Resource Analysis Guide - British Columbia · Indicator Selection ... 4.1.1.5 Forest and Range Practices Act.....76 4.1.1.6 MSRM Governance Principles for Sustainability ... Figure

Resource Analysis Guide For Sustainable Resource Management

Planning Volume 1

Forests, Lands and Marine Branch Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

December 2004

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING i

Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables............................................................................... vii About this Guide... ............................................................................................ xi

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................xii 1 Introduction................................................................................................... 1

1.1 SRM PLANNING .................................................................................................... 2

What is SRM Planning?............................................................................................. 2 Defining the Scope .................................................................................................... 3 Using Objectives and Strategies to Address Planning Issues ................................... 3 The Four Phases of SRM Planning ........................................................................... 4 Consistency with other Initiatives............................................................................... 4

1.2 RESOURCE ANALYSIS FOR SRM PLANNING ........................................................... 5

2 Resource Analysis Framework.................................................................... 6 2.1 ISSUE IDENTIFICATION ......................................................................................... 10

Issues Analysis ........................................................................................................ 10 First Nations Interests.............................................................................................. 10

2.2 INDICATOR SELECTION ........................................................................................ 11

2.3 INFORMATION ASSEMBLY .................................................................................... 15

2.4 SELECTION OF ANALYSIS TOOLS ......................................................................... 16

Expert Judgement.................................................................................................... 16 Simple Spreadsheet or Database Analysis ............................................................. 17 GIS Area Analysis.................................................................................................... 17 Computer Modeling ................................................................................................. 18 Selection of the Appropriate Analysis Tool .............................................................. 18

2.5 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ....................................................................................... 20

Defining Analysis Outputs........................................................................................ 21 Interpreting Analysis Outputs................................................................................... 22 Resource Value Trade-offs...................................................................................... 25

2.6 EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 27

Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment.................................................... 27 Interpreting the Performance of Plan Scenarios...................................................... 30

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING ii

Testing for Consistency with Governance Principles, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy ...................................................................... 31

2.6.1.1 Consistency with Governance Principles.............................................................32 2.6.1.2 Consistency with the Forest and Range Practices Act ........................................33 2.6.1.3 Consistency with the Working Forest Policy........................................................39

3 Applying the Resource Analysis Steps to the SRM Planning Process.. 41 3.1 PLAN INITIATION PHASE ...................................................................................... 42

First Nations involvement ........................................................................................ 45 3.2 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PHASE ............................................................................... 46

3.3 PLAN EVALUATION AND APPROVAL PHASE.......................................................... 50

3.4 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PHASE ......................................................... 53

4 Analysis Guidelines for Selected Resource Themes............................... 57 4.1 ACCESS .............................................................................................................. 59

Issue Identification................................................................................................... 59 4.1.1.1 Social ...................................................................................................................60 4.1.1.2 Environmental ......................................................................................................61 4.1.1.3 Economic .............................................................................................................61

Indicator Selection ................................................................................................... 63 Information Assembly .............................................................................................. 64 Selection of Analysis Tools...................................................................................... 68 Analysis of Results .................................................................................................. 72 Evaluation................................................................................................................ 74

4.1.1.4 Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment................................................75 4.1.1.5 Forest and Range Practices Act ..........................................................................76 4.1.1.6 MSRM Governance Principles for Sustainability .................................................78 4.1.1.7 Working Forest Policy ..........................................................................................78

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND RANGE.................................................................................. 81

Issue Identification................................................................................................... 83 Indicator Selection ................................................................................................... 83 Information Assembly .............................................................................................. 85 Selection of Analysis Tools...................................................................................... 88 Analysis of Results .................................................................................................. 90 Evaluation................................................................................................................ 92

4.2.1.1 Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment................................................92 4.2.1.2 Forest and Range Practices Act ..........................................................................93 4.2.1.3 MSRM Governance Principles.............................................................................95

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING iii

4.2.1.4 Working Forest Policy ..........................................................................................96 4.3 BACKCOUNTRY TOURISM RESOURCES................................................................. 99

Issue Identification................................................................................................. 100 Indicator Selection ................................................................................................. 101 Information Assembly ............................................................................................ 103 Selection of Analysis Tools.................................................................................... 107 Analysis of Results ................................................................................................ 110 Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 113

4.3.1.1 Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment..............................................114 4.3.1.2 Forest and Range Practices Act ........................................................................115 4.3.1.3 SRMP Governance Principles for Sustainability................................................117 4.3.1.4 Working Forest Policy ........................................................................................118

4.4 BIODIVERSITY RESOURCES................................................................................ 121

Issue Identification................................................................................................. 121 Indicator Selection ................................................................................................. 123 Information Assembly ............................................................................................ 125 Selection of Analysis Tools.................................................................................... 127

4.4.1.1 Decision-Support Tools......................................................................................130 Analysis of Results ................................................................................................ 134 Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 137

4.4.1.2 Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment..............................................137 4.4.1.3 Forest and Range Practices Act ........................................................................138 4.4.1.4 SRMP Governance Principles for Sustainability................................................141 4.4.1.5 Working Forest Policy ........................................................................................142

4.5 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES.................................................................... 144

Issue Identification................................................................................................. 145 Indicator Selection ................................................................................................. 147 Information Assembly ............................................................................................ 148 Selection of Analysis Tools.................................................................................... 152

4.5.1.1 Analysis Methods and Tools ..............................................................................152 Analysis of Results ................................................................................................ 155 Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 159

4.5.1.2 Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment..............................................159 4.5.1.3 Forest and Range Practices Act ........................................................................160 4.5.1.4 MSRM Governance Principles for Sustainability ...............................................162 4.5.1.5 Working Forest Policy ........................................................................................163

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING iv

4.6 FISHERIES......................................................................................................... 165

Issue Identification................................................................................................. 165 4.6.1.1 Social .................................................................................................................166 4.6.1.2 Environmental ....................................................................................................167 4.6.1.3 Economic ...........................................................................................................167

Indicator Selection ................................................................................................. 167 Information Assembly ............................................................................................ 169 Selection of Analysis Tools.................................................................................... 171

4.6.1.4 Establishing Watershed Priorities ......................................................................171 4.6.1.5 Considerations Regarding Analysis Methods for Fisheries Assessment and Watershed

Prioritization .......................................................................................................174 Analysis of Results ................................................................................................ 177 Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 179

4.6.1.6 Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment.............................................179 4.6.1.7 Forest and Range Practices Act ........................................................................180 4.6.1.8 MSRM Governance Principles for Sustainability ...............................................182 4.6.1.9 Working Forest Policy ........................................................................................183

4.7 SETTLEMENT..................................................................................................... 185



4.8 TIMBER RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 203



4.8.1.4 Analysis Considerations For Timber ..................................................................211

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING v

Analysis of Results ................................................................................................ 212 Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 214


4.9 WATER RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 221



4.9.1.4 Analysis Considerations For Assessment of Water Resources ........................233 Analysis of Results ................................................................................................ 236 Evaluation.............................................................................................................. 239


4.10 WILDLIFE .......................................................................................................... 245


4.10.1.1 Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment........................................259 4.10.1.2 Forest and Range Practices Act ..................................................................259 4.10.1.3 MSRM Governance Principles for Sustainability .........................................262 4.10.1.4 Working Forest Policy ..................................................................................262

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING vii

List of Figures and Tables

Figures Figure 1: British Columbia’s Crown Land Planning System .....................................................................1 Figure 2: Resource Analysis Support for the SRM Planning Process......................................................7 Figure 3: Activities Required to Complete Resource Analysis Steps .......................................................9 Figure 4: Activities for Analyzing Results................................................................................................21 Figure 5: Potential Choices Associated with SEEA................................................................................29 Figure 6: Hierarchy of Objectives Set by Government ...........................................................................36 Figure 7: Example of Plan Initiation Analysis for Grizzly Bear ...............................................................44 Figure 8: Example of Plan Development Analysis for Grizzly Bear........................................................49 Figure 9: Example of Plan Evaluation Analysis for Grizzly Bear ............................................................52 Figure 10: Example of Implementation and Monitoring Analysis for Grizzly Bear....................................56

Tables Table 1: Selecting Analysis Indicators...................................................................................................13 Table 2: Pros and Cons of Resource Analysis Tools ............................................................................18 Table 3: Criteria for Selecting Analysis Tools........................................................................................19 Table 4: Examples of Questions for Determining Analysis Outputs......................................................22 Table 5: Interpreting Impacts of Analysis Outputs.................................................................................23 Table 6: Example of Criteria for Weighing Values...............................................................................234 Table 7: Summarizing Evaluation Results.............................................................................................25 Table 8: Modifying Objectives to Address Resource Management Conflicts........................................26 Table 9: Examples of Standards ...........................................................................................................31 Table 10: Recommended Strategies for Meeting Governance Principles ..............................................32 Table 11: Objectives Set by Government under FRPA...........................................................................37 Table 12: Simple Example of Targets for Standard Values ....................................................................40 Table 13: Analysis Questions During Plan Initiation................................................................................42 Table 14: Analysis Questions During Plan Development........................................................................47 Table 15: Analysis Questions During Plan Evaluation and Approval......................................................51 Table 16: Analysis Questions During Plan Implementation and Monitoring ...........................................55 Table 17: Access Categories and Uses ..................................................................................................59 Table 18: Common Access Management Planning Issues.....................................................................60 Table 19: Wildlife and Fishery Issues .....................................................................................................62 Table 20: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Access Management ...................................................63 Table 21: Information Required for Resource Themes ...........................................................................65 Table 22: Analysis Methods for Access Management Related Planning Products ................................68 Table 23: Examples of Access Related Objectives and Strategies ........................................................73 Table 24: Examples of Access Benefits and Impacts .............................................................................74 Table 25: General Evaluation Questions for Access Management.........................................................75 Table 26: Considerations to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives ...............................................76 Table 27: Governance Principles Relating to Access Management .......................................................78

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING viii

Table 28: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Access Management.................................................79 Table 29: Common Agriculture and Range Management Planning Issues ............................................83 Table 30: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Agriculture and Range Management ...........................84 Table 31: Information Required to Support Agriculture and Range Resource Analysis .........................86 Table 32: Analysis Methods for Agriculture and Range Related Planning Products ..............................89 Table 33: Examples of Agriculture and Range Related Objectives and Strategies ................................91 Table 34: Examples of Agriculture and Range Benefits and Impacts .....................................................92 Table 35: General Evaluation Questions for Agriculture and Range ......................................................93 Table 36: Evaluating Questions to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives ...................................934 Table 37: Governance Principles Relating to Agriculture and Range Management...............................96 Table 38: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Agriculture and Range Management ........................97 Table 39: Types of Backcountry Tourism Product ..................................................................................99 Table 40: Common Backcountry Tourism Planning Issues...................................................................100 Table 41: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Backcountry Tourism Resources...............................101 Table 42: Information Required for the Backcountry Tourism Resource Theme..................................104 Table 43: Analysis Methods for Backcountry Tourism Related Planning Products ..............................108 Table 44: Examples of Backcountry Tourism Related Objectives and Strategies ................................111 Table 45: Examples of Backcountry Tourism Related Indicators and Targets .....................................112 Table 46: Examples of Backcountry Tourism Related Benefits and Impacts........................................113 Table 47: General Evaluation Questions for Backcountry Tourism ......................................................115 Table 48: Considerations to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives .............................................115 Table 49: Governance Principles Relating to Backcountry Tourism Management...............................117 Table 50: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Backcountry Tourism Management ........................119 Table 51: Common Biodiversity Planning Issues ..................................................................................122 Table 52: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Biodiversity.................................................................124 Table 53: Information to Support Biodiversity Resource Analysis ........................................................125 Table 54: Analysis Methods for Biodiversity Related Planning Products..............................................128 Table 55: Examples of Biodiversity Objectives and Strategies .............................................................135 Table 56: Examples of Biodiversity Benefits and Impacts.....................................................................136 Table 57: General Evaluation Questions for Biodiversity Resources....................................................138 Table 58: Evaluation Questions to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives ...................................139 Table 59: Governance Principles for Sustainability Relating to Biodiversity Management...................141 Table 60: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Biodiversity Management ........................................142 Table 61: Common Cultural Heritage Planning Issues .........................................................................146 Table 62: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Cultural Heritage Values ............................................147 Table 63: Level of Compatibility between Archaeological Preservation and Other Resource Use

Activities.................................................................................................................................148 Table 64: Information to Support Cultural Heritage Resource Analysis................................................149 Table 65: Examples of Cultural Heritage Related Objectives and Strategies .......................................156 Table 66: Examples of Cultural Heritage Benefits and Impacts............................................................158 Table 67: General Evaluation Questions for Cultural Heritage Resources ...........................................160 Table 68: Considerations to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives .............................................160 Table 69: Governance Principles Relating to Cultural Heritage Resources..........................................163 Table 70: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Relation to Cultural Heritage Resource Management164 Table 71: Common Fisheries Management Planning Issues................................................................166 Table 72: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Fisheries.....................................................................168 Table 73: Information Required to Support Fisheries Analysis .............................................................170 Table 74: Analysis Methods for Fisheries Assessment and Watershed Prioritization ..........................173

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING ix

Table 75: Examples of Fisheries Management Related Objectives and Strategies .............................178 Table 76: Examples of Fisheries Benefits and Impacts ........................................................................178 Table 77: General Evaluation Questions for Fisheries Management....................................................180 Table 78: Evaluation Questions to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives ...................................181 Table 79: Governance Principles Relating to Fisheries Management ..................................................183 Table 80: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Fisheries Management............................................184 Table 81: Common Settlement Planning Issues ...................................................................................186 Table 82: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Settlement Suitability .................................................188 Table 83: Information Required for Settlement Resource Theme.........................................................189 Table 84: Analysis Methods for Settlement Related Planning Products ...............................................193 Table 85: Examples of Settlement Use Related Objectives and Strategies .........................................195 Table 86: Examples of Settlement Benefits and Impacts......................................................................196 Table 87: General Evaluation Questions for Settlement Use................................................................198 Table 88: Considerations to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives .............................................199 Table 89: Governance Principles Relating to Management of Settlement Use ....................................201 Table 90: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Settlement Use........................................................202 Table 91: Common Timber Management Planning Issues ...................................................................203 Table 92: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Timber Values............................................................206 Table 93: Information Required to Support Timber Analysis.................................................................207 Table 94: Analysis Methods for Timber Assessment ............................................................................209 Table 95: Examples of Timber Management Related Objectives and Strategies.................................213 Table 96: Examples of Timber Benefits and Impacts............................................................................214 Table 97: Examples of General Evaluation Questions for Timber Management ..................................215 Table 98: Evaluation Questions to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives ...................................216 Table 99: Governance Principles Relating to Timber Management......................................................218 Table 100: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Timber Management ...............................................219 Table 101: Avenues for Addressing Water Resource Issues..................................................................222 Table 102: Common Water Management Planning Issues.....................................................................223 Table 103: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Water Resources .......................................................226 Table 104: Information Required to Support Analysis of Water Resources............................................230 Table 105: Analysis Methods for Water Resource Planning Products....................................................232 Table 106: Examples of Water-based Objectives and Strategies...........................................................236 Table 107: Examples of Water Resource Benefits and Impacts.............................................................238 Table 108: General Evaluation Questions for Water Management.........................................................240 Table 109: Evaluation Questions to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives ...................................240 Table 110: Governance Principles Relating to Water Management .......................................................242 Table 111: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Water Management.................................................243 Table 112: Common Wildlife Planning Issues.........................................................................................245 Table 113: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Wildlife........................................................................246 Table 114: Information to Support Wildlife Analysis................................................................................248 Table 115: Analysis Methods for Wildlife Related Planning Products.....................................................252 Table 116: Examples of Wildlife Habitat Planning Products ...................................................................256 Table 117: Examples of Wildlife Benefits and Impacts ...........................................................................257 Table 118: Balancing Wildlife Habitat Needs and Other Competing Uses .............................................258 Table 119: General Evaluation Questions for Wildlife.............................................................................259 Table 120: Evaluation Questions to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives ...................................260 Table 121: Governance Principles Relating to Wildlife Management .....................................................262 Table 122: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Wildlife Management...............................................263

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING x

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING xi

About this Guide... This is one of several guides that the Forests, Lands and Marine Branch of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM) has developed to support the province’s Sustainable Resource Management Planning (SRMP) program1.

The SRMP program is a MSRM initiative to develop Crown land and resource plans for priority landscapes throughout British Columbia. SRMPs build on existing strategic land use plans by describing specific objectives for Crown land and resources within the planning area, and strategies for achieving those objectives. (See Section 1.0 for further description of the SRMP program.)

The Guide describes the analytical tools and methods needed for planning at the landscape level. It suggests approaches for assembling relevant information to address Crown land and resource management issues and the identification of resource opportunities. Finally, it shows how to use information in systematic ways to develop and evaluate SRMP options as a basis for enabling transparent, objective and sustainable decision-making.

The material in this Guide represents a toolkit of best planning practices from which planners may select. It does not prescribe specific analytical tools or methods that must be carried out. Each planning situation is unique and planners must have the latitude to customize the planning process to suit the circumstances.

The Guide is organized into four main parts:

Section 1 is introductory and context setting. It provides an overview of SRM planning and defines resource analysis within SRM planning.

Section 2 describes the SRMP resource analysis framework including the steps for where resource analysis may be required in a Sustainable Resource Management Planning process along with the analysis methods and

1 Other Guides developed to date include: (1) “First Nations Consultation Guidelines for Sustainable Resource Management

Planning”; (2) “Writing Resource Objectives and Strategies: A Guide to Preparing Effective Resource Management Plans”; (3) “Sustainable Resource Management Planning Standards (draft)”; (4) “Guidelines for Monitoring Strategic Land Use Plans”, and (5) Economic Opportunity Planning Guide (draft). These guide are or will soon be available at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/

Users of this Guide can receive guidance on the process steps and analysis methods for Sustainable Resource Management Planning by referring to sections 1 to 3 or can receive resource analysis guidance on a specific resource value by referring to the appropriate resource chapter in Section 4.

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING xii

tools that support each of these steps. It identifies six steps for analysis.

Section 3 describes how the six resource analysis steps introduced in Section 2 are applied to the four phases of sustainable resource management planning: 1) Plan Initiation; 2) Plan Development; 3) Plan Evaluation and Approval; and 4) Implementation and Monitoring. This section also provides a demonstration of resource analysis methods through all four phases of the planning process using grizzly bear as an example.

Section 4 provides specific advice for conducting resource analysis for 12 different resource values and issues including: 1) access; 2) agriculture and range; 3) backcountry tourism; 4) biodiversity; 5) cultural heritage; 6) fisheries; 7) settlement; 8) timber; 9) water resources; and 10) wildlife.

The Resource Analysis Guide is available for viewing and downloading from the MSRM website at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd. A number of the references to other analysis processes in the web version of the Resource Analysis Guide are linked to other provincial websites where further information may be accessed.

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

These guidelines are one of a series of guidelines that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, under the leadership of Allan Lidstone of the Forests, Lands and Marine Branch has developed to describe recommended approaches and methods for Sustainable Resource Management Planning. The Resource Analysis Guide for Sustainable Resource Management Planning was compiled by Stuart Gale and Associates with project management and direction by Allan Lidstone and Graham Hawkins. Janet Fontaine of Logistics Consulting was responsible for graphic design, layout and production and David Greer (David Greer & Associates) was responsible for editing. Garry Merkel provided advice on addressing First Nations interests in Sustainable Resource Management Planning.

Other members of the consulting team that contributed to the project included Michael Grieg (Enfor Consultants Ltd.), Gary Runka (GG Runka Land Sense Ltd.), Shawn Hamilton (Shawn Hamilton & Associates); Brian Scarfe (BriMar Consultants), and Doug Wahl (Snowy River Resources Ltd.). The first phase of the Resource Analysis Guide was completed by Tesera Systems Inc.

RESOURCE ANALYSIS GUIDE FOR SRM PLANNING 1

1 Introduction Sustainable Resource Management Planning is a provincial program for planning Crown lands and natural resources in British Columbia. It incorporates various other planning processes including planning for landscape units, watersheds, local resource uses and coastal areas under one umbrella. Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs) are the main vehicle for translating existing, broad ”strategic” land use plans (i.e., regional plans and LRMPs) into the more specific and tangible resource management direction needed for operational planning and day-to-day resource management decisions. SRMPs build on and are consistent with the direction provided in regional plans and LRMPs. Figure 1 shows how SRM planning fits within British Columbia’s Crown land planning system.

Figure 1: British Columbia’s Crown Land Planning System

Sustainable Resource Management Planning • Produces landscape level zones and specific and measurable resource objectives and

support strategies • Consolidates landscape unit planning, watershed plans, local resource use plans and

coastal resource plans • SRMP boundaries are flexible; landscape unit is a primary analysis unit

Operational Planning • Produces detailed descriptions/schedules of resource development for particular tenure

areas (e.g., Forest Stewardship Plans and Commercial Backcountry Recreation Plans)

Provincial Laws & Policies • Legal requirements and broad goals and intent for various values and sectors (e.g.,

Forest and Range Practices Act; Identified Wildlife Management Strategy; and Governance Principles for Sustainability)

• Provincial-wide application

Regional Planning and LRMPs • Produces broad zones (e.g., protected, special, general,

enhanced) and broad resource objectives and strategies for large regions and sub-regions (e.g., forest regions, districts or timber supply areas)

• Approximately 20 to 25 planning areas throughout BC.


While the basic underlying structure remains the same, the planning system described in Figure 1 has evolved over the past 10 years to more clearly define the various levels of planning and the links between them. For example, SRMPs have evolved from landscape unit plans, which were initially intended to provide management direction for the establishment of old growth management areas and wildlife tree patches as components of biodiversity, to more broadly focused plans that provide strategic direction for a full range of resource values.

As the planning system has evolved, so has the requirement by government to consult with and accommodate First Nations interests in land use planning processes. There is now a clear legal and social obligation to consider and address First Nation interests. See the SRMP First Nations Consultation Guidelines at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/srmp/doc/FNConsultation%20Guidelines-Final-web.pdf.

1.1 SRM Planning

The purpose of SRM planning is to define how Crown land and resources in the planning area will be used in the future. SRMPs build on and are consistent with the direction provided in regional plans and land and resource management plans (LRMPs).

What is SRM Planning? SRM planning is demand-driven and flexible. Resource issues and opportunities define where and when planning will take place, the planning area and the scope of the planning process. This seemingly “ad hoc” approach has the significant advantage of giving planners the flexibility to tailor their plans to unique factors (e.g., resource development, conservation, use of First Nations traditional territory) that may be most pressing at the local level.

SRM planning may be triggered by any of a variety of resource issues such as a mountain pine beetle infestation, biodiversity planning needs, desire for community economic diversification and growth, or conflict between different resource sectors. The scope of the SRMP and the resource values, history, interests, issues, and opportunities in the SRMP area influence the type of consultation undertaken, the methods used in the planning process and the length of time needed for plan completion.

SRMPs may be undertaken by Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM) planning staff or by government and non-

Comprehensive SRMP Defines resource management direction for a wide range of resource values and land uses in the planning area.

Focused SRMP Typically applies to only one or two resource values, such as forestry, water, tourism and recreation, or agriculture.


government planning partners including: First Nations; federal, provincial and local government agencies; industry and other non-government organizations. Regional MSRM planning staff are responsible for establishing SRMP priorities and coordinating planning initiatives with partners.

In some cases, a resource management plan that a First Nation or non-government organization prepares voluntarily to meet its own planning needs (e.g., sustainable forest management plans) may be adopted by the provincial government as a SRMP or a component of a SRMP, provided that it meets MSRM planning standards.

Def in ing the Scope Depending on the nature of local issues, SRMPs may narrowly focus on a small number of resource values or may comprehensively address multiple resource values. An example of the latter approach is the Southern Rocky Mountain Management Plan (in southeastern British Columbia),2 which deals with metals and minerals, coal mining, energy, forestry, backcountry recreation, hunting, fishing, backcountry tourism, agriculture and trapping. By contrast, the Eight Peaks Winter Recreation plan (near Blue River)3 limits its focus to winter recreation, forestry and wildlife values.

Using Object ives and St ra teg ies to Address P lanning Issues Whether its scope is wide or narrow, a SRMP defines resource objectives and strategies for the Crown land resource value(s) (e.g., forestry, tourism, oil and gas, livestock grazing, mineral development, fisheries values, cultural heritage resources, biodiversity, habitat protection, watershed protection) that have been specified at the start of the process.

Objectives describe the desired future condition of lands and resources in precise terms that are measurable, geographically specific, and clearly communicate the intended resource integration or trade-offs. Objectives are designed to address the issues that have been defined for a SRMP.4

2 See http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/kor/srmmp/srmmp.htm

3 See http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/sir/lrmp/8peaks/

4 SRMP objectives that are intended to be legally established under the Forest and Range Practices Act should be suitable as legal objectives as written in the plan without the need for subsequent re-writing.

Objectives Describe the desired future condition for a resource or resource use and:

• are measurable; • are time specific; • are geographically specific;

and • can apply to the whole plan

area or a specific portion of it.

Strategies Describe how the desired result in the resource objective will be achieved.


Strategies define how resource objectives will be achieved (i.e., by describing the actions that need to be carried out or the standards that need to be met to achieve the results identified in an objective).

The Four Phases of SRM Planning The SRM planning process comprises four distinct phases:

Phase 1: Plan Initiation get organized to conduct a SRMP process, determine the scope of the plan and identify resource analysis requirements.

Phase 2: Plan Development develop planning options (i.e., confirm planning issues and resource analysis requirements and apply indicators, information and tools to produce draft land use scenarios), select a preferred planning scenario and prepare a draft plan.

Phase 3: Plan Evaluation and Approval assess the pros and cons of the draft plan for review and approval by decision-makers.

Phase 4: Plan Implementation and Monitoring implement the plan and monitor its implementation progress and effectiveness.

Consis tency wi th other In i t ia t ives MSRM has developed a set of SRMP standards5 including governance principles that will need to be met in the SRM planning process (see section 2.6.3.1). Plans that meet the standards are consistent with the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) and provide an acceptable balance of economic, social, First Nations and environmental impacts. SRMPs will be approved by the Minister or the Minister’s delegate.

Operational plans (e.g., forest stewardship plans and range use plans) and resource development approvals (e.g., agricultural leases, water licences, forest licences, and commercial recreation tenures) are expected to be consistent with the direction provided by approved SRMPs. Some SRMP objectives may also be given legal effect under the Forest and Range Practices Act or the Land Act (see section 2.6.3.2).

5 MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Management Planning Standards (draft) will soon be available at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/srmp/index.htm

FRPA Objectives

Objectives established for SRMPs should be consistent with those under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) including: • objectives under the Land

Act (from sources such as regional land use plans, LRMPs, and SRMPs);

• objectives in Regulation (set in regulation under FRPA as goalposts for managing and protecting FRPA values – See section 2.6.3.2); and

• objectives enabled in Regulation (established by an appropriate minister as authorized in the legislation – See section 2.6.3.2)

FRPA objectives guide the preparation of results and strategies in operational plans and are key to maintaining environmental and economic values.


1.2 Resource Analysis for SRM Planning

Resource analysis is the technical underpinning of the SRM planning process. It runs throughout all phases of the planning process and involves the critical examination of information about current and future management of lands and resources.

Resource analysis proceeds methodically through the following sequence of actions:

• Gathering, organizing and integrating relevant land and resource information, such as resource inventory maps, information on existing land use, local knowledge (including traditional ecological knowledge) and estimates of future demand for various land use activities and products;

• Analyzing and interpreting information to understand the resource issues and to develop options for addressing them;

• Estimating the impacts of each option as a basis for recommending a preferred planning scenario and developing a draft plan; and

• Evaluating the benefits and impacts of the draft plan and testing for consistency with governance principles and provincial policy (e.g., Forest and Range Practices Act).

Sections 2 and 3 describe six steps for the completion of resource analysis in SRM planning and show how these steps fit into the four phases of SRM planning. Section 4 provides guidance on how to apply the analysis steps to a range of different resource values including access, agriculture and range, backcountry tourism, biodiversity, cultural heritage, fisheries, settlement, timber, water and wildlife.


2 Resource Analysis Framework

The purpose of resource analysis in SRM planning is to ensure appropriate collection, interpretation and integration of the resource information needed to develop sustainable resource management direction.

Resource analysis is normally performed by a team of resource management experts that, collectively, has training and skill in interpreting resource inventories, using geographic information systems, running computer models, applying environmental and socio-economic evaluation techniques, and identifying impact mitigation methods.

The collection, analysis and use of local and traditional ecological knowledge provided by First Nations is a key consideration in the resource analysis process for SRM planning. In some cases First Nation resource planners may participate on planning teams to assist in the assembly, analysis and integration of traditional ecological knowledge6.

This section describes a resource analysis framework that will help resource planners prepare and deliver resource analysis through all phases of a SRM planning process.

The resource analysis framework for SRM planning includes the following steps:

1. Issue Identification 4. Selection of Analysis Tools

2. Indicator Selection 5. Analysis of Results

3. Information Assembly 6. Evaluation

Figure 2 shows the link between the four phases of SRM planning and the extent to which each of the resource analysis steps provides analytical support to each of the planning phases. As shown, several of the resource analysis steps provide analytical support to multiple phases in the SRM planning process. This is described in more detail in section 3.

6 Many First Nations have the internal expertise to assist with many other resource analysis components (e.g., fisheries analysis,

predictive ecosystem mapping, terrestrial ecosystem mapping).

Resource Analysis consists of: • Gathering, organizing and

integrating relevant land and resource information such as resource inventory maps, information on existing land use, local knowledge (including traditional ecological knowledge) and estimates of future demand for various land use activities and products.

• Analyzing and interpreting information to understand the resource issues and develop options for addressing them.

• Estimating the impacts of each option as a basis for recommending a preferred planning scenario and developing a draft plan.

• Evaluating the benefits and impacts of the draft plan and testing for consistency with governance principles and provincial policy (e.g., Forest and Range Practices Act).


Figure 2: Resource Analysis Support for the SRM Planning Process

S R M P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s

2. Plan Development

3. Plan Evaluation and Approval

3. Evaluation 4.Monitoring

2 . I n d i c a t o r S e l e c t i o n

3 . I n f o r m a t i o n A s s e m b l y

R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s S t e p s

1 . I s s u e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n

1. Initiation 2. Development

1. Initiation 2. Development 4. Monitoring

1. Initiation 2. Development

2. Development4. Monitoring

5. Analysis of Results 1. Initiation 2. Development 3. Monitoring

4 . Se lec t ion o f Ana l ys is To o ls

6. Evaluation

4. Implementation and Monitoring

1. Plan Initiation


Resource analysis steps and related specific activities can be simple, quick and inexpensive, involving “back of the envelope” calculations or obtaining a qualitative opinion from a resource expert. Or they can be complex, for example, involving the development and use of sophisticated models to interpret extensive amounts of data. The challenge for SRM planners is to apply the appropriate resource analysis steps and activities to fit the situation (see section 3 for specific examples).

Sections 2.1 through 2.6 provide guidance for the completion of each of the six steps. Figure 3 shows the activities needed to undertake these steps to support each phase of the SRM planning process. These activities are described in more detail in section 3, which applies the resource analysis steps described in sections 2.1 through 2.6 to appropriate phases of the SRM planning process.

The type and depth of resource analysis that is applied is a judgement call that will depend on the balanced consideration of a number of factors including the:

• significance of the planning issues and resource values being analyzed;

• extent to which a recommended planning scenario proposes a shift from status quo resource allocation and management;

• potential impact to First Nation interests and values;

• degree of public interest or controversy;

• extent to which the necessary technical information, decision support tools and accepted analytical methodologies are readily available for conducting resource analysis; and,

• availability of time, budget and qualified personnel to conduct the analysis.


Figure 3: Activities Required to Complete Resource Analysis Steps

Implementation and Monitoring • Develop implementation

and monitoring strategy • Review performance • Adapt, based on monitoring

results

2. Indicator Selection 3. Information Assembly 4. Selection of Analysis Tools 5. Analysis of Results 6. Evaluation

• Select implementation and effectiveness indicators

• Identify information needs and sources

• Conduct implementation and effectiveness analysis

• Evaluate and report on results

Analysis Activities

Planning Phase

Plan Initiation • Assemble planning team • Define plan area • Identify resource values

and issues • Determine scope of plan,

integration of First Nations, and level of public involvement

• Identify resource analysis requirements

1. Issue Identification 2. Indicator Selection 3. Information Assembly 4. Selection of Analysis Tools

• Identify key resource values • Define planning issues • Identify potential indicators • Determine planning scale

and units of analysis • Identify information needs,

sources and gaps (including local and traditional ecological knowledge)

• Identify potential analysis t l

Resource Analysis Steps

Plan Development • Confirm issues to be

addressed • Develop planning scenario • Evaluate scenario • Modify and develop

recommended scenario • Prepare draft plan

1. Issue Identification 2. Indicator Selection 3. Information Assembly 4. Selection of Analysis Tools 5. Analysis of Results

• Confirm planning issues • Select analysis indicators • Assemble required

information including First Nations information

• Confirm analysis methods and tools

• Analyze planning products and/or scenario(s)

• Identify preferred scenario

Plan Evaluation and Approval • Evaluate recommended

scenario • Adjust plan, as necessary,

to meet overall objectives.

6. Evaluation • Evaluation of draft plan (SEEA, First Nation benefits/ impacts, consistency with SRMP standards, governance principles and FRPA objectives)


2.1 Issue Identification

The first step in the resource analysis framework is to identify the resource values and associated issues that will be addressed in the SRM planning process. Often planning focuses on government priorities, such as economic development and opportunities, and environmental issues including species at risk and biodiversity. Concentrating on known issues will help to scope the planning process and focus efforts on resolving key problems. Good issues analysis at the outset of the planning process will enable planners to distinguish between symptoms, causes and appropriate resource management responses.

Issues Analys is Analysis is usually aimed at the underlying causes of issues and the identification of planning options (i.e., objectives and strategies) that may potentially address the issues. Key specific activities during the issue identification analysis step include:

• Identifying key resource values that need to be addressed in the plan;

• Identifying issues associated with resource values;

• Confirming that the issues are within the scope of the SRM planning process and determining whether the planning process will be focused (addressing a small number of resource values and issues) or comprehensive (addressing a broad variety of resource values and associated issues); and

• Determining the planning scale and units of analysis.

Analyzing the issues in a SRMP requires defining the questions that need to be answered for each of the identified resource issues and deciding which questions need to be answered through technical analysis and which can be dealt with more qualitatively (e.g., using expert opinion or through a review of available literature.)

Firs t Nat ions In terests While many First Nations’ issues can be addressed under economic development or environmental management, others fall outside of the realm of the planning process. Issues such as aboriginal title or rights, jurisdiction and management authorities are important and may frame the overall planning environment, but must usually be addressed through political level negotiations

Issues The resource management conflicts and/or opportunities to be addressed through strategic direction provided in SRMPs.


within treaties or other similar intergovernmental agreements. SRM planning processes need to address First Nations’ interests as much as possible while remaining aware of the rights and title issue and ensuring that infringement does not occur.

First Nations’ interests fall into a variety of categories including:

• Avoiding significant infringements to aboriginal rights or title;

• Creating definition and certainty around aboriginal rights and title, jurisdiction and authority7;

• Participating in the economic and employment aspects of resource development, including new areas such as non-timber forest products and eco-tourism;

• Identifying, protecting, and managing cultural heritage resources (including archaeological sites, traditional use sites, oral history and archival resources);

• Protecting areas that contain values significant to First Nations (e.g., burials, traditional use sites, spiritual areas, medicinal plant harvesting areas, ceremonial sites and archaeological sites); and

• The general health of the environment.

As the First Nations community is unique, the precise nature and importance of its interests must be worked out through direct consultation.

2.2 Indicator Selection

Indicators are required to support scenario analysis during plan development or to measure implementation progress and effectiveness during the plan monitoring phase.

Analysis indicators are measured during resource analysis to evaluate a land base condition or the effects of a management scenario on a resource. They inform the analyst of the types of information that will be needed to perform resource analysis, the analysis units, and the types of analysis outputs that will be required. Monitoring indicators are measured during plan implementation to evaluate implementation progress and effectiveness (i.e., the extent to which desired outcomes are being met).

7 This interest cannot be achieved through a SRMP. It must be addressed through treaty negotiations or other intergovernmental

agreements. SRM planning can occur within the context of treaty negotiations and may help to clarify the land and resource values and interests that are relevant to the negotiation.

Analysis Indicators

An indicator is a number or other descriptor, measured in real units, which is assumed to be representative of a larger set of conditions or values (e.g., an indicator of biodiversity condition could be the amount or distribution of old forest cover).


Indicators are key elements of resource analysis whether during plan development or plan monitoring and may also be key elements in gauging First Nations (or public) satisfaction with the plan and the planning process. Good indicators are measurable, predictable, understandable, relevant, scientifically valid and cost-effective. When developing indicators, planners should consider scale and quality of information available for the analysis.

Planners need to exercise caution in selecting analysis indicators to avoid:

• Oversimplification;

• A loss of information;

• The potential for misuse;

• Subjectivity, both in the assumed representativeness of chosen indicators and in the numerical valuation and weightings associated with indices;

• Inadequate understanding of the underlying cause-effect relationships; and

• Obscuring important conditions and trends in the individual, aggregate data-sets.8

It is important to realize that indicators that measure First Nations or public satisfaction with the plan and the planning process may have a subjective element. It is best to work with an expert in this field when developing indicators for these purposes.

It is often tempting, when defining analysis indicators, to list all the resource values in the plan area and define an indicator or several indicators for each. Resource analysts should keep in mind that a smaller number of indicators will lead to an easier and more effective analysis.

Analysis indicators are used to assess the impacts of various planning options (e.g., resource management objectives and strategies or resource management zones) relative to a reference case (typically current management). Monitoring indicators are used to measure the performance or effectiveness of a SRMP as it is being implemented. In some cases, analysis indicators will be synonymous with monitoring indicators (e.g., risks to red and blue listed species, changes in income and employment levels9,

8 Environmental Monitoring: Business and Information Needs Study. Daryl Brown Associates and Sustainable Visions, 2001.

9 During plan development the results of this indicator would be predicted using various analysis tools. During implementation monitoring, actual results would be reported.


changes in timber harvest levels, risk of damage to First Nation cultural heritage sites). In other cases, analysis indicators may differ from monitoring indicators (e.g., area of available habitat for analysis vs. changes in wildlife population for monitoring, or amount of scenic area managed for visual quality for analysis vs. achievement of visual quality objectives for monitoring.) See section 3.4 for additional information on implementation and monitoring.

Table 1 provides an example of a structured approach to defining analysis indicators that links the resource value issues and criteria to the indicators.

The table shows that timber harvesting may impact several values including ecological values (e.g. loss of old forest ecosystems); First Nation values (e.g. potential loss or disturbance to cultural sites or features); and, social values such as recreation (e.g. potential impact on visual quality). At the same time, the table shows that constraints on timber harvesting to address ecological, First Nation and social values may have an impact on economic values.

Table 1: Selecting Analysis Indicators

Resource Value Issue and Cause

Analysis Question

Key Criteria

Applicable Scale on the Land Base

Analysis Indicators

Potential Information Source

Depletion of old forest in some ecosystems (Ecological Value)

How much old forest to retain by LU to meet biodiversity targets?

Old forest Old forest attributes

BEC variant within the landscape unit

Seral stages x BEC variant

Forest cover age classes

Impacts on First Nation traditional use and occupancy from resource use and development (First Nation Value)

What features and sites are at risk?

Cultural sites and features; traditional use and occupancy areas, plant communities

Watershed, landscape unit

Risk index for impacts to traditional use and occupancy

Heritage sites, archaeology overview / assessments, traditional use studies


Table 1: Continued

Resource Value Issue and Cause

Analysis Question

Key Criteria

Applicable Scale on the Land Base

Analysis Indicators

Potential Information Source

Impact of forest development activity on visual quality for backcountry recreation (Social Value)

Amount of overlap between THLB and visually sensitive areas?

Visual quality THLB

SRM Plan area Visual sensitivity rankings x THLB

Visual sensitivity rankings for the THLB

Impacts on access to timber for harvesting. (Economic Value)

Volume of timber available under various scenarios?

Area of THLB Area constrained

Timber management area

Volume of timber (m3/ha) available for harvesting

Forest cover age classes, Mean annual increment

The key criteria to be considered with respect to the issues shown in Table 1 include old forest and old forest attributes, risk to First Nation traditional use areas, visual quality and constraints to timber harvesting. The indicators that must be measured to address these criteria include:

• Forest age class by BEC variant by landscape unit;

• Risk index for First Nation traditional use and occupancy areas;

• Visual sensitivity rankings in the THLB; and

• Changes in available timber volume.

To determine the extent to which issues for these four resource values are being addressed through current management, the analyst will need to consider the following questions:

• To what extent will old forest and old forest attributes be represented and distributed over time based on current timber supply review projections and how does this compare to the natural range of variability?

• To what extent does the timber harvesting land base overlap with high ranking scenic areas for backcountry recreation and how is current management likely to affect these values?

• To what extent does the timber harvesting land base overlap with plant communities (site series) that are important for First Nation food, ceremonial and medicinal purposes and how is current management (harvesting, road building, etc.) likely to affect these values?


Additional information on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management may be obtained from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers website10 or from the Sustainable Forest Management Portal website developed in partnership between the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, the University of British Columbia and the University of Alberta11

2.3 Information Assembly

The selection of analysis indicators is heavily influenced by the availability of suitable data to measure the indicator. Data acquisition and preparation can be made more efficient by careful selection of data based on availability, reliability and quality and by minimizing the number of different types of data used.

Key related activities during the information assembly analysis step include:

• Identifying information requirements to support analysis (e.g., resource inventories, statistical data and other related research such as risk thresholds);

• Identifying First Nation information requirements (e.g., botanical forest products, inland anadromous fisheries data, traditional ecological knowledge, spatial data indicating significant cultural heritage values);

• Establishing an Information Sharing Protocol with First Nations regarding the collection, storage, access, maintenance and updating of information;

• Identifying potential information requirements and gaps (including scientific, traditional use information and local knowledge);

• Identifying technology requirements (data acquisition, transfer and format, hardware, software and technological expertise); and

• Identifying information sources and developing a strategy for assembling necessary information

Existing strategic and local plans are a primary source of information on issues in an area, as these plans have already been developed with extensive research about resources and with large amounts of outside input.

10 See http://www.ccfm.org/2000pdf/CI_Booklet_e.pdf

11 See http://sfmportal.com/


Information regarding planning issues can potentially be obtained from:

• Existing strategic land use plans, such as LRMPs, regional land use plans and background material prepared in connection with these plans (e.g., base case reports);

• Existing local plans such as local resource use plans (LRUPs), park management plans, access management plans, watershed plans, landscape unit plans and First Nations land use plans;

• Consultation with local topic experts and interests, potentially including the public, stakeholder organizations and businesses;

• First Nation traditional use studies, provincial heritage registry, archaeological overviews and assessments, local First Nations communities and tribal council or treaty offices; and

• Literature on resource values and the plan area.

2.4 Selection of Analysis Tools

Resource data can be analyzed using very simple approaches (e.g., spreadsheet analysis, back-of-the-envelope reckoning) or through complex approaches, such as developing and applying computer models. It is usually best to select the simplest tool for meeting the need. Selecting resource analysis tools is best done in consultation with the resource analyst, who can provide advice on technical capabilities and the appropriateness of various tools for the tasks at hand.

Examples of resource analysis tools include expert judgement, simple spreadsheet or database analysis, geographic information system (GIS) area analysis and computer modeling.

Exper t Judgement Experts provide informed opinions on the potential effects of alternative resource management actions. Experts can include qualified professionals as well as individuals with local and traditional ecological knowledge. This input is qualitative the result is not based on hard numbers, although it may be based on available research and literature and factual information about the planning area. Expert opinion is often used, for example, to obtain qualitative assessments of the environmental risk of plan alternatives. Local expert knowledge, including traditional ecological knowledge, can be used to inform professional judgement.


Simple Spreadsheet or Database Analys is One of the least complex tools for quantitative analysis is a simple spreadsheet or database. Planning teams can assess data in various ways using computer software such as Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Access. These programs, and others like them, contain a myriad of tools for deriving information about a set of data, assessing statistics, and providing graphical outputs.

Data assessed in spreadsheets or databases can be aspatial or spatial. Where geographically referenced information is required, GIS queries can be run and then translated into tabular format. For example, the area of high value mountain goat habitat in each landscape unit in a plan area can be derived from GIS overlays and then translated into an appropriate format for use in Access or Excel.

This tool is useful because planners can use with it without requiring a lot of specialist technical knowledge, unlike GIS or the more complex computer models. The ability to export data from GIS into Access and Excel allows for a division of labour in which GIS analysts do the spatial data work and then pass on the outputs to someone else to analyze. Tables from Access and Excel can, in turn, be passed back to GIS analysts to translate into map products.

GIS Area Analys is GIS technology makes it possible to quickly generate statistics on the distribution of resources in the plan area. GIS area analysis summarizes mapped information describing the state of a resource at a “snapshot in time”. GIS area analysis is used to assess the relationships between resource values by overlaying two or more layers of data and quantifying the areas of intersection. It can be used to answer “what if” questions such as:

• What if the width of riparian reserve is increased?

• What if all high value mountain goat habitat is removed from the timber harvesting land base?

GIS area-based statistics may be generated for the entire SRMP area or for defined management zones.

One of the limitations of GIS is that it does not project changes in resource values over time. Spatial-temporal analysis requires an additional level of complexity, requiring the use of specialized computer models.

Examples of Analysis Tools

• Expert judgement • Simple spreadsheet or

database analysis • GIS Area Analysis • Computer Modeling


Computer Model ing Computer models are valuable analysis tools for addressing complex problems. They are able to simulate and assess an array of ecological and resource-related variables and track impacts over large areas and long time periods.

A computer model is a mathematical construct based on assumptions about how things work under a certain set of defined conditions. It is a program constructed to emulate the cause-and-effect relationship between variables. Models can be simple or complex; aspatial or spatial; and static or temporal (i.e., able to assess changes over time).

Models that can be useful for SRM planning include timber supply models, landscape models, habitat models and visual landscape design models. These may be “pre-packaged” and only require users to supply data for the planning region; or planners can custom-build models for their planning area. See Appendix 1 for further descriptions of computer models for planning.

Select ion of the Appropr ia te Analys is Tool As illustrated by Table 2, each of the resource analysis methods described above has advantages and disadvantages that planners need to consider.

Table 2: Pros and Cons of Resource Analysis Tools

Methods Pros Cons

Professional Judgement

• Does not require extensive supporting analysis

• Makes use of local and scientific expertise

• Is subjective due to lack of quantitative evidence

• Is not transparent

• Results may be challenged by other experts

• May be difficult to apply to forest certification regimes

Spreadsheet • Uses simple and readily available tools

• Requires minimal analyst time

• Has limited application (e.g., is limited in its ability to work with spatial information)

• Is not useful for complex problems requiring many layers of information


Table 2: Continued

Methods Pros Cons

GIS Analysis • Is able to overlay multiple data layers to provide information on spatial interaction

• Acts as a platform linking other applications (e.g., Access, Excel, models)

• Enables web-based communication of spatially referenced land and resource objectives

• Access to GIS resources can be limited due to high demand

• Cannot model spatial changes over time

• Can be data intensive and thus costly

Computer Models

• Can model complex interactions over space and time

• Deals with greater complexity than GIS alone

• Using models may be time and cost-intensive

• Model outputs are only as good as the data going into them

Table 3 identifies six criteria for selecting an appropriate resource analysis tool. In addition, the choice of tool will depend on:

• Available time and resources (human and financial);

• The significance of the issue (contentious or high profile issues may require more refined quantitative analysis to increase credibility and transparency); and

• The sophistication of the planning partners, particularly First Nations whose planning and analysis capacities are increasing.

Table 3: Criteria for Selecting Analysis Tools

T y p e s o f A n a l y s i s T o o l s

Criteria Professional Judgement

Spreadsheet Analysis

GIS Area Analysis

Spatial-Temporal Model

Only aspatial data are available X X

Data needs to be geographically referenced

X X

The analysis question requires overlaps between spatial data layers to be identified

X X


Table 3: Continued

T y p e s o f A n a l y s i s T o o l s

Criteria Professional Judgement

Spreadsheet Analysis

GIS Area Analysis

Spatial-Temporal Model

Need to know how a proposed management regime causes a resource to change over time

X

Need to know how a proposed management regime affects the spatial location of a resource over time

X

There are many layers of information to be assessed simultaneously

X X

2.5 Analysis of Results

Once issues have been identified and the management concerns have been highlighted, the next step in the SRM planning process is to develop options for addressing the issues. These options must be analyzed through the use of appropriate planning tools to determine how well they address particular planning issues and integrate with the desired future for other resource values. Figure 4 identifies a sequence of analysis activities that must be conducted in order to analyze planning options and create a preferred planning scenario.


Figure 4: Activities for Analyzing Results

Def in ing Analys is Outputs Analysis indicators describe the units for reporting the outputs of resource analysis. Where very large amounts of information are generated in the analysis, it will be extremely challenging to effectively use all of the outputs as they churn out of the computer unless forethought is given to how the outputs should be presented.

Planners and analysts can decide ahead of time how best to present analysis outputs so that they can be used readily during the interpretation phase. Planners must also be prepared to change the types of outputs depending on the emerging needs of the players and the complexities of the issues involved.

Adopting this kind of a “learn as you go” approach is consistent with an adaptive management approach to resource analysis.

Define Outputs

Interpret Outputs

Assess Outputs

Consider Trade-offs

Create Preferred Scenario

• Decide what needs to be presented • Decide on presentation format

• Decide on criteria for evaluation • Analyze outputs

• Assess results for each value relative to base case and identify opportunities for improvement

• Identify potential trade-offs among resource values and analyze results to improve overall balance

• Decide on presentation format

• Combine optimal planning products for all resource values to create preferred scenario

• Decide on presentation format

Analysis Approach


Questions to Ask for Determining Appropriate Outputs:

• What is the most appropriate format for reporting out: spreadsheets, databases, graphs or maps?

• What specific components of the analysis are of interest? For example, some databases contain a multitude of “fields” or columns of information. The analysis may only be concerned about one or two of those fields.

• What are the time increments for reporting out? If you are dealing with the outputs of a temporal model, do you want the outputs by decade? By rotation? What is the upper limit of time horizon?

Table 4 shows how these questions might be applied in an analysis of old forest, visual quality and timber volume.

Table 4: Examples of Questions for Determining Analysis Outputs

Analysis Question Preferred Format Reporting Units Time Increments

How much old forest should be retained by land use planning to meet biodiversity targets?

Tabular (Excel spreadsheet) Graph

Old seral forest x BEC variant for each landscape unit

t = 0

How much overlap is there between the THLB and visually sensitive areas?

What other existing (non-VQO) zoning helps to address visual quality concerns?

Tabular Visual landscape inventory (VH, H, M, L, not visually sensitive, unclassified) x THLB, non-THLB in each current management zone

t = 0

Which plant communities (i.e., BEC site series) contain traditional plants used by First Nations?

Tabular

Map

Percentage early seral by BEC site series for each landscape unit

t = 0, 10, 20, 50, 100 years

What volume of timber is available under the various management scenarios?

Tabular

Map

Timber volume (m3/ha) by proposed management zone

t = 0, 20, 50, 100, 150, 250 years

In terpret ing Analys is Outputs Once resource analysis outputs have been produced, it will be necessary to assess their significance in terms of what these results mean for the resources of concern. The most transparent method for interpreting outputs is to decide on the criteria for


evaluation before analyzing the data. This will minimize the risk of producing biased results or being accused of bias. Table 5 illustrates how analysis may be used to interpret impacts for a variety of different planning options.

Table 5: Interpreting Impacts of Analysis Outputs

M a n a g e m e n t D i r e c t i o n R e s o u r c e

V a l u e Protected Area Community Watershed Visual Landscape

Timber Harvesting

Minerals High

No exploration or mineral development permitted

Moderate

Mineral exploration and development are permitted in community watersheds. Disturbance is strictly regulated, potentially increasing costs and approval time

Low-moderate

Mineral activity not restricted by visual quality objectives. Could be some requirement to design and lay out access routes to minimize visual impacts

Low

Mineral activity not restricted by timber harvesting activities

Timber High

No timber harvesting permitted

Moderate-high

Timber harvesting must be managed to address risks to water quality

Moderate-high

Depends on terrain and level of visual disturbance permitted (e.g., a retention VQO could have a significant impact on timber

Low

Timber harvesting permitted in compliance with existing regulations

Backcountry Recreation

Low

Natural setting retained

High

Recreation use in a community watershed is likely to be restricted

Low-moderate

Visual quality is maintained, but other wilderness features may be affected by access and other activities

Moderate-high

Backcountry experience is likely to be affected by timber harvesting and related access

Biodiversity Low

Risk to biodiversity from resource development is minimal; could be impacts associated with recreation use

Low-moderate

Management direction for water quality will limit disturbance to other ecological values

Moderate

Although forest cover may be retained, visual management will not necessarily address other ecological risks

Moderate-high

Risk of decrease in ecological function and structure

Cultural Heritage

Low-moderate

Risk of damage from development and new access is low; may still be risks associated with recreation use

Low-moderate

Access and resource development restrictions will limit impacts; may be some restrictions to cultural heritage values

Moderate-high

Visual quality may limit some impacts associated with timber harvesting; will still be impacts associated with access and other resource uses

Moderate-high

Risk site disturbance and impacts on cultural heritage values


The most effective approach to developing a transparent and trustworthy method of assessing analysis outputs is through consultation with domain experts, First Nations experts or stakeholders. Prior to conducting the analysis, analysts should seek agreement on the criteria for assessing outputs, the units of evaluation and any interpretive rules.

