Drawing the Line by Stand.earth

DRAWING THE LINE British Columbiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Conservation Land use Designations, Mapped and Interpreted against Current Science

A report by Marlene Cummings for ForestEthics Solutions February 2013 S O L U T I O N S

A ForestEthics Solutions Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Report Author & GIS Coordinator

Marlene Cummings – MSc Environmental Planning. Terrestrial Conservation Consultant.

Contribution to Map Data & Development

Dusan Markovic, MTS Consulting BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations BC Ministry of Environment Government of British Columbia’s Geographic Data Discovery Service The Nature Trust of British Columbia and Ducks Unlimited Canada, on behalf of the Working Group for the BC Conservation NGO Lands Database Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, British Columbia Chapter (CPAWS BC) Peter Lee, Executive Director at Global Forest Watch Canada Dave Leversee, GIS Manager, Sierra Club of BC

Contribution to Designations’ Classification & Ranking

Jessica Clogg, Executive Director and Senior Counsel at West Coast Environmental Law Deborah Carlson, Staff Counsel at West Coast Environmental Law Tory Stevens, Protected Areas Ecologist (Terrestrial) with the BC Ministry of Environment

Insightful Contributions to the Manuscript

Jim Pojar, Forest Ecologist Valerie Langer, Director BC Forest Conservation at ForestEthics Solutions Jessica Clogg, Executive Director and Senior Counsel at West Coast Environmental Law

Photography Credits: Cover Image | original by Denby Jorgensen pg.1, caribou image, Adam Drewes | BC landscape image, Jordan Oram pg.3, grizzly bear, Princess Lodges pg.4, BC landscape, Drew Brayshaw pg.6, Range Contraction image, William Ripple pg.16, courtesy of CPAWS-BC: Caribou & Oil and gas fragmentation, Wayne Sawchuk pg.16, Coastal Douglas-Fir forest, TJ Watt pg.18, courtesy of CPAWS-BC: Chopaka Grasslands, Graham Osborne

With thanks to

DRAWING THE LINE

British Columbia’s Conservation Land Use Designations, Mapped and Interpreted Against Current Science EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To spur renewed efforts to secure land use decisions that can successfully conserve the natural life support systems of British Columbia in a changing climate, we first have to take stock of existing land use. A map of all conservation-relevant land use designations in the province was not available, prompting ForestEthics Solutions to undertake a collation of provincial land use designations, develop a comprehensive map, and, to the extent possible, draw conclusions about the province’s environmental performance.

In this report, ForestEthics Solutions: 1. Distills the key findings of six major expert reports released in the last nine years with direct relevance to British Columbia’s environmental performance at the interface of biodiversity and climate change. These include the BC Auditor-General’s highly critical 2010 audit Conservation of Ecological Integrity in B.C. Parks and Protected Areas; Biodiversity BC’s 2008 report Taking Nature’s Pulse; Dr. Jim Pojar’s 2010 seminal report A New Climate for Conservation; BC Future Forest Ecosystem Scientific Council’s November 2012 synthesis report Informing Adaptation of British Columbia’s Forest and Range Management Framework to Anticipated Effects of Climate Change; Laliberte and Ripple’s 2004 report Range Contractions of North American Carnivores and Ungulates; and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy’s 2011 report Paying the Price. 2. Brings together, for the first time, a publicly-available set of baseline maps of all the land use designations in the province of British Columbia that contain management objective(s) relevant to biodiversity and conservation. The development, intended uses, and methodology for the maps, are detailed. 3. Details the findings resulting from an extensive and collaborative expert review of the maps and designations, including how they compare to the findings in recent scientific reports regarding BC’s existing gaps in conservation.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

Summary Conclusion

A cross-

referencing of the maps with the expert and government reports and analysis,

demonstrate that the existing conservation

and resource-

restricted lands fail to protect biological diversity

A cross-referencing of the maps with the expert and government reports and analysis, demonstrate that the existing conservation and resourcerestricted lands fail to protect biological diversity and ecological integrity at the provincial scale. Based on the designations’ mapping, calculations (in percentage of the land base, rounded to one decimal place) reveal that: • 15.6% has higher conservation potential, depending on the location and how government discretion to approve activities is used; of that, 14.4% is designated as parks and protected areas, and another 1.2% is designated outside of parks and protected areas to focus on conserving biodiversity, ecosystem services and/or recreation • 13.2% has moderate conservation potential, depending on the location and whether permitted uses are compatible with the biodiversity, carbon and conservation goals; these designations allow resource extraction, restricting only one or two resource activities • 20.6% offers low conservation potential; these designations allow resource extraction with few limitations • 50.7% has no specific conservation or resource-restricted designations

and ecological integrity at the

provincial scale.

