environmental monitoring: business and information needs study · environmental monitoring:...

Environmental Monitoring:Environmental Monitoring:Environmental Monitoring:Environmental Monitoring:

Business and Information NeedsBusiness and Information NeedsBusiness and Information NeedsBusiness and Information NeedsStudyStudyStudyStudy

prepared for

Land Information and Inventory Coordinating CommitteeProvince of British Columbia

by

Daryl Brown, Daryl Brown Associates Inc.&

John Dick, Sustainable Visions

Draft #2.1March 30, 2001

Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study

Daryl Brown Associates Inc. & Sustainable Visions

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... III

ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................VI

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

1.1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 11.2. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE.............................................................................. 11.3. METHODS .......................................................................................................... 31.4. REPORT ORGANIZATION...................................................................................... 3

2. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING: AN OVERVIEW ........................................................... 5

2.1. DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................... 52.2. MONITORING AND STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING ................................................. 52.3. INDICATORS AND INDICES.................................................................................... 62.4. THE PRESSURE-STATE-IMPACT-RESPONSE FRAMEWORK FOR THE

SELECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS ....................................................... 82.5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH, INVENTORY AND MONITORING............... 92.6. PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING................................................... 102.7. LINKING ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING TO SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

MONITORING .................................................................................................... 10

3. THE LEGISLATIVE, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT FOR ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA........................................................................... 13

3.1. “BUSINESS DRIVERS” FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING................................... 133.2. AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ................................... 14

4. THE GENERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA............... 17

4.1. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING.................................................... 174.2. TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT MONITORING......................................................... 204.3. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT MONITORING................................................................ 264.4. LAND TENURE AND USE .................................................................................... 314.5. SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATUS OF MONITORING INITIATIVES ............................. 32

5. PROVINCIAL INITIATIVES THAT INTERPRET AND REPORT ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING INFORMATION....................................................................................... 35

5.1. NUMBER AND TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS THAT PROVINCIALAGENCIES WANT TO TRACK.............................................................................. 38

5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION PRIORITIES ....................................................... 405.3. OVERLAPPING INDICATORS AND INITIATIVES ....................................................... 45

Page ii



6. KEY ISSUES, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 47

6.1. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES................................................................................. 476.2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 49

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................... 53

APPENDIX 2: STUDY CONTACTS................................................................................. 55

APPENDIX 3: PROVINCIAL TRENDS INTERPRETATION / EFFECTIVENESSREPORTING INITIATIVES ......................................................................... 57

APPENDIX 4: CURRENT AND PROPOSED MONITORING (TIME-SERIES)INFORMATION FOR TRENDS INTERPRETATION & EFFECTIVENESSREPORTING INITIATIVES OF PROVINCIAL AGENCIES ................................ 65

Tables

Table 1: Examples of “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” Relationship .................................. 8

Table 2: Linking Environmental, Social and Economic Monitoring Using thePSIR Framework..................................................................................................... 10

Table 3: Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring in BC ......................................... 15

Table 4: Summary of Trends Interpretation and Effectiveness Reporting Initiatives .............. 36

Table 5: Indicators for Which Provincial Agencies Require Environmental Information ......... 38

Table 6: Initiatives and Number of Indicators ........................................................................ 39

Table 7: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme .............................................. 41

Table 8: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme — Descending Order ............ 42

Table 9: Number of Indicators by Initiatives .......................................................................... 43

Table: 10: Environmental Monitoring Information in Greatest Demand ............................ 44



Page iii

EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY

Study Background and Purpose

BC’s Land Information and Inventory Coordinating Committee (LIICC) commissioned this studyto obtain a current picture of provincial environmental monitoring business and informationneeds, as a basis for developing a “corporate environmental baseline”, which is essentially asystem for advising about and distributing environmental information that is needed forenvironmental management purposes.

Study findings are based primarily on a series of interviews that the consultants held withprovincial agency personnel who are involved in delivering environmental monitoring andinventory programs (i.e., data providers); and those who are involved in activities to interpretenvironmental monitoring information in support of program requirements and for environmentaltrends / effectiveness assessment purposes (i.e., data users). Various agencies’ documentationwas also reviewed to identify specific environmental indicators that agencies want to track overtime, and the particular environmental information that is needed to support these efforts.

Terminology

Various terminology is applied in the area of environmental monitoring. For the purposes of thisstudy it is important to be clear that environmental monitoring involves the collection of time-series data on specified environmental indicators (parameters) using defined samplingmethodologies. This is distinct from environmental or resource inventories that are anenumeration of a particular resource or ecosystem and typically provide a snap-shot of resourceconditions at a single point in time.

Key Issues

The key issues that need to be addressed in relation to environmental monitoring in BC are:

Supply – Demand Imbalance: There is rapidly increasing interest from various agencies /initiatives to access reliable environmental monitoring (time-series) information.However, most of the environmental information that is available in BC is “point-in-time”inventory information. There is a growing divergence between the demand for highquality, time-series environmental monitoring information and the availability of it.

Lack of Formalized Business Drivers: Although there are some positive signs that certaincategories of monitoring data will become more available (e.g., vegetation changemonitoring), pressures to reduce monitoring activity for other resource categoriescontinue to increase (e.g., water quality / quantity). Environmental monitoring is currentlya discretionary activity that must compete with other environmental managementinitiatives for scarce budget dollars. To lessen the supply – demand imbalance forenvironmental monitoring information, formalized business drivers for environmental

Page iv



monitoring are required (e.g., more explicit requirements for agencies to engage inmonitoring, potentially based in legislation).

Technical Capacity: The providers of environmental monitoring information are increasinglybeing called on, ad hoc, by external users of that data to explain and interpret the data.While it is important for this technical service to be provided to data users to prevent themis-interpretation of data and the potential for inaccurate reporting of environmentaloutcomes, there is only so much that data providers can do, given their own programpriorities and limited resources. A further capacity issue relates to the reduced technicalexpertise within programs to develop monitoring systems / networks that are capable ofproducing statistically valid and credible data.

Indicator Proliferation: It is questionable whether or not it is necessary for BC to track thelarge number of environmental indicators that provincial agencies, in combination, areinterested in measuring (over 200). In addition, there are overlaps among agencies /initiatives in the indicators they are / are proposing to measure. Both of these issuesneed to be addressed to achieve efficiencies.

Lack of Coordination: Along with the expanding agency interest in environmental monitoringcomes a critical need for increased coordination and cooperation. A corporate approachto decision-making is required on key questions such as: funding and designingmonitoring systems; developing monitoring standards; managing monitoring datacollection, storage and distribution; roles and responsibilities for interpreting and reportingmonitoring results; etc.

Links to Decision-making: The fundamental purpose behind monitoring environmentalconditions is to improve the quality of environmental management decision-making.Closer bridges are needed between the results / findings of environmental monitoringand the policy responses of decision-makers.

Partnerships: Provincial agencies are not the only organizations in BC with an interest incollecting environmental monitoring data. The federal government, First Nations, localgovernments, universities and institutes and the private sector should all be involved ininitiatives for bringing a BC-wide, corporate perspective to environmental monitoring.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Responding to Increasing Demand for Environmental Monitoring Information

BC has plenty of environmental data, but it is generally not the kind that is needed forinterpreting trends in environmental condition and assessing program / policy / planeffectiveness. A main reason for the limited supply of environmental monitoring data is thatenvironmental monitoring is currently a discretionary activity that is based in policy or informal /implicit business drivers.



Page v

Recommendation 1: Government should institutionalize some more formal businessdrivers for environmental monitoring — i.e., mechanisms that establish an explicit, non-discretionary requirement for the collection of environmental monitoring information.

Coordinated Design and Delivery of Environmental Monitoring Systems

There is a critical need for improved coordination in determining corporate environmentalmonitoring priorities and planning the design and delivery of monitoring programs. To-date,agencies’ demands for environmental monitoring information have not been rationalized inrelation to government’s broader corporate priorities. The result is multiple agencies proceedingindependently with their own initiatives, all of which have major ongoing, and sometimesoverlapping data acquisition implications. As has already been recognized for inventoryprograms, a corporate perspective on environmental monitoring programs is necessary.

Recommendation 2: Environmental monitoring programs should be explicitly broughtunder the umbrella of LIICC or a similarly corporate-minded coordinating structure.Coordination should not be limited to provincial government agencies — the coordinatingbody should include representatives from all parties with a monitoring interest (federal,First Nations, local governments; Crown corporations, universities and institutes; privatesector).

Partnering Opportunities

Government needs to identify ways for enhancing the availability of monitoring data by involvingoutside organizations / interests in designing monitoring systems and collecting and interpretingmonitoring results.

Recommendation 3: Partnership opportunities should be explored with other levels ofgovernment, universities and institutes and the private sector, as a way of leveraging acost-effective increase in the availability of reliable environmental information.

Using Monitoring Information to Enhance Environmental Outcomes

There is little evidence of good mechanisms for integrating environmental monitoring results intoimproved environmental decision-making at the policy level. Unless this occurs, the publicinvestment into environmental monitoring is questionable.

Recommendation 4: As one component of its efforts to oversee the development of a“corporate environmental baseline”, LIICC should investigate institutional options forensuring that the findings from environmental monitoring programs are actuallyintegrated into environmental decision-making.

Page vi Environmental Monitoring:Business and Information Needs Study


AABBBBRREEVVIIAATTIIOONNSS

The following abbreviations appear in the report:

AAC Allowable Annual CutBEC Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem ClassificationBCAL BC Assets and Lands CorporationBCTFA BC Transportation Financing AuthorityBTM Baseline Thematic MappingCCFM Canadian Council of Forest MinistersCCFM C&I Canadian Council of Forest Ministers Criteria and IndicatorsC&I Criteria and IndicatorsCDC Conservation Data CentreCSA Canadian Standards AssociationDFO Department of Fisheries and OceansEC Environment CanadaFiRBC Fisheries Renewal BCFISS Fish Information Summary SystemFoRBC Forest Renewal BCFSC Forest Stewardship CouncilGIS Geographic Information SystemGVRD Greater Vancouver Regional DistrictIAMC Inter-agency Management CommitteeLIICC Land Information and Inventory Coordinating CommitteeLUCO Land Use Coordination OfficeLRMP Land and Resource Management PlanMAF Ministry of Agriculture and FoodMMA Ministry of Municipal AffairsMOAA Ministry of Aboriginal AffairsMOEM Ministry of Energy and MinesMOF Ministry of ForestsMoFi Ministry of FisheriesMOH Ministry of HealthMOTH Ministry of Transportation and HighwaysMELP Ministry of Environment, Lands and ParksMSBTC Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and CulturePAS Protected Area StrategyPSIR Pressure-State-Impact-Response frameworkSFM Sustainable Forest ManagementSLUP Strategic Land Use PlanTRIM Terrain Resource Inventory MappingTSA Timber Supply Area



Page 1

11.. IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

1.1. Background

The British Columbia government, like many other jurisdictions, faces the challenge ofmanaging increasing pressures on the natural resource base with steadily eroding institutionalcapabilities. Environmental and natural resource management activities over the next fewdecades will likely focus on:

1) improving the management of terrestrial and aquatic systems to maintain thediversity and integrity of those systems while providing a sustainable supply of socialbenefits; and

2) mitigating the environmental and public health effects of terrestrial, aquatic andatmospheric degradation resulting from human activity.

Success in these areas will depend on a broad understanding of environmental issues and on aconsensus on priorities for action. These will in turn depend on the regular collection of reliable,time-series information on selected indicators of environmental condition so that:

1) the state of the environment can be determined at any point in time;

2) significant trends in environmental quality (including emerging problems) can beidentified; and

3) timely, effective and prioritized management action can be initiated.

It is against this general background that the provincial Land Information and InventoryCoordinating Committee (LIICC) initiated this project to undertake an environmental monitoringneeds analysis.

1.2. Study Purpose and Scope

LIICC is mandated to coordinate the development and implementation of land and naturalresource inventory programs. The committee is aware of the recent interest in and proliferationof “strategic-level” environmental monitoring and reporting initiatives, including: strategic landuse plan and landscape unit plan effectiveness monitoring, environmental trends monitoring,state of forests monitoring, monitoring nationally-defined criteria and indicators for sustainableforest management, and state of parks monitoring. In addition, there is increasing interest inimplementing a “results-based” forest practices code, and supporting the delivery of forestcertification schemes. Most recently, government has indicated an intent to create aCommissioner of the Environment and Sustainability who will be responsible for monitoring andbi-annual reporting on environmental performance in British Columbia. These activities are inaddition to environmental monitoring that is done by agencies in support of their programdelivery responsibilities (e.g., air quality, water quality / quantity monitoring).



All of these monitoring initiatives, which are aimed ultimately at improving the ability to makedecisions that promote sustainable environmental management, involve the need for diversetypes of environmental sampling programs to enable the time-series measurement of variousenvironmental parameters (indicators).

Concerns from LIICC’s point of view that are inherent in an uncoordinated approach in thedevelopment and delivery of strategic-level monitoring systems are:

potential inefficiencies associated with developing diverse and potentially overlapping sets ofindicators. At present, each monitoring initiative is developing its own set of monitoringindicators, with its own data needs. Inevitably, there will be similarities among indicator setsand the methodologies and data needed to monitor and report on the indicators. Can wedevelop a focused / core set of indicators that can serve the priority needs of multiplemonitoring programs, and agree on the data that will be collected to measure the indicators?If we could, this may reduce public expenditure into data collection.

potential ineffectiveness of the monitoring results. Investments into monitoring environmentalconditions and trends are only justified if the findings / results of monitoring programs arerelevant to, and integrated into, decision-making. Are we measuring the right elements(indicators) of environmental condition — ones that will actually enable us to make decisionsthat progress us towards goals of sustainable environmental management. If we are not,then some investments into data collection and trends analysis may be wasted.

conflicting reporting among different monitoring initiatives, which may be measuring indicatorsfor the same land base, could possibly arrive at different conclusions about environmentalcondition. It will be important to ensure that monitoring programs apply the right kinds ofdata to criteria and indicator measures, and base their interpretations on an accurateunderstanding of what the data and measurements mean.

To respond to these issues, we must start by clarifying the current information needs ofdecision-makers. To that end, this study has attempted to answer the following basic question:

“What environmental condition information do the province’s natural resourcemanagement agencies need to support monitoring initiatives that are undertaken toenhance their strategic policy and program decision-making capability?”

Thus the primary objective of the project was to undertake a “needs analysis” for a government-wide, corporate environmental condition monitoring system to facilitate strategic-level policy andprogram decision-making. The study focused on information needs for environmental conditionmonitoring, with minor consideration of operational / compliance monitoring only whereinformation can be aggregated upwards to support “corporate” decision-making (see definitionsin section 2.1). This corporate baseline would serve the decision-making needs of bothindividual Ministries and inter-agency planning entities and processes. The needs-analysisencompassed the information requirements of all environmental “sectors” including atmosphericquality, water quality, water quantity, aquatic ecology and terrestrial ecology.



Page 3

1.3. Methods

The needs analysis was carried out through interviews and the use of a generic questionnairedirected at agencies that are monitoring, or are preparing to monitor and interpret environmentalinformation as a basis for reporting on the condition of environmental quality in BC, and / or tomeasure the effectiveness of their program activities in achieving corporate environmental goalsand objectives. One element of the analysis was to determine the business drivers (i.e., themandate) for these monitoring initiatives, which may include: legislation; international andnational protocols, commitments contained in individual program plans or integrated resourcemanagement plans; agencies’ internal efforts to implement adaptive management principles;and requirements for meeting government-wide accountability standards.

The questionnaire and interviews were generally targeted at agency program directors /managers involved in strategic and corporate planning and program / policy analysis, andassociated staff that are involved directly in developing, interpreting, and reporting on outcome-based measures (i.e., criteria and indicators).

The questionnaire and interviews were aimed at identifying:

1) the business drivers for their effectiveness monitoring initiatives

2) the general nature, scope, frequency and audience of their monitoring initiatives

3) the individuals that are involved in monitoring

4) the basic questions that they are trying to answer through their monitoring initiatives

5) the environmental parameters (criteria and indicators) they are measuring in effortsto answer their questions

6) the current sources of data / information for measuring their selected environmentalparameters

7) issues and comments related to the availability and adequacy of information / datathat they require for their monitoring purposes.

Where agencies are not presently involved in monitoring but foresee a need to becomeinvolved, contacts were asked to speculate on their future monitoring information / data needs.

1.4. Report Organization

In addition to this introductory chapter, the report contains the following material:

Chapter 2 provides an overview of environmental monitoring, including definitions of keymonitoring terminology and a description of the relationships between “research”, “inventory”and “monitoring”.



Chapter 3 describes BC’s current legal, policy and institutional context for environmentalmonitoring in BC. Monitoring “business drivers” and agency involvement in environmentalmonitoring are described.

Chapter 4 describes BC initiatives that generate environmental monitoring (i.e., time series)information that is potentially available for various trends interpretation and reporting, andprogram / plan / policy effectiveness assessment uses. Initiatives are described accordingto atmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial and land tenure / use categories.

Chapter 5 describes the existing and proposed users and uses of environmental monitoringinformation for agency strategic planning purposes; interpretation and reporting onenvironmental / sustainability trends; assessments of agencies’ plans, programs andpolicies. This chapter identifies the type of environmental indicators that agencies arecurrently tracking, or are intending to track, over time, and associated environmentalmonitoring information needs.

Chapter 6 provides a summary of environmental monitoring issues, leading to studyconclusions and recommendations.

Supporting information is provided in report appendices.



Page 5

22.. EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG:: AANN OOVVEERRVVIIEEWW

2.1. Definitions

The general term “monitoring” embraces a number of quite different activities in a natural andenvironment resource management context:

Environmental Condition (also known as ambient or effectiveness) Monitoring — measuresenvironmental condition, usually against long-term resource management goals orobjectives, and when measured in “time-series” determines trends in condition.

Validation Monitoring — is a semi-research activity undertaken to evaluate: a) the degree towhich monitoring indicators and techniques measure real environmental conditions andtrends, and b) the cause / effect relationship between environmental condition andmanagement interventions.

Compliance (also known as operational) Monitoring — measures performance against legalenvironmental standards or permit / plan conditions in order to establish a compliancerecord.

Program (also known as implementation) Monitoring — determines progress in programimplementation against established “benchmarks” (number of activities completed, areatreated, number of clients served, cost of delivery, etc).

As noted in chapter 1, this project and the following discussion will focus primarily onenvironmental condition monitoring, with some consideration of operational and programmonitoring initiatives where information is comprehensive enough to be aggregated upwards tosupport strategic decision-making.

2.2. Monitoring and Strategic Decision-Making

Perhaps the most tenuous aspect of the environmental management cycle is the link betweenmonitoring and management action. Even at the operational level, where the relationship wouldseem to be most straight forward, many industrial operations have not yet fully integratedenvironmental monitoring with day-to-day decision-making. The result is that non-compliancedoes not always elicit an immediate and positive operational response. It is, however, at thelevel of strategic policy and program development in government institutions that the linkbetween monitoring and management action is least developed. There are a number ofreasons for this:

• senior decision-makers may not have thought about, or articulated, their needs for dataat this level of decision-making;



• the bewildering array of “environmental” information does not lend itself easily toconsolidation and aggregation;

• much of the “information” is of poor quality and not collected with either the regularity orthe scientific rigour that allows interpretation of the trends and comparisons that aremost important in identifying management programs and setting priorities;

• “environmental indicators” being monitored may not adequately represent environmentalcondition;

• most senior decision-makers lack the technical expertise to properly interpretenvironmental monitoring data;

• information providers are not always able to present data in a form that is easilyunderstood by “non-technical” persons; and

• environmental issues, and the information relating to them, seldom conform to thejurisdictional and institutional boundaries devised by government planners, with theresult that monitoring is often poorly coordinated and fragmented.

Environmental monitoring is of most use to senior decision-makers when it is collected in “time-series” so that trends in condition can be determined and those trends compared with a desiredstate. Several recent initiatives - Environmental Indicators, State-of-Environment Reporting,State-of-the Forest Reporting, State-of-Parks Reporting - either are doing, or intend to do,comprehensive trend analysis. It is not known, however, how these reporting initiativesinfluence, or are used by, senior staff for program / policy decision-making purposes. Theseinitiatives also have a significant public education potential, which may require specializedinformation interpretation and presentation.

A “corporate approach” to monitoring offer a number of advantages for strategic decision-making, including:

1) common standards of information collection and organization;

2) efficiencies and synergies in data collection, interpretation and reporting;

3) ensuring that information sets are readily available to all potential users; and

4) avoiding the appearance of bias.

This does not mean that all information should be collected by a central agency, merely that thecorporate system should be able to influence and harmonize standards of data collection andinterpretation, accommodate all general information sets, and have the capability to access allspecific environmental data sets.

2.3. Indicators and Indices

Given the problems and needs described above, there has been increasing interest over thepast decade in the development of scientifically-credible environmental indicators and indices.



Page 7

Studies in this field do not always distinguish between indicators and indices, and so forpurposes of this discussion, the following definitions will be used:

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

Index — values, expressed on a simple numerical (e.g.,1-10, 1-100, 1-200 etc) ordescriptive (i.e. low, moderate, high, extreme) scale, which represents a summation ofvarious conditions and measurements across a broad field (e.g., water quality in aparticular water body or watershed might be reported on as being excellent, good, fair,borderline or poor, based on a synthesis of various water quality / chemistry parameterssuch as temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, turbidity, metals, etc.)

Indicators and indices are developed for similar purposes:

• simplification of complex relationships,

• selection of the most relevant information for a given management purpose,

• quantification of information on environmental conditions and trends,

• communication of information to decision-makers and the public,

• allocation of financial resources between issues and regions,

• enforcement of environmental standards, and

• to enhance the efficiency and quality of data collection,

And, they likewise suffer from the same problems and limitations:

• oversimplification,

• subjectiveness, both in the assumed representativeness of chosen indicators and in thenumerical valuation and weightings associated with indices,

• a loss of information,

• the potential for misuse,

• inadequate understanding of the underlying cause-effect relationships, and

• the obscuring of important conditions and trends in the individual, aggregate data-sets.

Indices, because they attempt to convert data in different form to simple scales, intensify theproblems of loss of information, oversimplification, subjectivity and the masking of importantrelationships in underlying data. Very simple environmental indices have been developed withindiscrete sectors (i.e. air and water quality indices) and substantial research has been carried outon “composite environmental indices” that might allow aggregated, multi-sectoral environmentalratings. Most researchers have concluded that the development of composite indices that mightbe applied to real, practical decision-making are more than a decade away, however, new databases should, at least, anticipate their eventual development and application.



2.4. The Pressure-State-Impact-Response Framework for theSelection of Environmental Indicators

Nearly all environmental inventory and monitoring initiatives involve the use of indicators of oneform or another. Ideally, indicators should be selected that directly reflect the health or conditionof the environment, however, this may not always be possible or practical. Proxy parametersthat are often easier to measure can sometimes be found through application of the “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” (PSIR) Model (Harvard University 1995). This model assumes that thestate of the environment can be linked to socio-economic influences: i.e. that human activitiesimpose pressures on the environment but because humans are also dependent on theenvironment, the resulting environmental change can cause impacts on humans and theirvalued ecosystems that in turn require a management response. The major implication of thismodel to the selection of indicators is that it may be easier to measure pressure, impact orresponse parameters than actual environmental condition, providing that the pressure-state-impact-response relationship is well understood. Simple examples of the PSIR relationship areshown in Table 1.

Table 1: Examples of “Pressure-State-Impact-Response” Relationship

EnvironmentalIssue

Pressure State Impact Management Response

Ground water useand quality

• Waterwithdrawalexceedsrecharge

• Aquiferdepletion

• Drying wellsand watershortages

• Increased water useefficiency

• Licensing and fees• Provision of alternate

sourcesSalmonid habitat • Surface water

withdrawals• Disturbance to

streams andriparian areas

• Destruction ordegradation ofspawning andrearing habitat

• Decreasedaquaticproductivity

• Decreasedreturns ofmature fish

• Decreasedsurvival andout-migration ofjuvenile fish

• Fish habitatrestoration

• Stock rehabilitation• Stream and riparian

protection regulations• In-stream flow

requirements

Critical lands (steepslopes, fragile soils,etc)

• Increasedlogging, landdisturbanceand roadbuilding onsteep slopes

• Increased soilerosion, landinstability andstreamsedimentation

• Water qualitydegradation.

• Hydrologicdisruption.

• Aquatic habitatdegradation

• Greater regulation ofhuman activity oncritical lands

• Watershed and fishhabitat rehabilitation

The major problem in the application of the PSIR model to the selection of indicators is that therelationship may not be as straight-forward or direct as it appears (in the table above undersalmonid habitat, for example, decreased returns of mature fish and survival of juveniles may bedue to influences in the open ocean or to climate change as well as habitat degradation). If aparticular indicator is to be really useful as a monitoring tool it must be truly representative of thesystem being monitored and there must be adequate understanding of the PSIR relationship. It



Page 9

must always be kept in mind in drawing judgements and interpretations that, however wellchosen, indicators are merely an assumed model of reality, not reality itself.

2.5. The Relationship between Research, Inventory andMonitoring

It is important not to confuse monitoring with two closely related activities: research andinventory.

Research is the most intensive and expensive level of data collection, carried out on relativelysmall areas to achieve a better understanding of complex relationships with the hope that suchunderstanding can be extrapolated to much larger areas.

Inventory is an enumeration of an ecological system; generally carried out either to provide abasis for estimating potential yield or to establish a baseline. “Time-series” information may bederived from both research and inventory, but only if the research is sufficiently long-term andthe inventory is repeated. In both cases this is a very expensive way to derive such information.Additionally, the site-specific level at which research is carried out makes it difficult to aggregateand generalize information, and inventory methods often change, making it difficult orimpossible to compare the results of successive inventories. Well-conceived monitoring isalways the most practical, pragmatic and least-costly method of deriving time-series information,and has the most direct link to management. The relationship between the three activities isillustrated in the following figure:

RESEARCH �---------------� INVENTORY �----------------� MONITORING

��------------------------ increasing cost per unit area -------------------------------------------------------------- increasing use of selected indicators ----------------------------------- ��

------------- increasing direct influence on management activities -------------------- ��

��-------------increasing spatial intensity of data collection --------------------------------��---------------- increasing complexity of data collection -------------------------------

In summary, research can provide a better understanding of cause and effect and the PSIRrelationship; inventory provides a baseline or “snapshot in time” and a basis for selectingindicators for long-term monitoring; and monitoring relies on research and inventory results toprovide relatively cheap and simple means of measuring trends and change in environmentalcondition over time.



2.6. Principles of Environmental Monitoring

However monitoring information is interpreted and presented for strategic policy and programdevelopment, the basic information must be collected through monitoring programs that conformto a number of principles:

• monitoring must have a focus or context, i.e. priority issues, predicted impacts;

• management objectives, management plans, environmental standards etc;

• monitoring must be formalized and statistically replicatable, with standards for samplingand reporting, defined responsibilities, and firm schedules;

• monitoring should focus on trends and change in environmental quality rather than oncomprehensive description, linking (at least in an inferred way) present condition both topast quality and a desired future state;

• monitoring programs must be both feasible and affordable; and

• wherever possible, monitoring indicators should provide linkages between theenvironment and socio-economic development.

2.7. Linking Environmental Monitoring to Social and EconomicMonitoring

Sustainable development may be described as a development strategy, characterized byprudence and vision, in which social, environmental and economic objectives are balanced toproduce a community of lasting quality, harmony and prosperity. If that balance is to beachieved, it is vital that monitoring programs of social, environmental and economic condition belinked, and integrated at the points of linkage. As noted above, the PSIR model offers a meansof developing these linkages, particularly in the important relationships between environmentalhealth and public health and between environmental quality and economic activity. Table 2provides simple hypothetical examples of these linkages (see Table 1 for additional examples).