Similarly, when developing planning zones such as old growth management areas or intensive timber management areas, analysts should establish up-front agreement on the criteria that will be used for locating the zones and on the hierarchy of values to be used in decision-making.

Also, if there is to be a weighting of values involved in assessing a draft resource management regime, weightings should be documented ahead of time. Table 6 provides an example of how various watersheds might be weighted in terms of their fisheries values.

Table 6: Example of Criteria for Weighing Values12

Ranking of Watersheds by Fisheries Value

Weighting in Overall Rank of Socio-economic Value

Conservation value 1

Aboriginal fishing rights 0.8

Commercial fishery 0.7

Tourism/ sport fishery 0.7

Recreational fishery 0.7

Research 0.4

In a comprehensive SRMP dealing with a large number of resource values and issues, a socio-economic and environmental assessment (SEEA) may serve as a useful tool to explicitly demonstrate the trade-offs between resource values (see section 2.6 and Appendix 2). This can be done by focusing on the interaction between key socio-economic and environmental drivers in the plan area, rather than presenting them as separate, mutually exclusive resources. A simple method is to summarize the socio-economic and environmental implications of management zones or objectives in a single table. By way of example, Table 7 presents the analysis results for mountain goat (environmental value), forestry (socio-economic value) and First Nations traditional use and occupancy, allowing a direct comparison.

12 The order of ranking in this table is consistent with legal direction which requires that conservation values must be addressed first, First Nations uses with respect to the exercise of aboriginal rights and title second, then all other uses after that.


Table 7: Summarizing Evaluation Results

Plan Objective

Risk to Mountain Goat

Risk to Viability of Forestry Operations

Risk to Traditional Use and Occupancy

Maintain 70% basal area within 50m of mapped mountain goat winter range

Low – Moderate

Some risk associated with logging in and around goat habitat

Moderate

Potential loss of 1500 m3 as a result of goat management guidelines

Low

Minimal disturbance to known archaeological sites and traditional use areas

Do not construct roads within 500 m of mapped goat habitat, unless no economically or operationally feasible alternative exists

Low – Moderate

Risk to goats is primarily due to poaching, which is not completely eliminated by minimizing roads

Low – Moderate

Assessment indicates little impact on access to timber as a result of road restrictions

Low – Moderate – High

In some cases where traditional access routes have been removed forest roads provide an important means of access into traditional use areas. In other areas increased access can interfere with traditional use

Table 7 could be adapted for all resource values being addressed in the plan in relation to the proposed planning products (objectives and resource management zones). Typically the results of the analysis would be summarized for each value, indicating the degree of change from current management (i.e., improvement, no change, or decline).

Resource Va lue Trade-of fs The output from an analysis of resource management options or scenarios will likely show a range of results for different resource values. It is unlikely that one scenario or set of options will provide optimal results for all values. Accordingly, some level of trade-off that balances the range of issues and desired outcomes will likely be required.

The results of a scenario analysis may reveal that the impacts for a particular resource value are unacceptable (e.g., risks to biodiversity are too high, economic impacts for timber are too high). In these instances, trade-offs with other resource values may be required in order to achieve an acceptable result. This type of fine-tuning is important to ensure an acceptable balance of benefits and impacts among the various resource values being addressed in the plan.

Notwithstanding the need to consider trade-offs, a number of adjustments might be made to improve the results for a particular resource value. This can be done through sensitivity analysis to

Examples of Potential Trade-offs in SRMP include:

• Timber harvesting and biodiversity objectives (e.g., old growth areas);

• Wildlife habitat objectives and access;

• Livestock grazing objectives and riparian management; and

• Fisheries objectives (e.g., water flow) and water use for industrial development.


test how changes in management for a given value affect the results for other values. As well, it may be possible to modify objectives and strategies to address apparent resource management conflicts, as shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Modifying Objectives to Address Resource Management Conflicts

Approach Examples

Separate conflicting activities in time

• No coastal winter logging on unstable slopes

• No road building during rainy months

• No recreational use of First Nations traditional harvesting sites during harvesting period

• No fishing when a vulnerable run is passing through

Separate conflicting activities in space

• Preventing forest development activities in certain areas such as old growth areas, riparian reserves, critical archaeological / heritage sites

• Preventing motorized recreation uses in certain areas due to impacts on wildlife or other non-motorized recreation uses

• Reserve certain areas from Land Act disposition

Manage the type / intensity of activities

• High lead logging vs. Ground skidding

• Selection harvesting systems vs. Conventional clear-cutting

• Gated / restricted access on mining road vs. Open public access

• Client day limit on commercial horseback riding operations in sensitive terrain

Redress / compensate impacts

• Decommission a logging road after the first pass

• Allow a marina to be built in fish habitat subject to habitat enhancement elsewhere

• Establish an alternative first nations fishery

• Alter water flow subject to establishing a hatchery program

Government-to-government review

• Identify planning issues and/or proposed planning solutions that may potentially infringe upon aboriginal rights and title and address these through government-to-government discussion

Trade-offs may also include an element of higher level prioritization. For example, all activities may be measured against ecosystem integrity first; First Nations uses second and then other uses beyond that.13

13 This order of ranking is consistent with legal direction which requires that conservation values must be addressed first, First

Nations uses with respect to the exercise of aboriginal rights and title second, then all other uses after that.


2.6 Evaluation

Once a preferred scenario has been developed and a draft plan has been prepared, it must be evaluated to provide decision-makers with a clear understanding of the benefits and costs associated with the plan recommendations.

Although the technical analysis undertaken as part of developing plan alternatives will have already revealed the main pros and cons of proposed management options, a more integrated evaluation will allow decision-makers to compare the merits of the recommended plan with other alternative plan scenarios in a transparent manner that supports decision-making. For example, what types of improvement does a particular plan option provide over current management? Are projected impacts acceptable relative to the overall benefits? If impacts are not acceptable, how should the plan be revised? The socio-economic and environmental assessment (SEEA) used to perform this integrated evaluation should include an evaluation of impacts and benefits to First Nations.

2.6 .1 Socio-economic and Envi ronmenta l Assessment (SEEA) SEEAs, when needed in SRMPs, must review the complete range of impacts arising from the draft plan and present the information in tabular or matrix format to facilitate the review of the information by decision-makers. SEEAs must demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the draft plan and assist planners and decision-makers in weighing any trade-offs involved. MSRM has prepared a set of guiding principles for conducting socio-economic and environmental assessments.14

The assessment of the environmental and socio-economic implications of a preferred scenario requires a comparison of what might occur under this scenario relative to a base case i.e., the “default” land and resource management regime that is most likely to be in place in the absence of a strategic land use plan. Therefore, a necessary step in the planning process is to define and document base case management and then assess its associated past and anticipated future socio-economic and environmental trends (including the potential for resource use conflict in the plan area to frustrate the realization of socio-economic and environmental values). The presumed base case

14 See http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/ecdev/docs/GuidingPrinciples.pdf

Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment

A detailed description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of a socio-economic environmental assessment is provided in Appendix 2 and at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/ ecdev/docs/GuidingPrinciples.pdf


management regime must be applied consistently to all economic sectors and other values under consideration.

The specific methods and tools employed in SEEA and the level of detail of the evaluation are determined by the planning team on a case by case basis15, with consideration given to:

• The significance of the issues and values being evaluated;

• The availability of information needed to perform an evaluation; and

• The availability of time and budget to conduct an evaluation.

Depending on these factors, SEEAs may be undertaken for the full range of key resources in the plan area, or they may focus only on the most critical issues. Figure 5 summarizes the potential choices associated with SEEA.

A socio-economic assessment should consider impacts related to employment, communities, government revenues and economic efficiency in addition to providing an indication of the degree to which sustainability would be achieved. In some SRMPs, the evaluation may focus primarily on social and economic impacts. In the case of winter motorized and non-motorized recreation for example, an evaluation would be undertaken to provide information on projected social and economic consequences of management directions for these two values. There would likely be a particular emphasis on reconciling competing uses and the trade-off between public recreation interests and economic development opportunities.

Where there are significant concerns about environmental impacts, MSRM recommends that an environmental risk assessment (ERA) be conducted.16 ERA is a science-based, transparent approach to assessing the implications of plan scenarios on environmental values where the net environmental benefit is quantified using measures of risk assessment. Risk assessment involves identifying “how much is enough” (i.e., how much can an ecosystem be changed before the ecosystem and the species it supports are unable to function adequately?).

15 SRMP planners should consult with staff in MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Development Branch when assessing SEEA requirements.

16 See Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA): An Approach for Assessing and Reporting Environmental Conditions. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, July, 2000.

Environmental Risk Assessment

Appendix 3 provides a detailed description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an Environmental Risk Assessment.


Figure 5: Potential Choices Associated with SEEA

ERA should not be regarded as a tool to justify significant environmental disturbance in order to maximize economic benefit. The assessment of risk will need to determine whether or not the projected results of a draft plan will adversely affect environmental values.

Although a SEEA will address many of the interests that are important to First Nations, it may not be able to deal with concerns such as cultural values and traditional use and occupancy. Where the resource values and issues being addressed in a SRMP have a strong connection to First Nations’ interests, an assessment of First Nation impacts and benefits should be conducted. This assessment should be done in discussion with First Nations to ensure that the assessment criteria are appropriate.

SEEA was undertaken for a LRMP that covers the SRMP area, and is viewed as reasonably current

Comprehensive SEEA is likely not required

Certain resource values are subjects of debate/controversy


Condensed SEEA, projection of

anticipated socio-economic results for

SRMP scenario

Yes No

Focused SEEA, highlighting resource values and plan sub-

areas of most interest



SRMP scenario

Yes No

No

Comprehensive SEEA should be undertaken

Focused SEEA, highlighting resource values and plan sub-areas of most interest

Yes

A broad SEEA approach is required; there are several contentious issues at play

Yes No


In terpret ing the Per formance of P lan Scenar ios The results of SEEAs do not necessarily inform planners whether a draft land use plan is desirable or optimal. Evaluation results must be interpreted before a draft plan can be said to be “good” or “poor.” There are a few ways to interpret evaluation results. One approach is to simply look at relative trends does the analysis show a positive, neutral, or negative trend for the resources of concern? Another approach is to compare the relative performance of alternative land use scenarios i.e., which scenario provides the greatest potential for a positive outcome for any one resource? For example, if the baseline has no zoning for ungulate winter range, Scenario A has 325 hectares of ungulate winter range, and Scenario B has 550 hectares of ungulate winter range, it can be surmised that the implications for ungulates will be most positive in Scenario B. This assessment would need to be balanced against the corresponding implications for other resource values such as timber.

Another way to interpret evaluation results is to compare the evaluation outputs with established resource management “standards” i.e., measurable targets, objectives or thresholds that are defined in approved policies, plans or guidelines, and that represent desirable outcomes for particular resources. A preferred planning scenario is one that is able to meet required “standards” while fulfilling other socio-economic or environmental objectives.

A number of standards can be used to interpret evaluation results (and also to guide the development of SRMP scenarios). As illustrated by Table 9, these might include provincial, regional or local standards.


Governance Principles for Sustainability

A detailed description of MSRM’s governance principles can be found on the following web site: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/clrg/psirb/sustainability/

Table 9: Examples of Standards

Types of Standards Examples

Government legislation and policy

• Biodiversity targets in the Landscape Unit Planning Guide

• Riparian zoning pursuant to the Forest and Range Practices Act riparian management regulations

• Management strategies in the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy

• First Nations Consultation and Accommodation policy

• Targets for access to timber or other resource values

Existing strategic land use plans

• Targets by Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) zone

• SLUP objectives and strategies for specific resources

Scientifically derived benchmarks and thresholds

• Minimum habitat requirements

• Minimum viable population

• Road density thresholds

Other societal-derived standards

• Maximum acceptable impacts to timber supply as a result of the Forest and Range Practices Act

• Economic objectives in economic development plans

• First Nations land use plans

• Local plans such as water management plans, park management plans and local resource use plans

• Certification standards (e.g., FSC-BC Regional Standards, CSA, etc.)

• Case law

Test ing for Consis tency wi th Governance Pr inc ip les , the Forest and Range Pract ices Act and the Work ing Forest Pol icy SRMPs provide strategic direction for management of Crown land and resources at a landscape or watershed level. SRMP objectives and strategies must be consistent with the management direction provided for Crown land and resources by other provincial policy and planning initiatives. These include MSRM’s Governance Principles for Sustainability, the Forest and Range Practices Act, the Working Forest Policy and emerging aboriginal case law as captured in provincial policy.


2.6.1.1 Consistency with Governance Principles

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management has developed ten governance principles that guide the SRM planning process. These principles are described in detail on the MSRM web site.17 Table 10 describes strategies for meeting each principle.

Table 10: Recommended Strategies for Meeting Governance Principles

Governance Principle Strategies for Meeting Principles

Certainty Making timely and clear decisions within a predictable and understandable framework.

• Ensure that objectives are clearly stated and results are measurable

• Ensure that timelines are defined and stated

• Ensure that interested First Nations are involved throughout the process and that their interests are addressed

Integration Ensuring that decisions integrate economic, environmental and social elements, while considering the limits of each, for the benefit of present and future generations.

• Consider different values across and within geographical areas

• Consider different values in the present and anticipate future concerns

Continual Improvement/ Innovation Learning from the past, adapting to changing circumstances, encouraging innovation and being entrepreneurial.

• Monitor results and identify ongoing opportunities for improvement

• Define structured learning scenarios to support adaptive management

• Provide incentives for industry and government to embrace innovation

Accountability Enhancing performance management through effective compliance, enforcement, auditing and public reporting activities.

• Ensure intended outcomes of the plan are clear

• Ensure objectives are results-based and measurable

Competitiveness Ensuring that British Columbia remains internationally competitive by removing barriers to investment and promoting open trade.

• Provide access to resources to ensure long term economic opportunity

• Where possible, avoid planning solutions that limit future opportunities or significantly increase business costs

17 See http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/clrg/psirb/sustainability/


Table 10: Continued

Governance Principle Strategies for Meeting Principles

Science Based Decision Making Making justifiable decisions informed by science-based information and risk management.

• Use the best science available

• Use local and traditional ecological knowledge to support decision-making

• Use current and reliable information where possible including scientific and local knowledge. Use professional judgement by qualified professionals to bridge data gaps.

• Consider the risks of deciding now and using adaptive management as new science becomes available

Efficiency Focused and efficient delivery of government services and maximizing the net benefits arising from the allocation, development and use of natural resources.

• Develop planning products based on the highest and best use of resources

• Identify potential immediate and future impacts

• Strive to maximize the total net benefits

Inclusion Including the interests of First Nations, and their desire to participate more fully in the economy of the Province.

• Consider First Nations rights and title in the development of planning products

• Consult with First Nations and other stakeholders in the planning process

• Encourage participation by First Nations and affected stakeholders in the planning process

Shared Responsibility Encouraging co-operation among First Nations; federal, provincial and local governments; academics; industry and non-governmental organizations in developing and implementing policies.

• Where appropriate, consider the results of community working groups involved in similar issues

• Involve First Nations and other relevant groups in the planning process

Transparency Establishing open and transparent decision-making processes that consider First Nations, the public and other key interests.

• Ensure that the process is open and accessible to affected parties

• Provide adequate opportunity for input

• Ensure that the framework or process is well understood by all those who will be affected by the outcome

• Ensure that the rationale for decisions is clear and accessible

2.6.1.2 Consistency with the Forest and Range Pract ices Act

The Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) and its regulations (e.g. the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR), the Range Planning and Practices Regulation (RPPR), the Woodlot


Planning and Practices Regulation (WPPR) and the Government Actions Regulation (GAR) define the legal requirements for forest planning and practices on British Columbia’s Crown lands. A key feature of FRPA is the establishment of legal objectives for managing and protecting forest and range values. It is critical that objectives developed in SRMPs be consistent with objectives set by government in accordance with FRPA.

Objectives Set by Government Government will set objectives for managing and protecting forest and range values. There are three types of objectives:

• Land Use Objectives (formerly known as higher level plans) —established under the Land Act and ss. 3-5 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act;

• Objectives in Regulation (s. 149 of FRPA, ss. 5-10 of FPPR, ss. 6-11 of RPPR, s. 9 in WPPR); and

• Objectives Enabled by Regulation (ss. 56, 149-150.3, 181 of FRPA, s. 5-20 of GAR).

Objectives enabled by regulation may be developed at the discretion of designated ministries to address other specified resource management requirements as follows:

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management may:

• Designate scenic areas; and

• Designate community watersheds.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection may:

• Establish water quality objectives in community watersheds;

• Designate areas and establish objectives for fisheries sensitive watersheds;

• Designate wildlife habitat areas (WHA) and establish objectives for these areas;

• Designate ungulate winter range (UWR) and establish objectives for these areas;

• Establish categories of “species at risk” for species that are endangered, threatened or vulnerable;

• Establish categories of “regionally important species” where species are important to a region of BC and may be adversely impacted by forest or range practices;

• Establish categories of “specified ungulate species” for which an ungulate winter range is required for winter survival of the species;


• Establish general wildlife measures (GWM) for specified areas and categories of “species at risk”, “regionally important species” and “specified ungulate species”; and

• Identify categories of wildlife habitat features to protect certain bird nests, significant mineral licks and other localized habitat features.

The Ministry of Forests may:

• Designate and establish objectives for interpretive forest sites, recreation sites and recreation trails;

• Establish resource features;

• Designate and establish objectives for lakeshore management zones; and

• Establish visual quality objectives for scenic areas. Note: MSRM must designate an area as a scenic area before MoF can establish visual quality objectives.

Objectives enabled by regulation must be consistent with any existing land use objectives and objectives in regulation.

SRMP objectives and strategies address localized resource planning issues and guide operational plans. They become “objectives set by government” when established through the Forest Practices Code (FPC) and Land Act, much the same as an LRMP.

In resource analysis for a SRMP, proposed resource objectives and strategies should be checked so that they are consistent (vertically integrated) with other objectives set by government and by government policy direction. SRMP objectives:

• Take direction from higher level land use objectives set by government (derived from regional plans and LRMPs established under the FPC and the Land Act);

• Should consider objectives set in regulation under the FRPA Forest Planning Practices Regulation, and when legally established, can replace default objectives set in regulation (including objectives established by MOF and MWLAP);

• Should be guided by senior government policy considerations; and

• Must not infringe on aboriginal rights and title.

This vertical integration of proposed resource objectives within the context of SRMPs is shown in Figure 6.


Figure 6: Hierarchy of Objectives Set by Government

Higher level plans or land use objectives set by government, including objectives that were initially developed in a SRMP, are senior to and may replace objectives set by government under FRPA Regulations. SRMP objectives which are often a refinement of LRMP objectives for use at the local level must reflect LRMP objectives but should not duplicate them and must be consistent with any legally established land use objectives associated with the LRMP.

SRMP objectives, when legally established as land use objectives, replace those set by government in the FRPA regulation to the extent of any inconsistency between land use and FRPA objectives. FRPA objectives are either set in regulation or established by one of the ministries. They can be used as a refinement of land use objectives. FRPA objectives may also serve as a reference for consideration in developing SRMP objectives.

SRMP objectives should be integrated across resource values and expressed to avoid overlap on a site-specific basis, to provide clarity for operational planning. Operational plans must be consistent with the objectives set by government.

FRPA Objectives In Regulation

FRPA Objectives Enabled in RegulationEstablished by MoF, MSRM & MWLAP

Ver

tica

l In

tegr

atio

n w

ith

SR

MP

Land Use Objectives Set by Government

(e.g. SRMPs)

Operational Plans Consistent with Objectives Set by Government


As indicated by Table 11, objectives have been set in regulation or may be enabled in regulation under FRPA for a variety of resource values.

Table 11: Objectives Set by Government under FRPA

Value Objective Set by Government

Soils Conserve the productivity and the hydrologic function of soils

Timber Maintain or enhance an economically valuable supply of commercial timber from British Columbia's forests

Enable an agreement holder, in the exercise of its timber harvesting rights granted by the government, to be vigorous, efficient and world competitive

Wildlife Conserve sufficient wildlife habitat in terms of amount of area, distribution of areas and attributes of those areas for:

• the survival of species at risk;

• the survival of regionally important wildlife; and

• the winter survival of specified ungulate species

Water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity within riparian areas

Conserve, at the landscape level, the water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat and biodiversity associated with those riparian areas

Wildlife and biodiversity

At the landscape level, design areas on which timber harvesting is to be carried out that resemble, both spatially and temporally, the patterns of natural disturbance that occur within the landscape

At the stand level, retain wildlife trees

Cultural heritage Conserve, or, if necessary, protect cultural heritage resources that are

• the focus of a traditional use by an aboriginal people that is of continuing importance to that people, and

• not regulated under the Heritage Conservation Act

Other objectives enabled by regulation

• An objective for an interpretive forest site, recreation site or recreation trail;

• A wildlife habitat area objective;

• An ungulate winter range objective;

• A lakeshore management zone objective;

• A water quality objective for a community watershed;

• A fisheries sensitive watershed objective; and

• A visual quality objective


A FRPA Value Matrix has been developed to assist SRM planners in identifying the values, regulation sections that apply, default results and strategies, factors, designations and practices standards. Refer to Appendix 4 FRPA Value Matrix. In analyzing SRMP objectives, planners should consider the inherent risk of the situation for the values. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Risk can be determined by assessing the hazard of compromising the value and the consequence of that compromise. For example, a general visual quality objective of Partial Retention might be established by the Ministry of Forests for areas visible from a highway. However, under a SRMP certain key views may be more important, which might require a visual quality objective of retention; alternatively, the SRMP may find that some views are not prominent and may result in land use objectives that replace the visual quality objective.

The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of SRMP objectives with objectives set by government and related policy direction for the area:

• Are there already objectives set by government for resource values being addressed in the SRMP?

• If so, are they:

similar in technical content, arriving at the same desired future condition as those in the SRMP?

addressing similar issues and stakeholder groups to those identified in the SRMP?

• Are there resource objectives set in FRPA regulation already?

• Are there senior level policy considerations for the SRMP, such as ecosystem-based management (EBM) or Working Forest (WF)?

If the answer is “no”, then a resource objective may be necessary under the SRMP.

If the answer is “yes”, then there is a need to investigate the appropriateness and consistency of wording of the SRMP objective with other levels of objectives.

By way of example, if there is an objective in a regional plan for water that states “manage to prevent soil erosion and maintain the quality of existing fresh water sources,” objectives in the SRMP for water should add detail and precision to this objective for the smaller scale of the SRMP by creating measurable components in the objective that are consistent with achieving the intent of the


broader land use objective such as specific soil disturbance limits on a watershed basis or specific management requirements for riparian areas. The SRMP objective should not duplicate the broad scope of the land use objective above. Appendix 4 includes a checklist that can be used to test for the consistency of SRMP and FRPA objectives.

2.6.1.3 Consistency with the Working Forest Pol icy

This section describes the Working Forest Policy and assessment methods for ensuring that SRM planning direction is consistent with resource targets that may be established for regional land use plans and LRMPs.

The objective of the Working Forest is to maintain access to Crown land and to define opportunities for investment. It does not require any change in land use designation; it applies to the existing Provincial Forest. The Provincial Forest encompasses approximately 75 million hectares of the province of which 49 million hectares are forested and 26 million hectares are non forest land.

Resource targets are intended to provide long-term land use certainty allowing communities, conservation groups, First Nations, industry and recreational users to co-exist. Targets may be established for resource use within the timber area of the working forest and will generally be set at an LRMP area or Regional Land Use Plan scale.

Resource targets will be expressed as a percentage of productive forest land base on Crown land for the following values:

● timber;

● riparian (as a key expression of water and fisheries values);

● biodiversity (including old growth areas);

● visual quality (as a key expression of tourism and recreation values); and

● wildlife.

Other targets can be established to reflect other values addressed in a particular LRMP or regional land use plan.

Table 12 provides a simple example of what targets could look like for standard values.


Table 12: Simple Example of Targets for Standard Values

Value Target as percent of Productive Forest Land

Timber 75%

Riparian 5%

Biodiversity 12%

Visual Quality 20%

Wildlife 10%

The total percentage for the targets exceeds 100 because a multiple use approach means that many targets will be achieved, or partially achieved, on the same forest area. For example, areas managed for wildlife often can be used to meet broader biodiversity requirements. Similarly, some of the area managed to retain visual quality is also suitable for meeting biodiversity or wildlife targets.

SRM planning by government or partners (e.g., forest industry, tourism sector, First Nations) should ensure that the resulting plans meet the targets where and when they are developed. For example, old growth areas must be identified in a way that also reflects the timber area target. Ultimately it will be beneficial to spatially combine objectives (e.g., old growth areas and scenic areas) to create greater flexibility for achieving other targets across the land base.


As indicated in Section 1, the SRM planning process includes the following four phases:

Phase 1: Plan Initiation – get organized to conduct the SRMP process, determine the scope of the plan and identify resource analysis requirements.

Phase 2: Plan Development – develop planning options (i.e., confirm planning issues and resource analysis requirements and apply indicators, information and tools to produce draft land use scenarios), select a preferred planning scenario and prepare a draft plan.

Phase 3: Plan Evaluation and Approval – assess the pros and cons of the draft plan for review and approval by decision-makers.

Phase 4: Plan Implementation and Monitoring – implement the plan and monitor its implementation progress and effectiveness.

See Figure 3 in section 2 for a description of analysis activities related to each step.

3 Applying the Resource Analysis Steps to the SRM Planning Process

This section describes how the six steps in the resource analysis framework (see section 2) are applied to each of the four phases in an SRM planning process (see Figure 3) and also suggests key analysis questions to ask during each phase. This section revisits some of the theoretical information included in section 2 in order to illustrate how these resource analysis tools can be put into practice.

Resource analysis applies to all four phases of SRM planning. During the plan initiation phase, analysis helps define the scope of issues that need to be addressed and is useful in identifying the potential indicators, information and planning tools needed to develop the plan.

Most of the detailed analysis takes place during the plan development phase. Issues are analyzed and potential planning products (objectives and strategies) are identified to address the issues. These products are combined in a planning scenario(s) and assessed to determine relative consequences for each of the issues being addressed. Products are modified and further analyzed through a series of iterations to come up with an optimal or “preferred” scenario.

During the plan evaluation and approval phase, the draft plan is evaluated to determine its benefits and impacts. If the balance of impacts is considered unacceptable, the plan will likely be modified before it is approved.

Following approval, the plan is then monitored on a regular basis to assess implementation progress and overall effectiveness in achieving goals and objectives. During the plan implementation


and monitoring phase many of the resource analysis steps completed during the plan development phase are repeated (e.g. indicator selection, information assembly, analysis of results and evaluation of implementation and effectiveness performance including recommendations for ongoing improvement).

3.1 Plan Initiation Phase

During the plan initiation phase the initial preparation work and scoping for the development of a proposed SRM plan is undertaken. This includes defining the plan area boundary, identifying potential planning issues, working with First Nations to determine how they will be involved in the planning process, determining the appropriate level of public participation, identifying First Nation interests that need to be addressed and the related information and technical support to do this, confirming partnership arrangements and identifying information and analysis requirements to support completion of the plan. During this phase, the terms of reference for the planning process will be developed18 and a planning team will be assembled. Table 13 describes the key resource analysis questions during this phase.

A key consideration during the plan initiation stage is to determine the level of complexity of the SRMP and to determine whether the analysis should be structured to support a comprehensive or a focused SRMP (see section 2.6.1 and Appendix 5).

Table 13: Analysis Questions During Plan Initiation

Analysis Step Questions

STEP 1: Issue identification

• What are the likely resource management issues that need to be addressed in the SRMP?

• Can these issues be addressed within the scope of SRMPs (e.g., do they apply to Crown land, can they be addressed at a landscape or watershed scale, and are they a significant priority)?

• Do the number and complexity of the issues suggest the need for a focused or a comprehensive SRMP?

• How will First Nations be involved in the process?

18 In SRM planning processes where there are significant First Nation issues, it may be advisable to work with interested First

Nations in developing the terms of reference.


Table 13: Continued


STEP 2: Indicator selection

• Do standard indicators adequately support the analysis process (e.g., indicators that have been developed for LRMPs, sustainable forest management plans, forest stewardship plans)?

• If standard indicators are not applicable, what indicators would best suit the analysis requirements?

• Do the indicators meet the test of good indicators? (See section 2.2)

• Are there data readily available to support the indicator analysis? If not, what are some choices for acquiring data or selecting substitute indicators?

STEP 3: Information Assembly

• What information is required to support analysis of indicator results (i.e., what data provides the “best fit” to the analysis question?)

• Have First Nation interests and concerns been considered and, if so, what information is required and how will it be acquired?

• Is the data readily accessible (e.g., in corporate, intra ministry and company databases)? If not, can it be reasonably acquired?

• Is the data reliable (e.g., up-to-date, inventoried using acceptable standards, produced at an appropriate scale)?

• Is the data readily usable (e.g., prepared according to provincial standards, compatible with other data for the plan area, readily prepared for warehousing)?

STEP 4: Selection of Analysis Tools

• What tools are available to support analysis of the issues and values being addressed in the plan?

• What information, technology and expertise do these proposed tools require? Can this be reasonably acquired?

• What are the most practical tools for conducting analysis?

• Is a full SEEA required? If not, what aspects of social, economic, environmental and First Nation analysis are required and how will this assessment be conducted?

Figure 7 illustrates the type of analysis that could be undertaken during the plan initiation stage to determine how a resource value such as grizzly bear could be addressed in SRMPs.


Figure 7: Example of Plan Initiation Analysis for Grizzly Bear

To identify resource values and associated issues to be addressed in the plan and determine potential indicators, information and tools to be used in developing the plan

• Decline in grizzly bear population

• Grizzly bear poaching

• Grizzly bear/ livestock conflicts

• Is the real issue grizzly bear or livestock? Poaching may be one of several causes of population decline.

• What are the symptoms as opposed to the causes associated with these issues? Nuisance bear mortality results from human/bear conflicts. Loss of habitat results from competing land use (e.g., timber harvesting, human settlement)

• Assuming the issue is declining grizzly population, what are the underlying causes? (e.g., bear mortality from hunting, poaching and killing bears as a result of loss of critical habitat)

• Which causes can be addressed in the SRMP? Poaching and hunting are regulatory issues; however, killing nuisance bears and habitat loss can be addressed through the SRMP.

• How can the above causes be addressed in the SRMP? Human/bear conflicts can be addressed through access management; habitat supply can be addressed through management objectives and land use designations.

• Grizzly bear population trends

• Area of suitable habitat

• Road density

• Area of high value grizzly bear habitat

• Depletions of habitat over time

• Roads and road access locations

Purpose

Potential Issues

Analysis Questions

Potential Indicators

Examples of Potential

Information Sources


In the above example, several issues were identified as potential issues to be addressed for grizzly bear in the SRMP. As an outcome of the analysis, it was determined that the key issue was grizzly bear population and that the factors affecting the population that could be addressed in SRMPs included habitat supply and access management. Based on the results of this analysis it was then possible to identify potential indicators, information sources and analysis tools for use in developing the plan.

Fi rs t Nat ions involvement The SRMP relationship between British Columbia and First Nations is unique. The Crown has legal obligations to First Nations.

The planning team should attempt to establish a mutually satisfactory working relationship with First Nations very early in the planning process. First Nations involvement in the creation of the SRMP terms of reference establishes the parameters for their involvement and reduces ongoing disputes that may delay or halt the planning process.

The first step is to determine which First Nations have interests in the proposed planning area. Next is to determine the readiness, capacity and willingness of each of those First Nations to participate in the planning process.

Some planners have found that it is effective to establish a protocol agreement with interested First Nations that addresses the following questions:

• What is the working relationship between the First Nation(s), the planning table and the provincial government? This part of the agreement should address the structure of the relationship at the governing and technical/professional level including how decision-making is done and how these levels interact. Some First Nations have directly integrated into the existing structure, while others find it more effective to establish parallel or separate processes that interface with the existing structure at predetermined times or events.19

• What are First Nations information needs, and how will the parties to the protocol agreement work towards meeting these needs?

19 See “First Nation Consultation Guidelines for Sustainable Resource Management Planning”, Ministry of Sustainable Resource

Management at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/.


• How will the parties share information particularly sensitive, culturally related information held by First Nations?

• How will the parties build the necessary capacity within the First Nation to effectively participate? Understanding of the planning process must be developed at the government, general public and technical/professional levels. Some areas that should be addressed include map reading, information management and most of the technical content in this guide.

While it is desirable to have a single relationship with all First Nations in a planning area, planners may find that it is necessary to establish separate working relationships with each First Nation. This will depend upon the unique circumstances within each area.

3.2 Plan Development Phase

During the plan development phase the planning issues will be confirmed and the analysis framework to support the completion of the SRMP will be finalized. The main components of plan development include confirmation of resource values and issues to be addressed, development of planning scenarios to resolve issues and provide management direction, analysis of planning scenarios and selection of a preferred scenario. Once a preferred scenario has been chosen, it will be used as a basis for preparing a draft plan. A draft plan will typically include:

• Goals, objectives and management strategies for resource values being addressed;

• Identification of resource management zones (where appropriate);

• Description summary of the analysis methods and assumptions employed during plan development, including a description of how local and traditional ecological knowledge and other plans (including First Nations land use plans) have been used in the analysis;

• Description of how the plan is integrated with other planning and policy initiatives (e.g., Forest and Range Practices Act);

• Implementation procedures and priorities; and

• Monitoring and reporting procedures.

When developing the plan objectives and strategies, it will be important to emphasize approaches for integrating, blending and balancing uses. For each use, this will necessarily involve analyzing inventory information about other resource values and users. Basic integrated resource management strategies for


preventing or minimizing undesirable impacts of land uses on each other include:

• Separating conflicting activities in time (e.g., avoiding helicopter use in goat kidding areas during kidding season);

• Separating conflicting activities in space (e.g., designating areas for non-motorized recreation);

• Limiting the intensity of use in a particular area (e.g., imposing access restrictions to avoid human/bear conflict); and

• Mitigating and redressing impacts (e.g., deactivating roads following harvesting).

During plan development it will be important to ensure that SRMP products are consistent with MSRM’s governance principles, related government policy (e.g., Forest and Range Practices Act and Working Forest Policy) and existing, approved strategic land use plans.

Table 14 summarizes the key analysis questions to be considered during the plan development phase.

Table 14: Analysis Questions During Plan Development


STEP 1: Issue Identification

• Has analysis been completed to identify the full range of possible issues associated with the resource values being covered in the plan?

• What resource management issues will be addressed in the SRMP and what are some of the likely management responses for addressing these issues?

• Does the process have the necessary resources/tools to address these issues?

STEP 2: Indicator Selection

• Have the indicators that will be used to complete the analysis of planning products been confirmed?

• Do the indicators align with the issues that will be addressed in the plan?

• Have performance targets or acceptable risk levels been defined for the indicators?


• Is the information needed to support the analysis of indicators and planning products readily available in an acceptable format?

• Is the information needed to assess First Nation interests readily available in a format that will support analysis of planning products?

• Have data access and management protocols been finalized including confidentiality arrangements with First Nations?

• Are the necessary tools and technology needed to support data management available?

• Has accountability and responsibility for information management been confirmed?


Table 14: Continued



• Have the tools that will be used to support analysis of the planning products been confirmed?

• Are the necessary information, technology and expertise needed to conduct the analysis in place?

• Has a base case or reference case been prepared to support comparative analysis?

STEP 5: Analysis of Results

• Have appropriate management options been developed for addressing all issues in the planning process?

• Have the management options and/or planning scenario(s) been analyzed to determine relative risks and consequences?

• Have potential trade-offs been identified and subsequently analyzed in an effort to produce the best overall balance of planning solutions?

• Has a preferred planning scenario been completed?

The above questions may vary from planning table to planning table. In planning processes where First Nations are involved, these questions should be developed and reviewed in cooperation with First Nations.

Figure 8 provides an example of the type of analysis that could be undertaken during the plan development stage to develop planning products (objectives and strategies) for managing grizzly bear.


Figure 8: Example of Plan Development Analysis for Grizzly Bear

To confirm planning issues, indicators and information, and prepare and analyze various options for addressing issues, leading to a preferred planning scenario and draft plan.

• Decline in grizzly bear population as a result of habitat loss and increased and unmanaged access

• What management responses are required to address the issues? (Access management and design of harvesting to avoid high value habitat.)

• How much high value grizzly bear habitat is needed to restore the population to a sustainable level?

• How much of the high value grizzly bear habitat overlaps the timber harvesting land base?

• How much road density is allowable, has it been exceeded, and what access restrictions are required where these roads conflict with high value grizzly bear habitat?

• Area of suitable habitat

• Road density

• Area of high value grizzly bear habitat

• Depletions of habitat over time

• Roads and road access

• Expert judgement

• GIS analysis

• Habitat supply modeling

• Apply access restrictions in areas of high value grizzly bear habitat as indicated on the plan map

• Maintain 30 percent mature and old forest in high grizzly habitat

• Avoid harvesting in critical denning habitat

• Periodically monitor grizzly bear populations

• Access for timber harvesting versus risks to grizzly bear

Purpose

Issues

Analysis Questions

Potential Information

Sources

Potential Analysis

Tools

Potential Indicators

Examples of Potential Planning Products

Potential Trade-offs


In the above example, the list of potential issues identified during the plan initiation phase has been clarified to a single issue. This issue is then used as a basis for selecting indicators and analysis tools and assembling the necessary information needed to support the analysis. Developing potential management responses and corresponding analysis questions once the issue has been defined helps to further clarify the analysis requirements to support the development of appropriate planning products. The final step in the process, once planning products have been defined, is to identify potential trade-offs with other resource values and to conduct further analysis as needed to determine an optimal result.

3.3 Plan Evaluation and Approval Phase

Once a draft plan has been prepared, an evaluation is conducted in preparation for review and approval by decision-makers. SRMPs may be approved by the regional MSRM director. In cases where there are higher profile decisions (e.g., First Nation considerations, significant economic impacts, policy implications, highly contentious, innovative solutions), the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management will be the approval authority. Where First Nation interests are affected by approval of SRMPs, government-to-government discussions may be required to resolve outstanding issues.

The evaluation of a draft plan typically includes a socio-economic and environmental assessment (SEEA) and an analysis of First Nation benefits and impacts. If the impacts are unacceptable, the plan will need to be modified prior to approval. The evaluation should also ensure that proposed objectives and strategies are consistent with MSRM’s governance principles for sustainability20 and with objectives set by government under the Forest and Range Practices Act.

One of the key analysis requirements will be to determine whether the plan needs a full SEEA or a more simplified analysis that focuses on only the most critical issues. 21.

It is important to ensure that the plan evaluation phase considers the social, economic and environmental consequences of draft

20 Available at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/clrg/psirb/sustainability/

21 SRMP planners should consult with staff in MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Development Branch when assessing SEEA requirements.


land use proposals. This could involve the development and measurement of specific indicators for assessing the full range of consequences. Alternatively, planners might opt for a more basic process involving questions respecting the extent of integration, such as: “Have we thought about how this proposed plan will impact other resources and users?” “What are the probable nature and magnitude of impacts?” “Are these significant?” “If so, what can we do to prevent or mitigate potential impacts?”

Plans with a narrow scope pose the risk of focusing too much on maximizing opportunities for the resource value being planned to the potential detriment of other resource values and users. SRMPs must guard against this potential by applying planning practices that appropriately consider and integrate other values and interests in the planning process.

Key analysis questions to be considered during the plan evaluation and approval phase are outlined in Table 15.

Table 15: Analysis Questions During Plan Evaluation and Approval


Step 6: Evaluation

• What level of evaluation is required (e.g., comprehensive or portions of SEEA, ERA and First Nations impacts/benefit analysis)?

• Has a base case been prepared to compare the projected results of the draft plan with current management? If a base case has not been prepared, are there other standards that will be used as a basis for comparing results?

• Have indicators been selected to support the analysis of the plan results?

• Has an assessment been done to determine whether the plan is consistent with the SRM governance principles?

• Has an assessment been done to determine whether planning products (objectives and strategies) are consistent with the Forest and Range Practices Act?

• Has an assessment been done to determine whether the projected impacts are consistent with targets in the Working Forest Policy?

• Does the plan need to be modified to improve any of the evaluation results?

Figure 9 provides an example of the type of analysis that could be undertaken during the plan evaluation phase for grizzly bear.


Figure 9: Example of Plan Evaluation Analysis for Grizzly Bear

To determine the extent to which management direction will benefit grizzly bear in relation to other social, economic and environmental goals in the plan area

• How much high value grizzly bear habitat is maintained into the future relative to the base case?

• Does management direction result in a reduction in the level of human/bear conflicts?

• What is the projected incidence of bear mortality relative to the base case?

• Are there opportunities to create economic benefits associated with grizzly bear management (e.g., bear viewing)?

• What is the overall risk rating for future grizzly bear population (e.g., very high, high, medium, low) and how does this compare to the base case? What impacts occur to other resource values to achieve grizzly benefits, and are these reasonable?

• Is the management direction consistent with the SRMP governance principles and with objectives in FRPA?

• Percent change in habitat (relative to base case) • Risk index (could include road density, area of habitat, level of

protection of habitat, etc.) • Economic benefits (e.g., bear viewing)

• Area of grizzly bear habitat • Area of grizzly bear habitat with potentially competing uses • Roads and road access

• GIS analysis • Environmental Risk Assessment (Fine Filter Analysis) • Economic assessment (impacts on resource development,

tourism benefits)

Purpose

Analysis Questions

Information Sources

Analysis Tools

Analysis Indicators


In the above example, there is no need to identify planning issues or indicators and tools for analyzing planning products designed to address the issues. Instead, the focus during the evaluation phase is to compare the projected results of the draft plan with current management or some other set of predetermined standards (e.g., acceptable levels of risk).

The above example also shows how other resource values need to be considered during the evaluation process (e.g., economic benefits of bear viewing, impacts on resource development activities). Another important consideration during this phase of the planning process is to ensure that the proposed management direction in the draft plan is consistent with MSRM’s governance principles and with the objectives in the Forest and Range Practices Act.

3.4 Implementation and Monitoring Phase

Once a SRMP is approved, provincial agencies are responsible for overseeing its implementation and ensuring that management direction is carried forward in subsequent resource planning and decision-making processes. Agencies will also need to ensure that implementation progress and effectiveness (i.e., achievement of stated goals and objectives) is monitored on a regular basis.

• Implementation monitoring – periodic assessment to determine the extent to which SRMP commitments have been acted upon. Implementation monitoring asks questions such as, “Did we do what we said in the plan we would do?” Implementation monitoring may also assess compliance with legal standards or permit / plan conditions.

• Effectiveness monitoring – measurement of the extent to which the desired conditions identified in the plan (i.e., goals, objectives) are being achieved. This type of monitoring asks, “How effective is the plan in achieving the desired and expected results?” Effectiveness monitoring may also evaluate the degree to which monitoring indicators measure relevant or appropriate social, economic or environmental conditions and trends.

The foundation for monitoring strategic land use plans in British Columbia is not well established. Provincial monitoring procedures have been developed, but standards and guidelines have not yet been established.22 As the body of experience and knowledge for monitoring land use plans expands, it will be

22 See http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/data/policy/provmon.htm

Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring

Appendix 6 provides a detailed description of methods for undertaking implementation and effectiveness monitoring.


important to develop further direction around indicator selection, analysis methods and reporting.

First Nations may play a key role in monitoring and evaluation given the strong sense of attachment that they have towards the health of their territories and because of their presence in those territories.

The analysis activities during the implementation and monitoring phase are similar to those during the plan development phase, except that the indicators and analysis are intended to answer the following two questions:

1. Are the objectives and strategies in the plan being implemented as specified?

2. Are the results/targets for the objectives and strategies being met?

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring are important steps for achieving continuous, adaptive improvement in SRMPs. Appendix 6 provides a detailed description of methods for undertaking implementation and effectiveness monitoring.23

During the monitoring phase, indicators and supporting information used to develop the plan will need to be reviewed to determine whether it meets the requirements for assessing implementation and effectiveness performance. In some cases analysis indicators will be synonymous with monitoring indicators (e.g., change in available wood supply, changes in employment by sector). In other cases, analysis indicators may differ from monitoring indicators (e.g., area of available habitat for analysis vs. changes in wildlife population for monitoring, or amount of scenic area managed for visual quality objectives).

Table 16 describes the key analysis questions to be considered during the implementation and monitoring phase.

23 See also MSRM’s guidelines for strategic land use plan monitoring at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/mp_final.htm

Provincial Monitoring Procedures

Provincial monitoring procedures have been developed but standards and guidelines have not yet been established. See http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/data/policy/provmon.htm


Table 16: Analysis Questions During Plan Implementation and Monitoring


STEP 2: Indicator selection

• Do analysis indicators used for plan development support monitoring requirements? If not, what additional indicators will be required?

• Are there standard indicators that will adequately support the monitoring process (e.g. indicators that have been developed for LRMPs, sustainable forest management plans, forest stewardship plans, etc.)?

• If standard indicators are not available, what indicators would best suit the analysis requirements?

• Do the indicators meet the test of good indicators? (See section 2.2.)


• Has information required to support analysis been identified (e.g., resource inventories, field data, statistical data, and other related research)?

• Is the information needed to support the analysis of indicators readily available in an acceptable format?

• Has accountability and responsibility for information management been confirmed?


• Are the necessary information, technology and expertise needed to assess implementation and effectiveness indicators in place?

STEP 5: Analysis of Results

• Have performance targets and/or baselines been established for assessing indicator results?

• Have results been generated for all indicators?

• Are results presented using appropriate tables and charts?

STEP 6: Evaluation

• Has an evaluation of overall implementation and effectiveness performance been prepared?

• Have recommendations for improvement been provided where performance has failed to meet targets?

Figure 10 provides an example of the type of analysis that could be undertaken during the plan implementation and monitoring phase for grizzly bear.


Figure 10: Example of Implementation and Monitoring Analysis for Grizzly Bear

In the above example, indicators to support implementation and effectiveness assessments had to be selected along with the information to perform the analysis. As can be seen, one of the indicators (road density) is the same as was used in plan development. The other two indicators (bear population and incidents of human caused mortality) are new. These new indicators help to determine whether the plan, as it is being implemented, is achieving the goal of maintaining grizzly bear populations.

To select monitoring indicators, assemble information and analyze implementation and effectiveness results

• Road density

• Bear population

• Incidents of human-caused bear mortality (excludes hunting)

• Road development and deactivation approvals

• Grizzly population surveys

• Bear mortality statistics

• Expert judgement

• Statistical analysis

• Spreadsheet analysis

• Define targets for each indicator (e.g., no net decrease in population; zero incidents of human caused mortality)

• Undertake analysis to determine results for each indicator

• Determine where targets have not been met

• Provide recommendations for improvement as required

• Report results

Purpose

Monitoring Indicators

Analysis Tools

Analysis Activities

Information Sources


4 Analysis Guidelines for Selected Resource Themes

Introduction

This section of the Guide provides advice on performing resource analysis for selected resource values and land uses. For each value, the chapter discusses:

• Identification of planning issues that arise for the resource value, grouped by social, environmental or economic theme;

• Selection of indicators to be used as a basis for conducting analysis for the resource value;

• Assembly of information for analyzing and measuring indicators;

• Selection of analysis tools for performing resource analysis for the resource value. In many instances, the best analysis of options is based on a collective exercise using GIS, mapping, analysis of specific impacts and professional judgement. Many methods focus on specific impacts to resources (e.g., impacts on grizzly bears). In all cases, the quality of analysis will depend on the level of understanding of the resource being assessed;

• Analysis of results for planning products (i.e., objectives and strategies) developed as part of a proposed planning scenario. An iterative process of testing options is often required. This involves assigning tentative objectives and strategies for particular elements and assessing the implications of those tentative assignments in relation to other resource values and interests; and

• Evaluation of a preferred planning scenario to determine the extent to which it provides a balance of social, economic, environmental and First Nation benefits and to ensure consistency with MSRM Governance Principles for Sustainability and with the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Each resource value is organized by sub-section within Section 4 (see “In This Section...”). The sub-sections are arranged in alphabetical order with no preference as to priority in SRM planning.

Although the analysis approaches for individual resource values are provided in discrete sub-sections, it is important to recognize

In This Section... Analysis Guidelines for:

4.1 Access 4.2 Agriculture and Range 4.3 Backcountry Tourism 4.4 Biodiversity 4.5 Cultural Heritage 4.6 Fisheries 4.7 Settlement 4.8 Timber 4.9 Water 4.10 Wildlife


that potential impacts for many of these values may be cumulative and interrelated. For example, the combination of activities associated with multiple resource uses (e.g., tourism, grazing, mining and timber) may have a cumulative impact on a particular resource value (e.g., water, wildlife or cultural heritage) that is not fully appreciated by looking at resource analysis results in isolation.

Accordingly, planners and analysts should, to the extent possible, apply an integrated approach to resource analysis, drawing upon the information provided in the following sections as appropriate.


4.1 Access This section addresses analysis requirements for access within SRM planning.

Access is a fundamental requirement for industrial, recreational and public uses in BC. Historically, industrial users such as forestry have established access. Recreational users, hunters and other commercial ventures typically follow and utilize access into areas that were once inaccessible. Along with new opportunities, increased access creates challenges and impacts that compound land use planning issues. Access planning, including the development of objectives and strategies, is integral to maintaining a balance of uses in a SRMP.

Access uses generally fall into one of four categories listed in Table 17. Roads and trails can be further classified into a variety of active and inactive classifications based on their level of use or maintenance.

Table 17: Access Categories and Uses

Roads Off-Roads and Trails Water Air

• Industrial vehicles and equipment

• Personal and recreational vehicles

• Motorcycles

• Bicycles

• Equestrian

• Hikers

• Logging and construction equipment

• All terrain vehicles

• Snow machines

• Motorcycles

• Bicycles

• Equestrian

• Hikers

• Motorized watercraft

• Non motorized watercraft

• Helicopters

• Fixed wing aircraft

Issue Ident i f ica t ion Access planning issues are common to all sector uses and essentially relate to social, environmental and economic impacts. Common planning issues to consider for access management in SRMPs are summarized in Table 18 and described below.


Table 18: Common Access Management Planning Issues

Social Issues Environmental Issues Economic Issues

• Public and recreational access

• Public safety

• Vandalism and theft

• Fire

• Cultural heritage

• Wilderness

• Spiritual values

• Impacts on First Nations traditional use and occupancy (e.g., roads into hunting or fishing areas, disturbance of archaeological sites, etc.)

• Visual quality

• Biological diversity

• Wildlife

habitat impacts

population impacts

• Fish

habitat impacts

population impacts

• Soils and terrain stability

• Hydrology

• Water quality

• Vegetation management

• Construction, maintenance and deactivation for operations and exploration:

forestry

mining

oil and gas

hydro

tourism

other economic ventures

• Log dumps and foreshore

• Economic costs

Access issues may arise from the building of access routes or the closing of routes. They may arise from industrial or commercial requirements, recreational use, First Nation traditional use or the need to maintain natural values such as fish and wildlife. They can arise from competing user groups on the same roads and trails (e.g., 4WD clubs vs. equestrian clubs) and from demands that may exceed capacity as well as from changes to the physical environment from roads. Higher traffic could lead to increased amounts of sediment transfer as well as displacing wildlife. Also, interactions between small developments, such as a proliferation of access in adjacent gas fields, may result in compounding effects.

Access issues tend to be cumulative – the greater the access, the greater the number of issues that emerge.

Sections 4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.3 summarize the types of impacts that may be associated with the issues described above. Resource analysts will need to obtain information about these impacts in order to analyze access issues.

4.1.1.1 Social

• Public access – integrating recreational access with industrial use;


• Public safety – on roads (e.g., road conditions), waterways (e.g., increased boat traffic);

• Vandalism and theft – to private property, equipment and buildings or degradation of sites;

• Forest fires – access to remote areas can increase the risk of human-caused forest fires;

• Cultural heritage – impacts on aboriginal use (food, social and ceremonial), wilderness, and spiritual values by opening access to humans or animals into previously restricted areas; and

• Visual quality – visible impacts of road or trail developments.

4.1.1.2 Environmental

• Biological diversity – disruption of ecological integrity; disturbance of threatened or endangered species habitat;

• Wildlife and fish – alteration, inadvertent harassment, damage or destruction of wildlife or fish, habitat or passage; limits to natural migration paths (e.g., fences or linear corridors). Access-related wildlife and fish issues that may arise in SRMPs are shown in Table 19;

• Soils and terrain stability – disturbance of erodable soils or unstable terrain, soil compaction or loss of productive forest land caused by access;

• Water quality – stream channel integrity and hydrology issues due to poor construction practices or abandoned roads; and

• Vegetation management – introduction of seeds and plants by humans, equipment or animals; disturbance of riparian vegetation.

