PRESSURE-STATE-IMPACT-RESPONSE FRAMEWORK FOR THE
SELECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS ....................................................... 82.5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH, INVENTORY AND MONITORING............... 92.6. PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING................................................... 102.7. LINKING ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING TO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
MONITORING .................................................................................................... 10
3. THE LEGISLATIVE, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA........................................................................... 13
3.1. “BUSINESS DRIVERS” FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING................................... 133.2. AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ................................... 14
4. THE GENERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA............... 17
4.1. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING.................................................... 174.2. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT MONITORING......................................................... 204.3. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT MONITORING................................................................ 264.4. LAND TENURE AND USE .................................................................................... 314.5. SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS OF MONITORING INITIATIVES ............................. 32
5. PROVINCIAL INITIATIVES THAT INTERPRET AND REPORT ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING INFORMATION....................................................................................... 35
5.1. NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS THAT PROVINCIALAGENCIES WANT TO TRACK.............................................................................. 38
5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION PRIORITIES ....................................................... 405.3. OVERLAPPING INDICATORS AND INITIATIVES ....................................................... 45
Page ii
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
6. KEY ISSUES, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 47
6.1. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES................................................................................. 476.2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 49
APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................... 53
APPENDIX 2: STUDY CONTACTS................................................................................. 55
APPENDIX 3: PROVINCIAL TRENDS INTERPRETATION / EFFECTIVENESSREPORTING INITIATIVES ......................................................................... 57
APPENDIX 4: CURRENT AND PROPOSED MONITORING (TIME-SERIES)INFORMATION FOR TRENDS INTERPRETATION & EFFECTIVENESSREPORTING INITIATIVES OF PROVINCIAL AGENCIES ................................ 65
Tables
Table 1: Examples of “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” Relationship .................................. 8
Table 2: Linking Environmental, Social and Economic Monitoring Using thePSIR Framework..................................................................................................... 10
Table 3: Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring in BC ......................................... 15
Table 4: Summary of Trends Interpretation and Effectiveness Reporting Initiatives .............. 36
Table 5: Indicators for Which Provincial Agencies Require Environmental Information ......... 38
Table 6: Initiatives and Number of Indicators ........................................................................ 39
Table 7: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme .............................................. 41
Table 8: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme — Descending Order ............ 42
Table 9: Number of Indicators by Initiatives .......................................................................... 43
Table: 10: Environmental Monitoring Information in Greatest Demand ............................ 44
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page iii
EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY
Study Background and Purpose
BC’s Land Information and Inventory Coordinating Committee (LIICC) commissioned this studyto obtain a current picture of provincial environmental monitoring business and informationneeds, as a basis for developing a “corporate environmental baseline”, which is essentially asystem for advising about and distributing environmental information that is needed forenvironmental management purposes.
Study findings are based primarily on a series of interviews that the consultants held withprovincial agency personnel who are involved in delivering environmental monitoring andinventory programs (i.e., data providers); and those who are involved in activities to interpretenvironmental monitoring information in support of program requirements and for environmentaltrends / effectiveness assessment purposes (i.e., data users). Various agencies’ documentationwas also reviewed to identify specific environmental indicators that agencies want to track overtime, and the particular environmental information that is needed to support these efforts.
Terminology
Various terminology is applied in the area of environmental monitoring. For the purposes of thisstudy it is important to be clear that environmental monitoring involves the collection of time-series data on specified environmental indicators (parameters) using defined samplingmethodologies. This is distinct from environmental or resource inventories that are anenumeration of a particular resource or ecosystem and typically provide a snap-shot of resourceconditions at a single point in time.
Key Issues
The key issues that need to be addressed in relation to environmental monitoring in BC are:
Supply – Demand Imbalance: There is rapidly increasing interest from various agencies /initiatives to access reliable environmental monitoring (time-series) information.However, most of the environmental information that is available in BC is “point-in-time”inventory information. There is a growing divergence between the demand for highquality, time-series environmental monitoring information and the availability of it.
Lack of Formalized Business Drivers: Although there are some positive signs that certaincategories of monitoring data will become more available (e.g., vegetation changemonitoring), pressures to reduce monitoring activity for other resource categoriescontinue to increase (e.g., water quality / quantity). Environmental monitoring is currentlya discretionary activity that must compete with other environmental managementinitiatives for scarce budget dollars. To lessen the supply – demand imbalance forenvironmental monitoring information, formalized business drivers for environmental
Page iv
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
monitoring are required (e.g., more explicit requirements for agencies to engage inmonitoring, potentially based in legislation).
Technical Capacity: The providers of environmental monitoring information are increasinglybeing called on, ad hoc, by external users of that data to explain and interpret the data.While it is important for this technical service to be provided to data users to prevent themis-interpretation of data and the potential for inaccurate reporting of environmentaloutcomes, there is only so much that data providers can do, given their own programpriorities and limited resources. A further capacity issue relates to the reduced technicalexpertise within programs to develop monitoring systems / networks that are capable ofproducing statistically valid and credible data.
Indicator Proliferation: It is questionable whether or not it is necessary for BC to track thelarge number of environmental indicators that provincial agencies, in combination, areinterested in measuring (over 200). In addition, there are overlaps among agencies /initiatives in the indicators they are / are proposing to measure. Both of these issuesneed to be addressed to achieve efficiencies.
Lack of Coordination: Along with the expanding agency interest in environmental monitoringcomes a critical need for increased coordination and cooperation. A corporate approachto decision-making is required on key questions such as: funding and designingmonitoring systems; developing monitoring standards; managing monitoring datacollection, storage and distribution; roles and responsibilities for interpreting and reportingmonitoring results; etc.
Links to Decision-making: The fundamental purpose behind monitoring environmentalconditions is to improve the quality of environmental management decision-making.Closer bridges are needed between the results / findings of environmental monitoringand the policy responses of decision-makers.
Partnerships: Provincial agencies are not the only organizations in BC with an interest incollecting environmental monitoring data. The federal government, First Nations, localgovernments, universities and institutes and the private sector should all be involved ininitiatives for bringing a BC-wide, corporate perspective to environmental monitoring.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Responding to Increasing Demand for Environmental Monitoring Information
BC has plenty of environmental data, but it is generally not the kind that is needed forinterpreting trends in environmental condition and assessing program / policy / planeffectiveness. A main reason for the limited supply of environmental monitoring data is thatenvironmental monitoring is currently a discretionary activity that is based in policy or informal /implicit business drivers.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page v
Recommendation 1: Government should institutionalize some more formal businessdrivers for environmental monitoring — i.e., mechanisms that establish an explicit, non-discretionary requirement for the collection of environmental monitoring information.
Coordinated Design and Delivery of Environmental Monitoring Systems
There is a critical need for improved coordination in determining corporate environmentalmonitoring priorities and planning the design and delivery of monitoring programs. To-date,agencies’ demands for environmental monitoring information have not been rationalized inrelation to government’s broader corporate priorities. The result is multiple agencies proceedingindependently with their own initiatives, all of which have major ongoing, and sometimesoverlapping data acquisition implications. As has already been recognized for inventoryprograms, a corporate perspective on environmental monitoring programs is necessary.
Recommendation 2: Environmental monitoring programs should be explicitly broughtunder the umbrella of LIICC or a similarly corporate-minded coordinating structure.Coordination should not be limited to provincial government agencies — the coordinatingbody should include representatives from all parties with a monitoring interest (federal,First Nations, local governments; Crown corporations, universities and institutes; privatesector).
Partnering Opportunities
Government needs to identify ways for enhancing the availability of monitoring data by involvingoutside organizations / interests in designing monitoring systems and collecting and interpretingmonitoring results.
Recommendation 3: Partnership opportunities should be explored with other levels ofgovernment, universities and institutes and the private sector, as a way of leveraging acost-effective increase in the availability of reliable environmental information.
Using Monitoring Information to Enhance Environmental Outcomes
There is little evidence of good mechanisms for integrating environmental monitoring results intoimproved environmental decision-making at the policy level. Unless this occurs, the publicinvestment into environmental monitoring is questionable.
Recommendation 4: As one component of its efforts to oversee the development of a“corporate environmental baseline”, LIICC should investigate institutional options forensuring that the findings from environmental monitoring programs are actuallyintegrated into environmental decision-making.
Page vi Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
AABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS
The following abbreviations appear in the report:
AAC Allowable Annual CutBEC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem ClassificationBCAL BC Assets and Lands CorporationBCTFA BC Transportation Financing AuthorityBTM Baseline Thematic MappingCCFM Canadian Council of Forest MinistersCCFM C&I Canadian Council of Forest Ministers Criteria and IndicatorsC&I Criteria and IndicatorsCDC Conservation Data CentreCSA Canadian Standards AssociationDFO Department of Fisheries and OceansEC Environment CanadaFiRBC Fisheries Renewal BCFISS Fish Information Summary SystemFoRBC Forest Renewal BCFSC Forest Stewardship CouncilGIS Geographic Information SystemGVRD Greater Vancouver Regional DistrictIAMC Inter-agency Management CommitteeLIICC Land Information and Inventory Coordinating CommitteeLUCO Land Use Coordination OfficeLRMP Land and Resource Management PlanMAF Ministry of Agriculture and FoodMMA Ministry of Municipal AffairsMOAA Ministry of Aboriginal AffairsMOEM Ministry of Energy and MinesMOF Ministry of ForestsMoFi Ministry of FisheriesMOH Ministry of HealthMOTH Ministry of Transportation and HighwaysMELP Ministry of Environment, Lands and ParksMSBTC Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and CulturePAS Protected Area StrategyPSIR Pressure-State-Impact-Response frameworkSFM Sustainable Forest ManagementSLUP Strategic Land Use PlanTRIM Terrain Resource Inventory MappingTSA Timber Supply Area
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 1
11.. IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN
1.1. Background
The British Columbia government, like many other jurisdictions, faces the challenge ofmanaging increasing pressures on the natural resource base with steadily eroding institutionalcapabilities. Environmental and natural resource management activities over the next fewdecades will likely focus on:
1) improving the management of terrestrial and aquatic systems to maintain thediversity and integrity of those systems while providing a sustainable supply of socialbenefits; and
2) mitigating the environmental and public health effects of terrestrial, aquatic andatmospheric degradation resulting from human activity.
Success in these areas will depend on a broad understanding of environmental issues and on aconsensus on priorities for action. These will in turn depend on the regular collection of reliable,time-series information on selected indicators of environmental condition so that:
1) the state of the environment can be determined at any point in time;
2) significant trends in environmental quality (including emerging problems) can beidentified; and
3) timely, effective and prioritized management action can be initiated.
It is against this general background that the provincial Land Information and InventoryCoordinating Committee (LIICC) initiated this project to undertake an environmental monitoringneeds analysis.
1.2. Study Purpose and Scope
LIICC is mandated to coordinate the development and implementation of land and naturalresource inventory programs. The committee is aware of the recent interest in and proliferationof “strategic-level” environmental monitoring and reporting initiatives, including: strategic landuse plan and landscape unit plan effectiveness monitoring, environmental trends monitoring,state of forests monitoring, monitoring nationally-defined criteria and indicators for sustainableforest management, and state of parks monitoring. In addition, there is increasing interest inimplementing a “results-based” forest practices code, and supporting the delivery of forestcertification schemes. Most recently, government has indicated an intent to create aCommissioner of the Environment and Sustainability who will be responsible for monitoring andbi-annual reporting on environmental performance in British Columbia. These activities are inaddition to environmental monitoring that is done by agencies in support of their programdelivery responsibilities (e.g., air quality, water quality / quantity monitoring).
Page 2 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
All of these monitoring initiatives, which are aimed ultimately at improving the ability to makedecisions that promote sustainable environmental management, involve the need for diversetypes of environmental sampling programs to enable the time-series measurement of variousenvironmental parameters (indicators).
Concerns from LIICC’s point of view that are inherent in an uncoordinated approach in thedevelopment and delivery of strategic-level monitoring systems are:
potential inefficiencies associated with developing diverse and potentially overlapping sets ofindicators. At present, each monitoring initiative is developing its own set of monitoringindicators, with its own data needs. Inevitably, there will be similarities among indicator setsand the methodologies and data needed to monitor and report on the indicators. Can wedevelop a focused / core set of indicators that can serve the priority needs of multiplemonitoring programs, and agree on the data that will be collected to measure the indicators?If we could, this may reduce public expenditure into data collection.
potential ineffectiveness of the monitoring results. Investments into monitoring environmentalconditions and trends are only justified if the findings / results of monitoring programs arerelevant to, and integrated into, decision-making. Are we measuring the right elements(indicators) of environmental condition — ones that will actually enable us to make decisionsthat progress us towards goals of sustainable environmental management. If we are not,then some investments into data collection and trends analysis may be wasted.
conflicting reporting among different monitoring initiatives, which may be measuring indicatorsfor the same land base, could possibly arrive at different conclusions about environmentalcondition. It will be important to ensure that monitoring programs apply the right kinds ofdata to criteria and indicator measures, and base their interpretations on an accurateunderstanding of what the data and measurements mean.
To respond to these issues, we must start by clarifying the current information needs ofdecision-makers. To that end, this study has attempted to answer the following basic question:
“What environmental condition information do the province’s natural resourcemanagement agencies need to support monitoring initiatives that are undertaken toenhance their strategic policy and program decision-making capability?”
Thus the primary objective of the project was to undertake a “needs analysis” for a government-wide, corporate environmental condition monitoring system to facilitate strategic-level policy andprogram decision-making. The study focused on information needs for environmental conditionmonitoring, with minor consideration of operational / compliance monitoring only whereinformation can be aggregated upwards to support “corporate” decision-making (see definitionsin section 2.1). This corporate baseline would serve the decision-making needs of bothindividual Ministries and inter-agency planning entities and processes. The needs-analysisencompassed the information requirements of all environmental “sectors” including atmosphericquality, water quality, water quantity, aquatic ecology and terrestrial ecology.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 3
1.3. Methods
The needs analysis was carried out through interviews and the use of a generic questionnairedirected at agencies that are monitoring, or are preparing to monitor and interpret environmentalinformation as a basis for reporting on the condition of environmental quality in BC, and / or tomeasure the effectiveness of their program activities in achieving corporate environmental goalsand objectives. One element of the analysis was to determine the business drivers (i.e., themandate) for these monitoring initiatives, which may include: legislation; international andnational protocols, commitments contained in individual program plans or integrated resourcemanagement plans; agencies’ internal efforts to implement adaptive management principles;and requirements for meeting government-wide accountability standards.
The questionnaire and interviews were generally targeted at agency program directors /managers involved in strategic and corporate planning and program / policy analysis, andassociated staff that are involved directly in developing, interpreting, and reporting on outcome-based measures (i.e., criteria and indicators).
The questionnaire and interviews were aimed at identifying:
1) the business drivers for their effectiveness monitoring initiatives
2) the general nature, scope, frequency and audience of their monitoring initiatives
3) the individuals that are involved in monitoring
4) the basic questions that they are trying to answer through their monitoring initiatives
5) the environmental parameters (criteria and indicators) they are measuring in effortsto answer their questions
6) the current sources of data / information for measuring their selected environmentalparameters
7) issues and comments related to the availability and adequacy of information / datathat they require for their monitoring purposes.
Where agencies are not presently involved in monitoring but foresee a need to becomeinvolved, contacts were asked to speculate on their future monitoring information / data needs.
1.4. Report Organization
In addition to this introductory chapter, the report contains the following material:
Chapter 2 provides an overview of environmental monitoring, including definitions of keymonitoring terminology and a description of the relationships between “research”, “inventory”and “monitoring”.
Page 4 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Chapter 3 describes BC’s current legal, policy and institutional context for environmentalmonitoring in BC. Monitoring “business drivers” and agency involvement in environmentalmonitoring are described.
Chapter 4 describes BC initiatives that generate environmental monitoring (i.e., time series)information that is potentially available for various trends interpretation and reporting, andprogram / plan / policy effectiveness assessment uses. Initiatives are described accordingto atmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial and land tenure / use categories.
Chapter 5 describes the existing and proposed users and uses of environmental monitoringinformation for agency strategic planning purposes; interpretation and reporting onenvironmental / sustainability trends; assessments of agencies’ plans, programs andpolicies. This chapter identifies the type of environmental indicators that agencies arecurrently tracking, or are intending to track, over time, and associated environmentalmonitoring information needs.
Chapter 6 provides a summary of environmental monitoring issues, leading to studyconclusions and recommendations.
Supporting information is provided in report appendices.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 5
22.. EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG:: AANN OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW
2.1. Definitions
The general term “monitoring” embraces a number of quite different activities in a natural andenvironment resource management context:
Environmental Condition (also known as ambient or effectiveness) Monitoring — measuresenvironmental condition, usually against long-term resource management goals orobjectives, and when measured in “time-series” determines trends in condition.
Validation Monitoring — is a semi-research activity undertaken to evaluate: a) the degree towhich monitoring indicators and techniques measure real environmental conditions andtrends, and b) the cause / effect relationship between environmental condition andmanagement interventions.
Compliance (also known as operational) Monitoring — measures performance against legalenvironmental standards or permit / plan conditions in order to establish a compliancerecord.
Program (also known as implementation) Monitoring — determines progress in programimplementation against established “benchmarks” (number of activities completed, areatreated, number of clients served, cost of delivery, etc).
As noted in chapter 1, this project and the following discussion will focus primarily onenvironmental condition monitoring, with some consideration of operational and programmonitoring initiatives where information is comprehensive enough to be aggregated upwards tosupport strategic decision-making.
2.2. Monitoring and Strategic Decision-Making
Perhaps the most tenuous aspect of the environmental management cycle is the link betweenmonitoring and management action. Even at the operational level, where the relationship wouldseem to be most straight forward, many industrial operations have not yet fully integratedenvironmental monitoring with day-to-day decision-making. The result is that non-compliancedoes not always elicit an immediate and positive operational response. It is, however, at thelevel of strategic policy and program development in government institutions that the linkbetween monitoring and management action is least developed. There are a number ofreasons for this:
• senior decision-makers may not have thought about, or articulated, their needs for dataat this level of decision-making;
Page 6 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
• the bewildering array of “environmental” information does not lend itself easily toconsolidation and aggregation;
• much of the “information” is of poor quality and not collected with either the regularity orthe scientific rigour that allows interpretation of the trends and comparisons that aremost important in identifying management programs and setting priorities;
• “environmental indicators” being monitored may not adequately represent environmentalcondition;
• most senior decision-makers lack the technical expertise to properly interpretenvironmental monitoring data;
• information providers are not always able to present data in a form that is easilyunderstood by “non-technical” persons; and
• environmental issues, and the information relating to them, seldom conform to thejurisdictional and institutional boundaries devised by government planners, with theresult that monitoring is often poorly coordinated and fragmented.
Environmental monitoring is of most use to senior decision-makers when it is collected in “time-series” so that trends in condition can be determined and those trends compared with a desiredstate. Several recent initiatives - Environmental Indicators, State-of-Environment Reporting,State-of-the Forest Reporting, State-of-Parks Reporting - either are doing, or intend to do,comprehensive trend analysis. It is not known, however, how these reporting initiativesinfluence, or are used by, senior staff for program / policy decision-making purposes. Theseinitiatives also have a significant public education potential, which may require specializedinformation interpretation and presentation.
A “corporate approach” to monitoring offer a number of advantages for strategic decision-making, including:
1) common standards of information collection and organization;
2) efficiencies and synergies in data collection, interpretation and reporting;
3) ensuring that information sets are readily available to all potential users; and
4) avoiding the appearance of bias.
This does not mean that all information should be collected by a central agency, merely that thecorporate system should be able to influence and harmonize standards of data collection andinterpretation, accommodate all general information sets, and have the capability to access allspecific environmental data sets.
2.3. Indicators and Indices
Given the problems and needs described above, there has been increasing interest over thepast decade in the development of scientifically-credible environmental indicators and indices.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 7
Studies in this field do not always distinguish between indicators and indices, and so forpurposes of this discussion, the following definitions will be used:
Indicator — a number or other descriptor, measured in real units, which is assumed to berepresentative of a larger set of conditions or values (e.g., an indicator of biodiversitycondition could be the amount or distribution of old forest cover).
Index — values, expressed on a simple numerical (e.g.,1-10, 1-100, 1-200 etc) ordescriptive (i.e. low, moderate, high, extreme) scale, which represents a summation ofvarious conditions and measurements across a broad field (e.g., water quality in aparticular water body or watershed might be reported on as being excellent, good, fair,borderline or poor, based on a synthesis of various water quality / chemistry parameterssuch as temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, turbidity, metals, etc.)
Indicators and indices are developed for similar purposes:
• simplification of complex relationships,
• selection of the most relevant information for a given management purpose,
• quantification of information on environmental conditions and trends,
• communication of information to decision-makers and the public,
• allocation of financial resources between issues and regions,
• enforcement of environmental standards, and
• to enhance the efficiency and quality of data collection,
And, they likewise suffer from the same problems and limitations:
• oversimplification,
• subjectiveness, both in the assumed representativeness of chosen indicators and in thenumerical valuation and weightings associated with indices,
• a loss of information,
• the potential for misuse,
• inadequate understanding of the underlying cause-effect relationships, and
• the obscuring of important conditions and trends in the individual, aggregate data-sets.
Indices, because they attempt to convert data in different form to simple scales, intensify theproblems of loss of information, oversimplification, subjectivity and the masking of importantrelationships in underlying data. Very simple environmental indices have been developed withindiscrete sectors (i.e. air and water quality indices) and substantial research has been carried outon “composite environmental indices” that might allow aggregated, multi-sectoral environmentalratings. Most researchers have concluded that the development of composite indices that mightbe applied to real, practical decision-making are more than a decade away, however, new databases should, at least, anticipate their eventual development and application.
Page 8 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
2.4. The Pressure-State-Impact-Response Framework for theSelection of Environmental Indicators
Nearly all environmental inventory and monitoring initiatives involve the use of indicators of oneform or another. Ideally, indicators should be selected that directly reflect the health or conditionof the environment, however, this may not always be possible or practical. Proxy parametersthat are often easier to measure can sometimes be found through application of the “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” (PSIR) Model (Harvard University 1995). This model assumes that thestate of the environment can be linked to socio-economic influences: i.e. that human activitiesimpose pressures on the environment but because humans are also dependent on theenvironment, the resulting environmental change can cause impacts on humans and theirvalued ecosystems that in turn require a management response. The major implication of thismodel to the selection of indicators is that it may be easier to measure pressure, impact orresponse parameters than actual environmental condition, providing that the pressure-state-impact-response relationship is well understood. Simple examples of the PSIR relationship areshown in Table 1.
Table 1: Examples of “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” Relationship
EnvironmentalIssue
Pressure State Impact Management Response
Ground water useand quality
• Waterwithdrawalexceedsrecharge
• Aquiferdepletion
• Drying wellsand watershortages
• Increased water useefficiency
• Licensing and fees• Provision of alternate
sourcesSalmonid habitat • Surface water
withdrawals• Disturbance to
streams andriparian areas
• Destruction ordegradation ofspawning andrearing habitat
• Decreasedaquaticproductivity
• Decreasedreturns ofmature fish
• Decreasedsurvival andout-migration ofjuvenile fish
• Fish habitatrestoration
• Stock rehabilitation• Stream and riparian
protection regulations• In-stream flow
requirements
Critical lands (steepslopes, fragile soils,etc)
• Increasedlogging, landdisturbanceand roadbuilding onsteep slopes
• Increased soilerosion, landinstability andstreamsedimentation
• Water qualitydegradation.
• Hydrologicdisruption.
• Aquatic habitatdegradation
• Greater regulation ofhuman activity oncritical lands
• Watershed and fishhabitat rehabilitation
The major problem in the application of the PSIR model to the selection of indicators is that therelationship may not be as straight-forward or direct as it appears (in the table above undersalmonid habitat, for example, decreased returns of mature fish and survival of juveniles may bedue to influences in the open ocean or to climate change as well as habitat degradation). If aparticular indicator is to be really useful as a monitoring tool it must be truly representative of thesystem being monitored and there must be adequate understanding of the PSIR relationship. It
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 9
must always be kept in mind in drawing judgements and interpretations that, however wellchosen, indicators are merely an assumed model of reality, not reality itself.
2.5. The Relationship between Research, Inventory andMonitoring
It is important not to confuse monitoring with two closely related activities: research andinventory.
Research is the most intensive and expensive level of data collection, carried out on relativelysmall areas to achieve a better understanding of complex relationships with the hope that suchunderstanding can be extrapolated to much larger areas.
Inventory is an enumeration of an ecological system; generally carried out either to provide abasis for estimating potential yield or to establish a baseline. “Time-series” information may bederived from both research and inventory, but only if the research is sufficiently long-term andthe inventory is repeated. In both cases this is a very expensive way to derive such information.Additionally, the site-specific level at which research is carried out makes it difficult to aggregateand generalize information, and inventory methods often change, making it difficult orimpossible to compare the results of successive inventories. Well-conceived monitoring isalways the most practical, pragmatic and least-costly method of deriving time-series information,and has the most direct link to management. The relationship between the three activities isillustrated in the following figure:
RESEARCH �---------------� INVENTORY �----------------� MONITORING
����------------------------ increasing cost per unit area -------------------------------------------------------------- increasing use of selected indicators ----------------------------------- ����
------------- increasing direct influence on management activities -------------------- ����
����-------------increasing spatial intensity of data collection --------------------------------����---------------- increasing complexity of data collection -------------------------------
In summary, research can provide a better understanding of cause and effect and the PSIRrelationship; inventory provides a baseline or “snapshot in time” and a basis for selectingindicators for long-term monitoring; and monitoring relies on research and inventory results toprovide relatively cheap and simple means of measuring trends and change in environmentalcondition over time.
Page 10 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
2.6. Principles of Environmental Monitoring
However monitoring information is interpreted and presented for strategic policy and programdevelopment, the basic information must be collected through monitoring programs that conformto a number of principles:
• monitoring must have a focus or context, i.e. priority issues, predicted impacts;
• management objectives, management plans, environmental standards etc;
• monitoring must be formalized and statistically replicatable, with standards for samplingand reporting, defined responsibilities, and firm schedules;
• monitoring should focus on trends and change in environmental quality rather than oncomprehensive description, linking (at least in an inferred way) present condition both topast quality and a desired future state;
• monitoring programs must be both feasible and affordable; and
• wherever possible, monitoring indicators should provide linkages between theenvironment and socio-economic development.
2.7. Linking Environmental Monitoring to Social and EconomicMonitoring
Sustainable development may be described as a development strategy, characterized byprudence and vision, in which social, environmental and economic objectives are balanced toproduce a community of lasting quality, harmony and prosperity. If that balance is to beachieved, it is vital that monitoring programs of social, environmental and economic condition belinked, and integrated at the points of linkage. As noted above, the PSIR model offers a meansof developing these linkages, particularly in the important relationships between environmentalhealth and public health and between environmental quality and economic activity. Table 2provides simple hypothetical examples of these linkages (see Table 1 for additional examples).
Table 2: Linking Environmental, Social and Economic Monitoring Using the PSIRFramework
EnvironmentalIssue
Pressure State Impact Management Response
Eco-tourism andback-countryrecreation
• Increasingintensity ofrecreational use
• Site damageto soil andvegetation
• Wildlifepopulationsunder stress
• Decreasedrecreationalquality
• Decreasedeconomicopportunity
• Increasedwildlife/humaninteractions
• Loss ofbiodiversity
• Determination of carryingcapacity.
• Limitations on visitor use• Introduction of recreational
tenures with conditions• Provision of facilities and
infrastructure to distributeuse and reduce damage
• Zoning and timing restrictions
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 11
EnvironmentalIssue
Pressure State Impact Management Response
Woodproduction
• Woodharvestingandprocessingcapacityexceedssustainableyields
• Deforestationand forestdegradation
• Declining woodproduction andemployment.