Table 2: Linking Environmental, Social and Economic Monitoring Using the PSIRFramework

EnvironmentalIssue


Eco-tourism andback-countryrecreation

• Increasingintensity ofrecreational use

• Site damageto soil andvegetation

• Wildlifepopulationsunder stress

• Decreasedrecreationalquality

• Decreasedeconomicopportunity

• Increasedwildlife/humaninteractions

• Loss ofbiodiversity

• Determination of carryingcapacity.

• Limitations on visitor use• Introduction of recreational

tenures with conditions• Provision of facilities and

infrastructure to distributeuse and reduce damage

• Zoning and timing restrictions



Page 11

EnvironmentalIssue


Woodproduction

• Woodharvestingandprocessingcapacityexceedssustainableyields

• Deforestationand forestdegradation

• Declining woodproduction andemployment.

• Loss of forestfunction andbiodiversity

• Rationalize wood processingindustry

• Economic transitionstrategies for forest-dependent communities

• Intensive plantation forestryon degraded forest lands

Air Quality • Increasingairemissionsfromregulatedand non-regulatedsources

• Degrading airquality (i.e.ozone andrespirableparticulates)

• Increasingincidence ofrespiratorydisease (P.M. 2.5and ozone)

• Vegetation(natural andagricultural)damage (ozone)

• Airshed planning.• More stringent emission

standards• Burning bans.• Improved public transport• Fuel and vehicle taxes• Air quality alerts



Page 13

33.. TTHHEE LLEEGGIISSLLAATTIIVVEE,, PPOOLLIICCYY AANNDD IINNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALLCCOONNTTEEXXTT FFOORR EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGG IINNBBRRIITTIISSHH CCOOLLUUMMBBIIAA

3.1. “Business Drivers” for Environmental Monitoring

A new legislative initiative, that may have a more comprehensive impact on effectivenessmonitoring programs than any existing legal instrument, is the “Budget Transparency andAccountability Act” (July 6, 2000). The Act requires every “ministry and governmentorganization” to:

1) prepare an annual performance plan, which shall be made public, for the fiscal yearand the following two fiscal years, such plans to include a statement of goals,specific objectives and performance measures; and

2) prepare annual performance reports, which shall be made public, comparing actualresults for the preceding fiscal year with the expected results identified in that year’sperformance plan.

All Ministries are in the process of developing the performance measures required under theAct. For environmental and natural resource agencies, performance measures will essentiallyconsist of environmental effectiveness monitoring indicators.

Beyond the requirements arising out of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act,“business drivers” for environmental monitoring include such diverse instruments as:

• specific acts and regulations (including licences and permits that are issued under an actor regulation and that require environmental monitoring at a site level);

• international and national conventions and protocols;

• policy and program plans;

• strategic inter-agency planning programs;

• regional and sub-regional inter-agency planning processes; and

• local and operational plans.

These can be categorized as monitoring initiatives that are either:

1) explicitly required by legislation;

2) implicitly required by legislation;

3) required for policy or program development; or

4) required for planning processes.



Currently in BC, aside from Budget Transparency and Accountability Act requirements, no land /resource statutes “explicitly require” environmental monitoring, although there are a fewpotential exceptions presently under consideration. For example, it is expected that changes toprotected area legislation will result in a legislated obligation for regular reporting by MELP onthe state of BC’s parks. This will require MELP to obtain access to various environmentalinformation on ecosystem conditions in protected areas. It can be assumed that this mandatedrequirement will lead to some form of time-series monitoring of ecological integrity in BC’sprotected areas. Similarly, it is expected that the proposed new BC Commissioner ofEnvironment and Sustainability will be empowered by law to report periodically on BC’senvironmental performance and condition. This will require the Commissioner, (as a user ofmonitoring information, not a generator of it) to obtain access to environmental monitoringinformation, most likely from line agencies. This may or may not result in an increased level ofenvironmental monitoring in those line agencies.

Environmental monitoring is “implicitly required” by a few statutes that identify particular goals orobjectives in the statutes themselves. For example, the Forest Practices Code of BritishColumbia Act, the Growth Strategies Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act containvarious goals or objectives respecting future environmental conditions that the legislation aimsto achieve. There is an implied expectation that time-series monitoring would occur to assessthe extent to which these stated goals and objectives are being achieved; however, there is nospecific requirement imposed on the responsible agencies to actually perform any monitoring,interpretation or reporting on goals achievement.

By far the greatest amount of environmental monitoring that presently occurs in BC is driven byagencies’ individual needs for information to support their policy, programming, or planningfunctions and responsibilities. The consequence of having very few formalized (i.e., legislated)drivers for the ongoing collection of monitoring information is that environmental monitoringproposals have a hard time to compete with other spending priorities. If no requirements forlong-term monitoring programs are imposed on budgeting decision-makers, it is very easy forenvironmental monitoring programs to succumb to other spending obligations and priorities.The lack of formalized business drivers for environmental monitoring is likely a main reasonbehind the past and current limited availability of good, time-series environmental monitoringinformation in BC. Although there is recently increased interest in and commitment to greaterinvestment into monitoring programs that can generate good time-series environmentalmonitoring (e.g., vegetation change inventory and monitoring initiative), it remains to be seen ifthese programs can be sustained over the long-run without a more formalized foundation.

3.2. Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring

Agencies interviewed for this study, either as environmental data users or providers, can becategorized as follows in terms of their involvement in environmental monitoring, as shown inTable 3.



Page 15

Table 3: Agency Involvement in Environmental Monitoring in BC

CATEGORY AGENCIES

Data provider that isindependent of a resourcemanagement function

• Geographic Data B.C. (MELP)

Data provider that is part of amanagement agency

• Resource Inventory Branch (MELP)• Resource Inventory Branch (MOFor)• Information Services Branch (MOFi)• Information Provision Branch (MOAA) (also an information user / analyst)

Management agency with itsown data collection capacity

• Air Resources Branch (MELP)• Pollution Prevention and Remediation Branch (MELP)• Wildlife Branch (MELP)• Parks and Ecological Reserves Management Branch (MELP)• Crown Lands Branch (MELP)• Water Management Branch (MELP)• Public Health Protection Branch (MOH)

Management agency with anassociated data provider.

• Habitat Branch (MELP)• Fisheries Management Branch (MOFi)• Forest Practices Branch (MOFor)• Strategic Planning and Policy Branch (MOFor)• Timber Supply Branch (MOFor)• Implementation Branch (MOAA)

Agency with trend analysis /reporting responsibilities

• Corporate Policy Branch (MELP)• Forest Practices Branch (MOFor)• Inter-agency Management Committees (Land Use Coordination Office)• Commissioner of Environment and Sustainability (Auditor General)

Management agencies withno associated data provider(rely on secondary data)

• Tourism Policy and Land Use Branch (MSBTC)• Green Economy Secretariat• Growth Strategies Office (MMA)• Environmental Assessment Office• Fisheries Renewal B.C.• Risk Assessment and Toxicology Branch (MOH)• Implementation Branch (MOAA)

Agencies that fund inventoryand monitoring initiatives

• Forest Renewal BC• LUCO• MAA

MELP = Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks MOFor = Ministry of ForestsMOFi = Ministry of Fisheries MOH = Ministry of HealthMSBTC = Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture MAA = Ministry of Aboriginal AffairsMMA = Ministry of Municipal Affairs



All of the agencies interviewed for this study have their own unique needs, however, a numberof generalizations can be made on the basis of the different types of organizations reflected inthe table above:

1) a diverse array of agencies want to access environmental monitoring data in oneform or another;

2) many organizations have no forum in which to express their monitoring informationneeds, or access to funds that would allow them to “influence” data collectors;

3) several agencies are requesting information that may not have been collected to suittheir particular needs;

4) some agencies lack a technical information group to assist in data management andinterpretation and, conversely, others (i.e., data providers) lack the business caseexpertise to develop monitoring products;

5) there is no corporate or inter-agency body (as there currently is for inventory —LIICC / RIC) to champion, integrate and coordinate environmental monitoringinitiatives for the province.



Page 17

44.. TTHHEE GGEENNEERRAATTIIOONN OOFF EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALLIINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN IINN BBRRIITTIISSHH CCOOLLUUMMBBIIAA

This chapter describes existing or proposed environmental monitoring initiatives that producetime-series environmental information that may be used for various purposes, including:strategic / program planning; environmental and sustainability trends interpretation andreporting; and assessing the effectiveness of programs, policies, plans, etc. in achieving theirunderlying objectives. Also described here are selected inventory initiatives where it wasapparent from study interviews that inventory information will be used as a monitoring baseline.

Monitoring initiatives are organized in four categories: atmospheric resources, aquaticresources, terrestrial resources, and cross-sectoral land use / land condition monitoringinitiatives. Within each of these categories, information is provided on business drivers,indicators within the PSIR framework for which monitoring information is / will be available,sources of monitoring information, primary users of the monitoring information, and primary datadeficiencies and needs. At the end of the chapter, a summary is provided of the status ofprovincial monitoring initiatives. (See chapter 5 for a detailed look at agencies’ informationrequirements as derived from the specific environmental indicators that agencies wish to trackover time.)

4.1. Atmospheric Environmental Monitoring

Business Drivers

Current atmospheric monitoring initiatives focus primarily on two environmental issues: airquality and public health; and global climate change.

Air quality monitoring is not specifically required by legislation but is necessary to provide acontext for air emission standards in permits issued under the authority of the WasteManagement Act. Air quality monitoring is further driven by the National Air PollutionSurveillance (NAPS) program for urban air quality, the need to demonstrate compliancewith the Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for ozone and suspended particulates, and theneed to provide information to the public on serious air quality episodes and in the eventof environmental emergencies.

Climate change monitoring is driven by Canada’s commitment to greenhouse gasreductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Monitoring responsibilities are shared with theGovernment of Canada, with the province’s responsibilities now detailed in a three-year“Climate Change Business Plan”. Meteorological monitoring, carried out in conjunctionwith air quality monitoring, supports activities to address both issues: providinginformation for pollutant dispersion modelling and regional / local airshed management;and long-term climatic records to monitor changes.



Indicators

Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following types ofatmospheric resource indicators. See Appendix 4 for a more detailed description of indicatorsand associated environmental information requirements.

Issue PressureIndicators

ConditionIndicators

Impact Indicators Response Indicators

Air Quality • Emissionsourceinventory

• Compliancerecords

• Dispersionmodels

• Ambient airqualitymonitoringnetwork

• (P.M. 10, P.M.2.5, ozone, CO,NOx, SO2,TRS).

• Meteorologicalmonitoringnetwork

• Public health statisticson morbidity andmortality fromrespiratory diseases

• Frequency anddistribution of air qualityalerts

• Number and extent ofairshed plans

ClimateChange

• Inventory ofgreenhousegas emissionsources andamounts

• Dynamics ofcarbon sinksandsequestrationin natural andagriculturalsystems

• Long-termclimatology andmeteorologymonitoring andmodeling

• Ecological monitoring(i.e. extent of snow andice fields, frequency ofnatural wildfires,frequency of stress-related forest insect anddisease attack, changesin fish speciescomposition andabundance)

• Economic monitoring(i.e. frequency andextent of economiclosses due to extremeclimatic events)

• Implementation of theB.C. Climate ChangeBusiness Plan (i.e.energy and industry,transportation,communities andbuildings and forestsand agriculture, andsupporting actionstrategies)

Sources of Information

Air quality and meteorological monitoring information is collected and managed by MELP and bythe Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). GVRD currently has the highest density of airquality monitoring stations in the province. Outside GVRD, air quality stations are eitheroperated directly by MELP (34 sites), by industrial operations operating under wastemanagement permits (44 sites) or in partnership (6 sites). Of these, 42 sites also provide astandard range of meteorological data. Information from all sources is stored in a separate datamanagement system maintained by the Air Management Branch of MELP. Additionalmeteorological information for B.C. is available from the federal network maintained byEnvironment Canada.

Greenhouse gas inventories are currently estimated by Environment Canada with informationprovided by MELP, Statistics Canada and industrial partners.



Page 19

Primary Information Users

Air Quality: MELP (Headquarters and regions), GVRD, Risk Assessment and ToxicologyBranch (MOH), Regional Medical Health Officers, Environment Canada.

Climate Change: MELP, MEM, MEI, MOA, MOFor, MOFi, MOH, MOMA, MOTH, MCDCV,MFCR, Green Economy Secretariat, BC Hydro, BCBC, Crown Corporations Secretariat,Purchasing Commission, GVRD, BCTFA. (All contributing agencies to the B.C. ClimateChange Business Plan).

Data Deficiencies and Needs

Air Quality: Data deficiencies identified by MELP and MOH relate to both the amount andtype of information collected. Current geographic distribution of monitoring stations isinadequate, particularly in the interior of the province. Monitors are provided by thefederal government under NAPS but operational and maintenance costs must be borneby MELP, GVRD and industrial partners. This leads to anomalies such as nomonitoring in some interior communities (because of limited MELP funding) and threetimes the number of stations in Prince George where financial support comes fromindustry.

In terms of the types of information available: PM10 is relatively good; PM2.5 is veryscarce and represents the most important current data deficiency; ozone information isvery sparse with not nearly enough stations at a time when research is indicating thatozone is second only to suspended particulates in terms of public health concerns; andthere is little or no monitoring of toxics and acid deposition. Health science information(and thus the information medical health officers would like) is progressing faster thanmonitoring technology and design, particularly in the areas of the effects of differentsizes of pollutant particles (it is not possible, for example, to sample for both fine andcoarse respirable particulates with one monitor) and the synergistic effects of differentpollutants. MOH and MELP are currently cooperating on studies to provide: 1) up-to-date summaries of scientific information on the relationship between common airpollutants (both individually and in mixtures) and human health, and 2) risk assessmentmethods that have been or could be used to estimate impacts of air pollution on humanhealth. These studies would be used to up-grade monitoring techniques and abatementpriorities.

Global Climate Change: Monitoring associated with global climate change is currently invery rapid development and change. The Climate Change Business Plan calls forimprovements to monitoring in three areas. First, the province will work with the federalgovernment and industry to improve the accuracy of greenhouse gas inventories.Second, MOFor will work to develop a forest carbon accounting framework and forestcarbon budget modelling, and MOFor/MAF will develop programs to monitor carbonsequestration and release in forest and agricultural soils. Third, the Corporate PolicyBranch of MELP in cooperation with other agencies has initiated a contract to determinerelevant ecological and economic indicators of climate change for long-term monitoring.



4.2. Terrestrial Environment Monitoring

Business Drivers

Terrestrial environment monitoring involves the generation of time-series data for soils,vegetation and wildlife and wildlife habitat resources.

Soil Resources: BC currently has no specific, comprehensive program to monitor thecondition of the provincial soils resource (e.g., amount of erosion, organic content, soilmoisture, etc.), although MOF’s Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative(driven by the National Forest Inventory initiative) should include some site-level, time-series monitoring of selected forest soils attributes. In addition, some local / regionalinformation (e.g., Kamloops forest region) may be available, for example, on turbiditylevels which would be an indication of soil erosion. As well, some time-series data isavailable that enables an interpretation of soils condition, vis a vis certain land useactivities (primarily forestry). For example, existing time-series information on the areaof land that has been subject to timber harvesting, or the length of new forestry roadsconstructed, enables inferences to be drawn about soil condition.

The business drivers for collecting this sort of data are based primarily in agencies’administrative / management programs – there is no direct legal drivers that explicitlyrequire agencies to monitor soil condition (other than what might occur at the site /tenure level where soil / erosion control may be an explicit permit condition that requiressome site-level monitoring for the life of the permit / tenure). There are, however,implicit requirements in certain statutes that may serve as business drivers for soilmonitoring initiatives. In particular, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Actand Code regulations and guidelines would suggest a need to track soil condition overtime. Also, if a higher level plan is adopted under the code that makes reference to soilsmanagement, then there is an implied requirement for soils monitoring, although thiswould likely occur through the strategic land use plan (LRMP) effectiveness monitoringprogram. Operational planning under the Code requires forest planners to considersoils information (terrain stability / hazard mapping) but monitoring of soils per se is nota requirement of operational planning.

A further, recent potential business driver for soils monitoring (and other environmentalresources) are the environmental goals defined in the Growth Strategies Act, nowincorporated into the new municipal act (Local Government Act), the Islands Trust Act,the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and the Vancouver Charter. These statutes nowrequire local government planning to accommodate provincial goals of protectingenvironmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the integrity of the resource base, andreducing and preventing air, land and water pollution. Again, although there is noexplicit requirement in this for soil, air, water, etc. monitoring, there certainly is animplied requirement.

Finally, with respect to business drivers for soils, legislation does exist to regulatecontaminated sites, and this involves record-keeping on the number and location ofcontaminated sites in BC. It should be possible to produce time-series information on



Page 21

contaminated sites from this information to satisfy the legislation’s implied need toassess program effectiveness in controlling soils contamination.

Vegetation Resources: As noted above, program has been recently initiated to monitorchange in vegetation resources condition – the “Change Inventory and Monitoring ofVegetation Resources” initiative. This is in addition to standard MOF vegetationresources inventory, from which some limited time-series information on vegetationcondition may be derived.

The Change Inventory and Monitoring initiative is driven primarily out of the businessneed to provide data to meet National Forest Inventory (NFI) goals that are aimed,among other things, at supporting the Canadian Council of Forest Minister’s (CCFM)commitment to produce national level reports on the status and trends of thesustainable forest management (SFM). This monitoring initiative is also beingundertaken to contribute to in-province programs such as timber supply analysis, forestcertification and provincial State of the Forests reporting, which are important businessdrivers in their own right. Data from this program should also be able to supportassessments of the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code in achieving thesustainable forest use goals that underlie the Code, as expressed in the ForestPractices Code of British Columbia Act preamble (e.g., “conserving biological diversity,soil, water, fish, wildlife, scenic diversity and other forest resources; restoring damagedecologies”). At present, no provincial organization is directly assessing the variousaspects of the Code (e.g., biodiversity guidebook old forest retention percentages,identified wildlife conservation strategies, riparian buffer standards, watershedassessment provisions designed to protect soil / water resources, etc.) in terms of theextent to which these provisions are achieving the Code’s basic goals. The ForestPractices Board, however, reports that it is considering identifying performanceindicators that would be used for this purpose.

Wildlife Resources: Although various wildlife inventory data is available for BC, there isrelatively limited time-series monitoring data on wildlife populations and habitats.Perhaps the most comprehensive information on wildlife condition is held by MELP’sConservation Data Centre which retains information on rare, threatened andendangered species. Collecting this information is driven out of MELP’s wildlifemanagement program needs, and to contribute to national level information that, in turn,is collected to meet Canada’s international biodiversity convention obligations.

Time-series information on wildlife habitat availability will eventually be available throughthe Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative (see above) – i.e., forestcover by species, forest age, etc. – and some strategic-level habitat monitoringinformation (i.e., changes in broad vegetative patterns) can be derived from MELP’sbaseline thematic mapping (BTM) initiative. The BTM program has been primarilydriven out of a need to serve strategic land use planning requirements.

Population trends information is available for certain bird species as a result of historicand current surveys that are done by and in cooperation with the Canadian WildlifeService (e.g., breeding bird, migratory bird surveys). Internal and international resourceconservation priorities are the primary business drivers for the collection of thismonitoring information.



Again, the above-noted new Local Government Act is another potential implicit businessdriver for wildlife and wildlife habitat resources monitoring. Non-legislative businessdrivers include forest certification and the various trends interpretation / effectivenessmonitoring initiatives.

Indicators

Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following terrestrial resourceindicators. See Appendix 4 for a detailed description of indicators and associatedenvironmental information requirements.

Issue Pressure Indicators Condition Indicators Impact Indicators ResponseIndicators

Soils • road density• harvesting or road

building activity onsteep slopes orunstable terrain

• number anddistribution oflandslides

• number anddistribution ofcontaminated sites

• soil fertility (organicmatter, nitrogen andphosphorus content,etc.)

• number anddistribution of landslides anderosionallandscapes

• number anddistribution ofwatershedrehabilitationprojects

• number anddistribution ofcontaminatedsites remediationprojects

Vegetation • area / volumeharvested (byvarious silviculturesystems)

• area and distributionof forest types (bybiogeoclimatic zoneand ecoregion)

• age class / seralstage distribution

• patch / gapdistribution

• total biomass levels• rate / volume of

forest growth• timber harvesting

land base vs areamanaged forprotective functions

• forest health (areaand distribution ofdiseased forest)

• distribution andaerial extent ofdegraded andconvertedterrestrialecosystems

• area / distribution offorest vegetationdisturbed

• number anddistribution of plantspecies at risk

• number anddistribution ofvegetationrestorationprojects

• numbers ofplans,designations,etc. to protectsensitivevegetativeresources

Wildlife • wildlife harvest(hunting andtrapping)

• population statusand trends forselected species

• number anddistribution ofanimal species atrisk

• change inpopulation levelsfor selectedspecies (e.g., birds,amphibians,mammals)

• nature anddistribution ofharvestrestrictions

• number ofspeciesclassified as “atrisk” / “identifiedwildlife”

WildlifeHabitat

• habitat degradation(changes tostructural and spatialdiversity)

• distribution andtrends in habitatavailability forselected wildlife

• trends in thehistorical range ofselected species

• area anddistribution ofadministrativewildlife habitat



Page 23

Issue Pressure Indicators Condition Indicators Impact Indicators ResponseIndicators

• destruction of“keystone” habitatfeatures (wetlands,old growth,grasslands, nestsites, mineral licks,hibernacula, etc.)

• habitat fragmentation(road density)

designations(e.g., ungulatewinter range,wildlife habitatareas, sensitiveecosystems)


Soil Resources: No comprehensive monitoring information is presently being collected onthe condition of the province’s soil resources. Soil and surficial geology surveys havebeen carried out in many areas of the province, but there is no reliable, time-seriesinformation on change to the condition / quality of either forest or agricultural soils. TheVegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative (see below) is expected toprovide time series measurements on some selected soil indicators. The PollutionPrevention and Remediation Branch, MELP maintains a comprehensive register ofcontaminated sites in the province.

Vegetation Resources: Forest type maps (focusing on commercial timber species) havebeen maintained by the Ministry of Forests for many years. Terrestrial ecosystem maps(TEM) and predictive ecosystem maps (PEM) have been produced by the ResourceInventory Branch of MELP. A proposed new initiative is the provincial participation inthe national forestry database program which is expected to begin to soon generatetime-series information. — the Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring initiativeinvolves measuring the condition of various forest attributes at 2,400 permanent, 2 kmby 2 km, air photo assessment plots on a 20 km grid covering the province. Existing GISdata will be assigned to the photo assessment plots (e.g., TRIM, BEC). Re-measurement will occur every 10 years to detect change in forest condition within theplots and this sample information will then be extrapolated to define forest conditionsmore broadly throughout the province. Data derived from the air photo plots is intendedto address up to 30 of the CCFM criteria and indicators for SFM.

To obtain stand-level information that cannot be generated from the air photo plots, over300 fixed ground sample plots (0.4 ha in size) will be established to measure fullvegetation resources inventory attributes such as vegetative species, tree height, decay,coarse woody debris, etc. This level of monitoring, repeated every five years, willproduce information that will enable reporting on an additional five CCFM indicators.This monitoring data will also be used in provincial growth and yield monitoring, which isused ultimately for AAC determination purposes.

Wildlife Resources: The Wildlife Branch, MELP has historic population information on alarge number of wildlife species derived from both regular and irregular wildlife surveys.The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) maintains similar records for migratory birds andmarine mammals. The Conservation Data Centre, MELP is part of a national and



international network. It accepts and utilizes data from MELP, CWS and any otherverifiable sources to assess population status for a whole array of species, andproduces regular assessments of the status of red and blue listed species.

Terrestrial Habitat: Historic habitat capability maps are available from MELP, primarily forungulate winter ranges. Terrestrial and predictive ecosystem maps (TEM and PEM) areavailable from MELP and are used to make interpretations on habitat capability andpresent condition for a broad array of species. The “Identified Wildlife Strategy” underthe Forest Practices Code delineates important habitat areas for red and blue listedanimals, vascular planTs and plant communities. Several initiatives have beencompleted or are underway to identify “sensitive ecosystems” in relation to localgovernment planning. The east coast of Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, andGreater Vancouver Regional District have been completed, and an inventory of theSunshine Coast is now underway. These sensitive ecosystem inventories will providetemplates for private lands in the rest of the province. All of these habitat inventoriestaken together may provide a baseline for long-term monitoring of terrestrial habitat, butthey do not represent time-series monitoring initiatives per se.


Primary users of terrestrial environmental information will be MELP program managers (Water,Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks), MOH, MOFi, MOF, MEM, MMA, FiRBC, ForBC,EC, DFO, Local government, and a wide array of industrial operations.

With respect to the Vegetation Change Inventory and Monitoring Initiative, the resultantinformation will be used primarily to construct national and provincial-level reports on the stateof Canada’s / BC’s forests (using CCFM criteria and indicators, and BC State of the Forestsindicators frameworks). This monitoring information may potentially also be used by a numberof other potential users for various applications, including:

• other provincial-level reporting initiatives (e.g., Environmental Trends, LRMP andlandscape unit plan effectiveness monitoring);

• land use planning initiatives to describe the planning base-case and to assess optionalland use scenarios;

• FRBC to assess the effectiveness of their investments in achieving their goals toincrease forest productivity;

• the Forest Practices Board to assess the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code inachieving it’s stated aims;

• the Ministry of Forests and the Chief Forester to improve the quality of AACdeterminations.

• forest companies and forest certification auditors in assessing forest managementperformance in relation to forest certification standards, and

• BC’s model forest boards in assessing the condition of their forests in relation to local-level SFM criteria and indicators that they have identified for their forests.



Page 25


Soil Resources: The Ministry of Agriculture and Food identified a need for government tomonitor the amount of carbon sequestration in soils (agricultural and forest soils) inorder to assess the degree of Canada’s contribution to the Kyoto protocol. Although thisMinistry would like to be able to monitor the organic and nutrient content of agriculturalsoils in order to better understand the effectiveness of programs / initiatives to improveor maintain soil quality, there are currently no programs in place to provide such data.Monitoring data should be available in future for forest soils through the VegetationChange Inventory and Monitoring Initiative. “Pressure” and “impact” information relatingto soil erosion and landscape instability may be available from BTM thematic mappingproduced by Geographic Data BC.

The Ministry of Forests, as part of the State of the Forests reporting initiative, hasindicated a need for monitoring information on the percentage of harvested areas withsignificant soil compaction, displacement, erosion, puddling and loss of organic matter.There is also interest in monitoring the area and distribution of soil restoration activity.Given that time-series measurements of forest soils condition is an element of theCCFM criteria and indicators for SFM, these MOF information needs should eventuallybecome available through the MOF / National Forestry Database “Change Inventoryand Monitoring Initiative for Vegetation Resources”.

Vegetation Resources: Forest type maps focus primarily on commercial timber species, areof uncertain reliability in some locations and are lacking in some locations (e.g., olderprotected areas). As well, forest inventories have been incrementally upgraded overtime, thus losing the capability of providing trends in vegetation change over time.Terrestrial and predictive ecosystem (the distinction relates to the greater amount ofground-truthing TEM mapping) mapping by MELP is much more ecologically relevant,but currently covers only 25% of the province and is useful as a baseline only.Complete provincial coverage and some time-series information on the general spatialdistribution / patterns of broad forest age classes within ecoregions is available throughthe BTM and Watersheds BC initiatives. This monitoring source is potentially veryuseful for provincial or regional level assessments of vegetative condition; there are,however, limitations on the level of detail that is appropriately interpreted form thismonitoring information given that it is derived primarily from satellite imagery. As well,although BTM coverage exists for all of the province (1992-98 data), a second “pass” isonly approximately 20% complete, and this limits the ability to interpret time-serieschange.