4.1.1.3 Economic

• Industrial operations and resource exploration – current or future resource potential;

• Limiting access to other commercial users (e.g., guides, trappers, prospectors, backcountry tourism operators, etc.);

• Limiting public use of industrial roads;

• Economic cost – road construction, maintenance, access controls and deactivation; and

• Log dumping areas and associated foreshore and waterway corridors (log transportation portals) – interests of upland and foreshore users and use of corridors over time.


Table 19: Wildlife and Fishery Issues 24

Issue Type Road Off-Road Water Air

Wildlife Habitat Issues

• Direct habitat loss

• Habitat fragmentation

• Reduced habitat effectiveness

• Loss of forest interior habitat conditions

• Human-induced fire

• Invasion by non-native plants and animals

• Damage to soils/vegetation

• Spread of insects/disease

• Increased edge effect

• Invasion by non-native plants and animals

• Erosion

• Soil properties

• Human-induced fire

• Damage to soils and vegetation

• Spread of insects and disease

• Biological invasions

• Riparian and wetland impacts

• Fuel deposits and spills

• Industrial activities


Wildlife Population Issues

• Species displacement

• Barriers to movement and dispersal

• Reduced habitat use

• Harassment/poaching

• Reduced reproductive success

• Sub-population fragmentation

• Hunting pressure

• Human/wildlife conflicts

• Problem wildlife control

• Habitat loss

• Species displacement

• Barriers to movement and dispersal

• Reduced habitat use

• Harassment

• Poaching

• Reduced reproductive success

• Sub-population fragmentation


• Human/wildlife conflicts

• Problem wildlife control

• Harassment

• Habitat avoidance


• Poaching

• Animal control

• Harassment

• Poaching

• Hunting pressures

24 Derived from Access Management in British Columbia: A Provincial Overview, March 31, 2001, prepared for Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks, Habitat Protection Branch, Victoria BC


Table 19: Continued

Issue Type Road Off-Road Water Air

Fisheries Issues

• Sedimentation and altered stream flows

• Debris flows/landslides

• Introduction of exotic species

• Restricted passages water quality

• Fishing pressure

• Riparian/wetland impacts


• Sedimentation


• Riparian/wetland impacts

• Stream bed/channel disturbances

• Introduction of non-native species

• Water quality


• Introduction of exotic species

• Disturbance




Ind icator Se lect ion Analysis indicators assess probable outcomes of different access management scenarios and measure the extent to which a plan scenario will contribute to the plan's goals or objectives. Table 20 provides examples of indicators for analyzing access management.

Note that thresholds are determined for the value being assessed as part of the resource analysis of options.

Table 20: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Access Management

Indicators Measure Reason for Measure

Access Location (Current)

• Map and list the location of known roads, trails, and waterway corridors. Delineate the primary reason for access and user groups

• Access linkages to areas outside of SRM planning area

• Kilometres of roads or trails classified by user group

To identify current access uses

Access Impacts

• Number of fish-bearing streams within distance x of proposed access route

• Number of cultural heritage sites within distance x of access routes

To determine potential access impacts on other values

Access Quality and Status

• Ratings of roads and trails as to category of current state of roads (2WD, 4WD, ATV, non-motorized)

• Delineate road status/ownership (FSR, RP, non-status, etc)

To identify quality of access and responsible party


Table 20: Continued


Access Potential/ Suitability Mapping

• Location of corridors suitable for developing new access, and their intended use

• Timing of future access

• Kilometres of future access; kilometres of road/km2 of land

• Number of future stream crossings

To identify future access requirements

Access Conflict Areas/ Hazard

• Location of areas of access concern by resource sector

• Location of areas of access concern for First Nations

• Kilometres of road in habitat areas, unstable terrain or high value areas

• Identify loop roads, linkages between drainages, extent of drivability between drainages

• Develop ratings of Low, Moderate or High depending on resource value or interest that may be impacted. These are used in conjunction with consequence ratings in impact assessments

To prioritize collection of information and analysis of resources at risk

To identify high-risk and/or areas

Access Barriers

• Location of access barriers To locate controls

Road Density

• Kilometres of road/km2 of land

• Number of stream crossings

To undertake impact assessments for wildlife and fish

Road Permanence

• Ratings of roads based on intended use, including the level of deactivation when not in use (maintained, semi-permanent deactivation, permanent deactivation)

• Expected duration or time of use of the access

To identify usability and timing of uses

In format ion Assembly Information sources to support resource analysis for access management include, but are not limited to: land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), forest stewardship plans, forest development plans, tree farm licence management plans, etc; maps (e.g., forest and subsurface inventory, Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping, resource tenure maps); aerial photographs; site visits; cultural heritage resource inventories, traditional use studies and inventories of traditional ecological knowledge; and various other relevant studies (e.g., fish/wildlife population impact studies).


The analysis of indicators requires a variety of data and information types. Table 21 provides a list of information sources that may be used to conduct analysis for access.

Table 21: Information Required for Resource Themes

Information Type Scale Description

Use and Reliability Source

Land Use Plans and Maps

Various Provides information on the location of roads and objectives

Provides direction and context from other planning processes

MSRM (locally available)

Forest Inventory Maps and TRIM Maps

1:20,000 Provides the location of most forest roads

Moderately reliable for main roads, not reliable for old roads or trails, updated periodically

MSRM and Tree Farm Licensees

Aerial Photographs

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Used to verify map information on access

Used to locate potential access routes or other conflicting resource values

MSRM

Site Visits/ Field Trips

n/a Used to verify map information on access

Very reliable Local

Local Knowledge

1:10,000to

1: 50,000

Areas of high use

Potential conflicts with access

Knowledge about potential construction impacts (e.g., location of bogs

Useful for verifying technical information or filling in gaps in knowledge

Local residents, First Nations (traditional ecological knowledge)

Traditional Use and Occupancy

Various Location and extent of use Provides an indication of the presence and significance of First Nation values

First Nations


Table 21: Continued



Archaeological Sites

1:20,000 to

1:50,000

Spatial Inventory of Archaeological Sites

Predictive mapping (spatial)

Useful for spatially locating areas with high archaeological values

Remote Archaeological Access Database (RAAD)25

Local Interests

n/a Provides information on desired access uses and location of uses from public groups

Reliable Input from previous local planning process; survey; or public consultation

Wildlife/Fish Habitat and Population Impact Studies

n/a Provides a description of potential impacts and thresholds for wildlife and fish from various forms of access

Considered reliable Website locations (refer to references in this chapter.)

Forest Development Plans

Forest Stewardship Plans

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Provides the location of permanent and temporary roads, levels of road deactivation

Provides location of projected roads over five years

Reliable; updated every 1-5 years

MOF and Forest Licensees

Tree Farm Licence Management Plans

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Provides the location of permanent and temporary forest roads for the forest company

May provide the location of projected roads over twenty years

Reliable; updated every 5 years


Mineral Production and Deposit Maps

Various Industrial mineral and coal mines, deposits and occurrences (showings to major producing mines)

Deposit character, classification and type

Reliable source of information on current and past producers

• MEM

• MINFILE database

• See MapPlace website

25 Archaeology and Registry Services Branch http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/arch/pubs/resweb/archres.htm


Table 21: Continued



Mineral Titles Various Records and maps which indicate areas available for location and acquisition of title as well as the location and status of mineral and coal titles acquired under the Mineral Tenure Act and Coal Act

Very reliable • MEM, Gold Commissioner’s Office

• Mineral titles website26

Oil and Gas Resource Maps

Various Describes the potential for oil and gas resources

Reliability based on available data

MEM, Oil and Gas Div. (Produced on demand)

Oil and Gas Tenure Maps

Various Provides subsurface oil and gas tenure coverage and ownership

Reliable, updated monthly

MEM, Titles Div.

Oil and Gas Well Maps

Various Identifies the location of oil and gas wells in the province

MEM and OGC

Oil and Gas Infrastructure Maps

Various Identifies all oil and gas infrastructure such as pipelines, compressor stations, gas plants etc

MEM and OGC

Forest Recreation Maps

1:250,000 Provides overview of access routes by user types

Moderately reliable, updated periodically

MOF and TFL Licensees

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Maps or Recreation Inventory Maps

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Provides overview of access routes by user types

Reliable to the date produced

MSRM, MOF and TFL Licensees

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)

Maps or descriptions

Provides information on impacts of various uses for a localized area

Reliable Industrial proponents

26 http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/mining/Titles/


Se lect ion of Analys is Tools The choice of analysis tools will depend on whether single or multiple uses are being assessed, the resource or value being assessed, the quality and availability of information and the internal resources available to the planners. Access management planning can require extensive consultation, particularly where intrinsic values must be analyzed. It is possible to develop rating methods or guides for decision-making purposes, even if uses cannot be extensively analyzed. Table 22 provides a range of access management analysis methods. Identifying the values at risk, the hazards that exist and the potential magnitude of impacts will help to identify and analyze the options and solutions to resolve planning issues.

Table 22: Analysis Methods for Access Management Related Planning Products

Analysis Tools

Analysis Description/ Results

Information Requirements Advantages Disadvantages

Mapping Maps identifying conflict areas and conflict free areas

Information from resource themes and values

Public input into desired uses and locations

Graphical communication of uses and options

Need for resources to assemble and produce map products

Can be cumbersome if map scales are too large or information too detailed

First Nation Impact Assessment

Identify and spatially locate areas of significance for First Nation cultural heritage values that may be impacted by access such as:

• archaeological sites

• hunting and gathering areas

• fishing sites

• trails

• other areas of significance for traditional use and occupancy

BC Heritage Branch

Archaeological overviews and assessments

Traditional use studies

Traditional ecological and local knowledge

Graphical communication of potential conflicts and benefits

Does not provide an assessment of relative risk or options for reducing risk


Table 22: Continued

Analysis Tools



GIS Develop spatial relations between resource themes and generate resultant data, such as:

• area of land impacted by access

• length/density of road access

• number of stream crossings

• classification of streams

• cross analysis with other resource themes

• degree of habitat fragmentation

• distance of roads from other spatially defined values

• changes between assessment scenarios

Mapping data by theme

Develop relations and resultant data between resource themes quickly

Requires specialized analysts

Data themes have to be ready to use; cleaning of data can be cumbersome and time consuming

Terrain Stability Mapping

Geotechnical analysis of proposed access routes to determine suitability in terms of slope, soil type, etc

TRIM maps and geotechnical reports and analyses

Provides a technical suitability assessment for proposed access corridors

Requires site specific analysis; information may not be readily available

Specific Impact Assessments

Identify a specific impact on a resource or value, such as potential impacts on grizzly bears

Measurable attributes of resource or value

Answers are defensible with scientific results

Requires threshold information to be available

Risk Assessments

Identify hazards and consequences of actions to determine the risk of a possible outcome

Information to derive the relative hazard of occurrence and the relative magnitude of consequence

Most assessments can be undertaken with relatively limited resources

Requires skilled subject experts

Is more subject to criticism since judgements can vary among experts

Compatibility Matrix

Compare the compatibility of access types with a list of resources or values; rate the compatibility

Professional understanding of the general implications of access on the resources or values

High level analysis; relatively easy to produce and understand

Not necessarily quantifiable as this is generally based on professional judgement


Table 22: Continued

Analysis Tools



Benefit-Cost Analysis

Assess options in light of the costs and values for each access alternative

(Planners can undertake this assessment with economists or engineers.)

Estimates of costs and values from each option

Provides a clear economic understanding of options

Good indicator for assessing industrial options

Some values and costs may be hard to quantify, particularly intrinsic values such as spiritual values or wilderness

Computer Models

Project future outcomes mathematically

Data on the various resources or value

Algorithms describing interrelations

Ability to test multiple scenarios once the model inputs have been developed

No models developed to analyze access management specifically. Potential modeling languages include SELES, which was developed for broader LRMP analysis by MSRM

Requires special analysts

3D Models

Project future outcomes visually

Digital mapping data

Photo realistic representation of potential outcomes; easy to understand

Requires specialized analysts and software such as Visual Landscape Planner

Considerations regarding access resource analysis methods include:

• Public access – identify the level of existing uses and who the users are. Identify which roads are considered public roads, which are under some form of tenure such as a Road Permit, private property, Indian Reserve or vacant Crown land. Note the location of railways, utilities and pipelines that need consideration in SRMP access activities. User survey forms are a technique used by some planners to acquire information.

• Public safety – identify the locations of roads, trails and waterways, the levels and periods of expected use, and means to accommodate users’ needs (e.g., industrial traffic may require certain roads during working hours and not in the evenings). Posting signs to describe the hazard is critical to protecting public safety. Unsafe road conditions may result from terrain stability issues, roads that are not maintained or roads and trails that were not intended for public use.


• Access coordination – identify access options that meet multiple resource access requirements (e.g., access to support timber, mineral exploration, backcountry tourism).

• Economic costs – identify the size and quality of roads to meet industrial and public demands, the costs for road construction, maintenance and deactivation. Identify the access control costs required to meet the integration requirements of other uses.

• Forest fires – identify the location of high-risk forest conditions, periods of risk, access control points and a means of restricting access to them (e.g., gates, barriers or gatekeepers may be required at certain locations; time or use restrictions may also be required to control access).

• Cultural heritage, wilderness, and spiritual values – identify the location of key value areas and the means to control access and associated impacts.

• Visual quality – plan the disturbance to visually fit in the landform, lessening the disturbed width or orientation, providing screening or planning reclamation strategies can reduce the visual impact from roads and trails. Digital terrain modeling can be used to graphically test the impacts of options.

• Biological diversity – identify organisms that might be susceptible and consider planning for migration corridors, such as open bottom culverts or bridges.

• Wildlife and fish – separate into habitat impacts and population impacts. Some species and habitats (e.g., bull trout staging areas) are vulnerable to sudden increases in exploitation as a result of increased human access (impacts on salmon are of particular significant to First Nations).

• Soils and terrain stability – acquire soils and terrain stability information in order to properly analyze road related risks.

• Water quality, stream channel integrity and hydrology issues – acquire an inventory of existing and old roads in an area as well as an understanding of their current state, the location and classification of streams, and whether the area is within a community watershed.

• Vegetation management issues – identify noxious weeds that have resulted in problems in similar areas, and their potential sources. Identify successful control mechanisms. For example, milfoil transported on boats has caused problems in lakes, and certain grasses used in sediment control on roads have caused plantation issues.


• Industrial operations and resource exploration – identify users and the form of tenure; gain an understanding of their interests, present and future. Consider outstanding liabilities for roads such as road deactivation requirements, the extent of use (e.g., daily, all year or only one season) and amount and type of traffic (e.g., logging traffic).

• Commercial operations – identify users and gain an understanding of their interests. Consider the extent of use (e.g., daily, one season or all year), amount and type of traffic (e.g., buses or trailers), and whether client groups will require personal access (e.g., mountain biking, rafting, hiking or skiing). Identify the type of use (e.g., 2WD, 4WD, ATV, non-motorized) and the maintenance required to support such use. Identify the maintenance and deactivation required by the industrial users, the responsible party and related schedules.

• Log transportation portals – log dumping, sorting and storing facilities, associated foreshore and waterways are key interfaces with roads for transporting products, people and equipment. Investigate these upland and foreshore interests as they will affect upland activity. Many access corridors can remain dormant for long periods but are critical for future needs; this is particularly important on lake or river systems and on the coast where there are unloading and reloading facilities required for log transportation.

• Vandalism and theft – identify the location of private property, access control points, camping spots and a means of restricting access to them (e.g., gates, barriers or security guards may be required to control access from buildings, equipment and camping locations).

Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for access management may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply wherever the resource value exists across the plan area or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area.

Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management guidelines and regulations and analysis of the access related issues and interests identified in the SRM planning process. Table 23 provides examples of the types of access related objectives and strategies that could potentially be developed as SRMP products.


Table 23: Examples of Access Related Objectives and Strategies

Example Objective Example Strategy

Encourage access for motorized recreation in the Highland drainage and lake system

• Allow motorized vehicle use on designated trails and existing roads where there is no potential for erosion or degradation of heritage values

• Avoid linking with the Southland and Pita Forest Service Road systems to facilitate conservation enforcement between wildlife management areas

• Minimize access restrictions on all road classes

Permit access to resource development opportunities while minimizing impacts on fish, wildlife and recreational values

• Allow new development in the operable timber areas, mineral potential sites, and oil and gas locations, except for areas specifically noted

• New branch and spur roads must be permanently deactivated, including recontouring and revegetating to prevent erosion

• Seasonally remove the portable bridge on Southland River to restrict access into this area to protect wildlife from poachers, and biodiversity values

• Use as narrow a right of way as possible on all roads, subject to safety and environmental concerns

• Locate new access away from critical habitat areas or features

• Develop site specific access management plans for the 25 identified access management points

Minimize disturbance to non-motorized recreational users and encourage opportunities for non-motorized recreation

• Restrict the use of motorized vehicles to existing access roads

• Maintain the existing primitive roads in a safe state

Promote the fly-in fishery in Fox Creek, and the back country recreation experience/opportunity in the upper Whitewater RMZ

• Road access is not permitted except for forest protection activities and the “two-zone” system for mineral exploration and mining

Resource management zones may be developed to address specific management issues relating to access management. Examples could include:

• Areas designated for non-motorized recreation27;

• Lakes designated as non-motorized; or

• Lakes designated as fly-in access only.

27 Access provisions may be required under this designation to maintain access for existing tenure-holders (e.g., trappers, guide-

outfitters), First Nation traditional use activities and resource development (e.g., two zone system for mineral exploration and mining).


The requirement to conduct an SEEA and the level of

detail will depend on:

• the complexity and significance of the issues being addressed in the plan. (A focused plan dealing with a small number of resource values and issues may not require a SEEA);

• the availability of information needed to conduct the analysis;

• availability of time and resources to conduct a comprehensive evaluation; and,

• whether a similar analysis has recently been conducted for the area through another process (e.g., LRMP, sustainable forest management plan).

Once a planning scenario for access management has been developed, the objectives and strategies within it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified issues have been addressed. It will also be important to determine whether the planning scenario contributes to the sustainability of all resource values and provides an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. There are a variety of impacts and benefits that will need to be considered when analyzing the results of a planning scenario for access management. Examples of potential benefits and impacts are provided in Table 24.

Table 24: Examples of Access Benefits and Impacts

Potential Benefits Potential Impacts

• Timber harvesting and silviculture

• Mineral and oil and gas exploration and development

• Tourism and recreation activities

• First Nation traditional use and occupancy

• Range management

• Fire suppression

• Local food harvest and resource gathering

• Disturbance of wildlife populations and habitat

• Impacts on wilderness recreation

• Conflict between motorized and non-motorized use

• Impacts on archaeological and traditional use sites

• Risk of damage to ecologically sensitive sites

• Risks associated with terrain stability and sedimentation

The analysis of results for an access management planning scenario may indicate significant benefits to some resource values and unacceptable impacts to others. In such cases trade-offs will need to be explored to improve the overall balance of impacts and benefits.

Evaluat ion SRM planning products for access management (e.g., objectives and strategies, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation as outlined in the sections that follow.


4.1.1.4 Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment

A socio-economic and environmental assessment (SEEA) may need to be completed to assess the array of benefits and impacts associated with a draft plan. The SEEA should compare the anticipated impacts from proposed planning solutions with those that would likely have occurred under existing management (i.e., the base case). The information in an SEEA is typically presented in a tabular or matrix format to facilitate the review of the information by decision makers.

See section 2.6.1 and Appendix 2 for additional detail on the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an SEEA.

Where there are significant concerns about environmental impacts, an environmental risk assessment (ERA)28 may be required. A detailed description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an ERA is provided in Appendix 3.

Even if a complete SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for access management direction are provided in Table 25.

Table 25: General Evaluation Questions for Access Management

Social Impacts Environmental Impacts Economic Impacts

• How will the plan affect access for public recreation?

• How will access management affect First Nation traditional use and occupancy (e.g., roads into hunting or fishing areas, disturbance of archaeological sites)?

• What risk does access management pose to fish and wildlife populations and habitat?

• What risk does access management pose to water quality?

• What risk does access management pose to rare or sensitive ecosystems?

• What are the cost implications for developing and maintaining access routes and who will bear these costs?

• What are the opportunities or constraints to economic growth associated with access management?

28 See Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA): An Approach for Assessing and Reporting Environmental Conditions. Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks (July 2000).


4.1.1.5 Forest and Range Pract ices Act

The Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) specifies general forest stewardship requirements relating to access and roads, though generally not with sufficient detail to affect planning at the SRMP level for access except as required in forest stewardship plans.

The Forest Practices and Planning Regulation (FPPR) specifies a default limit of 7 percent of the area of a cutblock for permanent access structures.

The evaluation of SRM planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA, and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be considered during SRMP evaluation are shown in Table 26.

Table 26: Considerations to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives

Value Objective Set by Government Evaluation Questions



Does the access management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?

Water, Fish, Wild-life and Bio-diversity Within Riparian Areas


Does access management direction adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?

Wildlife Conserve sufficient wildlife habitat in terms of amount of area, distribution of areas and attributes of those areas, for:




Does access management direction adversely affect wildlife habitat and survival of species as per wildlife objective?

Cultural Heritage

Conserve, or, if necessary, protect cultural heritage resources that are



Does access management direction adversely affect cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?


In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by access management include:

• Designated community watersheds by MSRM and related water quality objectives by WLAP;

• Designated fisheries sensitive watersheds and objectives by WLAP;

• Designated wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) and objectives by WLAP;

• Designated ungulate winter range (UWR) and objectives by WLAP;

• General wildlife measures (GWM) for specified areas and categories of “species at risk” by WLAP;

• Identified categories of wildlife features (e.g., bird nesting sites, mineral licks and other localized habitat features);

• Designated interpretive forests, recreation sites and recreation trails and objectives by MoF; and

• Designated lakeshore management zones and objectives by MoF.

The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of access management SRMP objectives with objectives set by government:






If the answer is “no”, then it is possible that a resource objective will be required under the SRMP.

If the answer is “yes”, then there will be a need to investigate the appropriateness and consistency of wording of the SRMP objective with other levels of objectives.

Refer to section 2.6.1.2 for additional detail on approaches for assessing consistency with the FRPA objectives and Appendix 4


for a reference to sections of the Act that apply, default results and strategies, factors, designations and practices standards.

4.1.1.6 MSRM Governance Principles for Sustainabi l i ty

While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be directly accommodated during the planning for access management. Table 27 describes principles that should specifically be considered with regard to access management.

Table 27: Governance Principles Relating to Access Management

Governance Principle Considerations To Ensure Consistency

Certainty • Provide clear direction about where and under what circumstances access can occur

• Define accountability for implementing access provisions

• Identify where additional information is needed in order to make informed decisions

Continual Improvement/ Innovation

• Monitor access management results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Encourage partnerships and innovation to achieve access results

Competitiveness • Ensure that access management supports long term economic opportunity.

• Identify access options that will avoid blocking future economic opportunities

4.1.1.7 Working Forest Pol icy

The Working Forest Policy29 is intended to enhance long-term forestry management while maintaining opportunities for public access, conservation and other resource uses within the Provincial Forest.

An important consideration when analyzing SRM planning products is to ensure that they are consistent with the Working Forest Policy and any resource targets that have been established.

29 http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/workingforest/index.htm



● timber;




● wildlife.

Other targets can be established to reflect other values addressed in a particular LRMP or regional plan.

Targets that may need to be considered in analyzing access management planning products are shown in Table 28.

Table 28: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Access Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Are there access restrictions that limit the ability to meet timber targets?

Riparian Do access management objectives and strategies put riparian targets at risk?

Wildlife Do access management objectives limit the ability to achieve wildlife targets?

Refer to section 2.6.1.3 for additional detail on approaches for assessing consistency with the Working Forest Policy.


4.2 Agriculture and Range

This section addresses land and water suitability for agriculture and range (livestock grazing) uses as a contribution to SRM planning and community sustainability.

Agriculture is an important resource theme in Crown land use planning and resource management. While the majority of agricultural investment and production occurs on private lands, throughout much of rural B.C., there is a significant reliance on Crown land (e.g., range and water resources). In certain regions of the province ― some with substantial reliance on Crown land resources ― agriculture is a dominant feature of the regional economy.

Currently in B.C., cultivated and intensive agricultural economic activity takes place on less than 1% of the provincial land base, mostly on privately owned lands. Another 9% of the provincial land base, mainly tenured Crown land, is actively used for livestock grazing. The provincially legislated and designated Agricultural Land Reserve covers approximately 5% of the provincial land base of which about 50% is Crown land. Agricultural uses account for approximately three-quarters of the water licences issued by the province.

Particularly for the beef sector, Crown land grazing resources are an important component of agricultural enterprises. Many beef production units have private land constraints that would render them uneconomic without access to Crown range lands.

Two pieces of legislation provide important context to the development of SRMP planning products for agriculture and range:

• Agricultural Land Commission Act (and the Agriculture Land Reserve), and

• Land Act (Extensive and Intensive Agriculture Program).

Agricultural Land Commission Act (and the Agriculture Land Reserve)

The purpose of the Agricultural Land Commission Act of British Columbia (S.B.C. 2002, c. 36) is to preserve private and Crown agricultural land through the zoning tool of an Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in order to provide a secure land base for future agricultural production and economic stability.


Evolved from technical agriculture capability maps, the original ALR boundaries were established in the 1970s after consultation with the federal and provincial governments, First Nations and local communities through a series of meetings and formal public hearings.

Decision-making authority for the ALR, including land exclusions, inclusions, subdivision and non-farm use, resides with the Agricultural Land Commission.

The ALR is a significant indicator for agriculture and range values in SRM planning. Other Crown land resource management objectives must consider the ALR’s legislative framework and be consistent with related legislation.

Land Act ― Extensive and Intensive Agriculture Program (under review)

The Land Act provides the legislative authority for allocation (lease or purchase) and management of Crown land. While MSRM administers the policies pertaining to the Land Act, program delivery is through Land and Water BC Inc. (LWBC).

‘Arability’ is the primary criterion used by LWBC in its assessment of Crown land suitability for agricultural disposition and development. The intent is to apply a “highest and best use” context acceptable to other land resource managers as justification for the alienation of Crown land for agricultural purposes.

Policies for Crown land agricultural use under the Agricultural Land Use Program are defined in the Crown Land Management Manual Volume 3 - Land Use section. The Extensive Agriculture Program (EAP) policies pertain to large scale, soil-bound farm development. Under the EAP, applications have specific conditions for farmer eligibility and arability requirements.


Issue Ident i f ica t ion Although Crown agriculture/range land and water use planning issues vary greatly depending on geography, biogeoclimatic subzone and agriculture commodity type, there are some general issues that SRM planning needs to take into account on a plan-specific basis. Table 29 summarizes common SRMP planning issues to consider for agriculture and range.

Table 29: Common Agriculture and Range Management Planning Issues


• Impacts of non-agricultural uses (e.g., residential, industrial, public recreation) of adjacent Crown or private lands on agriculture and ranching operations (e.g., noise, vandalism)

• Compatibility issues between livestock grazing use of Crown rangelands and public recreation (i.e., quality of wilderness experience vs. maintenance of livestock fencing and gates)

• Impacts to First Nations traditional use plants and animals

• Impacts of livestock grazing and/or intensive agriculture use on:

biodiversity

wildlife populations and habitat

fish habitat

water quality and quantity

• Noxious weed encroachment and management

• Range carrying capacity limitations

• Access to reliable quantity and quality of water (competition with other users)

• Tenure certainty

• Viable integration of Crown range land use with other economic activities, such as silviculture and tourism

• Availability of infrastructure building blocks (e.g., transportation, equipment supply/servicing and marketing)

• Access to undeveloped Crown land within the Agricultural Land Reserve that has soil/climate capability and crop suitability for cultivated agriculture

• Access to Crown land that is suitable for livestock grazing

Planners should be aware of the fact that agriculture and range uses can have cumulative impacts. First Nations may be concerned about the impacts of grazing on traditional plants or the impact of grazing related activities on archaeological sites (e.g., a salt block or watering trench placed at an archaeological site.

Ind icator Se lect ion There are several indicators that could be used to address the agriculture and range planning issues identified within a SRMP (see Table 30). These will need to include area-specific and in some cases commodity-specific indicators.


Table 30: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Agriculture and Range Management


Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR)

Hectares of land within the ALR, its location, shape and contiguity

Identify extent of potential agricultural areas in the plan area

Land Capability for Agriculture

Range of crops that can be grown, based on soil/climate combinations

Contiguity of lands with agricultural capability

Determine biophysical capability for arable and non-arable agriculture uses including rangeland

Land Suitability for Agriculture

Specific crop or enterprise combination suitability (e.g. forage/livestock, potatoes, cereal grains, grapes)

Range suitability and productivity for livestock grazing

Determine suitability for selected crops

Applications for CrownLand Tenure

Trend in applications for agricultural/range tenures Determine demand for agriculture and range land

Present Agricultural/Range Use

Type of agricultural/range use on Crown and adjacent private lands

Identify opportunities for agricultural expansion

Present Non-agricultural Uses

Location and nature of adjacent land uses such as residential and industrial

Recreational or cultural features, sites and trails

Identify potential conflicts with adjacent or concurrent land users

Water Use Number of water licences, including location, volumes and purpose

Determine availability of water for agriculture/livestock grazing use

Infrastructure Network Presence and location of linear infrastructure such as power lines and public roads, including forest harvesting roads; and distance to supply and servicing centers

Assist in determining feasibility of agricultural expansion

Agricultural Crown Land Alienations

Hectares, location, purpose, terms and conditions and dates of alienation (trends over time)

Determine trend in alienation of agriculture land

Market Analysis Market demand by commodity group Determine market opportunities

Livestock Grazing Tenures

Animal Unit Months (AUMs), location, area by productivity class

Determine extent and location of livestock grazing use

Fish/wildlife Habitat Areas

Prime wildlife habitats

Critical fisheries streams

Identify potential conflicts


Table 30: Continued


Range Trend and Condition

Technical change analysis Determine trends in range land quality

Noxious Weed Species Types, extent and technical change analysis Determine extent and rate of noxious weed infestation

In some parts of the province, agricultural indicators such as land capability for agriculture and the ALR boundary may require refinement for SRM planning purposes. Other indicators such as range trend and condition may be absent entirely in the plan area and will need to be extrapolated or interpreted from other like areas or landscapes.

The agriculture indicators chosen should reflect regional crop and commodity realities. Different agricultural commodities can have radically different resource input requirements and potential environmental impacts, both of which are important types of indicators.

In format ion Assembly While highly variable in terms of availability, reliability and scale applicability, there is a range of data sources that can provide valuable information on agriculture and range resources for SRM planning purposes. Information sources to support resource analysis for agriculture and range include, but are not limited to:

• Climate capability for agriculture;

• Land, soil, range and water use inventories;

• Land capability and specific crop suitability for agriculture;

• Agriculture land reserves;

• Present land use mapping;

• Agriculture commodity profiles, commodity market demand trends and commodity growth opportunities and targets; and

• Local knowledge about significant resource values that may be impacted by livestock grazing (e.g., wildlife areas, recreation features, cultural resources).

The application of assessment indicators requires a variety of data and information types. Table 31 provides a list of information sources that may be used to conduct analysis for agriculture and


range. (Note: Data sources relative to other resource values as they may impact on planning and management for agriculture and range use have not been included in Table 31. Refer to specific resource value sections for these data sources.)

Table 31: Information Required to Support Agriculture and Range Resource Analysis

Information Type Scale Description Use and Reliability Source

Climate Capability for Agriculture in BC

1:100,000 Maps indicate climate capability for crop production (regardless of soils)

Appropriate for small to medium scale planning purposes; interpretations based on 20-30 years climate data previous to the date of mapping

MSRM

Local knowledge

1;10,000 to

1: 50,000

Areas of high use


Plants, animals and cultural areas used by First Nations

Variable (will need to update periodically)


Soil Surveys 1:10,000 to

1:100,000

Base information on landscape characteristics, including parent material, soil texture and soil drainage

Maps and descriptive reports provide technical information on soil characteristics plus some interpretation for agricultural and other land uses

Useful not only for agriculture but also for many other resource interpretations and requirements

• MSRM, NRC

• Consult BC Soils Inventory Map brochure for areas and scales available

Land Capability for Agriculture

1:50,000 (some

1:25,000)

CLI classification system groups soils into 7 classes according to the range of crops that can be grown. Subclasses indicate the type and severity of any soil or climate parameters that affect the range of crops that can be grown.30

Technical basis for inclusion and exclusion of land to/from the ALR

Useful for general agricultural planning; however, maps do not reflect individual crop suitability within the range (i.e., lower ‘capability’ land may nonetheless be highly ‘suitable’ and valuable for specific crops, such as cranberries on low capability acid peat lands.)

NRC, MSRM, ALC

30 In certain regions of the province, these maps have been supplemented with a more BC-specific classification for tree

fruits/grapes, irrigated agriculture and organic soils.


Table 31: Continued


Land Suitability for Agriculture

Variable Maps and reports that assess suitability of specific crops and agricultural development options based on certain management practices (e.g., LWBC “Arability” classification and MAFF’s “Soil Management Handbook for the Okanagan Similkameen Valley)

Useful for scenario building, analysis of commodity market opportunity and other planning purposes

MSRM, MAFF, LWBC

Agriculture Land Reserves

1:50,000 and

1:10,000

Zoning maps based on Land Capability for Agriculture inventory available at the time of ALR designation, supplemented by subsequent area-specific ‘fine tuning’ projects

Boundaries fixed by legislation; changes by application to the ALC only.

As approx. 50% of ALR is Crown land, this constitutes the most significant and influential agricultural information tool for SRM planning

MSRM, ALC

Range Inventories and Management Plans31

Variable but usually 1:15,000 to 1:20,000

Maps and Plans reflecting scientific knowledge of range management principles, biophysical and climate data combined with forage utilization and livestock management experience

Provides basic information on range characteristics useful for determining range carrying or grazing capacity

MOF, MSRM


1:20,000 to

1:50,000

Spatial Inventory of Archaeological Sites Archaeological




Water Use, Availability and Inventory

See Water Chapter for information description

Critical input to most agricultural land use planning

31 Often includes professional assessment of range condition, seral state, proper functioning condition (PFC) and desired plant

community (DPC). Range Management Plans cover both Crown land and private lands associated with the livestock production unit to comply with winter forage commensurability requirements. Grazing Management Plans (“designed to secure the best practicable use of the forage resources by grazing or browsing animals”) are a component of the Range Management Plans when domestic livestock are involved.

32 Archaeology and Registry Services Branch http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/arch/pubs/resweb/archres.htm


Select ion of Analys is Tools In general, agriculture is a long-term use with a continuous stream of inputs and outputs. Intimately tied to the basic human need for food, almost by definition agricultural pursuits need to occur near settled areas. Economically, where soil/climate capability allows, agriculture can also be a key factor to community stability.

Analysis of the interrelationships of land (soil/climate) characteristics, capability and suitability for agriculture and range, and water availability superimposed with various commodity-oriented profiles, infrastructure parameters such as access considerations, and local community aspirations would provide the planning priorities from an agricultural perspective.

Considerations regarding agriculture and range resource analysis methods include:

• In-situ resources (soils) are not extracted, making agricultural resource use different in this sense from subsurface resources (mining), for example.

• While some agricultural activities, such as livestock grazing, are compatible with integrated resource management, intensive cultivated agriculture, including building infrastructure (e.g., greenhouses, hogs) is primarily single use.

• Continuous long-term agricultural use involves modification of ecosystems as an inevitable part of the activity.

• Agriculture depends not only on the natural biophysical resources of an area but also on the introduction of non-native species; from a biodiversity perspective, while this will be to the detriment of some species, crop and management changes associated with agriculture can also enhance and benefit other species.

• On-going range resource use as part of ranching operations involves capitalization of Crown land resource values by private investment.

Analysis methodology and tools should be designed to fit the specific SRMP area characteristics. These will be dependent upon data (information) availability, scales of mapping and reliability, GIS system capability, options to collect new information (e.g., arability mapping or commodity socio-economic scenarios) and general agricultural knowledge, interests and aspirations of participants in the planning process.

Some general key considerations:

• Inadequacy of available data is the norm. Gap analysis of critical information needs, particularly socio-economic


information, should be carried out at the earliest possible moment in the process; otherwise timelines often do not allow for new information collection.

• Understanding ― and ongoing awareness of ― the limitations of the information/data set being used in the planning process is critical. Conversely, it should be recognized that extrapolation, rationalization, improvisation and simply “best guessing” will always be a significant component of agriculture and range resource analysis and interpretation.

• Map overlay methodology will require GIS access in order to carry out required combination analysis and scenario options with geographic reference to climate, soils, land capability, water availability and crop suitability for agriculture and livestock grazing activities.

• Local knowledge needs to be fully integrated as an important aspect of resource collection, analysis and interpretation.

Identifying the values at risk and the potential magnitude of impacts will help to identify and analyze the options and solutions to resolve planning issues. Table 32 describes a spectrum of agriculture and range analysis methods.

Table 32: Analysis Methods for Agriculture and Range Related Planning Products33

Analysis Tools



Agricultural Capability and Suitability Mapping Compilation

Identified land units having agricultural potential based on

• range of crops that can be grown (capability)

• specific crop suitability

• range livestock grazing suitability and productivity

• unit size, shape, configuration

• location related to water sources

• proximity to transportation access and other essential agricultural servicing infrastructure

Capability / suitability maps (e.g., Canada Land Inventory, soil suitability)

Technical advice from agrologists, ranchers and agriculturalists

Can focus planning efforts related to agriculture and range on those areas with the highest biophysical capability, productivity and/or suitability

Ignores potential conflicts with or negative impacts on other current or potential Crown land and water users and/or values

May not reflect economics and market realities

33 Ideally, all of these approaches and methodologies plus local community input and preferences would be used collectively to

address Agriculture and Range issues as part of SRM planning.


Table 32: Continued

Analysis Tools



Constraints Analysis

Identified areas of known or potential conflict/impact on other resource values, e.g.,

• fisheries habitat and riparian areas

• habitats important to species at risk

• prime ungulate winter range

• high value recreational features and trails

• high productivity forest lands

• First Nations’ use areas (e.g. sacred sites, hunting, fishing and gathering areas, etc.)

• Existing legal tenures

• Lands with high settlement suitability

Information / inventory from other resource themes

Technical advice from domain experts

Local knowledge

A more integrative, holistic approach to Crown land and water use planning that can take into account the full range of public resource values

Through conflict avoidance, mitigation and adaptive management, this approach can enhance security and compatibility of agriculture and livestock grazing uses

May limit opportunity for agricultural expansion in favour of retaining other Crown land resource values

Market Analysis

Statistical and trend analysis of market supply and demand for specific agricultural crops or commodities

Product and market trends

Sales and forecasts from marketing boards and federal and provincial agencies

Can focus planning efforts for agriculture and range in those commodity areas with the perceived best economic potential for viability

May not be the “highest and best” agricultural use of Crown lands based on biophysical capability, productivity or suitability

Markets change; approach may not result in long term enterprise viability or contribute to community sustainability

Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for agriculture and range may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply wherever the resource value exists across the plan area or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area.

Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management


guidelines and regulations and assessment of the agriculture and range issues identified in the SRM planning process. Table 33 provides examples of the types of agriculture and range related objectives and strategies that could potentially be developed as SRMP products.

Table 33: Examples of Agriculture and Range Related Objectives and Strategies


Expand cultivated agriculture opportunity on arable land identified on Map X

• Conduct an arability analysis to identify currently undeveloped high capability/suitability areas for agriculture

• Provide opportunities for agriculture tenures on high capability/suitability land

Improve infrastructure conducive to agricultural development

• Ensure existing and potential agriculture development areas are taken into account during the planning and design of road and service networks.

Manage for long term sustainability of Crown rangelands

• Adjust AUMs to maintain/enhance desirable plant communities

• Undertake a noxious weed management program

Ensure adequate access to water resources for domestic livestock on Crown range tenures

• Provide “first refusal” to livestock grazing use of any unallocated water non-essential to maintenance of fish and riparian habitat

Resource management zones may be developed to reflect various biophysical and socio-economic scenarios to assist in planning and managing for agriculture and range within an SRM planning exercise. Example management zones could include:

• Maps depicting those land units with capability for cultivated agriculture, forage production and/or livestock grazing. (e.g., land units having the overall biophysical suitability for forage/livestock enterprises);

• Zones that reflect the above characteristics and are in close proximity to existing road networks, infrastructure servicing and existing settlement; and

• Priority areas for water management (quality, quantity and seasonal availability) to provide direction for livestock and irrigation use in areas of sensitive fish and riparian habitat.

Once a planning scenario for agriculture and range has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified issues have been addressed. In addition to determining whether agriculture and range issues have been


addressed, it will also be important to determine whether objectives and strategies for agriculture contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for agriculture and range will need to assess the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 34.

Table 34: Examples of Agriculture and Range Benefits and Impacts


• Access to areas with highest capability/suitability for livestock grazing

• Opportunity for agricultural production in areas with high capability

• Opportunities to maintain or increase forage habitat

• Minimize risk of noxious weed infestation

• Forage competition between livestock and wildlife

• Mortality risk for predators (e.g., grizzly bear)

• Impact on water quality from livestock

• Risk of damage to ecologically sensitive sites from livestock grazing

• Risks to critical fish habitat

• Access restrictions to First Nation traditional use and occupancy sites

Evaluat ion Agriculture and range planning products (e.g., objectives and strategies, resource management zones, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation as outlined in the sections that follow.


A socio-economic and environmental assessment (SEEA) may need to be completed to assess the array of benefits and impacts associated with a draft plan. The SEEA should compare the anticipated impacts from proposed planning solutions with those that would likely have occurred under existing management (i.e., base case). The information is typically presented in a tabular or matrix format to facilitate the review of the information by decision makers.

The requirement to conduct an SEEA and the level of detail will depend on:

• the complexity and significance of the issues being addressed in the plan (a focused plan dealing with a small number of resource values and issues may not require a SEEA);







Even if a complete SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for agriculture and range management direction are provided in Table 35.

Table 35: General Evaluation Questions for Agriculture and Range


• How will the plan affect access for public recreation?

• How will management direction for agriculture and range affect First Nation traditional use and occupancy (e.g., roads into hunting or fishing areas, disturbance of archaeological sites)?

• What risk does agriculture and range management direction pose to fish and wildlife populations and habitat?

• What risks do agriculture and range management direction pose to water quality?

• What risks do agriculture and range management direction pose to rare or sensitive ecosystems?

• What are the cost impacts to agriculture and range from management direction for other resource values?

• What are the opportunities for economic growth associated with agriculture and range?


The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general resource stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Agriculture and range planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA, and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Table 36 describes examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be considered during SRMP evaluation.




Table 36: Evaluation Questions to Ensure Consistency with FRPA Objectives




Does range management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?

Water, Fish, Wildlife and Biodiversity Within Riparian Areas


Does management direction for agriculture and range adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?





Does management direction for agriculture and range adversely affect wildlife habitat and survival of species as per wildlife objective?

Cultural Heritage


• the focus of a traditional use by an aboriginal people that is of continuing importance to that people; and


Does management direction for agriculture and range adversely affect cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by agriculture and range management direction include:






• Establish categories of “regionally important species” where species are important to a region of BC and may be adversely impacted by forest or range practices by WLAP;


• Designated interpretive forests, recreation sites and recreation trails and objective by MoF; and


The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of SRMP objectives for agriculture and range with objectives set by government:






If the answer is “no”, then it is possible that a resource objective is required under the SRMP.


Refer to section 2.6.1.2 for additional detail on approaches for assessing consistency with the FRPA objectives and Appendix 4 for a reference of sections of the Act that apply, default results and strategies, factors, designations and practices standards.

4.2.1.3 MSRM Governance Principles

While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be directly accommodated during the planning for agriculture and range management. Table 37 lists principles that should specifically be considered with regard to agriculture and range management.


Table 37: Governance Principles Relating to Agriculture and Range Management


Certainty • Provide clear direction about where and under what circumstances agriculture and range use can occur.

• Identify where additional information is needed in order to make informed decisions.


• Monitor agriculture and range management results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results.

• Encourage innovation to achieve agriculture and range results

Competitiveness • Ensure that agriculture and range management contributes to long term economic growth

Efficiency • Develop planning products based on the highest and best use of resources






● timber;




● wildlife.




Table 38 shows targets that may need to be considered in analyzing agriculture and range planning products.

Table 38: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Agriculture and Range Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Do agriculture and range planning products limit the ability to meet timber targets?

Riparian Do agriculture and range planning products put riparian targets at risk?

Wildlife Do agriculture and range planning products limit the ability to achieve wildlife targets?



4.3 Backcountry Tourism Resources

The primary land base requirements of the backcountry tourism sector36 are secure access to Crown land and resources and maintenance of land and resource quality. SRMPs can define land and resource management zones, objectives and strategies for responding to these basic requirements, in balanced consideration of the requirements of other land and resource users.

SRM planning could potentially address the land and resource requirements of the wide range of activities (tourism products) mentioned in Table 39. Planning lands and resources to accommodate these uses can support both commercial tourism and non-commercial recreation benefits.

Table 39: Types of Backcountry Tourism Products

Coastal Tourism

• Cruise ship and ferry routes

• Sail tour routes

• Sea kayak area

• Coastal tourism use area

• Salt water fishing areas / sites

• Marine wilderness viewing

• Scuba diving

Fresh Water Tourism

• River rafting

• River boating

• Canoeing

• River kayaking

• Tourism lake

• Key fishing river

• Fishing lakes region

• Key fresh water fishing site

Road & Trail-based Tourism

• Scenic tourism route

• Critical tourism access routes

• Hut to hut hiking

• Horseback riding trail / route

• Bicycle touring routes

Mountain Tourism

• Hiking / backpacking

• Mountaineering / rock climbing area

• Mountain biking

Winter Tourism

• Downhill skiing site

• Heli-skiing area

• Cat skiing area

• Snowmobiling area

• Nordic ski touring area

• Overnight lodges

Wildlife

• Wildlife viewing (land-based and marine)

Guest Ranch

• Guest ranch area

36 Variously referred to as commercial backcountry recreation, wilderness tourism, eco-tourism, nature-based tourism and

adventure tourism.


Issue Ident i f ica t ion Backcountry tourism planning issues relate to social, environmental and economic impacts. Table 40 summarizes common planning issues to consider for management of backcountry tourism resources in a SRMP.

Table 40: Common Backcountry Tourism Planning Issues


• Social carrying capacity (e.g., number of visitor encounters, available facilities, indigenous cultures, noise disturbance)

• Compatibility between motorized and non-motorized recreation use

• Compatibility between backcountry tourism and other resource uses

• Impact on First Nation access for traditional use and occupancy

• Impact on archaeological resources

• Impact of backcountry tourism tenures in areas with unresolved aboriginal rights and title (e.g., alienation of potential treaty settlement lands, infringement of aboriginal traditional use)

• Risk of damage to sensitive ecosystems

• Wildlife habituation and mortality

• Depletion of resources (fish and wildlife stocks, non-timber forest products, etc.)

• Certainty of access to backcountry tourism resources

• Protection of backcountry tourism resources (e.g., visual resources, ecological resources, cultural resources, fish and wildlife)

• Viable integration of backcountry tourism resources with other resource uses (e.g., timber harvesting, mineral and oil and gas exploration and development)

• Tenure certainty

The main backcountry tourism and recreation-related issues that SRMPs could potentially address include:

Recreation Conflicts Identifying means of dealing with conflicts among different tourism/recreation activities (e.g., between mechanized activities such as snowmobiling and non-mechanized activities such as Nordic ski touring).

Conflicts with Other Resource Users Identifying means of addressing conflicts between backcountry tourism operators and other consumptive resource users (e.g., between wilderness resort operators and timber licensees over visual impacts from timber harvesting).


First Nation Interests First Nations may have concerns that backcountry tourism development and the granting of commercial recreation tenures infringe upon rights and title (e.g., by interfering with access and traditional use and occupation). Additionally, they may view commercial recreation tenures as tying up the land base during treaty negotiations.

To address these concerns, planners should ensure that they have consulted interested First Nations in areas where intensive commercial backcountry tourism is proposed.

Wildlife Impacts Identifying means of addressing tourism-related impacts on wildlife resources (e.g., helicopter disturbance in key wildlife breeding / wintering areas).

Carrying Capacity Defining indicators of carrying capacity and associated thresholds of desired condition that should be monitored to detect trends in condition, as a basis for implementing adaptive management.

Planners should be aware that backcountry tourism tends to have cumulative impacts. As the volume of use and/or volume of activities increases, impacts may increase proportionally.

Ind icator Se lect ion Evaluating alternative SRMP scenarios to determine the extent to which alternative plan scenarios address backcountry tourism and recreation issues and accommodate interests will require the use of one or more analysis indicators. Table 41 lists some indicators that could be used for this purpose. The indicators that are selected will depend on the backcountry tourism and recreation goals and objectives that the plan establishes.

Table 41: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Backcountry Tourism Resources


Landscape Character

• Amount of land base (area and percent) in various Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes.

• Amount of land base (area and percent) in tourism zones (backcountry, mid-country, and front-country).

Identify the extent of the land base that is managed for backcountry tourism values


Table 41: Continued


Tourism Opportunity

• Amount of high tourism capability / suitability land (area and percent) located in supportive zoning designations and / or supported by “sympathetic” land use objectives and strategies

• Number of existing tourism use areas that are located in supportive zoning designations and / or supported by “sympathetic” land use objectives and strategies

Identify the extent to which existing and potential backcountry tourism values are managed to support existing and future tourism development

Visual Quality

• Amount of visually sensitive land (ha and percent) located in VQO designations of “partial retention” and higher

• Amount of “scenic land” that is critical to existing resort operations and located in supportive zoning designations and / or supported by “sympathetic” land use objectives and strategies

Determine the extent to which visual resources are managed to support backcountry tourism values

Socio-economic Benefits

• Socio-economic benefits from tourism / recreation activities, based on current / projected use levels (could be employment levels, revenue estimates, etc.)

Determine demand and growth trends for backcountry tourism

The first indicator (landscape character) described in Table 41 attempts to assess the recreational settings that are inherent in alternative land use scenarios. Information on “recreation opportunity spectrum” (ROS) classes is used for this purpose. This is obtained from the MSRM recreation resources inventory that divides the land base into seven categories of landscape character based on criteria of naturalness, remoteness, evidence of social encounters, access and size (see Appendix 7).

A planning scenario that allocates a high proportion of the land base into “Primitive” or “Semi-primitive non-motorized” ROS zones would be consistent with a tourism objective of providing wilderness-oriented backcountry opportunities. A scenario that allocates a relatively high proportion of the land base zoned as “Semi-primitive motorized” or “Roaded natural” could be assumed to be more consistent with a plan objective to provide mid-country tourism opportunities.

The second indicator (tourism opportunity) is a measure of the extent to which a planning scenario recognizes and conserves the land base upon which the tourism sector depends. Lands with high tourism capability or suitability and/or lands that are already being used to support existing tourism businesses are assessed in relation to how well the plan protects the integrity of those lands through appropriate zoning designations or supportive land use objectives and strategies. For example, a draft plan that designated, say, 80% of all “high” tourism suitability lands in the planning area as having a tourism / recreation management


priority would be rated high in terms of achieving backcountry tourism objectives provided that First Nations issues have been appropriately accommodated.

The third indicator (visual quality) measures the degree to which a planning scenario protects lands that are critical to the backcountry tourism sector in this case, lands with important scenic qualities as viewed from communities, roadways, lakes and rivers, cruise ship routes, individual lodge sites, etc. The measure is the amount of land with important scenic qualities that is designated with retention or partial retention visual quality objectives (see Appendix 8).

The fourth indicator (socio-economic benefits) assesses the tourism/recreation benefits that are implied by a planning scenario in terms of employment, revenues earned, taxes generated, etc. Projecting these benefits enables a comparison to indicator results that the plan would calculate for other sectors such as forestry. Compiled in a multi-accounts framework, these benefits reveal a picture of the pros and cons and trade-offs that are inherent in alternative land use scenarios.

In format ion Assembly Information relevant to backcountry tourism planning can be grouped into three broad types:

1. Tourism land base (the land and its ability to support tourism and recreation);

2. Tourism economy; and

3. Backcountry tourism activities.

Information on the tourism land base includes tourism and recreation inventories compiled by the federal and provincial governments that map and describe lands/resources of importance to BC’s tourism sector. These inventories include:

• Recreation Resources Inventory – MSRM

• Tourism Resources Inventory – MSRM

• Tourism Opportunity Studies – MSRM

• Land Capability for Recreation – Canada Land Inventory

Information on the tourism economy includes data produced by federal, provincial and local agencies on the overall tourism economy (including the backcountry tourism sub-sector) such as: • Building Blocks for Economic Development (Tourism and

Recreation) – MSRM


• Provincial Tourism Indicators – BC Stats

• Various studies on Adventure and Ecotourism – Canadian Tourism Commission

• Local Tourism Data – Tourism Information Offices

Information on backcountry tourism activities includes data and studies produced by federal and provincial agencies and not-for-profit organizations that provincially represent subsets of the backcountry tourism industry such as:

• Participation Statistics – Provincial Organizations

• Information from local recreationists and backcountry tourism guides and outfitters.