• Loss of forestfunction andbiodiversity
• Rationalize wood processingindustry
• Economic transitionstrategies for forest-dependent communities
• Intensive plantation forestryon degraded forest lands
Air Quality • Increasingairemissionsfromregulatedand non-regulatedsources
• Degrading airquality (i.e.ozone andrespirableparticulates)
• Increasingincidence ofrespiratorydisease (P.M. 2.5and ozone)
• Vegetation(natural andagricultural)damage (ozone)
• Airshed planning.• More stringent emission
standards• Burning bans.• Improved public transport• Fuel and vehicle taxes• Air quality alerts
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 13
33.. TTHHEE LLEEGGIISSLLAATTIIVVEE,, PPOOLLIICCYY AANNDD IINNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALLCCOONNTTEEXXTT FFOORR EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG IINNBBRRIITTIISSHH CCOOLLUUMMBBIIAA
3.1. “Business Drivers” for Environmental Monitoring
A new legislative initiative, that may have a more comprehensive impact on effectivenessmonitoring programs than any existing legal instrument, is the “Budget Transparency andAccountability Act” (July 6, 2000). The Act requires every “ministry and governmentorganization” to:
1) prepare an annual performance plan, which shall be made public, for the fiscal yearand the following two fiscal years, such plans to include a statement of goals,specific objectives and performance measures; and
2) prepare annual performance reports, which shall be made public, comparing actualresults for the preceding fiscal year with the expected results identified in that year’sperformance plan.
All Ministries are in the process of developing the performance measures required under theAct. For environmental and natural resource agencies, performance measures will essentiallyconsist of environmental effectiveness monitoring indicators.
Beyond the requirements arising out of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act,“business drivers” for environmental monitoring include such diverse instruments as:
• specific acts and regulations (including licences and permits that are issued under an actor regulation and that require environmental monitoring at a site level);
• international and national conventions and protocols;
• policy and program plans;
• strategic inter-agency planning programs;
• regional and sub-regional inter-agency planning processes; and
• local and operational plans.
These can be categorized as monitoring initiatives that are either:
1) explicitly required by legislation;
2) implicitly required by legislation;
3) required for policy or program development; or
4) required for planning processes.
Page 14 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Currently in BC, aside from Budget Transparency and Accountability Act requirements, no land /resource statutes “explicitly require” environmental monitoring, although there are a fewpotential exceptions presently under consideration. For example, it is expected that changes toprotected area legislation will result in a legislated obligation for regular reporting by MELP onthe state of BC’s parks. This will require MELP to obtain access to various environmentalinformation on ecosystem conditions in protected areas. It can be assumed that this mandatedrequirement will lead to some form of time-series monitoring of ecological integrity in BC’sprotected areas. Similarly, it is expected that the proposed new BC Commissioner ofEnvironment and Sustainability will be empowered by law to report periodically on BC’senvironmental performance and condition. This will require the Commissioner, (as a user ofmonitoring information, not a generator of it) to obtain access to environmental monitoringinformation, most likely from line agencies. This may or may not result in an increased level ofenvironmental monitoring in those line agencies.
Environmental monitoring is “implicitly required” by a few statutes that identify particular goals orobjectives in the statutes themselves. For example, the Forest Practices Code of BritishColumbia Act, the Growth Strategies Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act containvarious goals or objectives respecting future environmental conditions that the legislation aimsto achieve. There is an implied expectation that time-series monitoring would occur to assessthe extent to which these stated goals and objectives are being achieved; however, there is nospecific requirement imposed on the responsible agencies to actually perform any monitoring,interpretation or reporting on goals achievement.
By far the greatest amount of environmental monitoring that presently occurs in BC is driven byagencies’ individual needs for information to support their policy, programming, or planningfunctions and responsibilities. The consequence of having very few formalized (i.e., legislated)drivers for the ongoing collection of monitoring information is that environmental monitoringproposals have a hard time to compete with other spending priorities. If no requirements forlong-term monitoring programs are imposed on budgeting decision-makers, it is very easy forenvironmental monitoring programs to succumb to other spending obligations and priorities.The lack of formalized business drivers for environmental monitoring is likely a main reasonbehind the past and current limited availability of good, time-series environmental monitoringinformation in BC. Although there is recently increased interest in and commitment to greaterinvestment into monitoring programs that can generate good time-series environmentalmonitoring (e.g., vegetation change inventory and monitoring initiative), it remains to be seen ifthese programs can be sustained over the long-run without a more formalized foundation.
3.2. Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring
Agencies interviewed for this study, either as environmental data users or providers, can becategorized as follows in terms of their involvement in environmental monitoring, as shown inTable 3.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 15
Table 3: Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring in BC
CATEGORY AGENCIES
Data provider that isindependent of a resourcemanagement function
• Geographic Data B.C. (MELP)
Data provider that is part of amanagement agency
• Resource Inventory Branch (MELP)• Resource Inventory Branch (MOFor)• Information Services Branch (MOFi)• Information Provision Branch (MOAA) (also an information user / analyst)
Management agency with itsown data collection capacity
• Air Resources Branch (MELP)• Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch (MELP)• Wildlife Branch (MELP)• Parks and Ecological Reserves Management Branch (MELP)• Crown Lands Branch (MELP)• Water Management Branch (MELP)• Public Health Protection Branch (MOH)
Management agency with anassociated data provider.
• Habitat Branch (MELP)• Fisheries Management Branch (MOFi)• Forest Practices Branch (MOFor)• Strategic Planning and Policy Branch (MOFor)• Timber Supply Branch (MOFor)• Implementation Branch (MOAA)
Agency with trend analysis /reporting responsibilities
• Corporate Policy Branch (MELP)• Forest Practices Branch (MOFor)• Inter-agency Management Committees (Land Use Coordination Office)• Commissioner of Environment and Sustainability (Auditor General)
Management agencies withno associated data provider(rely on secondary data)
• Tourism Policy and Land Use Branch (MSBTC)• Green Economy Secretariat• Growth Strategies Office (MMA)• Environmental Assessment Office• Fisheries Renewal B.C.• Risk Assessment and Toxicology Branch (MOH)• Implementation Branch (MOAA)
Agencies that fund inventoryand monitoring initiatives
• Forest Renewal BC• LUCO• MAA
MELP = Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks MOFor = Ministry of ForestsMOFi = Ministry of Fisheries MOH = Ministry of HealthMSBTC = Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture MAA = Ministry of Aboriginal AffairsMMA = Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Page 16 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
All of the agencies interviewed for this study have their own unique needs, however, a numberof generalizations can be made on the basis of the different types of organizations reflected inthe table above:
1) a diverse array of agencies want to access environmental monitoring data in oneform or another;
2) many organizations have no forum in which to express their monitoring informationneeds, or access to funds that would allow them to “influence” data collectors;
3) several agencies are requesting information that may not have been collected to suittheir particular needs;
4) some agencies lack a technical information group to assist in data management andinterpretation and, conversely, others (i.e., data providers) lack the business caseexpertise to develop monitoring products;
5) there is no corporate or inter-agency body (as there currently is for inventory —LIICC / RIC) to champion, integrate and coordinate environmental monitoringinitiatives for the province.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 17
44.. TTHHEE GGEENNEERRAATTIIOONN OOFF EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALLIINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN IINN BBRRIITTIISSHH CCOOLLUUMMBBIIAA
This chapter describes existing or proposed environmental monitoring initiatives that producetime-series environmental information that may be used for various purposes, including:strategic / program planning; environmental and sustainability trends interpretation andreporting; and assessing the effectiveness of programs, policies, plans, etc. in achieving theirunderlying objectives. Also described here are selected inventory initiatives where it wasapparent from study interviews that inventory information will be used as a monitoring baseline.
Monitoring initiatives are organized in four categories: atmospheric resources, aquaticresources, terrestrial resources, and cross-sectoral land use / land condition monitoringinitiatives. Within each of these categories, information is provided on business drivers,indicators within the PSIR framework for which monitoring information is / will be available,sources of monitoring information, primary users of the monitoring information, and primary datadeficiencies and needs. At the end of the chapter, a summary is provided of the status ofprovincial monitoring initiatives. (See chapter 5 for a detailed look at agencies’ informationrequirements as derived from the specific environmental indicators that agencies wish to trackover time.)
4.1. Atmospheric Environmental Monitoring
Business Drivers
Current atmospheric monitoring initiatives focus primarily on two environmental issues: airquality and public health; and global climate change.
Air quality monitoring is not specifically required by legislation but is necessary to provide acontext for air emission standards in permits issued under the authority of the WasteManagement Act. Air quality monitoring is further driven by the National Air PollutionSurveillance (NAPS) program for urban air quality, the need to demonstrate compliancewith the Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for ozone and suspended particulates, and theneed to provide information to the public on serious air quality episodes and in the eventof environmental emergencies.
Climate change monitoring is driven by Canada’s commitment to greenhouse gasreductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Monitoring responsibilities are shared with theGovernment of Canada, with the province’s responsibilities now detailed in a three-year“Climate Change Business Plan”. Meteorological monitoring, carried out in conjunctionwith air quality monitoring, supports activities to address both issues: providinginformation for pollutant dispersion modelling and regional / local airshed management;and long-term climatic records to monitor changes.
Page 18 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Indicators
Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following types ofatmospheric resource indicators. See Appendix 4 for a more detailed description of indicatorsand associated environmental information requirements.
Issue PressureIndicators
ConditionIndicators
Impact Indicators Response Indicators
Air Quality • Emissionsourceinventory
• Compliancerecords
• Dispersionmodels
• Ambient airqualitymonitoringnetwork
• (P.M. 10, P.M.2.5, ozone, CO,NOx, SO2,TRS).
• Meteorologicalmonitoringnetwork
• Public health statisticson morbidity andmortality fromrespiratory diseases
• Frequency anddistribution of air qualityalerts
• Number and extent ofairshed plans
ClimateChange
• Inventory ofgreenhousegas emissionsources andamounts
• Dynamics ofcarbon sinksandsequestrationin natural andagriculturalsystems
• Long-termclimatology andmeteorologymonitoring andmodeling
• Ecological monitoring(i.e. extent of snow andice fields, frequency ofnatural wildfires,frequency of stress-related forest insect anddisease attack, changesin fish speciescomposition andabundance)
• Economic monitoring(i.e. frequency andextent of economiclosses due to extremeclimatic events)
• Implementation of theB.C. Climate ChangeBusiness Plan (i.e.energy and industry,transportation,communities andbuildings and forestsand agriculture, andsupporting actionstrategies)
Sources of Information
Air quality and meteorological monitoring information is collected and managed by MELP and bythe Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). GVRD currently has the highest density of airquality monitoring stations in the province. Outside GVRD, air quality stations are eitheroperated directly by MELP (34 sites), by industrial operations operating under wastemanagement permits (44 sites) or in partnership (6 sites). Of these, 42 sites also provide astandard range of meteorological data. Information from all sources is stored in a separate datamanagement system maintained by the Air Management Branch of MELP. Additionalmeteorological information for B.C. is available from the federal network maintained byEnvironment Canada.
Greenhouse gas inventories are currently estimated by Environment Canada with informationprovided by MELP, Statistics Canada and industrial partners.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 19
Primary Information Users
Air Quality: MELP (Headquarters and regions), GVRD, Risk Assessment and ToxicologyBranch (MOH), Regional Medical Health Officers, Environment Canada.
Climate Change: MELP, MEM, MEI, MOA, MOFor, MOFi, MOH, MOMA, MOTH, MCDCV,MFCR, Green Economy Secretariat, BC Hydro, BCBC, Crown Corporations Secretariat,Purchasing Commission, GVRD, BCTFA. (All contributing agencies to the B.C. ClimateChange Business Plan).
Data Deficiencies and Needs
Air Quality: Data deficiencies identified by MELP and MOH relate to both the amount andtype of information collected. Current geographic distribution of monitoring stations isinadequate, particularly in the interior of the province. Monitors are provided by thefederal government under NAPS but operational and maintenance costs must be borneby MELP, GVRD and industrial partners. This leads to anomalies such as nomonitoring in some interior communities (because of limited MELP funding) and threetimes the number of stations in Prince George where financial support comes fromindustry.
In terms of the types of information available: PM10 is relatively good; PM2.5 is veryscarce and represents the most important current data deficiency; ozone information isvery sparse with not nearly enough stations at a time when research is indicating thatozone is second only to suspended particulates in terms of public health concerns; andthere is little or no monitoring of toxics and acid deposition. Health science information(and thus the information medical health officers would like) is progressing faster thanmonitoring technology and design, particularly in the areas of the effects of differentsizes of pollutant particles (it is not possible, for example, to sample for both fine andcoarse respirable particulates with one monitor) and the synergistic effects of differentpollutants. MOH and MELP are currently cooperating on studies to provide: 1) up-to-date summaries of scientific information on the relationship between common airpollutants (both individually and in mixtures) and human health, and 2) risk assessmentmethods that have been or could be used to estimate impacts of air pollution on humanhealth. These studies would be used to up-grade monitoring techniques and abatementpriorities.
Global Climate Change: Monitoring associated with global climate change is currently invery rapid development and change. The Climate Change Business Plan calls forimprovements to monitoring in three areas. First, the province will work with the federalgovernment and industry to improve the accuracy of greenhouse gas inventories.Second, MOFor will work to develop a forest carbon accounting framework and forestcarbon budget modelling, and MOFor/MAF will develop programs to monitor carbonsequestration and release in forest and agricultural soils. Third, the Corporate PolicyBranch of MELP in cooperation with other agencies has initiated a contract to determinerelevant ecological and economic indicators of climate change for long-term monitoring.
Page 20 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
4.2. Terrestrial Environment Monitoring
Business Drivers
Terrestrial environment monitoring involves the generation of time-series data for soils,vegetation and wildlife and wildlife habitat resources.
Soil Resources: BC currently has no specific, comprehensive program to monitor thecondition of the provincial soils resource (e.g., amount of erosion, organic content, soilmoisture, etc.), although MOF’s Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative(driven by the National Forest Inventory initiative) should include some site-level, time-series monitoring of selected forest soils attributes. In addition, some local / regionalinformation (e.g., Kamloops forest region) may be available, for example, on turbiditylevels which would be an indication of soil erosion. As well, some time-series data isavailable that enables an interpretation of soils condition, vis a vis certain land useactivities (primarily forestry). For example, existing time-series information on the areaof land that has been subject to timber harvesting, or the length of new forestry roadsconstructed, enables inferences to be drawn about soil condition.
The business drivers for collecting this sort of data are based primarily in agencies’administrative / management programs – there is no direct legal drivers that explicitlyrequire agencies to monitor soil condition (other than what might occur at the site /tenure level where soil / erosion control may be an explicit permit condition that requiressome site-level monitoring for the life of the permit / tenure). There are, however,implicit requirements in certain statutes that may serve as business drivers for soilmonitoring initiatives. In particular, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Actand Code regulations and guidelines would suggest a need to track soil condition overtime. Also, if a higher level plan is adopted under the code that makes reference to soilsmanagement, then there is an implied requirement for soils monitoring, although thiswould likely occur through the strategic land use plan (LRMP) effectiveness monitoringprogram. Operational planning under the Code requires forest planners to considersoils information (terrain stability / hazard mapping) but monitoring of soils per se is nota requirement of operational planning.
A further, recent potential business driver for soils monitoring (and other environmentalresources) are the environmental goals defined in the Growth Strategies Act, nowincorporated into the new municipal act (Local Government Act), the Islands Trust Act,the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and the Vancouver Charter. These statutes nowrequire local government planning to accommodate provincial goals of protectingenvironmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the integrity of the resource base, andreducing and preventing air, land and water pollution. Again, although there is noexplicit requirement in this for soil, air, water, etc. monitoring, there certainly is animplied requirement.
Finally, with respect to business drivers for soils, legislation does exist to regulatecontaminated sites, and this involves record-keeping on the number and location ofcontaminated sites in BC. It should be possible to produce time-series information on
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 21
contaminated sites from this information to satisfy the legislation’s implied need toassess program effectiveness in controlling soils contamination.
Vegetation Resources: As noted above, program has been recently initiated to monitorchange in vegetation resources condition – the “Change Inventory and Monitoring ofVegetation Resources” initiative. This is in addition to standard MOF vegetationresources inventory, from which some limited time-series information on vegetationcondition may be derived.
The Change Inventory and Monitoring initiative is driven primarily out of the businessneed to provide data to meet National Forest Inventory (NFI) goals that are aimed,among other things, at supporting the Canadian Council of Forest Minister’s (CCFM)commitment to produce national level reports on the status and trends of thesustainable forest management (SFM). This monitoring initiative is also beingundertaken to contribute to in-province programs such as timber supply analysis, forestcertification and provincial State of the Forests reporting, which are important businessdrivers in their own right. Data from this program should also be able to supportassessments of the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code in achieving thesustainable forest use goals that underlie the Code, as expressed in the ForestPractices Code of British Columbia Act preamble (e.g., “conserving biological diversity,soil, water, fish, wildlife, scenic diversity and other forest resources; restoring damagedecologies”). At present, no provincial organization is directly assessing the variousaspects of the Code (e.g., biodiversity guidebook old forest retention percentages,identified wildlife conservation strategies, riparian buffer standards, watershedassessment provisions designed to protect soil / water resources, etc.) in terms of theextent to which these provisions are achieving the Code’s basic goals. The ForestPractices Board, however, reports that it is considering identifying performanceindicators that would be used for this purpose.
Wildlife Resources: Although various wildlife inventory data is available for BC, there isrelatively limited time-series monitoring data on wildlife populations and habitats.Perhaps the most comprehensive information on wildlife condition is held by MELP’sConservation Data Centre which retains information on rare, threatened andendangered species. Collecting this information is driven out of MELP’s wildlifemanagement program needs, and to contribute to national level information that, in turn,is collected to meet Canada’s international biodiversity convention obligations.
Time-series information on wildlife habitat availability will eventually be available throughthe Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative (see above) – i.e., forestcover by species, forest age, etc. – and some strategic-level habitat monitoringinformation (i.e., changes in broad vegetative patterns) can be derived from MELP’sbaseline thematic mapping (BTM) initiative. The BTM program has been primarilydriven out of a need to serve strategic land use planning requirements.
Population trends information is available for certain bird species as a result of historicand current surveys that are done by and in cooperation with the Canadian WildlifeService (e.g., breeding bird, migratory bird surveys). Internal and international resourceconservation priorities are the primary business drivers for the collection of thismonitoring information.
Page 22 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Again, the above-noted new Local Government Act is another potential implicit businessdriver for wildlife and wildlife habitat resources monitoring. Non-legislative businessdrivers include forest certification and the various trends interpretation / effectivenessmonitoring initiatives.
Indicators
Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following terrestrial resourceindicators. See Appendix 4 for a detailed description of indicators and associatedenvironmental information requirements.
Issue Pressure Indicators Condition Indicators Impact Indicators ResponseIndicators
Soils • road density• harvesting or road
building activity onsteep slopes orunstable terrain
• number anddistribution oflandslides
• number anddistribution ofcontaminated sites
• soil fertility (organicmatter, nitrogen andphosphorus content,etc.)
• number anddistribution of landslides anderosionallandscapes
• number anddistribution ofwatershedrehabilitationprojects
• number anddistribution ofcontaminatedsites remediationprojects
Vegetation • area / volumeharvested (byvarious silviculturesystems)
• area and distributionof forest types (bybiogeoclimatic zoneand ecoregion)
• age class / seralstage distribution
• patch / gapdistribution
• total biomass levels• rate / volume of
forest growth• timber harvesting
land base vs areamanaged forprotective functions
• forest health (areaand distribution ofdiseased forest)
• distribution andaerial extent ofdegraded andconvertedterrestrialecosystems
• area / distribution offorest vegetationdisturbed
• number anddistribution of plantspecies at risk
• number anddistribution ofvegetationrestorationprojects
• numbers ofplans,designations,etc. to protectsensitivevegetativeresources
Wildlife • wildlife harvest(hunting andtrapping)
• population statusand trends forselected species
• number anddistribution ofanimal species atrisk
• change inpopulation levelsfor selectedspecies (e.g., birds,amphibians,mammals)
• nature anddistribution ofharvestrestrictions
• number ofspeciesclassified as “atrisk” / “identifiedwildlife”
WildlifeHabitat
• habitat degradation(changes tostructural and spatialdiversity)
• distribution andtrends in habitatavailability forselected wildlife
• trends in thehistorical range ofselected species
• area anddistribution ofadministrativewildlife habitat
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 23
Issue Pressure Indicators Condition Indicators Impact Indicators ResponseIndicators
• destruction of“keystone” habitatfeatures (wetlands,old growth,grasslands, nestsites, mineral licks,hibernacula, etc.)
• habitat fragmentation(road density)
designations(e.g., ungulatewinter range,wildlife habitatareas, sensitiveecosystems)
Sources of Information
Soil Resources: No comprehensive monitoring information is presently being collected onthe condition of the province’s soil resources. Soil and surficial geology surveys havebeen carried out in many areas of the province, but there is no reliable, time-seriesinformation on change to the condition / quality of either forest or agricultural soils. TheVegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative (see below) is expected toprovide time series measurements on some selected soil indicators. The PollutionPrevention and Remediation Branch, MELP maintains a comprehensive register ofcontaminated sites in the province.
Vegetation Resources: Forest type maps (focusing on commercial timber species) havebeen maintained by the Ministry of Forests for many years. Terrestrial ecosystem maps(TEM) and predictive ecosystem maps (PEM) have been produced by the ResourceInventory Branch of MELP. A proposed new initiative is the provincial participation inthe national forestry database program which is expected to begin to soon generatetime-series information. — the Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring initiativeinvolves measuring the condition of various forest attributes at 2,400 permanent, 2 kmby 2 km, air photo assessment plots on a 20 km grid covering the province. Existing GISdata will be assigned to the photo assessment plots (e.g., TRIM, BEC). Re-measurement will occur every 10 years to detect change in forest condition within theplots and this sample information will then be extrapolated to define forest conditionsmore broadly throughout the province. Data derived from the air photo plots is intendedto address up to 30 of the CCFM criteria and indicators for SFM.
To obtain stand-level information that cannot be generated from the air photo plots, over300 fixed ground sample plots (0.4 ha in size) will be established to measure fullvegetation resources inventory attributes such as vegetative species, tree height, decay,coarse woody debris, etc. This level of monitoring, repeated every five years, willproduce information that will enable reporting on an additional five CCFM indicators.This monitoring data will also be used in provincial growth and yield monitoring, which isused ultimately for AAC determination purposes.
Wildlife Resources: The Wildlife Branch, MELP has historic population information on alarge number of wildlife species derived from both regular and irregular wildlife surveys.The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) maintains similar records for migratory birds andmarine mammals. The Conservation Data Centre, MELP is part of a national and
Page 24 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
international network. It accepts and utilizes data from MELP, CWS and any otherverifiable sources to assess population status for a whole array of species, andproduces regular assessments of the status of red and blue listed species.
Terrestrial Habitat: Historic habitat capability maps are available from MELP, primarily forungulate winter ranges. Terrestrial and predictive ecosystem maps (TEM and PEM) areavailable from MELP and are used to make interpretations on habitat capability andpresent condition for a broad array of species. The “Identified Wildlife Strategy” underthe Forest Practices Code delineates important habitat areas for red and blue listedanimals, vascular planTs and plant communities. Several initiatives have beencompleted or are underway to identify “sensitive ecosystems” in relation to localgovernment planning. The east coast of Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, andGreater Vancouver Regional District have been completed, and an inventory of theSunshine Coast is now underway. These sensitive ecosystem inventories will providetemplates for private lands in the rest of the province. All of these habitat inventoriestaken together may provide a baseline for long-term monitoring of terrestrial habitat, butthey do not represent time-series monitoring initiatives per se.
Primary Information Users
Primary users of terrestrial environmental information will be MELP program managers (Water,Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks), MOH, MOFi, MOF, MEM, MMA, FiRBC, ForBC,EC, DFO, Local government, and a wide array of industrial operations.
With respect to the Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative, the resultantinformation will be used primarily to construct national and provincial-level reports on the stateof Canada’s / BC’s forests (using CCFM criteria and indicators, and BC State of the Forestsindicators frameworks). This monitoring information may potentially also be used by a numberof other potential users for various applications, including:
• other provincial-level reporting initiatives (e.g., Environmental Trends, LRMP andlandscape unit plan effectiveness monitoring);
• land use planning initiatives to describe the planning base-case and to assess optionalland use scenarios;
• FRBC to assess the effectiveness of their investments in achieving their goals toincrease forest productivity;
• the Forest Practices Board to assess the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code inachieving it’s stated aims;
• the Ministry of Forests and the Chief Forester to improve the quality of AACdeterminations.
• forest companies and forest certification auditors in assessing forest managementperformance in relation to forest certification standards, and
• BC’s model forest boards in assessing the condition of their forests in relation to local-level SFM criteria and indicators that they have identified for their forests.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 25
Data Deficiencies and Needs
Soil Resources: The Ministry of Agriculture and Food identified a need for government tomonitor the amount of carbon sequestration in soils (agricultural and forest soils) inorder to assess the degree of Canada’s contribution to the Kyoto protocol. Although thisMinistry would like to be able to monitor the organic and nutrient content of agriculturalsoils in order to better understand the effectiveness of programs / initiatives to improveor maintain soil quality, there are currently no programs in place to provide such data.Monitoring data should be available in future for forest soils through the VegetationChange Inventory and Monitoring Initiative. “Pressure” and “impact” information relatingto soil erosion and landscape instability may be available from BTM thematic mappingproduced by Geographic Data BC.
The Ministry of Forests, as part of the State of the Forests reporting initiative, hasindicated a need for monitoring information on the percentage of harvested areas withsignificant soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling and loss of organic matter.There is also interest in monitoring the area and distribution of soil restoration activity.Given that time-series measurements of forest soils condition is an element of theCCFM criteria and indicators for SFM, these MOF information needs should eventuallybecome available through the MOF / National Forestry Database “Change Inventoryand Monitoring Initiative for Vegetation Resources”.
Vegetation Resources: Forest type maps focus primarily on commercial timber species, areof uncertain reliability in some locations and are lacking in some locations (e.g., olderprotected areas). As well, forest inventories have been incrementally upgraded overtime, thus losing the capability of providing trends in vegetation change over time.Terrestrial and predictive ecosystem (the distinction relates to the greater amount ofground-truthing TEM mapping) mapping by MELP is much more ecologically relevant,but currently covers only 25% of the province and is useful as a baseline only.Complete provincial coverage and some time-series information on the general spatialdistribution / patterns of broad forest age classes within ecoregions is available throughthe BTM and Watersheds BC initiatives. This monitoring source is potentially veryuseful for provincial or regional level assessments of vegetative condition; there are,however, limitations on the level of detail that is appropriately interpreted form thismonitoring information given that it is derived primarily from satellite imagery. As well,although BTM coverage exists for all of the province (1992-98 data), a second “pass” isonly approximately 20% complete, and this limits the ability to interpret time-serieschange.
The currently-being-developed “Change Inventory and Monitoring Program forVegetation Resources” should, in future, be able to produce solid monitoring informationfor a variety of indicators of forest vegetation condition, both at the broad level ofmeasuring spatial patterns, and at the stand level of measuring structuralcharacteristics. This initiative may potentially also provide information on non-commercial species for which information has been historically limited. The ability touse this monitoring data may have some limitations, however, when it comes toreporting on all indicators of interest. For example, accurate provincial-levelmeasurements of forest cover distribution by BEC variant, or forest cover distribution in
Page 26 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
protected areas (both of which are proposed State of the Forest monitoring indicators)may be limited on account of the non-random grid pattern of monitoring measurements.
Finally, some non-spatial information on vegetation resources (e.g., harvestablevolumes) are available from MOF analyses that are conducted on a five year cycle fortimber supply review planning purposes. This information may be valuable formeasuring or verifying certain indicators of interest for province-wide state of forestsreporting purposes.