The currently-being-developed “Change Inventory and Monitoring Program forVegetation Resources” should, in future, be able to produce solid monitoring informationfor a variety of indicators of forest vegetation condition, both at the broad level ofmeasuring spatial patterns, and at the stand level of measuring structuralcharacteristics. This initiative may potentially also provide information on non-commercial species for which information has been historically limited. The ability touse this monitoring data may have some limitations, however, when it comes toreporting on all indicators of interest. For example, accurate provincial-levelmeasurements of forest cover distribution by BEC variant, or forest cover distribution in



protected areas (both of which are proposed State of the Forest monitoring indicators)may be limited on account of the non-random grid pattern of monitoring measurements.

Finally, some non-spatial information on vegetation resources (e.g., harvestablevolumes) are available from MOF analyses that are conducted on a five year cycle fortimber supply review planning purposes. This information may be valuable formeasuring or verifying certain indicators of interest for province-wide state of forestsreporting purposes.

Wildlife Resources: Historic wildlife surveys, whether by MELP or CWS, are difficult tointerpret as trend information, except over very long time periods, because the numberof animals counted at any time is primarily dependent on conditions (i.e., weather) at thetime of the survey. Relatively little data compiled by the Conservation Data Centre istrue “time-series” information; most is from single-point-in-time inventories which, inaggregate, are used to assess trends. CDC information is not yet really monitoringdata, but can be used to develop indicators and monitoring programs. Time-seriesinformation for measuring pressure and response indicators for wildlife resources aregenerally available from MELP administrative records.

4.3. Aquatic Environment Monitoring

Water Quantity: The primary drivers of water quantity monitoring are:

1) the need to provide a context for water allocation decisions under the Water Act andwaste discharge permitting under the Waste Management Act;

2) estimation of in-stream flow requirements for fish and other aquatic resources;

3) annual flood forecasting and local government flood prevention zoning; and

4) hydrologic design information for infrastructure, industrial and residential facilities.

Water Quality: The principle drivers for water quality monitoring are:

1) drinking water safety (i.e. standards related to regulated water utilities, water qualityobjectives for community watersheds relating to provisions under the ForestPractices Code Act, and water quality of domestic wells); and

2) the need to provide a context for industrial and municipal waste discharges in termsof guidelines and objectives for designated water uses (drinking, recreation,irrigation, livestock watering, aquatic life and wildlife). An informal driver in relation todrinking water quality was the 1999 Auditor General’s report that was very critical ofthe provincial government’s efforts to ensure drinking water safety.

Fisheries: The primary driver for fish stock and habitat quality monitoring is the FisheriesAct (Canada) and a Ministerial memorandum of understanding by which the federalgovernment has delegated the management of sports-fish to the province. A recently-established Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has the responsibility toreport publicly to the two levels of government on stock status and habitat quality on the



Page 27

basis of inventory and monitoring information provided by MOFi and Fisheries andOceans Canada. Secondary legal drivers are the International Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the federal legislation protecting species at risk (if passed) and the provincialWildlife Act in relation to non-commercial and non-sport fish. Two major initiativesfunding fisheries rehabilitation - Fisheries Renewal BC and a new provincial proposal forWatershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning (WFSP) will also generate significantdemand for monitoring information.

Aquatic Habitat: Until recently, aquatic habitat inventory and monitoring has been primarilyfisheries-focused. The new provincial Fish Protection Act, however, places increasedemphasis on aquatic habitat and is thus likely to generate special monitoringrequirements on designated “sensitive streams”. Some water bird and aquatic mammalhabitat inventories have been carried out to meet federal Migratory Bird Convention Actand provincial wildlife program requirements. The international biodiversity conventionand the proposed federal species-at-risk legislation may stimulate a more holisticapproach to aquatic habitat inventories and monitoring.

Indicators

Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators ResponseIndicators

WaterQuantity

• number andvolume of waterlicences andlicence applications

• number anddistribution ofrequests forhydrological designinformation

• hydrometric network• snow survey network

• frequency, extentand distribution ofeconomic lossesdue to hydrologicalevents

• number andextent of waterallocation plans

WaterQuality

• number, quality andcompliance recordsof point-sourcedischarges

• land area occupiedby uses withpotential waterquality impacts

• surface water andgroundwater qualitymonitoring network(dissolved solids,hardness, traceelements, chlorophylla, nutrients, nitrate,pH, sediments, fecalcoliforms, cyanide,AOX, temperature,dissolved gases anddissolved oxygen)

• drinking water qualitymonitoring ofregulated utilities(microbiology,protozoans, metals,major ions, nitrate)

• public healthstatistics onfrequency anddistribution of water-borne disease

• frequency anddistribution of“boil water”advisories

• number anddistribution ofcommunitywatershed plans

Fisheries • fish harvestinformation

• population status andtrends foranadromous, sport,non-commercial andat-risk species

• population declines• declines in fisher

effort, total catchand catch/unit effort

• number anddistribution ofstock recoveryprograms



Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators ResponseIndicators

Aquatichabitat

• watershed stability(land use, landcover, road andstream crossingdensities andhydrologicalcharacteristics)

• productivity andbiodiversity indicatorsfor aquatic andriparian ecosystems

• fish habitat inventories• length of streams by

watershed• length of known

salmon / sportfish /other fish streams

• lengths of streamswith gradient<20%

• extent, distributionand trends inriparian and aquaticecosystemdegradation

• number anddistribution ofwatershed,stream and fishhabitatrehabilitationprojects


Water Quantity: Hydrometric information for the province currently comes from a network ofapproximately 490 stations (down from over 600 five years ago). Stations are operatedby MELP, EC, B.C. Hydro, local governments and industrial operations, with data storedand managed by Resource Inventory Branch, MELP.

Water Quality: Water quality information is available from two primary sources: generalenvironmental monitoring programs; and drinking water utility monitoring. Generalenvironmental monitoring includes:

1) a long-term federal / provincial monitoring agreement assessing trends for 29 siteson major lakes and rivers;

2) community watershed objectives-setting baseline monitoring on 64 of the province’s450 designated watersheds;

3) yearly groundwater monitoring on 120 wells; and

4) extensive ambient water quality monitoring associated with permitted industrial andmunicipal waste discharges.

Drinking water quality monitoring is a requirement of the Ministry of Health for theapproximately 3,500 water systems serving 15 or more connections. The primary focusof this program is tap water (i.e., after treatment and distribution). Availability andquality of water source (or ambient environment) information is highly variable. MOHaims to have, as a minimum, a baseline measurement consisting of a broad scan ofbiological and chemical parameters and at least one annual sample for each regulatedutility.

Fisheries: Fisheries inventory and monitoring information is available from the Ministry ofFisheries for sport and non-commercial fish and from the Department of Fisheries andOceans for commercial anadromous and marine fish.



Page 29

Aquatic Habitat: Ecological aquatic inventory information is available on stream-specificbasis from the Ministry of Fisheries and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Thisinformation covers only a relatively small portion of the province and is not time-series.Some “pressure” information on aquatic habitats can be determined from analyzingsome existing information sets (e.g., road densities, terrain stability mapping,watersheds at risk), however, there is a need to ensure inter-agency agreement on dataand analysis of that information. The physical information on total stream length andstream lengths by gradient and known fish presence are contained in the FishInformation Summary System (FISS) component of the Atlas (see the section on LandTenure and Use for a fuller discussion of the Watersheds Atlas project).


Water Quantity: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands), MOFi,MOFor, MOEM, MOTH, MOMA, ForRBC, FiRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, B.C.Hydro, wide array of industrial operations.

Water Quality: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Parks), MOH,Regional Medical Health Officers, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO,Local Government, wide array of industrial operations.

Fisheries: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands), MOH, MOFi,MOFor, MOEM, MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, wide array ofindustrial operations.

Aquatic Habitat: MELP managers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks),MOH, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM, MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government,wide array of industrial operations.


Water Quantity: Hydrometric data is of high quality, carried out to national standardsestablished by federal / provincial agreement, however, these standards makehydrometric monitoring very expensive, thus limiting the number of stations that can beestablished. The province currently has about 490 stations. United Nations’ criteria fordeveloping countries indicate that for a jurisdiction as climatically and geographicallydiverse as B.C. a minimum of 800 (and ideally 1,400) stations would be appropriate.There is a need for a federal / provincial protocol to allow simpler stations to beestablished, linked to the comprehensive network, to extend coverage at an affordablecost. Much of the cost of current monitoring is borne by FRBC and if this fundingsupport is removed, MELP will be unlikely to fill the gap. There is an urgent need todevelop a long-term funding arrangement, requiring all users to contribute, for thisimportant monitoring function.

Water Quality: Despite the large number if sampling sites described above, most have notbeen sampled frequently enough (sites vary from periodic grab samples to establishedstations) to provide real time-series information. The last water quality trends analysis



(2000) prepared jointly by Environment Canada and MELP was based on 5-10 years ofmonthly sampling on 68 sampling sites, and represents the best trend informationavailable for BC water bodies. Because of cost-cutting by both agencies, fewer than 20of these stations are still being monitored. Beyond these stations, where water qualitymonitoring is issue / problem driven and permit-focused, the data is reasonable, thoughmonitoring is much less frequent and, because it’s largely reactive, is not broad enoughto detect emerging problems.

Drinking-water quality monitoring is far too infrequent to be adequate, particularly formicrobial and protozoan measurements which tend to vary widely over short timeperiods in response to discrete storm and run-off events. MOH intends to increase thenumber and frequency of source-water sampling but existing source information can’tbe melded with the MELP database because it isn’t geo-referenced to any recognizedwatershed or stream coding system. MELP and MOH are currently cooperating tocorrect this problem.

Fisheries: Freshwater fish population monitoring has in the past been focused on specificstocks, and was largely project and crisis driven (i.e. sturgeon, steelhead, Kokanee).There has been no organized, standardized long-term monitoring program. DFO iscurrently revising its monitoring programs (particularly escapement) to impose standardmethodologies and is “quality-labelling” previous data to determine what can beincorporated in the new system. MOFi may adopt these DFO methodologies. Inaddition MOF has recently submitted proposals to FRBC to fund a project to developindicators of fish sustainability in forest ecosystems, a component of which centres ontrends in population status for recreational / commercial and “keystone” non-managedspecies.

Aquatic Habitat: Currently there is no accepted aquatic ecosystem classification system inB.C. that can provide a context for either inventory or monitoring. In 1994 a sub-committee of RIC proposed a classification hierarchy (ecoregion; biogeoclimatic unit;aquatic ecosystem; stream segment or lake; channel or lake unit; microhabitat) but thisproposal was not pursued. Subsequent work has been done regarding watershed andstream reach classification as part of the ForRBC resources inventory, watershedrestoration program and FPC implementation, however these often have a forestmanagement rather than a fisheries/aquatic ecosystem focus. MOFi has recentlyproposed to ForRBC fund for a project that would build upon existing experience todevelop an aquatic ecosystem classification system and a broad, province-wide(1:50,000) description of habitats that “will provide a baseline documenting the amountand distribution of aquatic ecosystem types for application to the monitoring of habitatproductivity and biodiversity”. The proposal stresses the need to link aquatic andterrestrial environments through watershed unit descriptions because “aquaticecosystems are dependent on conditions and processes in the surrounding watershed”.The pressure and state indicators provided in the Geographic Data B.C. watershed atlasprovide much of this watershed information.



Page 31

4.4. Land Tenure and Use

Business Drivers

Information on land tenure (private and crown) and land use / and cover is fundamental to alllevels of resource planning from provincial policy and program planning, to regional, sub-regional, landscape and local area plans. Reliable, time-series information on tenure, use andcover was one of the most frequently cited monitoring need by interviewees in this study.

Indicators

Provincial agencies have expressed a need / desire to monitor the following land tenure / useindicators. See Appendix 4 for a detailed description of indicators and associatedenvironmental information requirements.

Issue Pressure Indicators State Indicators Impact Indicators Response IndicatorsLandadministration

• number anddistribution of tenureapplications forCrown land

• land tenure(private) andadministrativezonation(Crown)

• alienation ofimportant habitat.

• encroachment onriparian areas andfloodplains

• pressure on waterresources

• number anddistribution ofcrown landdisposition plans

Land use /land cover.

• area of harvesting(total and byharvesting systems),by elevation and bysteep slopes)

• road density (total,steep slopes andwithin 100m ofstreams)

• land use andland cover(mapping andstatistics for 20land use andvegetationcover classes)


Land Administration: Information on land tenure and jurisdiction is available from the crownlands registry information system. The Crown Lands Branch and Crown Land RegistryServices of MELP have produced land administration statistics for the province for tworeporting periods (1989 and 1996). The reports contain information on land tenureissuance, land in private ownership, and various land use designations. The BC Assetsand Lands Corporation can provide information on the number and distribution ofapplications by tenure type for Crown lands, with information derived from the CrownLand Registry Information System.

Land Use / Land Cover: Geographic Data B.C.’s Baseline Thematic Mapping (BTM)program provides comprehensive, province-wide information (mapped and statistical)on land use / land cover based, variously across the province, on sources from 1992 to



1998. Work is presently underway to produce a second generation of this data whichwill enable some time-series interpretation.


Information on both land administration and land use / land cover is required by: MELPmanagers (Water, Pollution Prevention, Habitat, Lands, Parks), MOH, MOFi, MOFor, MOEM,MOMA, FiRBC, ForRBC, EC, DFO, Local Government, wide array of industrial operations.


Land Administration: The last report on land administration statistics produced by MELPwas in 1996. There is a need to up-date this publication, particularly in view of thesignificant changes in crown administration resulting from the protected areas strategyand recent crown land dispositions by BC Crown Lands and Assets Corporation.

Land Use / Land Cover: The Geographic Data B.C. Watershed Atlas utilizes the MOFiwatershed coding system to summarize and present information. The atlasincorporates road, waterbody and topographic (slope, aspect, and elevation) informationfrom 1:20,000 TRIM base mapping, and land use / land cover information in 20 broaduse / cover classes for units down to 15 ha in size from 1:250,000 BTM. The maps andstatistics also document fish distribution and habitat, location of all communitywatershed as defined under the Forest Practices Code, biogeoclimatic and ecosectionzonation, producing mines and mining-related activities and Crown vs private land.

Geographic Data BC has produced a map series and associated spread sheets whichutilize the Ministry of Fisheries watershed coding system to summarize and presentinformation on a watersheds basis. Maps incorporate road, water body and topographic(slope, aspect and elevation) information from 1:20,000 TRIM base mapping, and landuse / land cover information in 20 broad use / cover classes for units down to 15 ha insize from 1:250,000 BTM. The maps and statistics also document fish distribution andhabitat, location of all designated watersheds, as defined under the Forest PracticesCode, biogeoclimatic and ecosection zoning, producing mines and mining-relatedactivities, and Crown versus private land. Some time series information will be availablefrom the next generation of this material, anticipated in 2002. In addition to the basicuse / cover data, a number of interpretive themes have also been developed such aspercent of watershed logged, percent logging on steep slopes, percent residual oldgrowth, kms of streams logged to bank, road density, road density on steep slopes androad / stream crossing density.

4.5. Summary of Current Status of Monitoring Initiatives

Interviews carried out during the course of this study, with both data users and data providers,indicate that there are very few established monitoring programs, and that other types ofenvironmental information applicable to monitoring programs vary widely in both reliability and



Page 33

spatial coverage. The following tables summarize our interpretation of the current status ofenvironmental monitoring initiatives according to the following six categories:

1) Monitoring programs well established and under continual review. Reliable, time-series information available for 5 years or more.

2) Time-series information exists. Requires compilation and interpretation.

3) Reliable, extensive inventory information exists that could provide a baseline formonitoring.

4) Inventory information fragmented and incomplete, but collected to consistentstandards. Could function as a reliable baseline with extended coverage.

5) Inventory information fragmented and collected to inconsistent standards. Does notprovide a reliable baseline.

6) Firm initiatives underway to establish monitoring indicators and design monitoringprograms.

Atmospheric Environment Monitoring

EnvironmentalIssue

Pressure State Impact ManagementResponse

Air Quality 2 1 2 2

Climate Change 1, 6 1 6 6

Terrestrial Environment Monitoring

EnvironmentalIssue


Vegetation 3 3,4,5,6 3,4,5,6 2

Soil 3 4,6 3 2

Wildlife 1 5,6 5,6 2

Terrestrial habitat 3 5,6 5,6 2

Aquatic Environment Monitoring

EnvironmentalIssue


Water Quantity 2 1 2 2

Water Quality 2,3 1 2 2

Fisheries 1 5,6 2 2

Aquatic habitat 3 3,4,5,6 4 2



Land Tenure and Use

EnvironmentalIssue


Landadministration.

2 1 2,3 2

Land use/landcover.

3 3

The main conclusions from this summary and the preceding chapter four analysis are:

1) There is very little reliable, time-series monitoring information currently beingcollected in the province.

2) The demand for such information is increasing on a number of fronts, especially inthe areas of environmental trend interpretation and effectiveness monitoring.

3) The few monitoring programs that are currently producing reliable, time-seriesinformation (e.g., air, water) are becoming increasingly vulnerable (budgetpressures) and this may threaten their effectiveness.

4) There are a number of initiatives underway to begin to collect environmentalmonitoring information (e.g., vegetation change, wildlife / terrestrial habitat), andthese offer the potential to contribute significantly to the supply of reliable, time-series environmental data, provided they can be sustained over time. However,achieving a long-term commitment to these new initiatives may be difficult to achieveunless they are enabled through formalized, non-discretionary business drivers.



Page 35

55.. PPRROOVVIINNCCIIAALL IINNIITTIIAATTIIVVEESS TTHHAATT IINNTTEERRPPRREETT AANNDDRREEPPOORRTT EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOONNIITTOORRIINNGGIINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN

Aside from monitoring and interpretation of monitoring information that agencies may undertakefor their own internal program planning and ongoing resource management decision-makingpurposes (e.g., hydrometric surveys, monitoring anadromous fish escapements – see chapter4), there are a number of other existing or proposed initiatives in BC that are major potentialusers of environmental monitoring data (and certain inventory and research information – seechapter 2 definitions).

These initiatives use environmental monitoring information to interpret and report publicly onenvironmental, sustainability and effectiveness trends. Most of these initiatives are cross-sectoral in the sense that they analyze and report on trends for multiple environmentalresources. For example, MELP’s environmental trends initiative reports on trends foratmospheric, aquatic, terrestrial and land use / condition indicators, as does strategic land useplan effectiveness monitoring and reporting. Other initiatives are somewhat more narrow inscope such as the kind of analysis and reporting that MELP’s Conservation Data Centre does,or LUCO’s tracking of protected area statistics. Some initiatives analyze and report onprovince-wide environmental trends (e.g., State of the Forest), whereas others are interested intracking environmental indicators for defined geographic areas (e.g., state of parks, landscapeunit plan effectiveness monitoring, or model forest monitoring). The things that all of thesetrends interpretation/ effectiveness reporting initiatives have in common, however, are that theyall:

1) employ environmental indicators to measure trends in environmental quality, or toassess the effectiveness of policies and plans in achieving stated environmentalgoals and objectives;

2) employ a mix of environmental indicators including: pressure, state, impact andmanagement response indicators;

3) select indicators for which data is generally already available, or there is a prospectof obtaining reasonable data;

4) obtain the environmental data for measuring and assessing their indicators from adiversity of available sources, most likely from multiple agencies. Their sources mayinclude: information from monitoring networks that are designed specifically togenerate high quality time-series information; inventory information that is not time-series, but provides a snap-shot of environmental conditions at a particular point intime; research information that is generated from the study of a particular resource(s)at a particular location(s); and various administrative records that are retained ingovernment registries or annual reports that provide a historical record of humanactivities pertaining to environmental / resource management; and

5) are often reliant on the line-ministry data custodians to help explain or interprettechnical information as a basis for ensuring that proper trends interpretation andanalysis occurs.



These trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives are discussed below and aresummarized in Table 4. In addition, Appendix 3 provides a more detailed description of theseinitiatives.

Table 4: Summary of Trends Interpretation and Effectiveness Reporting InitiativesInitiative Geographic Scope / Focus Status Contact

1. EnvironmentalTrends

• province-wide• 15 primary environmental

indicators (land, air, water,natural diversity and ecosystemhealth), and a number ofsecondary indicators

• two public reports released to-date (1998 and 2000), withplans to continue to report bi-annually.

Dr. Risa Smith, MELP

2. State of Forests inBritish Columbia

• province-wide• 40 environmental indicators of

sustainable forest management(plus 40 socio-economicindicators and 12 policy andadministration indicators).

• early stages of development;draft list of indicators andproposed monitoring / reportingstructure now being considered

Tom Niemann, MOF

3. British ColumbiaLand Statistics

• province-wide• historical and current statistics

on provincial land base (status,condition and use), including:agriculture, forestry, range,mining, settlement, protectedareas, etc.)

• two public reports released to-date (1989 and 1996), withtentative plans to release anupdated version(s)

Godfrey Archbold,MELP

4. Commissioner forEnvironment andSustainability

• province-wide• ecological health monitoring /

reporting• Commissioner reports to

Legislature

• specifics as yet undetermined,other than commitment to issuebi-annual reports on provincialecological health, and annualreports on government, ministryand Crown corporationperformance againstsustainability commitments.Initial focus on “ecologicalintegrity” issue. EnvironmentalCommissioner now beingrecruited

Maurice Sydor, Officeof Auditor General

5. State of Parks inBritish Columbia

• provincial protected area system(terrestrial and marine)


Lynn Kennedy, MELP

6. Strategic Land UsePlan EffectivenessMonitoring

• regions / sub-regions (e.g.,LRMPs)

• monitoring strategic land useplans’ effectiveness in achieving“desired outcomes” foragriculture, biodiversity, forestry,range, water, wildlife, etc.

• provincial (LUCO) monitoringguidelines / procedures in place

• one monitoring report released(Kamloops); several otherIAMC regions developing /considering monitoringindicators and monitoring /reporting structure

Warren Mitchell, LUCO

7. Landscape Unit PlanEffectivenessMonitoring

• landscape units• monitoring landscape unit plans’

effectiveness in achievingbiodiversity conservationobjectives, and associatedtimber supply impacts


Allan Lidstone, MOF

8. Model ForestSustainable ForestManagement (LocalLevel) Monitoring

• provincial model forests(McGregor and Long Beachmodel forests)

• both provincial model forestshave developed draftmonitoring indicators that arecontinuing to be refined.

Bodo von Schilling(Long Beach)Kevin Petterson(McGregor)



Page 37

Initiative Geographic Scope / Focus Status Contact

• indicators developed for BC’smodel forests have potentialapplication to local-levelmonitoring at other BC forestmanagement units

• Long Beach model forest wouldlike to report annually

9. Forest CertificationAuditing / Monitoring

• forest management units (e.g.,TSA or portion of TSA, TFL,woodlot, community forest)

• sustainable forest managementas assessed by independentthird party using certificationstandards (i.e., sustainableforest management criteria /indicators) established undervarious certification systems(e.g. CSA, FSC)

• approximately 10 forestcertification approvals issuedto-date by independentauditors, with numerous otherproposals in stream andgrowing interest by other forestmanagers

• FSC regional standards (i.e.,performance measures) nowbeing developed

Harry Drage, MOF

Note that in addition to the initiatives listed in Table 4, other organizations are currentlyconsidering monitoring approaches for assessing their organizational effectiveness. Forexample, the Forest Practices Board has expressed an interest in developing indicators formeasuring trends in the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code in achieving the specificsustainability goals that are identified in the preamble to the Forest Practices Code of BritishColumbia Act. As well, Forest Renewal BC is presently trying to develop indicators as part of its“sustainable forest management (SFM) initiative” that would enable FRBC to track the extent towhich its investments are achieving SFM and forest productivity objectives. Finally, individualorganizations are interested at varying levels in tracking selected environmental indicators as abasis for meeting their own program responsibilities and / or for strategic planning purposes and/ or to fulfill annual (or periodic) reporting requirements.

Note as well that Table 4 excludes national-level environmental / sustainability monitoringinitiatives for which some provincial environmental data may be needed. For example, NaturalResources Canada reports periodically on the State of Canada’s Forests1 and this reportbenefits from BC contributions of forest-related information. Similarly, the Canadian Council ofForest Ministers reports periodically on criteria and indicators for sustainable forestmanagement in Canada2 and provincial level inputs to the national forestry database areneeded for this purpose (e.g., provincial data that is / will be entered into the national forestinformation system according to CCFM obligations). Also, Environment Canada’s Pacific andYukon Region Environmental Indicators initiative3 provides public reporting on various measuresof BC’s environmental quality (e.g., marine ecosystems, species health, toxic contaminants,climate change, urban air quality, stratospheric ozone depletion, and water use and quality).These indicators too may benefit from the availability of certain provincial information.

1 The State of Canada’s Forests. 1999 – 2000 Forests in the New Millennium. Available athttp://nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/proj/ppiab/sof/common/latest.shtml

2 Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management in Canada. National Status 2000. Available athttp://nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/proj/ppiab/ci/indica_e.html

3 Environment Canada. Pacific and Yukon Region Environmental Indicators. Available at www.ecoinfo.org/env_ind/default.htm



Analysis of Information Requirements

Appendix 4 provides the master list of environmental indicators and associated environmentalinformation that provincial agencies have identified that they need for trends interpretation,effectiveness reporting, and strategic planning or program delivery purposes. We stress,however, that this statement of need is preliminary for a number of agencies / initiatives. Manyagencies that are involved in these activities are at an early stage of developing assessmentindicators and reporting methodologies / systems. The listings in Appendix 4 must, therefore,be seen as tentative and subject to change. Note also that this list excludes social andeconomic indicators that may be related to environmental condition. Nonetheless, if we acceptthat Appendix 4 represents an approximate current picture of agencies’ environmentalinformation needs for these purposes, a number of observations can be derived from thisAppendix 4, as discussed in the following sections.

5.1. Number and Type of Environmental Indicators that ProvincialAgencies Want To Track

In total, provincial agencies are interested in measuring trends for 226 indicators ofenvironmental quality4. Table 5 provides a breakdown according to resource category andindicator type (pressure, condition, impact and response).

Table 5: Indicators for Which Provincial Agencies Require Environmental Information

Resource Category Pressure Condition Impact Response Total

Atmospheric Resources 8 6 7 1 22Aquatic Resources 11 15 13 14 53Cultural / HeritageResources

1 0 0 2 3

Land / Resource Use 25 20 6 22 73Terrestrial Resources 16 37 13 9 75

Total 61 78 39 48 226

Although 226 indicators have been identified during this study, more than one provincialinitiative (agency) is typically interested in measuring most indicators. If this multiple interest inindicators is taken into account, there could be an aggregate tracking / interpretation (and inmost cases also public reporting) on about 346 environmental / resource indicators in BC – seeTable 6. This does not include trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives that willbe applied to multiple monitoring / reporting units (e.g., LRMPs, landscape units, forestmanagement units in the case of forest certification). Nor does it include any existing federalinitiatives, or new initiatives such as the proposed BC Commissioner for Environment andSustainability.

4 Note that many of these indicators are at an early stage of consideration by agencies. This number does not reflectfinal determinations of indicators that will be measured and reported on over time by provincial agencies.