Relative Conservation Strength of BC’s Land Use Designations A Contributing Factor in BC’s Poor Conservation Performance [by % of BC Land Base] 14.4%

Parks & Protected Areas

1.15% 13.16%

Areasdesignated without conservation or restricted resource use designations Areas for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and/or Areas recreation allowing resource extraction with few limitations Areas designated to restrict 1 or 2 resource activities Areas designated to restrict 1 or 2 resource activities

Areas designated for biodiversity, ecosystem services, &/or recreation

Areas extraction with few limitations Parksallowing & Protectedresource Areas 20.57% 50.72%

Areas without conservation or restricted resource use designations

These percentages must be considered in the context of the overall ineffectiveness of conservation management, provincially. They can be utilized as a decision support tool for how and where to improve performance.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

In light of this analysis, ForestEthics Solutionsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; recommendations are: 1. Establish a province-wide conservation network that connects legally-designated protected areas and conservation lands. 2. Augment land use plans at all scales (provincial, regional, local), using the best available climate-conservation science and cumulative impacts assessment. This includes determining the opportunities and locations for additional conservation and connectivity, and adjusting how we manage the land base for conservation outside of protected areas and conservation lands. 3. Update our laws and policies to better safeguard our natural life support systems from the cumulative impacts of human activities and climate change; protect biodiversity; manage for resilient ecosystems and communities; and unlock the potential contributions of nature to a clean, green economy in BC.

Establish a province-wide conservation

network that

connects legallydesignated

protected areas and conservation lands.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

DRAWING THE LINE British Columbia’s Conservation Land Use Designations, Mapped and Interpreted Against Current Science

In this report, ForestEthics Solutions: • Distills the key findings of six major expert reports released in the last nine years with direct relevance to British Columbia’s environmental performance at the interface of biodiversity and climate change. • Brings together, for the first time, a publicly-available set of baseline maps of all the land use designations in the Province of British Columbia that contain management objective(s) relevant to biodiversity and conservation. • Details the findings resulting from an extensive and collaborative expert review of the maps and designations, including how they compare to the findings in recent scientific reports regarding BC’s existing gaps in conservation. • Makes recommendations for augmenting land use planning and policy to boost resilience of species and enhance ecological integrity in a changing climate.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

What the Experts are Saying About Conservation in BC – The Main Findings from Six Expert Reports The following six major expert reports were highlighted because they have been authored by leading scientists and economists in British Columbia and the nation, and contribute leading edge findings and recommendations for conserving biodiversity and coping with the impacts of climate on the species and ecosystems of British Columbia. Each of the six reports is identified (author, report title, year produced/published) and key findings relevant to British Columbia’s existing conservation efforts and/or recommendations for future efforts have been distilled from the reports. In many instances, the key points from one report are made repeatedly across multiple reports. Links to the online reports are provided in the corresponding endnote. Informing Adaptation of British Columbia’s Forest and Range Management Framework to Anticipated Effects of Climate Change: A synthesis of research and policy recommendations.1 2012. Prepared for the BC Future Forest Ecosystem Scientific Council, by Sybille Haeussler and Evelyn H. Hamilton. • States that for successful adaptation to climate change and minimal negative effects of climate change on forests, BC needs “practices that enhance ecosystem resilience”, to “manage for diversity, connectivity and redundancy across a range of spatial and temporal scales…and…lessen the cumulative impacts of resource development…”.2 • Emphasizes the need for a system of protected areas that includes conserving forests with large legacies of carbon and areas buffered from climate change, enhancing landscape connectivity, increasing the area of reserves, and planning for a “percolating landscape”. • Recommends incorporating climate change adaptation and mitigation into land use planning, by updating existing regional, sub-regional and landscape scale land use plans (e.g., Timber Supply Area level); and into legislation and regulations, including addressing conflicting policy initiatives that serve as a disincentive for long-term planning. Taking Nature’s Pulse: The status of biodiversity in British Columbia. 2008.3 A Biodiversity BC report, edited by M. A. Austin, et al. Biodiversity BC is a partnership of scientists and representatives from non-governmental conservation organizations and multiple levels of government. • Emphasizes that maintaining a diversity of plants and animal species (“biodiversity”) is necessary to ensure the continuance of “critical ecosystem services required for life and human well-being”.4 • Discusses British Columbia’s numerous species and ecosystems at risk of extinction, or extirpation from Canada;5 a peer reviewer (and scientist) for the report, estimates the total number at more than 1900.6 • Details species, ecosystems and Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Zones (BEC Zones) ‘of concern’, with a focus on Coastal Douglas-fir, Interior Douglas-fir, Ponderosa Pine, and Bunchgrass. • Reveals that the three most significant stresses on biodiversity in BC are ecosystem conversion, ecosystem degradation, and alien species. • Lists the most significant human activities impacting biodiversity in BC: climate change and specific practices associated with: agriculture, recreation, urban & rural development, forestry, transportation and utility corridors, oil & gas development, and water development. Climate change is expected to be the greatest over-riding threat to biodiversity in the future. 5