Table 42 provides a list of information sources that may be used to conduct analysis for backcountry tourism.

Table 42: Information Required for the Backcountry Tourism Resource Theme

Information Type Scale Description Use and Reliability Source Recreation Resource Inventory

1:50,000 Consists of four components:

• Recreation Features Inventory - classifies the local significance of biophysical, cultural and historic features (very high, high, medium, low), and their sensitivity to alteration (high, med, low)

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory - classifies areas based on their remoteness, naturalness, and expected social experience (solitude). The classification ranges in seven classes from primitive to urban.

• Recreation Facilities Inventory - provides information on all forest recreation sites and trails.

• Visual Landscape Inventory - classifies areas based on their visual condition, visual absorption capability and biophysical and viewing characteristics. Presents areas as one of five classes of Visual Sensitivity

• Describing the baseline situation

• Developing draft plan scenarios that accommodate tourism interests

• Analyzing indicators of landscape character and visual quality

MSRM, Archaeology and Recreation Inventory: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rrid/index.htm


Table 42: Continued

Information Type Scale Description Use and Reliability Source Local knowledge

1;10,000 to

1: 50,000

Areas of high use


Knowledge about local tourism features impacts (e.g., wildlife viewing areas)

Potential sensitivities around First Nations domestic use

Qualitative information about a range of backcountry tourism opportunities and issues

Local residents, recreationists and backcountry tourism guides, outfitters and First Nations (traditional ecological knowledge)


1:20,000 to

1:50,000

Spatial inventory of Archaeological Sites Archaeological



Remote Archaeological Access Database RAAD37

Tourism Opportunity Studies (TOS)

Various scales

Identify tourism products and locations with the best development capability, based on a combination of natural resources, market potential and local development capability. Some TOS have provided mapping of tourism, commercial recreation and public recreation features and facilities. Others have developed suitability mapping for a range of tourism products.

TOS have been developed for 22 areas of the province.



• Analyzing indicators of tourism opportunity

MSRM, Land Information BC http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/dss/initiatives/tourism/

Tourism Resource Inventory

1:250,000 Consists of two components:

Existing Tourism Use Areas – spatially referenced information on existing tourism use areas including: travel routes, viewsheds, facilities and features.

Capability Mapping – mapping of general land capability (high, medium, low) for defined tourism products.



• Analyzing indicators of tourism opportunity

MSRM, http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/culture/tourism/tourism-02.htm

37 Archaeology and Registry Services Branch, http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/arch/


Table 42: Continued

Information Type Scale Description Use and Reliability Source Land Capability for Recreation

Various scales

Estimates the quantity, quality, and location of outdoor recreational lands in the settled portions of Canada as basic information for planning the recreational use of the resource. The inventory classes recreational land-use capability from Class 1 (very high capability) to Class 7 (very low capability).

The basis of the classification is the quantity of recreational use that a land unit can attract and withstand without undue deterioration of the resource base, under perfect market conditions.

• A “reconnaissance level” inventory, based on interpretation of aerial photographs, field checks, and available records

• Provides an overview of backcountry tourism potential in any given area

Wilderness Tourism Association: http://www.wilderness-tourism.bc.ca/main.html

Building Blocks for Economic Development

n/a Building Blocks have been (or are being) developed for 16 different tourism and recreation segments, including eco-tourism adventures, fishing charters, tourism lodges, camping, etc. Each building block describes land requirements for the sector, infrastructure, market, capacity, regulatory regime, revenues and other elements.

• Helpful for assessing supply-demand relationships

• Potentially useful for developing / confirming capability and suitability mapping. (One element of building blocks is to define the land requirements of various tourism / recreation activities)

• Potentially valuable for assessing the socio-economic benefits from tourism / recreation use

MSRM, Sustainable Resource Development Branch http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/ecdev/analysis/building_blocks.htm

Various studies on Adventure and Ecotourism

n/a “Fresh Air: A Business Strategy for Outdoor Tourism Product Development in Canada”

Provides information on eco-tourism as an emerging market

Canadian Tourism Commission http://www.canadatourism.com


Table 42: Continued

Information Type Scale Description Use and Reliability Source Provincial Tourism Indicators

n/a Tourism Sector Monitor is available for downloading from the BC Stats website

Other more detailed data is available directly from BC Stats (e.g., information on Local Area Economic Dependencies).

Provides considerable data on tourism. Tourism Sector Monitor is published several times a year with base data, and this can be supplemented by other data published less frequently. Data on the importance of tourism in the local economy, receipts from tourism businesses by type of business, are examples. Potentially useful for socio-economic analysis of tourism benefits

BC Stats http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca

Local Tourism Data

n/a Such as from local tourism information offices.

Data on the number of inquiries and their focus can be obtained from local tourism information offices.

Tourism Information Offices

Usage Statistics

n/a Most provincial organizations, such as the BC Snowmobile Federation and Trails BC, can provide information on the number of members or participants in their associations and local affiliates.

Many can also provide data on tourism in their sector, the location of clubs and visitors served through local facilities such as cross country ski areas.

Provincial organizations

Select ion of Analys is Tools The type of analysis method and tools will depend on the issues being addressed, the types of planning products envisioned (whether single or multiple uses are being assessed), the quality and availability of information and the internal resources available to the planners.

Identifying the values at risk, the hazards that exist and the potential magnitude of impacts will help to identify and analyze the options and solutions to resolve planning issues. It is possible to develop rating methods or guides for decision-making purposes, even if uses cannot be extensively analyzed. Table 43 describes a range of backcountry tourism management analysis methods.


Table 43: Analysis Methods for Backcountry Tourism Related Planning Products

Analysis Tools



Backcountry Tourism and Recreation Capability and Suitability

• Identify the geographic locations in the plan area with relatively high bio-physical capability and land use suitability for various backcountry tourism and recreation uses. Include the identification of existing tourism and recreation uses.

• MSRM inventories for tourism and recreation

• Tourism opportunity studies

• Local knowledge

Provides a clear geographic reference for tourism uses and options

Requires spatially explicit tourism inventories

Demand Analysis

• Confirm that there is sufficient expected demand for the tourism/recreation activities to support the allocation and management of Crown lands and resources for these purposes

• The extent of demand and the associated socio-economic benefits associated with the demand will assist in designing appropriate zones, objectives and strategies

• Trends information on historical and project visitor use for various activities

• Tourism opportunity studies

• BC Stats data

Provides an indication of growth potential for various tourism activities

Tourism growth is influenced by a variety of factors in addition to resource planning (e.g., infrastructure, investment, marketing, etc.)

First Nation Impact Assessment

Identify and spatially locate areas of significance for aboriginal use that may have be impacted by backcountry tourism uses such as:

• archaeological sites

• hunting and gathering areas

• fishing sites

• trails

• other areas of significance for traditional use and occupancy

• BC Heritage Branch

• Archaeological overviews and assessments

• Traditional use studies

• Traditional ecological and local knowledge

Graphical communication of potential conflicts and benefits

Does not provide an assessment of relative risk or options for reducing risk


Table 43: Continued

Analysis Tools



GIS Overlay Analysis

Assess the interactions with other resource values using GIS overlay analysis of relevant resource themes (e.g., tourism / recreation with forestry values, wildlife habitat, resource tenures)

• Mapping data by theme

• Resource capability and suitability or surrogate mapping

Develop relations and resultant data between resource themes quickly

• Requires specialized analysts

• Data themes have to be ready to use; cleaning of data can be cumbersome and time consuming


Compare the compatibility of access types with a list of resources or values; rate the compatibility




Benefit-cost Analysis

• Assess options in light of the costs and values for each backcountry tourism alternative

(Planners can undertake this assessment with economists or engineers.)

Estimates of costs and values from each option

• Provides a clear economic understanding of options

• Good indicator for assessing industrial options

Some values and costs, particularly intrinsic values such as spiritual values or wilderness, may be hard to quantify

Computer Models


• Data on the various resources or values.

• Algorithms describing interrelations


• No models developed to analyze back-country tourism specifically. Potential modeling languages include SELES, (developed for broader LRMP analysis by MSRM)

• Requires special analysts


Table 43: Continued

Analysis Tools



3D Models Project future outcomes visually (e.g., scenic values through time)

Digital mapping data Photo realistic representation of potential outcomes; easy to understand


Considerations regarding backcountry tourism resource analysis methods include:

• Capability/suitability analysis – This type of analysis is often done at a broad scale (1:250,000). More refined analysis may be required at a site-specific level to determine the nature and extent of potential resource use conflict and to identify planning solutions to mitigate impacts.

• Tourism demand statistics – Potential demand does not automatically translate into economic growth for tourism as a result of compatible land use decisions. The achievement of tourism growth may require that a number of parallel factors (e.g., infrastructure, marketing, investment, promotions, human resource and managerial capability) be addressed simultaneously.

• Compatibility with First Nations interests – Tourism planning and development may be compatible with First Nations economic development objectives in some instances and in others there may be conflicts over resource use (e.g., tourism development in an area with significant spiritual values). It is important to identify the nature and extent of First Nation values in areas proposed as tourism emphasis areas.

• Wildlife and fish – Many tourism activities depend on the presence of fish and wildlife activities. It will be important to ensure that these values are adequately managed in conjunction with other resource themes and that tourism activities are managed to avoid negative impacts on fish and wildlife values.

Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for backcountry tourism may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply wherever the resource value exists across the plan area or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific


resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socioeconomic factors specific to the particular SRMP area.

Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management guidelines and regulations and assessment of the backcountry tourism issues identified during the issue identification step.

The types of products that a SRMP develops for managing backcountry tourism values will depend on the issues that the planning process is addressing and the backcountry tourism goals that are defined for the plan area (e.g., as described in an approved LRMP). Examples of the types of backcountry tourism-related objectives and strategies that could potentially be developed as SRMP products are shown in Table 44.

Table 44: Examples of Backcountry Tourism Related Objectives and Strategies


Establish and maintain landscape character consistent with the ROS classifications shown in Map ‘x’ and described in Table ‘y38’

• Ensure forest development (harvesting, road building, silviculture, etc.) is consistent with the ROS classifications shown in Map ’x’, and as described in Table ‘y’

Establish and maintain the visual quality objectives shown in Map ‘x’ and described in Table ‘y’39

• Ensure forest development (harvesting, road building, silviculture, etc.) is consistent with the VQO zones and descriptions shown in Map ‘x’, and as described in Table ‘y’

• Design cut-blocks in the areas shown on Map ‘x’ to reflect the natural character of the landscape (e.g., boundaries feathered and stratified to reduce contrast, no square or angular shapes that contradict or break natural lines of force, and no stark contrasting boundaries)

Prevent and mitigate impacts on significant backcountry attributes that are located in the tourism / recreation priority zones shown on Map ‘x’

• Ensure that resource development activities in the zones shown on Map ‘x’ do not negatively impact on the backcountry tourism and recreation values located in those zones

• Where risk of impact is high, conduct impact studies and identify effective impact mitigation measures (impact mitigation conditions may be incorporated into Crown permits/licenses)

38 Map x would show the spatial boundaries of the areas that are to be managed for various ROS classifications. Table y would

describe the ROS requirements respecting access and landscape character. 39 Map x would show the spatial boundaries of the areas that are to be managed for various VQO classifications. Table y would

describe the specific VQO standards that apply to each classification.


Table 44: Continued


Maintain the integrity of the area for First Nations spiritual use

• Close the areas during spiritual use periods

• No motorized access within 2 kilometres of the area during spiritual use periods

• No permanent structures

Prevent the deterioration of backcountry tourism and recreation attributes and the quality of the outdoor experience In the areas shown on Map x

• Implement a “limits of acceptable change” monitoring process that measures and responds to trends in the following indicators and targets

• Monitor indicators and targets bi-annually under a partnership arrangement between the local outdoor club, the local backcountry tourism operators committee and the MSRM region

• Convene a process to identify corrective measures if indicator trends fall below defined targets

Prevent motorized recreation and wildlife conflicts in the critical mountain caribou winter ranges and calving areas as shown on Map ‘x’, and the critical mountain goat winter ranges and kidding areas as shown on Map ‘y’

• Avoid snowmobile use and heli-ski activity from May 15 to July 1 in the critical mountain caribou winter ranges and calving zones shown on Map x

• Avoid snowmobile and heli-ski use from December 1 to July 15 in the critical mountain goat winter ranges and kidding areas shown on Map y

• Maintain these mapped areas in a ROS class of semi-primitive non-motorized

General management objectives and strategies may also include indicators and targets as shown in Table 45.

Table 45: Examples of Backcountry Tourism Related Indicators and Targets

Indicator Target

Encounters with other parties

80% probability of no encounters per day with other parties

Noise Disturbance 70% probability of not hearing motor noise per day

Angling Success 50% probability of achieving at least some level of angling success (per outing) in alpine lakes

Visitor Satisfaction 80% of visitors / clients report (seasonal average) the quality of their outdoor experience to be ‘good’ to ‘excellent’


Resource management zones may be developed to reflect various biophysical and socio-economic scenarios to assist in planning and managing for backcountry tourism within an SRM planning exercise. Example management zones could include:

• Areas with very high quality backcountry tourism resources;

• Areas with high levels or with potential to support high levels of backcountry tourism use; and

• Areas where there is a high likelihood of conflict between backcountry tourism and other types of resource use.

Once a planning scenario has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified backcountry tourism issues have been addressed. In addition, it will be important to determine whether objectives and strategies for backcountry tourism contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for backcountry tourism will need to assess the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 46.

Table 46: Examples of Backcountry Tourism Related Benefits and Impacts


• Designated areas where backcountry tourism attributes will be maintained and appropriately managed

• Opportunities for tourism development in areas with high capability/suitability

• Access to areas with important backcountry tourism attributes

• Resolution of conflict between various backcountry tourism users (e.g., motorized and non-motorized use)

• Maintenance of key backcountry tourism attributes (viewscapes, fish and wildlife resources, cultural heritage features, wilderness areas, etc.)

• Constraints on other types of resource development (e.g., timber harvesting)

• Conflicts with wildlife in critical habitat (e.g., bear encounters)

• Risk of damage to ecologically sensitive sites from incompatible use (e.g., off-road vehicles, too many people)

• Conflict between commercial tourism users and public recreationists

• Potential impact on First Nation traditional use and occupancy sites

Appendix 9 illustrates the analysis steps for two examples of backcountry tourism products.

Evaluat ion Backcountry tourism planning products (e.g., objectives and strategies, resource management zones, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over



• the complexity and significance of the issues being addressed in the plan (a focused plan dealing with a small number of resource values and issues may not require an SEEA);



• whether a similar analysis has recently been conducted for the area through another process (e.g., LRMP, sustainable forest management plan, etc.).

current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). As backcountry tourism also often occurs in areas of continued high use by First Nations, ways must be found to ensure that these uses are compatible. Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation as outlined in the sections that follow.





Even if a complete SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Table 47 provides examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for backcountry tourism management direction.




Table 47: General Evaluation Questions for Backcountry Tourism


• How will management direction for backcountry tourism affect public recreation use?

• How will backcountry tourism management direction affect First Nation traditional use and occupancy (e.g., commercial facilities and activities in traditional hunting, fishing and gathering areas, disturbance of archaeological sites)?

• What risk does anticipated backcountry tourism use pose to fish and wildlife populations and habitat?

• What risk does anticipated backcountry tourism use pose to rare or sensitive ecosystems?

• What are the projected net economic benefits to be generated from backcountry tourism?

• What are the economic costs to other resource values resulting from proposed management direction for backcountry tourism?



The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general resource stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Backcountry tourism planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be considered during SRMP evaluation are shown in Table 48.





Does backcountry tourism management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?



Does backcountry tourism management direction adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?


Table 48: Continued






Does backcountry tourism management direction adversely affect wildlife habitat and survival of species as per wildlife objective?

Cultural Heritage




Does backcountry tourism management direction adversely affect cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by backcountry tourism management direction include:






• Identified categories of wildlife features (e.g., bird nesting sites, mineral licks and other localized habitat features) by WLAP;

• Designated scenic areas by MSRM and visual quality objectives for scenic areas by MoF;




The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of SRMP objectives for backcountry tourism with objectives set by government:








Refer to section 2.6.1.2 for additional detail on approaches for assessing consistency with the FRPA objectives and Appendix 4 for a FRPA Value Matrix for a reference of sections of the Act that apply, default results and strategies, factors, designations and practices standards.

4.3.1.3 SRMP Governance Principles for Sustainabi l i ty

While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be directly accommodated during the planning for backcountry tourism. Principles that should specifically be considered are shown in Table 49.

Table 49: Governance Principles Relating to Backcountry Tourism Management


Certainty • Provide clear direction about where and under what circumstances backcountry tourism development and use can occur

• Define accountability for implementing and monitoring backcountry tourism management direction



Table 49: Continued



• Monitor backcountry tourism management results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Determine whether environmental and/or social carrying capacity limits are being exceeded and, if so, develop procedures to establish limits of acceptable change

• Encourage partnerships and innovation to achieve backcountry tourism results

Competitiveness • Set objectives and monitor results aimed at increasing growth of the backcountry tourism sector

• Where possible, develop management direction for backcountry tourism that is compatible with resource requirements for other sectors

Integration • Look for opportunities to integrate backcountry tourism objectives with objectives for other resource values

Efficiency

• Look for opportunities to achieve backcountry tourism objectives in conjunction with

other resource value objectives (e.g., fisheries, wildlife, cultural heritage)






● timber;






● wildlife.


Table 50 describes targets that may need to be considered in analyzing backcountry tourism planning products.

Table 50: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Backcountry Tourism Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Does management direction for backcountry tourism limit the ability to meet timber targets?

Riparian Does backcountry tourism management direction put riparian targets at risk?

Wildlife Do backcountry tourism management objectives limit the ability to achieve wildlife targets?

In evaluating whether backcountry tourism management direction leads to the achievement of Working Forest targets, it will be important to determine whether opportunities for the combined achievement of targets have been explored (e.g., cases where one or more of visual quality, biodiversity, riparian or wildlife targets could be achieved within the same planning unit).



4.4 Biodiversity Resources

The conservation of biological diversity42 is a priority planning issue in British Columbia and is one of the key resource themes for consideration in SRM planning.

Many First Nations see managing for biodiversity as a way of addressing some of the resource management values that are important to them. For example, managing to maintain early seral forests is compatible with increased berry production in many areas of the province as well as increased forage for wildlife. Similarly, managing for old growth or wildlife tree patches in many cases is complementary to managing for archaeological values.

Issue Ident i f ica t ion Most planners recognize that developing a biodiversity conservation plan requires an ecosystem management approach that includes both coarse filter and fine filter methods as outlined in the provincial Biodiversity Guidebook (1995).43 This ecosystem-based approach assumes that a deviation from the natural distribution of seral stages increases risk to elements of biodiversity. This is referred to as “coarse filter” biodiversity planning because it assumes that maintaining ecosystems to a level that are similar to the natural state will maintain all or most of the species that depend on those ecosystems. This requires planners to set percentage targets for old versus young forests throughout the planning area and to locate spatial reserves, referred to as old growth management areas (OGMAs), where old forests will be maintained. Guidelines to sustain the diversity of naturally occurring seral stages are outlined in the Biodiversity Guidebook by Natural Disturbance Type (NDT).

Biodiversity planning at the landscape level also attempts to address specific species issues, where human activities have already had an impact on the viability of fish or wildlife species. Biodiversity planning at the landscape/watershed level involves identifying and conserving suitable habitats so that threatened species (i.e., red and blue-listed fish and wildlife species) and those that have high commercial value (e.g., ungulate species) can be maintained over time. This is referred to as “fine filter”

42 For more information on biodiversity conservation and planning visit http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/offices/landscape-

watershed/biodiversity/biodiversity.htm

43 Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/FPCGUIDE/Guidetoc.htm


biodiversity planning because plan objectives and strategies are defined for individual species of concern.

Table 51: Common Biodiversity Planning Issues


• Ecological features and attributes to support First Nations traditional use and occupancy

• Ecological features and attributes to support recreation (e.g., biological diversity, fish and wildlife,)

• Ecological features and attributes to support country food harvest

• Ecosystems within an appropriate range of natural variability

• Maintenance of key aspects of ecological structure at the landscape level

• Adequate representation of ecological elements at the landscape and site level

• Manage for rare ecosystems and species at risk

• Managing ecosystems to maintain economic opportunity over time (e.g., forests, wildlife, fish)

Specific coarse and fine filter biodiversity issues that planners potentially address in the SRMP process include:

Old Growth Forests

• Determining old growth retention targets for each landscape unit and biogeoclimatic subzone/variant combination using methods outlined in the Landscape Unit Planning Guide.44

• Determining spatial locations of OGMAs and how well proposed OGMAs capture old growth attributes, rare ecosystems and special habitat features.

Natural Range of Variability

• Determining the natural range of variability for each biogeoclimatic subzone/variant in order to establish seral stage thresholds required to assess deviation from natural levels.

Connectivity

• Determining how to establish a connected network of natural areas (reserves, buffers, corridors) to enable the movement of populations and genetic material over time and space. Although addressing landscape connectivity during planning is recommended, it is a challenging issue because quantifying connectivity of landscapes depends not only on the spatial

44 Available at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/FPCGUIDE/Guidetoc.htm


distribution of habitats across a landscape but also on the scale at which organisms interact with landscape pattern.

Patch Size

• Identifying the preferred size of forested patches (and conversely the size of openings in forest cover), given that biodiversity conservation is dependent on maintaining forested areas of sufficient size with adequate interior forest condition. The objective here is often to reduce human-caused fragmentation, which results in large patches of habitat being reduced to a series of smaller ones.

Stand Level Attributes

• Identifying objectives and strategies for stand level attributes of biodiversity including vertical and horizontal stand structure, retaining specific trees that provide critical wildlife habitat (Wildlife Tree Patches) and maintaining desirable levels of coarse woody debris throughout the planning area to provide for habitat and nutrient cycling.

Species Habitat

• Determining how well a proposed scenario or management regime maintains species habitat availability over time.

Planning for these elements of biodiversity conservation requires consideration of impacts on, and trade-offs with, other values and land uses such as timber harvesting, sub-surface resource exploration and development as well as commercial guide-outfitting.

Ind icator Se lect ion In order to evaluate how well a proposed land use plan will contribute to achieving biodiversity conservation objectives, analysis indicators are needed to determine the absolute level of risk of the planning options, relative to a measurable objective or benchmark. Environmental values and their indicators used in the assessment typically reflect regional conservation assessment priorities identified in an approved strategic land use plan, as well as the availability of data and mapped information.

Examples of coarse and fine filter biodiversity assessment indicators considered useful during SRM planning are shown in Table 52.


Table 52: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Biodiversity

Coarse Filter Indicators


Seral Stage Distribution

Hectares of plan area by forest age class or structural stage stratified by BEC variant/NDT

Compare existing seral stage distribution with desired targets (e.g., range of natural variability)

Old Growth and Ecosystem Representation

Hectares and % of old growth in constrained and contributing land bases by BEC variant

Hectares and % of old growth captured in OGMAs by BEC variant

Hectares and % of rare site series captured in OGMAs by BEC variant

Determine proportion of old growth by ecological unit

Riparian Areas

Hectares and % of riparian habitat in fully and partially protected areas

Hectares and % of riparian habitat in reserves and management zones

Determine area and percent of riparian habitat in reserved or managed riparian areas

Connectivity Corridors

Hectares and % of corridor habitat in functioning condition (e.g., mature and old forest)

% of Landscape Unit disturbed

Width and composition of corridor

If available, use critical thresholds for specific landscape metrics (e.g., perimeter-area ratio, nearest-neighbour, patch cohesion)

Determine the amount of connection habitat through time

Patch Size Distribution

Configuration of habitat patches Determine habitat patch size relative to desired target (e.g., range of natural variability)

Fine Filter Indicators

Ungulate Winter Range

Hectares and % of total winter range in compatible land use plan zones and/or management strategies

Hectares and % of critical habitat available over time (habitat supply)

Determine amount and distribution of ungulate winter range through time


Table 52: Continued


Fine Filter Indicators

Species at Risk

Hectares of critical habitat available over time (habitat supply) and % of suitable habitat remaining at discrete time periods

Percent of critical or seasonal habitats in various land base categories (e.g., parks, partially constrained and fully constrained areas, THLB, tourism zones, etc)

Determine available habitat for species at risk through time

In format ion Assembly Once appropriate coarse and fine filter biodiversity indicators and their measures have been identified, a variety of data and mapped information (described in Table 53) needs to be gathered.

Table 53: Information to Support Biodiversity Resource Analysis



Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM)

Typically produced at 1:20,000 and 1:50,000

• Provides spatial representation and distribution of mature and old site series, which can be used to identify Old Growth Management Areas

• Helps identify location of rare forested and grassland ecosystems

• Provides database for fine filter habitat suitability models and mapping

• Generally reliable/

• TEM database can be limited because habitat attributes necessary to model a particular species habitat requirement may not be available (e.g., crown closure, specific tree species)

See TEM web page

For information and provincial coverage http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rib/wis/tem/index.htm


Table 53: Continued



Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM)


Same as above • More cost-effective than TEM; but reliability varies due to inherent predictive methods. Produces maps through knowledge base development, modeling, and computer information systems

• Predicts site series from existing information

See PEM web page for information and provincial coverage

Limited availability http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/temalt/public.htm

Forest Cover Mapping and Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI)

1:20,000 In the absence of TEM/PEM (preferred), forest cover mapping can be used to provide surrogate variables. VRI data can be used to augment indicators

Forest cover mapping can provide adequate data if recently updated. Limitations exist, however, especially for defining old growth attributes using only age class

VRI-based ecosystem mapping produces maps through know-ledge base development, modeling, and computer information systems, rather than by photo interpretation

MSRM – Terrestrial Information Branch http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/tib/veginv/home.htm

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Suitability and Capability Mapping

1:20,000 or 1:50,000

• Provides spatial distribution of existing (suitability) and potential (capability) habitat for species of concern

• Together with TEM/PEM/VRI or forest cover mapping provides the basis for identifying Ungulate Winter Range, Wildlife Management Areas, Wildlife Habitat Areas or other critical wildlife habitats

Reliability varies with database and spatial scale. 1:20,000 mapping is preferred

WLAP/MSRM

See the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Inventory web page

Limited availability of.1:20,000 and 1:50,000-habitat mapping http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rib/wis


Table 53: Continued



Resource Mapping for other Values (e.g., Forestry, Mining, Recreation)

1:20,000 to

1:250,000

Provides spatial distribution of potential conflict areas such as areas of high tourism, mining or forestry potential

Large areas are often identified due to nature of sub-surface resources and uncertainty

MoF/MSRM

Local knowledge

1;10,000 to

1: 50,000

• Historic ecosystem patterns

• Historic plant and animal communities

• Areas of specialized use associated with unique eco-systems (e.g., medicinal plants)



In addition to these information types, other information sources or data layers can be useful during the analysis. These include road densities (km/km2) by watershed, which can be obtained from forest cover mapping, Terrain Resource Information Management (TRIM) data, or MSRM’s Watershed Statistics. Refer to the document Land and Resource Information for British Columbia – Directory of Provincial and Federal Inventories45 for a comprehensive summary of land and resource mapping information.

Select ion of Analys is Tools The choice of analysis method and tools will depend on whether single or multiple uses are being assessed, the resource values being assessed, the quality and availability of information and the internal resources available to the planners.

Analysis in SRMPs is used to project the outcome, consequence and trade-offs associated with potential implementation of each alternative land use scenario. One of the overriding purposes of conducting an assessment of biodiversity is to compare alternative management scenarios in terms of their ability to achieve stated SRMP goals for biodiversity. For example, in order to assess whether landscape level biodiversity or a particular species habitat will be maintained in a plan area, we

45 Available at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/dss/rpts/Guide_to_Land_and_Resources.pdf


need to know the spatial and temporal distribution of seral stages or habitat types across the plan area. Various methods may be used to assess the biodiversity implications of scenarios. Regardless of the methods chosen, planners should ensure science is used effectively and the methodology and related assumptions are as transparent as possible.

Identifying the values at risk, the hazards that exist and the potential magnitude of impacts will help to identify and analyze the options and solutions to resolve planning issues. Table 54 describes a range of biodiversity analysis methods.

Table 54: Analysis Methods for Biodiversity Related Planning Products

Analysis Tools



Mapping Maps identifying conflict areas (including FN traditional use and occupancy)



Need for resources to assemble and produce map products.

Can be cumber-some if map scales are too large or information is too detailed

GIS GIS area summaries that depict spatial relations between resource themes and identify areas of potential conflict and risk such as:

• amount of grizzly habitat within the timber harvesting land base or protected areas

• forest age class distribution by BEC or NDT

• percent old growth by BEC sub variant

Mapping data by theme

Can be determined from a simple GIS query on various resource themes

Useful for assessing the extent of potential conflict (spatial overlap) between elements of biodiversity and other land uses



Limited in scope – do not project habitat supply over time


Table 54: Continued

Analysis Tools



Decision Analysis and Reporting Tool (DART)

Computer-based tool to analyze the biological effectiveness of proposed Old Growth Management Areas

Forest cover

TRIM

Vegetation resource inventory

Assess risk for a series of key indicators (old growth, seral stage distribution, forest interior, patch size, connectivity)

Requires comprehensive data and analysis expertise

Uses surrogate variables based on forest cover data, which may not be ecologically appropriate

Some indicators are difficult to interpret because of unknown natural patterns or high variation in natural patterns

Habitat Supply Models

Forecast habitat availability over time similar to timber supply models

Depict the spatial distribution and total amount of suitable habitat available at discrete time periods

Seral stage data or forest cover age classes

Useful for evaluating and comparing alternative land use scenarios

Lack of knowledge about habitat-species relationships, thresholds and baseline information

Insufficient detailed biophysical inventory

Insufficient data on past conditions and natural disturbance regimes

Limited to evaluating the effects of forestry activities

Spatially Explicit Population Models (SEPMs)

SEPMs can be applied to understand species responses to management at the landscape scale.

Habitat-specific information about dispersal behaviour demography, and habitat selection

Provide valuable information to inform the decision-making process

Types of data required are rarely available for risk assessment purposes


Table 54: Continued

Analysis Tools



Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs)

A BBN is a form of influence diagram which depicts the hypothesized or causal relations among ecological factors that influence the likelihood of outcome states of interest, such as forest condition or wildlife species viability

Assesses uncertainty through sensitivity analysis and varying input parameters and conditional probabilities

Models likelihood of management choices

Can become overly complicated and rely too heavily on expert opinion

Computer Models


Data on the various resources or value.



No models develop-ed to analyze access management specifically. Potential modeling languages include SELES, which was developed for broader LRMP analysis by MSRM


The resource analysis and assessment for biodiversity will ideally be carried out following the Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) framework (see section 2.6 and Appendix 3). Although the general approach is outlined in the ERA document, it is worthwhile highlighting a number of analysis methods that are considered most useful when conducting risk assessments related to biodiversity conservation at the landscape and watershed level. Following is a brief discussion of the utility and limitations of various analysis methods and decision-support tools.

4.4.1.1 Decision-Support Tools

MSRM has recently developed reporting and analysis tools that will provide information that can be used to assess potential timber supply and environmental impacts from landscape/watershed planning.

Decision Analysis and Reporting Tool (DART) The SRMP Decision Analysis and Reporting Tool (DART) is a corporate, computer-based tool that enables standard analysis routines and reporting in support of ministry landscape/watershed level planning. The DART tool makes it possible to analyze the


biological effectiveness of proposed Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) including:

• Average site index by leading species – by BEC variant. Representation within OGMAs compared with entire landscape unit.

• Average height by leading species – by BEC variant. Representation within OGMAs compared with all old forest in a landscape unit.

• Slope/Aspect class – Representation within OGMAs compared with landscape unit.

• Leading species – Representation of leading species in OGMAs compared with landscape unit ― by BEC variant.

• Seral stage distribution – Compares seral distribution within OGMAs with seral stage distribution within Landscape Unit. Presents seral stage distribution for “predicted historic”, “current” in Landscape Unit and “OGMAs”.

• Forest interior – Amount of forest captured within all OGMAs ― all variants combined compared to targets in the Biodiversity Guidebook (width of interior buffers: NDT1&2: 160m; NDT3: 120m; NDT4: 100m).

• Size classes of forest interior for each OGMA – A breakdown of the number of OGMAs that fall within various size classes.

• Connectivity – An assessment of the connectedness of the OGMAS within the Landscape Unit.

• Patch size – Number of OGMAs that are within patch size classes 1 (<50ha), 2 (51—250ha), 3 (251-500ha), 4 (501-1000ha), 5 (1000ha +)

• Recruitment – A breakdown of the area within OGMAs that fall within 20-year age groupings.

See Appendix 10 for additional information on the DART.

Coarse Filter and Fine Filter Habitat Supply Models Habitat Supply Models46 are another group of decision-support tools that can provide useful data for risk assessment. They provide a means of forecasting habitat availability over time similar to timber supply models. Habitat supply models are useful for evaluating and comparing alternative land use scenarios because they provide planners with output that can depict the spatial

46 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/silstrat/habitat/habitat-docs.htm#hsmbc A Strategy for Habitat Supply Modeling for British Columbia.

Draft Volume I.”


distribution and total amount of suitable habitat available at discrete time periods. For example, coarse filter models can be developed using seral stage data or forest cover age classes and run through a computer simulation tool (see “A Strategy for Habitat Supply Modeling for British Columbia. Draft Volume II. Appendices”) 47. Spatially explicit simulations provide a variety of outputs to users but are most useful because they allow planners to “see” the effects of alternative management strategies. Similarly, fine filter habitat supply models can be developed for a particular species and used to understand the long-term consequences of management actions at the landscape and stand levels. These models are most useful for predicting the supply of habitat to provide a specific life requisite (e.g., nesting habitat, winter range) for a particular species or group of species with similar habitat requirements (i.e., species guilds). See Appendix 11 for additional information on the habitat supply modeling.

Habitat supply models typically estimate how much habitat or seral stage will be present at discrete time periods (e.g., 0, 20, 50, 100 years) and compare that amount to a predefined benchmark with established thresholds. Other examples of thresholds for wildlife modeling include road density to mortality risk, habitat suitability and occupancy for large vertebrates (e.g., bears, wolves, ungulates).

Although using habitat supply models is a preferred decision-making tool to inform the planning process and risk assessment, a number of key technical barriers to using habitat supply models have been identified including: a lack of knowledge about habitat-species relationships, thresholds and baseline information; insufficient detailed biophysical inventory and inadequate training and extension. These constraints often limit the scope of the risk assessment, forcing planners and assessors to rely on static area summaries and professional judgement to make conclusions.

Habitat supply models are also limited to evaluating the effects of forestry activities. In plan areas where other forms of resource development are the primary threat to biodiversity, other models and methods may need to be developed. This may require explicitly modeling responses to human disturbance, linear developments and/or relying on static GIS areas summaries.

Many First Nations have done habitat supply models. During the initiation phase of a SRM planning process where biodiversity values will be considered, interested First Nations should be consulted to determine whether they would be in a position to provide analytical tools and analytical support.


Draft Volume II. Appendices”


Spatially Explicit Population Models In addition to models that are solely habitat-based, there are (SEPMs) that can also be applied to understand species responses to management at the landscape scale. However, these models require habitat-specific information about demography, dispersal behaviours and habitat selection. Although these models could provide valuable information to inform the decision-making process, the types of data required are rarely available for risk assessment purposes during land use planning. As such, models that are solely habitat-based are the most likely to inform land use decisions.

Bayesian Belief Networks Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) provide a means of modeling likelihoods of management effects. A BBN is a form of influence diagram that depicts the hypothesized or causal relations among ecological factors that influence the likelihood of outcome states of interest such as forest condition or wildlife species viability (see Appendix 11).

BBNs are particularly useful because they can incorporate both empirical information and expert opinion. They are relatively transparent because the “causal webs” or how a particular pressure (e.g., road density) influences a particular habitat or population variable is made explicit. In addition, they can provide a method of dealing with uncertainty through sensitivity analysis and varying input parameters and conditional probabilities. Despite some of these positive aspects, BBNs can become overly complicated and rely too heavily on expert opinion. This is usually the result of including too many nodes, which reduces communication value, and not having enough empirical information, which reduces objectivity. Used appropriately, however, they can provide useful insights into land use planning processes.

Alternative Approaches Despite the utility of the above decision-making tools, planners and analysts will often find themselves in a situation where there is insufficient time and resources to develop these tools, particularly for fine-filter components. One alternative method that could be applied in the absence of spatial habitat supply models is to develop surrogate models using the timber supply model output (seral stage distribution) stratified by biogeoclimatic subzone/variant and natural disturbance type. This type of analysis would provide an indication of the relative availability of specific seral stages within BEC zones, which could be used to evaluate habitat suitability for broad species guilds such as species dependent on mature and old growth forest.


Another approach would be to simply use static GIS area summaries, which can identify areas of potential conflict and risk. For example, knowing how much grizzly bear habitat occurs on the timber harvesting land base or is captured in existing parks makes it possible to identify constrained and partially constrained areas from a simple GIS query (intersection) of mapped grizzly bear habitat and the land base broken down by forest land base categories. Similarly, overlaying other resource value mapping, such as high mineral or recreation/tourism potential with high value grizzly bear habitat, can identify areas of potential conflict and mortality risk. These static area summaries are useful for assessing the extent of potential conflict (spatial overlap) between elements of biodiversity and other land uses; however, they are limited in scope because they do not project habitat supply over time and can be misinterpreted depending on the spatial scale of the resource value mapping. To make the best use of static area summaries, assumptions need to be clearly articulated, particularly regarding the factors posing the risks and the relative compatibility of each land base category.

Many First Nations have developed unique approaches to analyzing biodiversity and interconnections on the landscape. During the initiation phase of a SRM planning process where biodiversity values will be considered, interested First Nations should be consulted to determine whether they will be able to provide this type of analytical support.

Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for biodiversity management may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply across the plan area or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Many biodiversity-related planning products are driven by the need to meet existing policy requirements outlined in the Landscape Unit Planning Guide and to support implementation of the results-based Forest and Range Practices Act. Although the LUPG has identified old growth and wildlife tree retention as two biodiversity management priorities, it may also be appropriate for SRMPs to develop resource objectives for other biodiversity attributes including: seral stage distribution, landscape connectivity, temporal and spatial distribution of cutblocks and coarse woody debris.

Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management guidelines and regulations, analysis of other biodiversity related information products, referring to relevant resource management guidelines for direction (such as MoF’s Biodiversity Guidebook


and the Riparian Guidebook), and analysis of the biodiversity-related issues identified during the issues identification step. Table 55 provides examples of biodiversity conservation objectives and strategies that are appropriate products from SRMPs. Note that these examples relate to the indicators that have been defined for biodiversity conservation (see Table 42) and are spatially-specific and measurable.48

Developing spatially-specific and measurable objectives is often an iterative process involving the assigning tentative objectives and strategies for particular biodiversity elements and assessing the implications of those tentative assignments to determine how much environmental risk they represent (i.e., employing the ERA methodology) and the magnitude of impacts on other values and interests.

Table 55: Examples of Biodiversity Objectives and Strategies


Maintain old growth attributes within the OGMAs indicated on map “x”

• Avoid locating roads within 500 m of an OGMA

• Commercial timber harvesting is not permitted in OGMAs

• Salvage logging in OGMAs is permitted to maintain forest health, provided that the quality of the OGMA is not reduced

• Look for opportunities to integrate First Nations values in OGMAs

Maintain riparian habitat to sustain healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in areas identified on map ‘x” as Enhanced Riparian Zones

• Maintain reserve zone widths for S1, S2 and S3 streams as directed by the MOF Riparian Guidebook

• Maintain 20 m reserve zones on all S4, S5 and S6 streams

Maintain wildlife tree patches (WTPs) that reflect natural stand level characteristics of forest stand structure within each BEC variant for the full rotation of forestry activities

• When developing / approving Forest Stewardship Plans, ensure WTPs contain tree species, sizes and decay conditions (i.e., live and dead wildlife tree classes) that are characteristic of older forests

• Retain standing dead trees in WTPs that can provide nesting and foraging habitat for a wide range of species

Maintain connectivity corridors as shown on map “x” to provide an interconnected network of ecosystems.

• Maintain >67% of connectivity corridor area in mature and old growth seral stages at all times

48 Refer to MSRM’s “Guide to Writing Resource Objectives in Sustainable Resource Management Planning”, available at

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/offices/landscape-watershed/lup/writing_objectives.htm


Table 55: Continued


Within the Ungulate Winter Range identified on Map x, maintain mule deer winter range to provide high suitability snow interception cover and foraging opportunities (shrubs, conifer and arboreal lichen litterfall) at both landscape and stand-levels

At all times, maintain a minimum of 40% of winter range area in age class 8 (>140 years) or greater, and a crown closure of >56%

Resource management zones may be developed to address spatially explicit biodiversity values including:

• Rare ecosystems;

• Critical fish and wildlife habitat;

• Areas where risk of damage from other types of resource use is high; and

• Areas where restoration activities are required.

Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for biodiversity will need to consider both benefits and impacts associated with access development, as indicated in Table 56.

Once a planning scenario has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified biodiversity issues have been addressed. In addition, it will be important to determine whether objectives and strategies for biodiversity contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for biodiversity should consider the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 56.

Table 56: Examples of Biodiversity Benefits and Impacts


• Representation of ecosystems and ecological values

• Protection of rare ecosystems

• Maintenance of important habitat (aquatic and terrestrial)

• Representation & distribution of old forest

• Loss of ecosystem function

• Risk of extinction for plant and animal species

• Loss or reduction in quality of habitat

• Loss of important biodiversity attributes (e.g., representation and distribution of old forest)


Table 56: Continued


through time

• Seral stage representation reflecting the natural range of variability

• Maintenance of structural attributes at the landscape and stand levels

• Loss of structural attributes (e.g., wildlife trees, coarse woody debris, patch size, connectivity and interior forest condition)

In assessing impacts of planning scenarios for biodiversity, it will be important to consider possible trade-offs with other resource values to achieve an optimal balance of benefits. It will also be important to look for opportunities where multiple objectives can be achieved through a single planning product (e.g., an area designated as an old growth management area could also contribute to the achievement of objectives for other values such as visual quality, riparian area management, wildlife habitat, etc.)

Evaluat ion Management direction for biodiversity (e.g., objectives and strategies, maps, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation, as discussed in the sections that follow.


An environmental risk assessment (ERA)49 may be required to assess the biodiversity risks of a draft plan. (See Appendix 3 for a description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an ERA.) Alternatively, in the case of a comprehensive plan a full SEEA may be required. A SEEA should compare the anticipated impacts from proposed planning solutions with those that would likely have occurred under existing management (i.e. base case). The information is typically presented in a tabular or matrix format to facilitate the review of the information by decision

49 See Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA). An Approach for Assessing and Reporting Environmental Conditions. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (July 2000).


The requirement to conduct an SEEA and the level of detail depends on:




• whether a similar analysis has recently been conducted for the area through another process (e.g., LRMP, SRMP).

makers. (See section 2.6 and Appendix 2 for additional detail on the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an SEEA.)

Even if an ERA or SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Table 57 provides examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for biodiversity management direction.

Table 57: General Evaluation Questions for Biodiversity Resources


• How will the plan affect opportunities for public recreation?

• Will biodiversity management direction have a positive impact on human health and safety (e.g. water quality)?

• How will management direction for biodiversity affect First Nation cultural heritage values (e.g., enhanced protection of fish and wildlife, preservation of traditional plants)?

• Will the plan result in increases or improvements to fish and wildlife habitat?

• How will the plan affect terrestrial ecosystems?

• How will the plan affect aquatic ecosystems?

• What risk does the plan pose to rare or sensitive ecosystems?

• What are the cost impacts of biodiversity management direction to other resource values?


The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general resource stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Biodiversity planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Table 58 provides examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be evaluated in the context of biodiversity planning products.




Soils Conserve the productivity and the hydrologic function of soils

To what extent will biodiversity management direction affect the desire to conserve productivity and hydrologic function of soils?

Timber • Maintain or enhance an economically valuable supply of commercial timber from British Columbia's forests

• Enable an agreement holder, in the exercise of its timber harvesting rights granted by the government, to be vigorous, efficient and world competitive

To what extent does biodiversity management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?



Do biodiversity planning products meet the intent of conserving water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?

Wildlife Conserve sufficient wildlife habitat, in terms of amount of area, distribution of areas and attributes of those areas, for:




Does management direction for biodiversity conserve sufficient wildlife habitat to support survival of species as per wildlife objective?

Cultural Heritage

Conserve, or, if necessary, protect cultural heritage resources that are:



Does management direction for biodiversity affect cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. In evaluating designations and objectives established by regulation, it will be important to determine where multiple objectives may be achieved through a resource management objective or zone (e.g., a designated community watershed may support scenic, fisheries, wildlife, riparian or cultural heritage values). Enabled designations and objectives


that could be affected by biodiversity management direction include:


• Designated scenic area by MSRM and visual quality objectives by MoF;




• Establish categories of “regionally important species” where species are important to a region of BC and may be adversely impacted by forest or range practices by WLAP;




The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of biodiversity objectives with objectives set by government:










4.4.1.4 SRMP Governance Principles for Sustainabi l i ty

While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be directly accommodated during the planning for biodiversity. Principles that should specifically be considered are shown in Table 59.

Table 59: Governance Principles for Sustainability Relating to Biodiversity Management


Certainty • Provide clear direction about how biodiversity objectives will be met.


Competitiveness • Ensure that biodiversity management does not unnecessarily constrain long-term economic growth


• Monitor biodiversity results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Encourage innovation to achieve biodiversity results

• Anticipate future risks relating to biodiversity resources

Integration • Look for opportunities to integrate biodiversity objectives with objectives for other resource values

Science Based Decision Making

• Use the best science and information available to assess biodiversity risks and benefits

• Use adaptive management to increase knowledge and understanding about biodiversity risks

Efficiency

• Look for opportunities to achieve biodiversity objectives in conjunction with other

resource value objectives (e.g., cultural heritage, visual quality, recreation)







● timber;




● wildlife.


Table 60 describes targets that may need to be considered in analyzing biodiversity planning products.

Table 60: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Biodiversity Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Do biodiversity planning products limit the ability to meet timber targets?

Riparian Do biodiversity planning products contribute to the achievement of riparian targets?

Biodiversity Does the plan and biodiversity management direction result in the achievement of biodiversity targets?

Wildlife Do biodiversity planning products contribute to the achievement of wildlife targets?



In evaluating whether biodiversity management direction leads to the achievement of Working Forest targets, it will be important to determine whether opportunities for the combined achievement of targets have been explored (e.g., cases where one or more of biodiversity, riparian wildlife or visual quality targets could be achieved within the same planning unit).



4.5 Cultural Heritage Resources

Cultural heritage resources, as defined by the provincial government, means “an object, a site or the location of a traditional societal practice that is of historical, cultural or archaeological significance to the Province, a community or an aboriginal people.”51 Cultural heritage resources include archaeological sites and traditional use sites and other items integral to the cultural practices of a community (e.g., old growth cedar trees to coastal aboriginal cultures).

Cultural heritage resources have two dimensions: the physical resource and the information about that resource. The tendency in resource analysis is to deal with various cultural heritage resources separately (e.g., archaeological sites and traditional use sites); however, many First Nations see these resources as a continuum. For example, predictive ecosystem modeling, traditional use and occupancy and archaeology are all connected together and collectively provide information about the condition and use of land and resources. They do so by bringing a cultural perspective to descriptions of land and stories related to landscapes. Archaeology is not about sites; it is a repository of knowledge that describes how humans lived on the land base.

The following items will be specific to First Nations at a provincial, tribal or community level and will need to be addressed on a plan specific basis by planners.

• An archaeological site is any locality that exhibits physical evidence of the past activities of a person or group of people for which the application of scientific methods of inquiry (e.g., survey, excavation, data analysis) are the main source of inquiry information. The key distinctions that set archaeological sites apart from other heritage sites are the presence of physical cultural remains and the application of archaeological techniques of inquiry. Prehistoric (before European contact) and historic sites are two types of archaeological sites.

Archaeological sites are protected by the Heritage Conservation Act (RSBC, Chap. 187, 1996). All archaeological sites that pre-date 1846 receive automatic protection under the Act. Some types of sites that postdate 1846 are also automatically protected.

51 This section addresses cultural heritage resources in terms of First Nations values, but provides very little information on non-

First Nation cultural heritage resources. To the extent possible, resource planners should gather information on non-First Nation cultural heritage resources through local knowledge.


• Traditional use site means any geographically defined site or area (on land or water) that has been traditionally used by one or more groups of people for certain types of activities. These sites may lack the physical evidence of human-made artifacts or structures, but will maintain cultural significance to a living community of people. Traditional use sites are usually documented with the assistance of oral, historical and archival sources. Examples include: sacred sites, resource gathering sites such as berry grounds, and sites of legendary or past cultural significance.

Information about the existence and nature of traditional use sites is usually obtained through interviews, primarily with community elders, as well as archival and other literature research.

A SRMP may deal with cultural heritage resource values in several ways: through known archaeological site inventories; through predictive archaeological potential maps; and through traditional use site inventories. Since the methods and issues of dealing with archaeological vs. traditional use are so different, they are discussed separately below.

Although the provincial government treats archaeology and traditional use separately, most First Nations see them as different dimensions of one type of information. This difference in perspective may lead to confusion or disputes if it is not understood and properly accommodated in the planning process.

Planning for archaeological and traditional use resources must obviously be undertaken in close consultation with First Nations organizations.52

Issue Ident i f ica t ion Cultural heritage planning issues relate to the management and preservation of important archaeological and traditional use sites and activities and the natural resources that support them. Table 61 summarizes common planning issues to consider for the management of cultural heritage resources in a SRMP.

52 See MSRM’s First Nations Consultation Guidelines for Sustainable Resource Management Planning at

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/srmp/doc/FNconsultation%20Guidelines-Final-web.pdf


Table 61: Common Cultural Heritage Planning Issues


• Risk of damage to and loss of archaeological and traditional use sites

• Restricted access to traditional use and cultural sites

• Depletion of traditional food and ceremonial resources including fish, wildlife, and food, medicinal, craft and ceremonial plants

• Declines in fish and wildlife populations and loss of fish and wildlife habitat

• Loss of plant communities that provide food, medicinal, craft and ceremonial plants.

• Managing cultural heritage values while still providing opportunities for economic development

Cultural heritage issues that planners could potentially address in a SRMP process include:

Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites

• Preserving archaeological sites or the information that they contain.

• Maintaining representative samples of the range of archaeological sites.

Management of Archaeological Sites

• Ensuring compatible (minimally ground disturbing) land uses for areas with significantly high density of archaeological sites.

• Ensuring compatible (minimally ground disturbing) land uses for areas with significantly high density of archaeological sites, or where particularly significant archaeological sites are known to exist.

• Ensuring that appropriate archaeological impact assessments will be undertaken when an area is chosen to be developed.

Conservation and Management of Traditional Use Sites

• Protecting highly significant traditional use sites from non-compatible (high impact) land uses

• Defining a balance between Traditional Use and other land uses.

Information sharing

• Ensuring that information directly tied to sensitive aspects of First Nations’ cultures is appropriately shared.


Ind icator Se lect ion Evaluating proposed land use scenarios that will contribute to the conservation and protection of heritage resources requires the identification and assessment of good analysis indicators. Indicators should be measurable, relevant, readily available and consistent over time. Measurement need not be “metric”: ordinal or relative scales such as “poor”, “fair” and “good” can allow measurement of more subjective indicators.

Table 62 provides examples of indicators that may be useful for analyzing planning options in relation to cultural heritage values. The indicators that are selected will depend on the cultural heritage goals and objectives that the plan establishes.

Table 62: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Cultural Heritage Values


Potential impacts on cultural heritage sites

Number or percentage of cultural heritage sites located in non-compatible land use designations

Identify the extent to which cultural heritage sites may be at risk from incompatible land use

Archaeological sites at risk

Number or percentage of known archaeological sites that are not given adequate protection through land use designations or general management objectives

Determine the level of risk to known archaeological sites

Access to traditional use sites

Number or percentage of traditional use sites where sufficient access is maintained

Determine the extent to which access to traditional use sites is affected by other resource use activities

Culturally significant ecosystems at risk

Number or percentage of area of culturally significant ecosystems (e.g., site series with plants that support traditional food, medicinal and ceremonial needs) at risk (likely referenced to Range of Natural Variability)

Determine the extent to which culturally significant plant species will be maintained

Another method of analyzing potential impacts to archaeological values is to develop a compatibility matrix to determine the level of compatibility between archaeological preservation and other land and resource uses. An example of a compatibility matrix is shown in Table 63.


Table 63: Level of Compatibility between Archaeological Preservation and Other Resource Use Activities

Compatibility

Resource Use High Medium Low

Agricultural cultivation √

Livestock grazing √

Road development √

Old growth management √

Backcountry tourism √

Facility development √

In format ion Assembly Information relevant to cultural heritage resources can be acquired from a number of sources including the provincial registry of heritage sites, archaeological overview and impact assessment reports, traditional use studies and traditional ecological knowledge.