Page 39

Table 6: Initiatives and Number of Indicators

Initiative No. Indicators

Strategic Land Use Plan Effectiveness Monitoring 59CCFM criteria & indicators of Sustainable Forest Management 54Model Forest Monitoring 48State of Forests 46Environmental Trends 37Agency strategic planning purposes 32Forest Certification 27British Columbia Land Statistics 23State of Parks 11Landscape Unit Plan Effectiveness Monitoring 9

total 346

At present, only a few provincial initiatives have actual experience in tracking and reporting onenvironmental indicators (i.e., MELP’s Environmental Trends and BC Land Statistics initiatives,and a few forest certification initiatives). The other initiatives are under development and areexpected to “roll out” in the near term. Quite clearly, the whole field of environmental andsustainability trends / effectiveness reporting is poised for explosive growth in BC. This will beparticularly true if the requirements of the Budget Accountability and Transparency Act are fullyimplemented. This raises questions about: (1) the need for so much trends / effectivenessreporting activity by so many organizations; and (2) assuming that this level of need can berationalized, the ability to adequately support this level of activity with adequate time-seriesenvironmental information. These issues are discussed further in following sections.

As can be seen from Table 5, the greatest demand is for environmental information to supportthe use of indicators that pertain to land and resource use (73 indicators), and for terrestrialresources (75 indicators). Each of these categories represents about 32% of all indicators, andin total account for 64% of all indicators. The high level of interest in land and resource useindicators is likely explained in part by the relative availability of existing information to measureland / resource use characteristics (i.e., 47 of the 73 land and resource use indicators are forpressure and response indicators, for which information is generally more available thancondition or impact indicators). In the terrestrial resources category, the main interest lies inmeasuring forest vegetation attributes (52 of 75 indicators), as discussed further in 5.2 below.

In terms of indicator types, the greatest demand is for condition indicators (78 out of 226, or35%). This is also not too surprising, given that most environmental trends and effectivenessmonitoring initiatives would prefer, if possible, to measure the actual condition or state ofenvironmental resources, as this provides the best representation of actual environmentaloutcomes. Other types of indicators (i.e., pressure, impact and response) are often selected foruse in trends / effectiveness monitoring and reporting programs due to the lack of data that canbe used to describe ultimate environmental condition.

There is, however, an argument to be made in favour of measuring and reporting on some of allfour indicator types, as this provides a more complete picture for environmental decision-makingpurposes. Pressure indicators define the nature and extent of environmental stressors; impact



indicators provide insights into the environmental impacts that result from the stressors;condition indicators identify the ultimate state of environmental resources as a result ofstressors and impacts; and response indicators shed light on what is being done to addressenvironmental issues – see chapter 2 for further detail. In general terms, it would appear that,among BC’s various environmental trends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring initiatives,there is a suitable mix / balance in indicator type.

5.2. Environmental Information Priorities

The full description of provincial agencies’ information requirements is provided in Appendix 4.From that appendix and also from Tables 7 and 8, it is possible to draw out a few highlightsregarding the key environmental information priorities for trends interpretation, effectivenessreporting and agencies’ strategic planning purposes.

The greatest evident “need” (as inferred from the environmental indicators that agencies wish totrack over time) is for access to information for measuring indicators related to forest vegetationand forest land use activities. This high level of interest is not surprising, given the number oftrends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring initiatives that relate to sustainable forestmanagement, at a range of geographic levels. Provincial agencies would like to measure andreport on 72 indicators in the forest vegetation and forest land use categories. Of these, 36 arecondition indicators, 16 are pressure, 6 are impact, and 14 are response indicators.

The specific types of information required to measure trends in forest vegetation and forest landuse activity is highly varied. For example, condition information is needed on: forestproductivity, the broad spatial composition of forests such as the distribution of forest types,ages, patches / gaps, and structural attributes of forests such as biomass levels and extent ofcoarse woody debris. As well, various information are needed to report on forest ecosystemstressors (e.g., fire, disease, harvesting rates / locations, roading, exotics, land conversion), andforest management responses (e.g., restoration, forest land reserve).

In general terms, the level of detail of required forestry-oriented information appears to beroughly commensurate with the geographic scope of the monitoring initiatives. For example,local monitoring initiatives such as forest certification or model forest monitoring are moreinterested in stand-level forest attributes (i.e., structural attributes) than are provincial-levelmonitoring initiatives where information on general spatial patterns is of more interest. Thisstands to reason and reflects the greater ability of more localized monitoring initiatives, from acost-effectiveness point of view, to collect more detailed information for smaller geographicareas.



Page 41

Table 7: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme

Category Theme No. IndicatorsAtmospheric Air Quality 10

Climate Change 12sub-total 22

Aquatic Fish 13Water Quality 18Water Quantity 8Water Use 8Habitat 6

sub-total 50Cultural/Heritage 3

Land/Resource Use Agriculture/ Rangeland 13Conservation Land 3Forest Land 20Planning 3Tenures 2Mining & Energy 4Pesticides & Toxics 4Protected Areas 8Recreation & Tourism 8Solid Waste 1Transportation / Utilities 2Settlements 5

sub-total 73Terrestrial Vegetation / Forests 52

Wildlife 14Soils 9

subtotal 75total 226



Table 8: Indicators According to Resource Category / Theme — Descending Order

Category Theme No. IndicatorsTerrestrial Vegetation / Forests 52Land/Resource Use Forest Land 20Aquatic Water Quality 18Terrestrial Wildlife 14Land/Resource Use Agriculture/ Rangeland 13

above 5 information categories / themes accountfor over one-half of all indicators and associated information needs sub-total 117

Aquatic Fish 13Atmospheric Climate Change 12Atmospheric Air Quality 10Terrestrial Soils 9Land/Resource Use Recreation & Tourism 8Land/Resource Use Protected Areas 8Aquatic Water Use 8Aquatic Water Quantity 8Aquatic Habitat 6Land/Resource Use Settlements 5Land/Resource Use Pesticides & Toxics 4Land/Resource Use Mining & Energy 4Cultural/Heritage 3Land/Resource Use Planning 3Land/Resource Use Tenures 2Land/Resource Use Conservation Land 2Land/Resource Use Transportation / Utilities 2Land/Resource Use Solid Waste 1

total 226

Second to information on forest vegetation and forest land use, the next greatest businessneed, as interpreted from the number of existing or proposed monitoring indicators (see Tables7 and 8), is for technical information on aquatic resources. Fifty indicators of fish, water quantity/ quality / use, and aquatic habitat have been identified. Over half of these are for informationpertaining to the condition of water resources or impacts on water resources. Twenty-twoatmospheric indicators of air quality and climate change are identified, also mainly in thecondition and impact indicator categories.

Half of all identified indicators and associated information requirements relate to only fiveresource categories / themes: forest vegetation, forest land use, water quality, wildlife, andagriculture / rangeland use. The other half of information requirements pertain to the other 18resource categories / themes (see Table 8).

Getting more specific, some environmental indicators and associated information needs aremore in demand than others. Table 9 shows that, while almost 60% of indicators are being



Page 43

implemented / proposed by only one initiative (agency), the remainder are being implemented /proposed for use in more than one initiative.

Table 9: Number of Indicators by Initiatives

Number of indicators being applied / proposed by ONE initiative 134Number of indicators being applied / proposed by TWO initiatives 49Number of indicators being applied / proposed by THREE initiatives 26Number of indicators being applied / proposed by FOUR initiatives 10Number of indicators being applied / proposed by FIVE initiatives 5Number of indicators being applied / proposed by SIX initiatives 1Number of indicators being applied / proposed by SEVEN initiatives 1

total 226

The single piece of information that is clearly in greatest demand from provincial agencies fortrends interpretation and effectiveness monitoring / reporting purposes is information onecosystem protection in BC — in particular, the extent to which BC’s ecosystems (BEC zones /eco-sections) are represented in protection status. Seven separate initiatives, at variousgeographic scales, are interested in this reporting measure, namely: Environmental Trends(MELP), State of Parks (MELP), LUCO’s protected area system (PAS) monitoring and reportinginitiative; strategic land use plan monitoring at the regional / sub-regional level; CCFM criteriaand indicators monitoring and reporting at the national level; and forest certification monitoringand model forest monitoring, although the interest of these last two initiatives is in tracking“protected” areas within “working” forest management units. In addition, the State of Forestsinitiative is interested in ecosystem protection information in so far as the level to which foresttypes and ages are represented in protected area status.

Table 10 identifies the indicators / information requirements that four or more provincial trendsinterpretation, effectiveness reporting or strategic planning initiatives are, or are interested in,pursuing (i.e., approximately the top ten percent of all indicators). If level of agency demand isaccepted as the sole criterion, then the information requirements identified in Table 10 could beassumed to be the provincial corporate priorities for information provision. While Table 10 is ofinterest in showing relative level of demand for information, it would be a mistake to necessarilyconclude that these are, in fact, the province’s information priorities for generatingenvironmental monitoring information. It is likely that the information in these categories is whatis readily available for these purposes, and that this has influenced agency selection ofindicators. Also, as mentioned earlier, many of agencies’ proposed indicators are not finalized,and associated information needs may shift as their indicator selections become firm.

In addition, the monitoring indicators and associated information needs shown in Appendix 4and Table 10 are essentially a reflection of individual sectors’ programs. These, in turn, reflectagency or program mandates. There has not been a cross-sectoral, integrated assessment ofsustainability monitoring and reporting requirements that define government’s corporate list ofenvironmental indicators and information needs. In 1995/96 the Commission on Resources andEnvironment started on such an initiative, but was unable to complete it before being dissolved.Although it remains to be seen, the proposed Commissioner of Environment and Sustainabilitymay be able to encourage a more corporate perspective, and this may allow a more definitivedescription of environmental information requirements.



Table: 10: Environmental Monitoring Information in Greatest DemandLevel ofDemand

ResourceCategory

Resource Theme Information Requirements

7 initiatives EcosystemProtection

ecosystemrepresentation

percent of area of BC ecosystems (BEC, Eco-sections) in protectedstatus

6 initiatives LandscapeFragmentation

road density on forestland

km per km2 of roads, reported by various land units (e.g.,watersheds, zones, landscape units)

5 initiatives Protected Lands amount of BC inprotected status

total terrestrial and marine areas secured in protected area status byfederal and provincial designations.

Climate Change temperature trends temperature “sums” and other meteorological parameters (e.g.,precipitation)

Forest Type andAge

forest age class / oldgrowth distribution

area of forest that occurs in various forest age classes (e.g., 1-40years, 41-80 years, etc.), by forest type (e.g., dominant species).Also, areas of old growth, younger forest, and non-forest; amount ofold growth that is accessible for timber harvesting, amountinaccessible for timber harvesting, and amount protected.

Timber Harvest approved versusactual harvest levels

total provincial AAC and actual harvest levels per type of regulatedforest – province-wide and by management units. Also, actualharvest on regulated land versus harvest on unregulated land.

Forest Species atRisk

rare, threatened andendangered species

percentage of known forest-dependent or grassland-associatedspecies (fish, amphibians, mammals, plants, birds, reptiles) that arered- or blue-listed.

4 initiatives Surface WaterQuality

water quality index water quality index results at monitoring sites (reported as improving,deteriorating, or no change in quality), reported by watershedgrouping. Also, other unspecified water chemistry parameters

Surface WaterQuality

turbidity turbidity in watersheds (or selected sampling sites). Also, turbidity inpaired watersheds, with and without logging.

ForestRecreationFacilities

sites and trails number of forest recreation sites an km of recreation trails, province-wide and by region

Protected Forest forest age per ageclass, by forest typein protected status

area of various forest age classes, by forest type that are in protectedstatus, and percent of total provincial forest in those age classes /types that are protected

Old Growth protected old growthforest

area of old growth versus younger forest and non-forest land inprotected status, by BEC zone. Percent of protected old growth oftotal old growth. Also, area of old growth forest retained, by BEC, bylandscape units (and at forest level) compared to biodiversityguidebook old growth retention targets

ForestDisturbance

amount of forestdisturbed

area of forest disturbed by fire (natural and human-caused) versuspests, versus harvesting.

HarvestingSystems

area of timber harvestusing differentharvesting systems

forest land area subject to clear cutting versus alternative harvestingsystems

ForestRegeneration

forest regenerationmethod and timing

area regenerated by natural versus artificial means. Also, area notregenerated within ten or more years following harvest

Threat to Speciesat Risk

land use threats tothreatened andendangeredvertebrates

relative importance of various threats to red-listed (including riparian)vertebrates, and forest-dependent species

Viability ofSelected Species

historical range inwhich species areextirpated or declining

percentage of historical range in which selected species (caribou,sharp-tailed rouse, mule/black-tailed deer, moose, grizzly bear) areextirpated versus declining. Also “observed changes” in fauna.



Page 45

5.3. Overlapping Indicators and Initiatives

As discussed above, Appendix 4 shows that agencies have an interest in tracking 226environmental indicators in 22 resource categories. In one category (forest vegetationresources) 50 separate indicators are identified, while another 20 are identified for forest landuse activities. While these are the most extreme examples, there is interest in tracking ten ormore indicators in seven other resource categories. While these numbers may be justified, theyraise the question of whether or not so many indicators are needed, particularly in certainresource categories, to gain a sufficient understanding of the environmental issues.

As well, is it necessary for there to be so much overlap for so many indicators, as is evidencedby the fact that 40% of all indicators are being implemented / pursued by more than oneinitiative (agency)? Even though a lot of this overlap can be explained by the fact that the sameindicator is being reported on at different geographic scales, there still appears to be enough ofan overlap issue to question the efficiency of a “silo” approach to developing and implementingtrends interpretation / effectiveness monitoring initiatives.

Responding to these questions lies well outside the terms-of-reference of this study. They areraised here only because the study data draws attention to them, and because they are thesorts of questions that LIICC will no doubt want to consider in the development of a corporateenvironmental baseline system.



Page 47

66.. KKEEYY IISSSSUUEESS,, CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONNSS AANNDDRREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS

6.1. Summary of Key Issues

Supply – Demand Imbalance: In BC, as in many other jurisdictions, there havetraditionally been only a relatively small number of agency programs that produceenvironmental monitoring information. These are agencies with traditional, “core”resource management / regulatory responsibilities where monitoring data has beenrequired mainly as a context for permitting / licensing decisions. For example, MELP’sair / water quality and water flow monitoring programs; DFO’s monitoring programs forfish abundance have been driven out of their regulatory responsibilities.

Recently, however, there is rapidly increasing interest from other agencies / initiatives toaccess programs’ monitoring information – mainly for sustainability trends interpretationand effectiveness assessment purposes, and to respond to national / internationalinitiatives that require environmental monitoring data (e.g., Montreal process forsustainable forest management, Kyoto protocol on climate change, biodiversityconvention). In the absence of good time-series environmental monitoring information,these initiatives use various environmental inventory and research information, but theywould ideally prefer reliable and repeatable monitoring information that has beenderived from proper monitoring networks. There is a growing divergence between thedemand for high quality, time-series environmental monitoring information and theavailability of it.

Lack of Formalized Business Drivers: One of the main reasons why environmentalmonitoring has / is limited is because it is a discretionary activity that must compete withother environmental management initiatives for scarce budget dollars. Resourceinventories are more amenable to “slugs” of money that may become available,whereas environmental monitoring requires an ongoing, long-term, and disciplinedcommitment that does not fit well with the cyclical nature of political priorities andassociated budget allocations. If we are to lessen the gap between environmentalmonitoring supply and demand, there will be need for a much stronger provincialcommitment to environmental monitoring. This could possibly take the form of somelegalized requirements for identifying and reporting on performance measures (forexample, such as those identified in the new Budget Transparency and AccountabilityAct), the increasing significance of national / international protocols (e.g., Kyoto), orpotentially the creation of some standing institution that has a responsibility forcoordinating environmental monitoring investments.

Technical Capacity for Managing and Interpreting Environmental Monitoring Data:Agency programs that are implementing environmental monitoring networks are doingso to generate data that is needed for their own regulatory purposes. As such, onlycertain data is collected and it is collected in a way that is relevant to the programneeds. Non-program users of environmental monitoring data (e.g., trends interpretation



initiatives) may be able to directly employ program data, but they often need the data tobe varied and / or interpreted to suit their own particular requirements. Data providersare increasingly being called on to manipulate and interpret their data to service theneeds of other users. There is the potential that limited program staff will be unavailableto fulfill this demand and that non-program data users will perform their owninterpretation and analysis of technical data that they do not fully understand, whichcould lead to inaccurate reporting.

Technical Capacity for Designing and Implementing Environmental MonitoringSystems: Designing and implementing environmental monitoring sampling systemsthat produce statistically valid and credible data requires a high level of technicalexpertise. So too does the proper management and interpretation of the resultant data.In recent years, this capacity has been significantly eroded in most of BC’s resourcemanagement agencies, mainly as a result of program reductions and retirement of staffthat have not been replaced. If government wishes to respond to the increasingdemand for high quality environmental monitoring data, these technical capacity gapswill have to be addressed. It is likely that there will have to be an increasinginvolvement of academics and consulting experts to help with the design and delivery ofmonitoring networks, and also the management and interpretation of monitoring data.

Indicator Proliferation: There is an explosion in the number and type of specificenvironmental indicators that agencies want to track over time. There are two issuesassociated with this proliferation. Firstly, it is unlikely that we need so many indicators,many of which are only slightly different from each other, in order to understand BC’senvironmental quality, although this is perhaps questionable since there has been nocoordinated, corporate assessment of what core environmental indicators should bemeasured. Secondly, there are overlaps among agencies / initiatives that are interestedin tracking the same indicators, or minor variations on an indicator. This creates apotential inefficiency (and also overload problems for data providers - see abovecapacity issue.)

Lack of Coordination: Past and existing environmental monitoring initiatives have allevolved independently as agencies have pursued initiatives in relation to their specificmandated responsibilities. Whereas this has historically not presented too manyproblems — because monitoring information was being developed and used almostexclusively by agencies for program delivery purposes — the broadening interest inacquiring environmental monitoring data for trends and effectiveness interpretationpurposes suggests that a far higher level of inter-agency coordination in developingmonitoring systems will be needed.

The primary responsibility for collecting monitoring data will almost certainly continue toreside with the agencies with program delivery responsibilities (i.e., Air, Wildlife, Water,Resource Inventory branches). However, the other agencies with an interest inmonitoring data (e.g., Ministry of Health in the case of air quality data; regional healthofficers in the case of water quality data; BC Parks, BC Wildlife, forest certificationapplicants in the case of vegetation change inventory data) need to be able to input intoand shape the design of monitoring systems that can measure environmentalparameters that are important to them. Presently, there is no good forum that enablescoordinated decisions — for example, coordinated decision-making on: a core set of



Page 49

environmental indicators that are the corporate priority for information capture; thestandards for measuring and reporting on those indicators; roles and responsibilities fordata interpretation; mechanisms for data access / distribution, etc.

Links to Decision-making: The fundamental purpose behind monitoring environmentalconditions is to improve the quality / effectiveness of environmental managementdecision-making. To-date, however, there are few bridges between the results / findingsof environmental monitoring and the policy responses of decision-makers. The“pressure-state-impact-management response” model for selecting environmentalindicators provides a useful framework for establishing the needed bridges; moreformalized incorporation of that framework within ministries’ strategic planning initiativeswould be valuable.

Opportunities for Partnerships: Provincial agencies are not the only organizations in BCwith an interest in collecting environmental monitoring data. The federal governmenthas important environmental monitoring responsibilities, as do local governments, FirstNations governments, universities and institutes and the private sector. Withoutcoordination among all of these players there lies the potential for major inefficiency andoverlap in monitoring, interpretation and reporting. Any initiatives that are adopted toincrease coordination and to adopt corporate governance of environmental monitoringsystems will need to take into account non-provincial initiatives and requirements.

6.2. Conclusions and Recommendations

Responding to Increasing Demand for Environmental Monitoring Information

Whereas the demand for environmental monitoring information is high and growing, the supplyis low and has historically been shrinking. BC has plenty of environmental data, but it isgenerally not the right kind that is needed for interpreting trends in environmental condition orfor assessing program / policy / plan effectiveness. BC mainly has inventory data, as opposedto monitoring (i.e., time-series) data. Although the need for improvements in the supply ofenvironmental monitoring data is being increasingly recognized and some action is being taken(e.g., vegetation change monitoring) it remains to be seen if provincial environmental monitoringprograms can be sustained over time. This is because there are few, if any, senior-level, formalcommitments to undertake long-term environmental monitoring. Historical and current businessdrivers behind environmental monitoring programs are informal and non-obligatory. As a result,they are highly vulnerable to competing spending priorities.

Recommendation 1: Government should institutionalize some more formal businessdrivers for environmental monitoring — i.e., mechanisms that establish an explicit, non-discretionary requirement for the collection of environmental monitoring information.

Coordinated Design and Delivery of Environmental Monitoring Systems

There is a critical need for improved coordination in determining corporate environmentalmonitoring priorities and planning the design and delivery of monitoring programs. Program-



level monitoring activities need to be more closely linked to trends interpretation / effectivenessmonitoring initiatives. A corporate forum is needed to answer questions like: “What resources /issues should we be monitoring with our limited environmental monitoring budgets: air quality,drinking water, sustainable forest management, biodiversity, etc.”; What technical standards willbe applied in the collection and application of monitoring data; How will data be accessed? Whowill be responsible for interpretation and reporting-out on the findings; etc? ”

Agencies’ demands for environmental monitoring information that will permit them to tracktrends in various environmental parameters have not been rationalized in relation togovernment’s broader corporate priorities. As a result, we see multiple agencies proceedingindependently with their own initiatives, all of which have major ongoing, and sometimesoverlapping, data acquisition implications. Do we really need all of these independent trendsinterpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives in order to provide decision-makers with anadequate understanding of environmental conditions? Can we combine some of theseinitiatives, or somehow create better linkages among them, so that we are measuring / trackingfewer environmental criteria and indicators? If it was possible to do some ranking andintegration through a corporate institutional mechanism, then costs of environmental monitoringdata acquisition, interpretation, and reporting should be reduced; gap and overlap issuesaddressed; and risks associated with conflicting interpretations of monitoring data reduced.

The importance of taking a corporate perspective in inventory programs for efficiency andeffectiveness reasons has been explicitly recognized in BC, as evidenced by the CRII and RICinitiatives – why not do the same for environmental monitoring initiatives?

Recommendation 2: Environmental monitoring programs should be explicitly broughtunder the umbrella of LIICC or a similarly corporate-minded coordinating structure.Coordination should not be limited to provincial government agencies — thecoordinating body should include representatives from all parties with a monitoringinterest (federal, First Nations, local governments; Crown corporations, universities andinstitutes; private sector).

Partnering Opportunities

The province’s internal capacity for designing and implementing environmental monitoringprograms that are capable of producing high quality, statistically-valid results is limited, and mayreasonably be expected to remain that way. Government should be looking for ways toenhance the availability of monitoring data by involving outside organizations / interests indesigning monitoring systems and collecting and interpreting monitoring results. This wouldrequire a highly coordinated approach (see above recommendation).

Recommendation 3: Partnership opportunities should be explored with other levels ofgovernment, universities and institutes and the private sector, as a way of leveraging acost-effective increase in the availability of reliable environmental monitoringinformation.



Page 51

Using Monitoring Information to Enhance Environmental Outcomes

Recent increases in trends interpretation / effectiveness reporting initiatives are all aimedultimately at improving environmental sustainability. These initiatives are based on thepresumption that the findings that they produce will be used by decision-makers to change lawsor policies, or to trigger new or amended plans or programs. Yet, we see little evidence thatthere are, in fact, any good mechanisms to ensure that environmental monitoring investmentsactually feed into environmental decision-making at the policy level. Unless this occurs, theentire motivation for environmental monitoring, and the public investment into it, is in question.The new Budget Transparency and Accountability Act should help to produce a better linkbetween monitoring of performance indicators and strategic level environmental decision-making, although the extent to which this occurs will depend on the performance measures thatthe environmental / resource management agencies set for themselves.

Recommendation 4: As one component of its efforts to oversee the development of a“corporate environmental baseline”, LIICC should investigate institutional options forensuring that the findings from environmental monitoring programs are actuallyintegrated into environmental decision-making.



Page 53

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 11:: SSUURRVVEEYY QQUUEESSTTIIOONNNNAAIIRREE

The following questions were asked of agency contacts to determining the environmentalinformation that agencies need to support their environmental monitoring initiatives:5

1. What environmental monitoring1 initiatives is your division/branch currently involved in, orcontemplating? Describe objectives and scope of monitoring initiative (e.g., purpose,monitoring scale, reporting frequency, audience, funding source, staffing / organization, etc.)

2. Why are you engaged in this monitoring activity? (E.g., to comply with legislation, meet aninternational or national level commitment, meet an internal programming or planningcommitment, etc.?)

3. What basic question(s) are your monitoring initiatives attempting to answer?

4. What environmental criteria/indicators do you use (or want to use) to answer your questions,in number 3 above?

5. What data do you require in order to measure these criteria/indicators, and where do youcurrently (or expect to) obtain this data?

6. How adequate is the data that you currently use, or expect to use? (E.g., is desired dataavailable? If so, is it reliable, current, correct scale, etc.?)

7. What key things should the providers of environmental information be doing to support userswho require information for strategic-level environmental monitoring purposes?

5 Environmental monitoring, in this case, measures environmental condition relative to long-term environmental managementgoals / objectives, and when measured in time series determines trends in condition. Monitoring findings allow environmentalmanagers to compare current conditions to past conditions, and to the desired future condition. Results may be used by decision-makers to reinforce management actions or to suggest modified management actions, as a basis for constructing a managementsystem that is capable of achieving the desired environmental outcomes.



Page 55

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 22:: SSTTUUDDYY CCOONNTTAACCTTSS

The following individuals were contacted to obtain information on agencies’ environmentalmonitoring initiatives and associated information requirements. Comments were provided bypersonal / telephone interviews or by written submission.

ORGANIZATION CONTACT NAMEProvincial Ministries

Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, Implementation and SettlementLegislation Branch

Peter Nakken

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Resource Planning Branch Rob Menes

Ministry of Energy and Mines,Southwest Regional Office Ted HallKootenay Regional Office Andrew Whale

BC Geological Survey Ray Lett

Ministry of Environment, Lands and ParksExecutive Margaret Ekenfelder, Rodger Hunter

Air Resources Branch Lynn Bailey, Hu Wallis, Liz Lilley, Bob Beatty,Robert Marsh, Warren Bell, Rick Williams

Corporate Policy Branch Dr. Risa Smith, Lee ThiessenCrown Lands Branch Godfrey Archbold, Neil Hamilton, EricGeographic Data BC Malcolm Gray, Bill Anderson

Habitat Branch Rod Davis, Dr. Jenny FeickParks Division Denis Moffat

Pollution Prevention Ron Driedger, Doug Walton, Dave Douglas,Harry Vogt

Resource Inventory Branch Fern Schultz, Ted Lea, Wilf Dreher, BruceLetvak, Andrew Harcombe

Water Management Branch Jim Mattison

Ministry of FisheriesFisheries Management Branch Jamie Alley

Information Services Branch Peter LewisSustainable Economic Development Branch Al Martin

Ministry of ForestsCorporate Policy and Planning Branch Sue Stephen

Forest Practices Branch Tom NiemannForest Practices Branch Tom HallForest Practices Branch Shane FordForest Practices Branch Harry Drage

Resources Inventory Branch Jon VivianKamloops District Office Gary Reay

Kamloops Regional Office Peter Lishman



ORGANIZATION CONTACT NAME

Ministry of HealthPublic Health Protection Branch Barry Boettger

Risk Assessment and Toxicology Branch Dr. Ray Copes

Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Growth Strategies Office Erik Karlsen

Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Tourism Policyand Land Use Branch

Dick Butler, Nancy South, Stephen Connally

Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Engineering Branch Mike Kent

Other Agencies

BC Hydro Louise Goullet

Environmental Assessment Office Jan Hagen

Fisheries Renewal BC Angus Mackay

Forest Practices Board Grant Loeb

Forest Renewal BC Janet Gagne

Green Economy Initiative Ken Baker, Lawrence Alexander

Land Reserve Commission Julie Glover

Land Use Coordination Office, Vancouver Island IAMC Lindsay Jones

Land Use Coordination Office, Prince Rupert IAMC Elizabeth Zweck and Tom Chamberlain(consultant)

Land Use Coordination Office Warren Mitchell

Long Beach Model Forest Bodo von Shilling

MacGregor Model Forest Kevin Petterson

Note: names listed in a group were interviewed together.