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

The Province

received a failing grade in part,

for inadequately addressing climate change and for failing to have

a province-wide

system of protected areas that are

connected, in the right places, and

Conservation of Ecological Integrity in B.C. Parks and Protected Areas.7 2010. Authored by the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia. An assessment of BC Parks performance in conserving the ecological integrity of British Columbia’s parks and protected areas. •

The Province received a failing grade in part, for inadequately addressing climate change and for failing to have a province-wide system of protected areas that are connected, in the right places, and large enough to do what they are designed to do: protect ecological integrity and conserve biodiversity.

• Noted protected areas’ gaps in ecosystem representation along the southwest coast, Interior, and northeast BC, e.g., Coastal Douglas-fir and Bunchgrass Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Zones (BEC Zones).

large enough

to do what they are designed

to do: protect

ecological integrity and conserve biodiversity.

Range Contractions of North American Carnivores and Ungulates.8 2004. Authored by Andrea S. Laliberte and William J. Ripple, scientists in rangeland remote sensing applications. • Wide-ranging North American carnivores and ungulates have experienced significant range contractions into British Columbia, making British Columbia a key North American wildlife ‘hotspot’.

Number of Species

Historic and current species richness for 17 carnivores and ungulates that experienced range contractions (mostly into BC) over more than 20% of their historic range, as a result of Euro-American settlement and post-settlement development in North America. Laliberte & Ripple, 2004, p. 132.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

A New Climate for Conservation: Nature, carbon and climate change in British Columbia.9 2010. Authored by Jim Pojar, a forest ecologist and former Forest Science Officer and Ecologist with the BC Ministry of Forests. • Manage 50% (or beyond) of the British Columbia land base for biodiversity and carbon, in a combination of parks and protected areas, and legally-designated conservation lands10 • Broaden and connect conservation through a network of core protected areas that are of sufficient size, location and quality to prevent species loss and boost ecosystem resilience in a changing climate11

Emphasizes the benefits for

Canadians that

securing healthy, productive

• Enact legislation to protect ecosystems and species at risk

ecosystems

• Reform laws and policies to remove barriers to biodiversity conservation, and integrate nature and climate strategies

the economy

provide to health, and overall

Paying the Price: The economic impacts of climate change for Canada.12 2011. Authored by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE).

prosperity.

• Praises global efforts in ecosystem conservation and restoration because of the climate adaptation and mitigation co-benefits • Emphasizes the benefits for Canadians that securing healthy, productive ecosystems provide to health, the economy and overall prosperity • Suggests key broad strategies that promote healthy ecosystems, which in turn can help secure ecosystem services in the face of climate change, such as using market mechanisms to incent restoration, conservation and enhancement of ecosystem services; and expanding conservation areas, including parks and protected areas to enhance ecosystem resilience • Issues a warning against undervaluing the role biodiversity and ecosystems play in responding to climate change (key message of the United Nations initiative on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - considered the Stern Review equivalent for biodiversity) Taken together, these reports by top scientists and economists reinforce the imperative of conserving biodiversity and make it clear that British Columbia is a continentally important place for wildlife. Yet, according to the experts, conservation efforts to date have failed to adequately protect species and ecosystem integrity. They recommend expanding and connecting protected areas and conservation lands to form a network across the provincial landscape. As has been articulated by these reports, achieving goals to conserve species and boost ecosystem resilience now and in the long-term requires a supportive legal and policy framework, and updated land use plans at all scales.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