The Archaeology and Registry Services Branch of MSRM maintains a database of all known archaeological sites known as the Provincial Heritage Registry (PHR)53. Appendix 12 describes the database and how information may be accessed and used.

Table 64 provides a list of information sources that may be used to conduct analysis for cultural heritage values.

53 Refer to http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/arch/policy/regist.htm


Table 64: Information to Support Cultural Heritage Resource Analysis



Traditional Use Sites

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Spatial database; typically identifies a range of traditional use sites and values (e.g., hunting, fishing, gathering areas, settlement areas, camp sites, trails, ceremonial and spiritual sites)

• Depending on level of detail (spatial location of sites and features and description of important characteristics, may be very useful.

• May be confidentiality and/or information sharing considerations

• First Nations

• Government personnel with existing ID and passwords

• Treaty Negotiation Teams

Traditional Ecological Knowledge

1:10,000 to

1: 50,000

• Identification and description of significant cultural heritage sites and resources

• May also provide information relevant to other resource values (e.g. fish, wildlife)

• Useful information for planning at watershed scale

• Reliability depends to some extent on methods of information gathering

First Nations technical resource staff and knowledgeable community members

Archaeological Impact Assessment and Review Process

n/a Non-technical summary of the Archaeological Impact Assessment and review process in BC (somewhat outdated)

Useful reference to increase understanding about archaeological resources

BC Archaeological Resource Management Handbook,54

Archaeological Inventory Guidelines

n/a Description of the process for conducting an archaeological inventory

Useful reference to increase understanding about archaeological resources

Archaeology and Registry Services Branch55


1:20,000 to

1:50,000

• Spatial Inventory of Archaeological Sites

• Predictive mapping (spatial)



54 Aavailable through Archaeology and Registry Services Branch http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/arch/pubs/resweb/archres.htm 55 http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/culture/arch/assets/arch.pdf 56 Archaeology and Registry Services Branch http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/arch/policy/regist.htm


Table 64: Continued



Archaeological Overview and Impact Assessment Reports

1:20,000 to

1:50,000

• Overview assessments to identify likely presence and location of archaeological resources.

• Impact assessment to deter-mine archaeological significance on a site specific basis


Heritage Resource Centre (Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services)

When analyzing cultural heritage values it is important to look not only at specific sites and the value they possess but also at the broader concept of how First Nations people live on the land and the connection between sites. This perspective is referred to as a “cultural landscape.” Not all areas have cultural landscapes but many do. A cultural landscape perspective looks at uses of the land in combination with other values such as ecology, geology, historic evolution, etc. In many respects this approach is similar to an ecosystem perspective where all of the elements are interconnected. The question when looking at First Nations values from a cultural landscape perspective is not how people used the land but how they lived with the land. This perspective often creates conflict for planners who are trying to deal with specified uses in specified areas. First Nations are frequently trying to convey a broader concept that includes identification not only of sites but also of things that connect them together ― trails, legends, wildlife movement, landscapes, etc.

Traditional Use Studies Traditional Use Studies (TUS) have been conducted in many parts of the province. Data is available in spatial databases through a provincial website57. Detailed TUS information is often housed with the First Nations who conducted the work. The detailed data is often extremely sensitive and in some cases control over the information resides with the individuals or families that provided the information and is not even directly available to First Nation administrators. Users of the provincial database must be government employees or contractors with a direct need to use the data, and they must abide by the conditions of data sharing agreements with individual First Nations. Planners working on SRM plans qualify as people with a “need to know.”

57 See http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/culture/tus/index.htm


First Nations participation is essential to both obtain and interpret traditional use information and to integrate this for planning purposes. However, the capacity for providing this information and participating at the provincial planning tables varies greatly among First Nations. In some cases, for instance where a very small band is involved, Tribal Councils can fulfill this role.

SRM planners should familiarize themselves with the “LRMP Table Orientation to First Nations,” which provides good basic guidelines for protocols and respectful communication when working with First Nations.

Archaeological Assessments Measuring assessment indicators requires access to inventories of archaeological sites and archaeological potential maps. Other documents including Archaeological Overview Assessments (AOAs), Archaeological Impact Assessments (AIAs), and management handbooks may also be useful. Table 64 provides the location of these sources of information.

An AOA predicts the archaeology resource potential of an area. Like mineral resources, the locations of archaeological sites are often unknown due to their subsurface nature and the length of time since abandonment. The overview is designed to predict archaeological site locations and guide subsequent impact assessment and management studies. These assessments are broad in nature and rely primarily on existing archaeological inventory information and historical land use patterns. AOAs also provide valuable clues about the evolution of the ecology and ecosystems through understanding patterns of human use over time.

An AOA helps resource planners determine where to conduct Archaeological Impact Assessments. AOAs are useful in identifying the potential for archaeological resources and providing information on where gaps in the existing inventory may exist. Resource managers can then determine where more detailed work such as AIAs or Culturally Modified Tree inventory studies would be most effective. AOAs also provide a basis for SRMP planners to develop zones and management criteria in the area of archaeology.

General summary information can often be obtained from AOA reports. AOAs include:

• A background summary of ethnographic, archaeological, and historical documents pertinent to the study area; and

• A statement of archaeological resource potential and distribution in the study area.


AOAs are available for many Forest Districts, major development projects, and LRMP plans. Overview reports describe the First Nations within the study area and often summarize the knowledge regarding history and traditional life. This makes AOAs an excellent “entry-level” source to review for these subjects. AOAs can be used as a predictive model. They often provide an assessment of the quality of archaeological inventory studies previously completed in the study area and provide a summary of gaps in the current archaeological record and gaps in base data from other sources that may be required in the development of an archaeological predictive model.

It is important to establish a positive rapport with First Nations when conducting an AOA because AOAs are very closely tied to First Nations historic use of the land. First Nations often provide valuable traditional knowledge about the evolution of the land and their historic uses of the land.

Archaeological inventories The Archaeology and Registry Services Branch of MSRM maintains a database of all known archaeological sites known as the Provincial Heritage Register (PHR)58. Appendix 12 describes the database and how the information it provides may be accessed and used.

Many First Nations also have archaeological data sets that may or may not be on the provincial system. Information sharing protocols will generally have to be negotiated to access these data sets.

Archaeological information is often considered very sensitive among First Nations, so planners need to work with the Archaeology Branch and First Nations to determine the appropriate use of that information.

Select ion of Analys is Tools

4.5.1.1 Analysis Methods and Tools

Various types of analysis will be necessary during the planning process to assess cultural heritage values. Analysis of significance, land use impact level assessment, and methods of measuring compatibility between land use scenarios and archaeological and traditional use designation are discussed below. If the existing inventory does not allow a reasonable

58 Refer to http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/arch/policy/regist.htm


estimation of the types and number of archaeological sites present and an archaeological potential map is not available, then attention should be directed toward obtaining the required data in the time frame of the plan.

Analyzing Significance First Nations representatives should assess significance of traditional use sites. Rather than identifying which traditional use sites are most significant, First Nations representatives may decide that it is more appropriate to identify which sites (or site types) are more sensitive to impacts from various land uses.

Significance for an archaeological site is rated during an AIA using provincial guidelines that detail how such assessments should be done. “Significance” is not recorded in the Provincial Heritage Register since many inventoried sites have not undergone an AIA. An accurate assessment of significance usually cannot be done with inventoried information because the data required is incomplete. Nevertheless, an outstanding archaeological site will in fact often stand out in the inventory even though the data is incomplete. These sites should be identified as requiring special consideration in land use planning. Land use planning will not bypass the provincial archaeological assessment process for any particular site but can be invaluable in providing long-term strategies that protect such sites generally. Expert opinion can produce an incomplete and tentative list of highly significant sites. The analysis will use the variables from the guidelines but it will not be to a standard acceptable for individual site management.

A query of the PHR through the Remote Archaeological Access Database (RAAD) for known burial sites and rock art sites in the SRMP area will identify two classes of remains that can be assumed to generally have high scientific and cultural significance and that will require more detailed assessment. Scanning or querying the database for sites containing special features such as housepits, or very large sites, or very ancient sites, can also quickly identify highly significant archaeological sites. Examining written comments of the observing archaeologist together with known site condition may reduce the initial list. Such work must be done by a qualified professional archaeologist. The resulting list will be just one of the different archaeological data layers used in assessing land use scenarios. Proposed land use classification should receive close scrutiny where identified highly significant sites occur.

Sites which may not stand out because of their type or size may be highly significant because of their location. The known database can be queried spatially against areas mapped as having low archaeological potential. Such sites are likely of higher significance because they may be antithetical to the generally


accepted pattern of local pre-contact land use. Such sites have been termed “Red Flag” sites by managers in the United States.59

Analyzing Impact Potential of Land Uses The relative “impact potential” of various land uses should be ranked or graded and cross-referenced by the types of traditional uses present in the SRMP.

Ranking should consider the size, severity and time span of the likely impacts from a “typical” development. This ranking is best done by a committee that includes First Nations representatives, an archaeologist, as well as people familiar with the various industries. Ranking can assign a numeric value to the amount of potential impact, or it can assess relative impacts based on classes such as “high, medium, low”. These rankings may be combined with GIS mapped scenarios of land use to establish relative levels of impact on archaeological resources.

Impacts may not be direct: in the case of certain areas used spiritually or ceremonially, disturbance may be considered by the First Nation to occur from nearby road building, or road building in the viewshed. In other cases, a traditional use site may be impacted only by direct destruction. In the hypothetical case of a rocky outcrop used as a fishing station, provided the rocky outcrop is not blasted or covered over, a nearby road might be seen as a positive impact if it provides easier access and parking. This exercise should consider the size, severity and time span of the likely impacts from a “typical” development.

Analyzing Preferred Land Use Scenarios Once the data on known traditional use sites and archaeological sites (known and potential) is assembled and impact ratings have been established, these can be combined through GIS overlays with different potential land uses. Interactions between the resources can be explored, for instance, through measurement of the area of highly sensitive traditional use sites or archaeological sites with other values (e.g., areas of high timber harvesting suitability, high mineral capability, high tourism potential). The results of the analysis may be used to develop planning solutions (e.g., objectives and strategies or resource management zones) that promote compatible uses and protect and enhance opportunities to practice aboriginal rights. Incompatibilities may be addressed through existing provincial archaeological resource

59 Altschul, J. H., 1990. Red Flag Models: the use of modeling in management contexts. In Interpreting Space: GIS and

Archaeology, edited by K. M. S. Allen, S. W. Green and E. B. W. Zebrow, pp. 226-238. Taylor and Francis, London.


management guidelines for impact assessment and mitigation or through consultation with affected First Nations.

Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for cultural heritage resources may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply wherever the resource value exists across the plan area or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area.

Archaeological resources have often been managed through cultural resource60 management plans on a project-specific to regional scale, and there is a considerable body of literature on this subject, both in Canada and the US. However, there are few guidelines or examples on how to integrate heritage resource plans with other resources to achieve balanced land use plans.

Archaeological sites are non-renewable resources, constantly depleted by natural erosion and destructive development. Conservation of the resource is therefore always the guiding principle in management and is not necessarily incompatible with economic uses of the land.

Even when land uses are seemingly incompatible with protecting archaeological sites, steps can be taken to prevent or mitigate the impact. The following are some examples of such steps:

• Logging during a hard freeze and ample snowpack greatly reduces impact on buried archaeological resources.61 A permit may be required or prudent.

• Building or road construction can often proceed after “capping” archaeological remains with a layer of protective fill. Permits would be required, AIA would be required, including evaluative testing under capped areas, and monitoring might be required.

• Archaeological sites are often avoidable through slight project redesign. Permits may or may not be required in this case.

60 Many First Nations have a much broader definition of cultural heritage resources that includes: archaeological resources,

artifacts, language, place names, intellectual property, ancestral remains, records and cultural use areas

61 US Army Engineers, 1988. Logging over Snow as a Means to Reduce Impacts to Surface Sites. Archaeological Sites and Protection and Preservation Notebook Technical Notes I-5. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MI.


• Many sites have minimal scientific significance and their loss is easily mitigated. A permit would be required.

Unlike archaeological sites, some traditional use sites are “renewable” ― that is, traditional activities may be started at an entirely new site. Others are more similar to archaeological sites (or co-occur) and are unique.

Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management guidelines and regulations, and analysis of the cultural heritage-related issues identified during the issues analysis step (see section 4.5.1).

The types of products that the SRMP develops for managing cultural heritage values will depend on the issues that the planning process is addressing and the cultural heritage goals that are defined for the plan area (e.g., as described in an approved LRMP). Examples of the types of cultural heritage-related objectives and strategies that could potentially be developed as SRMP products are shown in Table 65.

Table 65: Examples of Cultural Heritage-Related Objectives and Strategies


Protect highly significant archaeological sites as identified on Map X

• Combine highly significant archaeological sites with Old Growth Management Areas, Wildlife Tree Patches, Riparian Reserves, or other locations with enhanced protection when developing Forest Stewardship plans

• Maintain “no work” zones with a 50m buffer around highly significant archaeological sites

Ensure preservation of a representative sample of archaeological sites

• Log very high potential areas or known archaeological sites only after 1 week of minimum temperatures below –15 C and with a minimum 50 cm snowpack (Heritage Conservation Act Permit required or prudent).

• Select silvicultural techniques to minimize soil disruption in high archaeological potential areas (e.g., no hoe mounding or Madge plows) (permit required or prudent)

• Select other land uses with low levels of ground impact for compatibility.

Address data gaps for areas on Map X where the archaeological potential is unknown due to lack of inventory

• Evaluate existing archaeological potential map or model to determine if it includes some such areas as at least “moderate” potential. If not, re-map large zones to “moderate” potential.

• Conduct AIA surveys on at least 10% of cutblocks in areas identified on Map X, ensuring that selection and survey methods are statistically justified.


Table 65: Continued


Ensure that the archaeological potential map does not predict low potential where potential should actually be classified higher

• Require licensees to conduct reconnaissance archaeological survey of at least 5% of cutblocks falling in low potential

• Include at least some low potential survey in any archaeological inventory study funded through FIA62

Enhance berry production for Traditional Use

• Identify potentially highly productive berry sites from TEM/ PEM that are nearmainline roads and select a silvicultural regime that will enhance berry production and growth

• Prohibit herbicide use in designated areas as shown on Map X

Protect sensitive, ceremonial site located within polygon marked ‘Y’ on Map X

• Where possible, design road layout to avoid road development within polygon. If roads are required, they should be built as temporary roads and deactivated upon completion of harvesting

• Manage land use activities within polygons to avoid impacts to cultural heritage values

Maintain ecological integrity of sites on Map X that support culturally significant plants

Maintain areas of dense Devil’s club in riparian reserve zones and in particular maintain Devil’s club understory for ceremonial use at the headwaters of the ‘X’ drainage

Resource management zones may be developed to reflect various biophysical and socio-economic scenarios to assist in planning and managing for cultural heritage values within an SRM planning process. Example management zones could include:

• Areas with significant archaeological or traditional use values that are subject to impacts from other forms of resource use; and,

• Ecological units that support the production of ecologically significant plants

Once a planning scenario has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified cultural heritage issues have been addressed. In addition, it will be important to determine whether the objectives and strategies developed to address cultural heritage issues contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal

62 It is important to ensure that at least some low potential lands are examined to test existing models even if the model is thought

to perform well. Where this has been tried, such as in the Vanderhoof Forest District, it has proven very valuable in finding unpredicted site locations.


balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for cultural heritage resources should consider the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 66.

Table 66: Examples of Cultural Heritage Benefits and Impacts


• Protection of significant archaeological or traditional use sites

• Access to traditional use sites maintained or enhanced

• Maintenance of culturally significant ecosystems (e.g., traditional use plants)

• Improved management of fish and wildlife habitat leading to potential increases in fish and wildlife populations

• Risk of loss or damage to unknown archaeological sites

• Limits on access and resource development to protect significant archaeological and traditional use sites

• Natural succession requirements for productive berry sites will reduce timber productivity

Possible Links to Aboriginal Rights A First Nations community’s ability to continue to exercise its aboriginal rights within its traditional territory, particularly at long-standing traditional use sites, is protected under the Constitution and must be upheld at all times. The Delgamuukw case established that the Crown can potentially infringe upon aboriginal rights provided the infringement is not unreasonable, does not cause undue hardship and does not deny aboriginal people their preferred means of exercising their right. Compensation for infringement may be required. Generally, courts have ruled that aboriginal rights clearly exist for subsistence activities. Spiritual activities are also an aboriginal right, but the judiciary has not determined whether this right is linked to spiritual sites at this time.

Planners must be scrupulous in determining which aboriginal rights may be linked to specific locations and which are more general and can be accommodated through broad area planning. Only some specific traditional use sites will be linked to protected aboriginal rights where infringement is unreasonable, while others will need to be managed with a broader scope for mixing traditional land use with other land uses. Provincial aboriginal consultation policy must be followed.

These issues are evolving and the nature of aboriginal rights is continuously being refined by the courts. First Nations have different perspectives on the nature and extent of their aboriginal rights and the Crown’s obligations to respect those rights. Some First Nations disagree with the province’s aboriginal consultation policies; however at the SRMP level planners must recognize that







these items must be dealt with in broader forums such as treaty or other intergovernmental agreement negotiations.

Evaluat ion Cultural heritage planning products (e.g., objectives and strategies, resource management zones, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation, as outlined in the sections that follow.




Where there are significant concerns about environmental impacts, an environmental risk assessment (ERA)63 may be required. Appendix 3 provides a detailed description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an ERA.

Even if a complete SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Table 67 provides examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for cultural heritage resource management direction.

63 See Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA): An Approach for Assessing and Reporting Environmental Conditions, Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks, July 2000.


Table 67: General Evaluation Questions for Cultural Heritage Resources


• Does management direction in the plan adequately address First Nation cultural heritage values?

• Does management direction in the plan infringe on aboriginal rights and title?

• How will management direction for cultural heritage resources affect other social values (e.g., recreation, country food harvest, visual quality)?

• Does management direction in the plan lead to improved management of environmental attributes that are important to First Nations cultural interests (e.g. fish, wildlife, medicinal plants)?

• Does management direction for cultural heritage resources increase risk to fish and wildlife and rare or sensitive ecosystems?

• Is management direction in the plan expected to increase net economic benefits for First Nations?

• What are the economic costs to other resource values resulting from proposed management direction for cultural heritage resources?


The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general resource stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Cultural heritage resource planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be considered during SRMP evaluation are shown in Table 68.



Timber • Maintain or enhance an economically valuable supply of commercial timber from British Columbia's forests

• Enable an agreement holder, in the exercise of its timber harvesting rights granted by the government, to be vigorous, efficient and world competitive

Does cultural heritage resource management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?


Table 68: Continued


Wildlife and biodiversity

• At the landscape level, design areas on which timber harvesting is to be carried out that resemble, both spatially and temporally, the patterns of natural disturbance that occur within the landscape

• At the stand level, retain wildlife trees

Is cultural heritage resource management direction consistent with FRPA objective for wildlife and biodiversity?



Is cultural heritage resource management direction consistent with FRPA objective for water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?





Is cultural heritage resource management direction consistent with FRPA objective for wildlife habitat and survival of species?

Cultural Heritage




Is management direction in the plan consistent with cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?

Has management direction in the plan addressed the full range of cultural heritage resources that are the focus of traditional use by an aboriginal people and are of continuing importance to that people?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by cultural heritage resource management direction include:

• Designated community watersheds and related water quality objectives by WLAP;






• Identified categories of wildlife features (e.g., bird nesting sites, mineral licks and other localized habitat features) and objectives by WALP;

• Designated scenic areas by MSRM and visual quality objectives for scenic areas and objectives by MoF;

• Designated interpretive forests, recreation sites and recreation trails by MoF; and


The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of SRMP objectives for cultural heritage with objectives set by government:










While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be


directly accommodated during the planning for cultural heritage resources. Table 69 describes principles that should specifically be considered.

Table 69: Governance Principles Relating to Cultural Heritage Resources


Certainty • Provide clear direction about where and how cultural heritage resource management direction will be implemented

• Define accountability for implementing and monitoring cultural heritage resource management direction



• Monitor cultural heritage resource management results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Determine whether key environmental or cultural attributes are adequately managed and develop/seek opportunities for continual improvement

• Encourage partnerships and innovation to achieve cultural heritage results

Competitiveness • Set objectives and monitor results aimed at increasing management of cultural heritage resources

• Where possible, develop management direction for cultural heritage resources that is compatible with resource requirements for other sectors

Integration • Look for opportunities to integrate cultural heritage objectives with objectives for other resource values

Efficiency

• Look for opportunities to achieve cultural heritage objectives in conjunction with other

resource value objectives (e.g., fisheries, wildlife, backcountry tourism)




An important consideration when analyzing SRM planning products is to ensure that they are consistent with the Working



Forest Policy and any resource targets that have been established.


● timber;




● wildlife.


Targets that may need to be considered in analyzing cultural heritage planning products are shown in Table 70.

Table 70: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Relation to Cultural Heritage Resource Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Does cultural heritage resource management direction limit the ability to meet timber targets?

Riparian Is cultural heritage resource management direction compatible with riparian targets?

Biodiversity Is cultural heritage resource management direction compatible with biodiversity targets?

Visual Quality Does cultural heritage resource management direction limit the ability to meet visual quality targets?

Wildlife Is cultural heritage resource management direction compatible with wildlife targets?



4.6 Fisheries

The fisheries resource in British Columbia ― both marine and freshwater ― supports a wide range of activities including commercial harvesting, commercial guiding, fish farms, private hatcheries, recreational fishing, tourism and First Nations fisheries. Historically, watershed-based planning for fish and fish habitat has been on an ad hoc basis and has lacked consistent goals and guidelines.

In 2001 the provincial and federal fisheries agencies developed a guidebook (“Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning – Conserving B.C. Fish Populations and their Habitat”, 200165) to assist Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning (WFSP) participants in conducting watershed analysis and planning. The guidebook recommends a four-staged approach to watershed planning that is intended to be consistent with the SRMP planning process. This guidebook will continue to evolve as its effectiveness is evaluated and as land use planning standards are developed, and should be used to help guide fisheries planning within the SRMP planning process.

The WFSP “fish-first” approach has taken on new significance with the passage in 2003 of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). The Act requires recovery plans to be developed for any fish stock defined as being at risk of extinction. The six species of Pacific salmon comprise several thousand genetically distinct stocks. WFSP will be a primary mechanism for recovery planning for stocks listed under SARA.

The management of fish populations and fish habitat in British Columbia is typically conducted on a site-specific or project-specific basis under the auspices of various federal and provincial regulations. This level of management rarely considers how fish and fish habitat are affected at the landscape or watershed level. It is important for fisheries management to consider land and water use options at the level of whole watersheds so that cumulative as well as other effects can be taken into account.

Issue Ident i f ica t ion Fisheries planning issues to consider for fish and fish habitat management in SRMPs are summarized in Table 71 and described below.

65 http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/pdf/sustainability_planning_e.pdf


Table 71: Common Fisheries Management Planning Issues


• Recreation opportunities

• Stock management

• Wilderness experience/visual quality

• First Nations use

• Salmonid enhancement

• Direct loss of fish habitat

• Water quality

• Fish populations

• Habitat restoration

• Rare and endangered species

• Conservation status

• Fish distribution

• Commercial fisheries

• Guiding industry

• Tourism

Fisheries issues can arise from a wide range of requirements as well as stock management considerations. For example, activities related to forest harvesting and range management can impact the fisheries resource on a large spatial scale. Urban and industrial development can also result in a loss or degradation of fish habitat. From a social perspective, local fisheries interest groups may be very active in a number of fisheries enhancement or conservation activities. When potential impacts are assessed on a site-by-site basis, the overall cumulative effect on fish populations is often not adequately addressed.

The following describes common social, environmental and economic planning issues, as well as information required for resource analysis of the fisheries resource:

4.6.1.1 Social

• Recreational opportunities – recreation opportunities can be increased or enhanced if road access within watersheds is increased. Alternatively, opportunities can be lost if roads are deactivated. Recreational access needs to be compatible with industrial use;

• Stock management – watershed development and increased road access may result in a requirement for more stringent conservation measures such as closures to fisheries or gear restrictions;

• Wilderness experience/visual quality – some rivers or lakes, and/or sections of rivers may require special riparian management zones or management of viewscapes;

• First Nations use – First Nations exercise of aboriginal fisheries rights take priority over all other uses once conservation requirements have been met; and


• Salmonid enhancement – some watersheds contain federal or provincial fish hatcheries or may contain Salmonid Enhancement projects such a spawning channels.


• Direct loss of fish habitat – industrial development and other land and water uses have the potential to result in a direct loss of fish habitat and of fish access;

• Water quality – changes in water quality (e.g., sedimentation and temperature increase) can affect the fisheries resource;

• Fish populations – fish populations can be affected by many factors including increased fishing pressure, marine survival, climate changes and changes to the amount and quality of fish habitat;

• Habitat restoration – riparian and fish habitat restoration may be ongoing, planned, or desirable in watersheds where past activities have resulted in a loss or degradation of habitat;

• Rare and endangered species – a watershed may contain a population of fish that is rare, endangered or threatened and may require special consideration; and

• Fish distribution – past activities within a watershed may have altered natural distribution of fish by stream blockages.

4.6.1.3 Economic

• Commercial fisheries – watersheds, especially on the coast, may directly support a commercial fishery or a private hatchery;

• Guiding industry – guiding activities may play a key role in the local economy; and

• Tourism – lake fisheries and riverine fish populations, such as popular steelhead runs, can contribute significantly to local tourism.

Ind icator Se lect ion Analysis indicators assess probable outcomes of different fisheries management scenarios and measure the achievement of the goal or the extent to which the scenarios will contribute to the plan's goals or objectives. Table 72 describes examples of indicators for analyzing fisheries values.


Table 72: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Fisheries66


Stock Status • Species presence or absence

• Relative abundance or estimated population numbers

• Stock trends

• Life history diversity

Ensure that fish populations are managed at accepted levels

Species Conservation

• Identify populations designated under SARA and populations of red and blue listed species

• Amount and state of habitat that support threatened or endangered species

Protect and re-build stocks and species at risk

Instream Flows

• Mean annual discharge

• Snow pack records

• Groundwater sources

• Water users

Maintain sufficient seasonal stream flows

Fish Migration

• Barriers to migration

• Number of stream crossings

• Length of stream inaccessible to fish

Maintain fish access to habitats and restore access lost due to development

Water Quality and Temperature

• Chemical water quality

• Sediment sources

• Point and non-point sources of pollution

• Stormwater discharge

• Temperature sensitive streams

Maintain conditions suitable to fish and aquatic life

Watershed and Channel Stability

• Upland slope stability

• Landslide occurrence

• Channel condition

• Rate of forest harvesting and regeneration

Maintain hydrological and channel conditions with natural ranges

66 Adapted from a draft report titled “Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning: Implementing Experience and Requirements

(Ferguson, A., M. McPhee, and B. Bengyfield. 2003).


Table 72: Continued


Habitat-forming Processes

• Sediment delivery to channel

• Sources of large woody debris (LWD) to the channel

• Complexity of aquatic habitat

Maintain natural levels of LWD and gravel recruitment to the channel

Riparian Function

• Condition of riparian forest adjacent to streams, lakes and wetlands

• Amount of riparian habitat lost

Maintain a functioning riparian zone

Instream Habitats

• Stream gradient

• Factors that limit fish production

• Quantity and quality of rearing and spawning habitats

Assess and maintain the productive capacity of fish habitats

Habitat Restoration

• Assess pre-development watershed conditions

• Quantify extent and condition of degraded habitats

Assess restoration opportunities

Stock Conservation and Recovery

• Assess status of fish stocks

• Stock enhancement measures

• Stock recovery targets

Set target levels for various stocks based on historical production, habitat models, economic analysis, etc.

First Nations Fishery

• Current or historic presence of First Nations fisheries

• Trends in activity and harvest level of First Nations fishery

Determine extent of First Nation fishery and whether it has been affected by other activities

Fisheries Management

• Effectiveness of fisheries management

• Effects of conservation and stock recovery measures

Allow sufficient stock recruitment to meet population targets

In format ion Assembly Information sources to support resource analysis for fisheries management include but are not limited to: land use plans (e.g., LRMP, forest stewardship plans, forest development plans, tree farm licence management plans); maps (e.g., forest and subsurface inventory, TRIM, resource tenure), and aerial photographs, site visits, and various studies (e.g., fish/wildlife population impact studies).


There are several web-based tools for finding fish and fish habitat-related information for British Columbia. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM) web site contains a Fisheries Inventory Data Queries page (http://srmapps.gov.bc.ca/apps/fidq/main.do) that has links to approximately 15 query tools including Fish Wizard. Fish Wizard (http://pisces.env.gov.bc.ca/) is a map-based internet tool that is a co-operative presentation by MSRM and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Maps and summary reports can be created with Fish Wizard and this site is linked to the databases contained within the MSRM Fisheries Data Warehouse.

The most recent salmon escapement information is available through Mapster v2.0 located at http://www.canbcdw.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ows/images/pixel.gif. Mapster is an internet-base GIS application that accesses over 200 datasets for BC and the Yukon via an interactive map interface.

The internet-based fish and fish habitat query tools are constantly being developed and web addresses may change.

The application of assessment indicators requires a variety of data and information types. Table 73 lists fisheries related information sources.

Table 73: Information Required to Support Fisheries Analysis



Various Information on the location of roads and objectives

Reliable if available MSRM

Forest Inventory Maps and TRIM maps

1:20,000 Location of most forest roads Moderately reliable for main roads, not reliable for old roads or trails, updated periodically

MSRM and Forest Licensees

Local Knowledge

1;10,000 to

1: 50,000

Areas of high use


Areas and levels of First Nations use



Aerial Photographs

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Used to verify map information on access

Very reliable MSRM and Forest Licensees


Table 73: Continued


Fisheries Inventory Data Queries including Fish Wizard

Variable Access DFO and MSRM databases on fish distribution

Variable reliability should be checked

Internet

Forest Development Plans and Forest Stewardship Plans

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

• Location of permanent and temporary roads and levels of road deactivation - may provide a description of the type of industrial road use

• Provides location of projected roads over five years




1:10,000 to

1:50,000

• Provides the location of permanent and temporary forest roads for the forest company

• May provide the location of projected roads over twenty years




Maps or Descriptions

Information on impacts of various uses for a localized area


Select ion of Analys is Tools The choice of analysis methods and tools may depend on several factors including social, economic and political issues regarding the fisheries resource, status of fish populations, the type and extent of historical development in the area, quality and quantity of available fisheries information, and the availability of funding and technical expertise.

4.6.1.4 Establ ishing Watershed Prior i t ies

The objective at the SRMP planning level is to collect and analyze all available information about fish populations and fish habitat in order to establish regional priorities. A two-staged approach is recommended:


• Stage 1: Evaluate the fisheries resource in each watershed and identify and rate risk factors; and

• Stage 2: Evaluate social, economic and political implications.

Separating assessment of the biophysical issues from the socio-political issues at this stage in the planning process will result in a less biased approach. This approach will make it easier for planners and stakeholders to understand and separate facts from values. This is particularly important when there are competing social or economic demands for the same resource.

Stage 1 Begin a systematic evaluation of the valuable fish populations and habitats in the planning area. After this evaluation is completed, risk factors associated with current and proposed development are identified within each watershed. Use existing government databases and other existing information to assess:

• Fish Populations – Determine the relative importance of fish populations by evaluating characteristics such as relative abundance, population trends, genetic diversity, wild versus hatchery produced, native versus introduced, and species or populations at risk.

• Fish Habitats – Habitat assessments can include a description of the habitat conditions. The technical team may be able to describe characteristics such as stream flow, water temperature, water quality, riparian conditions, etc. for some or all of the important habitats in the planning area depending on the state of the existing information base.

• Risk Analysis – Identify and describe the various risk factors and potential consequences associated with current and potential developments or uses within each watershed.

Stage 2 Stage 2 involves developing a strategic overview of social, economic, cultural, and political issues within each watershed that may potentially affect the status of the fisheries resource to be evaluated.67

During this stage of the planning process, data gaps are also identified and recommendations may be made to prioritize funds and efforts to gather specific information if a more detailed planning exercise is to proceed.

67 Refer to appropriate chapters in “Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning – Conserving B.C. Fish Populations and their

Habitat” (2001) for more detailed information.


Various analytical tools are available to help planners collect and analyze the existing information. Table 74 provides a range of fisheries management analysis methods.

Table 74: Analysis Methods for Fisheries Assessment and Watershed Prioritization

Analysis Tools



Mapping Maps identifying fish distribution, location of critical habitats such as key spawning areas, temperature sensitive streams, etc, and riparian status and areas where habitat is damaged or is at risk

Information from government data bases, forest companies and individuals with local knowledge



Can be cumbersome if map scales are too large or information is too detailed

Aerial Photos

Aerial photographs are a very important tool for fisheries biologists to evaluate water-shed and riparian conditions. Historical photos can be used to assess changes in riparian habitat, stream channel changes, and landslide activity

BC Government photo coverage is extensive and many forest companies conduct their own aerial surveys

Aerial photographs are readily available for relatively low cost

Requires training to interpret photos

GIS Develop relationships between resource themes and generate resultant data, such as:

• area of land (km2) impacted by various land use activities

• length of stream reaches that are fish bearing

• number of stream crossings

• classification of streams

• rate-of-cut analysis

Sufficient geo-referenced data

Can retrieve and spatially analyze data quickly

Requires specialized analysts and can be costly if not already set up

Specific Impact Assessments

Identify a specific impact on the fisheries resource, describe mitigation and compensation strategies

Sufficient information on both the impact and the resource



Risk Assessments







Table 74: Continued

Analysis Tools




Compare the compatibility of development types with a list of resources or values; rate the compatibility




Computer Models


Data on the various resources or value




Stock Assessment Models

Assess stock status and population trends to determine sustainable exploitation rates and conservation strategy

Stock status, population abundance and trend information, and exploitation rates


Requires accurate population data and special analysts

3D Models Project future outcomes visually


Photo realistic representation of potential outcomes; easy to understand


4.6.1.5 Considerat ions Regarding Analysis Methods for Fisheries Assessment and Watershed Prior i t izat ion

• First Nations use – Some fish stocks play a key role in First Nations food fisheries and are also culturally and spiritually important. SRM planners should identify First Nations use (current and historical) with input from First Nation representatives.

• Stock management – Stock management and stock allocation to the different user groups (e.g., commercial fisheries, sport fishers, First Nations) can be a contentious issue in some areas of the province. Poaching may also be a concern. Increased access to fishing areas from road development may place new fishing pressure on sensitive fish stocks. SRM planners should contact federal and provincial fisheries management biologists early in the planning process


to enlist their expertise to evaluate stock management issues within the planning area.

• Recreation opportunities – Identify and assess recreational fisheries with respect to level of use, regional importance, and who the users are. Current recreational fisheries may not be operating at historical levels for a number of reasons; therefore it will be important to consider potential levels and contribution to the local community. Local sport fishing associations may also be active in watershed restoration or enhancement (e.g., through the Salmonid Enhancement Program) or be involved as Streamkeepers.

• Wilderness experience/visual quality – Some recreational fisheries in British Columbia are very high profile (e.g., Dean, Kispiox, Babine Rivers) and are known throughout the world. Land use adjacent to heavily utilized fishing areas may be modified or curtailed to preserve the “wilderness experience” and maintain visual quality objectives. SRM planners should identify and map areas that are unique or highly valuable sport fishing opportunities.

• Salmonid Enhancement – Salmonid enhancement, watershed stewardship, and Streamkeepers programs may be well established in some watersheds. These activities should be evaluated within the watershed context and included in the planning process. SRM planners should complete an inventory of all enhancement projects completed, on-going, and planned and identify opportunities to develop partnerships if they don’t already exist.

• Direct loss of fish habitat – A direct loss of fish habitat can result from a number of factors and depends on the historical development of the watershed. Old road systems may have been developed in a manner that has cut off, or isolated, fish habitat through road fill on floodplains or poorly installed culverts. Fish habitats could also be lost due to the draining of wetlands, placement of fill, etc. If possible, review historical records, including older air photos, to identify and quantify fish habitats that have been lost or are no longer accessible to fish.

• Habitat degradation – Fish habitat within the watershed may have been degraded as a result of past land use practices. Logging within riparian zones, on steep, unstable terrain, or in areas with fine-textured soils that easily erode can have a negative effect on fish habitat. Utilize existing records, such as government reports and files, as well as review historical air photos to inventory degraded habitats.

• Water quality – Like habitat, the quality (and quantity) of water may be reduced due to a number of reasons including industrial pollution, increased levels of sediment, and increased water temperatures during the summer. SRM


planners should review water quality data available from government databases.

• Fish populations – The size of fish populations may be significantly lower than historic levels. There are a number of approaches for determining the productive capacity of fish habitat including evaluating historical catch statistics and various habitat capacity models. One model currently available from the MSRM is called the Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment Tool (FHAT 2.0), which is a Visual Basic program designed to interpret Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory data. Like any model, verification is required to determine applicability. SRM planners should include fisheries stock management biologists when assessing current stock status and population trends. Fish populations may be at low enough levels to create concerns about stock extinction. Stock recovery then becomes a priority.

• Habitat restoration – Some watersheds within the planning area may have undergone planning assessments as part of Forest Renewal BC’s Watershed Restoration Program. Various habitats may have been restored and may be included in on-going monitoring programs. Other restoration initiatives may be ongoing and should be considered. SRM planners should check the Fisheries Project Registry (http://www.canbcdw.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fpr/Qf_Welcome.asp) during the planning process to determine the status of local initiatives.

• Rare and endangered species – Contact staff at BC’s Conservation Data Centre to determine if rare, endangered, or threatened species are known to utilize watersheds within the planning area. Some fish species and/or stocks may be protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

• Conservation status – Population conservation status of fish populations may be an issue in the planning area. Classification systems have been developed to determine if fish populations are healthy or are in decline and possibly at risk of extinction. Certain stocks, particularly those of the six species of Pacific salmon (chinook, coho, chum, pink, sockeye, steelhead) may have already been assessed by provincial or federal fisheries agencies. SRM planners should include government stock management biologists when assessing conservation status. If a SARA-listed fish species or stock is listed then a recovery plan is required.

• Fish Distribution – Fish distribution within a watershed may have been significantly affected by land use. Improperly installed culverts can reduce fish distribution within a stream. Barriers to fish migration may be identified in the government database (e.g., Fish Wizard, Mapster, FDISMap, FDIS, FishMap, Fish and Fish Habitat) or road inventory work


conducted by forest companies or Ministry of Highways. Many old culverts have been removed in the past several years as part of the Forest Renewal BC Program. Additional information may be available by interviewing local fisheries staff and road maintenance crews.

• Commercial fisheries – Some watersheds may support commercial fisheries and may have significant economic value to activities well outside the boundaries of the planning area. Fisheries and Oceans Canada may be able to provide information regarding the value of a certain stock (e.g., of Pacific salmon) to the commercial fishery. Contact provincial and federal fisheries managers to obtain available information and/or request an economic analysis as part of the planning process.

• Guiding Industry – The guiding industry can be very important to the local economy within the planning area and may also contribute to marine-based operations. Identify users by contacting local guiding associations. An economic analysis may be possible based on the number of rod days or clients.

• Tourism – Identify lakes and streams that support recreational fisheries that attract people from outside the planning area. Contact provincial fisheries agencies, as well as local sport fishing associations or clubs, to establish the level of fishing effort in the planning area and to gain an understanding of value to the local economy.

Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for fisheries management may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply across the plan area or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area.

Many fisheries-related planning products will be driven by the need to meet guidelines in the Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning – Conserving B.C. Fish Populations and their Habitat (2001) and to support implementation of the results-based Forest and Range Practices Act (i.e., objectives set by government). Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management guidelines and regulations, and analysis of the fisheries-related issues identified during the issue identification step.


Table 75 provides examples of the types of fisheries related objectives and strategies that could potentially be developed as SRMP products.

Table 75: Examples of Fisheries Management Related Objectives and Strategies


Maintain a wilderness experience for recreational fishing on the Big River

1 kilometre-wide zone on each side of the river

Rebuild threatened fish stocks in Big River watershed

• Reduce rate-of-cut within the watershed

• Design road layout to minimize risk of sedimentation

• Prioritize watershed restoration funding to focus on improving or creating fish habitat

• Reduce commercial and sport fishing effort

• Identify potential sites for a First Nations fishery

In areas with critical fish habitat that is susceptible to disturbance from other resource uses, it may be appropriate to designate resource management zones with specific objectives and strategies that are designed to protect the important fisheries values. Objectives and strategies may include limits on access and on various types of resource use such as grazing and timber harvesting.

Once a planning scenario has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified fisheries issues have been addressed. In addition, it will be important to determine whether the objectives and strategies developed to address fisheries issues contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for fisheries should consider the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 76.

Table 76: Examples of Fisheries Benefits and Impacts


• Protection of critical fisheries habitat

• Maintenance or enhancement of recreational fishing opportunities

• Minimize risk of damage to fish habitat from other forms of resource use and development

• Unnecessary access limitations for other resource users







Table 76: Continued


• Economic opportunities associated with angling guiding and other fisheries based tourism activities

• Opportunity for access to the fisheries resource for First Nations food and ceremonial purposes and commercial and recreational fishing

Critical fish habitats are described in Fisheries and Oceans, Canada’s Habitat Conservation and Protection Guidelines (1994) as Class 1 habitats. These critical habitats require a high level of protection due to their high productivity, or are critical to certain life stages of fish. Critical habitats include spawning areas, essential rearing areas, highly productive feeding areas, over-wintering refuge areas, constricted migration routes, and habitats that support threatened or endangered species.

Evaluat ion Fisheries management direction (e.g., objectives and strategies, maps, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation as outlined in the sections that follow.


A socio-economic and environmental assessment (SEEA) may be required to assess the array of benefits and impacts associated with a draft plan. The SEEA should compare the anticipated impacts from proposed planning solutions with those that would likely have occurred under existing management (i.e., base case). The information is typically presented in a tabular or matrix format to facilitate the review of the information by decision makers.

(See section 2.6.1 and Appendix 2 for additional detail on the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an SEEA.)


Where there are significant concerns about environmental impacts, an environmental risk assessment (ERA)68 may be required. (See Appendix 3 for a description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an ERA.)

Even if an ERA or SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Table 77 provides examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for fisheries management direction.

Table 77: General Evaluation Questions for Fisheries Management


• How will the plan affect opportunities for recreational fishing?

• How will fisheries management direction affect First Nations’ aboriginal fishing rights?

• Will the plan result in increases or improvements to fish habitat?

• How will the plan affect aquatic ecosystems?

• Does the plan adequately address species at risk?

• Will management direction for fisheries create net economic benefits?


The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Fisheries planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be evaluated in the context of fisheries planning products are shown in Table 78.


Environment, Lands and Parks, July 2000.






To what extent does fisheries management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?



Does management direction for fisheries meet the intent of conserving water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?

Will the FRPA objective address fisheries issues in the plan area or is there a need for additional objectives to be developed?

Cultural Heritage




Is some component of the fishery designated a cultural heritage resource, and does the management direction for fisheries affect this cultural heritage objective?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. In evaluating designations and objectives established by regulation, it will be important to determine where multiple objectives may be achieved through a resource management objective or zone (e.g., a designated fisheries sensitive watershed may support biodiversity, wildlife, riparian, scenic or cultural heritage values). Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by fisheries management direction include:






• Established categories of “regionally important species” where species are important to a region of BC and may be adversely impacted by forest or range practices by WLAP;

• General wildlife measures (GWM) for specified areas and categories of “species at risk” by WLAP; and


The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of SRMP fisheries objectives with objectives set by government:

• Are there already higher-level objectives set by government for resource values being addressed in the SRMP?









While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be directly accommodated during the planning for fisheries. Principles that should specifically be considered are shown in Table 79.


Table 79: Governance Principles Relating to Fisheries Management


Certainty • Provide clear direction about how fisheries objectives will be met


• Ensure First Nations are involved and aboriginal fishing rights are accommodated

Competitiveness • Ensure that fisheries management does not unnecessarily constrain long term economic growth

• Identify opportunities to generate economic benefits from fisheries management


• Monitor fisheries results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Encourage innovation to achieve fisheries results

• Anticipate future risks relating to management of fisheries resources

Integration • Look for opportunities to integrate fisheries objectives with objectives for other resource values


• Use the best science and information available to assess fisheries risks and benefits

• Use adaptive management to increase knowledge and understanding about fisheries risks

Efficiency • Look for opportunities to achieve fisheries objectives in conjunction with other resource value objectives (e.g., cultural heritage, biodiversity, recreation)








● timber;




● wildlife.


Table 80 describes targets that may need to be considered in analyzing fisheries planning products.

Table 80: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Fisheries Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Do fisheries planning products limit the ability to meet timber targets?

Riparian Do fisheries planning products contribute to the achievement of riparian targets?

Biodiversity Do fisheries planning products contribute to the achievement of biodiversity targets?

Wildlife Do fisheries planning products contribute to the achievement of wildlife targets?

In evaluating whether fisheries management direction leads to the achievement of Working Forest targets, it will be important to determine whether opportunities for the combined achievement of targets have been explored (e.g., cases where one or more of biodiversity, riparian wildlife or visual quality targets could be achieved within the same planning unit).



4.7 Settlement

This section addresses resource analysis requirements for settlement as a component of SRM planning and community sustainability.

As with other resource values, analysis of potential for settlement uses of Crown land can be complex. “Settlement uses” vary greatly in their character, intensity of use and compatibility with other land and water resource uses. In their broadest interpretation, “settlement uses” are the tangible and observable aspects of human occupation/activity on the landscape. They could include, and are by no means limited to: • Urban edge residential;

• Commercial/industrial;

• Lakeshore recreational cottaging;

• Tourism facilities;

• Rural hobby farm/residential subdivision;

• Site specific extraction resource processing;

• Solid waste handling;

• Construction aggregate uses; and

• Linear transportation/infrastructure activities (e.g., roads, transmission lines and pipelines).

Resource analysis for settlement uses needs to provide planners with the relevant land information to consider all the variables and to enable decisions that take into account all the trade-offs between land capability/suitability for settlement use, other non-settlement use values (e.g., environmental impacts) and social attitudes/aspirations related to Crown land.

Issue Ident i f ica t ion Although settlement issues vary greatly depending on geography, biophysical feature, access and proximity, there are some general issues that SRM planning needs to take into account on a plan-specific basis. Table 81 summarizes common SRM planning issues to consider for settlement use.


Table 81: Common Settlement Planning Issues


• Urban (and rural) sprawl

• Limits of acceptable risks to human health and safety (wildfires, floods, water quality, etc.)

• Visual quality objectives

• First Nation impacts

• Disturbance of First Nation archaeological sites

• Disposition of Crown land for settlement in areas where aboriginal rights and title and treaty issues are still outstanding

• Impacts on fish and wildlife populations

• Displacement of or disturbance to sensitive ecosystems and critical habitats

• Impacts on water quality and quantity

• Community expansion

• Market competition between Crown land (public) and private land settlement development

• Recreation cottage development

• Tourism development (e.g., resorts, golf courses, ski facilities)

• Industrial development sites

• Access and utility corridors

• Conflicts with other resource- based economic activities (e.g., forestry, mining, oil and gas, aggregate, agriculture/range)

Settlement uses do not normally demand large land areas relative to many other resource uses and tend to be site-specific in nature. Nevertheless, they can have significant impacts well beyond their tangible boundaries. Some of the issues will be concrete and tangible, while others will be value-based and perceptual. Some will be relatively self-contained and receptive to quantification, while others will be diffuse and intrinsic to “quality of life.” Settlement use planning issues can be expected to range as widely or be as narrow and specific as the following:

• Jurisdictional interface of potential Crown land settlement uses with potential private land settlement uses within Municipalities (including legislative differences in Crown land use/lease/sale tools versus legislation governing Regional Districts and Municipalitiesi.e., Official Community Plans or rural land use bylaws);

• Impacts on First Nations values (e.g., settlement development adjacent to First Nations reserves or in proximity to archaeological sites or traditional use areas, industrial zoning next to reserves leading to safety issues, such as large trucks traveling past schools);

• Competition for water and differing demands for quantity/quality for use-specific purposes;

• The “carrying capacity” issue, both in terms of the ability of the natural environment to support settlement uses and the intensity of use that can be supported e.g., ¼ acre parcels versus 5 acre parcels);


• Feasibility and location of essential settlement use infrastructure support, such as access or solid/liquid waste facilities;

• Use competition, both within and between settlement uses and other high value alternate resource values, including compatibility (co-existence) or incompatibility (either/or);

• Public access to information and public opportunity to participate in/influence land use decision-making;

• Nature and extent of environmental impact and assessment related to settlement uses;

• Real or perceived market competition between public (i.e., Crown land) settlement development and private development (e.g., along foreshores or urban edge);

• Limits of acceptable risk issues (e.g., floods, earthquakes, wildfires);

• Economic feasibility of suitable settlement uses;

• Adjacent land and water use compatibility;

• Integrating social values and aspirations - limits of acceptable change (e.g., “wilderness” or “rural character”); and

• Integration of practical benefits of healthy ecosystems, economic stability and sustainable communities.

Ind icator Se lect ion Identification of plan area-specific objectives and issues related to settlement uses will greatly influence the choice of indicators that are considered appropriate for the plan area and that meet the expectations of the stakeholders, including the general public. These will be further influenced by whether indicators are chosen to focus on each specific kind of settlement use or on the general range of settlement uses relative to “non-settlement” uses.

Resource analysis for settlement planning purposes at the SRM scale of planning cannot replace more detailed site planning; nor can it, on its own, adequately address the public values/ aspirations/socio-economic feasibility factors. Given these limitations, settlement suitability indicators can be grouped into four general categories: biophysical capability/suitability, resource conflict/compatibility, infrastructure support, and jurisdictional interface.

Table 82 provides examples of indicators that can be used to evaluate alternative SRMP scenarios to determine the extent to


which alternative plan scenarios accommodate settlement interests.

Table 82: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Settlement Suitability


Biophysical (terrain) capability/ suitability

• Areas having slopes less than 30%

• Areas with well-drained, medium-to-coarse textured soils that have good foundation suitability

• Areas with low risk of flooding or rock fall

To identify those areas with suitable topographic, slope stability, surficial geologic material and soil texture, drainage and erodibility characteristics

Nature and degree of conflict/ compatibility with other existing or potential land uses

• Lands having high capability for food production

• Environmentally sensitive lands, such as estuaries or wetlands

• Critical habitats for endangered or threatened species

• Community watershed groundwater recharge areas

• Nature and pattern of current land and water uses within and adjacent to candidate settlement use areas

To identify conflict/ compatibility, both on the same land area and on adjacent lands

Nature and degree of conflict/ compatibility with First Nations values

• Proximity of settlement to First Nations reserves

• Traditional use and occupancy sites

• Archaeological sites and/or areas with high archaeological potential

To identify conflict/ compatibility, both on the same land area and on adjacent lands

Presence or feasibility of appropriate infrastructural support

• Distance from existing transportation access

• Availability of adequate quantity and quality of water

• Distance from reliable electrical power and communication infrastructure

• Proximity to commercial/retail services

To identify suitability for settlement uses

Nature/degree of jurisdictional interface

• Areas under legal tenure for other uses (either exclusive or non-exclusive) such as mineral claims or assigned rights-of-ways, easements and reserves

• Adjacent federal lands

• Municipal planning designations and zoning by-laws on adjacent private lands

To identify overlapping/ competing tenure and jurisdiction


Table 82: Continued


Water availability (general)

• Watershed volumes and licensed use opportunities (surface and groundwater)

To determine availability of water

Demand for additional settlement land

• Population growth

• Economic growth

• Area of unutilized or underutilized private or Crown land currently designated for settlement use

• Demand for a particular settlement use (e.g. utility corridor, recreational cottaging, aggregate processing)

To determine whether demand exceeds available supply

Suitability of access infrastructure

• (see Section 4.1, Access Management) To determine access suitability

In format ion Assembly Much of the inventory information required for settlement will have been collected for other resource analysis purposes and will require additional technical interpretation for settlement planning purposes within a SRMP framework.

The application of assessment indicators requires a variety of data and information types. Table 83 provides a list of information sources that may be used to conduct analysis for settlement uses.

Table 83: Information Required for Settlement Resource Theme


Census Data (e.g., population growth, economic/ employment growth)

Tabular (regional district, census division)

Shows population and economic growth trends which can reflect demand for settlement expansion

Reliability dependent upon most recent census year relative to SRM planning year and how closely census area coincides with SRM planning area

BC Stats


Table 83: Continued


Climate and Microclimate

Tabular station data

Long range (20-30 years) data that provides information on precipitation, snowfall, frost-free period, sunshine, etc.

Little relevant mapping available; data would require re-interpretation for settlement suitability purposes

Particularly when combined with general principles (e.g., south aspect versus north aspect characteristics) and local knowledge, this can be useful in identifying those areas with most desirable attributes (e.g., winter sun angle)

Environment Canada, MSRM

Geology (bedrock and surficial)

1:100,000 to very detailed, site-specific

Technical mapping with accompanying descriptive reports; range from small scale reconnaissance to site specific project mapping

Can provide useful interpretive data such as foundation suitability, bearing strength, rock fall hazard risk and potential construction aggregate sources

MEM, MSRM, NRC


Various Provides information on the location of roads and objectives.