Wildlife Resources: Historic wildlife surveys, whether by MELP or CWS, are difficult tointerpret as trend information, except over very long time periods, because the numberof animals counted at any time is primarily dependent on conditions (i.e., weather) at thetime of the survey. Relatively little data compiled by the Conservation Data Centre istrue “time-series” information; most is from single-point-in-time inventories which, inaggregate, are used to assess trends. CDC information is not yet really monitoringdata, but can be used to develop indicators and monitoring programs. Time-seriesinformation for measuring pressure and response indicators for wildlife resources aregenerally available from MELP administrative records.
4.3. Aquatic Environment Monitoring
Water Quantity: The primary drivers of water quantity monitoring are:
1) the need to provide a context for water allocation decisions under the Water Act andwaste discharge permitting under the Waste Management Act;
2) estimation of in-stream flow requirements for fish and other aquatic resources;
3) annual flood forecasting and local government flood prevention zoning; and
4) hydrologic design information for infrastructure, industrial and residential facilities.
Water Quality: The principle drivers for water quality monitoring are:
1) drinking water safety (i.e. standards related to regulated water utilities, water qualityobjectives for community watersheds relating to provisions under the ForestPractices Code Act, and water quality of domestic wells); and
2) the need to provide a context for industrial and municipal waste discharges in termsof guidelines and objectives for designated water uses (drinking, recreation,irrigation, livestock watering, aquatic life and wildlife). An informal driver in relation todrinking water quality was the 1999 Auditor General’s report that was very critical ofthe provincial government’s efforts to ensure drinking water safety.
Fisheries: The primary driver for fish stock and habitat quality monitoring is the FisheriesAct (Canada) and a Ministerial memorandum of understanding by which the federalgovernment has delegated the management of sports-fish to the province. A recently-established Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has the responsibility toreport publicly to the two levels of government on stock status and habitat quality on the
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 27
basis of inventory and monitoring information provided by MOFi and Fisheries andOceans Canada. Secondary legal drivers are the International Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the federal legislation protecting species at risk (if passed) and the provincialWildlife Act in relation to non-commercial and non-sport fish. Two major initiativesfunding fisheries rehabilitation - Fisheries Renewal BC and a new provincial proposal forWatershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning (WFSP) will also generate significantdemand for monitoring information.
Aquatic Habitat: Until recently, aquatic habitat inventory and monitoring has been primarilyfisheries-focused. The new provincial Fish Protection Act, however, places increasedemphasis on aquatic habitat and is thus likely to generate special monitoringrequirements on designated “sensitive streams”. Some water bird and aquatic mammalhabitat inventories have been carried out to meet federal Migratory Bird Convention Actand provincial wildlife program requirements. The international biodiversity conventionand the proposed federal species-at-risk legislation may stimulate a more holisticapproach to aquatic habitat inventories and monitoring.
Indicators
Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators ResponseIndicators
WaterQuantity
• number andvolume of waterlicences andlicence applications
• number anddistribution ofrequests forhydrological designinformation
• hydrometric network• snow survey network
• frequency, extentand distribution ofeconomic lossesdue to hydrologicalevents
• number andextent of waterallocation plans
WaterQuality
• number, quality andcompliance recordsof point-sourcedischarges
• land area occupiedby uses withpotential waterquality impacts
• surface water andgroundwater qualitymonitoring network(dissolved solids,hardness, traceelements, chlorophylla, nutrients, nitrate,pH, sediments, fecalcoliforms, cyanide,AOX, temperature,dissolved gases anddissolved oxygen)
• drinking water qualitymonitoring ofregulated utilities(microbiology,protozoans, metals,major ions, nitrate)
• public healthstatistics onfrequency anddistribution of water-borne disease
• frequency anddistribution of“boil water”advisories
• number anddistribution ofcommunitywatershed plans
Fisheries • fish harvestinformation
• population status andtrends foranadromous, sport,non-commercial andat-risk species
• population declines• declines in fisher
effort, total catchand catch/unit effort
• number anddistribution ofstock recoveryprograms
Page 28 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators ResponseIndicators
Aquatichabitat
• watershed stability(land use, landcover, road andstream crossingdensities andhydrologicalcharacteristics)
• productivity andbiodiversity indicatorsfor aquatic andriparian ecosystems
• fish habitat inventories• length of streams by
watershed• length of known
salmon / sportfish /other fish streams
• lengths of streamswith gradient<20%
• extent, distributionand trends inriparian and aquaticecosystemdegradation
• number anddistribution ofwatershed,stream and fishhabitatrehabilitationprojects
Sources of Information
Water Quantity: Hydrometric information for the province currently comes from a network ofapproximately 490 stations (down from over 600 five years ago). Stations are operatedby MELP, EC, B.C. Hydro, local governments and industrial operations, with data storedand managed by Resource Inventory Branch, MELP.
Water Quality: Water quality information is available from two primary sources: generalenvironmental monitoring programs; and drinking water utility monitoring. Generalenvironmental monitoring includes:
1) a long-term federal / provincial monitoring agreement assessing trends for 29 siteson major lakes and rivers;
2) community watershed objectives-setting baseline monitoring on 64 of the province’s450 designated watersheds;
3) yearly groundwater monitoring on 120 wells; and
4) extensive ambient water quality monitoring associated with permitted industrial andmunicipal waste discharges.
Drinking water quality monitoring is a requirement of the Ministry of Health for theapproximately 3,500 water systems serving 15 or more connections. The primary focusof this program is tap water (i.e., after treatment and distribution). Availability andquality of water source (or ambient environment) information is highly variable. MOHaims to have, as a minimum, a baseline measurement consisting of a broad scan ofbiological and chemical parameters and at least one annual sample for each regulatedutility.
Fisheries: Fisheries inventory and monitoring information is available from the Ministry ofFisheries for sport and non-commercial fish and from the Department of Fisheries andOceans for commercial anadromous and marine fish.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 29
Aquatic Habitat: Ecological aquatic inventory information is available on stream-specificbasis from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Thisinformation covers only a relatively small portion of the province and is not time-series.Some “pressure” information on aquatic habitats can be determined from analyzingsome existing information sets (e.g., road densities, terrain stability mapping,watersheds at risk), however, there is a need to ensure inter-agency agreement on dataand analysis of that information. The physical information on total stream length andstream lengths by gradient and known fish presence are contained in the FishInformation Summary System (FISS) component of the Atlas (see the section on LandTenure and Use for a fuller discussion of the Watersheds Atlas project).
Primary Information Users
Water Quantity: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands), MOFi,MOFor, MOEM, MOTH, MOMA, ForRBC, FiRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, B.C.Hydro, wide array of industrial operations.
Water Quality: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Parks), MOH,Regional Medical Health Officers, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO,Local Government, wide array of industrial operations.
Fisheries: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands), MOH, MOFi,MOFor, MOEM, MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, wide array ofindustrial operations.
Aquatic Habitat: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks),MOH, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government,wide array of industrial operations.
Data Deficiencies and Needs
Water Quantity: Hydrometric data is of high quality, carried out to national standardsestablished by federal / provincial agreement, however, these standards makehydrometric monitoring very expensive, thus limiting the number of stations that can beestablished. The province currently has about 490 stations. United Nations’ criteria fordeveloping countries indicate that for a jurisdiction as climatically and geographicallydiverse as B.C. a minimum of 800 (and ideally 1,400) stations would be appropriate.There is a need for a federal / provincial protocol to allow simpler stations to beestablished, linked to the comprehensive network, to extend coverage at an affordablecost. Much of the cost of current monitoring is borne by FRBC and if this fundingsupport is removed, MELP will be unlikely to fill the gap. There is an urgent need todevelop a long-term funding arrangement, requiring all users to contribute, for thisimportant monitoring function.
Water Quality: Despite the large number if sampling sites described above, most have notbeen sampled frequently enough (sites vary from periodic grab samples to establishedstations) to provide real time-series information. The last water quality trends analysis
Page 30 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
(2000) prepared jointly by Environment Canada and MELP was based on 5-10 years ofmonthly sampling on 68 sampling sites, and represents the best trend informationavailable for BC water bodies. Because of cost-cutting by both agencies, fewer than 20of these stations are still being monitored. Beyond these stations, where water qualitymonitoring is issue / problem driven and permit-focused, the data is reasonable, thoughmonitoring is much less frequent and, because it’s largely reactive, is not broad enoughto detect emerging problems.
Drinking-water quality monitoring is far too infrequent to be adequate, particularly formicrobial and protozoan measurements which tend to vary widely over short timeperiods in response to discrete storm and run-off events. MOH intends to increase thenumber and frequency of source-water sampling but existing source information can’tbe melded with the MELP database because it isn’t geo-referenced to any recognizedwatershed or stream coding system. MELP and MOH are currently cooperating tocorrect this problem.
Fisheries: Freshwater fish population monitoring has in the past been focused on specificstocks, and was largely project and crisis driven (i.e. sturgeon, steelhead, Kokanee).There has been no organized, standardized long-term monitoring program. DFO iscurrently revising its monitoring programs (particularly escapement) to impose standardmethodologies and is “quality-labelling” previous data to determine what can beincorporated in the new system. MOFi may adopt these DFO methodologies. Inaddition MOF has recently submitted proposals to FRBC to fund a project to developindicators of fish sustainability in forest ecosystems, a component of which centres ontrends in population status for recreational / commercial and “keystone” non-managedspecies.
Aquatic Habitat: Currently there is no accepted aquatic ecosystem classification system inB.C. that can provide a context for either inventory or monitoring. In 1994 a sub-committee of RIC proposed a classification hierarchy (ecoregion; biogeoclimatic unit;aquatic ecosystem; stream segment or lake; channel or lake unit; microhabitat) but thisproposal was not pursued. Subsequent work has been done regarding watershed andstream reach classification as part of the ForRBC resources inventory, watershedrestoration program and FPC implementation, however these often have a forestmanagement rather than a fisheries/aquatic ecosystem focus. MOFi has recentlyproposed to ForRBC fund for a project that would build upon existing experience todevelop an aquatic ecosystem classification system and a broad, province-wide(1:50,000) description of habitats that “will provide a baseline documenting the amountand distribution of aquatic ecosystem types for application to the monitoring of habitatproductivity and biodiversity”. The proposal stresses the need to link aquatic andterrestrial environments through watershed unit descriptions because “aquaticecosystems are dependent on conditions and processes in the surrounding watershed”.The pressure and state indicators provided in the Geographic Data B.C. watershed atlasprovide much of this watershed information.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 31
4.4. Land Tenure and Use
Business Drivers
Information on land tenure (private and crown) and land use / and cover is fundamental to alllevels of resource planning from provincial policy and program planning, to regional, sub-regional, landscape and local area plans. Reliable, time-series information on tenure, use andcover was one of the most frequently cited monitoring need by interviewees in this study.
Indicators
Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following land tenure / useindicators. See Appendix 4 for a detailed description of indicators and associatedenvironmental information requirements.
Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators Response IndicatorsLandadministration
• number anddistribution of tenureapplications forCrown land
• land tenure(private) andadministrativezonation(Crown)
• alienation ofimportant habitat.
• encroachment onriparian areas andfloodplains
• pressure on waterresources
• number anddistribution ofcrown landdisposition plans
Land use /land cover.
• area of harvesting(total and byharvesting systems),by elevation and bysteep slopes)
• road density (total,steep slopes andwithin 100m ofstreams)
• land use andland cover(mapping andstatistics for 20land use andvegetationcover classes)
Sources of Information
Land Administration: Information on land tenure and jurisdiction is available from the crownlands registry information system. The Crown Lands Branch and Crown Land RegistryServices of MELP have produced land administration statistics for the province for tworeporting periods (1989 and 1996). The reports contain information on land tenureissuance, land in private ownership, and various land use designations. The BC Assetsand Lands Corporation can provide information on the number and distribution ofapplications by tenure type for Crown lands, with information derived from the CrownLand Registry Information System.
Land Use / Land Cover: Geographic Data B.C.’s Baseline Thematic Mapping (BTM)program provides comprehensive, province-wide information (mapped and statistical)on land use / land cover based, variously across the province, on sources from 1992 to
Page 32 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
1998. Work is presently underway to produce a second generation of this data whichwill enable some time-series interpretation.
Primary Information Users
Information on both land administration and land use / land cover is required by: MELPmanagers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks), MOH, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM,MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, wide array of industrial operations.
Data Deficiencies and Needs
Land Administration: The last report on land administration statistics produced by MELPwas in 1996. There is a need to up-date this publication, particularly in view of thesignificant changes in crown administration resulting from the protected areas strategyand recent crown land dispositions by BC Crown Lands and Assets Corporation.
Land Use / Land Cover: The Geographic Data B.C. Watershed Atlas utilizes the MOFiwatershed coding system to summarize and present information. The atlasincorporates road, waterbody and topographic (slope, aspect, and elevation) informationfrom 1:20,000 TRIM base mapping, and land use / land cover information in 20 broaduse / cover classes for units down to 15 ha in size from 1:250,000 BTM. The maps andstatistics also document fish distribution and habitat, location of all communitywatershed as defined under the Forest Practices Code, biogeoclimatic and ecosectionzonation, producing mines and mining-related activities and Crown vs private land.
Geographic Data BC has produced a map series and associated spread sheets whichutilize the Ministry of Fisheries watershed coding system to summarize and presentinformation on a watersheds basis. Maps incorporate road, water body and topographic(slope, aspect and elevation) information from 1:20,000 TRIM base mapping, and landuse / land cover information in 20 broad use / cover classes for units down to 15 ha insize from 1:250,000 BTM. The maps and statistics also document fish distribution andhabitat, location of all designated watersheds, as defined under the Forest PracticesCode, biogeoclimatic and ecosection zoning, producing mines and mining-relatedactivities, and Crown versus private land. Some time series information will be availablefrom the next generation of this material, anticipated in 2002. In addition to the basicuse / cover data, a number of interpretive themes have also been developed such aspercent of watershed logged, percent logging on steep slopes, percent residual oldgrowth, kms of streams logged to bank, road density, road density on steep slopes androad / stream crossing density.
4.5. Summary of Current Status of Monitoring Initiatives
Interviews carried out during the course of this study, with both data users and data providers,indicate that there are very few established monitoring programs, and that other types ofenvironmental information applicable to monitoring programs vary widely in both reliability and
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 33
spatial coverage. The following tables summarize our interpretation of the current status ofenvironmental monitoring initiatives according to the following six categories:
1) Monitoring programs well established and under continual review. Reliable, time-series information available for 5 years or more.
2) Time-series information exists. Requires compilation and interpretation.
3) Reliable, extensive inventory information exists that could provide a baseline formonitoring.
4) Inventory information fragmented and incomplete, but collected to consistentstandards. Could function as a reliable baseline with extended coverage.
5) Inventory information fragmented and collected to inconsistent standards. Does notprovide a reliable baseline.
6) Firm initiatives underway to establish monitoring indicators and design monitoringprograms.
Atmospheric Environment Monitoring
EnvironmentalIssue
Pressure State Impact ManagementResponse
Air Quality 2 1 2 2
Climate Change 1, 6 1 6 6
Terrestrial Environment Monitoring
EnvironmentalIssue
Pressure State Impact ManagementResponse
Vegetation 3 3,4,5,6 3,4,5,6 2
Soil 3 4,6 3 2
Wildlife 1 5,6 5,6 2
Terrestrial habitat 3 5,6 5,6 2
Aquatic Environment Monitoring
EnvironmentalIssue
Pressure State Impact ManagementResponse
Water Quantity 2 1 2 2
Water Quality 2,3 1 2 2
Fisheries 1 5,6 2 2
Aquatic habitat 3 3,4,5,6 4 2
Page 34 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Land Tenure and Use
EnvironmentalIssue
Pressure State Impact ManagementResponse
Landadministration.
2 1 2,3 2
Land use/landcover.
3 3
The main conclusions from this summary and the preceding chapter four analysis are:
1) There is very little reliable, time-series monitoring information currently beingcollected in the province.
2) The demand for such information is increasing on a number of fronts, especially inthe areas of environmental trend interpretation and effectiveness monitoring.
3) The few monitoring programs that are currently producing reliable, time-seriesinformation (e.g., air, water) are becoming increasingly vulnerable (budgetpressures) and this may threaten their effectiveness.
4) There are a number of initiatives underway to begin to collect environmentalmonitoring information (e.g., vegetation change, wildlife / terrestrial habitat), andthese offer the potential to contribute significantly to the supply of reliable, time-series environmental data, provided they can be sustained over time. However,achieving a long-term commitment to these new initiatives may be difficult to achieveunless they are enabled through formalized, non-discretionary business drivers.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 35
55.. PPRROOVVIINNCCIIAALL IINNIITTIIAATTIIVVEESS TTHHAATT IINNTTEERRPPRREETT AANNDDRREEPPOORRTT EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGGIINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN
Aside from monitoring and interpretation of monitoring information that agencies may undertakefor their own internal program planning and ongoing resource management decision-makingpurposes (e.g., hydrometric surveys, monitoring anadromous fish escapements – see chapter4), there are a number of other existing or proposed initiatives in BC that are major potentialusers of environmental monitoring data (and certain inventory and research information – seechapter 2 definitions).
These initiatives use environmental monitoring information to interpret and report publicly onenvironmental, sustainability and effectiveness trends. Most of these initiatives are cross-sectoral in the sense that they analyze and report on trends for multiple environmentalresources. For example, MELP’s environmental trends initiative reports on trends foratmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial and land use / condition indicators, as does strategic land useplan effectiveness monitoring and reporting. Other initiatives are somewhat more narrow inscope such as the kind of analysis and reporting that MELP’s Conservation Data Centre does,or LUCO’s tracking of protected area statistics. Some initiatives analyze and report onprovince-wide environmental trends (e.g., State of the Forest), whereas others are interested intracking environmental indicators for defined geographic areas (e.g., state of parks, landscapeunit plan effectiveness monitoring, or model forest monitoring). The things that all of thesetrends interpretation/ effectiveness reporting initiatives have in common, however, are that theyall:
1) employ environmental indicators to measure trends in environmental quality, or toassess the effectiveness of policies and plans in achieving stated environmentalgoals and objectives;
2) employ a mix of environmental indicators including: pressure, state, impact andmanagement response indicators;
3) select indicators for which data is generally already available, or there is a prospectof obtaining reasonable data;
4) obtain the environmental data for measuring and assessing their indicators from adiversity of available sources, most likely from multiple agencies. Their sources mayinclude: information from monitoring networks that are designed specifically togenerate high quality time-series information; inventory information that is not time-series, but provides a snap-shot of environmental conditions at a particular point intime; research information that is generated from the study of a particular resource(s)at a particular location(s); and various administrative records that are retained ingovernment registries or annual reports that provide a historical record of humanactivities pertaining to environmental / resource management; and
5) are often reliant on the line-ministry data custodians to help explain or interprettechnical information as a basis for ensuring that proper trends interpretation andanalysis occurs.
Page 36 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
These trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives are discussed below and aresummarized in Table 4. In addition, Appendix 3 provides a more detailed description of theseinitiatives.
Table 4: Summary of Trends Interpretation and Effectiveness Reporting InitiativesInitiative Geographic Scope / Focus Status Contact
1. EnvironmentalTrends
• province-wide• 15 primary environmental
indicators (land, air, water,natural diversity and ecosystemhealth), and a number ofsecondary indicators
• two public reports released to-date (1998 and 2000), withplans to continue to report bi-annually.
Dr. Risa Smith, MELP
2. State of Forests inBritish Columbia
• province-wide• 40 environmental indicators of
sustainable forest management(plus 40 socio-economicindicators and 12 policy andadministration indicators).
• early stages of development;draft list of indicators andproposed monitoring / reportingstructure now being considered
Tom Niemann, MOF
3. British ColumbiaLand Statistics
• province-wide• historical and current statistics
on provincial land base (status,condition and use), including:agriculture, forestry, range,mining, settlement, protectedareas, etc.)
• two public reports released to-date (1989 and 1996), withtentative plans to release anupdated version(s)
Godfrey Archbold,MELP
4. Commissioner forEnvironment andSustainability
• province-wide• ecological health monitoring /
reporting• Commissioner reports to
Legislature
• specifics as yet undetermined,other than commitment to issuebi-annual reports on provincialecological health, and annualreports on government, ministryand Crown corporationperformance againstsustainability commitments.Initial focus on “ecologicalintegrity” issue. EnvironmentalCommissioner now beingrecruited
Maurice Sydor, Officeof Auditor General
5. State of Parks inBritish Columbia
• provincial protected area system(terrestrial and marine)
• early stages of development;draft list of indicators andproposed monitoring / reportingstructure now being considered
Lynn Kennedy, MELP
6. Strategic Land UsePlan EffectivenessMonitoring
• regions / sub-regions (e.g.,LRMPs)
• monitoring strategic land useplans’ effectiveness in achieving“desired outcomes” foragriculture, biodiversity, forestry,range, water, wildlife, etc.
• provincial (LUCO) monitoringguidelines / procedures in place
• one monitoring report released(Kamloops); several otherIAMC regions developing /considering monitoringindicators and monitoring /reporting structure
Warren Mitchell, LUCO
7. Landscape Unit PlanEffectivenessMonitoring
• landscape units• monitoring landscape unit plans’
effectiveness in achievingbiodiversity conservationobjectives, and associatedtimber supply impacts
• early stages of development;draft list of indicators andproposed monitoring / reportingstructure now being considered
Allan Lidstone, MOF
8. Model ForestSustainable ForestManagement (LocalLevel) Monitoring
• provincial model forests(McGregor and Long Beachmodel forests)
• both provincial model forestshave developed draftmonitoring indicators that arecontinuing to be refined.
Bodo von Schilling(Long Beach)Kevin Petterson(McGregor)
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 37
Initiative Geographic Scope / Focus Status Contact
• indicators developed for BC’smodel forests have potentialapplication to local-levelmonitoring at other BC forestmanagement units
• Long Beach model forest wouldlike to report annually
9. Forest CertificationAuditing / Monitoring
• forest management units (e.g.,TSA or portion of TSA, TFL,woodlot, community forest)
• sustainable forest managementas assessed by independentthird party using certificationstandards (i.e., sustainableforest management criteria /indicators) established undervarious certification systems(e.g. CSA, FSC)
• approximately 10 forestcertification approvals issuedto-date by independentauditors, with numerous otherproposals in stream andgrowing interest by other forestmanagers
• FSC regional standards (i.e.,performance measures) nowbeing developed
Harry Drage, MOF
Note that in addition to the initiatives listed in Table 4, other organizations are currentlyconsidering monitoring approaches for assessing their organizational effectiveness. Forexample, the Forest Practices Board has expressed an interest in developing indicators formeasuring trends in the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code in achieving the specificsustainability goals that are identified in the preamble to the Forest Practices Code of BritishColumbia Act. As well, Forest Renewal BC is presently trying to develop indicators as part of its“sustainable forest management (SFM) initiative” that would enable FRBC to track the extent towhich its investments are achieving SFM and forest productivity objectives. Finally, individualorganizations are interested at varying levels in tracking selected environmental indicators as abasis for meeting their own program responsibilities and / or for strategic planning purposes and/ or to fulfill annual (or periodic) reporting requirements.
Note as well that Table 4 excludes national-level environmental / sustainability monitoringinitiatives for which some provincial environmental data may be needed. For example, NaturalResources Canada reports periodically on the State of Canada’s Forests1 and this reportbenefits from BC contributions of forest-related information. Similarly, the Canadian Council ofForest Ministers reports periodically on criteria and indicators for sustainable forestmanagement in Canada2 and provincial level inputs to the national forestry database areneeded for this purpose (e.g., provincial data that is / will be entered into the national forestinformation system according to CCFM obligations). Also, Environment Canada’s Pacific andYukon Region Environmental Indicators initiative3 provides public reporting on various measuresof BC’s environmental quality (e.g., marine ecosystems, species health, toxic contaminants,climate change, urban air quality, stratospheric ozone depletion, and water use and quality).These indicators too may benefit from the availability of certain provincial information.
1 The State of Canada’s Forests. 1999 – 2000 Forests in the New Millennium. Available athttp://nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/proj/ppiab/sof/common/latest.shtml
2 Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. National Status 2000. Available athttp://nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/proj/ppiab/ci/indica_e.html
3 Environment Canada. Pacific and Yukon Region Environmental Indicators. Available at www.ecoinfo.org/env_ind/default.htm
Page 38 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Analysis of Information Requirements
Appendix 4 provides the master list of environmental indicators and associated environmentalinformation that provincial agencies have identified that they need for trends interpretation,effectiveness reporting, and strategic planning or program delivery purposes. We stress,however, that this statement of need is preliminary for a number of agencies / initiatives. Manyagencies that are involved in these activities are at an early stage of developing assessmentindicators and reporting methodologies / systems. The listings in Appendix 4 must, therefore,be seen as tentative and subject to change. Note also that this list excludes social andeconomic indicators that may be related to environmental condition. Nonetheless, if we acceptthat Appendix 4 represents an approximate current picture of agencies’ environmentalinformation needs for these purposes, a number of observations can be derived from thisAppendix 4, as discussed in the following sections.
5.1. Number and Type of Environmental Indicators that ProvincialAgencies Want To Track
In total, provincial agencies are interested in measuring trends for 226 indicators ofenvironmental quality4. Table 5 provides a breakdown according to resource category andindicator type (pressure, condition, impact and response).
Table 5: Indicators for Which Provincial Agencies Require Environmental Information
Resource Category Pressure Condition Impact Response Total
Atmospheric Resources 8 6 7 1 22Aquatic Resources 11 15 13 14 53Cultural / HeritageResources
1 0 0 2 3
Land / Resource Use 25 20 6 22 73Terrestrial Resources 16 37 13 9 75
Total 61 78 39 48 226
Although 226 indicators have been identified during this study, more than one provincialinitiative (agency) is typically interested in measuring most indicators. If this multiple interest inindicators is taken into account, there could be an aggregate tracking / interpretation (and inmost cases also public reporting) on about 346 environmental / resource indicators in BC – seeTable 6. This does not include trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives that willbe applied to multiple monitoring / reporting units (e.g., LRMPs, landscape units, forestmanagement units in the case of forest certification). Nor does it include any existing federalinitiatives, or new initiatives such as the proposed BC Commissioner for Environment andSustainability.
4 Note that many of these indicators are at an early stage of consideration by agencies. This number does not reflectfinal determinations of indicators that will be measured and reported on over time by provincial agencies.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 39
Table 6: Initiatives and Number of Indicators
Initiative No. Indicators
Strategic Land Use Plan Effectiveness Monitoring 59CCFM criteria & indicators of Sustainable Forest Management 54Model Forest Monitoring 48State of Forests 46Environmental Trends 37Agency strategic planning purposes 32Forest Certification 27British Columbia Land Statistics 23State of Parks 11Landscape Unit Plan Effectiveness Monitoring 9
total 346
At present, only a few provincial initiatives have actual experience in tracking and reporting onenvironmental indicators (i.e., MELP’s Environmental Trends and BC Land Statistics initiatives,and a few forest certification initiatives). The other initiatives are under development and areexpected to “roll out” in the near term. Quite clearly, the whole field of environmental andsustainability trends / effectiveness reporting is poised for explosive growth in BC. This will beparticularly true if the requirements of the Budget Accountability and Transparency Act are fullyimplemented. This raises questions about: (1) the need for so much trends / effectivenessreporting activity by so many organizations; and (2) assuming that this level of need can berationalized, the ability to adequately support this level of activity with adequate time-seriesenvironmental information. These issues are discussed further in following sections.
As can be seen from Table 5, the greatest demand is for environmental information to supportthe use of indicators that pertain to land and resource use (73 indicators), and for terrestrialresources (75 indicators). Each of these categories represents about 32% of all indicators, andin total account for 64% of all indicators. The high level of interest in land and resource useindicators is likely explained in part by the relative availability of existing information to measureland / resource use characteristics (i.e., 47 of the 73 land and resource use indicators are forpressure and response indicators, for which information is generally more available thancondition or impact indicators). In the terrestrial resources category, the main interest lies inmeasuring forest vegetation attributes (52 of 75 indicators), as discussed further in 5.2 below.