BC Baseline Maps – What, Why and How To enable renewed efforts to secure land use decisions that can successfully conserve the natural life support systems of BC, we first have to take stock of existing land use outside of human settlements.13 As a comprehensive, cross-ministerial map of BC’s conservation-relevant land use designations was not available, ForestEthics Solutions (FES) undertook this extensive ‘baseline’ GIS mapping. Our colleagues at West Coast Environmental Law concurrently analyzed the legal requirements associated with these designations, identifying legislative and policy impediments to successful environmental management in the province. These reports have the potential to serve as decision support tools to help the Province fill conservation gaps on the land base and in legislation and policy. The interactive maps show the location of forty different land use designations on the BC land base having management implications for biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. Those designated lands have also been mapped by their respective management objectives, such as single or multiple restricted resource activities, recreational use, or IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) protected areas categories.14 ForestEthics Solutions gathered the data from multiple ministries to collate this information into one source, for the first time. The project culminated in a multi-expert collaboration with staff from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the Ministry of Environment, West Coast Environmental Law, and ForestEthics Solutions, to review and determine the overall relative ‘strength of conservation’ potential across the provincial land base afforded by these designations.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

How Much of the BC Land Base is Currently Designated and Designed to Conserve Biodiversity? The following pie chart uses the outcomes of the relative ‘strength of conservation’ ranking exercise, to group the designations into four broad management categories. This allows the user to compare the results of this analysis with the area totals calculated by the Province. Calculations (in percentage of the land base, rounded to one decimal place) reveal that: 15.6% has higher conservation potential, depending on the location and how government discretion to approve activities is used,15 of that, 14.4% is designated as parks and protected areas,16 and another 1.2% is designated outside of parks and protected areas to focus on conserving biodiversity, ecosystem services and/or recreation 13.2% has moderate conservation potential, depending on the location and whether permitted uses are compatible with the biodiversity, carbon and conservation goals; these designations allow resource extraction, restricting only one or two resource activities 20.6% offers low conservation potential; these designations allow resource extraction with few limitations 50.7% has no specific conservation or resource-restricted designations

A cross-

referencing of the maps with the expert and government reports and analysis,

demonstrate that the existing conservation

and resource-

restricted lands fail to protect biological diversity and ecological integrity at the

provincial scale.

Relative Conservation Strength of BC’s Land Use Designations A Contributing Factor in BC’s Poor Conservation Performance [by % of BC Land Base] 14.4%

Parks & Protected Areas

1.15% 13.16%

Areasdesignated without conservation or restricted resource use designations Areas for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and/or recreation Areas allowing resource extraction with few limitations Areas designated to restrict 1 or 2 resource activities Areas designated to restrict 1 or 2 resource activities

Areas designated for biodiversity, ecosystem services, &/or recreation

Areas extraction with few limitations Parksallowing & Protectedresource Areas 20.57% 50.72%

Areas without conservation or restricted resource use designations

These percentages must be considered in the context of the overall ineffectiveness of conservation management provincially. They can be utilized as a decision support tool for how and where to improve performance.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

The breakdown illustrates the significant efforts successive governments have made to incorporate conservation into land use planning and gives an indication of why that has had limited success. But percentages alone do not tell the story. A cross-referencing of the maps with the expert and government reports and analysis highlighted in Section 1 demonstrate that the existing conservation and resourcerestricted lands fail to protect biological diversity and ecological integrity at the provincial scale. A report, Land Use Planning for Nature, Climate and Communities: Taking stock and moving forward, by West Coast Environmental Law, describes how the provinceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s legal and policy framework for conducting and implementing land use planning has been â&#x20AC;&#x153;hardwired for failureâ&#x20AC;?, thus undermining its ability to meet environmental objectives, including: sustainable resource extraction; protection of species, biodiversity and water; and mitigation of climate change impacts.17 (See Appendices 1&2 for area calculations for both the individual designations and the pie chart breakdown).

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

the ultimate goal is for this mapping to

be a spring board— an input into the

planning and design of the next level of conservation to reduce habitat fragmentation and to build resilience by addressing

resource-based

cumulative impacts and future climate change.

How the Baseline Maps can be Used for Future Conservation and Economic Planning These provincial-scale maps contribute to baseline information in the short-term, pointing to existing gaps in designated areas for conservation and connectivity. However, the ultimate goal is for this mapping to be a spring board—an input into the planning and design of the next level of conservation to reduce habitat fragmentation (from increasing development and human footprint), and to build resilience by addressing resourcebased cumulative impacts (from multiple resource activities operating in the same area) and future climate change. For example, the maps can help identify where on the BC land base future resource extraction could least intersect with areas critical to biodiversity, climate adaptation, and carbon storage, in addition to informing where designations restricting resource activities need to be amplified to strengthen the conservation value. ForestEthics Solutions will make the three GIS datasets (corresponding to the three maps produced) available upon request to interested organizations and data centres, so maps can be updated as additional conservation and special resource management lands are legally designated (See Appendix 1 for the list of data sources used for each designation layer; web links provided where available).