Reliable if available MSRM (Locally Available)

Local Knowledge

1:10,000 to

1: 50,000

Areas of high use




Forest Inventory Maps and TRIM Maps

1:20,000 Provides the location of most forest roads

Moderately reliable for main roads, not reliable for old roads or trails, updated periodically

MSRM and Tree Farm Licensees


Table 83: Continued


Soils

1:10,000 to

1:100,000

Maps and descriptive reports provide technical information on soil characteristics (e.g., parent material, soil texture and soil drainage) plus some interpretation for settlement and other land uses

Useful for many interpretations and requirements (e.g., septic effluent disposal suitability, compaction constraints, shrink-swell potential, bearing strength)

MSRM, MEM, NRC (see BC Soils Inventory Map brochure for areas and scales available)

Water Use/ Availability Inventory

Critical knowledge requirement for almost all settlement uses

See Water section (section 4.11) for information use, reliability and/or limitations

Ecosystem Mapping (TEM, PEM and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Capability and Suitability mapping)

Variable

Some larger scales in key areas

See section 4.12, Wildlife, for description of data

Provides baseline inventory data useful in determining potential constraints to settlement uses due to high habitat values (e.g., riparian areas, wetlands, critical winter ranges and rare ecosystems)

See section 4.12 for reliability and/or limitations

MSRM, MoF, WLAP, NRC

Present Land/Water Use and Tenure (land inventory maps, air photographs, statistical data, licences, permits, documents andwritten descriptions)

Variable Provides information on present or past land and water uses within the plan area and the kind and extent of existing tenures in, on or under the land base

Usability is variable and ranges from specific, mapped tenure areas to descriptive non-mapped inventories of present or historical uses (e.g., First Nations traditional use lands)

Some data may require considerable re-interpretation or extrapolation

MSRM, MoF, MEM, LWBC, MoTH, WLAP, BC Stats

Adjacent Use and Planning Documents

Variable Municipal and Regional planning documents such as OCPs, zoning by-laws, rural land use by-laws)

Community needs assessments and other planning studies

Can contain useful incidental information on adjacent Crown lands, as well as land use change trends and potential conflicts/compatibilities

Municipalities, Regional Districts, MSRM, LWBC


Select ion of Analys is Tools The approach to resource analysis depends on the specific settlement use objectives of the SRMP planning process and on whether the focus is to:

• Avoid using certain lands for settlement purposes (the “constraints” approach); or

• Identify those units within the plan area that are most suitable for settlement uses (the “attributes” approach).

These two approaches are not mutually exclusive; assessment of both attributes and constraints will be common to any analysis for settlement suitability. The difference will be in degree of emphasis and priority (e.g., the degree to which “mitigation” will be pursued to offset otherwise prohibiting constraints in order to meet settlement use goals).

Related to the issue of specific SRMP objectives for settlement uses is the question of demand. The following approach assumes that those assessments have been made and that there is sufficient expected demand for the settlement activities to warrant identification of areas for potential allocation and management of Crown land and water resources for these settlement purposes. Ideally, the assembly of settlement use trends for various uses will have been completed (see BC Stats data as one source) or specific guidelines or needs assessments/requirements will have been provided to the SRM planning process. The quantitative or locational nature of the demand and the associated real or perceived socio-economic benefits/costs will also be needed by the planning team to shape decisions relative to settlement use interests and other potential land and water users’ interests.

Regardless of the approach emphasis, it can be expected that available settlement data will in itself be a “constraint” to analysis ― most often it will be specific to adjacent private lands, perhaps within a Municipality or Regional District. While site/project specific resource analysis data may be available for some Crown land areas, it will likely be difficult to extrapolate to a SRMP scale of planning.

A first step will be to define areas of relative capability/suitability for settlement use. The next step is to determine the level of compatibility with other resource values in these areas and to identify potential options that appear to accommodate settlement interests as well those of other resource values. Following this, a more comprehensive analysis can be done to determine the extent to which the various options meet resource value interests and where possible trade-offs may be required to achieve a preferred planning scenario.


The choice of analysis methods and tools will depend on the quality and quantity of available information, and the availability of funding and technical expertise. Table 84 outlines the common analysis methods for settlement options.

Table 84: Analysis Methods for Settlement Related Planning Products70

Analysis Tools



Demand / Supply Assessment

Analysis of population changes, economic statistics and forecasts, and infrastructure needs to determine present and future demand for settlement expansion or specific settlement uses and capacity to meet demand within existing settlement areas

BC Stats population statistics; statistics on development approvals; Official Community Plans; economic forecasts; gov’t programs associated with marketing and promotion of recreational property

Focuses planning efforts on those types of settlement uses that are in greatest demand

May not be the best use of Crown lands relative to other resource values

May not provide a clear picture in terms of infrastructure capacity and impacts on other resource values resulting in land use decisions that are not sustainable in the long term

Settlement Suitability (Attributes Approach)

Identification of those land units within the plan area that have biophysical attributes to support the various settlement uses (favourable topography, micro-climate, geological foundation suitability, effluent disposal capability, low natural hazards risk, etc.) plus the locational attributes (proximity to adequate water supplies, existing or feasible access, power transmission lines, etc.)

Land units (grouped as high, moderate, low, not suitable)

Capability/suitability mapping; local knowledge

Assists in identifying priority settlement use candidate areas

May not have sufficient information to determine whether settlement use is compatible with other resources values

Does not address settlement use supply/demand issues

70 Ideally, all of these approaches and methodologies plus local community input and preferences would be employed collectively to

address Settlement Use issues as part of SRM planning.


Table 84: Continued

Analysis Tools



Compat-ibility Matrix (Constraints Approach)

Identification of those land units where location of settlement uses should be avoided or would need to be specifically designed to mitigate impacts based on the presence of, for example,

• high value agriculture or forest lands

• critical grasslands

• unique or sensitive ecosystems, particularly for species-at-risk

• prime wildlife or fisheries habitat

• high value wilderness areas that are currently roadless

• high natural hazard areas

Heritage, archeological and First Nations’ spiritual areas

Land units ratings to reflect both the nature and the degree of the constraint or, most often, the combination of constraints

Capability/ suitability mapping for other relevant resource values; local knowledge

Focuses on avoiding settlement use in inappropriate areas and minimizing conflict with other values

May limit settlement use expansion regardless of demand and/or stated objectives of the SRM exercise

May not result in settlement uses being located in the most ideal portions of the plan area from a biophysical or infrastructural perspective

For many settlement uses, the SRM scale of planning will only be able to set the framework for site planning and further detailed geotechnical and hydrological analysis.

From a resource analysis perspective, the specific SRM plan objectives will influence whether the approach is to look for opportunities to accommodate settlement uses or to ensure that options for settlement uses remain in those areas with the best potential. The former would accentuate the locational flexibility of certain settlement uses under certain circumstances (e.g., there may be options to move a Crown land subdivision to a different part of a landscape unit, whereas that is not an option in the case of a critical bighorn sheep winter range). The latter would recognize that, in other situations, settlement uses may need to be accommodated within more fixed locational parameters (e.g., need to retain the option for resource extraction processing infrastructure in relative proximity to the extracted resources).


Analys is o f Resul ts

Planning products for settlement may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply wherever the resource value exists across the plan area or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area.

Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management guidelines and regulations, and analysis of settlement-related issues identified during the issue identification step. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area.

The types of products that the SRMP develops for managing settlement use will depend on the issues that the planning process is addressing and the settlement goals that are defined for the plan area (e.g., as described in an approved LRMP). Table 85 provides examples of the types of settlement related objectives and strategies that could potentially be developed as SRMP products.

Table 85: Examples of Settlement Use Related Objectives and Strategies


Provide opportunities for expansion of lakeside recreational cottaging

• Identify demand and determine spatial requirements for specific settlement use expansion

• Identify lakeshores or portions of lakeshores with capability/suitability for recreational cottaging

• Assess environmental impact and social/economic implications

• Designate recreational cottaging areas and provide appropriate design guidelines to ensure quality developments that do not degrade water quality

Protect environmentally sensitive areas

• Identify environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., rare ecosystems, critical fish and wildlife habitat, wetland complexes, unique features)

• Restrict settlement in identified sensitive areas unless no other practicable alternative exists that will meet a firmly identified demand

• If settlement occurs in identified sensitive areas, design and locate facilities and infrastructure to minimize/mitigate impacts


Table 85: Continued


Locate settlement uses away from culturally sensitive sites

• Identify culturally sensitive areas (e.g., Provincial Heritage Inventory, Archaeological Overview, Archaeological Assessment, Traditional Use Studies)

• Avoid settlement in proximity to identified culturally sensitive sites

The practicality or appropriateness of attempting to achieve resource management zones for settlement uses will depend upon the nature of the uses defined in the SRMP objectives. While certain area-based settlement uses, such as urban edge or rural small lot residential opportunities, may lend themselves to zonation (and these zones should logically emerge through application of the suggested analysis methodology), this may not be the case for other settlement uses.

Linear uses, such as roads, transmission or pipelines, will require corridors that will likely span several zones of varying capability/suitability. For example, a wilderness tourism lodge may have a very site-specific location but the associated Crown land tenure may be wide-ranging. Similarly, other “site” uses, such as industrial processing facilities, may have specific locational requirements adjacent to raw materials regardless of zone.

Once a planning scenario has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified settlement issues have been addressed. In addition, it will be important to determine whether the objectives and strategies developed to address settlement issues contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for settlement should consider the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 86.

Table 86: Examples of Settlement Benefits and Impacts


• Designated settlement areas to address future community expansion requirements

• Opportunities to support recreational expansion in areas with high capability/suitability (e.g., cottage lots)

• Designated settlement areas in areas with high archaeological values and/or areas associated with traditional use and occupancy

• Designated settlement areas in areas with high environmental risks (e.g., critical fish and wildlife habitat, sensitive ecosystems, rare and endangered species







Table 106: Continued


• Opportunities to support rural lifestyles compatible with other resource values

• Opportunities to support industrial expansion compatible with other resource values

• Opportunities to support tourism expansion compatible with other resource values

• Designated settlement areas in areas with high recreation/tourism potential

• Designated settlement areas in areas with high resource development potential (e.g., timber, oil and gas, minerals, range)

Evaluat ion Settlement planning products (e.g., objectives and strategies, resource management zones, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation as outlined in the sections that follow.



See section 2.6.1 and Appendix 2 for additional detail on the process for conducting and interpreting the results of a SEEA.

Where there are significant concerns about environmental impacts, an environmental risk assessment (ERA)71 may be




required. Appendix 3 provides a detailed description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an ERA.

Even if a complete SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Table 87 provides examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for settlement management direction.

Table 87: General Evaluation Questions for Settlement Use


• Is management direction for settlement use consistent with local government objectives and priorities (e.g., Official Community Plans)?

• Are proposed settlement areas located in areas that are easily serviced (e.g., access, water, waste management)?

• How will management direction for settlement affect public recreation use?

• How will management direction for settlement affect First Nations traditional use and occupancy (e.g., proximity to traditional use areas, disturbance of archaeological sites)?

• What risk does anticipated settlement use pose to fish and wildlife populations and habitat?

• What risk does anticipated settlement use pose to rare or sensitive ecosystems?

• What risk does anticipated settlement use pose to water flows and water quality?

• What are the projected net economic benefits associated with proposed settlement areas?

• What are the economic costs to other resource values resulting from proposed management direction for settlement use?



The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general resource stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Settlement planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Table 88 shows examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be considered during SRMP evaluation.






Does management direction for settlement use limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?



Does management direction for settlement use adversely affect water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?





Does management direction for settlement use adversely affect wildlife habitat and survival of species as per wildlife objective?

Cultural Heritage




Does management direction for settlement use adversely affect cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by management direction for settlement include:







• Identified categories of wildlife features (e.g., bird nesting sites, mineral licks and other localized habitat features) and objectives by WLAP;

• Designated scenic areas by MSRM and visual quality objectives for scenic areas by MoF;



The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of SRMP objectives for settlement with objectives set by government:










While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be


directly accommodated during the planning for settlement use. Table 89 lists principles that should specifically be considered.

Table 89: Governance Principles Relating to Management of Settlement Use


Certainty • Provide clear direction about where and under what conditions concentrated settlement can occur

• Define accountability for implementing and monitoring settlement management direction



• Monitor results of settlement management direction on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Encourage partnerships and innovation to achieve improved results for settlement use

Competitiveness • Where possible, develop management direction for settlement that is compatible with resource requirements for other economic activities

Integration • Look for opportunities to integrate settlement objectives with objectives for other resource values

Efficiency

• Look for opportunities to achieve settlement objectives in conjunction with other

resource value objectives (e.g., fisheries, wildlife, timber, water, cultural heritage)






● timber;






● wildlife.


Table 90 identifies targets that may need to be considered in analyzing settlement planning products.

Table 90: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Settlement Use

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Do settlement planning products affect the achievement of timber targets?

Riparian Do settlement planning products affect the achievement of riparian targets?

Biodiversity Do settlement planning products affect the achievement of biodiversity targets?

Wildlife Do settlement planning products affect the achievement of wildlife targets?



4.8 Timber Resources

This section provides a summary of resource analysis methods related to timber management.

Timber resources are a major source of wealth for the people of BC. While the forest sector leads all other sectors in the economy of BC, timber management also affects environmental functions in the forest, biological diversity and the larger environment in which we live.

As a result, timber resources are often a focal point in planning processes, due to the significant implications that management direction of timber can have on social, environmental and economic well-being. Finding an appropriate balance with other forest values is often the most significant challenge faced by planners.

Commercial timber management requires care in integrating with other uses and reaching trade-offs when integration cannot be achieved. The extent of the commercial interest area is generally a small part of the larger forest, though the commercially viable areas are often rich in other resource values. Timber management can also be used as a tool to enhance many other resources by creating new habitat and spring forage, replicating burning, and creating new opportunity for backcountry recreation. Analysis of implications of management scenarios is an important step in finding the balance of social, environmental and economic wealth.

Issue Ident i f ica t ion Table 91 and the text that follows summarize timber management planning issues to consider in SRMPs.

Table 111: Common Timber Management Planning Issues Social Issues Environmental Issues Economic Issues

• Visual quality

• Urban interface

• Tourism and recreation

• Wilderness experience

• Fish and wildlife habitat

• Plant communities

• Water quality

• Biological diversity

• Timber values and marketing

• Operating costs

• Providing access for other economic opportunities, such as commercial recreation and mineral exploration.


Table 91: Continued Social Issues Environmental Issues Economic Issues

• Direct employment

• Indirect employment

• Impacts on traditional use and occupancy

• Forest certification

• Forest health (insects & disease)

• Fire

• Timber management

Timber management issues can arise from either harvesting operations or from follow-up silviculture and stand tending activities tied to legal obligations. Issues can arise from spatial or temporal impacts on competing resource uses, cumulative impacts, and downslope or downstream implications. Issues can relate to the broader landscape and develop over time or can focus on a specific location. They usually focus on commercially operable timber stands, which are often low on slopes and valley bottoms and consequently can also be the most valuable sites for other uses.

Common social, environmental and economic planning issues, as well as information required for resource analysis of the timber resource, can be summarized as follows:

4.8.1.1 Social

• Visual quality – timber harvesting alterations on visually sensitive areas.

• Urban interface – proximity of harvesting activity and noise, and silviculture stand tending activities to local communities.

• Tourism and recreation – impacts of an industrially altered landscape or presence of industrial activity on tourists or the outdoor recreation experience.

• Wilderness experience – impacts of an industrially altered landscape or industrial activity on wilderness experience, including the opening up of areas that were previously inaccessible.

• Direct employment – jobs provided to local communities to sustain local economies in planning, harvesting, and silviculture.

• Indirect employment – jobs created in the milling sector and for support services that sustain local economies and the larger provincial economy.


Links to Technical Support References on Timber Resource Related Issues

• Ministry of Forests Certification Homepage http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/het/certification/

• Ministry of Forest Silviculture Strategy Homepage http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/silstrat/index.htm

• Working Paper: Developing a Sustainable Forest Management Plan, July 03, 2002. SFMP Working Group http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/pubssfmp.htm

• Forest Practices Code Guidebooks – describe suggestions for sustainable forest management. A number of the Guidebooks advise on timber management practices. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/FPCGUIDE/Guidetoc.htm

• Impacts on traditional use and occupancy – impacts from the introduction of human activity in these areas.

• Forest certification – the manner in which timber management practices influence public perception and the marketplace.


• Fish and wildlife habitat – alteration, inadvertent harassment, damage or destruction of wildlife or fish habitat, including birds and invertebrates.

• Plant communities – alteration, damage or destruction of plant communities or their growing conditions.

• Water quality – hydrological impacts on water quality and quantity; surface soil erosion and terrain stability issues that can result in sedimentation of water; potential introduction of contaminants into water.

• Biological diversity – effects of timber management on a healthy functioning forest at the local, landscape unit and broader regional scale.

• Forest health (insects & disease) –management or interference with natural disturbance patterns and processes.

• Fire – management or interference with natural disturbance patterns.

4.8.1.3 Economic

• Timber values and marketing – the quality and quantity of timber available for harvesting, and ability to sell to the marketplace.

• Operating costs – the cost to plan and harvest timber.

• Providing access for other economic opportunities – the ability for other commercial users (e.g., commercial recreation and mineral exploration) to utilize areas that have been harvested or managed for timber, such as roads for access, dormant log dump sites for fish farms and commercial staging areas, and landings for beekeepers.

• Timber management – reforesting, tending and managing commercially viable trees.


Ind icator Se lect ion Analysis indicators assess probable outcomes of different timber management scenarios. Indicators measure the achievement of the goal or the extent to which the scenarios will contribute to the plan's goals or objectives. Table 92 provides examples of indicators for analyzing timber values.

Table 92: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Timber Values


Timber Harvesting Land Base

Amount of land (ha) in Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB), including:

• Contributing (ha)

• Partially contributing (ha)

• Non-contributing (ha)

• Excluded (ha)

Volume of timber (m3) in the THLB by anticipated timber quality profile (pulp logs, sawlogs and higher value logs)

To estimate the area that would be available for timber harvesting after constraints have been defined to accommodate other resource values

Timber Availability

Amount of THLB (ha) and/or volume of timber assigned to alternative timber management intensity zones (e.g., non-intensive, intensive)

To identify the extent of timber values at stake within each management zone

Harvest Rate

The expected annual flow of timber harvest (m3/yr), both short term and long term:

• Before management direction

• After management direction

To identify the extent to which timber in the SRMP contributes to the allowable annual cut, both before and after management scenarios

To facilitate economic assessment and impact assessments

Forest Cover Constraints

The result of management direction in terms of quantified constraints on timber management (e.g., in a visually sensitive area “no more than 7% of the VQO area can be less than 8m tall”)

To quantify and assess the impact of managing non-timber uses on the timber values.

Harvesting Timeframes

Volume (m3) of timber that is accessible by timeframe (e.g., short-term, medium-term, longer-term)

To identify approximately when areas might be harvested


Table 92: Continued


Timber Value

Average log prices ($/m3) for the area

Average stumpage revenue paid to government as economic rent from timber harvesting ($/m3)

To identify the average value of timber

Timber Management Costs

Average planning and timber harvesting cost ($/m3), including roads and transportation to selling points

Average silviculture and stand tending costs ($/m3)

Average other timber management costs ($/m3)

To identify the average costs of harvesting and managing the timber resource

In format ion Assembly The application of assessment indicators requires a variety of data and information types. Table 93 lists timber related information sources.

Information sources to support resource analysis for timber management include but are not limited to: existing plans (e.g., strategic land use plans, Sustainable Forest Management Plans, tree farm licence management plans, forest stewardship plans/forest development plans, other policy plans), maps (e.g., timber inventory, TRIM, resource tenure maps), aerial photographs, site visits, various studies (e.g., timber operability studies) and the latest Timber Supply Review.

Table 93: Information Required to Support Timber Analysis


Land Use Plans & Maps

Various Information on the location of timber development zones and objectives.

Very reliable MSRM

Forest Inventory Maps

Vegetation Resources Inventory

TRIM Maps

1:20,000 Timber types, forest inventory and growth attributes

Timber operability

Location of most forest roads



Table 93: Continued


Landscape Unit Planning Maps

1:20,000 Description of the Timber Harvesting Land Base


Forest Development Plans & Forest Stewardship Plans

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Location of proposed harvesting over the next five years

Location of roads




1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Timber types and inventory attributes

Description of the Timber Harvesting Land Base

Timber operability

Twenty-year projection of harvest pattern and forest road development



Local Knowledge

Local Studies

1;10,000 to

1: 50,000

Confirmation of timber operability, availability of access, timber quality and operating costs

Knowledge about potential harvesting impacts


MOF, Forest Licensees, other commercial users of the area and members of the public

Aerial Photographs

1:10,000 to

1:50,000

Used to verify map information Very reliable MSRM and Forest Licensees

Environmental Impact Assess-ments (EIA)

Maps or Descrip-tions

Information on impacts of various uses for a localized area

Very reliable Industrial proponents

Harvesting Records

n/a Volume of timber harvested

Allowable annual cut apportionment by licensee

Reliable – updated annually

MOF and Licensees

Stumpage and Royalty Records

n/a Volume and value of stumpage paid to the Crown

Reliable – updated monthly

MOF and Licensees


Links to Information Sources

• Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Terrestrial Information Branch, Land and Resource Data Warehouse. http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/tib/fia/shareddata.htm

• Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Terrestrial Information Branch, ARC/INFO Metacontent. Refer to: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/gis/arcmetadata.html

Table 93: Continued


Timber Supply Review Information

n/a Information on key factors and assumptions influencing timber and other resource values

Reliable – updated on schedule determined by the MOF

MOF and Licensees

Select ion of Analys is Tools Developing commercial timber management objectives and strategies requires resource value integration and consideration of trade-offs between resources. A first step will be to define areas of relative importance of commercial and non-commercial timber management. The commercial forest lands become the higher priority interest areas for timber management. The non-commercial areas become the lower priority interest areas for timber management, but do account for a component of the resource that needs to be described.

The next steps are to develop suitability and capability mapping based on the expected overlap with other resource needs, and then to undertake analysis of management direction options.

The choice of analysis methods and tools will depend on the quality and quantity of available timber information and the availability of funding and technical expertise. Table 94 describes the common timber analysis methods.

Table 94: Analysis Methods for Timber Assessment

Analysis Tools



Timber Mapping

Forest cover maps identifying the extent of the Timber Harvesting Land Base

Information from government data bases, forest companies and individuals with local knowledge




Table 94: Continued

Analysis Tools



Suitability and Capability Mapping

Map representing timber values in the analysis process fall into several suitability classes. For example, the following partial list of attributes would be considered to establish a map showing areas of “very high”, “high”, “moderate”, “low”, and “poor” timber suitability and capability”

• timber species and standing volume

• site class

• operability

• proximity to infrastructure (roads, mills)

• extent of past investment into timber management (intensive silviculture)

Timber inventory maps

Enables the analysis of areas of high timber management value with maps showing areas of importance for other values, such as biodiversity values, fish and wildlife habitat, tourism, recreation, agri-culture, range, etc.

Map overlay analysis will suggest where tentative timber management zones may be established and where impact mitigation and / or resource trade-off may be needed



Compare the compatibility of timber management with a list of resources or values; rate the compatibility

Professional under-standing of the general implications of timber on the resources or values



Timber Supply Models

Assist defining tentative ‘non-intensive’ and ‘intensive’ timber management zones and targets

Timber supply models, such as FSSIM, Landscape Unit Planner and SELES that simulates how the forest is harvested, depending on resource management practices and forest growth and yield projections

Digital timber inventory data

Digital data for areas of non-timber uses

Developing altern-ative scenarios comprising different mixes of zones and associated manage-ment objectives and strategies will enable analysts to evaluate and interpret implic-ations of scenarios using the indicators that have been developed previously in the SRMP process

Need for resources to assemble data and run models


Links to Technical Support References on Decision-Support Tools:

• BC Ministry of Forests Growth and Yield Modeling Webpage. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/pubsoaf1.htm

• BC Ministry of Forests – Timber Supply Analysis in BC. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/pubs/tsr/tsrbkg.htm

Table 94: Continued

Analysis Tools



Proxy Models

Spreadsheet impact assessment models used to approximate impacts on timber supply

Can be manual calculations utilizing judgement and TSR information

Inventory summary data

Area and volume of timber impacted

Approximating models are generally quicker and less intensive, relying on the results of TSR analyses to estimate potential impacts



3D Models Project future outcomes visually


Easy to communicate with photo realistic representation of potential outcomes

Requires analysts and software, such as Visual Landscape Planner

Impact Assess-ments

Identify a specific impact on the timber resource, describe mitigation and compensation strategies




Risk Assess-ments






4.8.1.4 Analysis Considerat ions For Timber Developing alternative scenarios comprising different mixes of zones and associated management objectives and strategies will enable analysts to evaluate and interpret the implications of the scenarios using the indicators that have been developed previously in the SRMP process. Timber supply models or proxy models are likely tools to be used for this purpose. These will enable an estimate of timber flow that is implied by the different scenarios.

Both spatial and aspatial timber supply analysis approaches are being used in BC presently. Recently, analysis approaches have evolved to allow for the incorporation of more detailed spatial representation of the analysis units. For some strategic analysis questions, such as those at a broad provincial or whole region level, explicit spatial representation has not been essential. However, there is general


recognition of the need to align strategic and operational planning through the application of spatial timber supply analysis models. Increased computer processing power and modeling approaches are showing considerable promise in this direction. Many of the emerging next-generation timber supply models are able to predict detailed spatial relationships and explicit stand-by-stand conditions and schedules over several rotations. Spatial modeling technologies can be used to assist with defining tentative “non-intensive” and “intensive” timber management zones, as well as to quantify the implications on other source values.

In undertaking an assessment of timber management practices and impacts on timber values, provide an accounting of the factors and management assumptions that relate to timber supply, and how these factors will be considered in the SRMP analysis process. Usually these relate to timber flow (AAC impacts) or the economic operability of forest stands as a result of management direction. Key factors include:

• Forest cover attributes;

• Silviculture practices;

• Harvesting parameters, including limits of operability;

• Harvest scheduling priorities (i.e., identifying where and when to harvest);

• Timber harvest flow objectives;

• Timber yield estimates; and

• Costs and values of timber.

Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for timber management may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply across the plan area, or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area.

Table 95 provides examples of the types of timber related objectives and strategies that could potentially be developed as SRMP products.


Table 95: Examples of Timber Management Related Objectives and Strategies


Provide sustainable and economically viable access to commercial timber

Timber harvesting of the planned 100,000 m3/year should proceed throughout the timber harvesting land base, consistent with objectives and strategies for other resource values

Maintain the health and productivity of forest resources by providing protection from insects and disease

Aggressively manage forest health attacks as the first priority for the management of timber resources. Timber harvesting or localized cut and burn strategies will be permitted in areas of non-timber uses upon consultation with the stakeholder group and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. The Regional Director shall provide the management direction and terms for proceeding where the attacks are not in the intensive or integrated management zones

Harmonize activities between industrial users and non-industrial users

Forest licensees to restore or provide alternate access for forest recreation if existing trails become unusable or dangerous as a result of industrial activity

Forest practices should be environmentally, economically and socially acceptable

Ensure that requirements under the Forest and Range Practices Act are met

Planning products should also:

• Identify lands with potential to be assigned a priority for enhanced timber harvesting, forest management and investments (e.g., recognizing that other economic activities, such as tourism, range and sub-surface resource uses which also depend on access to land and forest resources, may coexist with the forest industry and each other and may at times even dominate on portions of the land base);

• Identify investment areas where, for example, further planning may lead to a special land-use class or zone being identified with unique administrative provisions to minimize potential shifts to other uses (e.g., this added degree of certainty about the land base would contribute to the government’s goals of achieving a long-term increase in the volume or value of the province’s timber supply);

• Define resource targets that address land-base access for forestry and other users and values to increase certainty for the forest sector and other economic users (e.g.; encourage new industry investment and provide new economic opportunities for rural B.C.); and

• In areas with high timber values, where appropriate, designate resource management zones with specific objectives and strategies that are designed to protect the


important timber values. Objectives and strategies may include limits on constraints to timber harvesting to allow greater certainty for timber harvesting.

Once a planning scenario has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified timber issues have been addressed. In addition, it will be important to determine whether the objectives and strategies developed to address timber issues contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for timber should consider the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 96.

Table 96: Examples of Timber Benefits and Impacts


• Designation of high value timber areas

• Recognition of timber harvesting potential

• Improved certainty for forest companies, workers and the community

• Improved certainty for silviculture investments

• Opportunities associated with innovative techniques to remove timber in highly constrained areas, such as single stem harvesting with helicopters in riparian areas

• Operating costs will be high in certain areas, thereby rendering them operable only under very strong timber markets, and lowering potential timber supply and jobs

• Partial cutting will result in a shift to species that are more shade tolerant and have a lower economic value, leading to lower timber yields over time

• Increased risk of catastrophic forest fire from the build up of forest fuels, due to aggressive fire suppression techniques in dry, high timber value areas

Evaluat ion Timber management direction (e.g., objectives and strategies, maps, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation as outlined in the sections that follow.








A socio-economic and environmental assessment (SEEA) may be required to assess the array of benefits and impacts associated with a draft plan. The SEEA should compare the anticipated impacts from proposed planning solutions with those that would likely have occurred under existing management (i.e., base case). The information is typically presented in a tabular or matrix format to facilitate the review of the information by decision makers.

See section 2.6.1 and Appendix 2 for details on the process for conducting and interpreting results of an SEEA.

Where there are significant concerns about environmental impacts, an environmental risk assessment (ERA)73 may be required. (See Appendix 3 for a description of the process for conducting and interpreting ERA results.)

Even if an ERA or SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Table 97 provides examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for timber management direction.

Table 97: Examples of General Evaluation Questions for Timber Management Social Impacts Environmental Impacts Economic Impacts

• How will the plan affect opportunities for non-timber users of the forest?

• How will timber management direction affect employment?

• What risk does timber management pose to traditional uses?

• Will management direction be sufficient to meet the needs of forest certification?

• What risk does timber management pose to fish and wildlife populations, habitat or water quality?

• What risk does timber management pose to forest health or fire?

• Do proposed timber management objectives adequately address the needs to maintain biological diversity?

• What are the projected net economic benefits to be generated from timber?

• What are the incremental cost implications for harvesting strategies, and who will bear these costs?

• What are the economic costs to other resource values from proposed management direction for timber?

• What is the magnitude of change in timber harvesting potential as a result of manage-ment direction? Is this within acceptable limits?

• What other economic opportunities present themselves as a result of timber management?





The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Timber planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Table 98 shows examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be evaluated in the context of timber planning products.





To what extent does timber management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?



Does management direction for timber meet the intent of conserving water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?

Will the FRPA objective address timber management issues in the plan area or is there a need for additional objectives to be developed?

Cultural Heritage

Conserve, or, if necessary, protect cultural heritage resources that are:



Does management direction for timber affect cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by timber management direction include:







• Identified categories of wildlife features and objectives by WLAP;


• Designated lakeshore management zones objectives by MoF.

The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of timber objectives with objectives set by government:











While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be directly accommodated during the planning for timber. Table 99 lists principles that should be specifically considered.

Table 99: Governance Principles Relating to Timber Management


Certainty • Provide clear direction about where and under what circumstances timber harvesting and timber management can occur

• Define accountability for implementing harvesting provisions


Competitiveness • Ensure that timber management supports short term and long term economic opportunity

• Identify harvesting options that will avoid blocking future economic opportunities

• Identify opportunities for silviculture investments to generate long term forest benefits


• Monitor timber management results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Encourage innovation to achieve timber management results

• Anticipate future risks relating to timber management, and the coexistence of other resource values

Integration • Look for opportunities to integrate timber management objectives with objectives for other resource values


• Use the best science and information available to assess timber management risks and benefits

• Use adaptive management to increase knowledge and understanding about timber management risks

Efficiency • Look for opportunities to achieve timber management objectives in conjunction with other resource value objectives (e.g., cultural heritage, biodiversity, recreation)







● timber;




● wildlife.


Table 100 describes targets that may need to be considered in analyzing timber management planning products.

Table 100: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Timber Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Do timber planning products contribute to the achievement of timber targets?

Riparian Do timber planning products contribute to the achievement of riparian targets?

Biodiversity

Visual Quality

Do timber planning products contribute to the achievement of biodiversity targets?

Do timber planning products contribute to the achievement of visual quality targets (including needs for tourism and recreation values)?




Resource Value Analysis Questions Wildlife Do timber planning products contribute to the achievement of wildlife targets?

In evaluating whether timber management direction leads to the achievement of Working Forest targets, it will be important to determine whether opportunities for the combined achievement of targets have been explored (e.g., cases where one or more of biodiversity, riparian, wildlife or visual quality targets could be achieved within the same planning unit).



4.9 Water Resources

The protection and prudent management of BC’s surface and ground water resources is essential to the province’s well-being. Careful planning of how land and water is and can be used, and how land and water use practices can be modified, is critical to optimizing benefits from the land and water. With this in mind, MSRM has developed the following comprehensive goal statement to provide direction for water planning initiatives.

SRMPs will need to address many diverse water-related issues and, by extension, apply many different approaches for sustainable water use planning and resource analysis.

There are a number of other ongoing initiatives and programs outside of SRM planning that are designed to address water resource issues, as well as an extensive collection of technical sources that are available to resource managers and officials that advise on approaches for addressing water quality and quantity issues. These are summarized in Table 101.

Provincial Goal for Water Planning

To maximize the benefits from and respect for provincial water resources by:

• Identifying opportunities for new and sustainable economic development from the use and enjoyment of water;

• Adopting the best known scientifically based standards and practices for environmental management;

• Developing strategies to ensure that the most efficient use of water is made, particularly in circumstances where water is in short supply;

• Encouraging local watershed initiatives to restore streams and riparian areas and improve land management practices;

• Anticipating changes to climatic conditions; and

• Ensuring that aquatic land, other resource use and community-based planning integrate:

• the need for water to support the proposed land, resource and community uses / development, the protection of drinking water and other water bodies important to human health and survival;

• the continuity of healthy aquatic ecosystems;

• the preservation of significant scenic, aesthetic and cultural values in water; and

• the minimization of risk to life and property from the powerful forces of water.


Table 101: Avenues for Addressing Water Resource Issues

Program Initiatives

Water Use Planning Plans developed by BC Hydro and approved by the Minister of Energy and Mines to optimize the benefits from water flows at Hydro facilities. Refer to http://www.bchydro/environment/wateruse/wateruse1775.html

Drinking Water Protection Plan

Plans authorized by the Minister of Health to protect drinking water sources in designated areas – see http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/protect/water.html

Regional District Planning

Planning conducted by some Regional Districts to address water issues (e.g., integrated watershed management plans, water supply/conservation plans)

Fraser River Basin Action Plan

Various initiatives overseen by the Fraser Basin Council to improve water management in the Fraser Basin (e.g., development of integrated nutrient management plan)

Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans' policy objectives, goals and strategies for the management of fish habitats supporting Canada's freshwater and marine fisheries – see http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/infocentre/legislation-lois/policies/fhm-policy/chap1_e.asp#1.1

Sensitive Stream Designation

A designation made under the Fish Protection Act to address problems of inadequate water flows or habitat deterioration – see http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/habitat/fish_protection_act/

In-stream Flow Standards

Results-based standards defining minimum in-stream flow requirements that are required to conserve fisheries values in British Columbia streams (being developed)

Best Management Practices Canada-British Columbia Stewardship Series

http://www.stewardshipcentre.bc.ca/sc_bc/stew_series/bc_stewseries.asp describes best practices advice to governments, business, and citizens on practical ways to achieve resource stewardship objectives. A number of sources in the series address water stewardship, in particular:

• Access Near Aquatic Areas: A Guide to Sensitive Planning, Design and Management

• Community Greenways: Linking Communities to Country and People to Nature

• Land Development Guidelines: For the Protection of Aquatic Habitat

• Stewardship Options: For Private Land Owners in British Columbia

• The Streamkeepers Handbook: A Practical Guide to Stream and Wetland Care

• Stream Stewardship: A Guide for Planners and Developers

• Watershed Stewardship: A Guide for Agriculture

• Wetlandkeepers Handbook: A Practical Guide to Wetland Care



Best Management Practices

Forest Practices Code

Guidebooks www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/FPCGUIDE/Guidetoc.htm – describe standards and methods for achieving sustainable forest management. A number of the Guidebooks advise on water management practices, including:

• Channel Assessment Procedures and Field Guidebook

• Community Watershed Guidebook

• Fish Stream Crossing Guidebook

• Fish Stream Identification Guidebook

• Regional Lake Classification and Lakeshore Management Guidebook

• Soil Conservation and Soil Rehabilitation Guidebook

• Riparian Management Area Guidebook

• Watershed Assessment Procedures

A comprehensive approach to sustainable water resource planning (i.e., an approach that goes beyond planning for single water issues) requires that planners consider, on a watershed basis, a broad range of human and aquatic values and that planning for water be fully integrated with planning for land use in the watershed. Given the diverse range of issues that may be considered in comprehensive water planning, potential partners in planning may include a number of federal and provincial water management and fishery management agencies, local governments, First Nations, educational institutions, industrial land users, water users and community groups.

Issue Ident i f ica t ion Water resource planning issues that may need to be addressed in a SRMP are summarized in Table 102.

Table 102: Common Water Management Planning Issues Social Issues Environmental Issues Economic Issues

• Drinking water quality and supply

• Public safety

• Flooding

• First Nations use

• Access to water for recreational use (e.g., water based recreation, viewscapes, etc.)

• Water quality, quantity and timing of flow to meet fish and aquatic habitat needs

• Water quality

• Water temperature concerns

• Changes to chemistry and biology of water

• Impacts on ground water aquifers (quality and quantity)

• Allocation of water to support economic development

• Overuse and competing use in areas where water is considered a scarce resource

• Providing opportunity for water based tourism opportunities


Water management issues may include water quantity concerns (e.g., domestic, agricultural and industrial consumption), timing of flow issues (e.g., diversions and dams and hydrology impacts related to road development and forest harvesting), water quality concerns (e.g., sedimentation, nutrient loading, water temperature contamination and pollution), and water access concerns (e.g., economic opportunity, competing use and over-allocation). A description of common social, environmental and economic planning issues is provided as follows.

4.9.1.1 Social

• Defining watersheds for which drinking water protection is a management priority.75 This may include some or all areas within existing “community watersheds,” other existing important drinking water sources or other desirable sources.

• Providing policy direction and identifying opportunities that would encourage consolidation of individual users into more cost-effective and safer water systems, including possible connections to existing larger systems or relocation to more suitable sources.

• Defining land use measures for protecting the quality and quantity of drinking water supplies (e.g., restrictions on particular resource development activities in certain watersheds, protection of groundwater recharge areas, measures for preventing or limiting the introduction of contaminants).

• Identifying watersheds or water bodies (or some portion of the available supply from a water body) that will be reserved to meet future community expansion requirements, or for back-up supplies.

• Identifying lands that are unsuited for settlement land uses because of flooding or inundation threats and/or the conditions that must be met to mitigate such threats.

• Recreational opportunities – recreation opportunities can be increased, or enhanced, if road access within watersheds is increased. Alternatively, opportunities can be lost if roads are deactivated. Recreational access needs to be compatible with industrial use.

• First Nations use - First Nations requirements need to be recognized and addressed.

75 Source assessment by water purveyors as required under the Drinking Water Protection Act could be a tool for defining risks and

strategies for managing risks.



• Identifying appropriate flow regimes that are required to maintain aquatic habitat and species (e.g., in-stream flow requirements for fish) and measures for achieving the necessary flow regimes (e.g., through limitations on surface or groundwater licensing).

• Identifying key aquatic habitats that should be protected from resource development activities (e.g., stream crossings, marina development) or those that should be rehabilitated to correct past damage.76

• Identifying land use practices for achieving sustainable water flows and water quality (e.g., identifying controls on vegetation removal; limitations on development activities on steep slopes, unstable soils and in riparian areas; other measures to reduce non-point source pollution).

• Fisheries impacts – watershed development and increased road access may result in a requirement for more stringent conservation measures such as closures to fisheries or gear restrictions.

• Water quality – changes in water quality, including temperature, can affect the fisheries resource.

4.9.1.3 Economic

• Identifying water sources with unallocated water volume that is potentially available for new allocations to support new economic development opportunities (e.g., small hydro development, water bottling) and associated conditions that may be necessary to mitigate potential impacts of any new economic uses of water.

• Identifying measures for increasing water use efficiency and water conservation (e.g., through engineering solutions or conservation practices).

• Identifying ways that specific water facilities, such as dams, reservoirs and intakes, should be managed to optimize the storage, diversion and use of water while providing other desirable benefits such as benefits for aquatic habitat, recreation, flood protection, cultural values, etc.77

76 The federal-provincial Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning guidebook provides a means of ensuring integrated federal

and provincial involvement in strategic watershed planning initiatives - http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/pdf/sustainability_planning_e.pdf

77 BC Hydro is continuing to address its operations for power production at its major facilities through its Water Use Planning Program http://www.bchydro/environment/wateruse/wateruse1775.html


• Identifying the locations (e.g., stream reaches, coastal zones) that should be assigned a management priority for maintaining water-based tourism opportunities.

Ind icator Se lect ion Evaluating alternative SRMP scenarios to determine the extent to which the scenarios will contribute to achieving water-related benefits requires the identification of one or more analysis indicators. The indicators are used to measure the nature and scale of economic, social and environmental benefits and impacts that are inherent in alternative plan scenarios. Table 103 lists several indicators that could be used for this purpose.

Table 103: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Water Resources


General Water Availability for Future Licensing

Number and percentage of streams (by stream order) that have unallocated/unreserved flow (i.e., streams not fully recorded)

Volume of water flow (cubic metres/second) or percentage of total Mean Annual Discharge (MAD) that is available for further licensing for economic development uses. (This information could be sub-totalled by stream order, and totalled for the whole plan area.)

Determine potential for increased water allocation

Small Hydro Opportunity

Number and quality of small hydro “opportunities” Determine potential for small hydro development

Water-based Tourism / Recreation Opportunity

Number (or area [ha]) of high quality water-based recreation / tourism sites or values that are located in supportive zoning designations and/or supported by “sympathetic” land use objectives and strategies

Determine potential for expanding water-based tourism opportunities

Instream Flows

Mean annual discharge

Snow pack records

Groundwater sources

Water users

Assess potential for maintaining sufficient seasonal stream flows

Water Quality and Temperature

Chemical water quality

Sediment sources

Point and non-point sources of pollution

Stormwater discharge

Temperature sensitive streams

Maintain drinking water quality and conditions suitable to fish and aquatic life


The first indicator (general water availability for future licensing) attempts to measure the general extent of opportunity to allocate water resources to new uses – for community expansion, commercial/industrial activities, energy development, etc.

There are a couple of ways that this indicator could be used in resource analysis for water. One is to understand the existing (i.e., “baseline”) extent of water-related opportunity in the planning area. Analyzing sub-drainages in the planning area to identify existing water availability (e.g., possibly by stream order) would enable the development of a map that classifies the watersheds into categories of opportunity. For example, a map could be developed showing sub-drainages shaded as having “high,” “medium” or “low” opportunity for new water allocation. This type of product would give planners an immediate sense of the scale of water-based economic development opportunity for the plan area. “High” opportunity areas (if identified through the analysis) could be overlaid with other inventory maps (e.g., fisheries, water-based recreation value mapping, maps showing areas of importance for drinking water protection) to identify where potential resource conflicts exist and resource trade-offs may be necessary.

This same indicator could be used later in the planning process to compare alternative scenarios in terms of their water-based economic development opportunity. Scenarios could be assessed according to the indicator measures. A simple measure of this indicator is the number/percentage of streams in the planning area (organized by stream order, e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd …) that would be expected, under alternative scenarios, to have unallocated water flow that could be directed to new uses. A somewhat more refined measure for this indicator is to estimate the actual volume of water flow (or the proportion of total mean annual discharge in the planning area or sub-drainages in the planning area) that would remain unallocated under alternative plan scenarios. So, for example, a scenario might include water objectives and strategies that “reserve” a high proportion of in-stream flow for conservation (e.g., fisheries) or social (e.g., recreation, aesthetic) purposes. This scenario could be interpreted to have fewer opportunities for economic development uses of water resources compared to one that placed less emphasis on providing water flow for conservation or recreation uses.

The second indicator (small hydro opportunity) provides a measure of the extent of a specific water-based economic development activity – small hydro project development opportunities – that would be available to independent power producers. This would require analysis of the plan area to identify and rank existing opportunities for small hydro use, and assessment of alternative plan scenarios to identify the extent of small hydro opportunity that is implied by the scenario. To measure small hydro opportunity, it would be necessary to map


the physical attributes that are required for successful small hydro development. The main requirements78 are:

• An adequate water flow that is available for new licensing;

• A sufficient drop in the height of available water (i.e., hydraulic head/energy potential);

• Water flow that does not fluctuate too greatly throughout the year (or there is opportunity to create storage to “even out” fluctuating flow); and

• Reasonably close proximity to the electrical distribution grid.

Existing opportunities (in sub-drainages or specific stream reaches) could be rated and mapped. This would require the use of the above-listed attributes as rating criteria. This could be a complex undertaking involving weighted criteria and the development of spatial models; or it could be a relatively simple ranking, based on expert judgement of how well various sub-drainages or stream reaches satisfy the criteria (e.g., “excellent,” “good,” “fair” opportunity).79 Planners could compare alternative plan scenarios with the existing (“baseline”) scenario to judge the extent of small hydro opportunity that the scenarios represent. Note that the ability to conduct this type of evaluation requires scenarios to have clear zones or objectives respecting small hydro use to enable straightforward measurement and scenario comparison using this indicator.

The third indicator (water-based tourism/recreation opportunity) measures the extent to which alternative plan scenarios recognize and maintain opportunities for water-based tourism and recreation. For example, a plan scenario could include specific provisions (zones and objectives) for maintaining and promoting tourism/recreation use of water-oriented recreation values, such as good white-water river rafting or kayaking areas or important canoeing and kayaking routes and overnight camping areas. Comparing this with a second plan scenario that makes few provisions for these values (or makes specific provisions that support competing uses that detrimentally impact the recreation/tourism values); it would be possible to say that the first scenario is preferred from a water-based tourism/recreation perspective.

78 These attributes can be used to assess the capability and suitability of streams or stream reaches for small hydro use within a

planning context. Feasibility assessment would be up to independent power producer applicants to undertake, and would include consideration of development costs and power prices. See BC Hydro’s guideline, “Developing Micro Hydro in British Columbia, at http://www.bchydro.com/power_future/green/micro.html

79 Existing applications for small hydro development from independent power producers may also provide information on the location and quality of opportunities. Contact LWBC, Water Management for maps of existing water licence applications. See also the “Inventory of Undeveloped Opportunities at Potential Micro Hydro Sites in British Columbia (produced by Sigma Engineering Ltd. for BC Hydro), available at http://www.bchydro.com/power_future/green/mico.html


The fourth indicator (instream flows) provides a measure of waterflow within specified drainages based on mean annual discharge, snow pack, groundwater sources and water users. More refined measures could be adopted to provide flow rates at critical times of the year. The results of this indicator can be used to determine whether aquatic habitat conditions are being sufficiently met and whether there is a potential for competing use at certain times of the year (e.g., domestic and industrial water use versus fish spawning and rearing). They can also enable a comparison of different scenarios to determine how well habitat, recreational and economic objectives are balanced and whether additional trade-offs are needed to achieve an optimal balance.

The fifth indicator (water quality and temperature) provides a measure of water quality for human consumption and support of aquatic life. Water quality can be assessed through a number of different measures including changes to the chemistry and biology of a water body in excess of natural variation, sediment loading, pollution sources and water temperature in temperature sensitive streams. These measures can be assessed across various planning scenarios to eliminate scenarios where results are not acceptable (e.g., unacceptable risk to drinking water, risk to fish survival, etc.). Additionally, scenarios may be modified through resource trade-offs to achieve a better overall balance of benefits and impacts.

In format ion Assembly Measuring assessment indicators of the type shown in Table 103 requires access to a range of water-related information, including information in the following categories.

Watershed and Stream Locations – topographic base maps showing stream locations, watershed boundaries and elevations.

Water Supply – information on water levels and flow in planning area water bodies (i.e., mean annual discharge, and seasonal or monthly levels/flows).

In-stream Water Demand – information on existing licensed and reserved use (i.e., water use that is licensed/reserved under the Water Act for conservation, domestic, industrial, agricultural and other purposes) and also existing unlicensed water flow requirements such as in-stream flow requirements for dilution of industrial discharges, or water-based recreation.

Fish Sensitive Streams and Water Bodies – identification and location of fish sensitive streams and limiting factors that need to be addressed in managing these values (e.g., water temperature).


Community Watersheds – location of existing or proposed community watersheds and an identification of other important resource values associated with these areas.

Small Hydro Criteria – information on stream or stream reach characteristics (i.e., amount of unallocated water flow, stream “slope,” proximity to existing electrical grid.)

Water-based Tourism & Recreation Values – existing tourism and recreation use areas and sites, and tourism/recreation capability or suitability mapping (e.g., stream reaches, tour routes, staging areas, camp sites, beaches, angling areas) and the scenic quality of areas that are visible from these areas and sites.

Table 104 summarizes information sources that may be used to support analysis of water resource values.

Table 104: Information Required to Support Analysis of Water Resources


Watershed and Stream Location

1:20,000 TRIM, the BC Watershed Atlas and Watershed Statistics information respecting stream location and slope is highly reliable

Used for base mapping and developing various inventory maps (e.g., water quality/quantity)

Used to identify stream “slope” as basis for understanding opportunity for small hydro development

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management See: http://home.gdbc.gov.bc.ca/

Water Supply (water levels and flows)

Non-spatial

Where water flow data is available it can be assumed to be generally reliable. However, because of the limited number of hydrometric stations in BC, planners may have to extra-polate water flow using data from comparable streams. This invariably introduces a margin of error into resource analysis

Essential information for establishing limit-ations on water use

Environment Canada, Water Survey of Canada (see www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/wsc)

BC River Data website at http://scitech.pyr.ec.cg.ca/water/map.asp

Licensed Water Use

Licence mapping on 1:20,000 TRIM base maps).

Licence data is non-spatial

Needed to understand current water use commitments and water licence applications for various purposes

Licence information is generally reliable; however, some currency limitations may exist

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

See: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/sstu/portal




Water-based Tourism & Recreation Values (Tourism Resource Inventory and Tourism Opportunity Study data)

TRIM 1:250,000

TOS data mainly 1:50,000

• Tourism Resource Inventory mapping is generally considered to be more suited for regional or sub-regional planning applications

• Tourism Opportunity Study mapping is mapped at an appropriate scale, however, not all of BC is covered (approx. 40 to 50%) and to date very little freshwater tourism information has been included in these studies

Needed to locate areas of tourism/recreation significance, and to analyze potential conflicts with other economic uses of water resources

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management: Decision Support Services Branch

Land Use Plans & Maps

Various Information on the location of community watersheds and streams and water bodies with specified objectives and strategies

Reliable if available MSRM

Local knowledge

1;10,000 to

1: 50,000

Areas of high use (e.g., traditional fishing sites)

Knowledge about ecosystem and habitat values




Maps or descrip-tions

Information on potential impacts and risks to specific streams or water bodies from various uses


Select ion of Analys is Tools Analysis in SRMPs is used to project the outcome, consequence and trade-offs associated with potential implementation of each alternative land use scenario. The choice of analysis methods and tools may depend on several factors including social and economic issues regarding water resources, demand for water, potential for allocation limits and competing use, status of fish populations, quality of available information, whether single or multiple uses are being assessed, and the availability of funding and technical expertise.

Identifying the values at risk, the hazards that exist and the potential magnitude of impacts will help to identify and analyze the options and solutions to resolve planning issues. Table 105


provides a range of methods for analyzing planning scenarios intended to address water resource issues.

Table 105: Analysis Methods for Water Resource Planning Products

Analysis Tools



Mapping Maps identifying high priority water values and potential for conflict with other resource values



Require capacity to assemble and produce map products

Can be cumber-some if map scales are too large or information is too detailed

GIS GIS area summaries that depict spatial relations between resource themes and identify areas of potential conflict and risk such as:

• High value aquatic habitat and high potential for economic development (small hydroelectric, agriculture, etc.)

• Community watershed and access for mineral exploration and development

Mapping data by theme.

Can be determined from a simple GIS query on various resource themes

Useful for assessing the extent of potential conflict (spatial overlap) between water quality and quantity and other land uses



Risk Assess-ments


Information to derive the relative hazard of occur-rence and the relative magnitude of consequence




Specific Impact Assess-ments

Identify a specific impact on the water resource, describe mitigation and compensation strategies




Compat-ibility Matrix

Compare the compatibility of various resource uses with objectives for managing water resources

Professional understanding of the general implic-ations of other resource uses on water values




4.9.1.4 Analysis Considerat ions For Assessment of Water Resources

Identifying Water Availability To identify whether or not particular drainages in the planning area have water flows that are available to support new economic development opportunities, it is necessary to compare existing levels/flows with existing water demands. The difference between the two will represent the flow that is potentially available for new allocations.