In terms of indicator types, the greatest demand is for condition indicators (78 out of 226, or35%). This is also not too surprising, given that most environmental trends and effectivenessmonitoring initiatives would prefer, if possible, to measure the actual condition or state ofenvironmental resources, as this provides the best representation of actual environmentaloutcomes. Other types of indicators (i.e., pressure, impact and response) are often selected foruse in trends / effectiveness monitoring and reporting programs due to the lack of data that canbe used to describe ultimate environmental condition.
There is, however, an argument to be made in favour of measuring and reporting on some of allfour indicator types, as this provides a more complete picture for environmental decision-makingpurposes. Pressure indicators define the nature and extent of environmental stressors; impact
Page 40 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
indicators provide insights into the environmental impacts that result from the stressors;condition indicators identify the ultimate state of environmental resources as a result ofstressors and impacts; and response indicators shed light on what is being done to addressenvironmental issues – see chapter 2 for further detail. In general terms, it would appear that,among BC’s various environmental trends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring initiatives,there is a suitable mix / balance in indicator type.
5.2. Environmental Information Priorities
The full description of provincial agencies’ information requirements is provided in Appendix 4.From that appendix and also from Tables 7 and 8, it is possible to draw out a few highlightsregarding the key environmental information priorities for trends interpretation, effectivenessreporting and agencies’ strategic planning purposes.
The greatest evident “need” (as inferred from the environmental indicators that agencies wish totrack over time) is for access to information for measuring indicators related to forest vegetationand forest land use activities. This high level of interest is not surprising, given the number oftrends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring initiatives that relate to sustainable forestmanagement, at a range of geographic levels. Provincial agencies would like to measure andreport on 72 indicators in the forest vegetation and forest land use categories. Of these, 36 arecondition indicators, 16 are pressure, 6 are impact, and 14 are response indicators.
The specific types of information required to measure trends in forest vegetation and forest landuse activity is highly varied. For example, condition information is needed on: forestproductivity, the broad spatial composition of forests such as the distribution of forest types,ages, patches / gaps, and structural attributes of forests such as biomass levels and extent ofcoarse woody debris. As well, various information are needed to report on forest ecosystemstressors (e.g., fire, disease, harvesting rates / locations, roading, exotics, land conversion), andforest management responses (e.g., restoration, forest land reserve).
In general terms, the level of detail of required forestry-oriented information appears to beroughly commensurate with the geographic scope of the monitoring initiatives. For example,local monitoring initiatives such as forest certification or model forest monitoring are moreinterested in stand-level forest attributes (i.e., structural attributes) than are provincial-levelmonitoring initiatives where information on general spatial patterns is of more interest. Thisstands to reason and reflects the greater ability of more localized monitoring initiatives, from acost-effectiveness point of view, to collect more detailed information for smaller geographicareas.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 41
Table 7: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme
Category Theme No. IndicatorsAtmospheric Air Quality 10
Climate Change 12sub-total 22
Aquatic Fish 13Water Quality 18Water Quantity 8Water Use 8Habitat 6
sub-total 50Cultural/Heritage 3
Land/Resource Use Agriculture/ Rangeland 13Conservation Land 3Forest Land 20Planning 3Tenures 2Mining & Energy 4Pesticides & Toxics 4Protected Areas 8Recreation & Tourism 8Solid Waste 1Transportation / Utilities 2Settlements 5
sub-total 73Terrestrial Vegetation / Forests 52
Wildlife 14Soils 9
subtotal 75total 226
Page 42 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Table 8: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme — Descending Order
Category Theme No. IndicatorsTerrestrial Vegetation / Forests 52Land/Resource Use Forest Land 20Aquatic Water Quality 18Terrestrial Wildlife 14Land/Resource Use Agriculture/ Rangeland 13
above 5 information categories / themes accountfor over one-half of all indicators and associated information needs sub-total 117
Aquatic Fish 13Atmospheric Climate Change 12Atmospheric Air Quality 10Terrestrial Soils 9Land/Resource Use Recreation & Tourism 8Land/Resource Use Protected Areas 8Aquatic Water Use 8Aquatic Water Quantity 8Aquatic Habitat 6Land/Resource Use Settlements 5Land/Resource Use Pesticides & Toxics 4Land/Resource Use Mining & Energy 4Cultural/Heritage 3Land/Resource Use Planning 3Land/Resource Use Tenures 2Land/Resource Use Conservation Land 2Land/Resource Use Transportation / Utilities 2Land/Resource Use Solid Waste 1
total 226
Second to information on forest vegetation and forest land use, the next greatest businessneed, as interpreted from the number of existing or proposed monitoring indicators (see Tables7 and 8), is for technical information on aquatic resources. Fifty indicators of fish, water quantity/ quality / use, and aquatic habitat have been identified. Over half of these are for informationpertaining to the condition of water resources or impacts on water resources. Twenty-twoatmospheric indicators of air quality and climate change are identified, also mainly in thecondition and impact indicator categories.
Half of all identified indicators and associated information requirements relate to only fiveresource categories / themes: forest vegetation, forest land use, water quality, wildlife, andagriculture / rangeland use. The other half of information requirements pertain to the other 18resource categories / themes (see Table 8).
Getting more specific, some environmental indicators and associated information needs aremore in demand than others. Table 9 shows that, while almost 60% of indicators are being
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 43
implemented / proposed by only one initiative (agency), the remainder are being implemented /proposed for use in more than one initiative.
Table 9: Number of Indicators by Initiatives
Number of indicators being applied / proposed by ONE initiative 134Number of indicators being applied / proposed by TWO initiatives 49Number of indicators being applied / proposed by THREE initiatives 26Number of indicators being applied / proposed by FOUR initiatives 10Number of indicators being applied / proposed by FIVE initiatives 5Number of indicators being applied / proposed by SIX initiatives 1Number of indicators being applied / proposed by SEVEN initiatives 1
total 226
The single piece of information that is clearly in greatest demand from provincial agencies fortrends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring / reporting purposes is information onecosystem protection in BC — in particular, the extent to which BC’s ecosystems (BEC zones /eco-sections) are represented in protection status. Seven separate initiatives, at variousgeographic scales, are interested in this reporting measure, namely: Environmental Trends(MELP), State of Parks (MELP), LUCO’s protected area system (PAS) monitoring and reportinginitiative; strategic land use plan monitoring at the regional / sub-regional level; CCFM criteriaand indicators monitoring and reporting at the national level; and forest certification monitoringand model forest monitoring, although the interest of these last two initiatives is in tracking“protected” areas within “working” forest management units. In addition, the State of Forestsinitiative is interested in ecosystem protection information in so far as the level to which foresttypes and ages are represented in protected area status.
Table 10 identifies the indicators / information requirements that four or more provincial trendsinterpretation, effectiveness reporting or strategic planning initiatives are, or are interested in,pursuing (i.e., approximately the top ten percent of all indicators). If level of agency demand isaccepted as the sole criterion, then the information requirements identified in Table 10 could beassumed to be the provincial corporate priorities for information provision. While Table 10 is ofinterest in showing relative level of demand for information, it would be a mistake to necessarilyconclude that these are, in fact, the province’s information priorities for generatingenvironmental monitoring information. It is likely that the information in these categories is whatis readily available for these purposes, and that this has influenced agency selection ofindicators. Also, as mentioned earlier, many of agencies’ proposed indicators are not finalized,and associated information needs may shift as their indicator selections become firm.
In addition, the monitoring indicators and associated information needs shown in Appendix 4and Table 10 are essentially a reflection of individual sectors’ programs. These, in turn, reflectagency or program mandates. There has not been a cross-sectoral, integrated assessment ofsustainability monitoring and reporting requirements that define government’s corporate list ofenvironmental indicators and information needs. In 1995/96 the Commission on Resources andEnvironment started on such an initiative, but was unable to complete it before being dissolved.Although it remains to be seen, the proposed Commissioner of Environment and Sustainabilitymay be able to encourage a more corporate perspective, and this may allow a more definitivedescription of environmental information requirements.
Page 44 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Table: 10: Environmental Monitoring Information in Greatest DemandLevel ofDemand
ResourceCategory
Resource Theme Information Requirements
7 initiatives EcosystemProtection
ecosystemrepresentation
percent of area of BC ecosystems (BEC, Eco-sections) in protectedstatus
6 initiatives LandscapeFragmentation
road density on forestland
km per km2 of roads, reported by various land units (e.g.,watersheds, zones, landscape units)
5 initiatives Protected Lands amount of BC inprotected status
total terrestrial and marine areas secured in protected area status byfederal and provincial designations.
Climate Change temperature trends temperature “sums” and other meteorological parameters (e.g.,precipitation)
Forest Type andAge
forest age class / oldgrowth distribution
area of forest that occurs in various forest age classes (e.g., 1-40years, 41-80 years, etc.), by forest type (e.g., dominant species).Also, areas of old growth, younger forest, and non-forest; amount ofold growth that is accessible for timber harvesting, amountinaccessible for timber harvesting, and amount protected.
Timber Harvest approved versusactual harvest levels
total provincial AAC and actual harvest levels per type of regulatedforest – province-wide and by management units. Also, actualharvest on regulated land versus harvest on unregulated land.
Forest Species atRisk
rare, threatened andendangered species
percentage of known forest-dependent or grassland-associatedspecies (fish, amphibians, mammals, plants, birds, reptiles) that arered- or blue-listed.
4 initiatives Surface WaterQuality
water quality index water quality index results at monitoring sites (reported as improving,deteriorating, or no change in quality), reported by watershedgrouping. Also, other unspecified water chemistry parameters
Surface WaterQuality
turbidity turbidity in watersheds (or selected sampling sites). Also, turbidity inpaired watersheds, with and without logging.
ForestRecreationFacilities
sites and trails number of forest recreation sites an km of recreation trails, province-wide and by region
Protected Forest forest age per ageclass, by forest typein protected status
area of various forest age classes, by forest type that are in protectedstatus, and percent of total provincial forest in those age classes /types that are protected
Old Growth protected old growthforest
area of old growth versus younger forest and non-forest land inprotected status, by BEC zone. Percent of protected old growth oftotal old growth. Also, area of old growth forest retained, by BEC, bylandscape units (and at forest level) compared to biodiversityguidebook old growth retention targets
ForestDisturbance
amount of forestdisturbed
area of forest disturbed by fire (natural and human-caused) versuspests, versus harvesting.
HarvestingSystems
area of timber harvestusing differentharvesting systems
forest land area subject to clear cutting versus alternative harvestingsystems
ForestRegeneration
forest regenerationmethod and timing
area regenerated by natural versus artificial means. Also, area notregenerated within ten or more years following harvest
Threat to Speciesat Risk
land use threats tothreatened andendangeredvertebrates
relative importance of various threats to red-listed (including riparian)vertebrates, and forest-dependent species
Viability ofSelected Species
historical range inwhich species areextirpated or declining
percentage of historical range in which selected species (caribou,sharp-tailed rouse, mule/black-tailed deer, moose, grizzly bear) areextirpated versus declining. Also “observed changes” in fauna.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 45
5.3. Overlapping Indicators and Initiatives
As discussed above, Appendix 4 shows that agencies have an interest in tracking 226environmental indicators in 22 resource categories. In one category (forest vegetationresources) 50 separate indicators are identified, while another 20 are identified for forest landuse activities. While these are the most extreme examples, there is interest in tracking ten ormore indicators in seven other resource categories. While these numbers may be justified, theyraise the question of whether or not so many indicators are needed, particularly in certainresource categories, to gain a sufficient understanding of the environmental issues.
As well, is it necessary for there to be so much overlap for so many indicators, as is evidencedby the fact that 40% of all indicators are being implemented / pursued by more than oneinitiative (agency)? Even though a lot of this overlap can be explained by the fact that the sameindicator is being reported on at different geographic scales, there still appears to be enough ofan overlap issue to question the efficiency of a “silo” approach to developing and implementingtrends interpretation / effectiveness monitoring initiatives.
Responding to these questions lies well outside the terms-of-reference of this study. They areraised here only because the study data draws attention to them, and because they are thesorts of questions that LIICC will no doubt want to consider in the development of a corporateenvironmental baseline system.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 47
66.. KKEEYY IISSSSUUEESS,, CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS AANNDDRREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS
6.1. Summary of Key Issues
Supply – Demand Imbalance: In BC, as in many other jurisdictions, there havetraditionally been only a relatively small number of agency programs that produceenvironmental monitoring information. These are agencies with traditional, “core”resource management / regulatory responsibilities where monitoring data has beenrequired mainly as a context for permitting / licensing decisions. For example, MELP’sair / water quality and water flow monitoring programs; DFO’s monitoring programs forfish abundance have been driven out of their regulatory responsibilities.
Recently, however, there is rapidly increasing interest from other agencies / initiatives toaccess programs’ monitoring information – mainly for sustainability trends interpretationand effectiveness assessment purposes, and to respond to national / internationalinitiatives that require environmental monitoring data (e.g., Montreal process forsustainable forest management, Kyoto protocol on climate change, biodiversityconvention). In the absence of good time-series environmental monitoring information,these initiatives use various environmental inventory and research information, but theywould ideally prefer reliable and repeatable monitoring information that has beenderived from proper monitoring networks. There is a growing divergence between thedemand for high quality, time-series environmental monitoring information and theavailability of it.
Lack of Formalized Business Drivers: One of the main reasons why environmentalmonitoring has / is limited is because it is a discretionary activity that must compete withother environmental management initiatives for scarce budget dollars. Resourceinventories are more amenable to “slugs” of money that may become available,whereas environmental monitoring requires an ongoing, long-term, and disciplinedcommitment that does not fit well with the cyclical nature of political priorities andassociated budget allocations. If we are to lessen the gap between environmentalmonitoring supply and demand, there will be need for a much stronger provincialcommitment to environmental monitoring. This could possibly take the form of somelegalized requirements for identifying and reporting on performance measures (forexample, such as those identified in the new Budget Transparency and AccountabilityAct), the increasing significance of national / international protocols (e.g., Kyoto), orpotentially the creation of some standing institution that has a responsibility forcoordinating environmental monitoring investments.
Technical Capacity for Managing and Interpreting Environmental Monitoring Data:Agency programs that are implementing environmental monitoring networks are doingso to generate data that is needed for their own regulatory purposes. As such, onlycertain data is collected and it is collected in a way that is relevant to the programneeds. Non-program users of environmental monitoring data (e.g., trends interpretation
Page 48 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
initiatives) may be able to directly employ program data, but they often need the data tobe varied and / or interpreted to suit their own particular requirements. Data providersare increasingly being called on to manipulate and interpret their data to service theneeds of other users. There is the potential that limited program staff will be unavailableto fulfill this demand and that non-program data users will perform their owninterpretation and analysis of technical data that they do not fully understand, whichcould lead to inaccurate reporting.
Technical Capacity for Designing and Implementing Environmental MonitoringSystems: Designing and implementing environmental monitoring sampling systemsthat produce statistically valid and credible data requires a high level of technicalexpertise. So too does the proper management and interpretation of the resultant data.In recent years, this capacity has been significantly eroded in most of BC’s resourcemanagement agencies, mainly as a result of program reductions and retirement of staffthat have not been replaced. If government wishes to respond to the increasingdemand for high quality environmental monitoring data, these technical capacity gapswill have to be addressed. It is likely that there will have to be an increasinginvolvement of academics and consulting experts to help with the design and delivery ofmonitoring networks, and also the management and interpretation of monitoring data.
Indicator Proliferation: There is an explosion in the number and type of specificenvironmental indicators that agencies want to track over time. There are two issuesassociated with this proliferation. Firstly, it is unlikely that we need so many indicators,many of which are only slightly different from each other, in order to understand BC’senvironmental quality, although this is perhaps questionable since there has been nocoordinated, corporate assessment of what core environmental indicators should bemeasured. Secondly, there are overlaps among agencies / initiatives that are interestedin tracking the same indicators, or minor variations on an indicator. This creates apotential inefficiency (and also overload problems for data providers - see abovecapacity issue.)
Lack of Coordination: Past and existing environmental monitoring initiatives have allevolved independently as agencies have pursued initiatives in relation to their specificmandated responsibilities. Whereas this has historically not presented too manyproblems — because monitoring information was being developed and used almostexclusively by agencies for program delivery purposes — the broadening interest inacquiring environmental monitoring data for trends and effectiveness interpretationpurposes suggests that a far higher level of inter-agency coordination in developingmonitoring systems will be needed.
The primary responsibility for collecting monitoring data will almost certainly continue toreside with the agencies with program delivery responsibilities (i.e., Air, Wildlife, Water,Resource Inventory branches). However, the other agencies with an interest inmonitoring data (e.g., Ministry of Health in the case of air quality data; regional healthofficers in the case of water quality data; BC Parks, BC Wildlife, forest certificationapplicants in the case of vegetation change inventory data) need to be able to input intoand shape the design of monitoring systems that can measure environmentalparameters that are important to them. Presently, there is no good forum that enablescoordinated decisions — for example, coordinated decision-making on: a core set of
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 49
environmental indicators that are the corporate priority for information capture; thestandards for measuring and reporting on those indicators; roles and responsibilities fordata interpretation; mechanisms for data access / distribution, etc.
Links to Decision-making: The fundamental purpose behind monitoring environmentalconditions is to improve the quality / effectiveness of environmental managementdecision-making. To-date, however, there are few bridges between the results / findingsof environmental monitoring and the policy responses of decision-makers. The“pressure-state-impact-management response” model for selecting environmentalindicators provides a useful framework for establishing the needed bridges; moreformalized incorporation of that framework within ministries’ strategic planning initiativeswould be valuable.
Opportunities for Partnerships: Provincial agencies are not the only organizations in BCwith an interest in collecting environmental monitoring data. The federal governmenthas important environmental monitoring responsibilities, as do local governments, FirstNations governments, universities and institutes and the private sector. Withoutcoordination among all of these players there lies the potential for major inefficiency andoverlap in monitoring, interpretation and reporting. Any initiatives that are adopted toincrease coordination and to adopt corporate governance of environmental monitoringsystems will need to take into account non-provincial initiatives and requirements.
6.2. Conclusions and Recommendations
Responding to Increasing Demand for Environmental Monitoring Information
Whereas the demand for environmental monitoring information is high and growing, the supplyis low and has historically been shrinking. BC has plenty of environmental data, but it isgenerally not the right kind that is needed for interpreting trends in environmental condition orfor assessing program / policy / plan effectiveness. BC mainly has inventory data, as opposedto monitoring (i.e., time-series) data. Although the need for improvements in the supply ofenvironmental monitoring data is being increasingly recognized and some action is being taken(e.g., vegetation change monitoring) it remains to be seen if provincial environmental monitoringprograms can be sustained over time. This is because there are few, if any, senior-level, formalcommitments to undertake long-term environmental monitoring. Historical and current businessdrivers behind environmental monitoring programs are informal and non-obligatory. As a result,they are highly vulnerable to competing spending priorities.
Recommendation 1: Government should institutionalize some more formal businessdrivers for environmental monitoring — i.e., mechanisms that establish an explicit, non-discretionary requirement for the collection of environmental monitoring information.
Coordinated Design and Delivery of Environmental Monitoring Systems
There is a critical need for improved coordination in determining corporate environmentalmonitoring priorities and planning the design and delivery of monitoring programs. Program-
Page 50 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
level monitoring activities need to be more closely linked to trends interpretation / effectivenessmonitoring initiatives. A corporate forum is needed to answer questions like: “What resources /issues should we be monitoring with our limited environmental monitoring budgets: air quality,drinking water, sustainable forest management, biodiversity, etc.”; What technical standards willbe applied in the collection and application of monitoring data; How will data be accessed? Whowill be responsible for interpretation and reporting-out on the findings; etc? ”
Agencies’ demands for environmental monitoring information that will permit them to tracktrends in various environmental parameters have not been rationalized in relation togovernment’s broader corporate priorities. As a result, we see multiple agencies proceedingindependently with their own initiatives, all of which have major ongoing, and sometimesoverlapping, data acquisition implications. Do we really need all of these independent trendsinterpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives in order to provide decision-makers with anadequate understanding of environmental conditions? Can we combine some of theseinitiatives, or somehow create better linkages among them, so that we are measuring / trackingfewer environmental criteria and indicators? If it was possible to do some ranking andintegration through a corporate institutional mechanism, then costs of environmental monitoringdata acquisition, interpretation, and reporting should be reduced; gap and overlap issuesaddressed; and risks associated with conflicting interpretations of monitoring data reduced.
The importance of taking a corporate perspective in inventory programs for efficiency andeffectiveness reasons has been explicitly recognized in BC, as evidenced by the CRII and RICinitiatives – why not do the same for environmental monitoring initiatives?
Recommendation 2: Environmental monitoring programs should be explicitly broughtunder the umbrella of LIICC or a similarly corporate-minded coordinating structure.Coordination should not be limited to provincial government agencies — thecoordinating body should include representatives from all parties with a monitoringinterest (federal, First Nations, local governments; Crown corporations, universities andinstitutes; private sector).
Partnering Opportunities
The province’s internal capacity for designing and implementing environmental monitoringprograms that are capable of producing high quality, statistically-valid results is limited, and mayreasonably be expected to remain that way. Government should be looking for ways toenhance the availability of monitoring data by involving outside organizations / interests indesigning monitoring systems and collecting and interpreting monitoring results. This wouldrequire a highly coordinated approach (see above recommendation).
Recommendation 3: Partnership opportunities should be explored with other levels ofgovernment, universities and institutes and the private sector, as a way of leveraging acost-effective increase in the availability of reliable environmental monitoringinformation.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 51
Using Monitoring Information to Enhance Environmental Outcomes
Recent increases in trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives are all aimedultimately at improving environmental sustainability. These initiatives are based on thepresumption that the findings that they produce will be used by decision-makers to change lawsor policies, or to trigger new or amended plans or programs. Yet, we see little evidence thatthere are, in fact, any good mechanisms to ensure that environmental monitoring investmentsactually feed into environmental decision-making at the policy level. Unless this occurs, theentire motivation for environmental monitoring, and the public investment into it, is in question.The new Budget Transparency and Accountability Act should help to produce a better linkbetween monitoring of performance indicators and strategic level environmental decision-making, although the extent to which this occurs will depend on the performance measures thatthe environmental / resource management agencies set for themselves.
Recommendation 4: As one component of its efforts to oversee the development of a“corporate environmental baseline”, LIICC should investigate institutional options forensuring that the findings from environmental monitoring programs are actuallyintegrated into environmental decision-making.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 53
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 11:: SSUURRVVEEYY QQUUEESSTTIIOONNNNAAIIRREE
The following questions were asked of agency contacts to determining the environmentalinformation that agencies need to support their environmental monitoring initiatives:5
1. What environmental monitoring1 initiatives is your division/branch currently involved in, orcontemplating? Describe objectives and scope of monitoring initiative (e.g., purpose,monitoring scale, reporting frequency, audience, funding source, staffing / organization, etc.)
2. Why are you engaged in this monitoring activity? (E.g., to comply with legislation, meet aninternational or national level commitment, meet an internal programming or planningcommitment, etc.?)
3. What basic question(s) are your monitoring initiatives attempting to answer?
4. What environmental criteria/indicators do you use (or want to use) to answer your questions,in number 3 above?
5. What data do you require in order to measure these criteria/indicators, and where do youcurrently (or expect to) obtain this data?
6. How adequate is the data that you currently use, or expect to use? (E.g., is desired dataavailable? If so, is it reliable, current, correct scale, etc.?)
7. What key things should the providers of environmental information be doing to support userswho require information for strategic-level environmental monitoring purposes?
5 Environmental monitoring, in this case, measures environmental condition relative to long-term environmental managementgoals / objectives, and when measured in time series determines trends in condition. Monitoring findings allow environmentalmanagers to compare current conditions to past conditions, and to the desired future condition. Results may be used by decision-makers to reinforce management actions or to suggest modified management actions, as a basis for constructing a managementsystem that is capable of achieving the desired environmental outcomes.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 55
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 22:: SSTTUUDDYY CCOONNTTAACCTTSS
The following individuals were contacted to obtain information on agencies’ environmentalmonitoring initiatives and associated information requirements. Comments were provided bypersonal / telephone interviews or by written submission.
ORGANIZATION CONTACT NAMEProvincial Ministries
Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, Implementation and SettlementLegislation Branch
Peter Nakken
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Resource Planning Branch Rob Menes
Ministry of Energy and Mines,Southwest Regional Office Ted HallKootenay Regional Office Andrew Whale
BC Geological Survey Ray Lett
Ministry of Environment, Lands and ParksExecutive Margaret Ekenfelder, Rodger Hunter
Air Resources Branch Lynn Bailey, Hu Wallis, Liz Lilley, Bob Beatty,Robert Marsh, Warren Bell, Rick Williams
Corporate Policy Branch Dr. Risa Smith, Lee ThiessenCrown Lands Branch Godfrey Archbold, Neil Hamilton, EricGeographic Data BC Malcolm Gray, Bill Anderson
Habitat Branch Rod Davis, Dr. Jenny FeickParks Division Denis Moffat
Pollution Prevention Ron Driedger, Doug Walton, Dave Douglas,Harry Vogt
Resource Inventory Branch Fern Schultz, Ted Lea, Wilf Dreher, BruceLetvak, Andrew Harcombe
Water Management Branch Jim Mattison
Ministry of FisheriesFisheries Management Branch Jamie Alley
Information Services Branch Peter LewisSustainable Economic Development Branch Al Martin
Ministry of ForestsCorporate Policy and Planning Branch Sue Stephen
Forest Practices Branch Tom NiemannForest Practices Branch Tom HallForest Practices Branch Shane FordForest Practices Branch Harry Drage
Resources Inventory Branch Jon VivianKamloops District Office Gary Reay
Kamloops Regional Office Peter Lishman
Page 56 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
ORGANIZATION CONTACT NAME
Ministry of HealthPublic Health Protection Branch Barry Boettger
Risk Assessment and Toxicology Branch Dr. Ray Copes
Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Growth Strategies Office Erik Karlsen
Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Tourism Policyand Land Use Branch
Dick Butler, Nancy South, Stephen Connally
Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Engineering Branch Mike Kent
Other Agencies
BC Hydro Louise Goullet
Environmental Assessment Office Jan Hagen
Fisheries Renewal BC Angus Mackay
Forest Practices Board Grant Loeb
Forest Renewal BC Janet Gagne
Green Economy Initiative Ken Baker, Lawrence Alexander
Land Reserve Commission Julie Glover
Land Use Coordination Office, Vancouver Island IAMC Lindsay Jones
Land Use Coordination Office, Prince Rupert IAMC Elizabeth Zweck and Tom Chamberlain(consultant)
Land Use Coordination Office Warren Mitchell
Long Beach Model Forest Bodo von Shilling
MacGregor Model Forest Kevin Petterson
Note: names listed in a group were interviewed together.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 57
AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 33:: PPRROOVVIINNCCIIAALL TTRREENNDDSS IINNTTEERRPPRREETTAATTIIOONN //EEFFFFEECCTTIIVVEENNEESSSS RREEPPOORRTTIINNGG IINNIITTIIAATTIIVVEESS
This appendix provides an overview of the main provincial environmental trends interpretationand effectiveness reporting initiatives that are currently being implemented or developed in BC.Each initiative is described in terms of its basic purpose, business driver, key characteristics,current status, and the responsible government agency and contact person.
