Designing a Landscape Unit Plan Monitoring Framework

Issues and Considerations

Designing a Landscape Unit Plan Monitoring Framework

Preliminary Scoping of Issues and Considerations

Prepared for

Strategic Policy & Planning Section

Forest Practices Branch

Ministry of Forests

By

Daryl Brown Associates

Natural Resources and Environmental Management

Victoria, BC

October 12, 2000

Contents

SUMMARY 3

  1. INTRODUCTION 5

1.1Background

1.2Purpose of This Report

1.3Terminology

(a)Monitoring

(b)Indicator

(c)Baseline monitoring

(d)Effectiveness monitoring

(e)Validation monitoring

(f)Implementation monitoring

2.ISSUES and CONSIDERATIONS 8

2.1Scope of Monitoring Program 9

2.2 Relationship to Other Monitoring Initiatives 11

(a) MELP’s Environmental Trends Reporting

(b) MOF’s State of Forests Program

(c) Strategic Land Use Plan Monitoring

(d) Forest Certification Monitoring

2.3 Spatial and Temporal Scales of Monitoring 13

2.4 Effectiveness Monitoring 16

(a)A Goal Oriented Basis for Effectiveness Monitoring

(b)The Function of Monitoring Indicators

(c)Types of Effectiveness Indicators

(d)Criteria for Indicator Selection

(e)Examples of Potential Effectiveness Indicators

2.5 Implementation Monitoring 23

(a)Program Monitoring

(b)Compliance Monitoring

2.6 Information Requirements 25

2.7 Management and Administrative Supports 27

References 29

Tables

Table 1 Environmental Monitoring Programs and Levels 12

Table 2Spatial and Temporal Scale of Monitoring 13

Table 3Examples of Landscape Unit Objectives 16

Table 4Examples of Indicator Types 18

Table 5Desirable Characteristics of Monitoring Indicators 19

Table 6Examples of Potential Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity Condition 20

Table 7Examples of Potential Indicators for Monitoring Short-term Timber Supplies 22

Appendix 1Key Elements of Monitoring Framework Being Considered for US National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning 31

SUMMARY

This report provides a preliminary investigation of landscape unit plan monitoring issues and considerations, as a foundation for further discussions on this subject, within and outside of government.

Issues and considerations that will have to be addressed in the design and delivery of a landscape unit plan monitoring system include the following.

Scope of Monitoring Program

Although program managers envision monitoring both landscape unit plan effectiveness and implementation, decisions will be required on whether or not to also conduct baseline and validation monitoring. Arguably, all four types of monitoring are required to enable an effective monitoring system. Decisions will also be needed on whether or not the monitoring program will be limited to measurements related to only the biodiversity and short-term timber supply impact goals, or if the scope should be expanded to also include other forest resources.

Monitoring scope will be heavily influenced by cost considerations, and this may influence a monitoring program that emphasizes landscape level trend measurements, compared to extensive measurement of stand level attributes and trends.

Relationship to Other Monitoring Initiatives

Other than landscape unit plan monitoring, a number of strategic level environmental condition monitoring initiatives are currently being delivered in BC, or are under development. These include: MELP’s environmental trends reporting program, MOF’s state of forests monitoring, strategic land use plan monitoring, and forest certification monitoring. Maximum integration and coordination of these initiatives with the landscape unit plan monitoring program will be important for efficiency and effectiveness reasons.

Spatial and Temporal Scales of Monitoring and Reporting

The spatial and temporal intensity of monitoring may vary by monitoring type and indictor type. Cost will likely play a large role in decisions on spatial and temporal aspects of monitoring design, possibly to the extent of decisions to give priority to measuring landscape level ecosystem patterns, relative to stand level attributes. Where stand level features are monitored, valid data collection methods and inventory techniques will be important to enable maximum utility of monitoring results. Reporting monitoring results to the public and decision-makers will likely be required at a range of spatial and temporal scales / levels.

Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring is fundamentally linked to program goals or objectives. Although the landscape unit plans themselves will define forest resource objectives, these are really operational strategies for attaining more fundamental goals of biodiversity conservation and maintaining short-term timber supply. It is progress towards these basic outcomes that should be measured in effectiveness monitoring.

Indicators are the basic tool employed for effectiveness monitoring and these may be categorized as “pressure”, “state”, or “response” indicators for purposes of monitoring system design. Monitoring fundamental outcomes (i.e., ultimate condition or state) is more valuable than monitoring program outputs. Indicator selection should be based on criteria of “good” monitoring indicators. There is a wide range of potential effectiveness indicators for monitoring goals related to biodiversity and timber supply. Combining individual indicators to report according to “indices” of environmental and timber supply condition / integrity is another possible approach. These options need to be assessed in relation to the criteria.

Implementation Monitoring

Implementation monitoring may involve monitoring the overall status of program delivery and / or compliance with specific landscape unit planning instructions and targets. The things that would be monitored for compliance are found primarily as staff instructions in the landscape unit planning guide. Compliance monitoring could potentially consume a great deal of staff energy and resources without yielding significant decision-making benefits, provided that short-term timber supply monitoring was included as an element of effectiveness monitoring. It may be desirable to periodically “audit” compliance, rather than intensively “monitor” it.

Information Requirements

Monitoring programs are data intensive. Availability of reliable data and ability to replicate measurements consistently over broad geographic areas are critical. For effectiveness monitoring purposes, landscape level information on basic ecosystem conditions including aspects such as vegetative cover and patch configuration should be generally available. Data on stand level attributes will be far less available, and costly to acquire. Data sharing with licensees may be a way to improve availability and reduce costs. However, this will require evaluation of data quality and comparability to ensure proper ensure data integration.

Implementation monitoring information needs will be reliant on purpose-specific program status and data reports supplied by Districts.

Satellite imagery may offer a promising and cost-effective approach for measuring landscape level characteristics.

Regional data centers should soon be in a relatively good position to analyze and report monitoring information (subject to data availability), although the role of regional and provincial roll-ups of monitoring results will have to be assigned.

Management and Administrative Supports

Monitoring requires a long-term outlook with multi-year funding commitment. In addition, monitoring, roles, responsibilities, methods and procedures should be documented to ensure consistency in application. Most importantly, institutional mechanisms are required to ensure that monitoring results are integrated into management decision-making.

To ensure broad acceptance of monitoring programs and the successful integration of monitoring results into decision-making, the process and structures for developing and implementing the landscape unit monitoring framework will be important. There appear to be sound arguments for directly integrating landscape unit effectiveness monitoring with strategic land use plan effectiveness monitoring.

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

  • The Forest Practices Code establishes a forest planning system for BC, comprising a hierarchy of strategic and operational forest management plans.
  • Landscape unit planning is a strategic planning level in the hierarchy that the government is now implementing, after having done preliminary program development, including delineating planning unit boundaries, determining biodiversity emphasis for individual landscape units, and developing a generic landscape unit planning methodology (Landscape Unit Planning Guide, 1999).
  • Landscape units are relatively homogeneous areas of land, up to 100,000 ha in size, delineated by biophysical features—typically watershed boundaries—that are useful units for planning integrated resource use and biodiversity conservation.
  • The provincial priority is, by 2002, to develop objectives and strategies for two elements of biodiversity conservation (old growth management areas and wildlife tree patches) for each of the approximately 1,300 landscape units in BC. The intention is to develop objectives and strategies for other elements of biodiversity conservation and for other forest resources in subsequent years.
  • Monitoring the extent to which landscape unit plans have been completed in accordance with established procedures, and to assess the overall effectiveness of the plans in achieving underlying program goals is an important part of the landscape unit planning program.

1.2 Purpose of This Report

  • MOF and MELP are at the very early stages of designing a landscape unit plan monitoring framework. No decisions on the nature or design of a monitoring framework have yet been made, other than those that can be inferred from the general references to monitoring that are contained in the Landscape Unit Planning Guide (MOF and MELP, 1999).
  • This report is an initial scoping investigation. The aim is to provide a preliminary investigation of landscape unit planning monitoring issues and considerations, as a foundation for further discussions on this subject, within and outside of government.