Methodology Data was obtained for the majority of designations through the Province’s Geographic Data Discovery Service in 2012,18 and the maps were developed using a commonly-used scale for provincial-wide planning purposes. Stemming from a need to avoid double-counting in areas that have more than one designation, we worked with legal and scientific experts from West Coast Environmental Law and the Ministry of Environment to distill a relative “strength of conservation” ranking (see ranking table with rationale, in Appendix 3). As a result, when all designations (layers) are displayed, as in the case of static maps or when all layers are ‘toggled on’ for the interactive PDF version, the designation we ranked as having a higher strength of conservation will be the one visible for that area on the map, as well as the one counted in the “reconciled” area calculations (see table in Appendix 1). For a detailed description of the GIS methodology used in the development of these maps, see Appendix 4.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

Reading the Baseline Maps Map 1: Existing Areas Designated for Protection & Resource Restriction (p.11) With the assistance of many, including Provincial staff at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the Ministry of Environment, representatives from the Working Group for the BC Conservation NGO Lands Database, and using the Provinceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Geographic Data Discovery Service, we were able to include Parks and Protected Areas, most conservation lands outside of formal Parks and Protected Areas, and areas restricted in different degrees by legally-designated special resource management objectives (see Appendix 3 for Designations Summary Table and note detailing designations and data that were not included in the maps).

Map 2: Existing Areas Designated for Protection & Resource Restriction, by Management Objectives (p.12) Map 2 illustrates the same areas under designation from Map 1, by a mix of either their assigned International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected areas category, or their resource use restriction(s). Including IUCN categorization provides the benefit of a common international method for classifying and understanding the management aims for the spectrum of protected area categories. By digging deeper into the designations themselves to unearth the human activities both encouraged and restricted in the designated areas of the land base, this map could inform work being done to manage for, and reduce cumulative (multiple) impacts. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) shared draft IUCN classification data for the parks, protected areas and many conservation designations, for this application. ForestEthics Solutions staff met with Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MFLNRO) staff many times over the duration of the project to debate the level of forestry restriction that pertains to the majority of the resource-restricted designations included in this project, and were able to reach agreement in nearly all cases. ForestEthics Solutions partnered with West Coast Environmental Law to suggest conservation or resource classifications for those designations that have not yet been classified by the appropriate ministries. The interactive PDF version allows users to differentiate between those classifications assigned by the Provincial ministries (MFLNRO or MOE) and those suggested by ForestEthics Solutions (FES) and West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL). (See Appendix 3 for Designations Summary Table that lists the classifications, and by whom, for each designation).

Map 3: Existing Areas Designated for Protection & Resource Restriction, by Strength of Conservation (p.13) The extensive and collaborative ranking process used to reconcile situations of overlapping designations, resulted in designations being grouped in cases where their relative â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;strength of conservationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; was considered to be on equal footing, with regards to the degree of, and focus on conservation, permanency, legal governance, etc. (See Appendix 3 for Designations Summary Table with rationale for the relative ranking and management classification). This inspired development of a third map colour-coded to convey at a glance, the spectrum of relative conservation potential afforded by the designations, ranging from concentrated efforts by the Province to prioritize conservation management, to those providing the lowest conservation potential. This map largely informed our spatial analysis of gaps in existing conservation across the British Columbia landscape, and was the platform for calculating percentages of the land base falling under broad management groupings.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

Gaps to be Filled: Map Reading Examples Taken together, the maps reflect many of the conservation gaps detailed in Biodiversity BC’s 2008 report, Taking Nature’s Pulse, as well as the British Columbia Auditor General’s 2010 report featured in Section 1. Example 1: By overlaying a map of British Columbia’s existing Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) Zones,19 the scarcity of legally-designated protection for the rarest existing BEC Zone, the Coastal Douglas-fir (CDF) forest ecosystem, is easily seen. The CDF zone, located along the southeast coast of Vancouver Island and parts of the Southern Gulf Islands and British Columbia’s south coast, has the highest density of species of concern while also the highest level of ecosystem conversion to urban areas, roads, and other land uses. Example 2: The large area of south-central Interior British Columbia along the border of the US has scant protection for the great number of species and communities of conservation concern that presently inhabit the low-elevation and fragmented areas of the Bunchgrass, Ponderosa Pine, and Interior Douglas-fir BEC Zones. Example 3: Other visible gaps in formal protected areas are in the central interior and the northeast areas of the province, the latter of which is home to woodland caribou herds that are at risk of extirpation due to habitat fragmentation. Example 4: Most obvious, is the absence of provincial-wide, legallydesignated, natural linkages (connectivity). A network of connected protection and conservation-focused areas enables species to shift about the land base in search of more suitable climatic conditions, and will be required in the coming decades of continued climate change, according to climate and species experts.20