1. Environmental Trends in British Columbia
Purpose of Initiative: Three objectives are identified in the Environmental Trends in BritishColumbia 2000 report: (1) provide an overview of the condition of BC’s environment,important links between seemingly disparate issues, and a picture of the way in whichBritish Columbians are collectively responding to environmental challenges; (2)measure progress towards the Ministry’s goals; and (3) respond to the BC AuditorGeneral’s calls for enhanced accountability of government by developing performancemeasures that focus on the ultimate outcomes of government efforts.
Business Driver: This initiative is policy driven, and is reflected in the Ministry’s annualbusiness plan.
Key Characteristics: Fifteen indicators of environmental condition are reported: greeneconomy, protected areas, domestic waste, air quality from fine particulates,greenhouse gases, effects of global warming, surface water quality, groundwaterquality, water use, species at risk, forest species, wildlife species, status of fish stocks,development in riparian ecosystems, and toxic contaminants.
The focus is on trends in condition, as opposed to measurement of pressure orresponse indicators. Available data is assembled to support the indicator reporting froma wide variety of existing and historical sources. No environmental monitoring programsare being implemented to produce data specifically for the purposes of this initiative.
Status: To date, two Environmental Trends Reports have been released: 1998 and 2000.The intent is to continue to release reports on a bi-annual interval and thereby continueto build a time-series picture of environmental condition in BC.
Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, State ofEnvironment Office, Dr. Risa Smith.
2. State of the Forest in British Columbia
Purpose of Initiative: The October 6, 2000 mock-up draft of the State of the Forest in BritishColumbia 2001 report identifies a series of objectives for this initiative:
Page 58 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
• demonstrate accountability for outcomes
• provide an overview of the current state of BC’s forests with factual information onthe topics of greatest interest to domestic and international audiences,
• show the trends of important indicators of sustainability
• provide MOF interpretation and analysis of the facts and trends
• summarize MOF balanced conclusions and actions to ensure sustainability,
• stimulate and inform public discussion of sustainable forest management,
• motivate public and private action to ensure sustainability
• provide links to other local, provincial, national and international efforts to ensuresustainability
• facilitate access to more detailed information
• identify gaps in information and knowledge
Business Driver: This initiative is policy driven. It is linked to the Canadian Council ofForest Ministers’ initiative to define and report on sustainable forest management(CCFM criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management). It is also driven outof a need for BC to be able to provide factual, objective information on provincial forestmanagement outcomes in response to ongoing questions and criticisms about thoseoutcomes.
Key Characteristics: The initiative is currently being developed. Decisions on indicatorselection and methodologies, reporting frequency, roles and responsibilities, etc. havenot been finalized. The initial thinking is to report on 40 environmental indicators ofsustainable forest management (in 10 categories), 40 socio-economic indicators (in 10categories) that relate to forest management and use, and 12 policy and administrationindicators (in 6 categories). The environmental and socio-economic indicators wouldemphasize “outcomes” whereas the policy and administration indicators wouldemphasize “input, output and process indicators”. Examples of proposed environmentalindicators of sustainable forest management include: AREA OF forest PER age classby dominant forest species, area of old growth forest, area of land use conversion, areaof forest per age class in protected status, area of forest disturbance from fires, pestsand harvesting, area of riparian zone disturbed, threatened or endangered species,number of exotic species, areas planted with genetically improved and hybrid treespecies, turbidity, distribution of fine particulates from prescribed fires and forestindustry mills, carbon stock changes.
The focus would be on reporting recent and historical trends for each indicator, to theextent that data is available to support indicator reports. No new monitoring programsare being contemplated for delivering this initiative, although data from the MOFprogram for monitoring change in vegetative conditions will be employed. Other datarequirements are expected to come from an array of existing sources, primarily housedwithin the Ministry of Forests, although final assessments of data availability andreliability have not been made.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 59
Status: Under development; no written reports on indicators have been generated, otherthan for several “mock ups”. Draft indicators, as above, are being considered / refined.
Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, TomNiemann.
3. British Columbia Land Statistics
Purpose of Initiative: To provide a synopsis of historical and current statistics pertaining tothe administration of Crown land, and to give an overview of specific resource uses
Business Driver: The initiative is policy-based. MELP has prepared this document out of aperceived need to track high-level statistics on land use / land administration activities.
Key Characteristics: The BC Land Statistics document provides information on a variety ofland administration and land uses, including: general land status, amount of land inprivate ownership, area of Crown land tenures, agricultural land and land use, forestland productivity, timber harvesting, rangeland status, protected area status, heritageland, petroleum and natural gas lands and tenures, and settlement lands. Thirty-sixstatistical tables are provided, together with interpretation of the data. The informationhas been compiled from a wide variety of sources.
Status: MELP has released two versions of this report for two points in time: 1989 and1996. There is no pre-defined reporting interval for future releases of the document,although MELP has expressed a desire to proceed with a third release in the near term.
Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Crown LandsBranch, Neil Hamilton.
4. State of British Columbia’s Parks
Purpose of Initiative: Report on the extent to which BC’s protected area system goals forecological integrity, recreational resources and cultural-heritage resources are beingachieved over time; and provide the ability to assess how well park management andadministrative techniques are working to sustain the protected area system.
Business Driver: It is expected that legislation will provide the driver for State of the Parksreporting, although such legislation is not yet in place. This expectation arises out ofgovernment’s acceptance of recommendations made by the BC Parks Legacy Panel in1999. The Panel suggested that legislation be enacted to publicly report on the State ofthe BC Parks every three years.
Key Characteristics: The initiative envisions the development and application of a numberof key indicators for assessing how effective management efforts in provincial protectedareas are in achieving protected area system goals (for ecological, recreational, andcultural-heritage resources). The indicators would be applied within protected areasand would be system wide. It’s expected that the initiative would largely parallel the
Page 60 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
federal State of the Parks monitoring / reporting program. It is unknown at this time ifthe program would initiate systematic, time-series data collection to support theprogram, however, indications to-date are that BC Parks would be more interested inselecting indicators for which existing data exists.
Status: This initiative is presently being considered by BC Parks. Some preliminary workhas been done on potential indicators. Thirteen tentative indicators were proposed in a1999 consultant’s study for BC Parks’ consideration: 7 indicators pertaining to ecologicalintegrity, 3 to recreational values, 1 to cultural-heritage values, and 2 to economics.These indicators were proposed on the basis (among other things) that existing datawas generally available to enable reporting on the majority of the suggested indicators.Examples of potential environmental indicators include: amount of BC in protectedstatus, ecosystem representation, connectivity among protected areas, species at risk,ecological restoration efforts, water quality, and risk to natural / recreational values.
Timing for final development and implementation is uncertain.
Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, BC Parks,Lynn Kennedy.
5. Strategic Land Use Plan Effectiveness Monitoring
Purpose of Initiative: Assess the extent to which goals and objectives contained inStrategic Land Use Plans (i.e., LRMPs, regional plans) are being achieved over time.
Business Driver: Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) monitoring / reporting is driven by theplan monitoring provisions that are contained in individual approved SLUPs. Inter-agency Management Committees (IAMCs) are responsible for monitoring and reportingon plan implementation status and effectiveness for the plans located within their IAMCregion. They undertake plan monitoring in accordance with general policy andprocedural direction from the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO). In 1999, LUCOpublished a “Provincial Monitoring Framework for Strategic Land Use Plans” and in2000 released a set of procedures that advise staff on monitoring / reporting methods.
Key Characteristics: Each LRMP contains its own provisions directing how the plan will bemonitored to assess (1) the extent to which plan commitments have been implemented,and (2) the extent to which plan goals and objectives are being achieved over time. Theintent is to report annually on plan implementation status, and every 3 to 5 years on planeffectiveness. LUCO’s policy is that IAMCs should select and apply effectivenessmonitoring indicators for which existing data is generally available. Therefore, nospecial, plan-specific data collection / monitoring programs are envisioned to supportthe SLUP monitoring initiative.
Status: The Kamloops IAMC, having produced one of the earliest LRMPs, has progressedfurthest on SLUP monitoring and reporting. In 2000 they released an effectivenessmonitoring report that assessed conditions in the plan area as of 1999 using 69indicators: 28 indicators for environmental resources and 41 for human activities relatedto resource use.
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 61
Other IAMCs are considering / developing programs to monitor SLUP implementationstatus and overall plan effectiveness. For example, the Prince Rupert IAMC has formeda regional monitoring coordinating group that is currently developing a proposed suite ofeffectiveness monitoring indicators that individual LRMP Tables (Bulkley, Kispiox, Lakesand Casiar LRMPs) may select from. The Lakes and Maurice Districts are part of anInnovative Forest Practices Agreement pilot project that will develop indicators as part oftheir sustainable forest management planning process. As another example, theVancouver Island IAMC has developed a tentative list of 32 indicators for measuring theeffectiveness of the Vancouver Island Regional Land Use Plan.
Responsible Agency and Contact: Land Use Coordination Office, Warren Mitchell.
6. Landscape Unit Plan Effectiveness Monitoring
Purpose of Initiative: To determine the extent to which landscape unit plans have beencompleted according to established landscape unit planning procedures (i.e., programor compliance monitoring); and to determine the overall effectiveness of the plans inachieving underlying program goals (i.e., effectiveness monitoring).
Business Driver: Ministry of Forests’ and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks’ policyis the business driver, although the sustainable forest use goals defined in the preambleof the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act provide the context for theeffectiveness monitoring component of the landscape unit plan monitoring initiative,specifically the biodiversity conservation goal. The two ministries have prepared aLandscape Unit Planning Guide (an official Forest Practices Code guide book) thatreferences a policy commitment to monitoring the effectiveness of landscape unit plans.
Key Characteristics: This monitoring initiative would primarily assess the extent to whichbiodiversity conservation is being achieved at the landscape level and, to a lesserdegree, the stand level. There are approximately 1,300 landscape units defined forBritish Columbia. As the monitoring program is in the early stages of development, it isnot known if monitoring reports will be prepared for individual landscape units, or ifmonitoring results will be reported on a Forest District (or other) basis. The monitoringfrequency has not yet been determined for the program, although it may be that differentindicators may have different monitoring and reporting intervals.
It is possible that as the future scope of landscape unit planning expands to captureother forest resources (e.g., water, recreation), the scope of the monitoring initiative willalso expand. (At present, the scope of landscape unit planning is limited to identifyingold growth management areas and wildlife tree patches, as these are assumed bygovernment to be the primary elements that are required to conserve biodiversity at thisplanning scale.)
Status: An initial scoping review of landscape unit plan monitoring issues andconsiderations was completed by a consultant in October, 2000. That review identifieda variety of potential pressure, state and response indicators that might be consideredfor monitoring biodiversity condition at the landscape and stand levels. Subsequently,
Page 62 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
another consulting study was initiated (and was still in progress at the time that thisreport was written) to recommend specific biodiversity condition monitoring indicators.
Seventeen indicators are currently under consideration, although these still need to beassessed against criteria such as data availability and reliability, cost, repeatability, etc.Some examples of monitoring indicators being considered include: area of old growthforest by ecosystem type, area of old growth maintaining interior stand conditions, areaof wildlife tree retention, wildlife tree retention stand structure, coarse wood debris,percent of environmentally sensitive areas retained, area of riparian buffer, degree offragmentation.
It is intended that much of the information required to support monitoring and reportingon these potential indicators would be generated from data tables that are compiled bystaff at the time that landscape unit plans are initially prepared. Procedures forgenerating these data tables from existing MOF and MELP data sources are beingdeveloped. To enable indicator trends monitoring it would be necessary to replicatethese data tables at the desired reporting interval.
Once a set of monitoring indicators is selected, they will be piloted in one or morelocations before the monitoring initiative is applied more broadly.
Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, AllanLidstone.
7. Model Forest Sustainable Forest Management (Local Level) Monitoring)
Purpose of Initiative: To measure progress towards sustainable forest management (SFM)at the local forest level, in relation to defined local level SFM indicators. Although thereare only two model forests in BC, the indicators that are developed at this level are likelyto have relevance to other forest-level SFM monitoring initiatives.
Business Driver: The initiative is founded in the national federal-provincial model forestnetwork. All model forests across Canada are in the process of developing regionally-relevant criteria and indicators of SFM, using the CCFM criteria and indicators as abasis.
Key Characteristics: All model forests in the Canadian model forest network have beenworking for the past few years on developing and applying local level indicators. Thereis an expectation that there would be regular, periodic reporting on SFM performance,relative to the indicators. Data would come from existing available sources, but alsofrom sampling plots / field surveys within the model forests.
Status: The Long Beach Model Forest embarked on an initiative to develop local level SFMcriteria and indicators in 1998. They have a comprehensive list of indicators, andintend to report on biological indicators for which monitoring information is available.They have not yet screened their indicator list against the availability of information.They are in the process of developing some permanent sample plots for data collection
Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
Page 63
for a few model forests, in cooperation with the licensees in the area. They wouldultimately like to produce a report annually that reports on indicator trends -- a“Clayoquot Report”. The MacGregor model forest has an initial selection of indicators inplace and are beginning to apply them in cooperation with the forest licensee (CanFor).
Responsible Agency and Contact: Long Beach Model Forest, Bodo von Schilling;Macgregor Model Forest, Kevin Petterson.
8. Forest Certification Auditing / Monitoring
Purpose of Initiative: To assess whether or not performance standards that forestmanagers are expected to achieve as a condition of obtaining / maintaining forestcertification are, in fact, being achieved.
Business Driver: Access to markets is the primary driver behind forest companies’certification initiatives. Some international buyers of wood products are requiringproducers to provide assurances (as provided by an independent auditor) that theproducts being sold originate from sustainably managed forests.
Key Characteristics: Forest certification may be obtained under one or more certificationsystems. IN BC, the main performance-based certification systems being implementedare those offered by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) or the ForestStewardship Council (FSC). Certification is voluntary — forest managers apply for it ifthey think it will help them market their products. An approved, independent certifierassesses applicants’ forest management performance against pre-defined standards ofsustainable forest management. Annual audits are conducted to determine ifcertification status may be retained or modified.
Under the CSA system, sustainable forest management performance indicators forspecified categories are developed through a public participation process. Theseconstitute the standards that the forest manager is audited against. Many of these tendto be compliance-oriented indicators, however a number are condition-orientedindicators that will require time-series environmental data to enable effective auditing.Examples of CSA performance indicators of environmental condition that have beenrecently developed for the Kamloops TSA include: levels of coarse woody debrisretained at cutblocks, forest regeneration following harvest, percent of old forestretained in landscape units relative to LRMP-approved levels, levels of riparianprotection relative to Forest Practices Code requirements, percentage of harvestedareas in permanent roads and landings, harvest levels relative to AAC and cut controlrequirements.
Under the FSC system, auditors assess performance against a checklist of ten definedsustainable forest management principles and 56 criteria. Examples of auditing criteriafor which information on environmental condition is required include: yield of all forestproducts harvested; forest growth rates and regeneration; composition and observedchange in flora and fauna; extent of rare, threatened and endangered species andhabitats; extent of non-forest uses; harvest rates.
Page 64 Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study
Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions
A BC regional standard for the FSC system is presently being developed to moreclosely match performance standards with the province’s unique forest conditions. Thisregional standard will define specific BC performance indicators and thus theinformation requirements that will be required to facilitate FSC implementation in BC.
Status: To-date in BC, seven CSA certifications and three FSC certifications have beenapproved for various woodlands operations. These low numbers understate the degreeof interest that exists among forest companies (and government) to achieve certification.A number of processes are underway throughout the province at the individual operatorlevel and at the wider TSA level to implement forest certification under both systems.For example, in the Kamloops TSA, a CSA process is underway to develop asustainable forest management plan that resulted in the identification of 27 sustainableforest management indicators, the auditing of which for some will require data on thecondition of environmental resources.
Responsible Agency and Contact: Although monitoring that is conducted in connection withforest certification is conducted on a voluntary basis by individual forest companies andapproved certifiers, the Ministry of Forests is closely following forest certificationactivities in BC. It can be expected that provincial data, especially in TSAs, will becalled upon to supply audit information for certification implementation. (ForestPractices Branch, Harry Drage).
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
Page
65
AAPP
PPEE
NNDD
II XX 44
:: CCUU
RRRR
EENN
TT AA
NNDD
PPRR
OOPP
OOSS
EEDD
MMOO
NNII TT
OORR
II NNGG
(( TTII MM
EE-- SS
EERR
II EESS)) II
NNFF OO
RRMM
AATT II
OONN
FF OORR
TTRR
EENN
DDSS
II NNTT EE
RRPP
RREE
TT AATT II
OONN
&& EE
FF FFEE
CCTT II
VVEE
NNEE
SSSS
RREE
PPOO
RRTT II
NNGG
II NNII TT
II AATT II
VVEE
SS OO
FF PP
RROO
VVII NN
CCII AA
LL AA
GGEE
NNCC
II EESS
(See
End
of A
ppen
dix
for E
xpla
nato
ry N
otes
)
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
ATM
OSP
HER
IC R
ESO
UR
CES
Air
Qua
lity
Fine
Par
ticul
ates
com
mun
ities
exp
osed
to h
ealth
risk
sfro
m fi
ne p
artic
ulat
es (I
mpa
ct)
fine
parti
cula
te le
vels
(PM
10 a
nd P
M 2
.5, N
OX,
SO
2, T
RS)
in c
omm
uniti
es o
fco
ncer
nEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s,M
ELP
/ GVR
D /
MO
Hst
rate
gic
plan
ning
Fine
Par
ticul
ates
conc
entra
tion
of fi
ne p
artic
ulat
es in
sele
cted
pro
tect
ed a
reas
(Im
pact
)fin
e pa
rticu
late
leve
ls (a
s ab
ove)
in h
igh
use
/ urb
an p
rote
cted
are
as,
com
pare
d to
targ
et /
safe
par
ticul
ate
leve
ls.
Stat
e of
Par
ks
Fine
Par
ticul
ates
air q
ualit
y fro
m p
resc
ribed
fire
s an
dm
ills (I
mpa
ct)
tonn
es o
f fin
e pa
rticu
late
s (P
M10
em
issi
ons)
from
pre
scrib
ed fi
res
and
fore
stin
dust
ry m
ills, b
y ye
ar, a
nd m
ap d
istri
butio
n of
fine
par
ticul
ates
Stat
e of
For
ests
Fine
Par
ticul
ates
caus
es /
sour
ces
of fi
ne p
artic
ulat
esem
issi
ons
(Pre
ssur
e)so
urce
s of
fine
par
ticul
ate
emis
sion
s (to
nnes
), by
type
(e.g
., bu
rnin
g, m
ills,
othe
r urb
an s
ourc
es),
for L
ower
Mai
nlan
d an
d re
st o
f BC
. Als
o, s
ourc
es o
fem
issi
ons
(mob
ile, p
oint
sou
rce,
are
a so
urce
s)
Stat
e of
For
ests
,En
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s
Smok
e /
Parti
cula
tes
pres
crib
ed b
urni
ng a
ctiv
ity (P
ress
ure)
area
of p
resc
ribed
fire
s, b
y ye
arSt
ate
of F
ores
ts
Hea
lth Im
pact
sm
orbi
dity
and
mor
talit
y (Im
pact
)pu
blic
hea
lth s
tatis
tics
on m
orbi
dity
and
mor
talit
y fro
m re
spira
tory
dis
ease
sM
OH
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng,
Reg
iona
l Med
ical
Hea
lthof
ficia
lsG
aseo
usC
onta
min
ants
gase
ous
cont
amin
ant c
once
ntra
tions
(Impa
ct)
leve
ls o
f: gr
ound
-leve
l ozo
ne, n
itrog
en d
ioxi
de, s
ulph
ur d
ioxi
de, h
ydro
gen
sulp
hide
, car
bon
mon
oxid
e, c
arbo
n di
oxid
e (e
xcee
danc
es re
lativ
e to
prov
inci
al o
bjec
tives
)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Gas
eous
and
Parti
cula
teC
onta
min
ants
disp
ersi
on (P
ress
ure)
area
/ di
strib
utio
n of
dis
pers
ion
of c
onta
min
ants
MEL
P / G
VRD
/ M
OH
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng
Air Q
ualit
yIm
pact
s on
Fore
sts
perc
enta
ge o
f for
est l
and
subj
ecte
d to
leve
ls o
f spe
cific
air
pollu
tant
s th
at m
ayne
gativ
ely
impa
ct fo
rest
eco
syst
ems
(Impa
ct)
atm
osph
eric
leve
ls o
f sul
phat
es, n
itrat
e, o
zone
, ultr
avio
let B
in fo
rest
ecos
yste
ms
CC
FM C
&I
Ozo
neoz
one
depl
etio
n (C
ondi
tion)
ozon
e co
ncen
tratio
ns in
fore
sted
regi
ons
CC
FM, c
riter
ia a
ndin
dica
tors
, MEL
P / M
OH
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ngC
limat
eC
hang
eG
loba
l War
min
ggr
eenh
ouse
gas
em
issi
ons
(Pre
ssur
e)m
egat
onne
s of
CO
2 eq
uiva
lent
s di
scha
rged
into
the
atm
osph
ere,
and
sec
tora
lso
urce
of d
isch
arge
s –
tota
l for
BC
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Glo
bal W
arm
ing
gree
n ho
use
gas
emis
sion
sou
rces
(Pre
ssur
e)in
vent
ory
of g
reen
hous
e ga
s em
issi
on s
ourc
es a
nd a
mou
nts
MEL
P / G
VRD
/ M
OH
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng
Page
66
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Glo
bal W
arm
ing
fore
st in
dust
ry e
mis
sion
s (P
ress
ure)
trend
s in
foss
il fu
el /
carb
on p
rodu
ct e
mis
sion
s fro
m fo
rest
sec
tor.
Als
ope
rcen
tage
of f
ores
t sec
tor e
nerg
y us
age
from
rene
wab
le s
ourc
es.
CC
FM C
&I, M
odel
fore
stm
onito
ring
Glo
bal W
arm
ing
tem
pera
ture
incr
ease
s (C
ondi
tion)
BC te
mpe
ratu
re c
hang
e ov
er p
ast c
entu
ry, b
y re
gion
(and
at f
ores
t lev
el)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds,
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gG
loba
l War
min
gte
mpe
ratu
re in
crea
ses
(Con
ditio
n)te
mpe
ratu
re “s
ums”
; met
eoro
logi
cal p
aram
eter
s (p
reci
pita
tion,
etc
).C
CFM
C&I
, Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
g, M
ELP
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ng, B
C H
ydro
,Em
erge
ncy
Plan
ning
Glo
bal W
arm
ing
wat
er te
mpe
ratu
re (C
ondi
tion)
chan
ge in
wat
er te
mpe
ratu
res
over
tim
e at
sel
ecte
d si
tes
Mod
el F
ores
t mon
itorin
gG
loba
l War
min
ggl
acie
r ret
reat
(Im
pact
)ch
ange
in p
ositi
on o
f gla
cier
fron
t rel
ativ
e to
190
0 at
sel
ecte
d BC
gla
cier
sEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s,M
ELP
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ngG
loba
l War
min
gBC
fore
sts
as c
arbo
n si
nks
(Con
ditio
n)ca
rbon
sto
ck c
hang
es (t
onne
s) –
abs
orpt
ion
and
rele
ase-
by
fore
st ty
pe a
ndfo
r tot
al fo
rest
Stat
e of
For
est,
CC
FM C
&I
Glo
bal W
arm
ing
BC fo
rest
s as
car
bon
sink
s (C
ondi
tion)
carb
on p
ools
i.e.
, tre
e vs
. non
-tree
bio
mas
s vo
lum
e es
timat
es (t
onne
s).
Also
,ar
ea o
f for
est d
eple
tion,
and
per
cent
age
of c
anop
y co
ver,
as in
dica
tors
of
carb
on s
eque
stra
tion.
Als
o, b
iom
ass
loss
due
to fi
re
Stat
e of
For
est,
CC
FMC
&I, M
odel
fore
stm
onito
ring
Glo
bal W
arm
ing
BC fo
rest
s as
car
bon
sink
s (R
espo
nse)
Kyot
o pr
otoc
ol a
ccou
ntin
g ef
fect
sSt
ate
of F
ores
tG
loba
l War
min
gca
rbon
seq
uest
ratio
n / r
elea
se in
agric
ultu
ral s
yste
ms
(Pre
ssur
e)dy
nam
ics
of c
arbo
n si
nks
and
sequ
estra
tion
in a
gric
ultu
ral s
yste
ms
MEL
P, M
AF s
trate
gic
plan
ning
Glo
bal W
arm
ing
Fore
stry
CO
2 em
issi
ons
(Pre
ssur
e)C
O2
emis
sion
s (to
nnes
) fro
m th
e fo
rest
sec
tor
CC
FM C
&I, M
odel
fore
stm
onito
ring
AQ
UA
TIC
RES
OU
RC
ESFi
sh a
nd o
ther
Aqu
atic
Fau
naSp
ecie
s at
Ris
kth
reat
ened
or e
ndan
gere
d fis
h sp
ecie
sth
at a
re “f
ores
t dw
ellin
g” (
Impa
ct)
perc
ent o
f kno
wn
of s
peci
es th
at a
re th
reat
ened
or e
ndan
gere
d, a
ccor
ding
tode
gree
of f
ores
t dep
ende
ncy
(hig
h, m
ediu
m, l
ow).
Als
o re
side
nt fi
sh s
peci
esan
d st
ocks
at r
isk
for v
ario
us re
gion
s (e
.g.,
red-
liste
d aq
uatic
spe
cies
inKa
mlo
ops
LRM
P ar
ea)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds,
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g (K
amlo
ops)
Salm
on S
tock
ssa
lmon
sto
ck e
xtin
ctio
ns a
nd ri
sks
ofex
tinct
ion
(Impa
ct)
num
ber o
f kno
wn
salm
on s
tock
s (b
y sp
ecie
s) th
at a
re e
xtin
ct, a
t mod
erat
e to
high
risk
of b
ecom
ing
extin
ct, o
r of s
peci
al c
once
rn.
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Anad
rom
ous
Fish
anad
rom
ous
fish
spec
ies
esca
pem
ent
(Con
ditio
n)hi
stor
ic re
cord
of a
nnua
l num
bers
of s
alm
onid
s th
at re
turn
to s
paw
n at
sele
cted
loca
tions
(e.g
., C
oho,
ste
elhe
ad)
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s)W
hite
Stu
rgeo
nag
e di
strib
utio
n of
whi
te s
turg
eon
(Con
ditio
n)pe
rcen
tage
of w
hite
stu
rgeo
n po
pula
tion
that
is ju
veni
le v
s. s
ub-a
dults
vs.
adul
ts in
Fra
ser a
nd N
echa
ko R
iver
sEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s
Koka
nee
spaw
ning
act
ivity
(Con
ditio
n)nu
mbe
r of K
okan
ee s
paw
ners
in s
tream
s of
Oka
naga
n La
keEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
sBu
ll Tr
out
popu
latio
n st
atus
(Im
pact
)pe
rcen
t of w
ater
shed
gro
upin
gs w
here
Bul
l Tro
ut p
opul
atio
ns a
re s
able
ver
sus
decl
inin
gEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s
Sele
cted
Sto
cks
stat
us o
f sel
ecte
d st
ocks
(Con
ditio
n)fis
h po
pula
tions
and
tren
ds fo
r ana
drom
ous,
spo
rt, n
on-c
omm
erci
al a
ndsp
ecie
s at
risk
) i.e
., nu
mbe
r of f
ish
coun
ted
annu
ally
at s
elec
ted
perm
anen
tm
onito
ring
site
s (e
.g.,
stee
lhea
d sm
olts
, coh
o es
cape
men
ts, r
esid
ent t
rout
,et
c.)