1.3 Terminology

(a) Monitoring— involves watching, observing or checking some thing or activity to determine its status or condition. Environmental monitoring usually entails periodic measurement of some pre-determined environmental parameters, using accepted scientific measurement techniques, and comparing the measurement results with each other and potentially also with a target figure, as a basis for making judgments about environmental quality or condition.

(b) Indicator— a parameter or value that provides information about a phenomenon with a significance extending beyond that directly associated with the parameter or value. For purposes of environmental monitoring, indicators are simple measurements that represent complex aspects of environmental quality or ecological integrity. The are the “vital signs” of environmental health and are used to assess environmental performance relative to some stated or implied environmental goal.

(c) Baseline monitoring— one of the requirements of an effective monitoring program is to be able to separate that which is occurring naturally from that which is a result of human actions. Baseline monitoring, sometimes called background or benchmark monitoring, is used to establish baseline reference conditions that can be used to quantify change that is occurring due to management activities. Environmental monitoring should not just be about detecting change, but rather detecting change that exceeds the range of natural variability (Schnieder, 1997).

Baseline monitoring may occur in an untreated watershed for a period in advance of management activity (i.e., development) in that watershed. Or, it may occur in a ‘control’ watershed that has similar ecological characteristics / responses to the treated watershed. Identifying and using reference or replicate landscapes for baseline monitoring purposes can be difficult and requires careful planning and problem definition (Lee and Bradshaw,1998).

Baseline monitoring is undertaken in association with effectiveness and validation monitoring, as opposed to implementation monitoring—see definitions below.

(d) Effectiveness monitoring — every resource management decision is intended to achieve a given future condition—a goal. Effectiveness monitoring employs indicators to measure whether or not progress is being made towards the established goals (e.g., biodiversity conservation). Results can be used to compare current conditions to past conditions, and the desired future condition. Overall progress or success of management activities can be assessed and trends detected.

Effectiveness monitoring findings may be used to reinforce management actions or to suggest modified management actions, as a basis for constructing a management system that is capable of achieving the desired outcomes.

(e) Validation monitoring — is used to verify the assumed linkages between cause and effect (i.e., between stress and response). It attempts to confirm the basic assumptions under which the management direction was developed. Used in conjunction with effectiveness monitoring (and potentially environmental baseline monitoring), validation monitoring can contribute significantly to the controlled experiment form of adaptive management. For example, monitoring could be undertaken at a limited number of sampling sites to test alternative riparian reserve / management zone widths to assess effects on aquatic health. Findings could contribute to improved decisions / guidelines on riparian set-backs.

One potential difficulty of validation monitoring is extrapolating monitoring findings to wider regions (Lee and Bradshaw, 1998).

(f) Implementation Monitoring — this form of monitoring is used to determine the extent to which management direction (as specified in laws, contracts, program instruction documents, policies & procedures statements, plans, or guidelines documents) is being accurately interpreted and followed.

Implementation monitoring results may be used to impose a consequence on the parties that are expected to follow the management direction. The consequence could be a reward or recognition for good compliance; a negative sanction in the event of poor compliance (e.g., warning, fine, adverse publicity, or revocation of some right or benefit); or, internal management actions to rectify the non-compliance (e.g., clarified management direction, staff training, re-organization).

Implementation compliance is often easy to monitor compared to other forms of monitoring, provided that the initial management direction is clear.