Aerial of oil and gas fragmented landscape

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Establish a province-wide conservation network that connects legally-designated protected areas and conservation lands. Example: Use the baseline mapping of existing conservation areas to create a province-wide, connected system (network) of parks, large protected areas, conservation areas, and areas with limited resource activities that together approach the 50% robust conservation targets being called for by leading forest ecologist, Dr. Jim Pojar, and conservation biologist, Dr. Reed Noss. Conservation should include consideration of under-represented BEC Zones. In the 2010 report, A New Climate for Conservation: Nature, carbon and climate change in British Columbia, Dr. Jim Pojar identifies the existing large protected area complexes in British Columbia that could be expanded upon and connected on an additional 35% of the land base, which may include some resource and/ or recreation activities as long as they can demonstrate compatibility with the long-term objectives of conserving biodiversity and stewarding the ecosystem services (e.g., adequate quantity and quality of freshwater supply, ‘living’ carbon removal and storage) that resilient forests and ecosystems provide.21

2. Augment land use plans at all scales (provincial, regional, local), using the best available climate-conservation science and cumulative impacts assessment. This includes determining the opportunities and

locations for additional conservation and connectivity, and adjusting how we manage the land base for conservation outside of protected areas and conservation lands. Example 1: At the regional scale, in the recent development of a land use plan for the Atlin Taku area (northwest BC), the size and location of new protected areas were influenced in small part by the consideration of future climate change impacts to this region and related planning principles, such as larger size and connectivity.22 In addition, protected area planning gave some consideration to mapped projections of where alpine vegetation would still exist by 2050, and did an analysis of non-living, physical, “enduring features” thought to endure climate change, e.g., elevation, aspect, bedrock type, slope, etc., highlighting areas with concentrations of diversity and rarity. Example 2: Also at the regional scale, the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (in British Columbia’s northern Rocky Mountains) recently underwent a Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change Assessment to update its management practices due to increasing pressure from development and climate change, and similar aspects as those used for the Atlin-Taku example above, were considered in the recommendations.23 Example 3: A mapping project commissioned by the Tides Canada Foundation and Wilburforce Foundation is looking at province-wide opportunities for conservation efforts on the British Columbia landscape in the context of climate change. That project will be using different combinations of variables representing biological significance, current and future risk to biodiversity adaptation by human activities, future risk by impacts of climate change, and future resilience for those natural and carbon-rich ecosystems thought more likely to persist in a changing climate. 17

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

3. Update our laws and policies to: better safeguard our natural life support systems from the cumulative impacts of human activities and climate change; protect biodiversity; manage for resilient ecosystems and communities; and unlock the potential contributions of nature to a clean, green economy in BC. Use the

best available science, cumulative impacts and designations analyses to inform revision of the legal land use designations so they meet and protect the present and future conservation values for a given area. Revise economic policy and tools to incent improving land management and help to finance additional conservation. Example 1: West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) has concurrently reviewed the legal requirements associated with the land use designations shown on Maps 1-3, identified related policy and legislative impediments to successful conservation land management in the province , and recommended potential law reform solutions.

Filling the

conservation gaps benefits our life support systems and

our economy.

Example 2: Ecosystem Based Management being applied in the Great Bear Rainforest (7% of the province). The land use designations range from full protection to gradations of resource use limitations, based on best available science and incorporated into legal rules limiting industrial activity. The conservation threshold of maintaining 70% of the Range of Natural Variation across the region was determined by a collaborative science team. These thresholds are paired with economic and social policies to create conservation incentives (e.g., Reconciliation Protocol and carbon credits revenuesharing agreement between the Province and Coastal First Nations) and to achieve Human Well-Being, within a conservation framework. Implementation of this new land use system is currently in process.