Existing flow is simple to determine from stream flow records if they are available. This information, however, will usually be available for only a few drainages in the planning area. To estimate flow rates for streams without stream gauge records, it is necessary to refer to flow records for drainages with similar characteristics. This exercise requires specific technical expertise that may be available through the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Land and Water BC, or through hydrological consultants.

To identify existing water demand, analysts must refer to provincial information on existing licensed volume, and try also to estimate unlicensed requirements, such as in-stream flow requirements for fish and dilution requirements for licensed industrial or institutional waste discharges that may exist for particular streams.

Comparing water flow and water demand information will enable analysts to develop maps and “water balance” tables identifying drainages and sub-drainages with “unrecorded” water availability.

Establishing Water Allocation Priorities Maps and data for areas where water is available for new allocations can then be combined with other information (for example, through map overlays) to scope new opportunities and to understand conflicts with flow requirements for water uses such as water-based recreation or aesthetics.

For example, GIS could be used to model possible locations that have potential for small hydro development. The GIS could be “asked” to show where the following occurrences intersect:

• Drainages or sub-drainages with a prescribed amount of water availability, plus

• Stream segments with a specified slope, plus

• Stream segments that are within a specified distance from the existing electrical grid, plus


• The locations of existing small hydro applications.

The resulting map could provide an early indication of the extent and quality of small hydro opportunities. A map could be generated that classifies the opportunities into “high,” “moderate” or “low” rankings. This map could then be compared with map information for fisheries, recreation, heritage or other values to understand resource interactions.

By analyzing the interactions, it would be possible to identify tentative planning “zones” (e.g., polygon zones or linear zones of stream reaches, or individual sites) with a resource allocation and management priority for future small hydro development.

The indicators and measures that have been selected earlier in the planning process for assessing water resource and other values (e.g., indicators shown in Table 103, as well as indicators developed for other resource values) could then be used to perform an evaluation of the pros and cons of scenario alternatives. Undesirable impacts that are disclosed through the evaluation may cause planners to re-visit and adjust the scenario(s) in attempts to develop SRMPs that will result in the “optimal” outcome.

The definition of what is “optimal” is not derived using a technical methodology. Various analyses can be performed to generate and assess scenario alternatives in an effort to understand what might be considered “optimal,” but the recommended plan and the balance of pros and cons that it represents is ultimately a judgement call by SRM planners. Analyses that could be undertaken to help decide recommended management zones and resource objectives include economic analyses (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) or multi-attribute trade-off analysis. Or, custom models could be developed that attempt to define optimum flow allocations.

Introducing complex and costly analyses should only be considered in SRMP processes where opportunities for mitigating conflicts through resource integration are few and there is a requirement for significant value trade-off, or where there is a high level of controversy that can only be addressed through the provision of more detailed analyses. In most cases, the implications for water can be adequately understood through more standard multiple account analyses using the types of indicators in Table 103 and those developed for other related values such as fisheries and public recreation.

Analyzing Water-based Tourism/Recreation Opportunities To develop a SRMP that identifies tourism/recreation-oriented opportunities for water resources, it is first necessary to locate


areas with tourism and recreation significance. This might include various values such as:

• Whitewater stretches of streams;

• “Calmer” streams with potential for scenic canoe trips;

• Associated “put-in” and “take-out” sites, and overnight campsites;

• High quality beach areas;

• Areas with high quality angling opportunities; and

• Important viewscapes from water recreation routes, etc.

Obtaining good information for these types of values will quite likely be challenging. It will probably be necessary to supplement government sources with local knowledge.

Once suitable inventory maps have been obtained showing existing tourism/recreation uses and/or areas with potential to support such uses, it is necessary to compare this information with information about other resource values such as maps showing hydro power generation potential. By understanding resource interactions, it is possible to begin to develop and test land allocation and management scenarios using the same approaches described in the section above.

Water Quality Water quality may be reduced due to a number of reasons including industrial pollution, increased levels of sediment and increased water temperatures during the summer. SRM planners should review water quality data available from government databases.

First Nations Use

Some watersheds play a key role in First Nations food fisheries and are also culturally and spiritually important. SRM planners should identify First Nations use (current and historical) with input from First Nations representatives.

Commercial Fisheries

Some watersheds may support commercial fisheries and/or guided recreation fisheries. These activities may have significant economic value and should be factored into the analysis in terms of the risk or impacts that may result from various planning options (e.g., hydroelectric development and water allocation for industrial use). SRM planners should contact provincial and federal fisheries managers to obtain available information and/or request an economic analysis as part of the planning process.


Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for water management may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply across the plan area or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area

Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management guidelines and regulations, and analysis of the water-related issues identified during the issue identification step.

Table 106 provides examples of the types of water-related objectives and strategies that could potentially be developed as SRMP products.

Table 106: Examples of Water-based Objectives and Strategies


Provide opportunity for economic development uses of water resources in the locations shown on Map X and as described in Table Y80

• Utilize available volume of water identified in Table Y and shown on Map X to support economic development opportunities including licensing for: conveying, industrial, irrigation, land improvement, mineral trading, mining, and waterworks purposes (as defined in the Water Act)

• Process water licence applications according to the requirements of the Water Act and the Water Regulation

Provide opportunity for independent power production development in the locations shown on Map XX, and as described in Table YY81

• Establish reserves under the Water Act (for power project purposes), for the locations and volumes shown in Map XX and Table YY

• Licence applications for small hydro production for locations other than those shown on Map XX are accepted only where the applicant provides supporting information confirming: (1) the availability of unlicensed or unreserved water, and (2) that the proposed water use will not cause provincial in-stream flow standards (for aquatic conservation) to be exceeded, or that exceeding the standard will not damage aquatic ecosystems

80 Map X would show the location of streams or stream reaches where the economic development opportunities have been

identified; Table Y would be cross-referenced to Map X and would identify the scale of the opportunity at each location in terms of available water volume (e.g., cubic feet per second, or percent of mean annual discharge).

81 Map XX would show the locations of streams or stream reaches where the opportunity for small hydro development have been identified; Table YY would be cross-referenced to Map XX and would identify the water volume that is available at the locations identified for small hydro development.




Maintain water quality (surface, subsurface and groundwater) to support First Nations, domestic, industrial, agriculture and recreational users

• Complete sediment source mapping to identify natural sediment sources and reduce risk

• Monitor cumulative impacts of discharges into the receiving environment to ensure that provincial water quality standards are maintained

• When developments on water bodies are proposed, conduct baseline assessments to ensure that water quality will not be negatively affected

Provide continued opportunity for high quality white-water recreation and tourism experiences at the locations shown on Map XXX

• Manage water licence approvals to ensure adequate water flow to support white-water kayaking and rafting at the locations shown on Map XXX

• Consult with local white-water kayaking and rafting interests to identify opportunities for maintaining flows at times of the year/week that are critical to the white-water interests. Solutions that are identified will be incorporated as conditions into the water licence(s)

• Maintain access to white water “put in” and “take out” sites (MOF and/or licensees to consult with local kayaking and river rafting interests to address potential impacts prior to closing roads)

• LWBC to conduct a study, within 18 months of SRMP approval, to address the issue of commercial over-crowding and reduction in recreational experience in the Z Creek area. The study will result in user day limits that will apply to commercial river rafting and kayak guiding operations

The first example in Table 106 identifies where water volumes are available for future licensing for new initiatives. The value of this type of basic management direction is simply to inform potential applicants of where water volume is potentially available for economic development opportunities. SRMP planners need to confirm the availability of water flow and confirm that conflicts with other interests and values have been addressed or that a decision has been made to trade off these interests and values in favour of an economic use of water. The evaluation of potential impacts on the other interests and values would be identified through an assessment of indicators and measures for those interests and values.

The second example defines management direction for a specific economic development opportunity ― small hydro development. Specific locations and water volumes for small hydro development are identified and reserves are established under the Water Act. This type of direction in SRMPs would require an analysis of competing uses for the available water (e.g., white-water recreation) and potentially trade-off decisions where impacts from small hydro are not able to be mitigated.


The third example provides direction to maintain water quality through sediment mapping, monitoring of cumulative impacts and baseline assessments.

The fourth example shows how valuable white-water sites could potentially be addressed in a SRMP so that these sites continue to provide public and commercial recreation benefits.

The types of objectives and strategies that a SRMP contains will depend on the issues that the plan is attempting to address and the significance of the resource opportunities and values in the planning area. For example, the first two examples shown in Table 106 would be relevant only if there was unallocated water volume in planning area drainages and if committing the unallocated water volume to economic uses was acceptable from a sustainability perspective.

In some cases where water resources are high values and may be susceptible to impacts from other resource uses, it may be appropriate to designate resource management zones with specific objectives and strategies that are designed to protect these values. Examples may include community watersheds, areas that are highly sensitive to changes in water flow and areas that support critical habitats or rare ecosystems.

Once a planning scenario has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified water resource issues have been addressed. In addition, it will be important to determine whether the objectives and strategies developed to address water resource issues contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for managing water resources should consider the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 107.

Table 107: Examples of Water Resource Benefits and Impacts


• Protection of critical drinking water sources

• Access to water resources to support economic development opportunities

• Access to water resources to support recreation opportunities

• Maintenance of water quality and water flows to support fisheries and aquatic habitat requirements

• Risk of damage to fish habitat from other resource uses (e.g., over-allocation, disruption of water flow, changes in water temperature and changes in water chemistry and biology)

• Conflict over allocation of scarce water resources

• Risk to human health (i.e., water quality allocated for domestic use)

• Loss of recreation opportunity due to water allocations for other uses







Evaluat ion Water management direction (e.g., objectives and strategies, maps, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation as outlined in the sections that follow.


A socio-economic and environmental assessment (SEEA) may be required to assess the array of benefits and impacts associated with a draft plan. The SEEA should compare the anticipated impacts from proposed planning solutions with those that would likely have occurred under existing management (i.e. base case). The information is typically presented in a tabular or matrix format to facilitate the review of the information by decision makers.


Where there are significant concerns about environmental impacts, an environmental risk assessment (ERA)82 may be required. (See Appendix 3 for a description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an ERA.)

Even if an ERA or SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Table 108 provides examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for water management direction.




Table 108: General Evaluation Questions for Water Management


• How will the plan affect public safety vis-à-vis risks to drinking water?

• Will management direction for water provide additional opportunities for water-based recreation?

• How will management direction intended to address water resource issues affect First Nations values (e.g., access to fishing sites, impacts on wildlife habitat, riparian ecosystems)?

• Will the plan negatively impact water quality and flows for fish and aquatic ecosystems?

• Will management direction for water generate incremental economic benefits?


The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general resource stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Water resource planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Table 109 describes examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be evaluated in the context of water resource planning products.





To what extent does water management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?

Water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity within riparian areas


Is management direction for water management consistent with the objective of conserving water quality, fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity within riparian areas at the landscape level?




Cultural Heritage




Does management direction for water affect cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. In evaluating objectives established by regulation, it will be important to determine where multiple objectives may be achieved through a resource management objective of zone (e.g., a designated community watershed may support biodiversity, fisheries, wildlife, riparian, scenic, or cultural heritage values). Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by water management direction include:



• Visual quality objectives for scenic areas by MoF; and


The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of SRMP water management objectives with objectives set by government:











While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be directly accommodated during the planning for water resources. Table 110 lists principles that should specifically be considered.

Table 110: Governance Principles Relating to Water Management


Certainty • Provide clear direction about how water management objectives will be met


Competitiveness • Ensure that water management does not unnecessarily constrain long term economic growth

• Identify opportunities to generate economic benefits from water management


• Monitor water quality and flow results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Anticipate future risks relating to management of water resources

Integration • Look for opportunities to integrate water objectives with objectives for other resource values


• Use the best science and information available to assess water resource risks and benefits

• Use adaptive management to increase knowledge and understanding about water resource risks

Efficiency

• Look for opportunities to achieve water management objectives in conjunction with other

resource value objectives (e.g., fisheries, biodiversity, visual quality)







● timber;




● wildlife.


Table 111 identifies targets that may need to be considered in analyzing water resource planning products.

Table 111: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Water Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Do water resource planning products limit the ability to meet timber targets?

Riparian Do water resource planning products contribute to the achievement of riparian targets?

Biodiversity Do water resource planning products contribute to the achievement of biodiversity targets?

Wildlife Do water resource planning products contribute to the achievement of wildlife targets?



In evaluating whether water management direction leads to the achievement of Working Forest targets, it will be important to determine whether opportunities for the combined achievement of targets have been explored (e.g., cases where one or more biodiversity, riparian, wildlife or visual quality targets could be achieved within the same planning unit).



4.10 Wildlife

This section describes approaches for analyzing the type, location and amount of specific habitat needs for wildlife and assessing the impacts and benefits associated with wildlife objectives and strategies in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife values. (For additional analysis guidelines for wildlife refer to section 4.4 Biodiversity Resources.)

The identification and management of critical wildlife habitat is a planning issue in SRM planning. Wildlife values are important not only from an environmental perspective, but from a social and economic perspective as well. From a First Nations perspective, wildlife have traditionally provided a valuable food source and are an important ceremonial and spiritual symbol within First Nations cultures.

Issue Ident i f ica t ion Managing for wildlife requires an ecosystem management approach that includes both coarse filter and fine filter methods (see the following Selection of Analysis Tools section). Under the “coarse filter” approach the objective is to maintain ecosystems within a range of natural variability in order to sustain the species that depend on those ecosystems. Under a fine filter approach habitat requirements for species of concern (i.e., those that are threatened or provide important economic value) are identified and managed.

Table 112: Common Wildlife Planning Issues


• Maintaining wildlife to support First Nations food and ceremonial requirements

• Reconciling recreation objectives with wildlife objectives

• Managing access in critical wildlife habitat

• Access to wildlife to support country food harvest

• Maintaining ecosystems within an appropriate range of natural variability

• Maintaining habitat for priority species over time

• Managing for species at risk

• Integrating resource development objectives with wildlife objectives

• Reconciling access requirements with requirements for suitable habitat

• Sustaining wildlife populations to support economic opportunity (e.g., hunting, wildlife viewing, guide outfitting)


To address wildlife issues in SRM planning it will be important to develop objectives and strategies that address key components of coarse and fine filter biodiversity management including:

• Old Growth Forests – determine targets and distribution by landscape unit and biogeoclimatic subzone/variant

• Natural Range of Variability – determine thresholds by biogeoclimatic subzone and compare deviation from natural range.

• Connectivity – define connectivity options to enable the movement of populations and genetic material over time and space.

• Patch Size – maintain forested areas of sufficient size with adequate interior forest condition.

• Stand Level Attributes – maintain stand level attributes including Wildlife Tree Patches and desirable levels of coarse woody debris throughout the planning area.

• Species Habitat – determine how well a proposed scenario or management regime maintains species habitat availability over time.

Ind icator Se lect ion In order to evaluate how well a proposed land use plan will contribute to achieving wildlife objectives, analysis indicators are needed to determine the extent to which wildlife habitat needs are addressed. Table 113 provides examples of indicators for analyzing wildlife values.

Table 113: Examples of Indicators for Analyzing Wildlife


Species at Risk Number of red and blue species

Number of Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs)

Hectares of habitat outside of WHAs

Hectares of critical habitat available over time (habitat supply) and percent of suitable habitat remaining at discrete time periods

Determine number of species at risk in plan area and the extent to which habitat requirements are addressed


Hectares of ungulate winter range

Distribution of ungulate winter range

Determine amount and distribution of winter range across plan area


Table 113: continued


Achievement of Coarse Biodiversity Objectives

As per biodiversity resource theme (section 4.4) Degree of variation from natural disturbance patterns

Wildlife Habitat Suitability

Hectares of habitat maintained in highest suitability Determine area of suitable habitat

Wildlife Populations

Percent hunter harvest success

Wildlife populations are stable or increasing

To determine population trends

Connectivity Corridors

Hectares and percentage of corridor habitat in functioning condition (e.g., mature and old forest)

Percentage of Landscape Unit disturbed

Width and composition of corridor

If available, use critical thresholds for specific landscape metrics (e.g., perimeter-area ratio, nearest-neighbour, patch cohesion)

Determine the amount of connection habitat through time

In format ion Assembly The management and distribution of provincially funded ecosystem and wildlife habitat mapping projects is now the general responsibility of the MSRM. SRM planners should consider several avenues for sourcing available information, including:

• Projects undertaken by licensees (largely funded by the Forest Investment Account). Note – under FIA rules, government no longer fulfills a quality assurance role; therefore data sets may only be available by contacting individual licensees.

• Projects and data sets undertaken by government. A registry of projects is not current but is being updated by MSRM.

Some information sources, such as provincial red and blue listed species occurrences, available through the Conservation Data Centre (CDC), provide point source or area based data (such as a polygon). Other information sources, such as TEM with wildlife habitat ratings, provide habitat attribute data within discrete polygons.


The application of assessment indicators requires a variety of data and information types. Table 114 provides a list of information sources that may be used to conduct analysis for wildlife management.

Table 114: Information to Support Wildlife Analysis



Land Use Plan Maps

Various Provide landscape and stand-level information wildlife habitat

Moderately reliable MSRM

Provincial Red and Blue Listed Species

Various Provides species specific occurrence data

Moderately to very reliable

MSRM, CDC84

Endangered Species

Various Provides species specific occurrence data for COSEWIC listed species

Useful in determining habitat requirements and locations

CDC

Identified Wildlife Management Strategy

Species requiring legal protection under the Forest and Range Practices Act

Very reliable WLAP

Recovery Plans

Various Direction for recovery of an endangered species

Very reliable Env. Can. CWS85

Canada Land Inventory

1:50,000 and

1:250,000

Spatial distribution of potential habitat capability for ungulates and waterfowl

Moderately reliable NRC GeoGratis86

Wildlife Capability and Suitability Ratings

1:250,000 Provides spatial distribution of existing (suitability) and potential (capability) habitat for various species – see http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/whr/index.html

Reliability varies with database and spatial scale. 1:20,000 mapping is preferred

WLAP

84 The Conservation Data Centre (http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cdc/index.htm) provides information on the conservation status and

locations of BC's rare and endangered animals, plants, plant communities and record trees ('big trees'). 85 Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. See

http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca 86 See http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/CLI/index_agriculture.html





Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping (TEM)


Provides spatial representation and distribution of mature and old site series, which can be used to identify Old Growth Management Areas

Helps identify location of rare forested and grassland ecosystems

Provides database for fine filter habitat suitability models and mapping

Generally reliable

TEM database can be limited because habitat attributes necessary to model a particular species habitat requirement may not be available (e.g., crown closure, specific tree species)

See TEM web page for information and provincial coverage: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/teecolo/tem/indextem.htm

Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (PEM)


Same as above More cost-effective than TEM; but reliability varies due to inherent predictive methods. Produces maps through knowledge base development, modeling, and computer information systems (i.e., predicts site series from existing information)

See PEM web page for information and provincial coverage

Limited availability - see http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/tib/fia/pem.htm

Forest Cover Mapping and Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI)

1:20,000 In the absence of TEM/PEM (preferred), forest cover mapping can be used to provide surrogate variables. VRI data can be used to augment indicators

Forest cover mapping can provide adequate data if recently updated. Limitations exist, however, especially for defining old growth attributes using only age class.

VRI-based ecosystem mapping produces maps through knowledge base development, modeling, and computer information systems, rather than by photo interpretation

MSRM, Terrestrial Information Branchhttp://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/tib/veginv/home.htm


Table 114: Continued.



Wildlife & Suitability Ratings Based on TEM/ PEM/ VRI

1:20,000 or

1:50,000

Provides spatial distribution of existing (suitability) and potential (capability) habitat for species of concern

Together with TEM/PEM/VRI or forest cover mapping, provides the basis for identifying Ungulate Winter Range, Wildlife Management Areas, Wildlife Habitat Areas or other critical wildlife habitats

Very reliable. For suitability and capability ratings validated in accordance with Resource Information Standards Committee (RISC) Standard

WLAP/MSRM87


1:20,000 Provides areas of ungulate winter range made “known” under the FRPA

Reliable MSRM

Local Knowledge

1;10,000 to

1: 50,000

Areas of high use


Knowledge about potential construction impacts (e.g., location of bogs)



In addition to these information types, other information sources or data layers can be useful during the analysis, such as road densities (km/km2) by watershed, which can be obtained from forest cover mapping, Terrain Resource Information Management (TRIM) data, or MSRM’s Watershed Statistics. Refer to the document Land and Resource Information for British Columbia – Directory of Provincial and Federal Inventories88 for a comprehensive summary of land and resource mapping information.

Select ion of Analys is Tools Analysis in SRMPs is used to project the outcome, consequence and trade-offs associated with potential implementation of each alternative land use scenario. One of the overriding purposes of conducting an assessment of wildlife is to compare alternative management scenarios in terms of their ability to achieve stated SRMP goals for wildlife.

87 See the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Inventory web page http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rib/wis 88 Available at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/dss/rpts/Guide_to_Land_and_Resources.pdf


Identifying and managing habitat attributes of species can be conducted at two levels — coarse and fine filter. In section 4.4 (Biodiversity Resources), coarse filter strategies were presented to identify and manage for all species across the landscape.

The basis for the coarse filter approach is that all plants and animals lived amidst variable and changing conditions before the advent of broad-scale land management in the province. By approximating those conditions, the habitat for most species can be maintained, even if we don't know what they are.89 However, the coarse filter approach is limited in its ability to address species-specific management direction that may be required in the plan area. For example, management direction not addressed by the Biodiversity Guide Book, but which is required to manage caribou, relates to increased access for humans and wolves provided by roads; unnatural patch sizes; intensive and regular fire suppression; and, increased caribou/human interactions during critical life phases such as calving and late winter periods.90

The fine filter approach assumes that land managers have more detailed habitat attribute information that permits the identification of habitat elements required as part of the life history for specific species. As is the case with the coarse filter approach, the fine filter approach requires that a balance between competing species habitat needs and other forest uses, such as forest harvesting, be established.

Analyzing wildlife habitat for specific species or groups of species (fine filter) should consider the following issues:

• What are we managing for: The fine filter approach to identifying species-specific wildlife habitat should not be undertaken in isolation of the needs of all species that may occur within the plan area (coarse filter biodiversity). Identifying and managing for single species increases the risk that the habitat for other species will decline.

• Quality of information: A key challenge is understanding the relationship between available wildlife habitat data sets, the reliability of information and the type of decisions that can be made based on outputs produced from the data sets. For example, decisions made on site assessments are inherently more reliable than making decisions on habitats modeled at 1:25,000 scale.

• Know what the competing issues are: we know that wildlife populations occur independently from jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., private land/Provincial Forest). Land-use changes that

89 See http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/silstrat/habitat/habitat-overview.htm 90 Source: Mackenzie LRMP. See http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/mackenzi/final/6.htm


occur outside of the SRMP plan area may significantly affect a unit of suitable habitat (e.g., suitable ungulate winter range). For example, an objective may be to maintain ungulate winter range in its highest suitability; however, a significant portion of the ungulate winter range may be affected by other factors outside of the plan area. One common example may include ungulate winter range at the interface between private and Crown land. In many cases, the habitat may be significantly altered by housing developments. This change in habitat will affect habitat suitability (and capability) as well as long-term habitat supply.

Methods for assessing performance related to established wildlife habitat objectives should include three main components:

1. determine if important wildlife habitat exists within the plan area;

2. verify whether current or planned activities meet target objectives established for important wildlife habitats; and

3. determine if requirements specified under the Forest and Range Practices Act, as well as various forest certification standards, are being met.

Table 115 provides a range of wildlife analysis methods.

Table 115: Analysis Methods for Wildlife Related Planning Products

Analysis Tools



Wildlife Habitat Capability and Suitability

Assessment of the current condition of habitat and its ability to meet species needs under optimal natural (seral) conditions

TEM and PEM mapping

Useful for locating habitat on the landscape

Habitat is identified based on attributes (this does not mean wildlife actually use an area)

GIS Map Overlay

Overlay habitat inventory maps with other values to identify areas of potential conflict

Inventory maps for wildlife and other values (e.g., timber, range, tourism/ recreation)

Simple process for identifying areas of potential conflict

Requires accurate inventory maps



Analysis Tools



Habitat Supply Modeling

Provides information about the value of the habitat for an organism or organizational entity (e.g., old growth using species, ecosystem) relative to various forest management conditions

Seral stage data or forest cover age classes

Useful for evaluating and comparing alternative land use scenarios

Type of model platform used is dependent on the established objectives --consult expert modelers when considering the application of habitat supply to a SRMP

Spatially Explicit Population Models (SEPMs)

SEPMs can be applied to understand species responses to management at the landscape scale

Habitat-specific information about dispersal behavior demography, and habitat selection

Provide valuable information to inform the decision-making process

Types of data required are rarely available for risk assessment purposes

Mapping Maps identifying conflict areas and conflict free areas




Can be cumbersome if map scales are too large or information is too detailed

Expert Opinion

Elicit expert opinion on potential impact associated with management options from one or more domain experts

Clearly defined questions for expert analysis

Provides analytical results in the absence of empirical research

May be competing expert opinions

The choice of analysis tools selected is directly dependent on objectives for the plan area and available data sets that depict wildlife habitat attributes. Data sets may include Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping, Predictive Ecosystem Mapping, Vegetation Resource Inventory or other surrogates, such as site series information derived from Silviculture Plans or Site Plans. Two of the most common approaches to identifying current and future wildlife habitats are wildlife habitat suitability and wildlife habitat supply.

Wildlife Habitat Capability and Suitability Habitat capability is defined as the ability of the habitat, under the optimal natural (seral) conditions for a species, to provide its life requisites irrespective of the current condition of the habitat. Habitat suitability is defined as the ability of the habitat in its current condition to provide the life requisites of a species. It is an


estimate of how well current habitat conditions provide the specified life requisite(s) of the species being considered. The suitability of the land is frequently less than the capability because of unfavourable seral conditions.91 The difference between capability and suitability creates opportunities for habitat management.92

Suitability and capability are based on species-habitat models comprising a species account and ratings table. The capability and suitability are assigned to a structural stage of each unique ecosystem in a project area. Therefore, ecosystem maps such as TEM or PEM are required.

The habitat suitability (or habitat supply) approach is an appropriate indicator of biological sustainability because it identifies specific vegetation attributes that are required to optimize habitat conditions for species over time. In the context of SRMPs, this approach can be used to evaluate current habitat conditions (or suitability).

Three software tools have been developed to facilitate the process of generating interpreted themes from TEM and PEM products.93 These software tools comprise the Ecosystem-based Resource Mapping (ERM) System and are described and available below.

• A ratings table tool has been developed to assist biologists in developing wildlife habitat ratings tables. This tool ensures that data is captured and stored according to the BC Wildlife Habitat Rating Standards and thus will be accessible through the provincial data warehouse.

• A modeling tool has been developed to assist biologists in populating ratings tables. It provides definitions, concepts and structure to document the decisions and automate the process. Users of this modeling tool are cautioned that currently there are no standards describing how this tool must be used. However, the user's guide provides a rigorous method.

• A mapping tool has been developed to apply the ratings to an ecosystem map. Users of this mapping tool are cautioned that there are no standards for mapping wildlife habitat ratings.

Both the ratings table tool and the mapping tool have been developed for two platforms: (1) ArcView and desktop, and (2) ArcINFO Workstation. The ArcINFO workstation tools tend to have less functionality.

91 http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/teecolo/whrs/index.htm 92 http://www.forrex.org/jem/2002/vol2/no2/art6.pdf 93 http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/whr/sta.html


Habitat Supply Modeling Habitat supply is simply the quantity of the habitat present within a given area. Habitat supply may involve a composite description of the quantity of habitat in terms of the organism of concern (e.g., habitat suitability rating for mule deer) or simply an individual component (e.g., number of standing dead trees over 25 centimetres in diameter). A description may also be related to a seasonal life stage or element habitat requirement of an organism (e.g., winter range, reproductive and food source). Habitat supply excludes animal population dynamics (e.g., prey-predator relationships).94

Habitat supply modeling is the representation or projection of a descriptor of habitat supply. A habitat supply model takes as input information about descriptors of the composition, structure and arrangement of the abiotic and vegetative component of a particular land base (i.e., habitat) and interprets these descriptors into an output that provides information about the value of the habitat for an organism or another organizational entity (e.g., old growth using species, ecosystem).

Habitat supply models predict habitat quantity for a given area at future intervals relative to other forest management activities (e.g., timber harvesting). They may interpret an existing inventory to provide information for decision makers. Habitat supply models connected to forest management models (e.g., forest growth or forest estate models) can provide information on the impacts of management decisions that are manipulated within the forest management models.

When proposing to undertake habitat supply modeling, it is important to understand that the type of model platform used is dependent on the established objectives. Therefore, when considering the application of habitat supply to SRMPs, the proponent should consult with expert modelers.

Analys is o f Resul ts Planning products for wildlife management may include general management direction objectives and strategies that apply across the plan area, or spatially explicit objectives and strategies that apply to a specific resource management zone. Planning products should reflect the various combinations of biophysical and socio-economic factors specific to the particular SRMP area. Realistically, objectives should not be established until wildlife habitats have been analyzed in the plan area. Many wildlife-

94 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/silstrat/pdffiles/habitat-supply-modeling.pdf


related planning products are driven by the need to support implementation of the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Objectives and strategies may be developed based on direction from existing strategic land use plans (e.g., LRMPs), FRPA objectives set by government, relevant resource management guidelines and regulations, and analysis of the wildlife-related issues identified during the issue identification step.

Table 116 provides examples of wildlife related objectives and strategies that are appropriate products from SRMPs.95

Table 116: Examples of Wildlife Habitat Planning Products


Maintain critical habitat components for rare and endangered species

Obtain occurrences of species at risk from the Conservation Data Centre

Maintain critical habitats

Allow motorized vehicle use on designated trails and existing roads where there is no potential for erosion or degradation of heritage values

Avoid linking with the Southland and Pita Forest Service Road systems to facilitate conservation enforcement between wildlife management areas

Minimize access restrictions on all road classes

Within known ungulate winter range, maintain or increase habitat suitability by providing a balance of snow interception cover and forage

At all times, maintain a minimum of 40% of winter range area in age class 8 (>140 years) or greater, and a crown closure of >56%

Maintain species specific wildlife habitat in its highest potential suitability

Ensure that x hectares of high suitability habitat for grizzly are managed to support habitat features and minimize human disturbance

Maintain 70% old and mature forest in high suitability caribou winter range as shown on Map X

Maximize habitat effectiveness in areas known or suspected to support species that are affected by resource roads

Develop access management strategies within entire landscape units or portions of landscape units providing high suitability (e.g. road density to 0.6km/km2)

In areas with critical wildlife habitat that is susceptible to disturbance from other resource uses, it may be appropriate to establish resource

95 Refer to MSRM’s “Guide to Writing Resource Objectives in Sustainable Resource Management Planning”, available at

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/srmp/background/writing_objectives.htm


management zones with specific objectives and strategies that are designed to protect the important wildlife values. Objectives and strategies may include limits on access and on various types of resource use, such as grazing and timber harvesting.

Once a planning scenario has been developed, it will need to be analyzed to determine the extent to which identified wildlife issues have been addressed. In addition, it will be important to determine whether the objectives and strategies developed to address wildlife issues contribute to the sustainability of all resource values and provide an optimal balance of benefits and impacts. Analysis of proposed objectives and strategies for wildlife should consider the extent to which benefits have been achieved and impacts have been avoided as indicated in Table 117.

Table 117: Examples of Wildlife Benefits and Impacts


• Maintain or increase wildlife habitat

• Maintain or increase habitat for species of concern

• Economic, social and cultural benefits associated with wildlife

• Loss of habitat for species of concern and corresponding impact on populations

• Impacts associated with access into critical wildlife habitat (e.g., illegal hunting)

• Reduction of hunting and guide-outfitter quotas as a result of population declines

• Impacts on First Nations traditional use of wildlife due to population declines

One of the key requirements in developing planning products for wildlife will be to balance habitat needs with other competing uses. In assessing impacts of planning scenarios for wildlife, it will be important to consider possible trade-offs with other resource values to achieve an optimal balance of benefits. It will also be important to look for opportunities where multiple objectives can be achieved through a single planning product (e.g., critical wildlife habitat may also contribute to old growth targets, support cultural heritage values or visual quality goals). Table 118 provides an example of some of the trade-offs that may need to be considered between wildlife and other values.


Table 118: Balancing Wildlife Habitat Needs and Other Competing Uses

Wildlife Habitat

• Establishing priority species within a plan area. Based primarily on risk (e.g., species at risk)

• Developing strategies to maximize habitat potential for priority species over time.

• How will management of priority species affect management for biodiversity, timber supply, etc.?

Access

• Relationship between suitable habitat and road location

• Appropriate strategies where conflict may occur

• Roads required for industrial and recreational activity

• Once roads are constructed, public may have an expectation of use

Industrial Activities

• What influence do the planned activities have on habitat availability and habitat use?

• How can planned activities improve habitat conditions?

Recreation

• Access strategies implemented for wildlife habitat protection will affect recreational access to fish and wildlife

• Directing industrial activity away from higher risk wildlife habitats may result in new conflicts arising with other resource users

Traditional Uses/Cultural Heritage

• Selection of priority wildlife species may be inconsistent with traditional uses

Evaluat ion Management direction for wildlife (e.g., objectives and strategies, maps, implementation and monitoring direction) should on balance provide benefits over current management and should be consistent with previously approved strategic land use plans and relevant policy and legislation (e.g., SRMP Standards, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Working Forest Policy). Prior to approval, plans will need to be evaluated to determine overall benefits and ensure consistency with policy and legislation as outlined in the sections that follow.








An environmental risk assessment (ERA)96 may be required to assess the wildlife risks of a draft plan. (See Appendix 3 for a description of the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an ERA.) Alternatively, in the case of a comprehensive plan a full SEEA may be required. An SEEA should compare the anticipated impacts from proposed planning solutions with those that would likely have occurred under existing management (i.e., base case). The information is typically presented in a tabular or matrix format to facilitate the review of the information by decision makers. (See section 2.6.1 and Appendix 2 for additional detail on the process for conducting and interpreting the results of an SEEA.)

Even if an ERA or SEEA is not needed, it will still be important to provide an evaluation of the broad impacts and benefits provided by the draft plan. Table 119 provides examples of questions to be considered in an evaluation of impacts for wildlife management direction.

Table 119: General Evaluation Questions for Wildlife


• How will the plan affect opportunities for public recreation (e.g., hunting)?

• How will the plan affect opportunities for country food harvest?

• How will the plan affect First Nations cultural heritage values (e.g., protection of wildlife values)?

• Will the plan result in increases or improvements to wildlife habitat?

• Will the plan help reduce risks for wildlife species of concern?

• Will the plan create incremental economic benefits in relation to wildlife (e.g., guide outfitting, tourism, trapping)

• What are the cost impacts of biodiversity management direction to other resource values?


The Forest and Range Practices Act specifies general resource stewardship requirements relating to forest and range management. Wildlife planning products should consider the inherent risk of the values being addressed. Low-risk situations




could rely upon objectives in FRPA and hence not be required in the SRMP. High-risk situations may require a higher level of protection or additional management direction. Table 120 shows examples of objectives set by government under FRPA regulation that should be evaluated in the context of wildlife planning products.





To what extent does wildlife management direction limit the ability to achieve timber objectives?

Water, Fish, Wildlife and Biodiversity within Riparian Areas


Do wildlife planning products meet the intent of conserving wildlife habitat within riparian areas at the landscape level?





Does management direction for wildlife conserve sufficient wildlife habitat to support survival of species as per wildlife objective?

Cultural Heritage




Does management direction for wildlife affect cultural heritage values as per cultural heritage objective?

In addition to ensuring consistency with FRPA objectives in regulation, it will also be important to determine whether designations and objectives that are enabled by regulation have been established. In evaluating objectives established by regulation, it will be important to determine where multiple objectives may be achieved through a resource management objective or zone (e.g., a designated community watershed may


support scenic, fisheries, wildlife, riparian or cultural heritage values). Enabled designations and objectives that could be affected by wildlife management direction include:



• Established categories of “regionally important species” where species are important to a region of BC and may be adversely impacted by forest or range practices by WLAP;

• General wildlife measures (GWM) for specified areas and categories of “species at risk” by WLAP; and


The following questions should be asked when testing the consistency of SRMP wildlife objectives with objectives set by government:











While the 10 Governance Principles are generally addressed at the collective SRMP level of planning, some principles can be directly accommodated during the planning for wildlife. Table 121 shows principles that should specifically be considered.

Table 121: Governance Principles Relating to Wildlife Management


Certainty • Provide clear direction about how biodiversity objectives will be met.

• Identify where additional information is needed to make informed decisions

Competitiveness • Ensure that biodiversity management does not unnecessarily constrain long term economic growth


• Monitor biodiversity results on a regular basis and look for opportunities to improve results

• Encourage innovation to achieve biodiversity results

• Anticipate future risks relating to biodiversity resources

Integration • Look for opportunities to integrate biodiversity objectives with objectives for other resource values


• Use the best science and information available to assess biodiversity risks/benefits

• Use adaptive management to increase knowledge and understanding about biodiversity risks

Efficiency

• Look for opportunities to achieve biodiversity objectives in conjunction with other

resource value objectives (e.g., cultural heritage, visual quality, recreation)








● timber;




● wildlife.


Table 122 identifies targets that may need to be considered in analyzing wildlife planning products.

Table 122: Working Forest Targets to Consider in Wildlife Management

Resource Value Analysis Questions Timber Do wildlife planning products limit the ability to meet timber targets?

Riparian Do wildlife planning products contribute to the achievement of riparian targets?

Biodiversity Do wildlife planning products contribute to the achievement of biodiversity targets?

Wildlife Does the overall plan (including wildlife planning products) contribute to the achievement of wildlife targets?

In evaluating whether wildlife management direction leads to the achievement of Working Forest targets, it will be important to determine whether opportunities for the combined achievement of targets have been explored (e.g., cases where one or more of wildlife, biodiversity, riparian or visual quality targets could be achieved within the same planning unit).


Resource Analysis Guide For Sustainable Resource Management

Planning Volume 2: Appendices

Forests, Lands and Marine Branch Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

December 2004

Appendices for Resource Analysis Guide for SRM Planning i

Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i

Appendix 1 Examples of Computer Models for Planning .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Appendix 2 Conduct ing and Determining the Results of a Socio-economic and

Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Appendix 3 Conduct ing and Determining the Results of an Environmental Risk

Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix 4 Ensuring Consistency wi th the Forest and Range Pract ices Act . . . . . . 23 Appendix 5 Determining SRMP Level of Complexi ty: Focused versus

Comprehensive SRMPs .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix 6 Methods for Undertaking Implementat ion and Effect iveness

Monitor ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendix 7 Recreat ion Opportuni ty Spectrum .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix 8 Visual Qual i ty Object ives Rating for Backcountry Tour ism .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix 9 Examples of Analysis Methods for Backcountry Tourism Products . . . 41 Appendix 10 Decis ion Analys is and Report ing Tool (DART) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix 11 Coarse and Fine Fi l ter Habitat Supply Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Appendix 12 Provincial Her i tage Register Database .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendices for Resource Analysis Guide for SRM Planning 1

Appendix 1 Examples of Computer Models for Planning This appendix describes various computer models that may be used to support resource analysis in sustainable resource management planning.

Forest Service Simulator (FSSIM) Timber Supply Model FSSIM is used by the BC government to forecast how the forest changes, decade by decade, over long time horizons (typically 250 years) in response to different harvest levels and management actions and requirements.

The model describes how different parts of the forest grow and how they are expected to respond to changes, such as timber harvesting. It categorizes areas according to whether or not they are available for timber harvesting and what kinds of management requirements might be applied to the areas. This makes it possible to compare how alternative management strategies affect forest structure and timber production over time.

FSSIM cannot model spatial relationships explicitly, such as stand adjacency, because it has no information about which stands are adjacent. Instead, proxies, such as number of harvest passes, are used to approximate spatial management requirements. These proxies may over- or under-estimate the true effect of these requirements, depending on the spatial structure of the forest and the history of logging.

Landscape Models Landscape models depict when, where and how landscapes will change in response to land use scenarios. Unlike FSSIM which is spatially implicit, landscape models are spatially explicit (i.e., they directly model where changes occur on the land base in order to estimate changes in forest age and structure and implications for related economic and environmental values).

Landscape models combine maps (and related data) of current forest conditions with formal predictions about the consequences of land management activities and ecological processes to create “projected maps” of the future forest. Landscape models typically simulate landscape change over a period of approximately 200 to 500 years (the “planning horizon”).

There are a number of landscape models available for forest planning. Each has a specific approach to modeling landscape condition over time (absolute versus probabilistic, simulation versus optimization, etc). Some will be more suited to SRMPs than others. Landscape models can be very complex. Technical

Append ix 1 Example Compute r Mode ls fo r P lann ing


experts are often needed to run the model and domain experts are required to interpret outputs, adding to the cost of the process. Things to consider when choosing a landscape model are:

• Does this model address our questions?

• Can it address the range of resources of concern?

• Who can use the model?

• Does it require special expertise to run the model and interpret outputs and are the resources available for this?

Landscape models are most suited to resource analysis of timber, biodiversity and habitat supply, although they may be applied to any resource that is affected by changes in landscape pattern.

Habitat Models Habitat models apply current knowledge about the ecology of species by linking life requirements to quantifiable attributes on the land. For example, a model for northern goshawk might rate the condition of the land based on a combination of variables related to the suitability of nesting habitat, such as stand height, canopy closure, tree species, and amount of edge. Linking the quality and supply of habitat to land-based conditions allows planning teams to assess the implications for species as a result of land management scenarios.

Because the variables used in habitat modelling can change over time (e.g., trees grow, amount of forest edge changes with logging and subsequent regeneration), it is possible to build in models of successional processes to show how habitat suitability changes over time. When adequate information is available linking habitat supply to wildlife populations, it is also possible to use these models to predict trends in populations over time.

Habitat supply models can vary in complexity from simple look-up tables to complex spatio-temporal analyses. Planning teams, including domain experts and analysts, can work together to identify the appropriate approach to modeling the indicators for each species, including the level of complexity required.

A summary of various models and modeling approaches used to assess habitat supply is contained in “A Strategy for Habitat Supply Modeling for British Columbia. Draft Volume II. - Appendices” (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/silstrat/habitat/habitat-docs.htm#hsmbc)

Visual Landscape Model ing The Ministry of Forests employs 3-D terrain modelling software to portray the visual impact of forest harvesting. The computer program is capable of producing photorealistic terrain modeling, visualization, rendering, and animation. Perspective view images

Append ix 1 Example Compute r Mode ls fo r P lann ing


depicting proposed clearcuts, partial cuts, and roads can be created from a number of viewpoints. Accurate visual simulation of proposed forest harvesting is important to assure that established visual quality objectives are met.

Custom-designed Models It is possible to custom-design models to address specific problems. For example, the West Babine SRMP used a simple spatial model to assess the implications of road development on grizzly bears and timber accessibility. However, it may take time to develop and finesse even a simple model and this should be factored into decisions on which analytical tool to select.


Appendix 2 Conducting and Determining the Results of a Socio-economic and Environmental Assessment

This appendix provides an overview of the SEEA framework and data sources and discusses the scope and timing of SEEA. A more detailed description of the process for conducting and interpreting SEEA is provided at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/ecdev/docs/GuidingPrinciples.pdf

Appendix Table 1: SEEA Frames, Techniques and Indicators

Frame Analysis Techniques Indicators

Economic Development

Economic activity Direct, indirect & induced employment in Person Years (PYs); wage and salary levels; employment income; Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Net Resource Value Benefit-cost analysis For commercial sectors: economic rent - revenues less production costs + typical profit; in addition, any estimated economic rent captured by labour For non-commercial sectors: estimation of consumer surplus (what people would be willing to pay for enjoyment/preservation of a recreational activity or environmental amenity) and environmental and health damage costs

Social Social impact Population; infrastructure; employment duration; job quality; qualitative stakeholder preferences

First Nations Social and heritage impact Cultural heritage inventory changes; qualitative First Nations preferences

Government Finances Fiscal impact Revenues (taxes, royalties, etc.); expenditures

Environmental Values Environmental impact Risk levels and qualitative measures of outcomes on key environmental indicators; estimates of monetary values where possible to compare with the Net Resource Value account

When undertaking a SEEA within a SRMP context, it is preferable that the analyst devotes some effort to researching each frame, at least to some level of coverage.

Append ix 2 Conduc t ing and Dete rmin ing the Resu l t s o f a Soc io -economic Env i ronmenta l Assessment


It is recognized that the Net Resource Value frame is often difficult to address because:

• Benefit-cost analysis techniques require the involvement of a qualified analyst, and

• Satisfactory data is often not available.1

To overcome the second barrier, a reasonable Net Resource Value analysis can often be conducted by adapting existing data items, such as standard revenue and cost estimates from Building Blocks (see below) and Appraisal Manuals and harvesting and visitation estimates from local experts, such as woodland managers and lodge owners. This data is not “perfect” but offers a better alternative than going with no Net Resource Value information. Excluding the Net Resource Value frame from a SEEA means that economic efficiency information is likely to receive little or no attention in SRM decision-making.

Deciding the Scope of a SEEA The first task in undertaking a SEEA is to determine the scope of the analysis2, which requires answering a few basic questions as shown in the following decision tree.

1 In certain situations, MSRM expects businesses and industry associations with interests in a SRM planning area to provide some support to the plan making process. One area where they can contribute is by supplying basic data to facilitate estimation of Net Resource Values.

2 Pre-supposing that a SEEA is necessary. A SEEA may not be needed. SRM planners should consult with staff in MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Development Branch to determine whether a SEEA is required.



Appendix Figure 1 SEEA Decision Tree

Comprehensive SEEA – All important resource values covered by the plan would be analyzed within the framework specified in Socio-Economic and Environmental Assessment for Land and Resource Management Planning in British Columbia: Guiding Principles and Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment for Land and Resource Management Planning in British Columbia. The SEEA would likely include a socio-economic profile of the plan area and adjacent areas that the plan directly impacts. It would also likely include an analysis of two distinct scenarios for the SRMP area. A comprehensive SEEA, with its broad analysis approach, is primarily suited for enhanced SRMPs.

SEEA was undertaken for an LRMP that covers the SRMP area, and is viewed as reasonably current?

Comprehensive SEEA is likely not required





SRMP scenario

Yes No

Focused SEEA, highlighting resource

values and plan sub-areas of most

interest


anticipated socio- economic results

for SRMP scenario

Yes No

No

Comprehensive SEEA should be

undertaken

Focused SEEA, highlighting resource values and plan sub-areas of most interest

Yes

A broad SEEA approach is required; there are several contentious issues at play

Yes No



Focused SEEA – Only resource use values that are proving difficult to reconcile within the SRM planning process would be analyzed in a focused SEEA. An analyst would use MSRM’s SEEA guidelines to structure a focused SEEA, which provides succinct and abbreviated analysis. It would include an analysis of alternative scenarios (or at least alternative development situations3). The output of a focused SEEA would contribute to decision-making on how to best reconcile the conflicting uses under study.4 A focused SEEA approach could be applied to either enhanced or compact SRMP.

Condensed SEEA – Analysis in a condensed SEEA would be limited to projecting social and economic impacts of the SRMP and its management directions. It would not compare alternative scenarios; the focus would be on one scenario comprising the draft management directions. It would contain a brief description of current socio-economic conditions in the study area, highlighting the main drivers of resource based economic activity. Thus a condensed SEEA is most suitable for a compact SRMP, which is limited to management of relatively fewer resource issues. An analyst preparing a condensed SEEA would rely on Building Block information and the Resource Analysis of the SRMP planning team for quantitative information and would not attempt to undertake new quantitative analysis. The main purpose of the SEEA would be to demonstrate how the SRMP supports or harms current and short-term economic activity and value and if harm is anticipated, recommend some mitigation options. Because a condensed SEEA will require less preparation time, its completion can be coordinated with the completion of the compact SRMP draft.

Who conducts the SEEA? One approach is to contract a consulting economist to prepare a SEEA. A qualified economist will have the appropriate skills to tackle the Net Resource Value analyses. They will also be perceived as independent. The second choice is for a BC

3 For example, comparing option values for use of two distinct sets of resources within the same geographical area. 4 The classic case in BC of difficult to reconcile resource value use is timber harvesting versus wilderness tourism. An MOF study

(Forest Practices Branch. December 2002. “The Benefits of Managing Forestry and Tourism at Nimmo Bay”. BC Ministry of Forests) is an example where a net resource value approach was taken to compare alternative management scenarios that dealt with possible conflicts between managing for timber harvesting and tourism at a nearby wilderness resort. The researchers estimated and compared economic rents from five scenarios, which were based on different timber harvesting prescriptions and perceptions of lodge visitors and employees about different viewscape impacts. Another example is presented in the SEEA conducted for the Besa-Prophet area of the Muskwa-Kechika (BriMar Consultants Ltd. August 2002. “Socio-Economic Assessment of the Besa-Prophet Pre-Tenure Plan”. BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management). The consultant focused on net resource value analyses of natural gas exploration/development and recreation use option values, examining economic value trade-offs between the two that are likely to arise if the area’s natural gas resources are explored and developed.



Government economist to undertake a SEEA. The third choice is for the planners who are preparing the SRMP to conduct the SEEA. MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Development Branch can supply a list of qualified consulting economists.

Timing for SEEA Work SEEA work may be required early in the SRMP process to work out issues associated with resource management conflicts. Or, the SEEA may wait until the end of the SRMP process when only a condensed SEEA is needed. Thinking can be done at this point on how new economic and social information can contribute to decisions that planners expect to make in devising and applying resource objectives.

It is always desirable to prepare terms of reference for a SEEA, setting explicit research priorities and boundaries to guide the consultant(s). The work of planners in devising terms of reference will have a significant impact on the utility of SEEA products; the planners need to make explicit their SEEA needs.5

When should a SEEA be started? The answer depends on whether a comprehensive, focused or condensed SEEA is planned.

Comprehensive SEEA – The timing of a comprehensive SEEA should be structured similar to the following Table.

5 SRMP planners should consult with staff in MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Development Branch while drafting a terms of

reference and reviewing draft SEEA reports. As well, completed terms of reference and SEEA reports should be filed with MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Development Branch.



Appendix Table 2: Timing Outline for a Comprehensive SEEA

Planning Steps Socio-Economic Input to Planning

Preliminary Organization and Plan Initiation After considering Resource Analysis and identifying key SRMP issues, select SEEA approach (comprehensive, focused or condensed)

Five months prior to submission of SRMP Prepare terms of reference (TOR) using templates6, assemble SEEA steering committee, consult with MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Development Branch re draft TOR, develop distribution list for TOR, issue TOR to distribution list, and develop decision-making criteria for selecting consultants

Three months prior to submission of SRMP Award contract to consultant(s) to undertake SEEA

Two months prior to submission of SRMP Review consultant(s) interim report on SEEA

One month prior to submission of SRMP Review draft SEEA report

Month prior to submission of SRMP Integrate results of SEEA into proposed SRM plan

Focused SEEA – A focused SEEA should be timed to offer information for decision-making as resource objectives are being finalized. This situation suggests that a focused SEEA should start soon after a Resource Analysis is conducted for the resource use values and plan sub-area(s) in question. The focused SEEA should be an integral piece in plan development and should not await the plan evaluation stage. Approximately four months should be allocated for a focused SEEA: two months to establish a terms of reference and select a consultant and two months for a consultant to research and submit a draft report.

Condensed SEEA – A condensed SEEA is primarily a descriptive product and will require less preparation time. Its completion can be coordinated with completion of the SRMP. Although a condensed SEEA will require about 12-15 consulting days, six to eight weeks should be allocated for selected consultants to prepare it. Another three weeks will be needed to prepare a suitable terms of reference and select a consultant, longer if a competition is staged to award the contract.

6 Available from MSRM’s Sustainable Resource Development Branch.



Cost to Conduct a SEEA SEEA cost will depend upon its scope and depth.

• Comprehensive SEEA – in the range of $20-25,000 in consulting fees plus travel expenses.

• Focused SEEA – in the range of $12-15,000 in consulting fees plus travel expenses.

• Condensed SEEA – in the range of $10,000 in consulting fees. No travel should be needed for a condensed SEEA.

The cost of a focused or condensed SEEA is highly dependent on the availability of viable information from secondary sources. If data must be developed from primary sources, such as tourism or forestry operator surveys, then the above-suggested costs are likely to be higher.

Data Sources for SEEAs • Building Blocks MSRM has developed a tool, referred to as economic “Building Blocks”, which provides information for socio-economic and economic development analysis. Each Building Block describes a resource-based economic activity as carried out in BC. They are assembled from secondary sources such as reports and anecdotal insights from industry experts.

Building Blocks provide a snapshot of the financial and operational characteristics of an ‘average’ business/operation and the characteristics and regulation of the resources that it relies on. They are written and organized so that qualitative and quantitative information can be extracted and applied in analysis exercises.