  1. ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS

This report section identifies and discusses a number of key issues that will need to be addressed in developing a landscape unit monitoring framework. The issues are posed as questions that need answering, and the associated discussion identifies a range of considerations that relate to the issues. The questions that are posed are:

  1. Scope of Monitoring Program: What types of monitoring (of the four types described in section 1.3) should be incorporated into the landscape unit planning monitoring framework? Also, what landscape unit plan program goals should be monitored for effectiveness in the short- and longer-terms?
  1. Relationship to Other Monitoring Initiatives: How should the landscape unit plan monitoring program be integrated with other sustainability monitoring initiatives, to promote overall monitoring efficiencies?
  1. Spatial and Temporal Scales of Monitoring and Reporting: What geographic units should be monitored, and what should be the time interval between indicator measurements?
  1. Effectiveness Monitoring: What indicators should be monitored and reported on, as a basis for assessing the effectiveness of landscape unit management actions in achieving desired outcomes?
  1. Implementation Monitoring: What performance measures should be monitored and reported on, as a basis for assessing the degree of compliance with MOF / MELP landscape unit planning guidelines / direction?
  1. Information Requirements: What information is required to support a landscape unit plan monitoring program, and what is its current availability and reliability?
  1. Management and Administrative Supports: What management and administrative supports are required to ensure the ongoing delivery of an effective monitoring program, and the beneficial use of monitoring information that is produced?

2.1 Scope of Monitoring Program

Issue

What types of monitoring (of the four types described in section 1.3) should be incorporated into the landscape unit plan monitoring framework? Also, what landscape unit plan program goals should be monitored for effectiveness in the short- and longer-terms?

Discussion

To-date, MOF and MELP have contemplated a framework comprising implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Lee and Bradshaw (1998) report that an integrated monitoring framework that comprises all four types of monitoring (including baseline and validation monitoring in addition to implementation and effectiveness monitoring) is a preferred model.

Their rationale is that a comprehensive and integrated framework is more capable of contributing to effective resource management decision-making which is the fundamental reason for monitoring in the first place. Ideally, monitoring will not only provide insights into how well management goals are being achieved, but will also permit comparison of the effects (on biological condition) of different management practices. Thus monitoring should be designed to incorporate monitoring of baseline conditions (as a type of “control” for enabling an assessment of sources of variation from natural variation), and monitoring of locations where different / experimental management practices are being employed (validation monitoring). A comprehensive monitoring program involving all four monitoring types will more likely enable implementation of adaptive management principles.

Another consideration under the issue of monitoring program scope is the need to determine, from an effectiveness monitoring perspective, what program goals will be monitored over the short- and longer-terms. In this respect, landscape unit planning falls into two broad categories:

  • biodiversitiy planning — comprising “priority” biodiversity planning for old growth management areas (OGMAs) and wildlife tree retention (WTR); and “full” biodiversity planning for old growth forests, seral stage distribution, landscape connectivity, stand structure, species composition and patch size distribution), and
  • forest resources planning — including planning for timber, recreation, water, botanical forest products, wildlife, forage and fisheries. (MOF and MELP, 1999).

Both of these categories of planning is being undertaken to achieve explicit or implied goals (desired outcomes). Thus, it is necessary to develop and apply appropriate indicators for measuring progress towards those outcomes (see section 2.4 on indicators). However, landscape unit planning is being limited in the initial few program years to “priority” biodiversity planning. Planning for all other program elements is expected to follow in subsequent years. Does this mean that landscape unit plan monitoring should also be constrained in its initial years? Or, should indicators now be developed and applied for measuring progress towards the full suite of desired outcomes, even if landscape unit planning is not yet attempting to influence those outcomes?

The options are to:

  • restrict monitoring to measurements of OGMAs and WTR (i.e., a limited set of indicators of biodiversity conservation), and measurements of short-term timber supply impact,
  • monitor a fuller range of biodiversity measures (e.g., include measures of seral stage distribution, connectivity, species dynamics, etc), and also measures of short-term timber supply impact, or
  • monitor the above, plus indicators for other forest resources.

In determining effectiveness monitoring program scope, it’s important to remember that the purpose of effectiveness monitoring is to assess progress towards management goals (desired outcomes), and that indicators and trends analysis are the tools for making these assessments (see section 2.4). This suggests that the desired outcomes of biodiversity conservation (all elements) and minimizing timber supply impacts, as the two stated program goals, should be the monitoring priorities in the short-term, despite the fact that only two biodiversity elements are being planned in the short-term. Monitoring the condition of selected forest resources (e.g., water quality) might also occur in the short-term, as part of the monitoring design for assessing biodiversity conservation.