CONCLUSION A cross-referencing of the maps with the expert and government reports and analysis, demonstrate that the existing conservation and resourcerestricted lands fail to protect biological diversity and ecological integrity at the provincial scale. Filling the conservation gaps benefits our life support systems and our economy. BC has a global responsibility to be a refuge for wildlife and wild places in a rapidly changing world. We have an opportunity to further the green economy in British Columbia by building our natural capital. Through increasing resilience in our natural landscapes, we can accomplish both, while softening the impacts from climate change. Working together to fill the conservation gaps, to embrace opportunities, to take conservation action in BC to the next level, is imperative. The baseline maps of existing conservation that ForestEthics Solutions has produced can be utilized, along with innovative regional and province-wide climate mapping and policy gap analysis, as land use planning tools to build a solid foundation for resilience: a robust and connected climate and species conservation network across the entire province of British Columbia.

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

Endnotes 1

BC Future Forest Ecosystem Scientific Council. (2012, November). Informing adaptation of British Columbia's forest and range management framework to anticipated effects of climate change: A synthesis of research and policy recommendations (S. Haeussler & E. H. Hamilton, Authors). Available at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/future_forests/council/, Summary of FFESC Research Program – Research Synthesis. 2 Ibid, p. 36. 3 Austin, M. A., Buffett, D. A., Nicolson, D. J., Scudder, G. G., & Stevens, V. (Eds.). (2008). Taking nature's pulse: the status of biodiversity in British Columbia. Victoria, Canada: Biodiversity BC. Available at: http://www.biodiversitybc.org/assets/pressReleases/BBC_StatusReport_Web_final.pdf 4 Ibid, p. 10. 5 B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2013. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Minist. of Environ. Victoria, B.C. Available at: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ (accessed Jan 22, 2013). 6 The BCCDC value of approximately 1900 elements ‘at risk’ does not include many taxonomic groups native to BC, which have not yet been assessed or for which information is lacking, and is thus almost certainly an underestimate (Pers. Comm., Susan Pinkus, Staff Scientist at Ecojustice.) 7 Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia. (2010, August). Conservation of ecological integrity in B.C. parks and protected areas (Technical Report No. 3). Victoria, Canada: British Columbia. Available at: http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report3/conservation-‐ecological-‐integrity-‐bc-‐ parks-‐protected 8 Laliberte, A. S., & Ripple, W. J. (2004). Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. BioScience, 54(2), 123-‐138. Available at: http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/bioscience_rangecontraction_highres.pdf 9 Pojar, J. (2010, January). A new climate for conservation: Nature, carbon and climate change in British Columbia (B. Penn, Ed.). Available at: http://www.forestethics.org/news/new-‐climate-‐conservation 10 According to Noss et al., 25-‐75% (50% median target would buffer against uncertainty) of a typical region should have conservation of nature as a primary objective to meet goals for conserving biodiversity: Noss, R. F., Dobson, A. P., Baldwin, R., Beier, P., Davis, C. R., Dellasala, D. A., . . . Tabor, G. (2012). Bolder thinking for conservation [Editorial]. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 1-‐4. doi:10.1111/j.1523-‐1739.2011.01738.x. Available at: http://natureneedshalf.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2012/02/Noss-‐et-‐al-‐2012-‐CB-‐editorial-‐Bolder-‐Thinking-‐for-‐ Conservation.pdf 11 See (Pojar, 2010. p. 15) for description of how climate change will impact biodiversity in British Columbia. See also, The World Bank report for a description of climate impacts globally if the average surface temperature increases by four degrees Celsius: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics. (2012, 0 November). Turn down the heat: Why a 4 C warmer world must be avoided. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available at:

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_war mer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf 12 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (2011). Climate Prosperity: Vol. 4. Paying the price: The economic impacts of climate change for Canada. Ottawa, Canada: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Available at: http://nrtee-‐trnee.ca/wp-‐ content/uploads/2011/09/paying-‐the-‐price.pdf 13 This will require a supportive legal and policy framework for planning to secure this outcome. 14 See the IUCN Protected Areas Categories System website, available at: http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/ 15 The designations we included here, generally correspond with assigned IUCN categories I-‐IV : land area covered by protected areas designated explicitly for biodiversity conservation. 16 Ministry of Environment (MOE) calculates total area of British Columbia dedicated to Parks and Protected Areas at 15.1% (~ 14.3 million h) and ForestEthics Solutions/West Coast Environmental Law total at 14.4 % using the same designations. The FES/WCEL area total is slightly less because MOE counts Chilkoot National Historic Trail, announced (but not yet legally designated) Protected Areas, and the “older” parks and ecological reserves (under legislation/OICs) that predated GIS shapefiles. 17 Clogg, J., & Carlson, D. (2013). Land Use Planning for Nature, Climate and Communities: Taking stock and moving forward. Vancouver, Canada: West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. Available at: www.wcel.org 18 See Geographical Data Discovery Service website, available at: http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/home.do 19 See website for British Columbia’s Biogeoclimatic Zones, part of the Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification system, available at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/biogeo/biogeo.htm 20 See (Austin et al., 2008, p. 92) for a detailed description of the importance of connectivity for biodiversity conservation. 21 Pojar, 2010, p. 71. 22 See Atlin Taku Land Use Plan, available at: http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/sites/default/files/resources/public/PDF/SRMP/ATLIN-‐TAKU-‐LUP.pdf 23 See link to the assessment, available at: http://y2y.net/our-‐work/files-‐our-‐ work/MKMAConservationAssessment2pagesummary_wf3.pdf