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(e.g
., Va
ncou
ver I
slan
d),
MEL
P, M
oFi s
trate
gic
plan
ning
Sele
cted
Sto
cks
stoc
k re
cove
ry p
lans
(Res
pons
e)nu
mbe
r and
dis
tribu
tion
of s
tock
reco
very
pro
gram
s / p
lans
MoF
i, M
ELP
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngSe
lect
edSp
ecie
ssp
ecie
s co
mpo
sitio
n, a
bund
ance
and
dist
ribut
ion
(Impa
ct)
chan
ges
in fi
sh s
peci
es c
ompo
sitio
n an
d ab
unda
nce
and
dist
ribut
ion
(as
anin
dica
tor o
f clim
ate
chan
ge)
MoF
i, M
ELP
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ng
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
Page
67
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Sele
cted
Spec
ies
fishi
ng e
ffort
and
catc
h (Im
pact
)de
clin
es in
fish
er e
ffort,
tota
l cat
ch a
nd c
atch
/ un
it ef
fort
MoF
i, M
ELP
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngSe
lect
edSp
ecie
sfis
h ha
rves
t (Pr
essu
re)
num
ber o
f fis
h ha
rves
ted
acco
rdin
g to
spe
cies
, sto
cks
MEL
P, M
OFI
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngAq
uatic
Fau
naab
unda
nce
and
dist
ribut
ion
of a
quat
icfa
una
(Con
ditio
n)ch
ange
s in
dis
tribu
tion
and
abun
danc
e of
uns
peci
fied
spec
ies
of a
quat
ic fa
una
CC
FM C
&I
Lake
Cla
ssifi
catio
nstre
nds
in la
ke c
lass
ifica
tions
(Res
pons
e)nu
mbe
r of l
akes
that
hav
e be
en c
lass
ified
, usi
ng th
e M
OF
Lake
Cla
ssifi
catio
nSy
stem
, as
clas
s A
(mos
t res
trict
ive)
to c
lass
E (l
east
rest
rictiv
e)La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops)
Wat
er Q
uant
ityH
ydro
logi
cal
wat
er fl
ow a
t sel
ecte
d dr
aina
ges
(Con
ditio
n)su
mm
er lo
w fl
ow a
nd p
eak
flow
at s
elec
ted
perm
anen
t stre
am g
augi
ngst
atio
nsLa
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(e
.g.,
Vanc
ouve
r Isl
and,
Kam
loop
s), C
CFM
C&I
,M
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Hyd
rolo
gica
lsn
ow p
ack
(Con
ditio
n)sn
ow p
ack
/ sur
vey
trend
sM
ELP
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ngH
ydro
logi
cal
surfa
ce w
ater
are
a in
fore
sted
are
as(C
ondi
tion)
long
-term
tren
ds in
are
a of
sur
face
wat
er in
fore
sted
are
asC
CFM
C&I
, Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gH
ydro
logi
cal
wat
ersh
ed a
sses
smen
ts (R
espo
nse)
num
ber o
f wat
ersh
ed a
sses
smen
ts a
nd, o
f tho
se, t
he n
umbe
r of w
ater
shed
sid
entif
ied
as re
quiri
ng re
habi
litat
ion
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s)Su
rface
Wat
erAv
aila
bilit
yfu
lly a
lloca
ted
stre
ams
(Res
pons
e)nu
mbe
r of w
ater
sup
plie
s th
at a
re fu
lly re
cord
ed (i
.e.,
com
mun
ity w
ater
shed
s;m
ajor
bas
ins;
cre
eks,
bro
oks
and
lake
s; s
prin
gs, p
onds
and
gul
ches
)La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops)
Gro
und
Wat
erAv
aila
bilit
yw
ater
leve
ls (C
ondi
tion)
aver
age
wat
er le
vels
at o
bser
vatio
n w
ells
in m
ajor
pro
vinc
ial a
quife
rs (a
nd in
aqui
fers
in m
odel
fore
sts)
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
g
Wat
er Q
ualit
ySu
rface
Wat
erQ
ualit
y in
Wat
ersh
eds
wat
er q
ualit
y in
dex
(Con
ditio
n)w
ater
qua
lity
inde
x re
sults
at m
onito
ring
site
s (re
porte
d as
impr
ovin
g,de
terio
ratin
g or
no
chan
ge in
qua
lity)
, rep
orte
d by
wat
ersh
ed g
roup
ings
. Al
so,
wat
er q
ualit
y ra
tings
at m
onito
red
site
s (i.
e., e
xcel
lent
, goo
d, fa
ir, b
orde
rline
or
poor
ratin
gs).
Als
o, o
ther
uns
peci
fied
wat
er c
hem
istry
par
amet
ers
(CC
FMC
&I, a
nd F
SC c
ertif
icat
ion)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds,
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(e.g
., Va
ncou
ver I
slan
d),
CC
FM &
I, FS
C fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion
Surfa
ce W
ater
Qua
lity
wat
er q
ualit
y pa
ram
eter
s (C
ondi
tion)
surfa
ce w
ater
qua
lity
as in
dica
ted
by m
easu
rem
ents
of:
diss
olve
d so
lids,
hard
ness
, tra
ce e
lem
ents
, chl
orop
hyll
a, n
utrie
nts,
nitr
ate,
pH
, sed
imen
ts,
feca
l col
iform
s, c
yani
de, A
OX,
tem
pera
ture
, dis
solv
ed g
ases
.
MEL
P st
rate
gic
plan
ning
,M
OH
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng
Drin
king
Wat
erQ
ualit
ydr
inki
ng w
ater
hea
lth p
aram
eter
s(C
ondi
tion)
drin
king
wat
er q
ualit
y of
regu
late
d ut
ilitie
s (m
icro
biol
ogy,
pro
tozo
ans,
met
als,
maj
or io
ns, n
itrat
e) –
sur
face
wat
er a
nd g
roun
dwat
erM
ELP,
MO
H, r
egul
ated
utilit
ies
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ngD
rinki
ng W
ater
Qua
lity
boil
wat
er a
dvis
orie
s (R
espo
nse)
frequ
ency
and
dis
tribu
tion
of b
oil w
ater
adv
isor
ies
MEL
P, M
OH
, Reg
iona
lhe
alth
offi
cers
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngD
rinki
ng W
ater
Qua
lity
com
mun
ity w
ater
shed
s (R
espo
nse)
num
ber a
nd d
istri
butio
n of
com
mun
ity w
ater
shed
pla
nsM
ELP,
MO
F st
rate
gic
plan
ning
Wat
erbo
rne
Dis
ease
wat
erbo
rne
dise
ase
para
met
ers
(Impa
ct)
frequ
ency
and
dis
tribu
tion
of w
ater
-bor
ne d
isea
ses
MEL
P, M
OH
, Reg
iona
lhe
alth
offi
cers
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngC
ompl
ianc
eco
mpl
ianc
e at
poi
nt-s
ourc
e di
scha
rges
(Pre
ssur
e)nu
mbe
r, qu
ality
and
com
plia
nce
reco
rds
of p
oint
-sou
rce
disc
harg
esM
ELP
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng
Land
Use
land
use
s w
ith p
oten
tial w
ater
qua
lity
impa
cts
(Pre
ssur
e)la
nd a
rea
occu
pied
by
uses
with
pot
entia
l wat
er q
ualit
y im
pact
sM
ELP
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng
Fore
stry
Impa
cts
road
dea
ctiv
atio
n fo
r wat
erki
lom
eter
s of
road
that
hav
e be
en d
eact
ivat
ed fo
r pur
pose
s of
wat
er q
ualit
yLa
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g
Page
68
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
man
agem
ent p
urpo
ses
(Res
pons
e)co
ntro
l(K
amlo
ops)
Fore
stry
Impa
cts
turb
idity
(Im
pact
)tu
rbid
ity in
wat
ersh
eds
(or a
t sel
ecte
d sa
mpl
ing
site
s, e
.g.,
Kam
loop
s).
Also
,tu
rbid
ity in
pai
red
wat
ersh
eds,
with
and
with
out l
oggi
ng.
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g (K
amlo
ops)
,M
odel
For
est M
onito
ring
Fore
stry
Impa
cts
chan
nel c
hang
e, h
ydro
logy
, par
ticle
size
dis
tribu
tion
(Impa
ct)
exte
nt o
f cha
nges
in th
ese
attri
bute
s, o
ver t
ime,
at f
ores
t lev
elM
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Wat
er Q
ualit
y at
Mar
ine
Park
sfe
cal c
olifo
rm le
vels
at m
arin
e pa
rk /
boat
anc
hora
ges,
or s
hellf
ish
clos
ures
(Impa
ct)
num
ber o
f day
s th
at fe
cal c
olifo
rm le
vels
exc
eed
prov
inci
al s
tand
ards
at
sele
cted
mar
ine
park
s / a
ncho
rage
s; o
r, nu
mbe
r of d
ays
of s
hellf
ish
clos
ure
atse
lect
ed m
arin
e pa
rks
due
to fe
cal c
onta
min
atio
n
Stat
e of
Par
ks
Wat
er Q
ualit
y at
Shel
lfish
Gro
win
g Ar
eas
mar
ine
wat
er q
ualit
y at
exi
stin
g an
dpo
tent
ial s
hellf
ish
grow
ing
area
s(Im
pact
)
area
of f
ores
hore
are
as c
lose
d to
she
llfis
h ha
rves
ting;
per
cent
age
of fo
resh
ore
area
s w
ith h
igh
and
mod
erat
e sh
ellfi
sh c
apab
ility
that
are
clo
sed
to s
hellf
ish
harv
estin
g; a
nd p
erce
ntag
e of
fore
shor
e ar
eas
with
hig
h sh
ellfi
sh fa
rmin
gsu
itabi
lity
that
are
clo
sed
to s
hellf
ish
prod
uctio
n –
due
to fe
cal o
r dio
xin
cont
amin
atio
n
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(i.e.
, Van
couv
er Is
land
)
Pulp
and
Pap
erM
ill E
fflue
ntch
lorin
ated
org
anic
com
poun
ds in
pul
pan
d pa
per e
fflue
nt d
isch
arge
(Im
pact
)to
nnes
/ da
y of
abs
orba
ble
orga
nic
halid
e (A
OX)
dis
char
ges
inn
pulp
and
pape
r effl
uent
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Gro
und
Wat
erQ
ualit
yqu
ality
of w
ell w
ater
(Im
pact
)gr
ound
wat
er q
ualit
y at
obs
erva
tion
wel
ls (e
.g.,
nitra
te a
nd p
estic
ides
). A
lso,
num
ber o
f gro
undw
ater
wel
ls w
ith w
ater
qua
lity
conc
erns
, or n
umbe
r cla
ssed
as h
ighl
y vu
lner
able
acc
ordi
ng to
aqu
ifer c
lass
ifica
tion
/ map
ping
met
hods
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds,
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s), M
ELP
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ngG
roun
d W
ater
Qua
lity
aqui
fers
at r
isk
of c
onta
min
atio
n(C
ondi
tion)
num
ber o
f BC
aqu
ifers
with
repo
rted
grou
ndw
ater
qua
lity
conc
erns
; num
ber
vuln
erab
le to
con
tam
inat
ion
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Mon
itorin
g Ef
fort
num
ber a
nd lo
catio
n of
wat
er q
ualit
ym
onito
ring
stat
ions
(Res
pons
e)nu
mbe
r and
loca
tion
of w
ater
qua
lity
mon
itorin
g st
atio
nsSa
te o
f For
ests
, CC
FMC
&IM
anag
emen
tEf
fort
fore
st m
anag
emen
t des
igna
tions
topr
otec
t wat
er q
ualit
y (R
espo
nse)
fore
st la
nd a
rea
that
is m
anag
ed fo
r soi
l and
wat
er p
rote
ctio
n, b
y ty
pe (e
.g.,
com
mun
ity w
ater
shed
s, n
etdo
wns
for t
erra
in in
stab
ility,
ripa
rian
zone
s).
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&IW
ater
Use
Lice
nsed
wat
erus
enu
mbe
r and
vol
ume
of s
urfa
ce w
ater
licen
sed
(Pre
ssur
e)vo
lum
e of
sur
face
wat
er (m
3 / y
r) lic
ense
d fo
r var
ious
con
sum
ptiv
e us
es(a
gric
ultu
re, t
herm
al p
ower
, min
ing,
man
ufac
turin
g, m
unic
ipal
)En
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s,M
ELP
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ngW
ater
Use
hydr
olog
ical
des
ign
(Pre
ssur
e)nu
mbe
r and
dis
tribu
tion
of re
ques
ts fo
r hyd
rolo
gica
l des
ign
info
rmat
ion
MEL
P st
rate
gic
plan
ning
Per C
apita
Wat
er U
sevo
lum
e of
wat
er u
sed
per c
apita
(Pre
ssur
e)pe
r cap
ita w
ater
con
sum
ptio
n (li
tres
per p
erso
n pe
r day
)En
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s
Stre
amR
estri
ctio
ns s
tream
rest
rictio
ns (R
espo
nse)
num
ber o
f res
trict
ions
regi
ster
ed a
gain
st s
tream
sEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s
Bottl
ed W
ater
wat
er li
cens
ed fo
r bot
tle s
ales
(Pre
ssur
e)vo
lum
e of
wat
er li
cens
ed fo
r bot
tled
wat
er s
ales
in B
CEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s
Com
mun
ityW
ater
shed
sst
atus
of c
omm
unity
wat
ersh
eds
(Res
pons
e)nu
mbe
r and
are
a of
com
mun
ity w
ater
shed
s, in
siz
e ca
tego
ries
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
Gro
undw
ater
Use
wat
er u
se fr
om B
C a
quife
rs (P
ress
ure)
perc
enta
ge o
f BC
aqu
ifers
that
are
at r
isk
from
hea
vy w
ater
use
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Hab
itat
Urb
an S
tream
sLo
wer
Fra
ser V
alle
y st
ream
dam
age
(Pre
ssur
e)pe
rcen
t of s
tream
s in
Low
er F
rase
r Val
ley
that
hav
e be
en lo
st, o
r are
thre
aten
ed a
nd e
ndan
gere
dEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s
Prod
uctiv
itypr
esen
ce /
abse
nce
of h
abita
t attr
ibut
es(C
ondi
tion)
stre
am h
abita
t cha
ract
eris
tics
chan
ge o
ver t
ime
at s
elec
ted
loca
l stre
ams
(e.g
., co
arse
woo
dy d
ebris
, poo
ling,
stre
am s
truct
ure,
stre
am s
ide
vege
tatio
n)M
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
Page
69
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Cro
ssin
gsst
ream
cro
ssin
gs (P
ress
ure)
num
ber a
nd ty
pe o
f stre
am c
ross
ings
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gH
abita
tC
ondi
tion
wat
ersh
ed in
tegr
ity (P
ress
ure)
land
use
, lan
d co
ver,
road
and
stre
am c
ross
ing
dens
ities
and
hyd
rolo
gica
lch
arac
teris
tics
in w
ater
shed
sM
ELP,
MoF
i stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngH
abita
t Am
ount
fish
habi
tat c
ondi
tion
and
amou
nt(C
ondi
tion)
dist
ribut
ion
and
qual
ity o
f fis
h ha
bita
ts; a
mou
nt /
leng
th o
f kno
wn
salm
on,
spor
tfish
and
oth
er fi
sh s
tream
sM
ELP,
MoF
i stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngH
abita
tC
ondi
tion
aqua
tic h
abita
t deg
rada
tion
(Impa
ct)
exte
nt, d
istri
butio
n an
d tre
nds
in ri
paria
n an
d aq
uatic
eco
syst
ems
degr
adat
ion
MEL
P, M
oFi s
trate
gic
plan
ning
Hab
itat
Res
tora
tion
aqua
tic h
abita
t reh
abilit
atio
n pr
ojec
ts(R
espo
nse)
num
ber a
nd d
istri
butio
n of
wat
ersh
ed, s
tream
and
fish
hab
itat r
ehab
ilitat
ion
proj
ects
MEL
P, M
oFi s
trate
gic
plan
ning
CU
LTU
RA
L / H
ERIT
AG
ER
ESO
UR
CES
Cul
tura
l /H
erita
geR
esou
rces
inPr
otec
ted
Area
s
risk
to c
ultu
ral h
erita
ge v
alue
s(P
ress
ure)
num
ber /
per
cent
of p
rote
cted
are
as w
here
‘hig
hly
sign
ifica
nt’ c
ultu
ral /
herit
age
reso
urce
s ar
e as
sess
ed b
y pa
rk m
anag
ers
to b
e at
a h
igh,
mod
erat
eor
low
risk
of d
eter
iora
tion
from
any
cau
se
Stat
e of
Par
ks
Trad
ition
al U
setra
ditio
nal u
se s
tudi
es (R
espo
nse)
num
ber a
nd lo
catio
n of
trad
ition
al u
se, k
now
ledg
e st
udie
s co
mpl
eted
/un
derw
aySt
ate
of F
ores
ts
Her
itage
Des
igna
tions
Her
itage
Con
serv
atio
n Ac
t des
igna
tions
(Res
pons
e)ar
ea o
f lan
d m
anag
ed a
nd p
rote
cted
und
er th
e H
erita
ge C
onse
rvat
ion
Act
(e.g
., tru
sts,
arc
haeo
logi
cal s
ites)
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
LAN
D &
RES
OU
RC
E US
EA
gric
ultu
re &
Ran
gela
ndAg
ricul
tura
l Lan
dPr
otec
tion
agric
ultu
ral l
and
rese
rve
(Res
pons
e)ar
ea o
f lan
d re
tain
ed in
agr
icul
tura
l lan
d re
serv
e, b
y re
gion
and
pro
vinc
ially
Land
Res
erve
Com
mis
sion
repo
rting
; BC
Lan
dSt
atis
tics;
and
Lan
d us
epl
an m
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s, V
anco
uver
isla
nd)
Agric
ultu
ral L
and
Prot
ectio
nag
ricul
tura
l cap
abilit
y cl
asse
s in
ALR
(Con
ditio
n)ar
ea o
f var
ious
agr
icul
tura
l cap
abilit
y cl
asse
s th
at a
re p
rote
cted
by
the
ALR
(i.e.
, cla
ss 1
-7),
and
perc
ent o
f tot
al a
rea
in A
LRBC
Lan
d St
atis
tics
Agric
ultu
ral
Activ
ityfa
rm n
umbe
rs (C
ondi
tion)
num
ber /
are
a of
farm
s in
& o
ut o
f pro
duct
ion,
loca
tions
, typ
es, s
izes
, etc
., by
regi
on a
nd p
rovi
nce-
wid
eM
AA s
trate
gic
plan
ning
,La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops)
Agric
ultu
ral
Activ
ityfa
rmin
g an
d ra
nchi
ng a
ctiv
ity in
BC
(Pre
ssur
e)lo
catio
n an
d am
ount
of f
arm
ing
/ ran
chin
g ac
tivity
in B
C, i
nclu
ding
: gro
und
man
ipul
atio
n, c
rop
type
s, ir
rigat
ed v
s. d
ryla
nd, f
ertil
izer
and
her
bici
deap
plic
atio
ns, i
mpr
ovem
ents
, etc
.
MAA
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng,
and
“Sta
te o
f Agr
icul
ture
inBC
” rep
ortin
g, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops)
Agric
ultu
ral
Pote
ntia
lag
ricul
tura
l use
par
amet
ers
(Con
ditio
n)va
rious
dat
a on
fact
ors
that
det
erm
ine
the
abilit
y to
farm
/ ra
nch
in B
C in
aco
st-e
ffect
ive
man
ner,
incl
udin
g: s
oil f
ertil
ity, e
xten
t of w
eeds
, wat
erav
aila
bilit
y to
sup
port
agric
ultu
re, s
oil e
rosi
on le
vels
, etc
.)
MAA
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ngan
d “S
tate
of A
gric
ultu
re in
BC” r
epor
ting
Farm
land
Use
type
of f
arm
land
in B
C (C
ondi
tion)
type
of f
arm
land
acc
ordi
ng to
maj
or c
lass
ifica
tions
(im
prov
ed fo
r fie
ld c
rops
,im
prov
ed p
astu
re, s
umm
er fa
llow
vs.
uni
mpr
oved
land
vs.
oth
er la
nd)
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
Ran
gela
nd U
senu
mbe
r of g
razi
ng p
erm
its a
nd li
cens
esis
sued
, and
ani
mal
uni
t mon
ths
(Pre
ssur
e)
num
ber p
erm
its /
licen
ses
issu
ed a
nnua
lly, a
nd n
umbe
r of a
nim
al u
nit m
onth
sth
at a
re a
vaila
ble
annu
ally
for g
razi
ng a
ctiv
ity, b
y re
gion
and
pro
vinc
ially
.Al
so, e
stim
ate
of fu
ture
AU
M h
arve
st to
210
0. A
lso,
num
ber o
f gra
zing
tenu
res
and
AUM
s th
at o
verla
p w
ith p
rote
cted
are
as
Stat
e of
For
ests
; Lan
d us
epl
an m
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s); B
C L
and
Stat
istic
s
Page
70
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Ran
gela
nd U
sean
d C
over
amou
nt o
f ran
ge u
se a
ccor
ding
to la
ndco
ver t
ypes
(Pre
ssur
e)ar
ea o
f Cro
wn
rang
e be
ing
used
, and
num
ber o
f AU
Ms,
with
in la
nd c
over
cate
gorie
s (e
.g.,
open
rang
e, w
etla
nd, a
lpin
e, d
ry fo
rest
, cle
arin
gs, e
tc.)
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
Ran
gela
nd T
ype
rang
elan
d cl
asse
s(C
ondi
tion)
area
of C
row
n ra
ngel
and
(gra
ssla
nd, o
pen
fore
st a
nd e
arly
ser
al fo
rest
)St
ate
of F
ores
ts, L
RM
Pm
onito
ring
repo
rts(K
amlo
ops)
; an
dM
OF/
MAA
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ng p
urpo
ses
Irrig
atio
n fo
rAg
ricul
ture
irrig
atio
n w
ater
lice
nsin
g (R
espo
nse)
num
ber o
f irri
gatio
n lic
ense
s in
pla
ce, b
y re
gion
and
pro
vinc
ially
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s), a
nd M
AA /
MO
F st
rate
gic
plan
ning
purp
oses
Nox
ious
Wee
dsoc
curre
nce
of n
oxio
us w
eeds
(Pre
ssur
e)ar
ea a
nd d
egre
e of
infe
stat
ion
with
nox
ious
wee
ds, b
y sp
ecie
s (e
.g.,
knap
wee
d, to
adfla
x, e
tc).
Als
o m
appi
ng o
f loc
atio
n of
nox
ious
wee
dsSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g (i.
e.,
Kam
loop
s)Aq
uacu
lture
Activ
ityaq
uacu
lture
farm
num
bers
(Pre
ssur
e)nu
mbe
r of o
pera
ting
finfis
h an
d sh
ellfi
sh fa
rms
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(i.e.
, Van
couv
er Is
land
);BC
Lan
d St
atis
tics
Aqua
cultu
reLa
nd U
sela
nd a
lloca
tion
for a
quac
ultu
re(R
espo
nse)
fore
shor
e ar
ea w
ith la
nd u
se p
riorit
y as
sign
ed to
aqu
acul
ture
dev
elop
men
t,an
d ar
ea o
f Cro
wn
land
hel
d un
der a
quac
ultu
re te
nure
sLa
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g,M
inis
try o
f Fis
herie
s an
dBC
AL s
trate
gic
plan
ning
purp
oses
Con
serv
atio
nLa
ndIn
stru
men
ts fo
rC
onse
rvat
ion
sele
cted
con
serv
atio
n de
sign
atio
ns(R
espo
nse)
area
of C
row
n la
nd s
ecur
ed fo
r con
serv
atio
n us
es u
nder
var
ious
Lan
d Ac
t and
Gre
enbe
lt Ac
t ins
trum
ents
(e.g
., de
sign
atio
ns, r
eser
ves,
leas
es)
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
Wet
land
s an
dPe
at la
nds
occu
rrenc
e of
wet
land
s an
d pe
at la
nds
in B
C (C
ondi
tion)
tota
l are
a in
wet
land
s an
d pe
at la
nds
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
Hig
hC
onse
rvat
ion
Valu
e Fo
rest
s
mai
nten
ance
of h
igh
cons
erva
tion
valu
efo
rest
s ov
er ti
me
(Con
ditio
n)ex
tent
to w
hich
con
serv
atio
n at
tribu
tes
in “h
igh
cons
erva
tion
valu
e fo
rest
”ar
eas
are
mai
ntai
ned
or e
nhan
ced
over
tim
eFS
C fo
rest
cer
tific
atio
n
Fore
st L
and
Prod
uctiv
ityfo
rest
ed a
rea
in p
rimar
y pr
oduc
tivity
clas
ses
(Con
ditio
n).
area
of l
and
in p
rimar
y fo
rest
man
agem
ent c
lass
es: p
rodu
ctiv
e (a
vaila
ble
and
unav
aila
ble)
ver
sus
non-
prod
uctiv
e. A
lso
area
of i
mm
atur
e ve
rsus
mat
ure
fore
st in
goo
d, m
ediu
m, p
oor,
low
site
cla
ss, a
ccor
ding
to m
anag
emen
t uni
tty
pe
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
Prod
uctiv
itym
ean
annu
al in
crem
ent (
Con
ditio
n)m
ean
annu
al in
crem
ent b
y fo
rest
type
and
age
cla
ssM
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Prod
uctiv
itynu
trien
t flu
xes
(Con
ditio
n)nu
trien
t flu
xes
by s
tand
type
(i.e
., at
the
BEC
sub
zone
leve
l)M
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
“Wor
king
For
est”
fore
st la
nd re
serv
e (R
espo
nse)
land
are
a in
the
fore
st la
nd re
serv
eLa
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g“W
orki
ng F
ores
t”ar
ea fo
r gro
win
g an
d ha
rves
ting
timbe
r(C
ondi
tion)
timbe
r har
vest
ing
land
bas
e, p
er a
ge c
lass
by
fore
st ty
pe, b
y tim
ber
prod
uctiv
ity.
And
area
of o
ld g
row
th in
AG
HT
as a
per
cent
age
of o
ld g
row
th,
by B
EC z
one
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
gC
onse
rvat
ion
land
sfo
rest
are
a m
anag
ed fo
r soi
l and
wat
er(a
nd o
ther
eco
logi
cal)
prot
ectio
n(R
espo
nse)
perc
enta
ge o
f tot
al fo
rest
ed a
rea
that
is m
anag
ed p
rimar
ily fo
r soi
l and
wat
erpr
otec
tion.