Page 57

AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX 33:: PPRROOVVIINNCCIIAALL TTRREENNDDSS IINNTTEERRPPRREETTAATTIIOONN //EEFFFFEECCTTIIVVEENNEESSSS RREEPPOORRTTIINNGG IINNIITTIIAATTIIVVEESS

This appendix provides an overview of the main provincial environmental trends interpretationand effectiveness reporting initiatives that are currently being implemented or developed in BC.Each initiative is described in terms of its basic purpose, business driver, key characteristics,current status, and the responsible government agency and contact person.

1. Environmental Trends in British Columbia

Purpose of Initiative: Three objectives are identified in the Environmental Trends in BritishColumbia 2000 report: (1) provide an overview of the condition of BC’s environment,important links between seemingly disparate issues, and a picture of the way in whichBritish Columbians are collectively responding to environmental challenges; (2)measure progress towards the Ministry’s goals; and (3) respond to the BC AuditorGeneral’s calls for enhanced accountability of government by developing performancemeasures that focus on the ultimate outcomes of government efforts.

Business Driver: This initiative is policy driven, and is reflected in the Ministry’s annualbusiness plan.

Key Characteristics: Fifteen indicators of environmental condition are reported: greeneconomy, protected areas, domestic waste, air quality from fine particulates,greenhouse gases, effects of global warming, surface water quality, groundwaterquality, water use, species at risk, forest species, wildlife species, status of fish stocks,development in riparian ecosystems, and toxic contaminants.

The focus is on trends in condition, as opposed to measurement of pressure orresponse indicators. Available data is assembled to support the indicator reporting froma wide variety of existing and historical sources. No environmental monitoring programsare being implemented to produce data specifically for the purposes of this initiative.

Status: To date, two Environmental Trends Reports have been released: 1998 and 2000.The intent is to continue to release reports on a bi-annual interval and thereby continueto build a time-series picture of environmental condition in BC.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, State ofEnvironment Office, Dr. Risa Smith.

2. State of the Forest in British Columbia

Purpose of Initiative: The October 6, 2000 mock-up draft of the State of the Forest in BritishColumbia 2001 report identifies a series of objectives for this initiative:



• demonstrate accountability for outcomes

• provide an overview of the current state of BC’s forests with factual information onthe topics of greatest interest to domestic and international audiences,

• show the trends of important indicators of sustainability

• provide MOF interpretation and analysis of the facts and trends

• summarize MOF balanced conclusions and actions to ensure sustainability,

• stimulate and inform public discussion of sustainable forest management,

• motivate public and private action to ensure sustainability

• provide links to other local, provincial, national and international efforts to ensuresustainability

• facilitate access to more detailed information

• identify gaps in information and knowledge

Business Driver: This initiative is policy driven. It is linked to the Canadian Council ofForest Ministers’ initiative to define and report on sustainable forest management(CCFM criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management). It is also driven outof a need for BC to be able to provide factual, objective information on provincial forestmanagement outcomes in response to ongoing questions and criticisms about thoseoutcomes.

Key Characteristics: The initiative is currently being developed. Decisions on indicatorselection and methodologies, reporting frequency, roles and responsibilities, etc. havenot been finalized. The initial thinking is to report on 40 environmental indicators ofsustainable forest management (in 10 categories), 40 socio-economic indicators (in 10categories) that relate to forest management and use, and 12 policy and administrationindicators (in 6 categories). The environmental and socio-economic indicators wouldemphasize “outcomes” whereas the policy and administration indicators wouldemphasize “input, output and process indicators”. Examples of proposed environmentalindicators of sustainable forest management include: AREA OF forest PER age classby dominant forest species, area of old growth forest, area of land use conversion, areaof forest per age class in protected status, area of forest disturbance from fires, pestsand harvesting, area of riparian zone disturbed, threatened or endangered species,number of exotic species, areas planted with genetically improved and hybrid treespecies, turbidity, distribution of fine particulates from prescribed fires and forestindustry mills, carbon stock changes.

The focus would be on reporting recent and historical trends for each indicator, to theextent that data is available to support indicator reports. No new monitoring programsare being contemplated for delivering this initiative, although data from the MOFprogram for monitoring change in vegetative conditions will be employed. Other datarequirements are expected to come from an array of existing sources, primarily housedwithin the Ministry of Forests, although final assessments of data availability andreliability have not been made.



Page 59

Status: Under development; no written reports on indicators have been generated, otherthan for several “mock ups”. Draft indicators, as above, are being considered / refined.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, TomNiemann.

3. British Columbia Land Statistics

Purpose of Initiative: To provide a synopsis of historical and current statistics pertaining tothe administration of Crown land, and to give an overview of specific resource uses

Business Driver: The initiative is policy-based. MELP has prepared this document out of aperceived need to track high-level statistics on land use / land administration activities.

Key Characteristics: The BC Land Statistics document provides information on a variety ofland administration and land uses, including: general land status, amount of land inprivate ownership, area of Crown land tenures, agricultural land and land use, forestland productivity, timber harvesting, rangeland status, protected area status, heritageland, petroleum and natural gas lands and tenures, and settlement lands. Thirty-sixstatistical tables are provided, together with interpretation of the data. The informationhas been compiled from a wide variety of sources.

Status: MELP has released two versions of this report for two points in time: 1989 and1996. There is no pre-defined reporting interval for future releases of the document,although MELP has expressed a desire to proceed with a third release in the near term.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Crown LandsBranch, Neil Hamilton.

4. State of British Columbia’s Parks

Purpose of Initiative: Report on the extent to which BC’s protected area system goals forecological integrity, recreational resources and cultural-heritage resources are beingachieved over time; and provide the ability to assess how well park management andadministrative techniques are working to sustain the protected area system.

Business Driver: It is expected that legislation will provide the driver for State of the Parksreporting, although such legislation is not yet in place. This expectation arises out ofgovernment’s acceptance of recommendations made by the BC Parks Legacy Panel in1999. The Panel suggested that legislation be enacted to publicly report on the State ofthe BC Parks every three years.

Key Characteristics: The initiative envisions the development and application of a numberof key indicators for assessing how effective management efforts in provincial protectedareas are in achieving protected area system goals (for ecological, recreational, andcultural-heritage resources). The indicators would be applied within protected areasand would be system wide. It’s expected that the initiative would largely parallel the



federal State of the Parks monitoring / reporting program. It is unknown at this time ifthe program would initiate systematic, time-series data collection to support theprogram, however, indications to-date are that BC Parks would be more interested inselecting indicators for which existing data exists.

Status: This initiative is presently being considered by BC Parks. Some preliminary workhas been done on potential indicators. Thirteen tentative indicators were proposed in a1999 consultant’s study for BC Parks’ consideration: 7 indicators pertaining to ecologicalintegrity, 3 to recreational values, 1 to cultural-heritage values, and 2 to economics.These indicators were proposed on the basis (among other things) that existing datawas generally available to enable reporting on the majority of the suggested indicators.Examples of potential environmental indicators include: amount of BC in protectedstatus, ecosystem representation, connectivity among protected areas, species at risk,ecological restoration efforts, water quality, and risk to natural / recreational values.

Timing for final development and implementation is uncertain.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, BC Parks,Lynn Kennedy.

5. Strategic Land Use Plan Effectiveness Monitoring

Purpose of Initiative: Assess the extent to which goals and objectives contained inStrategic Land Use Plans (i.e., LRMPs, regional plans) are being achieved over time.

Business Driver: Strategic Land Use Plan (SLUP) monitoring / reporting is driven by theplan monitoring provisions that are contained in individual approved SLUPs. Inter-agency Management Committees (IAMCs) are responsible for monitoring and reportingon plan implementation status and effectiveness for the plans located within their IAMCregion. They undertake plan monitoring in accordance with general policy andprocedural direction from the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO). In 1999, LUCOpublished a “Provincial Monitoring Framework for Strategic Land Use Plans” and in2000 released a set of procedures that advise staff on monitoring / reporting methods.

Key Characteristics: Each LRMP contains its own provisions directing how the plan will bemonitored to assess (1) the extent to which plan commitments have been implemented,and (2) the extent to which plan goals and objectives are being achieved over time. Theintent is to report annually on plan implementation status, and every 3 to 5 years on planeffectiveness. LUCO’s policy is that IAMCs should select and apply effectivenessmonitoring indicators for which existing data is generally available. Therefore, nospecial, plan-specific data collection / monitoring programs are envisioned to supportthe SLUP monitoring initiative.

Status: The Kamloops IAMC, having produced one of the earliest LRMPs, has progressedfurthest on SLUP monitoring and reporting. In 2000 they released an effectivenessmonitoring report that assessed conditions in the plan area as of 1999 using 69indicators: 28 indicators for environmental resources and 41 for human activities relatedto resource use.



Page 61

Other IAMCs are considering / developing programs to monitor SLUP implementationstatus and overall plan effectiveness. For example, the Prince Rupert IAMC has formeda regional monitoring coordinating group that is currently developing a proposed suite ofeffectiveness monitoring indicators that individual LRMP Tables (Bulkley, Kispiox, Lakesand Casiar LRMPs) may select from. The Lakes and Maurice Districts are part of anInnovative Forest Practices Agreement pilot project that will develop indicators as part oftheir sustainable forest management planning process. As another example, theVancouver Island IAMC has developed a tentative list of 32 indicators for measuring theeffectiveness of the Vancouver Island Regional Land Use Plan.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Land Use Coordination Office, Warren Mitchell.

6. Landscape Unit Plan Effectiveness Monitoring

Purpose of Initiative: To determine the extent to which landscape unit plans have beencompleted according to established landscape unit planning procedures (i.e., programor compliance monitoring); and to determine the overall effectiveness of the plans inachieving underlying program goals (i.e., effectiveness monitoring).

Business Driver: Ministry of Forests’ and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks’ policyis the business driver, although the sustainable forest use goals defined in the preambleof the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act provide the context for theeffectiveness monitoring component of the landscape unit plan monitoring initiative,specifically the biodiversity conservation goal. The two ministries have prepared aLandscape Unit Planning Guide (an official Forest Practices Code guide book) thatreferences a policy commitment to monitoring the effectiveness of landscape unit plans.

Key Characteristics: This monitoring initiative would primarily assess the extent to whichbiodiversity conservation is being achieved at the landscape level and, to a lesserdegree, the stand level. There are approximately 1,300 landscape units defined forBritish Columbia. As the monitoring program is in the early stages of development, it isnot known if monitoring reports will be prepared for individual landscape units, or ifmonitoring results will be reported on a Forest District (or other) basis. The monitoringfrequency has not yet been determined for the program, although it may be that differentindicators may have different monitoring and reporting intervals.

It is possible that as the future scope of landscape unit planning expands to captureother forest resources (e.g., water, recreation), the scope of the monitoring initiative willalso expand. (At present, the scope of landscape unit planning is limited to identifyingold growth management areas and wildlife tree patches, as these are assumed bygovernment to be the primary elements that are required to conserve biodiversity at thisplanning scale.)

Status: An initial scoping review of landscape unit plan monitoring issues andconsiderations was completed by a consultant in October, 2000. That review identifieda variety of potential pressure, state and response indicators that might be consideredfor monitoring biodiversity condition at the landscape and stand levels. Subsequently,



another consulting study was initiated (and was still in progress at the time that thisreport was written) to recommend specific biodiversity condition monitoring indicators.

Seventeen indicators are currently under consideration, although these still need to beassessed against criteria such as data availability and reliability, cost, repeatability, etc.Some examples of monitoring indicators being considered include: area of old growthforest by ecosystem type, area of old growth maintaining interior stand conditions, areaof wildlife tree retention, wildlife tree retention stand structure, coarse wood debris,percent of environmentally sensitive areas retained, area of riparian buffer, degree offragmentation.

It is intended that much of the information required to support monitoring and reportingon these potential indicators would be generated from data tables that are compiled bystaff at the time that landscape unit plans are initially prepared. Procedures forgenerating these data tables from existing MOF and MELP data sources are beingdeveloped. To enable indicator trends monitoring it would be necessary to replicatethese data tables at the desired reporting interval.

Once a set of monitoring indicators is selected, they will be piloted in one or morelocations before the monitoring initiative is applied more broadly.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, AllanLidstone.

7. Model Forest Sustainable Forest Management (Local Level) Monitoring)

Purpose of Initiative: To measure progress towards sustainable forest management (SFM)at the local forest level, in relation to defined local level SFM indicators. Although thereare only two model forests in BC, the indicators that are developed at this level are likelyto have relevance to other forest-level SFM monitoring initiatives.

Business Driver: The initiative is founded in the national federal-provincial model forestnetwork. All model forests across Canada are in the process of developing regionally-relevant criteria and indicators of SFM, using the CCFM criteria and indicators as abasis.

Key Characteristics: All model forests in the Canadian model forest network have beenworking for the past few years on developing and applying local level indicators. Thereis an expectation that there would be regular, periodic reporting on SFM performance,relative to the indicators. Data would come from existing available sources, but alsofrom sampling plots / field surveys within the model forests.

Status: The Long Beach Model Forest embarked on an initiative to develop local level SFMcriteria and indicators in 1998. They have a comprehensive list of indicators, andintend to report on biological indicators for which monitoring information is available.They have not yet screened their indicator list against the availability of information.They are in the process of developing some permanent sample plots for data collection



Page 63

for a few model forests, in cooperation with the licensees in the area. They wouldultimately like to produce a report annually that reports on indicator trends -- a“Clayoquot Report”. The MacGregor model forest has an initial selection of indicators inplace and are beginning to apply them in cooperation with the forest licensee (CanFor).

Responsible Agency and Contact: Long Beach Model Forest, Bodo von Schilling;Macgregor Model Forest, Kevin Petterson.

8. Forest Certification Auditing / Monitoring

Purpose of Initiative: To assess whether or not performance standards that forestmanagers are expected to achieve as a condition of obtaining / maintaining forestcertification are, in fact, being achieved.

Business Driver: Access to markets is the primary driver behind forest companies’certification initiatives. Some international buyers of wood products are requiringproducers to provide assurances (as provided by an independent auditor) that theproducts being sold originate from sustainably managed forests.

Key Characteristics: Forest certification may be obtained under one or more certificationsystems. IN BC, the main performance-based certification systems being implementedare those offered by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) or the ForestStewardship Council (FSC). Certification is voluntary — forest managers apply for it ifthey think it will help them market their products. An approved, independent certifierassesses applicants’ forest management performance against pre-defined standards ofsustainable forest management. Annual audits are conducted to determine ifcertification status may be retained or modified.

Under the CSA system, sustainable forest management performance indicators forspecified categories are developed through a public participation process. Theseconstitute the standards that the forest manager is audited against. Many of these tendto be compliance-oriented indicators, however a number are condition-orientedindicators that will require time-series environmental data to enable effective auditing.Examples of CSA performance indicators of environmental condition that have beenrecently developed for the Kamloops TSA include: levels of coarse woody debrisretained at cutblocks, forest regeneration following harvest, percent of old forestretained in landscape units relative to LRMP-approved levels, levels of riparianprotection relative to Forest Practices Code requirements, percentage of harvestedareas in permanent roads and landings, harvest levels relative to AAC and cut controlrequirements.

Under the FSC system, auditors assess performance against a checklist of ten definedsustainable forest management principles and 56 criteria. Examples of auditing criteriafor which information on environmental condition is required include: yield of all forestproducts harvested; forest growth rates and regeneration; composition and observedchange in flora and fauna; extent of rare, threatened and endangered species andhabitats; extent of non-forest uses; harvest rates.



A BC regional standard for the FSC system is presently being developed to moreclosely match performance standards with the province’s unique forest conditions. Thisregional standard will define specific BC performance indicators and thus theinformation requirements that will be required to facilitate FSC implementation in BC.

Status: To-date in BC, seven CSA certifications and three FSC certifications have beenapproved for various woodlands operations. These low numbers understate the degreeof interest that exists among forest companies (and government) to achieve certification.A number of processes are underway throughout the province at the individual operatorlevel and at the wider TSA level to implement forest certification under both systems.For example, in the Kamloops TSA, a CSA process is underway to develop asustainable forest management plan that resulted in the identification of 27 sustainableforest management indicators, the auditing of which for some will require data on thecondition of environmental resources.

Responsible Agency and Contact: Although monitoring that is conducted in connection withforest certification is conducted on a voluntary basis by individual forest companies andapproved certifiers, the Ministry of Forests is closely following forest certificationactivities in BC. It can be expected that provincial data, especially in TSAs, will becalled upon to supply audit information for certification implementation. (ForestPractices Branch, Harry Drage).

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

Page

65

AAPP

PPEE

NNDD

II XX 44

:: CCUU

RRRR

EENN

TT AA

NNDD

PPRR

OOPP

OOSS

EEDD

MMOO

NNII TT

OORR

II NNGG

(( TTII MM

EE-- SS

EERR

II EESS)) II

NNFF OO

RRMM

AATT II

OONN

FF OORR

TTRR

EENN

DDSS

II NNTT EE

RRPP

RREE

TT AATT II

OONN

&& EE

FF FFEE

CCTT II

VVEE

NNEE

SSSS

RREE

PPOO

RRTT II

NNGG

II NNII TT

II AATT II

VVEE

SS OO

FF PP

RROO

VVII NN

CCII AA

LL AA

GGEE

NNCC

II EESS

(See

End

of A

ppen

dix

for E

xpla

nato

ry N

otes

)

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

ATM

OSP

HER

IC R

ESO

UR

CES

Air

Qua

lity

Fine

Par

ticul

ates

com

mun

ities

exp

osed

to h

ealth

risk

sfro

m fi

ne p

artic

ulat

es (I

mpa

ct)

fine

parti

cula

te le

vels

(PM

10 a

nd P

M 2

.5, N

OX,

SO

2, T

RS)

in c

omm

uniti

es o

fco

ncer

nEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,M

ELP

/ GVR

D /

MO

Hst

rate

gic

plan

ning

Fine

Par

ticul

ates

conc

entra

tion

of fi

ne p

artic

ulat

es in

sele

cted

pro

tect

ed a

reas

(Im

pact

)fin

e pa

rticu

late

leve

ls (a

s ab

ove)

in h

igh

use

/ urb

an p

rote

cted

are

as,

com

pare

d to

targ

et /

safe

par

ticul

ate

leve

ls.

Stat

e of

Par

ks

Fine

Par

ticul

ates

air q

ualit

y fro

m p

resc

ribed

fire

s an

dm

ills (I

mpa

ct)

tonn

es o

f fin

e pa

rticu

late

s (P

M10

em

issi

ons)

from

pre

scrib

ed fi

res

and

fore

stin

dust

ry m

ills, b

y ye

ar, a

nd m

ap d

istri

butio

n of

fine

par

ticul

ates

Stat

e of

For

ests

Fine

Par

ticul

ates

caus

es /

sour

ces

of fi

ne p

artic

ulat

esem

issi

ons

(Pre

ssur

e)so

urce

s of

fine

par

ticul

ate

emis

sion

s (to

nnes

), by

type

(e.g

., bu

rnin

g, m

ills,

othe

r urb

an s

ourc

es),

for L

ower

Mai

nlan

d an

d re

st o

f BC

. Als

o, s

ourc

es o

fem

issi

ons

(mob

ile, p

oint

sou

rce,

are

a so

urce

s)

Stat

e of

For

ests

,En

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Smok

e /

Parti

cula

tes

pres

crib

ed b

urni

ng a

ctiv

ity (P

ress

ure)

area

of p

resc

ribed

fire

s, b

y ye

arSt

ate

of F

ores

ts

Hea

lth Im

pact

sm

orbi

dity

and

mor

talit

y (Im

pact

)pu

blic

hea

lth s

tatis

tics

on m

orbi

dity

and

mor

talit

y fro

m re

spira

tory

dis

ease

sM

OH

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng,

Reg

iona

l Med

ical

Hea

lthof

ficia

lsG

aseo

usC

onta

min

ants

gase

ous

cont

amin

ant c

once

ntra

tions

(Impa

ct)

leve

ls o

f: gr

ound

-leve

l ozo

ne, n

itrog

en d

ioxi

de, s

ulph

ur d

ioxi

de, h

ydro

gen

sulp

hide

, car

bon

mon

oxid

e, c

arbo

n di

oxid

e (e

xcee

danc

es re

lativ

e to

prov

inci

al o

bjec

tives

)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Gas

eous

and

Parti

cula

teC

onta

min

ants

disp

ersi

on (P

ress

ure)

area

/ di

strib

utio

n of

dis

pers

ion

of c

onta

min

ants

MEL

P / G

VRD

/ M

OH

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Air Q

ualit

yIm

pact

s on

Fore

sts

perc

enta

ge o

f for

est l

and

subj

ecte

d to

leve

ls o

f spe

cific

air

pollu

tant

s th

at m

ayne

gativ

ely

impa

ct fo

rest

eco

syst

ems

(Impa

ct)

atm

osph

eric

leve

ls o

f sul

phat

es, n

itrat

e, o

zone

, ultr

avio

let B

in fo

rest

ecos

yste

ms

CC

FM C

&I

Ozo

neoz

one

depl

etio

n (C

ondi

tion)

ozon

e co

ncen

tratio

ns in

fore

sted

regi

ons

CC

FM, c

riter

ia a

ndin

dica

tors

, MEL

P / M

OH

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ngC

limat

eC

hang

eG

loba

l War

min

ggr

eenh

ouse

gas

em

issi

ons

(Pre

ssur

e)m

egat

onne

s of

CO

2 eq

uiva

lent

s di

scha

rged

into

the

atm

osph

ere,

and

sec

tora

lso

urce

of d

isch

arge

s –

tota

l for

BC

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

gree

n ho

use

gas

emis

sion

sou

rces

(Pre

ssur

e)in

vent

ory

of g

reen

hous

e ga

s em

issi

on s

ourc

es a

nd a

mou

nts

MEL

P / G

VRD

/ M

OH

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

fore

st in

dust

ry e

mis

sion

s (P

ress

ure)

trend

s in

foss

il fu

el /

carb

on p

rodu

ct e

mis

sion

s fro

m fo

rest

sec

tor.

Als

ope

rcen

tage

of f

ores

t sec

tor e

nerg

y us

age

from

rene

wab

le s

ourc

es.

CC

FM C

&I, M

odel

fore

stm

onito

ring

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

tem

pera

ture

incr

ease

s (C

ondi

tion)

BC te

mpe

ratu

re c

hang

e ov

er p

ast c

entu

ry, b

y re

gion

(and

at f

ores

t lev

el)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gG

loba

l War

min

gte

mpe

ratu

re in

crea

ses

(Con

ditio

n)te

mpe

ratu

re “s

ums”

; met

eoro

logi

cal p

aram

eter

s (p

reci

pita

tion,

etc

).C

CFM

C&I

, Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g, M

ELP

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ng, B

C H

ydro

,Em

erge

ncy

Plan

ning

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

wat

er te

mpe

ratu

re (C

ondi

tion)

chan

ge in

wat

er te

mpe

ratu

res

over

tim

e at

sel

ecte

d si

tes

Mod

el F

ores

t mon

itorin

gG

loba

l War

min

ggl

acie

r ret

reat

(Im

pact

)ch

ange

in p

ositi

on o

f gla

cier

fron

t rel

ativ

e to

190

0 at

sel

ecte

d BC

gla

cier

sEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ngG

loba

l War

min

gBC

fore

sts

as c

arbo

n si

nks

(Con

ditio

n)ca

rbon

sto

ck c

hang

es (t

onne

s) –

abs

orpt

ion

and

rele

ase-

by

fore

st ty

pe a

ndfo

r tot

al fo

rest

Stat

e of

For

est,

CC

FM C

&I

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

BC fo

rest

s as

car

bon

sink

s (C

ondi

tion)

carb

on p

ools

i.e.

, tre

e vs

. non

-tree

bio

mas

s vo

lum

e es

timat

es (t

onne

s).

Also

,ar

ea o

f for

est d

eple

tion,

and

per

cent

age

of c

anop

y co

ver,

as in

dica

tors

of

carb

on s

eque

stra

tion.

Als

o, b

iom

ass

loss

due

to fi

re

Stat

e of

For

est,

CC

FMC

&I, M

odel

fore

stm

onito

ring

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

BC fo

rest

s as

car

bon

sink

s (R

espo

nse)

Kyot

o pr

otoc

ol a

ccou

ntin

g ef

fect

sSt

ate

of F

ores

tG

loba

l War

min

gca

rbon

seq

uest

ratio

n / r

elea

se in

agric

ultu

ral s

yste

ms

(Pre

ssur

e)dy

nam

ics

of c

arbo

n si

nks

and

sequ

estra

tion

in a

gric

ultu

ral s

yste

ms

MEL

P, M

AF s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Fore

stry

CO

2 em

issi

ons

(Pre

ssur

e)C

O2

emis

sion

s (to

nnes

) fro

m th

e fo

rest

sec

tor

CC

FM C

&I, M

odel

fore

stm

onito

ring

AQ

UA

TIC

RES

OU

RC

ESFi

sh a

nd o

ther

Aqu

atic

Fau

naSp

ecie

s at

Ris

kth

reat

ened

or e

ndan

gere

d fis

h sp

ecie

sth

at a

re “f

ores

t dw

ellin

g” (

Impa

ct)

perc

ent o

f kno

wn

of s

peci

es th

at a

re th

reat

ened

or e

ndan

gere

d, a

ccor

ding

tode

gree

of f

ores

t dep

ende

ncy

(hig

h, m

ediu

m, l

ow).

Als

o re

side

nt fi

sh s

peci

esan

d st

ocks

at r

isk

for v

ario

us re

gion

s (e

.g.,

red-

liste

d aq

uatic

spe

cies

inKa

mlo

ops

LRM

P ar

ea)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds,

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

Salm

on S

tock

ssa

lmon

sto

ck e

xtin

ctio

ns a

nd ri

sks

ofex

tinct

ion

(Impa

ct)

num

ber o

f kno

wn

salm

on s

tock

s (b

y sp

ecie

s) th

at a

re e

xtin

ct, a

t mod

erat

e to

high

risk

of b

ecom

ing

extin

ct, o

r of s

peci

al c

once

rn.