As well as providing an information source for SEEA, planners can use Building Blocks to improve their understanding of resource and infrastructure requirements of economic activities that are or could be located in the plan area. For example, Building Block information could be incorporated into their thinking on design of resource objectives and their application to particular areas. They can also be used in SRM plan meetings and presentations to inform plan stakeholders and other interested parties about key economic and regulatory relationships between business activities and resources.7

Table 3 provides an outline of Building Block content.

7 See Socio-Economic Analysis Building Blocks at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/ecdev/analysis/building_blocks.htm



Appendix Table 3: Building Block Outline

Elements What is Covered

Overview Brief description of the economic activity covered by the building block (sector/sub-sector/economic sphere) Identification of the geographic unit/area that the building block is restricted to

• The business that uses the resource • The associated businesses that provide materials and other direct

inputs into the business that uses the resources • The geographic area over which the building block would be

considered representative (i.e., the economic activity identified in the building block might vary significantly in the interior versus the coast – in such cases there may be a need to develop two building blocks for the same economic activity)

Coast/Land Resource Requirements/Sensitivities Overview of the coast and land resource inputs that are needed to support the economic activities

• Typically will consider Crown resources that must be accessible and usable to support the business. May include: rangeland; viewscapes; foreshore access; critical thresholds (level of resource use); and complementary/conflicting relationships with other resource values

Investment Requirements Provides a general overview of the level of investment required to start and maintain the business

• Start-up costs • Ongoing costs

• Future capital requirements (improvements, etc.)

Infrastructure Overview of the physical infrastructure that the businesses depend on

• Transportation • Energy • Communications, etc.

Market Overview of the general market for the products and services produced

• Location of the market (domestic/export)

• Access to the market (access costs, other market barriers) • Market demand

Labour Market Overview of general labour market requirements and benefits associated with the businesses represented by the building block

• Skill requirements • Wage rates (annual)

• Employment generated (person years) • Seasonality/intensity of the job (hours/year)



Appendix Table 3: Continued

Capacity Potential/capacity for growth/expansion given status quo

• Resource availability

Regulatory Regime Overview of the nature of the regulatory regime that governs activity within the business represented by the building block or the use of resources that the business depends upon

• Time generally taken to gain approval for use of resources or for the business

• General restrictiveness of the regulatory regime • Opportunities offered by the regulatory regime relative to

competitors

Government Revenues Overview of the types of government revenues generated

• Provincial revenues and where appropriate municipal and other revenues

Indicators Table Overview of inputs and outputs • Inputs required to support the economic activity

• Outputs resulting from the economic activities • Ratios showing economic activity/resource consumption

relationships, e.g. economic indicators (such as employment) per unit of consumed/produced resource

• Table supported by a brief discussion of critical thresholds affecting business viability and limits to growth

An analyst undertaking a SEEA could possibly extract the following pieces of information from a Building Block.

Economic Development frame – employment and income multipliers; employment per unit of consumed resource ratios; employment income levels; market drivers and success factors

Net Resource Value frame – cost of production; revenue per unit of consumed resource or production

Social frame – skill requirements and levels; seasonality

Government Finances frame– types of government revenue

• Other Data Sources for SEEA Other important data sources for conducting SEEAs are shown in Table 4.



Appendix Table 4: Other Data Sources for SEEA

Data Type Document Source

Regional Multipliers & Local Area Economic Dependencies

BC Local Area Economic Dependencies & Impact Ratios – 1996: BC STATS, 1999.

BC STATS

Provincial Multipliers from BC Input-Output Model

BC Provincial Economic Multipliers & How to Use Them: BC STATS, 2001. For a nominal sum, Statistics Canada sells a range of direct and indirect expenditure multipliers by industry and province.

BC STATS Statistics Canada

Timber Supply & Socio-Economic Analyses for Timber Supply Areas

Timber Supply Reviews http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tsb/tsr2/tsr2.htm

Ministry of Forests

SEEAs for Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs)

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp MSRM

Allowable Annual Cut Decisions by the Provincial Chief Forester

Allowable Annual Cut Rationale Statements Ministry of Forests

Census data on population, labour force, and other demographic variables

See http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca Statistics Canada and/or BC STATS

Regional and community profiles See http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/sep BC STATS

Data on Mineral Occurrences MINFILE Database MEM

Provincial Tourism Indicators See http://www.hellobc.com Tourism BC

Existing Tourism Use and Opportunities

Tourism Opportunities Studies MSRM

Agricultural Statistics Census of Agriculture Statistics Canada

Listings of Endangered Species Tracking Lists Conservation Data Centre, MWLAP




Data Type Document Source

Mapped Resource Values Maps of Existing and Potential Values for most Economic and Environmental Resources

MSRM and other Ministries

Source: adapted from Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment for Land and Resource Management Planning in British Columbia, November 2001.

A starting point in undertaking a SEEA is to take the Resource Analysis information and translate it into indicator data, such as person-years of employment, which are inputs to the various socio-economic analyses, such as economic activity analysis.

Assessing Incremental Impacts • Baseline In setting up a SEEA, the analyst should assemble a Baseline impact projection to compare against the SRMP impact projection.

The Baseline is current management directions and rules projected into the future. It is a “what if” analysis exercise and is a yardstick with which to gauge incremental impacts.

The incremental differences between the Baseline and the SRMP Scenario should be portrayed neutrally. SRMP planners and stakeholders will take the output of the SEEA and feed it into their own decision-making frameworks.

• No Approved Regional or Sub-regional Plan If a broader plan is not in place or that plan is judged as no longer relevant, a SRMP process may involve more than one scenario. In this situation, the SEEA would qualitatively and quantitatively estimate incremental differences in social, environmental and economic indicators between the alternative scenarios and a Baseline.

• Focused SEEA Situation There will likely be many situations where planners create and discuss alternative management directions/strategies for certain resource values in certain areas as they are developing a package of management directions for the SRMP area. Through discussion and sharing of available resource value information, most of these situations will be refined into a single agreed upon scenario. However, certain situations may evolve into conflicts between stakeholders and/or intense negotiations. For example, the subject of negotiation could be access into a high quality timber harvesting area where a nearby wilderness resort operator



is concerned about reduction of the wilderness experience. Planners could devise a few alternative access scenarios specific to this situation but each will have different social and economic implications. A SEEA applied to these access management scenarios could develop information that feeds into a decision-making process. In this type of situation, the aforementioned “focused SEEA” is likely to be appropriate.


Appendix 3 Conducting and Determining the Results of an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA)

ERA is a science-based, transparent approach to assessing the implications of plan scenarios on environmental values.

Steps in Environmental Risk Assessment The following table summarizes the steps in ERA. Note that Steps 1 – 3 are the same steps that are undertaken in standard resource analysis. ERA goes further by identifying critical thresholds and risk classes (Step 4) and linking those to the magnitude and likelihood of impacts (Step 5). Steps 4 and 5 are described below in more detail. The final product allows planning teams to assess proposed management strategies with an understanding of the potential impacts on selected ecological indicators.

This approach is outlined in more detail in the document ‘Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA): an Approach for Assessing and Reporting Environmental Conditions’ (MELP 2000).8

Appendix Table 5: Steps in Environmental Assessment

Step 1 Establish context for ERA, e.g., scope of assessment data needs

Step 2 Identify cause-effect linkages, e.g. road access and wildlife mortality

Step 3 Specify key environmental values and identify indicators, e.g., seral stage distribution

Step 4 Identify critical thresholds and define risk classes, e.g., range of natural variability

Step 5 Determine magnitude and likelihood of impacts Assess degree of risk (very low-very high), e.g., computer modelling, GIS, professional judgement

Step 6 Report results and develop risk reduction strategies, e.g., identify mitigation measures

8 http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/era.pdf

Append ix 3 Conduc t ing and Dete rmin ing the Resu l t s o f an Env i ronmenta l R isk Assessment


Identifying Critical Thresholds and Risk Classes Risk assessment involves identifying “how much is enough” (i.e., how much can an ecosystem be changed before the effects on that ecosystem and the species it supports are unable to function adequately?). Each management regime that the planning process explores implies a set of changes on the land base. Risk classes are the categories of risk associated with those changes. ERA assumes that the more we change natural conditions, the higher the risk.

Appendix Figure 2: Environmental Risk Spectrum

“Threshold” and “benchmark” values (see Figure 2) provide the upper and lower bounds of risk assessment. “Thresholds” define the upper level of risk (i.e., the critical level beyond which there is a significant increase in risk to the ecological value of concern, for example, minimum viable population size, road density thresholds; habitat area requirements, habitat attributes). Conversely, a “low risk benchmark” is a condition with a high probability of sustaining the environmental value over the long term. Generally, low risk benchmarks are equated with the “range of natural variability” (RONV) i.e., the range of conditions that would be expected in an unmanaged system. The risk to an ecosystem is increased when the amount of change is beyond the range of natural variability.

There is no generic method for identifying thresholds and benchmarks. Domain experts can identify the most appropriate thresholds and benchmarks for the resources in your plan area, based on scientific evidence of the effect of change on ecological systems.

If you don’t have benchmarks and thresholds and don’t have the time or resources to figure them out, it is also possible to carry out a simple risk assessment by simply assuming that a certain amount of risk will be associated with each type of management zone.

Magnitude of change to ecological indicators Very low risk Low Risk Mod erate Risk High Risk V ery high risk

Range of natural variability (RONV);

Low risk benchmarks

Threshold

Magnitude of change to ecological indicators Very low risk Low Risk Mod erate Risk High Risk V ery high risk

Range of natural variability (RONV);

Low risk benchmarks

Threshold



Assessing the Likelihood and Magnitude of Impacts Step 5 in Table 5 involves applying a measurable value to each of the risk classes for each indicator. For example, the risk to northern goshawk might be assessed using the following risk classes in Table 6.

Appendix Table 6: Environmental Risk Spectrum for Northern Goshawk

Risk Class Amount of old and mature seral forest as a percentage of total forested land base by landscape unit

Low 75%

Moderate 50%

High 25%

Applying measurable values to risk classes is the crux of risk assessment. However, there can be a large amount of uncertainty involved, particularly where the cause-effect links are not well understood. Tools such as Bayesian Belief Networks can make explicit the process of assigning values and any associated uncertainties.

Once you have assigned values to the risk classes, it is a relatively straightforward process to conduct an analysis of your plan area and assess the level of risk associated with the outputs. It may be possible to apply this analysis to other SRMPs having similar ecological values. It may be useful to look to work done within your region or provincially to minimize duplication of effort.

Simplified Environmental Risk Assessment The risk assessment process does not need to be overly complex. At the very least, a simple qualitative approach to environmental risk assessment is possible. Table 7 lists a simple set of assumptions linking level of resource management to risk. Table 8 translates these simple assumptions into risk categories for a hypothetical plan area. This approach allows a relative comparison between alternative plan scenarios.



Appendix Table 7: Assumptions for Estimating Environmental Impacts

Factor Assumed Effect on Risk Rationale

Resource development intensity

Increased intensity of development results in increased risk to biodiversity

Lower intensity development areas provide more options and opportunities for maintaining native species and ecological processes

Habitat diversity Maintaining habitat diversity (variety of ecosystems, structural stages, patch sizes etc.) results in less risk to biodiversity

The needs of most forest organisms can be met by providing a variety of habitats (coarse filter)

Species range Plant and animal species with restricted ranges are more vulnerable than widely distributed species

Fewer options are available to maintain species with restricted ranges than those with wide ranges

High use public and commercial recreation activity

Increasing levels of recreational use will increase risks to environmental values

High levels of recreational use associated with trampling of vegetation, disturbance of wildlife, bear-human conflicts, human waste and litter

Uncertainty Lack of explicit management strategies for a resource increases risks to environmental values

Maintains the current level of risk

Open road density Increasing road density will increase risks to biodiversity

Increased human access associated with higher mortality risks for large mammals, esp. bears. Partly mitigable with access control

Timber harvesting land base (THLB)

Habitats within the THLB are at higher risk than habitats occurring outside the THLB

Habitat in the THLB is generally at higher risk of road development, increased human and machinery disturbance, and altered seral stage distributions

Appendix Table 8: Relative Risk Levels and Potential Impacts of Management Zones

Current Land Use Designations

Risk Level Rationale and Implications

Protected Areas Low Resource development not permitted. Road development limited; usually unroaded and undisturbed. Fish and wildlife habitat expected to remain stable. Potential disturbance from recreation

Preservation VQO Low Not included in timber harvesting land base




Current Land Use Designations

Risk Level Rationale and Implications

Retention VQO Low Low disturbance level (Max 5%) results in relative stability

Partial Retention VQO Moderate Maximum 15% disturbance permitted

Community Watershed Moderate “Maintaining water quality, quantity and timing of flow" are primary management objectives. Water quality objectives required; timber harvesting constrained

General Management High General landscape unit biodiversity measures (i.e. OGMAs) mitigate some impacts

Private land High Few restrictions on land use

Settlement High High degree of human use, high road density and fragmentation

Timber Harvesting Land Base (operable + marginal; subset of Retention and Partial Retention VQOs, Community Watershed, General, and Settlement)

High Significantly reduced mature and old forest cover; increased fragmentation and road density

Domain experts will still be needed to provide input into the relative risk of different management scenarios on an ecosystem or species. For example, the level of risk may change, depending on the amount of area in each type of zone.


Appendix 4 Ensuring Consistency with the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA)

Government sets resource objectives under the FRPA Forest Planning Practices Regulation and Government Actions Regulation for the purpose of forest stewardship plans. Objectives established by FRPA are an important baseline that should be considered when developing objectives in a SRMP. Objectives established in a SRMP, when legally established, may override a FRPA objective.

Objectives under FRPA are described in the Forest Planning Practices Regulation (FPPR) and Government Actions Regulation (GAR), and include:

• Default objectives listed in Part 2 of FPPR; and • Objectives established under Part 9 by the Minister of Forests

or Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. (Note that MSRM has no objective setting powers under FRPA, only the power to designate Scenic Areas and Community Watersheds. All objective setting powers for MSRM come from the Forest Practices Code or the Land Act.)

It is recommended that a checklist similar to the following table be used to help ensure that the SRMP is consistent with the FRPA.

Append ix 4 Ensur ing Cons is tency w i th the Fores t and Range Prac t i ces Ac t


Appendix Table 9: Sample Checklist of Objectives Set by Government by Source

Value Source of Objective Set by Government

(In Order of Priority) Policy Direction Consistent

OIC

Regional LUP/

LRMP SRMP

Set by FRPA Regulation

FRPA Enabled

EBM, Working Forest, etc Yes No N/A

Soils

Timber

Water

Fish

Biodiversity

Wildlife

Resource Features

Cultural Heritage Resources

Recreation Resources

Visual quality

FRPA

Val

ues

Forage and Associated Plant Communities

Agriculture

Oil and Gas

Minerals

Non

FR

PA V

alue

s

Tourism/ Commercial Recreation



Appendix Table 10: FRPA Value Matrix

Value Addressed in FRPA

Objective Set by Government under FPPR and GAR

Default Results / Strategies in FPPR Factors in FPPR

Designations, Established Objectives, CF Standards in FPPR Practice Requirements

Soils s5: Conserve productivity and function

s35: Soil Disturbance

s36: Permanent access structures

s12.2: No practice requirements if result or strategy submitted and approved

Schedule-Factors s1: Factors for PAS and soil disturbance

N/A s37: Must not cause landslides

s38: Must not cause gully processes

s39: Must maintain natural surface drainage

s40: Must revegetate soils if …

Timber s6: Maintain or enhance supply; enable exercise of rights

N/A

FSP content requirement - s16: FSP must specify stocking standards

s26: Minister’s consideration of stocking standards

Schedule-Factors s6: Factors relating to stocking specifications

FRPA s26(3): alternate forest health

s43(2): CF may make standards for the use of seed

s41: Must not destroy brood if concentrated

s44(1)&(2): Must establish a stand

s44(4): Must ensure stocking standards for commercial thinning & special forest products

s43: Must comply with CF standards or altern-ative for use of seed; must keep records of seed use

s42: Use of livestock







Water s8: Conserve across landscape, water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity associated with riparian areas

s47: Stream riparian classes and widths

s48: Wetlands

s49: Lakes


Schedule-Factors s2: Factors for water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity in riparian areas

s6 of GAR: Lakeshore management zones

s47(6): specify RRZ for S1 – A streams

s48(5): specify wetland zones

s49(3): specify RMA for L1 – A lakes

s8 of GAR: Community watersheds (CWS)

s62(1): Identify spring in CWS and specify distance

s50: Restrictions within RMA

s51: Restrictions within RRZ

s52: Restrictions within RMZ

s53: Requirements for temp sensitive streams

s54: Fan destabilization

s55: Stream crossings

s58: Use of livestock in riparian areas

s59: Protecting water quality

s60: Waterworks

s61: Excavated trails in CWS

s62: Roads in CWS if spring identified

s63: Fertilizer in CWS

Fish s8: Conserve across landscape, water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity associated with riparian areas

N/A Schedule-Factor s2: Factors for water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity in riparian areas

s14 of GAR: Fisheries sensitive s56: Fish passage

s57: Protection of fish habitat

Bio-diversity

s9: Emulate natural disturbance patterns at the landscape level and retain wildlife trees at stand level

s64(1): Max cutblock, minor tenures exempt

s64(2)-(4): Exemptions

s65: Adjacency, minor tenures and s65(2)-(4) exempt

s66: Wildlife tree retention


s129: Factors for biodiversity

N/A s67: Must not harvest from wildlife tree retention areas referred to in s67

s68: Must retain coarse woody debris







Wildlife s7: Conserve sufficient area for survival of species at risk, regionally important species, and specified winter survival

N/A N/A s105: Species at risk, regionally important wildlife and specified ungulate species

s106: Wildlife habitat areas

s107: Ungulate winter range

s108: General wildlife measure

s115: Identify…list…as a wildlife habitat feature (FRPA s154(2)(a)(ii))

S69: Must comply with general wildlife measure

s70(2): Must ensure that the activity does not damage or render ineffective a wildlife habitat feature

Resource Features

s5(1) of GAR: Definition of Resource Features

N/A N/A s5(1) GAR: Identify as a resource feature

s70(1): Must ensure that the activity does not damage or render ineffective a resource feature

Cultural Heritage Resources

s10: Conserve or where more appropriate, protect cultural heritage resources

N/A Schedule-Factors s4: relating to traditional use by an aboriginal people

N/A N/A

Recreation Resources

N/A N/A N/A s56 FRPA: Interpretive forest site, recreation site or recreation trail and features

N/A

Visual Quality

S9.2 establishes VQOs for scenic areas established prior to October 2002

N/A N/A s7(1) GAR: establish an area as a Scenic Area

s7(2) GAR: establish VQOs for a Scenic Area

N/A

Forage and Associated Plant Com-munities

N/A s17: FSP must specify measures to prevent the spread of invasive plants and mitigate impacts on natural range barriers

N/A N/A N/A



Append ix 5 De te rmin ing SRMP Leve l o f Complex i t y : Focused Versus Comprehens ive SRMPs


Appendix 5 Determining SRMP Level of Complexity: Focused versus Comprehensive SRMPs

A SRMP that is developed to address a small number of specified issues involving a small number of resource values (e.g. resolution of conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreation, management direction for expansion of heli-skiing, grizzly bear management strategy, etc.) is referred to as a focused SRMP.

A SRMP that is developed to address more complex planning issues involving a multitude of resource values is referred to as a comprehensive SRMP.

Notwithstanding the reference to focused and comprehensive SRMPs, the degrees of complexity for SRMPs can best be described as a spectrum that ranges from very simple and focused plans at one end to highly complex multiple resource use plans at the other end. Ultimately, both focused and comprehensive processes will need to be based on analysis methods that result in the establishment of balanced objectives. The following table compares each SRMP type.

Appendix Table 11: SRMP Comparison Table

SRMP TYPE PROS CONS

FOCUSED • May be lower costs in the short term • Fast track SRMP planning process in

assessing one scenario • Fewer requirements for detailed

resource inventory information and data coverages

• Less intensive data preparation and resource analysis

• Less complex process

• Reduced timelines to complete SRMP plan development

• May be higher costs over the long term • Reduced involvement of stakeholders and public

interests and scientific domain expertise • Is subjective due to lack of quantitative evidence

• Less capacity for anticipating future uncertainties • May inadvertently forego more sustainable future

scenarios

• Less transparent process • Less likely to achieve up-front buy-in by diverse

interests of the SRMP results • SRMP results may be challenged by public

interests and other experts

Focused SRMP The resource analysis requirements and the time and effort required to complete a focused SRMP are fairly minimal compared to a comprehensive SRMP.

Comprehensive SRMP The analysis requirements for a comprehensive SRMP will usually require analysis of several planning issues and an assessment of multiple planning options or scenarios. In addition, a socioeconomic assessment and/or environmental risk assessment of a final preferred planning scenario would likely be required.

Append ix 5 Methods fo r Under tak ing Imp lementa t ion and E f fec t i veness Mon i to r ing



SRMP TYPE PROS CONS

COMPRE-HENSIVE

• May be lower costs in the long term

• Involvement of diverse stakeholders, public interests, scientific domain expertise improves quality of learning scenarios and composite scenario

• More intensive and explicit analysis of inter-relationships (compatibilities and conflicts) amongst resource values and objectives

• Utilizes comprehensive resource inventory data coverages in SRMP scenario analysis and reporting

• Multiple scenario analysis enables greater capacity and flexibility to respond to future uncertainties

• Results are likely to be more integrated

• May be higher costs in the short term

• Is subjective due to lack of quantitative evidence • Requires more comprehensive resource

information and availability of clean data coverages for use in analysis

• Requires commitment and continuity of participation by stakeholders, local interests and scientific domain expertise

• More time consuming process to complete scenario planning process in support of SRMP plan development


Appendix 6 Methods for Undertaking Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring

This appendix describes approaches that can be used to undertake implementation and effectiveness monitoring for SRMPs.

Goals of SRMP Moni tor ing and Repor t ing To be successful SRMP monitoring must be able to collect data, summarize the data into useful information, and interpret that information to advance knowledge and improve management decisions. Key components of a structured monitoring program include data collection, information management, preparation of data summaries and interpretive reports, feedback to management, and program coordination and support. Essentially, monitoring helps MSRM and SRM planning partners to determine whether or not the plan is being implemented consistently and if implementation is being effective. Steps could then be taken to modify aspects of SRMP direction on resource and land use if necessary.

SRMP monitoring and reporting is intended to provide decision-makers, practitioners and the public with the following benefits:

• Support planning and decision-making – provide information on the status of SRM planning across the province to help set priorities, improving and influencing decisions, legislation, policies, planning, plan implementation and practices.

• Reveal key trends and conditions – advise about the overall state and trends relative to plan desired outcomes, including the identification of potential issues that require special attention.

• Enable science, research, information and knowledge systems – provide scientific and technical knowledge, expertise, and tools and supporting information systems to improve SRMP implementation and effectiveness.

• Clarify the status of risk-based values and priorities – provide information about the status and course of plan values that are currently or potentially considered a priority due to their level of risk.

Designing an SRMP Moni tor ing Program The following material describes the general steps to design and implement an SRMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring and evaluation program. These steps are based on the Monitoring Guide prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Inventory and



Monitoring Group.9 This approach supplements MSRM’s existing policy and procedure on Strategic Land Use Plan monitoring.10

Step 1 Program Initiation

Initiate monitoring program and organize monitoring logistics:

• Identify the SRMP Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team); and • Define roles associated with monitoring and evaluation (e.g.,

management, data correction, interpretation, reporting).

Step 2 Define Monitoring Program Purpose and Scope

Identify the purpose/objective of monitoring:

• Clarify the purposes for monitoring, e.g., To monitor specific SRMP decisions (particularly those

with high risk); To monitor public concerns about the SRMP; To monitor the results of specific administrative

decisions; and To monitor the state of systems.

• Identify the desired outcomes of monitoring: Who will do what with the information as a result?

• Determine the relationship of SRMP level monitoring to other scale monitoring programs.

Define the study area for monitoring: • Define the bounds or outer extent of the monitoring program

(SRMP boundary or other defined area); and • Determine if the monitoring program is designed and

implemented on a single SRMP or multi-SRMP initiative.

Define the role of partners: • Identify the role of other agency partners in monitoring in the

design, implementation and analysis of the monitoring program; and

• Collaborative efforts can play an important role in the sustainability monitoring process in a number of ways:

Creating a basis for dialogue;

9 United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. Program Guidance for Development of a Forest/Grassland Monitoring

and Evaluation Program. Inventory and Monitoring Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado. Pamela A. Wright. http://www.fs.fed.us/institute/lucid/final_report/

10 See Provincial Monitoring Framework for Strategic Land Use Plans (July, 1999), and Strategic Land Use Plan Monitoring Procedures (May 2, 2000). Available at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/lrmppolicy.htm



Helping to identify key components for monitoring; Establishing reference values; Finding alternative sources of data.

Review the policy context for monitoring: • Legislation and regulations; and • MSRM policy objectives.

Step 3 Define the Framework and Approach to Monitoring

Review the SRMP outputs (objectives, targets, measures, criteria and indicators) and use these as the common core to organize and select monitoring elements:

• Adopt a common SRM planning framework defined by principles, criteria and indicators that serves as the common core for organizing the monitoring program (e.g. old growth targets by LU and BEC).

Step 4 Identify the Monitoring Purposes and Questions

Identify SRMP specific monitoring question(s) for each systems framework element based on the specific concerns and issues:

• Questions relate to the broad purposes (e.g., specific SRMP decisions, public concern, administrative decision, state of system); and

• Monitoring questions are higher order questions relating to the aspect of the plan to be evaluated or the structure or function of the system.

Categorize the monitoring question according to the broad purposes for the monitoring activity:

• To monitor specific SRMP decisions (particularly those with high risk, for example, high biodiversity emphasis LUs with significant resource pressures to ensure a balance between economic outcomes and sustainability);

• To monitor public concerns about the SRMP; • To monitor the results of specific administrative decisions (e.g.

objectives to balance oil and gas with timber harvesting in a sustainable manner); and

• To monitor the state of ecosystems, resource use, etc.

Step 5 Identify Monitoring Indicators

Select monitoring indicators based on the following desirable characteristics of “good” indicators:



• Measurable: Measures should be quantitative, i.e. subject to measurement.

• Reliable: Measures should be capable of being assessed precisely and accurately (repeatable measures by different personnel).

• Cost-effective: Measures should be capable of being measured cost-effectively, generally by field personnel using simple equipment and techniques.

• Significant: Measures must relate to significant conditions or features. A good measure should be capable of detecting changes that, if they occurred, would be considered serious problems.

• Relevant: The types of changes that are to be detected through the monitoring of indicators should identify changes that result from management activities that we can control. Changes caused by natural acts should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

• Sensitive: Measures should focus on sensitive components of the monitoring element e.g., components that provide an early warning system, alerting managers to deteriorating (or improving) conditions while there is still time to change things.

• Efficient: Measures are most efficient if they reflect the condition of more than themselves, because this reduces the number of parameters that must be monitored.

• Responsive: The types and/or causes of change that are to be detected through the monitoring of measures should be responsive to management control.

Step 6 Describe and Define Individual Monitoring Protocols

Determine and document the specific methods, protocols, frequency of collection, statistical requirements, data storage, cost, and persons responsible for each monitoring element.

• Where possible, identify reference values to help interpret and evaluate the meaning of monitoring results.

Step 7 Write the Monitoring and Evaluation Chapter of the SRMP

Describe the monitoring program in the Monitoring and Evaluation Section of the SRMP.



Step 8 Develop annual monitoring program based on available budget and monitoring direction contained in the SRMP

• Maximize linkage to project level monitoring programs for an efficient program;

• Look to form partnerships with volunteers, other agencies, and special interest groups to accomplish the monitoring objectives; and

• Document the work to be done for each monitoring indicator.

Step 9 Conduct monitoring/collect monitoring data, including the incorporation of new data, following the agreed upon monitoring protocols.

Maximize linkage to project level monitoring programs for an efficient program. For example, watershed monitoring for fish sustainability, conducted at the LU level, should be linked to objectives in the SRMP.

Step 10 Analyze monitoring data against reference values

Compare the monitoring results against the defined reference values to determine if the reference values are exceeded. For example, measure wildlife tree retention (WTR) targets in the SRMP against any new information such as timber harvesting or other depletions to determine if the WTR threshold by LU is met or exceeded.

Step 11 Evaluate monitoring results to identify changed conditions, risks, management concerns, etc.

Describe and document situations that indicate where plan provisions are and are not working as intended .For example, indicate where a measure to attain economic return from backcountry recreation is not being successfully met and indicate where modifications in direction might provide better economic return for this value.

Step 12 Document monitoring findings and recommendations

Document recommendations and findings based on the data analysis and evaluation. Possible recommendations might include:



• No need for change, continue implementation as directed in the objectives; for example, timber targets are being attained as planned, continue on course;

• Continue implementation but intensify monitoring activities where results are questionable; for example, water quality in an identified LU may be compromised, confirm through local watershed specific water quality assessment as appropriate;

• Improve implementation of current plan; • Prepare a minor amendment to the plan; for example, this may

consist of new or amended objectives that apply in portions of the SRMP or to the entire SRMP area;

• Prepare a major amendment to the plan; for example, a new resource chapter for oil and gas is required for a SRMP, based on new resource use demand, requiring integration with existing resource values and the establishment of new, balanced objectives to account for oil and gas in the SRMP area; and

• Adjust the monitoring program; for example, adjust subsequent monitoring to account for oil and gas economic measures in the preceding SRMP.


Appendix 7 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum This appendix describes the various classifications that are included in the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).

Primitive (P) – very high degree of remoteness and naturalness; very little or no motorized use; 5,000 ha or more in size; eight km or more from a rough dirt or gravel road.

Semi-primitive, non-motorized (SPNM) – similar to the remoteness and naturalness criteria for the ‘P’ ROS class; very little or no motorized use within area; 1,000 ha or more in size; one km or more from a rough dirt or gravel road.

Semi-primitive, motorized (SPM) – similar to SPNM except for greater motorized use within the area.

Roaded natural (RN) – a moderate to high degree of naturalness in the surrounding environment as viewed from a travel route (existing visual condition would be preservation or retention in perspective view); area is within 1 km of a 2-wheel drive road and has no size criteria.

Roaded modified (RM) – dominated by resource extraction and numerous roads (e.g., timber harvesting and dominant man-made structures, such as a ski hill); within one km of a 2 or 4-wheel drive road and has no size criteria.

Rural (R) – dominated by human development and settlements associated with agricultural land (e.g., farmland, utility corridors, and some service commercial); many interactions with other people are expected; recreation facilities may be highly developed and easily accessed.

Urban (U) – landscape substantially altered by urban development; highly developed recreation facilities; very high number of recreation users expected; intensified motorized use and parking available.


Appendix 8 Visual Quality Objectives Rating for Backcountry Tourism

The following table describes the different visual quality objectives that are used for rating backcountry tourism visual landscapes.

Appendix Table 12: Visual Quality Objectives Rating for Backcountry Tourism

VQO Rating Description

Preservation No visible change will occur in the landscape from forest development practices

Retention Management activities or alterations may occur but are not visually apparent. The goal is to repeat the line, form colour and texture of the characteristic landscape. In perspective, openings are generally 0.1 to 1.5% of the landscape assessed

Partial Retention

Human-caused alterations are visibly apparent but remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Repetition of the line, form colour and texture is important to ensure a blending with the dominant elements. In perspective, opening sizes are generally 1.5 to 7% of the landscape unit assessed

Modification Human-caused alterations dominate the original characteristic landscape; however, alterations must borrow from natural line and form to such an extent and on such a scale that they are comparable to natural occurrences. In perspective, opening sizes are generally 7.1 to 18% of the landscape unit assessed

Maximum Modification

Human-caused alterations are out-of-scale on the landscape and exhibit attributes that are not in keeping with natural occurrences, particularly in the foreground and middle ground. In perspective, opening sizes are generally 18.1 to 30% of the landscape unit assessed


Appendix 9 Examples of Analysis Methods for Backcountry Tourism Products

This appendix includes two examples of analysis methods for assessing backcountry tourism products.

Example 1. Def ining Backcountry Tourism and Recreat ion Prior i ty Zones

A possible SRMP product might be the identification of zones that will receive a management priority for backcountry tourism and recreation management. Such zones could, for example, be characterized by objectives to maintain a particular ROS, or the definition of objectives and strategies aimed at preventing/mitigating other economic development activities from impacting adversely on tourism/recreation values. If this was the case, then the technical process could be expected to generally involve the following steps, aimed at ensuring that:

• The zones are established on lands that possess valuable tourism/recreation characteristics;

• There is some justification for establishing the zones, in terms of there being a sufficient level of existing and/or future demand for tourism and recreation experiences in this area;

• That the proposed tourism and recreation uses have been considered in relation to the presence of other resource values and users so that resource use integration and impact mitigation occurs; and

• The environmental, social and economic implications of the proposed tourism and recreation uses have been duly considered.

Step 1 Understand Backcountry Tourism and Recreation Capability and Suitability Identify the geographic locations in the plan area with relatively high biophysical capability and land use suitability for various backcountry tourism and recreation uses. Include the identification of existing tourism and recreation uses. Sources of information for this step are likely to include: MSRM inventories for tourism and recreation, and tourism opportunity studies if they have been developed. Also, local knowledge is likely to be an important information source.

Step 2 Demand Analysis

Append ix 9 Examples o f Ana lys is Methods fo r Backcoun t ry Tour i sm Produc ts


Confirm that there is sufficient expected demand for the tourism/recreation activities to warrant the identification of plan zones, objectives and strategies that are designed to support the allocation and management of Crown lands and resources for these purposes. This will require assembling trends information on historical and projected visitor use for various activities. Some tourism opportunity studies develop this type of information and BC Stats data is a source that should be referenced. The extent of demand and the associated socio-economic benefits associated with the demand will help provide a justification for the zones and will assist in shaping planning decisions on how extensive and ‘strong’ the zones, objectives and strategies should be relative to the need to consider and accommodate other sectors’ needs.

Step 3 Analyze Resource Interactions Assess the interactions with other valued resources. Normally this will involve performing overlay analysis of inventory maps showing resource capability and suitability or surrogate mapping if capability/suitability mapping is not available. For example, an overlay analysis of tourism/recreation value mapping with forestry values, wildlife habitat, resource tenures, etc., will reveal the geography of value conflict and compatibility.

Step 4 Develop Tentative Zones and Objectives Develop draft tourism/recreation priority zones and objectives based on the preceding demand and resource interaction analyses. Draft zones and objectives will also be guided by direction provided in broader LRMPs (if available), the statement of issues that the planning process has formerly identified, and plan-wide goals or objectives that have been developed for tourism/recreation during the planning process.

Step 5 Assess Implications Evaluate the implications of the tentative zones and objectives. Normally this will occur as part of a broader evaluation of a complete land use plan scenario. An attempt would be made to estimate the environmental, social and economic ramifications of the proposed priority management zones for tourism and recreation. Indicators that have been developed during the planning process would be used for this purpose. The evaluation results will determine



whether or not the draft zones/plan represents an appropriate package, or if modifications to zones and objectives are warranted.

The same general sequence of events could be followed to deal with backcountry tourism – recreation conflicts, or conflicts with wildlife resources. That is, the information on values of concern would be assembled; the information would be analyzed to understand resource interactions; draft objectives/strategies/zones would be designed to integrate resources and mitigate impacts; and the implications of the draft proposals would be evaluated to determine the nature and scope of the pros and cons. The evaluation might include an environmental risk assessment of the alternatives.

GIS will play an important role in this process to reveal resource interactions and to generate tabular statistics necessary for measuring indicators. GIS models can also be developed to help determine where it might be appropriate to locate priority management zones, either for tourism/recreation or wildlife habitat to protect this value from the potential impacts of tourism/recreation. This would involve developing some ‘decision rules’ (i.e., criteria) for guiding zone definitions. For example, if the aim is to assign a backcountry tourism management priority to certain areas (for example, because of an interest in economic diversification and knowledge of suitability and demand), you could start by identifying the specific land characteristics that are needed to support that priority, such as:

• High capability/suitability polygons for winter-based recreation product;

• Areas that are experiencing steady growth in demand for winter-based recreation activities;

• Areas with relatively low importance for mountain goat and caribou wintering and kidding/calving areas; and,

• Areas with no active or projected industrial development in the foreseeable future (e.g., 10 year timeframe).

Querying the GIS to generate a derivative map showing the intersection of these areas will provide a first approximation of where the top priorities might be for a tourism/recreation priority zone. Working iteratively with more detailed mapping, developing objectives and strategies for integrating resource values and mitigating impacts and assessing implications would then follow to enable planners to arrive at a proposed land use plan scenario that includes land use zones and objectives for backcountry tourism and recreation.



Example 2. Addressing Capacity Management Issues

If a key backcountry tourism/recreation management issue in a SRMP process relates to managing for carrying capacity, the analysis challenge will be to define appropriate indicators and thresholds for monitoring trends in the indicators and committing to an adaptive management approach. The general steps to develop provisions in a SRMP that attempt to deal with capacity management are:

• Define the spatial area where carrying capacity issues are evident (i.e., where you want the capacity management provisions to apply), and sub-units, as appropriate;

• Identify social and environmental concerns and issues;

• Collect and record baseline data;

• Formulate recreation capacity objectives for the area;

• Select and monitor social and environmental indicators; and

• Adapt recreation management on the basis of monitoring results.

For specific instructions on how to implement a capacity management program see: "A Recreational Capacity Management Program for BC" – available at http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/s2s/reports/


Appendix 10 Decision Analysis and Reporting Tool (DART) MSRM has recently developed reporting and analysis tools that will provide information that can be used to assess potential timber supply and environmental impacts from landscape/watershed planning.

Decision Analysis and Reporting Tool (DART) The SRMP Decision Analysis and Reporting Tool (DART), is a corporate, computer-based tool that enables standard analysis routines and reporting in support of ministry landscape/watershed level planning.

Within the DART tool there is the capability to analyze the biological effectiveness of proposed Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) using the “Automated Effectiveness Indicators” (AEI) tool. The AEI tool queries the Forest Cover database to generate a list of surrogate indicators that identify potential old growth attributes. The AEI tool primarily focuses on comparing attributes of OGMAs with attributes of the remainder of the old forest, or remainder of the landscape (as appropriate) to allow experts to summarize the biological values captured or not captured in implementation of the LUPG. The deviation from existing natural forest conditions can then be interpreted within a relative risk framework to inform the planning process. Some of the more useful old growth attributes available in the AEI tool include:

• Average site index by leading species – by BEC variant. Representation within OGMAs compared with entire landscape unit;

• Average height by leading species – by BEC variant. Representation within OGMAs compared with all old forest in a landscape unit;

• Slope/Aspect class – Representation within OGMAs compared with landscape unit;

• Leading species – Representation of leading species in OGMAs compared with landscape unit – by BEC variant;

• Seral stage distribution – Compares seral distribution within OGMAs with seral stage distribution within Landscape Unit. Presents seral stage distribution for ‘predicted historic’, ‘current’ in Landscape Unit and ‘OGMAs’;

• Forest interior – Amount of forest captured within all OGMAs – all variants combined compared to targets in the Biodiversity Guidebook (Width of interior buffers: NDT1&2: 160m; NDT3: 120m; NDT4: 100m);

Append ix 10 Dec is ion Ana lys is and Repor t ing Too l (DART)


• Size classes of forest interior for each OGMA – A breakdown of the number of OGMAs that fall within various size classes;

• Connectivity – An assessment of the connectedness of the OGMAS within the Landscape Unit;

• Patch size – Number of OGMAs that are within patch size classes 1 (<50ha), 2 (51—250ha), 3 (251-500ha), 4 (501-1000ha), 5 (1000ha +); and

• Recruitment – A breakdown of the area within OGMAs that falls within 20-year age groupings.

An example of the DART/AEI output is provided in Figure 8. This indicator compares the average site index (forest productivity) by leading trees species (Inventory Type Group) for areas proposed as OGMAs to the remainder of the BEC variant (SBSvk) in a landscape unit. An inspection of this output indicates that the average site index for deciduous tree species (DECID) as well as lodgepole pine (PL) is slightly higher in the proposed OGMAs, whereas the average site index for Douglas fir (Fd) and western hemlock (H) is lower compared to the remainder of the SBSvk within that landscape unit. To determine if there is significant over-representation or under-representation, the variation between the OGMAs and available forest in the landscape unit needs to be considered. This can be ascertained from the second graph, which shows the variation between the OGMA and the existing natural conditions of the landscape unit. This deviation can be interpreted to assess how well the proposed OGMAs compare to the rest of the landscape unit using assigned risk thresholds.

For example, using a five-level risk rating scheme where 0-20% variation is considered ‘very low’ risk; 21-40% ‘low’ risk; 41-60% ‘moderate’ risk; 61-80% ‘high’ risk and > 80% ‘very high’ risk, this output suggests that the proposed OGMAs in the SBSvk are fairly representative of the available forested area considering only the site index by leading species indicator. This is due to the fact that there is a only a small deviation (<20% or very low risk) for five of seven leading species with only a slightly higher over-representation for the remaining two leading species (20-40% or low risk) compared to existing natural conditions. It should be emphasized, however, all of the variables need to be compared because there may be both positive and negative aspects when all attributes are summarized (see the AEI tool document for further details).

Append ix 10 Dec is ion Ana lys is and Repor t ing Too l (DART)


The following is an example of DART and AEI Tool output.

Although the DART and AEI tool is a useful analytical technique that will enhance the analysis of potential OGMAs, it has limitations including:

• It uses surrogate variables based on forest cover data, which may not be ecologically appropriate;

• Some of the indicators are difficult to interpret because of unknown natural patterns or high variation in natural patterns; and

• At this time, the AEI tool assesses OGMAs only.

Potential opportunities exist, however, to improve the AEI and DART tool by importing stand attribute data from other inventories, such as Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) or Rare Ecosystem Mapping, and extending the analysis to include other areas of old forest that contribute to biodiversity objectives (e.g. riparian areas). A summary of sample sizes should also accompany any of the DART/AEI outputs.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

B CW DECID FD H PL S

Leading Species (ITG Group)

Representation of Average Site Index by ITG Groups: SBS vk

BEC Variant OGMA

Representation of Average Site Index by ITG Groups (Variation): SBS vk

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

B CW DECID FD H PL S

Leading Species (ITG Group)


Appendix 11 Coarse and Fine Filter Habitat Supply Models Habitat Supply Models11 are another group of decision-support tools that can provide useful data for risk assessment. They provide a means of forecasting habitat availability over time similar to timber supply models. Habitat supply models are useful for evaluating and comparing alternative land use scenarios because they provide planners with output that can depict the spatial distribution and total amount of suitable habitat available at discrete time periods. For example, coarse filter models can be developed using seral stage data or forest cover age classes and run through a computer simulation tool (see “A Strategy for Habitat Supply Modeling for British Columbia. Draft Volume II. Appendices”) 12. Spatially explicit simulations provide a variety of outputs to users but are most useful because they allow planners to “see” the effects of alternative management strategies. Similarly, fine filter habitat supply models can be developed for a particular species and used to understand the long-term consequences of management actions at the landscape and stand levels. These models are most useful for predicting the supply of habitat to provide a specific life requisite (e.g., nesting habitat, winter range) for a particular species or group of species with similar habitat requirements (i.e., species guilds).

In addition to models that are solely habitat-based, there are spatially explicit population models (SEPMs) that can also be applied to understand species responses to management at the landscape scale. However, these models require habitat-specific information about demography, dispersal behaviour and habitat selection. Although these models could provide valuable information to inform the decision-making process, the types of data required are rarely available for risk assessment purposes during land use planning. As such, models that are solely habitat-based are the most likely models developed to inform land use decisions.

If there are opportunities during the planning process to develop habitat supply models, their outputs should be interpreted within the ERA framework. This would typically require estimating how much habitat or seral stage will be present (total hectares) at discrete time periods (e.g., 0, 20, 50, 100 years) and comparing that amount to a predefined benchmark with established


Draft Volume I.” 12 http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/silstrat/habitat/habitat-docs.htm#hsmbc A Strategy for Habitat Supply Modeling for British Columbia.

Draft Volume II. Appendices”

Append ix 11 Coarse and F ine F i l te r Hab i ta t Supp ly Mode ls


thresholds. Establishing scientifically defensible benchmarks and thresholds, however, poses significant challenges to planners and analysts because they are inherently complex and there is often a lack of empirical research to support specific thresholds. Nonetheless, benchmarks and thresholds must be defined using the best available information with full recognition of their limitations. Maintaining seral stage distributions within the range of natural variability13 is considered to be an appropriate ecological benchmark for comparison.

Although maintaining components of biodiversity within their range of natural variability is intuitively appealing, and may make ecological sense, a number of factors complicate the use of this benchmark. In particular, there often is insufficient data on past conditions and natural disturbance regimes to actually define the range of variation. Furthermore, defining an appropriate time period is often confounded by past human activities, climate change and the nature of vegetation response (i.e. how far back do you go?). Although these are difficult issues to address, the best approach is to define an ecological rationale for choosing a particular benchmark as well as clearly stating the assumptions and associated uncertainties. In an effort to provide the most relevant time period, for example, the range of natural variability should be assessed over relatively consistent climatic conditions. As some researchers have suggested, understanding what kinds of changes have occurred in a region and how particular ecosystems respond may be most relevant because they provide clues on how to manage for adaptability and resilience.

Using a “low risk benchmark” may be a pragmatic approach to assessing impacts from land use change. The ERA approach defines a low risk benchmark as conditions with a high probability of sustaining the environmental value over the long term. Defining this benchmark helps to identify what landscape and stand-level attributes need to be maintained, but also highlights the linkages between environmental threats or pressures and potential impacts. The low risk benchmark should be based on scientifically and biologically sound principles and not on a particular agencies’ or interests “acceptable level” of risk. However, critical thresholds still need to be identified to determine the level at which the probability of maintaining specific environmental values diminishes significantly. Although this also poses challenges to analysts as critical thresholds are often species and scale dependent, some threshold values have been suggested based on modeling and empirical research. For example, using various landscape metrics

13 According to Landres et al. 1999 ‘natural variability’ is defined as the ecological conditions and the spatial and temporal variation

in these conditions that are relatively unaffected by people within a period of time and geographical area appropriate for an expressed goal.



and applying those to a broad range of taxa, thresholds for the proportion of suitable habitat that must remain in a landscape have been estimated to be between 60-70% (i.e., 40-30% unsuitable), below which habitats become fragmented and species abundance are likely to decline. Using these values as critical thresholds, risk categories can be developed along a linear or non-linear continuum and the significance of the habitat supply output from either a coarse or fine filter model could be interpreted using the percent reduction in habitat suitability and placed into risk categories.

Appendix Table 13: Example of Habitat Supply Thresholds and Assigned Risk

Risk Level Percent Reduction in Habitat Availability

Very Low 0-10

Low 11-20

Medium 21-40

High 41-60

Very High 61-100%

Other examples of thresholds have also been identified relating road density to mortality risk, habitat suitability and occupancy for large vertebrates (e.g., bears, wolves, ungulates). This research has suggested 0.6 km/km2 as a potential threshold above which areas become unsuitable for wide ranging species that are vulnerable to human-caused mortality.

Although using habitat supply models is a preferred decision-making tool to inform the planning process and risk assessment, a number of key technical barriers to using habitat supply models have been identified including: a lack of knowledge about habitat–species relationships, thresholds, and baseline information; insufficient detailed biophysical inventory and inadequate training and extension (Jones et al. 2002). These constraints often limit the scope of the risk assessment forcing planners and assessors to rely on static area summaries and professional judgement to make conclusions.

Habitat supply models are also limited to evaluating the effects of forestry activities. In plan areas where other forms of resource development are the primary threat to biodiversity, other models and methods may need to be developed. This may require explicitly modeling responses to human disturbance, linear developments and/or relying on static GIS areas summaries.



Bayesian Belief Networks Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) provide a means of modeling likelihoods of management effects. A BBN is a form of influence diagram, which depicts the hypothesized or causal relations among ecological factors that influence the likelihood of outcome states of interest, such as forest condition or wildlife species viability. Bayesian Belief Networks have been developed to assess sediment risk, salmonid population viability and to evaluate effects of land management alternatives for the Interior Columbia River Basin in the United States (Marcot et al 2001). In British Columbia, BBNs have recently been used to assess risks to coarse and fine filter biodiversity as part of the North Coast Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). These assessments incorporated a number of decision-analysis tools, static area summaries and habitat supply models that were fed into a BBN.

BBNs are particularly useful because they can incorporate both empirical information and expert opinion. They are relatively transparent because the ‘causal webs’ or how a particular pressure (e.g., road density) influences a particular habitat or population variable is made explicit. In addition, they can provide a method of dealing with uncertainty through sensitivity analysis and varying input parameters and conditional probabilities. Despite some of these positive aspects, BBNs can become overly complicated and rely too heavily on expert opinion. This is usually the result of including too many nodes, which reduces communication value, and not having enough empirical information, which reduces objectivity. Used appropriately, however, they can provide useful insights into land use planning processes.

It is worth emphasizing that whether BBNs are used or not, identifying linkages through a diagram or a conceptual model is a useful way to express the relationships described by the risk hypotheses. Conceptual model diagrams or “envirograms” can help communicate important pathways in a clear and concise way and identify major sources of uncertainty. The primary purpose of a conceptual model is to clearly identify the linkage between land use change and a particular element of biodiversity. Risk assessors can use these diagrams and risk hypotheses to identify the most important pathways and relationships that will be evaluated in the analysis phase. The ERA framework provides examples and also describes the data and measures to be used in the risk assessment including how risks will be characterized.


Appendix 12 Provincial Heritage Register Database The Archaeology and Registry Services Branch of MSRM maintains a database of all known archaeological sites as the Provincial Heritage Registry. Locations and details of archaeological sites province-wide will soon be available from this database through web access - the Remote Archaeological Access Database (RAAD) to selected users. RAAD users have the ability to undertake spatial and attribute table queries, and save results to tabular and shape file format on the local computer. All known archaeological sites are mapped as polygons. The Archaeology and Registry Services Branch maintains this database as the Heritage Resource Inventory Application (HRIA), and access to certain data is restricted and may not be included in public planning documents. Archaeological consultants and possibly planners will have access to RAAD.

A danger in using known archaeological inventory as a planning tool is that the distribution of inventoried archaeological sites in an area often reflects where archaeologists have looked for sites, not necessarily where the resources (including both recorded and undiscovered) are actually distributed. This problem has been addressed through predictive modeling, which indicates the probability of encountering an archaeological site anywhere within a landscape. Modeling proceeds from an assumption that demonstrated correlations between archaeological sites and mapped environmental and cultural features can be extrapolated to the overall landscape. Archaeological predictive models have been constructed for many areas of the province, often as part of an Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA). In some cases, Archaeological Inventory studies were conducted as part of the AOA in order to fill data gaps. Most of these predictive models, applied as maps, are viewable as an electronic layer on RAAD, and can be obtained through a special data request to the Inventory Section of the Archaeology and Registry Services Branch, or at Forest District headquarters.

Archaeological potential mapping has been developing rapidly in the last decade, and these analytical improvements, together with the 1:250,000 mapping scale mandated early in the LRMP process, and the large data gaps present when the models were created, makes many of the earlier models imprecise or unreliable. In addition, many of the data gaps apparent when the models were constructed have been addressed through several years of Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) work on forestry blocks. Consideration should be given to assessing and, if necessary, updating older models prior to use for planning. A qualified archaeologist should do such an assessment. However, even if the model is out-of-date it should be used if it cannot be updated, since it may be the only data available to SRM planners. Out-of-date models should not be used if they have been demonstrated to be highly misleading.

Many of the archaeological predictive models created for LRMP or operational planning purposes have a dual or tri-state measurement of

Append ix 12 Prov inc ia l Her i tage Reg is te r Da tabase


archaeological potential – usually high, medium, or low. This simple division aids managers in determining what level, if any, of archaeological assessment is appropriate for any particular development. Planners should be aware that in many cases, potential has been predicted with more precision, but the potential has been grouped into smaller potential classes. A map graded with the full range of potential scores might be more useful for planning, rather than one grouped by potential class, which is most useful for making operational decisions on the need for archaeological assessment. In some cases, the more detailed model results are available in the attribute tables of the potential coverages, and such a map could be created at minimal cost by a GIS consultant or the GIS department of a major licensee, with input from an archaeologist.

In some cases, no AOA is available for an area but there are usually many AIA reports available. In most cases, these are too specific for general planning use and the information they contain that would be useful may not be simple to find. One exception may be “blanket permit reports”. These are collations of dozens of individual AIA “Interim Reports” and have a summary section, including an assessment of how any current archaeological predictive model is performing, or observations about general site location patterning. AIA reports also are the principal source of ‘negative data’ – places where an archaeological survey has occurred and nothing was found, an analysis of which is critical to creating defensible models. Planners may need to hire an archaeological consultant to conduct an AOA using existing data and/or to map archaeological potential. Model performance assessment and archaeological predictive modeling can be funded through Forest Investment Accounts.

Occasionally, no data may be available. An archaeologist with appropriate experience can determine if it is possible to extrapolate a nearby archaeological predictive model to the area where sufficient cultural and environmental similarities exist. In severe cases an Archaeological Inventory Study may be necessary to address data gaps.

The results of any such funded projects should be shared with the Archaeology and Registry Services Branch so that the data can be entered into the corporate data warehouse.