Als
o, e
ffect
iven
ess
of fo
rest
ope
ratio
ns to
pro
tect
inte
grity
of “
high
cons
erva
tion
vale
fore
sts”
(FSC
cer
tific
atio
n)
CC
FM C
&I, F
SC fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion
Con
serv
atio
nla
nds
prot
ecte
d fo
rest
by
degr
ee o
f pro
tect
ion
(Res
pons
e)ar
ea a
nd p
erce
ntag
e of
pro
tect
ed fo
rest
land
, acc
ordi
ng to
IUC
N p
rote
ctio
ncl
assi
ficat
ions
CC
FM C
&I
Ow
ners
hip
area
of f
ores
t lan
d in
var
ious
cla
sses
of
owne
rshi
p (C
ondi
tion)
area
of f
ores
t, by
ow
ners
hip
(e.g
., pr
ovin
cial
, fed
eral
, Abo
rigin
al, p
rivat
e)St
ate
of F
ores
ts
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
Page
71
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Ow
ners
hip
corp
orat
e co
ncen
tratio
n, b
y ye
ar(C
ondi
tion)
perc
enta
ge o
f pro
vinc
ial A
AC c
ontro
lled
by to
p 10
com
pani
esSt
ate
of F
ores
ts
Man
agem
ent
area
of f
ores
t lan
d in
var
ious
man
agem
ent u
nit c
lass
ifica
tions
(Con
ditio
n)
area
of f
ores
t lan
d in
man
aged
fore
st u
nits
(uni
ts w
here
an
AAC
ises
tabl
ishe
d), b
y m
anag
erSt
ate
of F
ores
ts
Man
agem
ent
area
cov
ered
by
mul
ti-at
tribu
tein
vent
orie
s (R
espo
nse)
perc
enta
ge o
f for
est l
and
that
is c
over
ed b
y m
ulti-
attri
bute
reso
urce
inve
ntor
ies
CC
FM C
&I
Man
agem
ent
parti
cipa
tory
man
agem
ent p
lann
ing
(Res
pons
e)pe
rcen
tage
of f
ores
t lan
d un
der c
ompl
eted
man
agem
ent p
lans
that
hav
ein
clud
ed p
ublic
par
ticip
atio
nC
CFM
C&I
Res
tora
tion
habi
tat r
esto
ratio
n (R
espo
nse)
area
of h
abita
t res
tore
d fo
llow
ing
fore
st d
evel
opm
ent a
ctiv
itySt
ate
of F
ores
tsPe
rman
ent
Con
vers
ion
fore
st la
nd c
onve
rsio
n (P
ress
ure)
area
of f
ores
t lan
d pe
rman
ently
con
verte
d to
non
-fore
st u
se fr
om 1
800
to20
00, e
stim
ated
by
deca
deSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, Mod
el F
ores
tm
onito
ring
Sem
i-Per
man
ent
Con
vers
ion
fore
st la
nd c
onve
rsio
n (P
ress
ure)
area
of f
ores
t lan
d in
sem
i-per
man
ent o
r tem
pora
ry lo
ss /
gain
(e.g
.,gr
assl
ands
or a
gric
ultu
re)
CC
FM C
&I
Sem
i-Per
man
ent
Con
vers
ion
fore
st la
nd c
onve
rsio
n (P
ress
ure)
perc
enta
ge o
f har
vest
ed a
reas
that
are
con
verte
d to
per
man
ent r
oads
and
land
ings
(at T
SA le
vel)
Fore
st C
ertif
icat
ion
mon
itorin
g (e
.g.,
CSA
Kam
loop
s TS
A), M
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Fore
st L
and
Util
izat
ion
utiliz
atio
n of
fore
st la
nd fo
r non
-mar
ket
good
s an
d se
rvic
es (P
ress
ure)
area
of f
ores
t lan
d th
at is
use
d fo
r com
mer
cial
ver
sus
non-
com
mer
cial
purp
oses
, inc
ludi
ng fo
rest
land
use
for s
ubsi
sten
ce.
(Als
o, lo
sses
due
to la
ndfa
ilure
suc
h as
land
slid
es a
nd fl
oodi
ng)
CC
FM C
&I, M
odel
fore
stm
onito
ring
Was
te R
esid
ues
was
te re
sidu
e on
har
vest
ed s
ites
(Impa
ct)
amou
nt o
f for
est w
aste
reta
ined
on
harv
este
d si
tes
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
g
Land
slid
eAc
tivity
frequ
ency
of l
ands
lides
in s
elec
ted
wat
ersh
eds
(Impa
ct)
annu
al n
umbe
r of l
ands
lide
even
ts (n
atur
al v
ersu
s hu
man
indu
ced)
in s
elec
ted
wat
ersh
eds
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(i.e.
Van
couv
er Is
land
)D
evel
opm
ent o
nFr
agile
Ter
rain
/H
abita
t
road
bui
ldin
g on
uns
tabl
e te
rrain
/ st
eep
slop
es a
nd w
ithin
100
me
of s
tream
s(P
ress
ure)
amou
nt o
f roa
d bu
ildin
g ac
tivity
on
stee
p sl
opes
and
/ or
uns
tabl
e te
rrain
and
/or
with
in c
lose
pro
xim
ity to
stre
ams
MEL
P, M
OF
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ng, E
nviro
nmen
tal
Tren
dsLa
nd /
Res
ourc
e U
sePl
anni
ng
Plan
ning
Effo
rt /
Zone
sst
rate
gic
land
use
pla
nnin
g st
atus
/de
sign
atio
ns (R
espo
nse)
area
and
loca
tion
of s
trate
gic
land
use
pla
ns b
ased
on
cons
ensu
s, b
y ye
ar ;
and
trend
s in
land
use
pla
n zo
ning
des
igna
tions
(Res
pons
e)St
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, LU
CO
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngD
ispo
sitio
nPl
ans
Cro
wn
land
dis
posi
tion
plan
s(R
espo
nse)
num
ber a
nd d
istri
butio
n of
Cro
wn
land
dis
posi
tion
plan
sBC
Ass
ets
and
Land
sst
rate
gic
plan
ning
Land
Use
/C
over
Land
use
and
land
cov
er s
tatis
tics
(Con
ditio
n)tre
nds
in a
rea
and
dist
ribut
iona
l cha
nges
in g
ener
al la
nd u
se a
nd la
nd c
over
(map
ping
and
sta
tistic
s fo
r 20
land
use
and
veg
etat
ion
cove
r cla
sses
)M
ELP,
MO
F, M
AF, M
oFi
(and
oth
er a
genc
ies’
)st
rate
gic
plan
ning
Land
/R
esou
rce
Use
Tenu
res
Land
Adm
inis
tratio
nla
nd te
nure
issu
ance
(Pre
ssur
e)nu
mbe
r and
dis
tribu
tion
of a
pplic
atio
ns fo
r Cro
wn
land
MEL
P, B
C A
sset
s an
dLa
nds
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng
Land
Adm
inis
tratio
nen
croa
chm
ent /
con
flict
s w
ith s
ensi
tive
land
s (Im
pact
)al
iena
tion
of im
porta
nt h
abita
t, en
croa
chm
ent o
n rip
aria
n ar
eas
and
flood
plai
ns, a
nd in
to w
ater
-sho
rt ar
eas
MEL
P, B
C A
sset
s an
dLa
nds
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ngM
inin
g an
dEn
ergy
Min
eral
Lan
dD
istu
rban
ce a
ndR
esto
ratio
n
dist
urbe
d an
d re
stor
ed m
iner
al la
nd(C
ondi
tion,
Res
pons
e)ar
ea o
f lan
d di
stur
bed
and
rest
ored
by
coal
and
met
al m
ines
(cum
ulat
ive
hect
ares
ove
r tim
e)BC
Lan
d St
atis
tics
Page
72
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Min
eral
and
Ener
gyEx
plor
atio
n
min
eral
/ co
al a
nd p
etro
leum
and
natu
ral g
as te
nure
s / p
roje
cts
(Pre
ssur
e)
num
ber a
nd a
rea
of m
iner
al a
nd c
oal,
and
petro
leum
and
nat
ural
gas
tenu
res
and
proj
ects
(e.g
., ex
plor
atio
n an
d dr
illing
act
ivity
vs.
dev
elop
men
t), p
rovi
nce-
wid
e an
d by
regi
ons
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops,
Van
couv
erIs
land
)En
ergy
Con
sum
ptio
nto
tal v
ersu
s al
tern
ativ
e en
ergy
cons
umpt
ion
(Pre
ssur
e)pe
tajo
ules
of t
otal
ene
rgy
cons
umed
ver
sus
alte
rnat
ive
ener
gy c
onsu
med
inBC
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Pest
icid
es a
ndTo
xic
Con
tam
inan
ts
Pest
icid
e U
se o
nC
row
n La
ndus
e of
pes
ticid
es o
n C
row
n la
nd(P
ress
ure)
use
of c
hem
ical
pes
ticid
es o
n fo
rest
land
FSC
fore
st c
ertif
icat
ion
Pers
iste
ntO
rgan
icPo
lluta
nts
leve
ls o
f tox
ic c
onta
min
ants
in a
col
ony
of G
reat
Blu
e H
eron
s (Im
pact
)le
vels
of P
CBs
and
DD
Es in
Gre
at B
lue
Her
ron
eggs
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Con
tam
inat
edSi
tes
site
rem
edia
tion
(Res
pons
e)nu
mbe
r of c
onta
min
ated
site
s re
med
iate
d ov
er ti
me
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Con
tam
inat
edSi
tes
on-s
ite to
xic
subs
tanc
e re
leas
es(P
ress
ure)
tonn
es o
f on-
site
toxi
c su
bsta
nce
rele
ases
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Prot
ecte
dA
reas
Prot
ecte
d La
nds
amou
nt o
f BC
in p
rote
cted
are
a st
atus
(Res
pons
e)to
tal t
erre
stria
l and
mar
ine
area
s se
cure
d in
pro
tect
ed a
rea
stat
us b
y fe
dera
lan
d pr
ovin
cial
des
igna
tions
. Al
so a
rea
and
num
ber b
roke
n do
wn
by p
rote
cted
area
sta
tus
(fede
ral,
prov
inci
al)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds;
Stat
e of
Par
ks; L
UC
O’s
PAS
mon
itorin
g; B
C L
and
Stat
istic
s, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
gEc
osys
tem
Prot
ectio
nec
osys
tem
repr
esen
tatio
n in
pro
tect
edar
eas
(Res
pons
e)pe
rcen
t of a
rea
of B
C e
cosy
stem
s (B
EC, E
cose
ctio
ns) i
n pr
otec
ted
stat
us,
prov
inci
ally
, reg
iona
lly, a
nd a
t lan
dsca
pe /
fore
st le
vels
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds;
Stat
e of
Par
ks; L
UC
O’s
PAS
mon
itorin
g; L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g, C
CFM
C&I
, FSC
fore
stce
rtific
atio
n, M
odel
fore
stm
onito
ring
Prot
ecte
d Ar
eaC
onne
cted
ness
conn
ectiv
ity b
etw
een
/ am
ong
prot
ecte
dar
eas
(Con
ditio
n)as
sess
men
t of e
xten
t of c
onne
ctiv
e fu
nctio
n be
twee
n pr
otec
ted
area
s w
ithin
spec
ified
land
uni
ts (e
.g.,
expr
esse
d as
goo
d, m
oder
ate
or p
oor c
onne
ctiv
ity).
Prov
ince
wid
e, a
nd fo
r reg
ions
Stat
e of
Par
ks; L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g (e
.g.,
Vanc
ouve
r Isl
and)
Ecol
ogic
alR
esto
ratio
nec
olog
ical
rest
orat
ion
proj
ects
in B
C’s
park
s (R
espo
nse)
type
and
num
ber o
f eco
syst
em re
habi
litat
ion
proj
ects
, ove
r tim
eSt
ate
of P
arks
Ris
k to
Par
kVa
lues
risk
to n
atur
al v
alue
s, re
crea
tion
reso
urce
s, a
nd c
ultu
ral /
her
itage
reso
urce
s in
pro
tect
ed a
reas
(Pre
ssur
e)
num
ber /
per
cent
of ‘
high
ly s
igni
fican
t’ na
tura
l. re
crea
tiona
l, cu
ltura
l / h
erita
geva
lues
in p
rote
cted
are
as th
at a
re a
sses
sed
by p
ark
man
ager
s to
be
at h
igh,
mod
erat
e or
low
risk
of d
eter
iora
tion
from
any
cau
se
Stat
e of
Par
ks
Ris
k to
Par
kVa
lues
sign
ifica
nt e
nviro
nmen
tal o
ccur
renc
esin
pro
tect
ed a
reas
(Im
pact
)nu
mbe
r of e
nviro
nmen
tal o
ccur
renc
es in
pro
tect
ed a
reas
(e.g
., fir
em
anag
emen
t, in
sect
/ di
seas
e ou
tbre
ak, w
eed
infe
stat
ions
)La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops)
Park
Use
visi
tatio
n ra
tes
(Pre
ssur
e)nu
mbe
r of o
vern
ight
cam
pers
, num
ber o
f day
use
vis
itors
, and
tota
l num
ber o
fvi
sits
in p
rote
cted
are
as, p
rovi
ncia
lly a
nd b
y re
gion
Stat
e of
Par
ks, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops)
Park
Saf
ety
inci
denc
e of
inju
ries
/ fat
aliti
es in
par
ks(Im
pact
)nu
mbe
r of i
njur
ies
/ fat
aliti
es in
pro
tect
ed a
reas
Stat
e of
Par
ks
Rec
reat
ion
and
Tour
ism
Fore
stR
ecre
atio
n U
sevi
sito
r day
s, b
y ye
ar (P
ress
ure)
num
ber o
f rec
reat
ion
visi
tor d
ays
in p
rovi
ncia
l for
ests
, by
activ
ity, a
nnua
lly,
prov
ince
-wid
e an
d by
regi
onSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, Lan
d us
e pl
an
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
Page
73
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
mon
itorin
g (K
amlo
ops)
,Fo
rest
Rec
reat
ion
Faci
litie
s
site
s an
d tra
ils, b
y ye
ar (R
espo
nse)
num
ber o
f for
est r
ecre
atio
n si
tes,
and
km
of r
ecre
atio
n tra
ils, b
y ye
ar,
prov
ince
-wid
e an
d by
regi
onSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, Lan
d us
e pl
anm
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s),
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gVi
sual
Qua
lity
visu
al q
ualit
y ob
ject
ives
(Res
pons
e)fo
rest
are
a in
var
ious
cat
egor
ies
of v
isua
l qua
lity
obje
ctiv
es (e
.g.,
rete
ntio
n,pa
rtial
rete
ntio
n, e
tc.)
Als
o, re
gion
-wid
e p
erce
ntag
e co
mpl
ianc
e /
cont
rave
ntio
n of
vis
ual q
ualit
y ob
ject
ives
(Kam
loop
s LR
MP)
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g (K
amlo
ops)
Visu
al Q
ualit
yvi
sual
attr
activ
enes
s of
are
as th
at h
ave
been
est
ablis
hed
as ‘s
ceni
c ar
eas’
(Con
ditio
n)
perc
enta
ge o
f des
igna
ted
‘sce
nic
area
s’ (u
nder
FPC
) tha
t are
in a
n ex
istin
gvi
sual
con
ditio
n of
pre
serv
atio
n, re
tent
ion,
or p
artia
l ret
entio
n.La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(i.
e., V
anco
uver
Isla
nd)
Rec
reat
ion
Opp
ortu
nity
recr
eatio
n op
portu
nity
spe
ctru
m(R
espo
nse)
fore
st a
rea
in v
ario
us c
ateg
orie
s of
the
fore
st re
crea
tion
oppo
rtuni
ty s
pect
rum
(RO
S, i.
e., r
ural
, roa
ded
natu
ral,
road
ed m
odifi
ed, s
emi-p
rimiti
ve m
otor
ized
,se
mi-p
rimiti
ve n
on-m
otor
ized
, prim
itive
)
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, C
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g (K
amlo
ops,
Vanc
ouve
r Isl
and)
Cro
wn
Rec
reat
ion
Dis
posi
tions
recr
eatio
nal C
row
n la
nds
unde
r the
Land
Act
(Res
pons
e)ar
ea o
f Cro
wn
land
sec
ured
for r
ecre
atio
n pu
rpos
es (e
.g.,
alpi
ne s
kiin
g,m
echa
nize
d sk
i gui
ding
, bac
kcou
ntry
recr
eatio
n, m
arin
as, e
tc.)
usin
g va
rious
Land
Act
inst
rum
ents
(lea
ses,
lice
nces
, res
erve
s)
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g(V
anco
uver
Isla
nd,
Kam
loop
s)R
esou
rce-
base
dTo
uris
mra
tes
of g
row
th fo
r res
ourc
e-ba
sed
tour
ism
ope
ratio
ns (P
ress
ure)
annu
al g
row
th ra
tes
for f
acilit
ies
and
visi
tors
for v
ario
us ty
pes
of re
sour
ce-
base
d to
uris
m (e
.g.,
skiin
g, s
port
fishi
ng, f
ishi
ng re
sorts
, gui
de-o
utfit
ters
)La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops)
Rec
reat
ion
Angl
ing
trout
sto
ckin
g (R
espo
nse)
annu
al n
umbe
r of t
rout
sto
cked
in v
ario
us lo
catio
ns fo
r rec
reat
ion
angl
ing
purp
oses
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s)R
ecre
atio
nAn
glin
g / H
untin
gan
glin
g an
d hu
ntin
g ef
fort
(Pre
ssur
e)an
nual
ang
ling
effo
rt (a
ngle
r / h
unte
r day
s), b
ased
on
licen
sed
sale
s fo
rva
rious
loca
tions
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(Kam
loop
s)So
lid W
aste
Solid
Was
teG
ener
atio
nso
lid w
aste
gen
erat
ion
per c
apita
(Pre
ssur
e)ki
logr
ams
per p
erso
n, b
y re
gion
, of s
olid
was
te d
ispo
sed
to la
ndfil
ls a
ndin
cine
rato
rs, b
y w
aste
type
. Al
so li
tres
of w
aste
oil
recy
cled
and
num
ber o
fle
ad-a
cid
batte
ry u
nits
recy
cled
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds
Tran
spor
tatio
nan
d U
tiliti
esR
oad
and
Rai
lro
ad a
nd ra
il in
frast
ruct
ure
(Pre
ssur
e)ki
lom
eter
s of
pro
vinc
ial h
ighw
ays
and
fore
st ro
ads;
and
kilo
met
ers
of m
ain
line
track
sBC
Lan
d St
atis
tics
Util
ities
oil a
nd g
as li
ne in
frast
ruct
ure
(Pre
ssur
e)ki
lom
eter
s of
cru
de o
il an
d na
tura
l gas
pip
elin
es in
BC
BC L
and
Stat
istic
sSe
ttlem
ents
Urb
an S
praw
l“b
uild
-up”
land
in B
C (P
ress
ure)
area
of l
and
in B
C u
sed
for u
rban
and
rura
l set
tlem
ent,
trans
porta
tion,
and
farm
stea
dBC
Lan
d St
atis
tics
Urb
an S
praw
lru
ral l
and
conv
ersi
on (P
ress
ure)
hect
ares
of r
ural
land
con
verte
d to
urb
an u
seBC
Lan
d St
atis
tics
Priv
ate
Land
Cro
wn
land
tran
sfer
red
to p
rivat
eow
ners
hip
(Con
ditio
n)ar
ea o
f Cro
wn
land
tran
sfer
red
to p
rivat
e ow
ners
hip
by C
row
n gr
ant,
over
tim
eBC
Lan
d St
atis
tics
Mun
icip
alSt
atis
tics
area
s as
sess
ed a
nd e
xem
pted
from
taxa
tion
(Pre
ssur
e)la
nd a
rea
that
is a
sses
sed
for t
axat
ion,
and
exe
mpt
from
taxa
tion
(i.e.
, par
ks,
wat
er, s
treet
s, ro
ads,
pla
ygro
unds
, oth
er)
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
Indu
stria
l Lan
dav
aila
bilit
y of
indu
stria
l lan
d (C
ondi
tion)
area
of i
ndus
trial
land
that
is a
vaila
ble
for i
ndus
trial
use
and
are
a of
land
that
is o
ccup
ied
for i
ndus
trial
use
(and
tota
l)BC
Lan
d St
atis
tics
TER
RES
TRIA
L R
ESO
UR
CES
Vege
tatio
n /
Fore
sts
Prod
uctiv
itym
ean
annu
al in
crem
ent (
Con
ditio
n)m
ean
annu
al in
crem
ent b
y fo
rest
type
and
age
cla
ssC
CFM
C&I
Prod
uctiv
itypr
oduc
tivity
incr
ease
s as
soci
ated
with
timbe
r vol
ume
incr
ease
s th
at a
re a
ttrib
utab
le to
FR
BC in
vest
men
ts in
to fo
rest
FRBC
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng /
Page
74
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
inte
nsiv
e si
lvic
ultu
re in
vest
men
ts(C
ondi
tion)
prod
uctiv
itym
onito
ring
Prod
uctiv
ityra
te o
f for
est g
row
th (C
ondi
tion)
volu
me
of a
nnua
l gro
wth
at f
ores
t lev
el; a
nd y
ears
to re
ach
free
grow
ing
FSC
cer
tific
atio
n, M
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Fore
st T
ype
and
Age
fore
st a
ge c
lass
/ ol
d gr
owth
dis
tribu
tion
(Con
ditio
n)ar
ea o
f for
est p
er a
ge c
lass
(e.g
., 1-
40, 4
1-80
, etc
.) by
fore
st ty
pe (i
.e.,
dom
inan
t spe
cies
). A
lso,
are
a of
old
gro
wth
, “yo
unge
r” fo
rest
, and
non
-fore
st.
Also
, am
ount
of o
ld g
row
th th
at is
acc
essi
ble
for t
imbe
r har
vest
ing,
inac
cess
ible
for t
imbe
r har
vest
ing,
and
pro
tect
ed
Stat
e of
For
est,
CC
FMC
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g, F
SC fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion,
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gFo
rest
Typ
e an
dAg
epr
esen
ce o
f old
gro
wth
(Con
ditio
n)ar
ea o
f old
gro
wth
(251
+ ye
ars
for c
oast
al, a
ll fo
rest
type
s; 1
41+
year
s fo
rin
terio
r for
mos
t for
est t
ypes
; and
121
+ ye
ars
for s
tand
s do
min
ated
by
lodg
epol
e pi
ne o
r dec
iduo
us s
peci
es.
Alte
rnat
ivel
y si
mpl
y us
e 25
0+ y
ears
for
all f
ores
t typ
es)
Stat
e of
For
est,
CC
FM C
&I
Fore
st A
geD
istri
butio
nse
ral s
tage
dis
tribu
tion
by fo
rest
type
,by
man
agem
ent u
nit (
e.g.
TSA
); an
d by
land
scap
e un
its b
y BE
C v
aria
nt(C
ondi
tion)
area
/ pe
rcen
t of l
ands
cape
uni
t in
vario
us s
eral
sta
ges
(i.e.
, pre
senc
e of
old
grow
th v
s. m
atur
e vs
. mid
-ser
al v
s. e
arly
ser
al fo
rest
), re
lativ
e to
ser
al s
tage
dist
ribut
ion
targ
ets
esta
blis
hed
in B
iodi
vers
ity G
uide
book
and
in L
RM
Ps a
nd in
Land
scap
e U
nit P
lans
. Al
so n
eed
abilit
y to
repo
rt se
ral s
tage
dis
tribu
tion
inLa
ndsc
ape
units
by
BEC
var
iant
Land
scap
e U
nit P
lan
Mon
itorin
g; L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g, C
SAce
rtific
atio
n pr
oces
s (e
.g.,
Kam
loop
s TS
A)O
ld G
row
thIn
terio
r Sta
ndC
ondi
tion
amou
nt o
f old
gro
wth
vs.
mat
ure
fore
stth
at h
as “i
nter
ior s
tand
con
ditio
n”(C
ondi
tion)
area
and
per
cent
age
of o
ld g
row
th /
mat
ure
fore
st in
land
scap
e un
its th
at h
ave
inte
rior s
tand
con
ditio
n (i.
e., a
rea
of o
ld g
row
th m
anag
emen
t are
as /
recr
uitm
ent a
reas
min
us o
ld g
row
th /
mat
ure
fore
st b
uffe
r are
as),
byla
ndsc
ape
unit.
Als
o, m
onito
ring
of “f
ores
t dyn
amic
s” –
FSC
cer
tific
atio
n
Land
scap
e U
nit P
lan
Mon
itorin
g, F
SC fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion
Tree
Spe
cies
tree
spec
ies
com
posi
tion
(Con
ditio
n)tre
e sp
ecie
s co
mpo
sitio
n by
fore
st ty
pe (s
peci
es d
istri
butio
n ov
er ti
me)
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gW
ildlif
e Tr
eeR
eten
tion
wild
life
tree
patc
hes
/ gap
dis
tribu
tion
(Res
pons
e)ar
ea o
f wild
life
tree
patc
hes
that
are
reta
ined
from
har
vest
ing,
by
land
scap
eun
it, a
nd a
t for
est l
evel
. ( “
Fore
st d
ynam
ics”
– F
SC c
ertif
icat
ion;
“gap
dyna
mic
s –
mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
g)
Land
scap
e U
nit P
lan
Mon
itorin
g, F
SC fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion,
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gW
ildlif
e Tr
eeR
eten
tion
(Cut
bloc
ks)
wild
life
tree
patc
h re
tent
ion
(Res
pons
e)pe
rcen
tage
of h
arve
sted
blo
cks
grea
ter t
han
5 ha
that
hav
e w
ildlif
e tre
epa
tche
s an
d / o
r ind
ivid
ual w
ildlif
e / l
eave
tree
s id
entif
ied
in o
pera
tiona
l pla
ns.
Or,
size
and
num
ber o
f isl
and
rem
nant
s of
und
istu
rbed
fore
st in
har
vest
edar
eas
Fore
st c
ertif
icat
ion
mon
itorin
g (K
amlo
ops)
,M
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Wild
life
Tree
Patc
h St
ruct
ure
crow
n cl
osur
e /
trans
pare
ncy
in w
ildlif
etre
e pa
tche
s (C
ondi
tion)
perc
enta
ge o
f cro
wn
clos
ure
in w
ildlif
e tre
e pa
tche
s th
at h
ave
been
reta
ined
,by
land
scap
e un
it. A
lso,
per
cent
age
crow
n tra
nspa
renc
y by
cla
ssLa
ndsc
ape
Uni
t Pla
nM
onito
ring,
CC
FM C
&IW
ildlif
e Tr
eePa
tch
Stru
ctur
ese
cond
ary
spec
ies
in w
ildlif
e tre
epa
tche
s (C
ondi
tion)
num
ber?
of s
econ
dary
veg
etat
ive
spec
ies
cont
aine
d in
wild
life
tree
patc
hes
byla
ndsc
ape
unit
Land
scap
e U
nit P
lan
Mon
itorin
gW
ildlif
e Tr
eePa
tch
Stru
ctur
esi
te q
ualit
y at
wild
life
tree
patc
hes
(Con
ditio
n)pe
rcen
t of a
rea
of w
ildlif
e tre
e pa
tche
s ac
cord
ing
to v
ario
us s
ite in
dex
clas
ses,
by la
ndsc
ape
unit
Land
scap
e U
nit P
lan
Mon
itorin
gW
ildlif
e Tr
eePa
tch
Stru
ctur
eve
geta
tion
reta
ined
in w
ildlif
e tre
epa
tche
s (C
ondi
tion)
num
ber o
f ste
ms
per h
ecta
re /
basa
l are
a re
tain
ed in
wild
life
tree
patc
hes,
by
land
scap
e un
itLa
ndsc
ape
Uni
t Pla
nM
onito
ring
Wild
life
Tree
Patc
h St
ruct
ure
amou
nt o
f old
veg
etat
ion
reta
ined
inw
ildlif
e tre
e pa
tche
s (C
ondi
tion)
area
/ pe
rcen
tage
of f
ores
t cov
er in
cut
bloc
ks th
at is
reta
ined
to m
aint
ain
late
-su
cces
sion
al h
abita
t ele
men
ts a
nd a
ttrib
utes
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(e.g
., Va
ncou
ver I
slan
d)Sh
ape
Inde
xsh
ape
inde
x in
diff
eren
t ope
ning
siz
es(C
ondi
tion)
perc
enta
ge o
f sha
pe in
dex
in d
iffer
ent o
peni
ng s
ize
clas
ses
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
g
Stan
d St
ress
stan
d su
scep
tibilit
y cl
ass
(Con
ditio
n)ar
ea (i
n va
rious
cla
sses
) of s
tand
s th
at a
re s
usce
ptib
le to
sig
nific
ant b
iolo
gica
lan
d ab
iotic
age
nts
(lead
ing
to in
fest
atio
ns)
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
g
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
Page
75
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Stan
d St
ress
inse
ct a
nd d
isea
se in
cide
nce
(Impa
ct)
inse
ct a
nd d
isea
se in
cide
nce
by a
ge c
lass
and
fore
st c
hang
e pr
oces
sM
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Stan
d St
ress
stre
ss-re
late
d fo
rest
inse
ct a
nd d
isea
seat
tach
(Im
pact
)fre
quen
cy a
nd d
istri
butio
n of
stre
ss-re
late
d fo
rest
inse
ct a
nd d
isea
se a
ttack
MEL
P, M
OF
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngFi
re H
azar
dar
ea o
f haz
ard
(Con
ditio
n)ar
ea o
f hig
h to
sev
ere
fire
haza
rdM
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Fire
Haz
ard
natu
ral w
ildfir
e (Im
pact
)fre
quen
cy a
nd d
istri
butio
n of
nat
ural
wild
fires
(as
an in
dica
tor o
f clim
ate
chan
ge)
MEL
P, M
OF
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ngC
oars
e W
oody
Deb
rispr
esen
ce o
f coa
rse
woo
dy d
ebris
(Con
ditio
n)ar
ea /
perc
ent o
f lan
dsca
pe u
nit w
here
coa
rse
woo
dy d
ebris
has
bee
nre
tain
ed (i
nfor
mat
ion
may
be
requ
ired
at T
SA le
vel,
fore
st le
vel,
or la
ndsc
ape
unit
leve
l)
Land
scap
e U
nit P
lan
Mon
itorin
g, F
ores
tC
ertif
icat
ion
mon
itorin
g,M
odel
For
est m
onito
ring
Envi
ronm
enta
llySe
nsiti
ve A
reas
sens
itive
are
a / r
ipar
ian
buffe
r ret
entio
nin
land
scap
e un
its (R
espo
nse)
area
/ pe
rcen
tage
of E
SA 1
and
ESA
2 a
nd ri
paria
n bu
ffers
that
are
cons
train
ed fr
om h
arve
stin
g in
land
scap
e un
its.