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Anad

rom

ous

Fish

anad

rom

ous

fish

spec

ies

esca

pem

ent

(Con

ditio

n)hi

stor

ic re

cord

of a

nnua

l num

bers

of s

alm

onid

s th

at re

turn

to s

paw

n at

sele

cted

loca

tions

(e.g

., C

oho,

ste

elhe

ad)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)W

hite

Stu

rgeo

nag

e di

strib

utio

n of

whi

te s

turg

eon

(Con

ditio

n)pe

rcen

tage

of w

hite

stu

rgeo

n po

pula

tion

that

is ju

veni

le v

s. s

ub-a

dults

vs.

adul

ts in

Fra

ser a

nd N

echa

ko R

iver

sEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Koka

nee

spaw

ning

act

ivity

(Con

ditio

n)nu

mbe

r of K

okan

ee s

paw

ners

in s

tream

s of

Oka

naga

n La

keEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

sBu

ll Tr

out

popu

latio

n st

atus

(Im

pact

)pe

rcen

t of w

ater

shed

gro

upin

gs w

here

Bul

l Tro

ut p

opul

atio

ns a

re s

able

ver

sus

decl

inin

gEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Sele

cted

Sto

cks

stat

us o

f sel

ecte

d st

ocks

(Con

ditio

n)fis

h po

pula

tions

and

tren

ds fo

r ana

drom

ous,

spo

rt, n

on-c

omm

erci

al a

ndsp

ecie

s at

risk

) i.e

., nu

mbe

r of f

ish

coun

ted

annu

ally

at s

elec

ted

perm

anen

tm

onito

ring

site

s (e

.g.,

stee

lhea

d sm

olts

, coh

o es

cape

men

ts, r

esid

ent t

rout

,et

c.)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(e.g

., Va

ncou

ver I

slan

d),

MEL

P, M

oFi s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Sele

cted

Sto

cks

stoc

k re

cove

ry p

lans

(Res

pons

e)nu

mbe

r and

dis

tribu

tion

of s

tock

reco

very

pro

gram

s / p

lans

MoF

i, M

ELP

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngSe

lect

edSp

ecie

ssp

ecie

s co

mpo

sitio

n, a

bund

ance

and

dist

ribut

ion

(Impa

ct)

chan

ges

in fi

sh s

peci

es c

ompo

sitio

n an

d ab

unda

nce

and

dist

ribut

ion

(as

anin

dica

tor o

f clim

ate

chan

ge)

MoF

i, M

ELP

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ng

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

Page

67

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Sele

cted

Spec

ies

fishi

ng e

ffort

and

catc

h (Im

pact

)de

clin

es in

fish

er e

ffort,

tota

l cat

ch a

nd c

atch

/ un

it ef

fort

MoF

i, M

ELP

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngSe

lect

edSp

ecie

sfis

h ha

rves

t (Pr

essu

re)

num

ber o

f fis

h ha

rves

ted

acco

rdin

g to

spe

cies

, sto

cks

MEL

P, M

OFI

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngAq

uatic

Fau

naab

unda

nce

and

dist

ribut

ion

of a

quat

icfa

una

(Con

ditio

n)ch

ange

s in

dis

tribu

tion

and

abun

danc

e of

uns

peci

fied

spec

ies

of a

quat

ic fa

una

CC

FM C

&I

Lake

Cla

ssifi

catio

nstre

nds

in la

ke c

lass

ifica

tions

(Res

pons

e)nu

mbe

r of l

akes

that

hav

e be

en c

lass

ified

, usi

ng th

e M

OF

Lake

Cla

ssifi

catio

nSy

stem

, as

clas

s A

(mos

t res

trict

ive)

to c

lass

E (l

east

rest

rictiv

e)La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops)

Wat

er Q

uant

ityH

ydro

logi

cal

wat

er fl

ow a

t sel

ecte

d dr

aina

ges

(Con

ditio

n)su

mm

er lo

w fl

ow a

nd p

eak

flow

at s

elec

ted

perm

anen

t stre

am g

augi

ngst

atio

nsLa

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(e

.g.,

Vanc

ouve

r Isl

and,

Kam

loop

s), C

CFM

C&I

,M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Hyd

rolo

gica

lsn

ow p

ack

(Con

ditio

n)sn

ow p

ack

/ sur

vey

trend

sM

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ngH

ydro

logi

cal

surfa

ce w

ater

are

a in

fore

sted

are

as(C

ondi

tion)

long

-term

tren

ds in

are

a of

sur

face

wat

er in

fore

sted

are

asC

CFM

C&I

, Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gH

ydro

logi

cal

wat

ersh

ed a

sses

smen

ts (R

espo

nse)

num

ber o

f wat

ersh

ed a

sses

smen

ts a

nd, o

f tho

se, t

he n

umbe

r of w

ater

shed

sid

entif

ied

as re

quiri

ng re

habi

litat

ion

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)Su

rface

Wat

erAv

aila

bilit

yfu

lly a

lloca

ted

stre

ams

(Res

pons

e)nu

mbe

r of w

ater

sup

plie

s th

at a

re fu

lly re

cord

ed (i

.e.,

com

mun

ity w

ater

shed

s;m

ajor

bas

ins;

cre

eks,

bro

oks

and

lake

s; s

prin

gs, p

onds

and

gul

ches

)La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops)

Gro

und

Wat

erAv

aila

bilit

yw

ater

leve

ls (C

ondi

tion)

aver

age

wat

er le

vels

at o

bser

vatio

n w

ells

in m

ajor

pro

vinc

ial a

quife

rs (a

nd in

aqui

fers

in m

odel

fore

sts)

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Wat

er Q

ualit

ySu

rface

Wat

erQ

ualit

y in

Wat

ersh

eds

wat

er q

ualit

y in

dex

(Con

ditio

n)w

ater

qua

lity

inde

x re

sults

at m

onito

ring

site

s (re

porte

d as

impr

ovin

g,de

terio

ratin

g or

no

chan

ge in

qua

lity)

, rep

orte

d by

wat

ersh

ed g

roup

ings

. Al

so,

wat

er q

ualit

y ra

tings

at m

onito

red

site

s (i.

e., e

xcel

lent

, goo

d, fa

ir, b

orde

rline

or

poor

ratin

gs).

Als

o, o

ther

uns

peci

fied

wat

er c

hem

istry

par

amet

ers

(CC

FMC

&I, a

nd F

SC c

ertif

icat

ion)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(e.g

., Va

ncou

ver I

slan

d),

CC

FM &

I, FS

C fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion

Surfa

ce W

ater

Qua

lity

wat

er q

ualit

y pa

ram

eter

s (C

ondi

tion)

surfa

ce w

ater

qua

lity

as in

dica

ted

by m

easu

rem

ents

of:

diss

olve

d so

lids,

hard

ness

, tra

ce e

lem

ents

, chl

orop

hyll

a, n

utrie

nts,

nitr

ate,

pH

, sed

imen

ts,

feca

l col

iform

s, c

yani

de, A

OX,

tem

pera

ture

, dis

solv

ed g

ases

.

MEL

P st

rate

gic

plan

ning

,M

OH

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Drin

king

Wat

erQ

ualit

ydr

inki

ng w

ater

hea

lth p

aram

eter

s(C

ondi

tion)

drin

king

wat

er q

ualit

y of

regu

late

d ut

ilitie

s (m

icro

biol

ogy,

pro

tozo

ans,

met

als,

maj

or io

ns, n

itrat

e) –

sur

face

wat

er a

nd g

roun

dwat

erM

ELP,

MO

H, r

egul

ated

utilit

ies

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ngD

rinki

ng W

ater

Qua

lity

boil

wat

er a

dvis

orie

s (R

espo

nse)

frequ

ency

and

dis

tribu

tion

of b

oil w

ater

adv

isor

ies

MEL

P, M

OH

, Reg

iona

lhe

alth

offi

cers

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngD

rinki

ng W

ater

Qua

lity

com

mun

ity w

ater

shed

s (R

espo

nse)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

com

mun

ity w

ater

shed

pla

nsM

ELP,

MO

F st

rate

gic

plan

ning

Wat

erbo

rne

Dis

ease

wat

erbo

rne

dise

ase

para

met

ers

(Impa

ct)

frequ

ency

and

dis

tribu

tion

of w

ater

-bor

ne d

isea

ses

MEL

P, M

OH

, Reg

iona

lhe

alth

offi

cers

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngC

ompl

ianc

eco

mpl

ianc

e at

poi

nt-s

ourc

e di

scha

rges

(Pre

ssur

e)nu

mbe

r, qu

ality

and

com

plia

nce

reco

rds

of p

oint

-sou

rce

disc

harg

esM

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Land

Use

land

use

s w

ith p

oten

tial w

ater

qua

lity

impa

cts

(Pre

ssur

e)la

nd a

rea

occu

pied

by

uses

with

pot

entia

l wat

er q

ualit

y im

pact

sM

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Fore

stry

Impa

cts

road

dea

ctiv

atio

n fo

r wat

erki

lom

eter

s of

road

that

hav

e be

en d

eact

ivat

ed fo

r pur

pose

s of

wat

er q

ualit

yLa

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

man

agem

ent p

urpo

ses

(Res

pons

e)co

ntro

l(K

amlo

ops)

Fore

stry

Impa

cts

turb

idity

(Im

pact

)tu

rbid

ity in

wat

ersh

eds

(or a

t sel

ecte

d sa

mpl

ing

site

s, e

.g.,

Kam

loop

s).

Also

,tu

rbid

ity in

pai

red

wat

ersh

eds,

with

and

with

out l

oggi

ng.

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

,M

odel

For

est M

onito

ring

Fore

stry

Impa

cts

chan

nel c

hang

e, h

ydro

logy

, par

ticle

size

dis

tribu

tion

(Impa

ct)

exte

nt o

f cha

nges

in th

ese

attri

bute

s, o

ver t

ime,

at f

ores

t lev

elM

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Wat

er Q

ualit

y at

Mar

ine

Park

sfe

cal c

olifo

rm le

vels

at m

arin

e pa

rk /

boat

anc

hora

ges,

or s

hellf

ish

clos

ures

(Impa

ct)

num

ber o

f day

s th

at fe

cal c

olifo

rm le

vels

exc

eed

prov

inci

al s

tand

ards

at

sele

cted

mar

ine

park

s / a

ncho

rage

s; o

r, nu

mbe

r of d

ays

of s

hellf

ish

clos

ure

atse

lect

ed m

arin

e pa

rks

due

to fe

cal c

onta

min

atio

n

Stat

e of

Par

ks

Wat

er Q

ualit

y at

Shel

lfish

Gro

win

g Ar

eas

mar

ine

wat

er q

ualit

y at

exi

stin

g an

dpo

tent

ial s

hellf

ish

grow

ing

area

s(Im

pact

)

area

of f

ores

hore

are

as c

lose

d to

she

llfis

h ha

rves

ting;

per

cent

age

of fo

resh

ore

area

s w

ith h

igh

and

mod

erat

e sh

ellfi

sh c

apab

ility

that

are

clo

sed

to s

hellf

ish

harv

estin

g; a

nd p

erce

ntag

e of

fore

shor

e ar

eas

with

hig

h sh

ellfi

sh fa

rmin

gsu

itabi

lity

that

are

clo

sed

to s

hellf

ish

prod

uctio

n –

due

to fe

cal o

r dio

xin

cont

amin

atio

n

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Van

couv

er Is

land

)

Pulp

and

Pap

erM

ill E

fflue

ntch

lorin

ated

org

anic

com

poun

ds in

pul

pan

d pa

per e

fflue

nt d

isch

arge

(Im

pact

)to

nnes

/ da

y of

abs

orba

ble

orga

nic

halid

e (A

OX)

dis

char

ges

inn

pulp

and

pape

r effl

uent

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Gro

und

Wat

erQ

ualit

yqu

ality

of w

ell w

ater

(Im

pact

)gr

ound

wat

er q

ualit

y at

obs

erva

tion

wel

ls (e

.g.,

nitra

te a

nd p

estic

ides

). A

lso,

num

ber o

f gro

undw

ater

wel

ls w

ith w

ater

qua

lity

conc

erns

, or n

umbe

r cla

ssed

as h

ighl

y vu

lner

able

acc

ordi

ng to

aqu

ifer c

lass

ifica

tion

/ map

ping

met

hods

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds,

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s), M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ngG

roun

d W

ater

Qua

lity

aqui

fers

at r

isk

of c

onta

min

atio

n(C

ondi

tion)

num

ber o

f BC

aqu

ifers

with

repo

rted

grou

ndw

ater

qua

lity

conc

erns

; num

ber

vuln

erab

le to

con

tam

inat

ion

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Mon

itorin

g Ef

fort

num

ber a

nd lo

catio

n of

wat

er q

ualit

ym

onito

ring

stat

ions

(Res

pons

e)nu

mbe

r and

loca

tion

of w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g st

atio

nsSa

te o

f For

ests

, CC

FMC

&IM

anag

emen

tEf

fort

fore

st m

anag

emen

t des

igna

tions

topr

otec

t wat

er q

ualit

y (R

espo

nse)

fore

st la

nd a

rea

that

is m

anag

ed fo

r soi

l and

wat

er p

rote

ctio

n, b

y ty

pe (e

.g.,

com

mun

ity w

ater

shed

s, n

etdo

wns

for t

erra

in in

stab

ility,

ripa

rian

zone

s).

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&IW

ater

Use

Lice

nsed

wat

erus

enu

mbe

r and

vol

ume

of s

urfa

ce w

ater

licen

sed

(Pre

ssur

e)vo

lum

e of

sur

face

wat

er (m

3 / y

r) lic

ense

d fo

r var

ious

con

sum

ptiv

e us

es(a

gric

ultu

re, t

herm

al p

ower

, min

ing,

man

ufac

turin

g, m

unic

ipal

)En

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,M

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ngW

ater

Use

hydr

olog

ical

des

ign

(Pre

ssur

e)nu

mbe

r and

dis

tribu

tion

of re

ques

ts fo

r hyd

rolo

gica

l des

ign

info

rmat

ion

MEL

P st

rate

gic

plan

ning

Per C

apita

Wat

er U

sevo

lum

e of

wat

er u

sed

per c

apita

(Pre

ssur

e)pe

r cap

ita w

ater

con

sum

ptio

n (li

tres

per p

erso

n pe

r day

)En

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Stre

amR

estri

ctio

ns s

tream

rest

rictio

ns (R

espo

nse)

num

ber o

f res

trict

ions

regi

ster

ed a

gain

st s

tream

sEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Bottl

ed W

ater

wat

er li

cens

ed fo

r bot

tle s

ales

(Pre

ssur

e)vo

lum

e of

wat

er li

cens

ed fo

r bot

tled

wat

er s

ales

in B

CEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Com

mun

ityW

ater

shed

sst

atus

of c

omm

unity

wat

ersh

eds

(Res

pons

e)nu

mbe

r and

are

a of

com

mun

ity w

ater

shed

s, in

siz

e ca

tego

ries

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

Gro

undw

ater

Use

wat

er u

se fr

om B

C a

quife

rs (P

ress

ure)

perc

enta

ge o

f BC

aqu

ifers

that

are

at r

isk

from

hea

vy w

ater

use

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Hab

itat

Urb

an S

tream

sLo

wer

Fra

ser V

alle

y st

ream

dam

age

(Pre

ssur

e)pe

rcen

t of s

tream

s in

Low

er F

rase

r Val

ley

that

hav

e be

en lo

st, o

r are

thre

aten

ed a

nd e

ndan

gere

dEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Prod

uctiv

itypr

esen

ce /

abse

nce

of h

abita

t attr

ibut

es(C

ondi

tion)

stre

am h

abita

t cha

ract

eris

tics

chan

ge o

ver t

ime

at s

elec

ted

loca

l stre

ams

(e.g

., co

arse

woo

dy d

ebris

, poo

ling,

stre

am s

truct

ure,

stre

am s

ide

vege

tatio

n)M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

Page

69

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Cro

ssin

gsst

ream

cro

ssin

gs (P

ress

ure)

num

ber a

nd ty

pe o

f stre

am c

ross

ings

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gH

abita

tC

ondi

tion

wat

ersh

ed in

tegr

ity (P

ress

ure)

land

use

, lan

d co

ver,

road

and

stre

am c

ross

ing

dens

ities

and

hyd

rolo

gica

lch

arac

teris

tics

in w

ater

shed

sM

ELP,

MoF

i stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngH

abita

t Am

ount

fish

habi

tat c

ondi

tion

and

amou

nt(C

ondi

tion)

dist

ribut

ion

and

qual

ity o

f fis

h ha

bita

ts; a

mou

nt /

leng

th o

f kno

wn

salm

on,

spor

tfish

and

oth

er fi

sh s

tream

sM

ELP,

MoF

i stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngH

abita

tC

ondi

tion

aqua

tic h

abita

t deg

rada

tion

(Impa

ct)

exte

nt, d

istri

butio

n an

d tre

nds

in ri

paria

n an

d aq

uatic

eco

syst

ems

degr

adat

ion

MEL

P, M

oFi s

trate

gic

plan

ning

Hab

itat

Res

tora

tion

aqua

tic h

abita

t reh

abilit

atio

n pr

ojec

ts(R

espo

nse)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

wat

ersh

ed, s

tream

and

fish

hab

itat r

ehab

ilitat

ion

proj

ects

MEL

P, M

oFi s

trate

gic

plan

ning

CU

LTU

RA

L / H

ERIT

AG

ER

ESO

UR

CES

Cul

tura

l /H

erita

geR

esou

rces

inPr

otec

ted

Area

s

risk

to c

ultu

ral h

erita

ge v

alue

s(P

ress

ure)

num

ber /

per

cent

of p

rote

cted

are

as w

here

‘hig

hly

sign

ifica

nt’ c

ultu

ral /

herit

age

reso

urce

s ar

e as

sess

ed b

y pa

rk m

anag

ers

to b

e at

a h

igh,

mod

erat

eor

low

risk

of d

eter

iora

tion

from

any

cau

se

Stat

e of

Par

ks

Trad

ition

al U

setra

ditio

nal u

se s

tudi

es (R

espo

nse)

num

ber a

nd lo

catio

n of

trad

ition

al u

se, k

now

ledg

e st

udie

s co

mpl

eted

/un

derw

aySt

ate

of F

ores

ts

Her

itage

Des

igna

tions

Her

itage

Con

serv

atio

n Ac

t des

igna

tions

(Res

pons

e)ar

ea o

f lan

d m

anag

ed a

nd p

rote

cted

und

er th

e H

erita

ge C

onse

rvat

ion

Act

(e.g

., tru

sts,

arc

haeo

logi

cal s

ites)

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

LAN

D &

RES

OU

RC

E US

EA

gric

ultu

re &

Ran

gela

ndAg

ricul

tura

l Lan

dPr

otec

tion

agric

ultu

ral l

and

rese

rve

(Res

pons

e)ar

ea o

f lan

d re

tain

ed in

agr

icul

tura

l lan

d re

serv

e, b

y re

gion

and

pro

vinc

ially

Land

Res

erve

Com

mis

sion

repo

rting

; BC

Lan

dSt

atis

tics;

and

Lan

d us

epl

an m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s, V

anco

uver

isla

nd)

Agric

ultu

ral L

and

Prot

ectio

nag

ricul

tura

l cap

abilit

y cl

asse

s in

ALR

(Con

ditio

n)ar

ea o

f var

ious

agr

icul

tura

l cap

abilit

y cl

asse

s th

at a

re p

rote

cted

by

the

ALR

(i.e.

, cla

ss 1

-7),

and

perc

ent o

f tot

al a

rea

in A

LRBC

Lan

d St

atis

tics

Agric

ultu

ral

Activ

ityfa

rm n

umbe

rs (C

ondi

tion)

num

ber /

are

a of

farm

s in

& o

ut o

f pro

duct

ion,

loca

tions

, typ

es, s

izes

, etc

., by

regi

on a

nd p

rovi

nce-

wid

eM

AA s

trate

gic

plan

ning

,La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops)

Agric

ultu

ral

Activ

ityfa

rmin

g an

d ra

nchi

ng a

ctiv

ity in

BC

(Pre

ssur

e)lo

catio

n an

d am

ount

of f

arm

ing

/ ran

chin

g ac

tivity

in B

C, i

nclu

ding

: gro

und

man

ipul

atio

n, c

rop

type

s, ir

rigat

ed v

s. d

ryla

nd, f

ertil

izer

and

her

bici

deap

plic

atio

ns, i

mpr

ovem

ents

, etc

.

MAA

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng,

and

“Sta

te o

f Agr

icul

ture

inBC

” rep

ortin

g, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops)

Agric

ultu

ral

Pote

ntia

lag

ricul

tura

l use

par

amet

ers

(Con

ditio

n)va

rious

dat

a on

fact

ors

that

det

erm

ine

the

abilit

y to

farm

/ ra

nch

in B

C in

aco

st-e

ffect

ive

man

ner,

incl

udin

g: s

oil f

ertil

ity, e

xten

t of w

eeds

, wat

erav

aila

bilit

y to

sup

port

agric

ultu

re, s

oil e

rosi

on le

vels

, etc

.)

MAA

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ngan

d “S

tate

of A

gric

ultu

re in

BC” r

epor

ting

Farm

land

Use

type

of f

arm

land

in B

C (C

ondi

tion)

type

of f

arm

land

acc

ordi

ng to

maj

or c

lass

ifica

tions

(im

prov

ed fo

r fie

ld c

rops

,im

prov

ed p

astu

re, s

umm

er fa

llow

vs.

uni

mpr

oved

land

vs.

oth

er la

nd)

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

Ran

gela

nd U

senu

mbe

r of g

razi

ng p

erm

its a

nd li

cens

esis

sued

, and

ani

mal

uni

t mon

ths

(Pre

ssur

e)

num

ber p

erm

its /

licen

ses

issu

ed a

nnua

lly, a

nd n

umbe

r of a

nim

al u

nit m

onth

sth

at a

re a

vaila

ble

annu

ally

for g

razi

ng a

ctiv

ity, b

y re

gion

and

pro

vinc

ially

.Al

so, e

stim

ate

of fu

ture

AU

M h

arve

st to

210

0. A

lso,

num

ber o

f gra

zing

tenu

res

and

AUM

s th

at o

verla

p w

ith p

rote

cted

are

as

Stat

e of

For

ests

; Lan

d us

epl

an m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s); B

C L

and

Stat

istic

s

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Ran

gela

nd U

sean

d C

over

amou

nt o

f ran

ge u

se a

ccor

ding

to la

ndco

ver t

ypes

(Pre

ssur

e)ar

ea o

f Cro

wn

rang

e be

ing

used

, and

num

ber o

f AU

Ms,

with

in la

nd c

over

cate

gorie

s (e

.g.,

open

rang

e, w

etla

nd, a

lpin

e, d

ry fo

rest

, cle

arin

gs, e

tc.)

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

Ran

gela

nd T

ype

rang

elan

d cl

asse

s(C

ondi

tion)

area

of C

row

n ra

ngel

and

(gra

ssla

nd, o

pen

fore

st a

nd e

arly

ser

al fo

rest

)St

ate

of F

ores

ts, L

RM

Pm

onito

ring

repo

rts(K

amlo

ops)

; an

dM

OF/

MAA

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ng p

urpo

ses

Irrig

atio

n fo

rAg

ricul

ture

irrig

atio

n w

ater

lice

nsin

g (R

espo

nse)

num

ber o

f irri

gatio

n lic

ense

s in

pla

ce, b

y re

gion

and

pro

vinc

ially

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s), a

nd M

AA /

MO

F st

rate

gic

plan

ning

purp

oses

Nox

ious

Wee

dsoc

curre

nce

of n

oxio

us w

eeds

(Pre

ssur

e)ar

ea a

nd d

egre

e of

infe

stat

ion

with

nox

ious

wee

ds, b

y sp

ecie

s (e

.g.,

knap

wee

d, to

adfla

x, e

tc).

Als

o m

appi

ng o

f loc

atio

n of

nox

ious

wee

dsSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (i.

e.,

Kam

loop

s)Aq

uacu

lture

Activ

ityaq

uacu

lture

farm

num

bers

(Pre

ssur

e)nu

mbe

r of o

pera

ting

finfis

h an

d sh

ellfi

sh fa

rms

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Van

couv

er Is

land

);BC

Lan

d St

atis

tics

Aqua

cultu

reLa

nd U

sela

nd a

lloca

tion

for a

quac

ultu

re(R

espo

nse)

fore

shor

e ar

ea w

ith la

nd u

se p

riorit

y as

sign

ed to

aqu

acul

ture

dev

elop

men

t,an

d ar

ea o

f Cro

wn

land

hel

d un

der a

quac

ultu

re te

nure

sLa

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g,M

inis

try o

f Fis

herie

s an

dBC

AL s

trate

gic

plan

ning

purp

oses

Con

serv

atio

nLa

ndIn

stru

men

ts fo

rC

onse

rvat

ion

sele

cted

con

serv

atio

n de

sign

atio

ns(R

espo

nse)

area

of C

row

n la

nd s

ecur

ed fo

r con

serv

atio

n us

es u

nder

var

ious

Lan

d Ac

t and

Gre

enbe

lt Ac

t ins

trum

ents

(e.g

., de

sign

atio

ns, r

eser

ves,

leas

es)

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

Wet

land

s an

dPe

at la

nds

occu

rrenc

e of

wet

land

s an

d pe

at la

nds

in B

C (C

ondi

tion)

tota

l are

a in

wet

land

s an

d pe

at la

nds

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

Hig

hC

onse

rvat

ion

Valu

e Fo

rest

s

mai

nten

ance

of h

igh

cons

erva

tion

valu

efo

rest

s ov

er ti

me

(Con

ditio

n)ex

tent

to w

hich

con

serv

atio

n at

tribu

tes

in “h

igh

cons

erva

tion

valu

e fo

rest

”ar

eas

are

mai

ntai

ned

or e

nhan

ced

over

tim

eFS

C fo

rest

cer

tific

atio

n

Fore

st L

and

Prod

uctiv

ityfo

rest

ed a

rea

in p

rimar

y pr

oduc

tivity

clas

ses

(Con

ditio

n).

area

of l

and

in p

rimar

y fo

rest

man

agem

ent c

lass

es: p

rodu

ctiv

e (a

vaila

ble

and

unav

aila

ble)

ver

sus

non-

prod

uctiv

e. A

lso

area

of i

mm

atur

e ve

rsus

mat

ure

fore

st in

goo

d, m

ediu

m, p

oor,

low

site

cla

ss, a

ccor

ding

to m

anag

emen

t uni

tty

pe

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

Prod

uctiv

itym

ean

annu

al in

crem

ent (

Con

ditio

n)m

ean

annu

al in

crem

ent b

y fo

rest

type

and

age

cla

ssM

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Prod

uctiv

itynu

trien

t flu

xes

(Con

ditio

n)nu

trien

t flu

xes

by s

tand

type

(i.e

., at

the

BEC

sub

zone

leve

l)M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

“Wor

king

For

est”

fore

st la

nd re

serv

e (R

espo

nse)

land

are

a in

the

fore

st la

nd re

serv

eLa

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g“W

orki

ng F

ores

t”ar

ea fo

r gro

win

g an

d ha

rves

ting

timbe

r(C

ondi

tion)

timbe

r har

vest

ing

land

bas

e, p

er a

ge c

lass

by

fore

st ty

pe, b

y tim

ber

prod

uctiv

ity.

And

area

of o

ld g

row

th in

AG

HT

as a

per

cent

age

of o

ld g

row

th,

by B

EC z

one

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

gC

onse

rvat

ion

land

sfo

rest

are

a m

anag

ed fo

r soi

l and

wat

er(a

nd o

ther

eco

logi

cal)

prot

ectio

n(R

espo

nse)

perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al fo

rest

ed a

rea

that

is m

anag

ed p

rimar

ily fo

r soi

l and

wat

erpr

otec

tion.