Also
, are
as o
f “hi
ghco
nser
vatio
n va
lue
fore
st” t
hat a
re p
rote
cted
Land
scap
e U
nit P
lan
Mon
itorin
g, F
SC fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion
Con
stra
ined
Land
sla
nd a
rea
cons
train
ed fr
om h
arve
stin
g(R
espo
nse)
area
/ pe
rcen
tage
of l
ands
cape
uni
ts th
at a
re p
artia
lly o
r ful
ly c
onst
rain
ed fr
omha
rves
ting
Land
scap
e U
nit M
onito
ring
Fore
st A
ge a
ndTy
pe in
Prot
ecte
d Ar
eas
fore
st a
ge p
er a
ge c
lass
, by
fore
st ty
pe(B
EC) (
Con
ditio
n)ha
of a
rea
in p
rote
cted
are
as in
var
ious
fore
st a
ge c
lass
es, b
y fo
rest
type
; and
perc
ent o
f tot
al p
rovi
ncia
l for
est i
n th
ose
age
clas
ses
/ typ
es th
at a
re p
rote
cted
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g, F
SC fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion
Fore
st A
ge a
ndTy
pe in
Prot
ecte
d Ar
eas
old
grow
th in
pro
tect
ed a
reas
(Con
ditio
n)ar
ea o
f old
gro
wth
, you
nger
fore
st a
nd n
on-fo
rest
in p
rote
cted
are
a st
atus
, by
BEC
zon
e; a
nd p
erce
nt th
at th
is re
pres
ents
of a
ll pr
ovin
cial
old
gro
wth
. Al
soar
ea o
f old
gro
wth
reta
ined
, by
BEC
zon
es, b
y la
ndsc
ape
units
(and
at f
ores
tle
vel),
com
pare
d to
bio
dive
rsity
gui
debo
ok o
ld g
row
th re
tent
ion
targ
ets
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, L
and
Use
pla
nm
onito
ring,
FSC
fore
stce
rtific
atio
nFo
rest
Age
Dis
tribu
tion
fore
st a
ge b
y ty
pe in
TSA
s (C
ondi
tion)
area
of m
atur
e vs
. im
mat
ure
fore
st c
over
in T
SAs,
by
lead
ing
spec
ies
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s
Frag
men
tatio
nro
ad d
ensi
ty o
n fo
rest
land
(Pre
ssur
e)km
per
km
2 of
road
s pe
r wat
ersh
ed g
roup
ings
and
by
land
scap
e un
its(P
ress
ure)
Stat
e of
For
ests
,En
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s,La
ndsc
ape
Uni
t Pla
nM
onito
ring,
Lan
d us
e pl
anm
onito
ring,
CC
FM C
&I,
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gFo
rest
Dis
turb
ance
amou
nt o
f for
est d
istu
rbed
(Pre
ssur
e)ar
ea o
f for
est d
istu
rbed
by
fire
(nat
ural
and
hum
an-c
ause
d) v
s. p
ests
vs.
harv
estin
g. A
lso,
am
ount
of a
rea
affe
cted
by
diffe
rent
inse
ct d
efol
iato
rs(K
amlo
ops
LRM
P)
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g, M
odel
For
est
mon
itorin
gR
ecen
tH
arve
stin
gam
ount
of l
and
subj
ect t
o re
cent
logg
ing
(Pre
ssur
e)he
ctar
es a
nd p
erce
ntag
e of
land
are
a th
at h
as b
een
logg
ed (w
ithin
20
year
s,Va
ncou
ver I
slan
d pl
an)
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(i.e.
, Van
couv
er Is
land
)Fo
rest
Dis
turb
ance
(Rip
aria
n Ar
eas)
amou
nt o
f dis
turb
ance
in fo
rest
edrip
aria
n zo
ne (P
ress
ure)
area
of f
ores
ted
ripar
ian
zone
dis
turb
ed b
y fir
e, p
ests
and
har
vest
ing,
197
0 to
2000
, by
wat
ersh
ed g
roup
ings
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, E
nviro
nmen
tal T
rend
s
Exot
ic S
peci
esex
otic
tree
pla
ntat
ions
(Pre
ssur
e)ar
ea o
f exo
tic tr
ee p
lant
atio
ns, b
y sp
ecie
sSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, FSC
fore
stce
rtific
atio
nEx
otic
Spe
cies
exot
ic s
peci
es th
reat
(Pre
ssur
e)nu
mbe
r of e
xotic
spe
cies
by
type
of t
hrea
t (i.e
., no
thre
at, t
hrea
t to
nativ
etre
es, a
nim
als,
hum
an h
ealth
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I
Page
76
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Fore
st G
enet
ics
gene
tical
ly im
prov
ed s
tock
(Pre
ssur
e)ar
ea p
lant
ed w
ith g
enet
ical
ly im
prov
ed a
nd h
ybrid
tree
s, b
y sp
ecie
sSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, FSC
fore
stce
rtific
atio
nFo
rest
Gen
etic
sge
netic
var
ianc
e (Im
pact
)ge
netic
var
ianc
e of
tree
s in
prim
ary
and
seco
ndar
y fo
rest
s (m
easu
red
in tr
eehe
ight
or d
isea
se re
sist
ance
)St
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, FSC
fore
stce
rtific
atio
nFo
rest
Gen
etic
sge
netic
ally
mod
ified
org
anis
ms
(Pre
ssur
e)nu
mbe
r of g
enet
ical
ly m
odifi
ed o
rgan
ism
s us
ed in
fore
st m
anag
emen
t (e.
g.,
re-p
lant
ing)
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&I, F
SC fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion
Tim
ber H
arve
stap
prov
ed v
ersu
s ac
tual
har
vest
leve
ls(P
ress
ure)
tota
l pro
vinc
ial A
AC (m
3) a
nd a
ctua
l har
vest
(m3)
per
type
of r
egul
ated
fore
st(i.
e., T
SA, T
FL, W
L), p
rovi
nce-
wid
e an
d by
man
agem
ent u
nits
. Al
so, a
ctua
lha
rves
t on
regu
late
d ve
rsus
unr
egul
ated
har
vest
, by
year
Stat
e of
For
est,
CC
FMC
&I, F
ores
t Cer
tific
atio
n,La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops,
Van
couv
erIs
land
), FS
C c
ertif
icat
ion
(yie
ld)
Tim
ber H
arve
stfa
ll do
wn
estim
ates
(Con
ditio
n)es
timat
ed fu
ture
AAC
on
regu
late
d fo
rest
ove
r nex
t 100
yea
rs (m
3).
Also
,pe
rcen
tage
redu
ctio
n in
est
imat
ed A
AC fr
om p
eak
to 2
100,
by
fore
stm
anag
emen
t uni
t
Stat
e of
For
est
Tim
ber H
arve
stcu
tting
leve
ls re
lativ
e to
gro
wth
rate
s(P
ress
ure)
ratio
of v
olum
e ha
rves
ted
in g
iven
are
a (e
.g.,
man
agem
ent u
nit,
land
scap
eun
it), c
ompa
red
to to
tal M
AI fo
r tha
t are
aM
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Tim
ber H
arve
stSy
stem
sar
ea o
f tim
ber h
arve
st u
sing
diff
eren
tha
rves
ting
syst
ems
(Pre
ssur
e)fo
rest
land
are
a su
bjec
t to
clea
r cut
ting
vers
us p
artia
l cut
ting
BC L
and
Stat
istic
s, S
tate
of F
ores
ts, M
OF
Annu
alR
epor
ts, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
gTi
mbe
r Har
vest
Syst
ems
cut b
lock
siz
e di
strib
utio
n (C
ondi
tion)
dist
ribut
ion
of c
ut b
lock
siz
es, i
n va
rious
siz
e cl
asse
sLa
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g
Fore
stR
egen
erat
ion
back
log
and
non-
suffi
cien
tly re
stoc
ked
(NSR
) lan
d (C
ondi
tion)
area
of N
SR la
nd o
ver t
ime
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring,
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gFo
rest
Reg
ener
atio
nfo
rest
rege
nera
tion
and
rege
nera
tion
met
hod
and
timin
g (R
espo
nse)
area
rege
nera
ted
by n
atur
al v
ersu
s ar
tific
ial m
eans
, by
year
. Al
so, a
rea
not
rege
nera
ted
with
in 1
0 or
mor
e ye
ars
follo
win
g ha
rves
t, by
yea
rSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, FSC
fore
stce
rtific
atio
n, M
odel
fore
stm
onito
ring
Fore
stR
egen
erat
ion
logg
ed a
rea
in fr
ee g
row
ing
cond
ition
(Con
ditio
n)ra
tio o
f are
as re
achi
ng fr
ee to
gro
w s
tatu
s on
an
annu
al b
asis
, to
annu
al a
rea
harv
este
d (in
put /
out
put)
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
g
Fore
stR
egen
erat
ion
rege
nera
tion
timin
g (C
ondi
tion)
year
s to
reac
h fre
e to
gro
w s
tatu
sM
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Fore
stR
egen
erat
ion
stoc
king
leve
ls (R
espo
nse)
refo
rest
atio
n st
ocki
ng le
vels
(ste
ms
per h
a)M
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Fore
stR
esto
ratio
npl
anta
tion
fore
st a
reas
rest
ored
tona
tura
l for
est c
over
(Res
pons
e)am
ount
of f
ores
t are
a in
pla
ntat
ion
fore
st th
at is
rest
ored
to it
s na
tura
l for
est
cove
rFS
C fo
rest
cer
tific
atio
n
Gra
ssla
nds
and
Ope
ning
sar
ea o
f gra
ssla
nds
and
othe
r ope
ning
s(o
pen
rang
e) (C
ondi
tion)
area
of C
row
n ve
rsus
priv
ate
land
in v
ario
us c
lass
ifica
tions
of g
rass
land
s /
open
ings
(i.e
., op
en ra
nge,
alp
ine,
mea
dow
, sw
amp,
hay
field
, cle
arin
g)La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(i.
e., K
amlo
ops)
Ran
ge C
ondi
tion
plan
t com
mun
ities
(Con
ditio
n)tre
nds
in p
lant
com
mun
ity c
hang
es a
t spe
cifie
d ph
oto-
poin
tsLa
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(K
amlo
ops)
Fore
stfo
rest
rege
nera
tion
timin
g (R
espo
nse)
area
/ pe
rcen
tage
of h
arve
sted
site
s th
at a
re /
are
not r
egen
erat
ed w
ithin
thre
eC
SA F
ores
t cer
tific
atio
n
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
Page
77
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Reg
ener
atio
nye
ars
of h
arve
st.
Also
ratio
of r
egen
erat
ed s
ites
to n
atur
al s
ite in
dex
(Kam
loop
s TS
A), M
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Myc
orrh
izae
pres
ence
and
col
oniz
atio
n (C
ondi
tion)
pres
ence
of m
ycor
rhiz
ae a
nd c
olon
izat
ion
of ro
ots
(at s
elec
ted
sam
plin
g si
tes)
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gN
itrog
enfo
rms
of n
itrog
en (C
ondi
tion)
form
s of
nitr
ogen
by
sera
l sta
geM
odel
fore
st m
onito
ring
Wild
life
Spec
ies
at R
isk
thre
aten
ed a
nd e
ndan
gere
d sp
ecie
s(Im
pact
)th
reat
ened
or e
ndan
gere
d sp
ecie
s as
a p
erce
ntag
e of
kno
wn
spec
ies,
by
spec
ies
cate
gory
. Al
so, r
egio
nal l
ocat
ion
of s
peci
es a
t ris
kEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s,La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g,C
CFM
C&I
Spec
ies
at R
isk
in P
rote
cted
Area
s
rare
, thr
eate
ned
and
enda
nger
edsp
ecie
s (Im
pact
)nu
mbe
r and
per
cent
of s
peci
es in
pro
tect
ed a
reas
(by
maj
or p
rote
cted
are
acl
assi
ficat
ion
that
are
red
or b
lue-
liste
dSt
ate
of P
arks
Fore
st S
peci
esat
Ris
kra
re, t
hrea
tene
d or
end
ange
red
fore
st-
depe
nden
t and
gra
ssla
nd-a
ssoc
iate
dsp
ecie
s (Im
pact
)
perc
enta
ge o
f kno
wn
fore
st-d
epen
dent
or g
rass
land
-ass
ocia
ted
spec
ies
(fish
,am
phib
ians
, mam
mal
s, p
lant
s, b
irds,
rept
iles)
that
are
blu
e or
red-
liste
dEn
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s,St
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
, Lan
d us
e pl
anm
onito
ring,
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gTh
reat
s to
Spec
ies
at R
isk
land
use
thre
ats
to th
reat
ened
and
enda
nger
ed v
erte
brat
es (P
ress
ure)
rela
tive
impo
rtanc
e of
var
ious
thre
ats
to re
d-lis
ted
verte
brat
es, i
nclu
ding
ripar
ian-
depe
nden
t ver
tebr
ates
(agr
icul
ture
, urb
an d
evel
opm
ent,
logg
ing,
etc
.).Al
so, r
elat
ive
thre
ats
to fo
rest
-dep
ende
nt s
peci
es
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds,
Stat
e of
For
ests
, FSC
fore
st c
ertif
icat
ion,
Mod
elfo
rest
mon
itorin
gFo
rest
Dw
ellin
gM
amm
als
hist
oric
rang
e tre
nds
(Impa
ct)
num
ber o
f mam
mal
spe
cies
(wild
life
tree
user
s ve
rsus
non
-wild
life
tree
user
s)w
here
thei
r kno
wn
rang
e is
con
tract
ing
vers
us e
xpan
ding
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds,
CC
FM C
&I, M
odel
fore
stm
onito
ring
Fore
st D
wel
ling
Bird
sfo
rest
dw
ellin
g bi
rd p
opul
atio
ns(C
ondi
tion)
perc
enta
ge in
crea
se o
r dec
reas
e in
fore
st d
wel
ling
bird
pop
ulat
ions
(coa
stal
vers
us in
terio
r)En
viro
nmen
tal T
rend
s,La
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(V
anco
uver
Isla
nd,
Kam
loop
s), C
CFM
C&I
Rip
aria
n-dw
ellin
gVe
rtebr
ates
ripar
ian-
dwel
ling
verte
brat
es a
t ris
k(Im
pact
)pe
rcen
tage
of k
now
n rip
aria
n de
pend
ent v
erte
brat
es (i
nclu
des
mam
mal
s,am
phib
ians
, fis
h, b
irds,
rept
iles)
that
are
thre
aten
ed o
r end
ange
red
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds,
CC
FM C
&I
Mar
bled
Mur
rele
tsne
stin
g ha
bita
t (C
ondi
tion)
perc
enta
ge o
f nat
ural
rang
e of
mar
bled
mur
rele
t ter
rest
rial h
abita
t tha
t is
in“s
uita
ble”
con
ditio
n fo
r nes
ting
(e.g
., am
ount
of a
ge c
lass
8 /
9 th
at is
loca
ted
in p
atch
siz
es o
f 200
ha
or g
reat
er
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring
(i.e.
, Van
couv
er Is
land
),C
CFM
C&I
Ung
ulat
esex
iste
nce
of u
ngul
ate
win
ter r
ange
(Con
ditio
n)pe
rcen
t of l
and
area
in p
rimar
y w
ater
shed
s th
at is
reta
ined
as
ungu
late
win
ter
rang
eLa
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(i.
e., V
anco
uver
isla
nd),
CC
FM C
&IAq
uatic
Fau
nadi
strib
utio
n an
d ab
unda
nce
(Con
ditio
n)ch
ange
ove
r tim
e in
the
dist
ribut
ion
and
abun
danc
e of
aqu
atic
faun
a at
fore
stle
vel
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
g
Viab
ility
ofSe
lect
edSp
ecie
s
hist
oric
al ra
nge
in w
hich
spe
cies
are
extir
pate
d or
dec
linin
g (Im
pact
)pe
rcen
tage
of h
isto
rical
rang
e in
whi
ch s
elec
ted
spec
ies
(car
ibou
, sha
rp-ta
iled
grou
se, m
ule/
blac
k-ta
iled
deer
, moo
se, g
rizzl
y be
ar) a
re e
xtirp
ated
ver
sus
decl
inin
g. A
lso,
“obs
erve
d ch
ange
s in
faun
a” (F
SC c
ertif
icat
ion)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Tre
nds,
CC
FM C
&I, F
SC fo
rest
certi
ficat
ion,
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gPo
pula
tions
popu
latio
ns o
f sel
ecte
d sp
ecie
s(C
ondi
tion)
trend
s in
pop
ulat
ion
estim
ates
for v
ario
us s
peci
es (e
.g.,
deer
, moo
se, c
arib
ou,
goat
s, w
olf,
furb
eare
rs, g
rizzl
y be
ars,
wat
erfo
wl,
harb
our s
eals
, sea
lion
s, k
iller
wha
les,
sea
otte
rs, e
tc)
CC
FM C
&I, L
and
use
plan
mon
itorin
g (K
amlo
ops)
Wild
life
hunt
er /
trapp
ing
effo
rt (P
ress
ure)
num
ber a
nd d
istri
butio
n of
hun
ter d
ays,
bag
leve
ls, f
urbe
arer
har
vest
sM
ELP
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng
Page
78
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
RES
OU
RC
EC
ATEG
OR
YTH
EME
ENVI
RO
NMEN
TAL
IND
ICAT
OR
and
IND
ICAT
OR
TYP
EAS
SOC
IATE
D IN
FOR
MAT
ION
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TSIN
TIAT
IVE
/ USE
R
Expl
oita
tion
Extir
pate
d /
Extin
ct F
ores
t-D
epen
dent
Spec
ies
extir
pate
d an
d ex
tinct
fore
st-d
epen
dent
spec
ies
(Impa
ct)
num
ber o
f suc
h sp
ecie
sSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
Soils
Soil
Dis
turb
ance
soil
dist
urba
nce
in h
arve
sted
are
as(P
ress
ure)
area
/ di
strib
utio
n of
soi
l dis
turb
ance
in a
reas
that
hav
e be
en s
ubje
ct to
harv
estin
g, b
y ye
arSt
ate
of F
ores
ts, C
CFM
C&I
Soil
Dis
turb
ance
soil
dist
urba
nce
by h
arve
st s
yste
m(P
ress
ure)
perc
ent o
f soi
l dis
turb
ance
that
is a
ttrib
utab
le to
var
ious
har
vest
sys
tem
sSt
ate
of F
ores
ts
Soil
Dis
turb
ance
cons
truct
ion
of n
ew fo
rest
road
s(P
ress
ure)
leng
th o
f new
fore
st ro
ads
cons
truct
edLa
nd u
se p
lan
mon
itorin
g(i.
e., K
amlo
ops)
Land
slid
esla
ndsl
ide
occu
rrenc
es (I
mpa
ct)
num
ber /
are
a of
nat
ural
ver
sus
hum
an c
ause
d la
ndsl
ides
Land
use
pla
n m
onito
ring,
Mod
el fo
rest
mon
itorin
gSo
il Pr
oduc
tivity
prod
uctiv
e lo
sses
(Con
ditio
n)m
3/ha
/yea
r tha
t are
est
imat
ed to
be
lost
to p
rodu
ctiv
ity, a
ccor
ding
to v
ario
usha
rves
ting
syst
ems
Stat
e of
For
ests
Soil
Prod
uctiv
ityha
rves
ting
impa
cts
on s
oils
(Im
pact
)pe
rcen
tage
of h
arve
sted
are
a ha
ving
sig
nific
ant s
oil c
ompa
ctio
n,di
spla
cem
ent,
eros
ion,
pud
ding
, los
s of
org
anic
mat
eria
lC
CFM
C&I
, FSC
fore
stce
rtific
atio
nSo
il R
esto
ratio
nso
il re
stor
atio
n in
har
vest
ed a
reas
(Res
pons
e)ar
ea /
dist
ribut
ion
of s
oil r
esto
ratio
n in
are
as th
at h
ave
been
sub
ject
toha
rves
ting,
by
year
Stat
e of
For
ests
, CC
FMC
&IO
rgan
ic C
onte
ntca
rbon
seq
uest
ratio
n / r
elea
se, o
rgan
icco
nten
t in
soils
(Con
ditio
n)am
ount
/ di
strib
utio
n of
org
anic
con
tent
/ ca
rbon
in fo
rest
/ ag
ricul
tura
l soi
lsM
OF,
MAA
stra
tegi
cpl
anni
ng, K
yoto
pro
toco
lco
mm
itmen
tsSo
il Fe
rtilit
yso
il fe
rtilit
y pa
ram
eter
s (C
ondi
tion)
leve
ls /
dist
ribut
ion
of s
oil f
ertil
ity p
aram
eter
s (e
.g.,
acid
ity, c
atio
n ex
chan
ge)
MAA
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng
EXPL
ANAT
OR
Y N
OTE
S
This
app
endi
x lis
ts th
e en
viro
nmen
tal i
nfor
mat
ion
that
age
ncie
s ne
ed, p
oten
tially
nee
d, o
r wou
ld li
ke to
hav
e to
impl
emen
t the
ir tre
nds
inte
rpre
tatio
n an
d / o
r effe
ctiv
enes
sre
porti
ng a
nd /
or s
trate
gic
plan
ning
initi
ativ
es.
This
app
endi
x w
as g
ener
ated
thro
ugh
stud
y in
terv
iew
s an
d re
fere
nce
to a
genc
ies’
doc
umen
tatio
n, in
clud
ing:
Prov
inci
al-le
vel E
nviro
nmen
tal S
usta
inab
ility:
1. S
tate
of E
nviro
nmen
t Rep
ort,
1993
, MEL
P an
d En
viro
nmen
t Can
ada
2. E
nviro
nmen
tal T
rend
s R
epor
t 200
0, M
ELP
Prov
inci
al-le
vel S
usta
inab
le F
ores
t Man
agem
ent:
3. C
anad
ian
Cou
ncil
of F
ores
t Min
iste
rs (C
CFM
), C
riter
ia a
nd In
dica
tors
(C&I
) for
Sus
tain
able
For
est M
anag
emen
t, 19
964.
Sta
te o
f the
For
est i
n Br
itish
Col
umbi
a (R
epor
t Pro
posa
l), O
ctob
er 2
000,
MO
F
Loca
l-lev
el S
usta
inab
le F
ores
t Man
agem
ent:
5. P
oten
tial L
ocal
Lev
el In
dica
tors
for M
cGre
gor M
odel
For
est,
Augu
st 1
998
6. C
anad
ian
Stan
dard
s As
soci
atio
n, F
ores
t Cer
tific
atio
n Sy
stem
(CSA
Z80
8-96
) Gui
danc
e D
ocum
ent f
or7.
Dra
ft Su
stai
nabl
e Fo
rest
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(CSA
sys
tem
) for
Kam
loop
s TS
A8.
For
est S
tew
ards
hip
Cou
ncil
Fore
st C
ertif
icat
ion
Syst
em, P
rinci
ples
and
Crit
eria
Envi
ronm
enta
l Mon
itorin
g:B
usin
ess
and
Info
rmat
ion
Nee
ds S
tudy
Dar
yl B
row
n As
soci
ates
Inc.
& S
usta
inab
le V
isio
ns
Page
79
Land
/ R
esou
rce
Plan
Effe
ctiv
enes
s M
onito
ring:
9.
Stra
tegi
c La
nd U
se P
lan
Mon
itorin
g G
uide
lines
and
Pro
cedu
res,
200
0, L
UC
O10
. Ka
mlo
ops
LRM
P M
onito
ring
Rep
ort,
1999
, Kam
loop
s IA
MC
11.
Mon
itorin
g Im
plem
enta
tion
and
Effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
Vanc
ouve
r Isl
and
Land
Use
Pla
n, C
onsu
ltant
’s R
epor
t, Se
ptem
ber 2
000,
Van
couv
er Is
land
IAM
C12
. La
ndsc
ape
Uni
t Pla
n M
onito
ring,
Dra
ft M
onito
ring
Indi
cato
rs, J
anua
ry, 2
001,
MO
F / M
ELP
Prot
ecte
d Ar
ea S
usta
inab
ility
:13
. Pe
rform
ance
Indi
cato
rs fo
r Rep
ortin
g on
the
Stat
e of
Brit
ish
Col
umbi
a’s
Park
s, D
raft
Rep
ort,
Febr
uary
200
0, M
ELP
Prov
inci
al L
and
Stat
istic
s14
. Br
itish
Col
umbi
a La
nd S
tatis
tics,
199
6, M
ELP
Not
e th
at m
any
agen
cies
are
cur
rent
ly e
ngag
ed in
a p
roce
ss to
dev
elop
thei
r ind
icat
ors,
and
ass
ocia
ted
info
rmat
ion
/ dat
a re
quire
men
ts.
Ther
efor
e, m
any
of th
e in
form
atio
nre
quire
men
ts id
entif
ied
in th
is a
ppen
dix
shou
ld b
e re
gard
ed a
s te
ntat
ive
/ pre
limin
ary,
and
sub
ject
to c
hang
e. I
nitia
tives
that
are
cur
rent
ly u
nder
dev
elop
men
t and
for w
hich
final
mon
itorin
g in
dica
tors
and
env
ironm
enta
l inf
orm
atio
n re
quire
men
ts h
ave
not y
et b
een
esta
blis
hed
incl
ude:
BC
Sta
te o
f the
For
est m
onito
ring
/ rep
ortin
g, M
odel
fore
stm
onito
ring,
all
stra
tegi
c la
nd u
se p
lan
effe
ctiv
enes
s m
onito
ring
initi
ativ
es o
ther
than
the
Kam
loop
s LR
MP,
land
scap
e un
it pl
an m
onito
ring,
and
pro
vinc
ial S
tate
of t
he P
arks
mon
itorin
g. A
t the
fore
st c
ertif
icat
ion
leve
l, th
e Fo
rest
Ste
war
dshi
p C
ounc
il ce
rtific
atio
n sy
stem
is p
rese
ntly
dev
elop
ing
perfo
rman
ce s
tand
ards
for B
C, h
owev
er, t
hese
are
not y
et fi
nal.
For
CSA
cer
tific
atio
n, e
ach
appl
ican
t dev
elop
s th
eir o
wn
mon
itorin
g in
dica
tors
thro
ugh
a pu
blic
par
ticip
atio
n pr
oces
s; th
eref
ore,
env
ironm
enta
l inf
orm
atio
nne
eds
for t
his
initi
ativ
e ca
nnot
be
fully
ant
icip
ated
.