Als

o, e

ffect

iven

ess

of fo

rest

ope

ratio

ns to

pro

tect

inte

grity

of “

high

cons

erva

tion

vale

fore

sts”

(FSC

cer

tific

atio

n)

CC

FM C

&I, F

SC fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion

Con

serv

atio

nla

nds

prot

ecte

d fo

rest

by

degr

ee o

f pro

tect

ion

(Res

pons

e)ar

ea a

nd p

erce

ntag

e of

pro

tect

ed fo

rest

land

, acc

ordi

ng to

IUC

N p

rote

ctio

ncl

assi

ficat

ions

CC

FM C

&I

Ow

ners

hip

area

of f

ores

t lan

d in

var

ious

cla

sses

of

owne

rshi

p (C

ondi

tion)

area

of f

ores

t, by

ow

ners

hip

(e.g

., pr

ovin

cial

, fed

eral

, Abo

rigin

al, p

rivat

e)St

ate

of F

ores

ts

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

Page

71

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Ow

ners

hip

corp

orat

e co

ncen

tratio

n, b

y ye

ar(C

ondi

tion)

perc

enta

ge o

f pro

vinc

ial A

AC c

ontro

lled

by to

p 10

com

pani

esSt

ate

of F

ores

ts

Man

agem

ent

area

of f

ores

t lan

d in

var

ious

man

agem

ent u

nit c

lass

ifica

tions

(Con

ditio

n)

area

of f

ores

t lan

d in

man

aged

fore

st u

nits

(uni

ts w

here

an

AAC

ises

tabl

ishe

d), b

y m

anag

erSt

ate

of F

ores

ts

Man

agem

ent

area

cov

ered

by

mul

ti-at

tribu

tein

vent

orie

s (R

espo

nse)

perc

enta

ge o

f for

est l

and

that

is c

over

ed b

y m

ulti-

attri

bute

reso

urce

inve

ntor

ies

CC

FM C

&I

Man

agem

ent

parti

cipa

tory

man

agem

ent p

lann

ing

(Res

pons

e)pe

rcen

tage

of f

ores

t lan

d un

der c

ompl

eted

man

agem

ent p

lans

that

hav

ein

clud

ed p

ublic

par

ticip

atio

nC

CFM

C&I

Res

tora

tion

habi

tat r

esto

ratio

n (R

espo

nse)

area

of h

abita

t res

tore

d fo

llow

ing

fore

st d

evel

opm

ent a

ctiv

itySt

ate

of F

ores

tsPe

rman

ent

Con

vers

ion

fore

st la

nd c

onve

rsio

n (P

ress

ure)

area

of f

ores

t lan

d pe

rman

ently

con

verte

d to

non

-fore

st u

se fr

om 1

800

to20

00, e

stim

ated

by

deca

deSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, Mod

el F

ores

tm

onito

ring

Sem

i-Per

man

ent

Con

vers

ion

fore

st la

nd c

onve

rsio

n (P

ress

ure)

area

of f

ores

t lan

d in

sem

i-per

man

ent o

r tem

pora

ry lo

ss /

gain

(e.g

.,gr

assl

ands

or a

gric

ultu

re)

CC

FM C

&I

Sem

i-Per

man

ent

Con

vers

ion

fore

st la

nd c

onve

rsio

n (P

ress

ure)

perc

enta

ge o

f har

vest

ed a

reas

that

are

con

verte

d to

per

man

ent r

oads

and

land

ings

(at T

SA le

vel)

Fore

st C

ertif

icat

ion

mon

itorin

g (e

.g.,

CSA

Kam

loop

s TS

A), M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Fore

st L

and

Util

izat

ion

utiliz

atio

n of

fore

st la

nd fo

r non

-mar

ket

good

s an

d se

rvic

es (P

ress

ure)

area

of f

ores

t lan

d th

at is

use

d fo

r com

mer

cial

ver

sus

non-

com

mer

cial

purp

oses

, inc

ludi

ng fo

rest

land

use

for s

ubsi

sten

ce.

(Als

o, lo

sses

due

to la

ndfa

ilure

suc

h as

land

slid

es a

nd fl

oodi

ng)

CC

FM C

&I, M

odel

fore

stm

onito

ring

Was

te R

esid

ues

was

te re

sidu

e on

har

vest

ed s

ites

(Impa

ct)

amou

nt o

f for

est w

aste

reta

ined

on

harv

este

d si

tes

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Land

slid

eAc

tivity

frequ

ency

of l

ands

lides

in s

elec

ted

wat

ersh

eds

(Impa

ct)

annu

al n

umbe

r of l

ands

lide

even

ts (n

atur

al v

ersu

s hu

man

indu

ced)

in s

elec

ted

wat

ersh

eds

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

Van

couv

er Is

land

)D

evel

opm

ent o

nFr

agile

Ter

rain

/H

abita

t

road

bui

ldin

g on

uns

tabl

e te

rrain

/ st

eep

slop

es a

nd w

ithin

100

me

of s

tream

s(P

ress

ure)

amou

nt o

f roa

d bu

ildin

g ac

tivity

on

stee

p sl

opes

and

/ or

uns

tabl

e te

rrain

and

/or

with

in c

lose

pro

xim

ity to

stre

ams

MEL

P, M

OF

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ng, E

nviro

nmen

tal

Tren

dsLa

nd /

Res

ourc

e U

sePl

anni

ng

Plan

ning

Effo

rt /

Zone

sst

rate

gic

land

use

pla

nnin

g st

atus

/de

sign

atio

ns (R

espo

nse)

area

and

loca

tion

of s

trate

gic

land

use

pla

ns b

ased

on

cons

ensu

s, b

y ye

ar ;

and

trend

s in

land

use

pla

n zo

ning

des

igna

tions

(Res

pons

e)St

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, LU

CO

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngD

ispo

sitio

nPl

ans

Cro

wn

land

dis

posi

tion

plan

s(R

espo

nse)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

Cro

wn

land

dis

posi

tion

plan

sBC

Ass

ets

and

Land

sst

rate

gic

plan

ning

Land

Use

/C

over

Land

use

and

land

cov

er s

tatis

tics

(Con

ditio

n)tre

nds

in a

rea

and

dist

ribut

iona

l cha

nges

in g

ener

al la

nd u

se a

nd la

nd c

over

(map

ping

and

sta

tistic

s fo

r 20

land

use

and

veg

etat

ion

cove

r cla

sses

)M

ELP,

MO

F, M

AF, M

oFi

(and

oth

er a

genc

ies’

)st

rate

gic

plan

ning

Land

/R

esou

rce

Use

Tenu

res

Land

Adm

inis

tratio

nla

nd te

nure

issu

ance

(Pre

ssur

e)nu

mbe

r and

dis

tribu

tion

of a

pplic

atio

ns fo

r Cro

wn

land

MEL

P, B

C A

sset

s an

dLa

nds

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Land

Adm

inis

tratio

nen

croa

chm

ent /

con

flict

s w

ith s

ensi

tive

land

s (Im

pact

)al

iena

tion

of im

porta

nt h

abita

t, en

croa

chm

ent o

n rip

aria

n ar

eas

and

flood

plai

ns, a

nd in

to w

ater

-sho

rt ar

eas

MEL

P, B

C A

sset

s an

dLa

nds

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ngM

inin

g an

dEn

ergy

Min

eral

Lan

dD

istu

rban

ce a

ndR

esto

ratio

n

dist

urbe

d an

d re

stor

ed m

iner

al la

nd(C

ondi

tion,

Res

pons

e)ar

ea o

f lan

d di

stur

bed

and

rest

ored

by

coal

and

met

al m

ines

(cum

ulat

ive

hect

ares

ove

r tim

e)BC

Lan

d St

atis

tics

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Min

eral

and

Ener

gyEx

plor

atio

n

min

eral

/ co

al a

nd p

etro

leum

and

natu

ral g

as te

nure

s / p

roje

cts

(Pre

ssur

e)

num

ber a

nd a

rea

of m

iner

al a

nd c

oal,

and

petro

leum

and

nat

ural

gas

tenu

res

and

proj

ects

(e.g

., ex

plor

atio

n an

d dr

illing

act

ivity

vs.

dev

elop

men

t), p

rovi

nce-

wid

e an

d by

regi

ons

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops,

Van

couv

erIs

land

)En

ergy

Con

sum

ptio

nto

tal v

ersu

s al

tern

ativ

e en

ergy

cons

umpt

ion

(Pre

ssur

e)pe

tajo

ules

of t

otal

ene

rgy

cons

umed

ver

sus

alte

rnat

ive

ener

gy c

onsu

med

inBC

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Pest

icid

es a

ndTo

xic

Con

tam

inan

ts

Pest

icid

e U

se o

nC

row

n La

ndus

e of

pes

ticid

es o

n C

row

n la

nd(P

ress

ure)

use

of c

hem

ical

pes

ticid

es o

n fo

rest

land

FSC

fore

st c

ertif

icat

ion

Pers

iste

ntO

rgan

icPo

lluta

nts

leve

ls o

f tox

ic c

onta

min

ants

in a

col

ony

of G

reat

Blu

e H

eron

s (Im

pact

)le

vels

of P

CBs

and

DD

Es in

Gre

at B

lue

Her

ron

eggs

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Con

tam

inat

edSi

tes

site

rem

edia

tion

(Res

pons

e)nu

mbe

r of c

onta

min

ated

site

s re

med

iate

d ov

er ti

me

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Con

tam

inat

edSi

tes

on-s

ite to

xic

subs

tanc

e re

leas

es(P

ress

ure)

tonn

es o

f on-

site

toxi

c su

bsta

nce

rele

ases

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Prot

ecte

dA

reas

Prot

ecte

d La

nds

amou

nt o

f BC

in p

rote

cted

are

a st

atus

(Res

pons

e)to

tal t

erre

stria

l and

mar

ine

area

s se

cure

d in

pro

tect

ed a

rea

stat

us b

y fe

dera

lan

d pr

ovin

cial

des

igna

tions

. Al

so a

rea

and

num

ber b

roke

n do

wn

by p

rote

cted

area

sta

tus

(fede

ral,

prov

inci

al)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds;

Stat

e of

Par

ks; L

UC

O’s

PAS

mon

itorin

g; B

C L

and

Stat

istic

s, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

gEc

osys

tem

Prot

ectio

nec

osys

tem

repr

esen

tatio

n in

pro

tect

edar

eas

(Res

pons

e)pe

rcen

t of a

rea

of B

C e

cosy

stem

s (B

EC, E

cose

ctio

ns) i

n pr

otec

ted

stat

us,

prov

inci

ally

, reg

iona

lly, a

nd a

t lan

dsca

pe /

fore

st le

vels

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds;

Stat

e of

Par

ks; L

UC

O’s

PAS

mon

itorin

g; L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g, C

CFM

C&I

, FSC

fore

stce

rtific

atio

n, M

odel

fore

stm

onito

ring

Prot

ecte

d Ar

eaC

onne

cted

ness

conn

ectiv

ity b

etw

een

/ am

ong

prot

ecte

dar

eas

(Con

ditio

n)as

sess

men

t of e

xten

t of c

onne

ctiv

e fu

nctio

n be

twee

n pr

otec

ted

area

s w

ithin

spec

ified

land

uni

ts (e

.g.,

expr

esse

d as

goo

d, m

oder

ate

or p

oor c

onne

ctiv

ity).

Prov

ince

wid

e, a

nd fo

r reg

ions

Stat

e of

Par

ks; L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (e

.g.,

Vanc

ouve

r Isl

and)

Ecol

ogic

alR

esto

ratio

nec

olog

ical

rest

orat

ion

proj

ects

in B

C’s

park

s (R

espo

nse)

type

and

num

ber o

f eco

syst

em re

habi

litat

ion

proj

ects

, ove

r tim

eSt

ate

of P

arks

Ris

k to

Par

kVa

lues

risk

to n

atur

al v

alue

s, re

crea

tion

reso

urce

s, a

nd c

ultu

ral /

her

itage

reso

urce

s in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

(Pre

ssur

e)

num

ber /

per

cent

of ‘

high

ly s

igni

fican

t’ na

tura

l. re

crea

tiona

l, cu

ltura

l / h

erita

geva

lues

in p

rote

cted

are

as th

at a

re a

sses

sed

by p

ark

man

ager

s to

be

at h

igh,

mod

erat

e or

low

risk

of d

eter

iora

tion

from

any

cau

se

Stat

e of

Par

ks

Ris

k to

Par

kVa

lues

sign

ifica

nt e

nviro

nmen

tal o

ccur

renc

esin

pro

tect

ed a

reas

(Im

pact

)nu

mbe

r of e

nviro

nmen

tal o

ccur

renc

es in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

(e.g

., fir

em

anag

emen

t, in

sect

/ di

seas

e ou

tbre

ak, w

eed

infe

stat

ions

)La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops)

Park

Use

visi

tatio

n ra

tes

(Pre

ssur

e)nu

mbe

r of o

vern

ight

cam

pers

, num

ber o

f day

use

vis

itors

, and

tota

l num

ber o

fvi

sits

in p

rote

cted

are

as, p

rovi

ncia

lly a

nd b

y re

gion

Stat

e of

Par

ks, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops)

Park

Saf

ety

inci

denc

e of

inju

ries

/ fat

aliti

es in

par

ks(Im

pact

)nu

mbe

r of i

njur

ies

/ fat

aliti

es in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

Stat

e of

Par

ks

Rec

reat

ion

and

Tour

ism

Fore

stR

ecre

atio

n U

sevi

sito

r day

s, b

y ye

ar (P

ress

ure)

num

ber o

f rec

reat

ion

visi

tor d

ays

in p

rovi

ncia

l for

ests

, by

activ

ity, a

nnua

lly,

prov

ince

-wid

e an

d by

regi

onSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, Lan

d us

e pl

an

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

Page

73

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

,Fo

rest

Rec

reat

ion

Faci

litie

s

site

s an

d tra

ils, b

y ye

ar (R

espo

nse)

num

ber o

f for

est r

ecre

atio

n si

tes,

and

km

of r

ecre

atio

n tra

ils, b

y ye

ar,

prov

ince

-wid

e an

d by

regi

onSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, Lan

d us

e pl

anm

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s),

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gVi

sual

Qua

lity

visu

al q

ualit

y ob

ject

ives

(Res

pons

e)fo

rest

are

a in

var

ious

cat

egor

ies

of v

isua

l qua

lity

obje

ctiv

es (e

.g.,

rete

ntio

n,pa

rtial

rete

ntio

n, e

tc.)

Als

o, re

gion

-wid

e p

erce

ntag

e co

mpl

ianc

e /

cont

rave

ntio

n of

vis

ual q

ualit

y ob

ject

ives

(Kam

loop

s LR

MP)

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

Visu

al Q

ualit

yvi

sual

attr

activ

enes

s of

are

as th

at h

ave

been

est

ablis

hed

as ‘s

ceni

c ar

eas’

(Con

ditio

n)

perc

enta

ge o

f des

igna

ted

‘sce

nic

area

s’ (u

nder

FPC

) tha

t are

in a

n ex

istin

gvi

sual

con

ditio

n of

pre

serv

atio

n, re

tent

ion,

or p

artia

l ret

entio

n.La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(i.

e., V

anco

uver

Isla

nd)

Rec

reat

ion

Opp

ortu

nity

recr

eatio

n op

portu

nity

spe

ctru

m(R

espo

nse)

fore

st a

rea

in v

ario

us c

ateg

orie

s of

the

fore

st re

crea

tion

oppo

rtuni

ty s

pect

rum

(RO

S, i.

e., r

ural

, roa

ded

natu

ral,

road

ed m

odifi

ed, s

emi-p

rimiti

ve m

otor

ized

,se

mi-p

rimiti

ve n

on-m

otor

ized

, prim

itive

)

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, C

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops,

Vanc

ouve

r Isl

and)

Cro

wn

Rec

reat

ion

Dis

posi

tions

recr

eatio

nal C

row

n la

nds

unde

r the

Land

Act

(Res

pons

e)ar

ea o

f Cro

wn

land

sec

ured

for r

ecre

atio

n pu

rpos

es (e

.g.,

alpi

ne s

kiin

g,m

echa

nize

d sk

i gui

ding

, bac

kcou

ntry

recr

eatio

n, m

arin

as, e

tc.)

usin

g va

rious

Land

Act

inst

rum

ents

(lea

ses,

lice

nces

, res

erve

s)

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g(V

anco

uver

Isla

nd,

Kam

loop

s)R

esou

rce-

base

dTo

uris

mra

tes

of g

row

th fo

r res

ourc

e-ba

sed

tour

ism

ope

ratio

ns (P

ress

ure)

annu

al g

row

th ra

tes

for f

acilit

ies

and

visi

tors

for v

ario

us ty

pes

of re

sour

ce-

base

d to

uris

m (e

.g.,

skiin

g, s

port

fishi

ng, f

ishi

ng re

sorts

, gui

de-o

utfit

ters

)La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops)

Rec

reat

ion

Angl

ing

trout

sto

ckin

g (R

espo

nse)

annu

al n

umbe

r of t

rout

sto

cked

in v

ario

us lo

catio

ns fo

r rec

reat

ion

angl

ing

purp

oses

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)R

ecre

atio

nAn

glin

g / H

untin

gan

glin

g an

d hu

ntin

g ef

fort

(Pre

ssur

e)an

nual

ang

ling

effo

rt (a

ngle

r / h

unte

r day

s), b

ased

on

licen

sed

sale

s fo

rva

rious

loca

tions

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(Kam

loop

s)So

lid W

aste

Solid

Was

teG

ener

atio

nso

lid w

aste

gen

erat

ion

per c

apita

(Pre

ssur

e)ki

logr

ams

per p

erso

n, b

y re

gion

, of s

olid

was

te d

ispo

sed

to la

ndfil

ls a

ndin

cine

rato

rs, b

y w

aste

type

. Al

so li

tres

of w

aste

oil

recy

cled

and

num

ber o

fle

ad-a

cid

batte

ry u

nits

recy

cled

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds

Tran

spor

tatio

nan

d U

tiliti

esR

oad

and

Rai

lro

ad a

nd ra

il in

frast

ruct

ure

(Pre

ssur

e)ki

lom

eter

s of

pro

vinc

ial h

ighw

ays

and

fore

st ro

ads;

and

kilo

met

ers

of m

ain

line

track

sBC

Lan

d St

atis

tics

Util

ities

oil a

nd g

as li

ne in

frast

ruct

ure

(Pre

ssur

e)ki

lom

eter

s of

cru

de o

il an

d na

tura

l gas

pip

elin

es in

BC

BC L

and

Stat

istic

sSe

ttlem

ents

Urb

an S

praw

l“b

uild

-up”

land

in B

C (P

ress

ure)

area

of l

and

in B

C u

sed

for u

rban

and

rura

l set

tlem

ent,

trans

porta

tion,

and

farm

stea

dBC

Lan

d St

atis

tics

Urb

an S

praw

lru

ral l

and

conv

ersi

on (P

ress

ure)

hect

ares

of r

ural

land

con

verte

d to

urb

an u

seBC

Lan

d St

atis

tics

Priv

ate

Land

Cro

wn

land

tran

sfer

red

to p

rivat

eow

ners

hip

(Con

ditio

n)ar

ea o

f Cro

wn

land

tran

sfer

red

to p

rivat

e ow

ners

hip

by C

row

n gr

ant,

over

tim

eBC

Lan

d St

atis

tics

Mun

icip

alSt

atis

tics

area

s as

sess

ed a

nd e

xem

pted

from

taxa

tion

(Pre

ssur

e)la

nd a

rea

that

is a

sses

sed

for t

axat

ion,

and

exe

mpt

from

taxa

tion

(i.e.

, par

ks,

wat

er, s

treet

s, ro

ads,

pla

ygro

unds

, oth

er)

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

Indu

stria

l Lan

dav

aila

bilit

y of

indu

stria

l lan

d (C

ondi

tion)

area

of i

ndus

trial

land

that

is a

vaila

ble

for i

ndus

trial

use

and

are

a of

land

that

is o

ccup

ied

for i

ndus

trial

use

(and

tota

l)BC

Lan

d St

atis

tics

TER

RES

TRIA

L R

ESO

UR

CES

Vege

tatio

n /

Fore

sts

Prod

uctiv

itym

ean

annu

al in

crem

ent (

Con

ditio

n)m

ean

annu

al in

crem

ent b

y fo

rest

type

and

age

cla

ssC

CFM

C&I

Prod

uctiv

itypr

oduc

tivity

incr

ease

s as

soci

ated

with

timbe

r vol

ume

incr

ease

s th

at a

re a

ttrib

utab

le to

FR

BC in

vest

men

ts in

to fo

rest

FRBC

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng /

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

inte

nsiv

e si

lvic

ultu

re in

vest

men

ts(C

ondi

tion)

prod

uctiv

itym

onito

ring

Prod

uctiv

ityra

te o

f for

est g

row

th (C

ondi

tion)

volu

me

of a

nnua

l gro

wth

at f

ores

t lev

el; a

nd y

ears

to re

ach

free

grow

ing

FSC

cer

tific

atio

n, M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Fore

st T

ype

and

Age

fore

st a

ge c

lass

/ ol

d gr

owth

dis

tribu

tion

(Con

ditio

n)ar

ea o

f for

est p

er a

ge c

lass

(e.g

., 1-

40, 4

1-80

, etc

.) by

fore

st ty

pe (i

.e.,

dom

inan

t spe

cies

). A

lso,

are

a of

old

gro

wth

, “yo

unge

r” fo

rest

, and

non

-fore

st.

Also

, am

ount

of o

ld g

row

th th

at is

acc

essi

ble

for t

imbe

r har

vest

ing,

inac

cess

ible

for t

imbe

r har

vest

ing,

and

pro

tect

ed

Stat

e of

For

est,

CC

FMC

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g, F

SC fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gFo

rest

Typ

e an

dAg

epr

esen

ce o

f old

gro

wth

(Con

ditio

n)ar

ea o

f old

gro

wth

(251

+ ye

ars

for c

oast

al, a

ll fo

rest

type

s; 1

41+

year

s fo

rin

terio

r for

mos

t for

est t

ypes

; and

121

+ ye

ars

for s

tand

s do

min

ated

by

lodg

epol

e pi

ne o

r dec

iduo

us s

peci

es.

Alte

rnat

ivel

y si

mpl

y us

e 25

0+ y

ears

for

all f

ores

t typ

es)

Stat

e of

For

est,

CC

FM C

&I

Fore

st A

geD

istri

butio

nse

ral s

tage

dis

tribu

tion

by fo

rest

type

,by

man

agem

ent u

nit (

e.g.

TSA

); an

d by

land

scap

e un

its b

y BE

C v

aria

nt(C

ondi

tion)

area

/ pe

rcen

t of l

ands

cape

uni

t in

vario

us s

eral

sta

ges

(i.e.

, pre

senc

e of

old

grow

th v

s. m

atur

e vs

. mid

-ser

al v

s. e

arly

ser

al fo

rest

), re

lativ

e to

ser

al s

tage

dist

ribut

ion

targ

ets

esta

blis

hed

in B

iodi

vers

ity G

uide

book

and

in L

RM

Ps a

nd in

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lans

. Al

so n

eed

abilit

y to

repo

rt se

ral s

tage

dis

tribu

tion

inLa

ndsc

ape

units

by

BEC

var

iant

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g; L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g, C

SAce

rtific

atio

n pr

oces

s (e

.g.,

Kam

loop

s TS

A)O

ld G

row

thIn

terio

r Sta

ndC

ondi

tion

amou

nt o

f old

gro

wth

vs.

mat

ure

fore

stth

at h

as “i

nter

ior s

tand

con

ditio

n”(C

ondi

tion)

area

and

per

cent

age

of o

ld g

row

th /

mat

ure

fore

st in

land

scap

e un

its th

at h

ave

inte

rior s

tand

con

ditio

n (i.

e., a

rea

of o

ld g

row

th m

anag

emen

t are

as /

recr

uitm

ent a

reas

min

us o

ld g

row

th /

mat

ure

fore

st b

uffe

r are

as),

byla

ndsc

ape

unit.

Als

o, m

onito

ring

of “f

ores

t dyn

amic

s” –

FSC

cer

tific

atio

n

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, F

SC fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion

Tree

Spe

cies

tree

spec

ies

com

posi

tion

(Con

ditio

n)tre

e sp

ecie

s co

mpo

sitio

n by

fore

st ty

pe (s

peci

es d

istri

butio

n ov

er ti

me)

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gW

ildlif

e Tr

eeR

eten

tion

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

/ gap

dis

tribu

tion

(Res

pons

e)ar

ea o

f wild

life

tree

patc

hes

that

are

reta

ined

from

har

vest

ing,

by

land

scap

eun

it, a

nd a

t for

est l

evel

. ( “

Fore

st d

ynam

ics”

– F

SC c

ertif

icat

ion;

“gap

dyna

mic

s –

mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g)

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, F

SC fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gW

ildlif

e Tr

eeR

eten

tion

(Cut

bloc

ks)

wild

life

tree

patc

h re

tent

ion

(Res

pons

e)pe

rcen

tage

of h

arve

sted

blo

cks

grea

ter t

han

5 ha

that

hav

e w

ildlif

e tre

epa

tche

s an

d / o

r ind

ivid

ual w

ildlif

e / l

eave

tree

s id

entif

ied

in o

pera

tiona

l pla

ns.

Or,

size

and

num

ber o

f isl

and

rem

nant

s of

und

istu

rbed

fore

st in

har

vest

edar

eas

Fore

st c

ertif

icat

ion

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

,M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Wild

life

Tree

Patc

h St

ruct

ure

crow

n cl

osur

e /

trans

pare

ncy

in w

ildlif

etre

e pa

tche

s (C

ondi

tion)

perc

enta

ge o

f cro

wn

clos

ure

in w

ildlif

e tre

e pa

tche

s th

at h

ave

been

reta

ined

,by

land

scap

e un

it. A

lso,

per

cent

age

crow

n tra

nspa

renc

y by

cla

ssLa

ndsc

ape

Uni

t Pla

nM

onito

ring,

CC

FM C

&IW

ildlif

e Tr

eePa

tch

Stru

ctur

ese

cond

ary

spec

ies

in w

ildlif

e tre

epa

tche

s (C

ondi

tion)

num

ber?

of s

econ

dary

veg

etat

ive

spec

ies

cont

aine

d in

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

byla

ndsc

ape

unit

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

gW

ildlif

e Tr

eePa

tch

Stru

ctur

esi

te q

ualit

y at

wild

life

tree

patc

hes

(Con

ditio

n)pe

rcen

t of a

rea

of w

ildlif

e tre

e pa

tche

s ac

cord

ing

to v

ario

us s

ite in

dex

clas

ses,

by la

ndsc

ape

unit

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

gW

ildlif

e Tr

eePa

tch

Stru

ctur

eve

geta

tion

reta

ined

in w

ildlif

e tre

epa

tche

s (C

ondi

tion)

num

ber o

f ste

ms

per h

ecta

re /

basa

l are

a re

tain

ed in

wild

life

tree

patc

hes,

by

land

scap

e un

itLa

ndsc

ape

Uni

t Pla

nM

onito

ring

Wild

life

Tree

Patc

h St

ruct

ure

amou

nt o

f old

veg

etat

ion

reta

ined

inw

ildlif

e tre

e pa

tche

s (C

ondi

tion)

area

/ pe

rcen

tage

of f

ores

t cov

er in

cut

bloc

ks th

at is

reta

ined

to m

aint

ain

late

-su

cces

sion

al h

abita

t ele

men

ts a

nd a

ttrib

utes

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(e.g

., Va

ncou

ver I

slan

d)Sh

ape

Inde

xsh

ape

inde

x in

diff

eren

t ope

ning

siz

es(C

ondi

tion)

perc

enta

ge o

f sha

pe in

dex

in d

iffer

ent o

peni

ng s

ize

clas

ses

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Stan

d St

ress

stan

d su

scep

tibilit

y cl

ass

(Con

ditio

n)ar

ea (i

n va

rious

cla

sses

) of s

tand

s th

at a

re s

usce

ptib

le to

sig

nific

ant b

iolo

gica

lan

d ab

iotic

age

nts

(lead

ing

to in

fest

atio

ns)

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

Page

75

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Stan

d St

ress

inse

ct a

nd d

isea

se in

cide

nce

(Impa

ct)

inse

ct a

nd d

isea

se in

cide

nce

by a

ge c

lass

and

fore

st c

hang

e pr

oces

sM

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Stan

d St

ress

stre

ss-re

late

d fo

rest

inse

ct a

nd d

isea

seat

tach

(Im

pact

)fre

quen

cy a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

stre

ss-re

late

d fo

rest

inse

ct a

nd d

isea

se a

ttack

MEL

P, M

OF

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngFi

re H

azar

dar

ea o

f haz

ard

(Con

ditio

n)ar

ea o

f hig

h to

sev

ere

fire

haza

rdM

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Fire

Haz

ard

natu

ral w

ildfir

e (Im

pact

)fre

quen

cy a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

nat

ural

wild

fires

(as

an in

dica

tor o

f clim

ate

chan

ge)

MEL

P, M

OF

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ngC

oars

e W

oody

Deb

rispr

esen

ce o

f coa

rse

woo

dy d

ebris

(Con

ditio

n)ar

ea /

perc

ent o

f lan

dsca

pe u

nit w

here

coa

rse

woo

dy d

ebris

has

bee

nre

tain

ed (i

nfor

mat

ion

may

be

requ

ired

at T

SA le

vel,

fore

st le

vel,

or la

ndsc

ape

unit

leve

l)

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, F

ores

tC

ertif

icat

ion

mon

itorin

g,M

odel

For

est m

onito

ring

Envi

ronm

enta

llySe

nsiti

ve A

reas

sens

itive

are

a / r

ipar

ian

buffe

r ret

entio

nin

land

scap

e un

its (R

espo

nse)

area

/ pe

rcen

tage

of E

SA 1

and

ESA

2 a

nd ri

paria

n bu

ffers

that

are

cons

train

ed fr

om h

arve

stin

g in

land

scap

e un

its.

Also

, are

as o

f “hi

ghco

nser

vatio

n va

lue

fore

st” t

hat a

re p

rote

cted

Land

scap

e U

nit P

lan

Mon

itorin

g, F

SC fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion

Con

stra

ined

Land

sla

nd a

rea

cons

train

ed fr

om h

arve

stin

g(R

espo

nse)

area

/ pe

rcen

tage

of l

ands

cape

uni

ts th

at a

re p

artia

lly o

r ful

ly c

onst

rain

ed fr

omha

rves

ting

Land

scap

e U

nit M

onito

ring

Fore

st A

ge a

ndTy

pe in

Prot

ecte

d Ar

eas

fore

st a

ge p

er a

ge c

lass

, by

fore

st ty

pe(B

EC) (

Con

ditio

n)ha

of a

rea

in p

rote

cted

are

as in

var

ious

fore

st a

ge c

lass

es, b

y fo

rest

type

; and

perc

ent o

f tot

al p

rovi

ncia

l for

est i

n th

ose

age

clas

ses

/ typ

es th

at a

re p

rote

cted

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g, F

SC fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion

Fore

st A

ge a

ndTy

pe in

Prot

ecte

d Ar

eas

old

grow

th in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

(Con

ditio

n)ar

ea o

f old

gro

wth

, you

nger

fore

st a

nd n

on-fo

rest

in p

rote

cted

are

a st

atus

, by

BEC

zon

e; a

nd p

erce

nt th

at th

is re

pres

ents

of a

ll pr

ovin

cial

old

gro

wth

. Al

soar

ea o

f old

gro

wth

reta

ined

, by

BEC

zon

es, b

y la

ndsc

ape

units

(and

at f

ores

tle

vel),

com

pare

d to

bio

dive

rsity

gui

debo

ok o

ld g

row

th re

tent

ion

targ

ets

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, L

and

Use

pla

nm

onito

ring,

FSC

fore

stce

rtific

atio

nFo

rest

Age

Dis

tribu

tion

fore

st a

ge b

y ty

pe in

TSA

s (C

ondi

tion)

area

of m

atur

e vs

. im

mat

ure

fore

st c

over

in T

SAs,

by

lead

ing

spec

ies

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s

Frag

men

tatio

nro

ad d

ensi

ty o

n fo

rest

land

(Pre

ssur

e)km

per

km

2 of

road

s pe

r wat

ersh

ed g

roup

ings

and

by

land

scap

e un

its(P

ress

ure)

Stat

e of

For

ests

,En

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,La

ndsc

ape

Uni

t Pla

nM

onito

ring,

Lan

d us

e pl

anm

onito

ring,

CC

FM C

&I,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gFo

rest

Dis

turb

ance

amou

nt o

f for

est d

istu

rbed

(Pre

ssur

e)ar

ea o

f for

est d

istu

rbed

by

fire

(nat

ural

and

hum

an-c

ause

d) v

s. p

ests

vs.

harv

estin

g. A

lso,

am

ount

of a

rea

affe

cted

by

diffe

rent

inse

ct d

efol

iato

rs(K

amlo

ops

LRM

P)

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g, M

odel

For

est

mon

itorin

gR

ecen

tH

arve

stin

gam

ount

of l

and

subj

ect t

o re

cent

logg

ing

(Pre

ssur

e)he

ctar

es a

nd p

erce

ntag

e of

land

are

a th

at h

as b

een

logg

ed (w

ithin

20

year

s,Va

ncou

ver I

slan

d pl

an)

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Van

couv

er Is

land

)Fo

rest

Dis

turb

ance

(Rip

aria

n Ar

eas)

amou

nt o

f dis

turb

ance

in fo

rest

edrip

aria

n zo

ne (P

ress

ure)

area

of f

ores

ted

ripar

ian

zone

dis

turb

ed b

y fir

e, p

ests

and

har

vest

ing,

197

0 to

2000

, by

wat

ersh

ed g

roup

ings

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s

Exot

ic S

peci

esex

otic

tree

pla

ntat

ions

(Pre

ssur

e)ar

ea o

f exo

tic tr

ee p

lant

atio

ns, b

y sp

ecie

sSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, FSC

fore

stce

rtific

atio

nEx

otic

Spe

cies

exot

ic s

peci

es th

reat

(Pre

ssur

e)nu

mbe

r of e

xotic

spe

cies

by

type

of t

hrea

t (i.e

., no

thre

at, t

hrea

t to

nativ

etre

es, a

nim

als,

hum

an h

ealth

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Fore

st G

enet

ics

gene

tical

ly im

prov

ed s

tock

(Pre

ssur

e)ar

ea p

lant

ed w

ith g

enet

ical

ly im

prov

ed a

nd h

ybrid

tree

s, b

y sp

ecie

sSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, FSC

fore

stce

rtific

atio

nFo

rest

Gen

etic

sge

netic

var

ianc

e (Im

pact

)ge

netic

var

ianc

e of

tree

s in

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y fo

rest

s (m

easu

red

in tr

eehe

ight

or d

isea

se re

sist

ance

)St

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, FSC

fore

stce

rtific

atio

nFo

rest

Gen

etic

sge

netic

ally

mod

ified

org

anis

ms

(Pre

ssur

e)nu

mbe

r of g

enet

ical

ly m

odifi

ed o

rgan

ism

s us

ed in

fore

st m

anag

emen

t (e.

g.,

re-p

lant

ing)

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&I, F

SC fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion

Tim

ber H

arve

stap

prov

ed v

ersu

s ac

tual

har

vest

leve

ls(P

ress

ure)

tota

l pro

vinc

ial A

AC (m

3) a

nd a

ctua

l har

vest

(m3)

per

type

of r

egul

ated

fore

st(i.

e., T

SA, T

FL, W

L), p

rovi

nce-

wid

e an

d by

man

agem

ent u

nits

. Al

so, a

ctua

lha

rves

t on

regu

late

d ve

rsus

unr

egul

ated

har

vest

, by

year

Stat

e of

For

est,

CC

FMC

&I, F

ores

t Cer

tific

atio

n,La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops,

Van

couv

erIs

land

), FS

C c

ertif

icat

ion

(yie

ld)

Tim

ber H

arve

stfa

ll do

wn

estim

ates

(Con

ditio

n)es

timat

ed fu

ture

AAC

on

regu

late

d fo

rest

ove

r nex

t 100

yea

rs (m

3).

Also

,pe

rcen

tage

redu

ctio

n in

est

imat

ed A

AC fr

om p

eak

to 2

100,

by

fore

stm

anag

emen

t uni

t

Stat

e of

For

est

Tim

ber H

arve

stcu

tting

leve

ls re

lativ

e to

gro

wth

rate

s(P

ress

ure)

ratio

of v

olum

e ha

rves

ted

in g

iven

are

a (e

.g.,

man

agem

ent u

nit,

land

scap

eun

it), c

ompa

red

to to

tal M

AI fo

r tha

t are

aM

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Tim

ber H

arve

stSy

stem

sar

ea o

f tim

ber h

arve

st u

sing

diff

eren

tha

rves

ting

syst

ems

(Pre

ssur

e)fo

rest

land

are

a su

bjec

t to

clea

r cut

ting

vers

us p

artia

l cut

ting

BC L

and

Stat

istic

s, S

tate

of F

ores

ts, M

OF

Annu

alR

epor

ts, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

gTi

mbe

r Har

vest

Syst

ems

cut b

lock

siz

e di

strib

utio

n (C

ondi

tion)

dist

ribut

ion

of c

ut b

lock

siz

es, i

n va

rious

siz

e cl

asse

sLa

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g

Fore

stR

egen

erat

ion

back

log

and

non-

suffi

cien

tly re

stoc

ked

(NSR

) lan

d (C

ondi

tion)

area

of N

SR la

nd o

ver t

ime

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gFo

rest

Reg

ener

atio

nfo

rest

rege

nera

tion

and

rege

nera

tion

met

hod

and

timin

g (R

espo

nse)

area

rege

nera

ted

by n

atur

al v

ersu

s ar

tific

ial m

eans

, by

year

. Al

so, a

rea

not

rege

nera

ted

with

in 1

0 or

mor

e ye

ars

follo

win

g ha

rves

t, by

yea

rSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, FSC

fore

stce

rtific

atio

n, M

odel

fore

stm

onito

ring

Fore

stR

egen

erat

ion

logg

ed a

rea

in fr

ee g

row

ing

cond

ition

(Con

ditio

n)ra

tio o

f are

as re

achi

ng fr

ee to

gro

w s

tatu

s on

an

annu

al b

asis

, to

annu

al a

rea

harv

este

d (in

put /

out

put)

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Fore

stR

egen

erat

ion

rege

nera

tion

timin

g (C

ondi

tion)

year

s to

reac

h fre

e to

gro

w s

tatu

sM

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Fore

stR

egen

erat

ion

stoc

king

leve

ls (R

espo

nse)

refo

rest

atio

n st

ocki

ng le

vels

(ste

ms

per h

a)M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Fore

stR

esto

ratio

npl

anta

tion

fore

st a

reas

rest

ored

tona

tura

l for

est c

over

(Res

pons

e)am

ount

of f

ores

t are

a in

pla

ntat

ion

fore

st th

at is

rest

ored

to it

s na

tura

l for

est

cove

rFS

C fo

rest

cer

tific

atio

n

Gra

ssla

nds

and

Ope

ning

sar

ea o

f gra

ssla

nds

and

othe

r ope

ning

s(o

pen

rang

e) (C

ondi

tion)

area

of C

row

n ve

rsus

priv

ate

land

in v

ario

us c

lass

ifica

tions

of g

rass

land

s /

open

ings

(i.e

., op

en ra

nge,

alp

ine,

mea

dow

, sw

amp,

hay

field

, cle

arin

g)La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(i.

e., K

amlo

ops)

Ran

ge C

ondi

tion

plan

t com

mun

ities

(Con

ditio

n)tre

nds

in p

lant

com

mun

ity c

hang

es a

t spe

cifie

d ph

oto-

poin

tsLa

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(K

amlo

ops)

Fore

stfo

rest

rege

nera

tion

timin

g (R

espo

nse)

area

/ pe

rcen

tage

of h

arve

sted

site

s th

at a

re /

are

not r

egen

erat

ed w

ithin

thre

eC

SA F

ores

t cer

tific

atio

n

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

Page

77

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Reg

ener

atio

nye

ars

of h

arve

st.

Also

ratio

of r

egen

erat

ed s

ites

to n

atur

al s

ite in

dex

(Kam

loop

s TS

A), M

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Myc

orrh

izae

pres

ence

and

col

oniz

atio

n (C

ondi

tion)

pres

ence

of m

ycor

rhiz

ae a

nd c

olon

izat

ion

of ro

ots

(at s

elec

ted

sam

plin

g si

tes)

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gN

itrog

enfo

rms

of n

itrog

en (C

ondi

tion)

form

s of

nitr

ogen

by

sera

l sta

geM

odel

fore

st m

onito

ring

Wild

life

Spec

ies

at R

isk

thre

aten

ed a

nd e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s(Im

pact

)th

reat

ened

or e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s as

a p

erce

ntag

e of

kno

wn

spec

ies,

by

spec

ies

cate

gory

. Al

so, r

egio

nal l

ocat

ion

of s

peci

es a

t ris

kEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g,C

CFM

C&I

Spec

ies

at R

isk

in P

rote

cted

Area

s

rare

, thr

eate

ned

and

enda

nger

edsp

ecie

s (Im

pact

)nu

mbe

r and

per

cent

of s

peci

es in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

(by

maj

or p

rote

cted

are

acl

assi

ficat

ion

that

are

red

or b

lue-

liste

dSt

ate

of P

arks

Fore

st S

peci

esat

Ris

kra

re, t

hrea

tene

d or

end

ange

red

fore

st-

depe

nden

t and

gra

ssla

nd-a

ssoc

iate

dsp

ecie

s (Im

pact

)

perc

enta

ge o

f kno

wn

fore

st-d

epen

dent

or g

rass

land

-ass

ocia

ted

spec

ies

(fish

,am

phib

ians

, mam

mal

s, p

lant

s, b

irds,

rept

iles)

that

are

blu

e or

red-

liste

dEn

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,St

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

, Lan

d us

e pl

anm

onito

ring,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gTh

reat

s to

Spec

ies

at R

isk

land

use

thre

ats

to th

reat

ened

and

enda

nger

ed v

erte

brat

es (P

ress

ure)

rela

tive

impo

rtanc

e of

var

ious

thre

ats

to re

d-lis

ted

verte

brat

es, i

nclu

ding

ripar

ian-

depe

nden

t ver

tebr

ates

(agr

icul

ture

, urb

an d

evel

opm

ent,

logg

ing,

etc

.).Al

so, r

elat

ive

thre

ats

to fo

rest

-dep

ende

nt s

peci

es

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds,

Stat

e of

For

ests

, FSC

fore

st c

ertif

icat

ion,

Mod

elfo

rest

mon

itorin

gFo

rest

Dw

ellin

gM

amm

als

hist

oric

rang

e tre

nds

(Impa

ct)

num

ber o

f mam

mal

spe

cies

(wild

life

tree

user

s ve

rsus

non

-wild

life

tree

user

s)w

here

thei

r kno

wn

rang

e is

con

tract

ing

vers

us e

xpan

ding

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds,

CC

FM C

&I, M

odel

fore

stm

onito

ring

Fore

st D

wel

ling

Bird

sfo

rest

dw

ellin

g bi

rd p

opul

atio

ns(C

ondi

tion)

perc

enta

ge in

crea

se o

r dec

reas

e in

fore

st d

wel

ling

bird

pop

ulat

ions

(coa

stal

vers

us in

terio

r)En

viro

nmen

tal T

rend

s,La

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(V

anco

uver

Isla

nd,

Kam

loop

s), C

CFM

C&I

Rip

aria

n-dw

ellin

gVe

rtebr

ates

ripar

ian-

dwel

ling

verte

brat

es a

t ris

k(Im

pact

)pe

rcen

tage

of k

now

n rip

aria

n de

pend

ent v

erte

brat

es (i

nclu

des

mam

mal

s,am

phib

ians

, fis

h, b

irds,

rept

iles)

that

are

thre

aten

ed o

r end

ange

red

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds,

CC

FM C

&I

Mar

bled

Mur

rele

tsne

stin

g ha

bita

t (C

ondi

tion)

perc

enta

ge o

f nat

ural

rang

e of

mar

bled

mur

rele

t ter

rest

rial h

abita

t tha

t is

in“s

uita

ble”

con

ditio

n fo

r nes

ting

(e.g

., am

ount

of a

ge c

lass

8 /

9 th

at is

loca

ted

in p

atch

siz

es o

f 200

ha

or g

reat

er

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring

(i.e.

, Van

couv

er Is

land

),C

CFM

C&I

Ung

ulat

esex

iste

nce

of u

ngul

ate

win

ter r

ange

(Con

ditio

n)pe

rcen

t of l

and

area

in p

rimar

y w

ater

shed

s th

at is

reta

ined

as

ungu

late

win

ter

rang

eLa

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(i.

e., V

anco

uver

isla

nd),

CC

FM C

&IAq

uatic

Fau

nadi

strib

utio

n an

d ab

unda

nce

(Con

ditio

n)ch

ange

ove

r tim

e in

the

dist

ribut

ion

and

abun

danc

e of

aqu

atic

faun

a at

fore

stle

vel

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

g

Viab

ility

ofSe

lect

edSp

ecie

s

hist

oric

al ra

nge

in w

hich

spe

cies

are

extir

pate

d or

dec

linin

g (Im

pact

)pe

rcen

tage

of h

isto

rical

rang

e in

whi

ch s

elec

ted

spec

ies

(car

ibou

, sha

rp-ta

iled

grou

se, m

ule/

blac

k-ta

iled

deer

, moo

se, g

rizzl

y be

ar) a

re e

xtirp

ated

ver

sus

decl

inin

g. A

lso,

“obs

erve

d ch

ange

s in

faun

a” (F

SC c

ertif

icat

ion)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tre

nds,

CC

FM C

&I, F

SC fo

rest

certi

ficat

ion,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gPo

pula

tions

popu

latio

ns o

f sel

ecte

d sp

ecie

s(C

ondi

tion)

trend

s in

pop

ulat

ion

estim

ates

for v

ario

us s

peci

es (e

.g.,

deer

, moo

se, c

arib

ou,

goat

s, w

olf,

furb

eare

rs, g

rizzl

y be

ars,

wat

erfo

wl,

harb

our s

eals

, sea

lion

s, k

iller

wha

les,

sea

otte

rs, e

tc)

CC

FM C

&I, L

and

use

plan

mon

itorin

g (K

amlo

ops)

Wild

life

hunt

er /

trapp

ing

effo

rt (P

ress

ure)

num

ber a

nd d

istri

butio

n of

hun

ter d

ays,

bag

leve

ls, f

urbe

arer

har

vest

sM

ELP

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

RES

OU

RC

EC

ATEG

OR

YTH

EME

ENVI

RO

NMEN

TAL

IND

ICAT

OR

and

IND

ICAT

OR

TYP

EAS

SOC

IATE

D IN

FOR

MAT

ION

REQ

UIR

EMEN

TSIN

TIAT

IVE

/ USE

R

Expl

oita

tion

Extir

pate

d /

Extin

ct F

ores

t-D

epen

dent

Spec

ies

extir

pate

d an

d ex

tinct

fore

st-d

epen

dent

spec

ies

(Impa

ct)

num

ber o

f suc

h sp

ecie

sSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

Soils

Soil

Dis

turb

ance

soil

dist

urba

nce

in h

arve

sted

are

as(P

ress

ure)

area

/ di

strib

utio

n of

soi

l dis

turb

ance

in a

reas

that

hav

e be

en s

ubje

ct to

harv

estin

g, b

y ye

arSt

ate

of F

ores

ts, C

CFM

C&I

Soil

Dis

turb

ance

soil

dist

urba

nce

by h

arve

st s

yste

m(P

ress

ure)

perc

ent o

f soi

l dis

turb

ance

that

is a

ttrib

utab

le to

var

ious

har

vest

sys

tem

sSt

ate

of F

ores

ts

Soil

Dis

turb

ance

cons

truct

ion

of n

ew fo

rest

road

s(P

ress

ure)

leng

th o

f new

fore

st ro

ads

cons

truct

edLa

nd u

se p

lan

mon

itorin

g(i.

e., K

amlo

ops)

Land

slid

esla

ndsl

ide

occu

rrenc

es (I

mpa

ct)

num

ber /

are

a of

nat

ural

ver

sus

hum

an c

ause

d la

ndsl

ides

Land

use

pla

n m

onito

ring,

Mod

el fo

rest

mon

itorin

gSo

il Pr

oduc

tivity

prod

uctiv

e lo

sses

(Con

ditio

n)m

3/ha

/yea

r tha

t are

est

imat

ed to

be

lost

to p

rodu

ctiv

ity, a

ccor

ding

to v

ario

usha

rves

ting

syst

ems

Stat

e of

For

ests

Soil

Prod

uctiv

ityha

rves

ting

impa

cts

on s

oils

(Im

pact

)pe

rcen

tage

of h

arve

sted

are

a ha

ving

sig

nific

ant s

oil c

ompa

ctio

n,di

spla

cem

ent,

eros

ion,

pud

ding

, los

s of

org

anic

mat

eria

lC

CFM

C&I

, FSC

fore

stce

rtific

atio

nSo

il R

esto

ratio

nso

il re

stor

atio

n in

har

vest

ed a

reas

(Res

pons

e)ar

ea /

dist

ribut

ion

of s

oil r

esto

ratio

n in

are

as th

at h

ave

been

sub

ject

toha

rves

ting,

by

year

Stat

e of

For

ests

, CC

FMC

&IO

rgan

ic C

onte

ntca

rbon

seq

uest

ratio

n / r

elea

se, o

rgan

icco

nten

t in

soils

(Con

ditio

n)am

ount

/ di

strib

utio

n of

org

anic

con

tent

/ ca

rbon

in fo

rest

/ ag

ricul

tura

l soi

lsM

OF,

MAA

stra

tegi

cpl

anni

ng, K

yoto

pro

toco

lco

mm

itmen

tsSo

il Fe

rtilit

yso

il fe

rtilit

y pa

ram

eter

s (C

ondi

tion)

leve

ls /

dist

ribut

ion

of s

oil f

ertil

ity p

aram

eter

s (e

.g.,

acid

ity, c

atio

n ex

chan

ge)

MAA

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng

EXPL

ANAT

OR

Y N

OTE

S

This

app

endi

x lis

ts th

e en

viro

nmen

tal i

nfor

mat

ion

that

age

ncie

s ne

ed, p

oten

tially

nee

d, o

r wou

ld li

ke to

hav

e to

impl

emen

t the

ir tre

nds

inte

rpre

tatio

n an

d / o

r effe

ctiv

enes

sre

porti

ng a

nd /

or s

trate

gic

plan

ning

initi

ativ

es.

This

app

endi

x w

as g

ener

ated

thro

ugh

stud

y in

terv

iew

s an

d re

fere

nce

to a

genc

ies’

doc

umen

tatio

n, in

clud

ing:

Prov

inci

al-le

vel E

nviro

nmen

tal S

usta

inab

ility:

1. S

tate

of E

nviro

nmen

t Rep

ort,

1993

, MEL

P an

d En

viro

nmen

t Can

ada

2. E

nviro

nmen

tal T

rend

s R

epor

t 200

0, M

ELP

Prov

inci

al-le

vel S

usta

inab

le F

ores

t Man

agem

ent:

3. C

anad

ian

Cou

ncil

of F

ores

t Min

iste

rs (C

CFM

), C

riter

ia a

nd In

dica

tors

(C&I

) for

Sus

tain

able

For

est M

anag

emen

t, 19

964.

Sta

te o

f the

For

est i

n Br

itish

Col

umbi

a (R

epor

t Pro

posa

l), O

ctob

er 2

000,

MO

F

Loca

l-lev

el S

usta

inab

le F

ores

t Man

agem

ent:

5. P

oten

tial L

ocal

Lev

el In

dica

tors

for M

cGre

gor M

odel

For

est,

Augu

st 1

998

6. C

anad

ian

Stan

dard

s As

soci

atio

n, F

ores

t Cer

tific

atio

n Sy

stem

(CSA

Z80

8-96

) Gui

danc

e D

ocum

ent f

or7.

Dra

ft Su

stai

nabl

e Fo

rest

Man

agem

ent P

lan

(CSA

sys

tem

) for

Kam

loop

s TS

A8.

For

est S

tew

ards

hip

Cou

ncil

Fore

st C

ertif

icat

ion

Syst

em, P

rinci

ples

and

Crit

eria

Envi

ronm

enta

l Mon

itorin

g:B

usin

ess

and

Info

rmat

ion

Nee

ds S

tudy

Dar

yl B

row

n As

soci

ates

Inc.

& S

usta

inab

le V

isio

ns

Page

79

Land

/ R

esou

rce

Plan

Effe

ctiv

enes

s M

onito

ring:

9.

Stra

tegi

c La

nd U

se P

lan

Mon

itorin

g G

uide

lines

and

Pro

cedu

res,

200

0, L

UC

O10

. Ka

mlo

ops

LRM

P M

onito

ring

Rep

ort,

1999

, Kam

loop

s IA

MC

11.

Mon

itorin

g Im

plem

enta

tion

and

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

Vanc

ouve

r Isl

and

Land

Use

Pla

n, C

onsu

ltant

’s R

epor

t, Se

ptem

ber 2

000,

Van

couv

er Is

land

IAM

C12

. La

ndsc

ape

Uni

t Pla

n M

onito

ring,

Dra

ft M

onito

ring

Indi

cato

rs, J

anua

ry, 2

001,

MO

F / M

ELP

Prot

ecte

d Ar

ea S

usta

inab

ility

:13

. Pe

rform

ance

Indi

cato

rs fo

r Rep

ortin

g on

the

Stat

e of

Brit

ish

Col

umbi

a’s

Park

s, D

raft

Rep

ort,

Febr

uary

200

0, M

ELP

Prov

inci

al L

and

Stat

istic

s14

. Br

itish

Col

umbi

a La

nd S

tatis

tics,

199

6, M

ELP

Not

e th

at m

any

agen

cies

are

cur

rent

ly e

ngag

ed in

a p

roce

ss to

dev

elop

thei

r ind

icat

ors,

and

ass

ocia

ted

info

rmat

ion

/ dat

a re

quire

men

ts.

Ther

efor

e, m

any

of th

e in

form

atio

nre

quire

men

ts id

entif

ied

in th

is a

ppen

dix

shou

ld b

e re

gard

ed a

s te

ntat

ive

/ pre

limin

ary,

and

sub

ject

to c

hang

e. I

nitia

tives

that

are

cur

rent

ly u

nder

dev

elop

men

t and

for w

hich

final

mon

itorin

g in

dica

tors

and

env

ironm

enta

l inf

orm

atio

n re

quire

men

ts h

ave

not y

et b

een

esta

blis

hed

incl

ude:

BC

Sta

te o

f the

For

est m

onito

ring

/ rep

ortin

g, M

odel

fore

stm

onito

ring,

all

stra

tegi

c la

nd u

se p

lan

effe

ctiv

enes

s m

onito

ring

initi

ativ

es o

ther

than

the

Kam

loop

s LR

MP,

land

scap

e un

it pl

an m

onito

ring,

and

pro

vinc

ial S

tate

of t

he P

arks

mon

itorin

g. A

t the

fore

st c

ertif

icat

ion

leve

l, th

e Fo

rest

Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il ce

rtific

atio

n sy

stem

is p

rese

ntly

dev

elop

ing

perfo

rman

ce s

tand

ards

for B

C, h

owev

er, t

hese

are

not y

et fi

nal.

For

CSA

cer

tific

atio

n, e

ach

appl

ican

t dev

elop

s th

eir o

wn

mon

itorin

g in

dica

tors

thro

ugh

a pu

blic

par

ticip

atio

n pr

oces

s; th

eref

ore,

env

ironm

enta

l inf

orm

atio

nne

eds

for t

his

initi

ativ

e ca

nnot

be

fully

ant

icip

ated

.

environmental monitoring: business and information needs study · environmental monitoring:...

Documents