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

Appendix 1

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

2.0 Conservancy Schedule E

2.0 National Wildlife Area

Greater Vancouver Water 2.0 District

2.0 National Park Reserve

2.0 National Park

1,927,634

5,219

59,321

183,676

429,399

111,307

Total Area (h)

Note: Total BC Land Base = 94,759,990 h

1,927,634

5,219

59,321

183,676

429,399

111,307

Reconciled Area (h)

2.08%

0.01%

0.06%

0.20%

0.46%

Percent of Land Base 0.12%

2.08%

0.01%

0.06%

0.20%

0.46%

Percent of Land Base Reconciled 0.12%

https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54259&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=33892&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 3 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=33892&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 4 Email inquiry to: NRSApplications@gov.bc.ca 5 http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=2336 6 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54219&amp;recordSet=ISO19115

Designation

1.0 Ecological Reserve

Strength of Conservation Ranking (FES/WCEL) TANTALIS -‐ Parks, Ecological Reserves, 1 and Protected Areas National Parks -‐ National Framework Canada Lands Administrative 2 Boundaries Level 1 II – IUCN (MOE) National Parks -‐ National Framework Canada Lands Administrative 3 Boundaries Level 1 4 Protected – GeoBC other (MFLNRO) Ia – IUCN Commission for (MOE), V – Environmental IUCN (MOE) Cooperation (CEC) Terrestrial Protected 5 Areas 2010 Ib – IUCN TANTALIS -‐ 6 (MOE), II – Conservancy Areas IUCN (MOE)

Ia – IUCN (MOE), Ib – IUCN (MOE) II – IUCN (MOE)

IUCN Data Source Classification(s)

Appendix 1: Designations Table of Area calculations and data source

2012

2010

2012

2008

2013

Year

Appendix 1

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

720

10,195,602

720

10,194,218

94,860

0.00%

11.02%

0.10%

0.00%

11.02%

0.10%

Ia – IUCN (MOE), Ib – IUCN (MOE), II – IUCN (MOE), III – IUCN (MOE) II – IUCN (MOE), VI –

IV derivative – IUCN (FES/WCEL)

TANTALIS -‐ Parks, Ecological Reserves,

2013

BC Conservation Land 2010 Forum 2010. Analysis of Conservation Lands in BC from the LTABC BC Lands in Trust Registry and BC Conservation NGO 7 Lands Database. Contact for Data Access: The Nature Trust of British Columbia (North Vancouver Office, 604-‐924-‐9771, info@naturetrust.bc.c a) or Ducks Unlimited Canada (Surrey Office, 604-‐592-‐0987, dusurrey@ducks.ca) on behalf of the Working Group for the BC Conservation NGO Lands Database. 2013 TANTALIS -‐ Parks, Ecological Reserves, 8 and Protected Areas

Contact for Data Access: The Nature Trust of British Columbia (North Vancouver Office, 604-‐924-‐9771, info@naturetrust.bc.ca) or Ducks Unlimited Canada (Surrey Office, 604-‐592-‐0987, dusurrey@ducks.ca) on behalf of the Working Group for the BC Conservation NGO Lands Database. 8 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54259&amp;recordSet=ISO19115

2.0 Provincial Park C

2.0 Provincial Park A

2.0 Fee Simple Conservation Lands

94,860

Appendix 1

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

5,943

31,116

353

242,526

10,835

825,534

5,942

30,961

240

241,744

10,834

396,656

73,690

0.01%

0.03%

0.00%

0.26%

0.01%

0.89%

0.08%

0.01%

0.03%

0.00%

0.26%

0.01%

0.43%

0.08%

https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54259&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54219&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 11 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54259&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 12 Email inquiry to: NRSApplications@gov.bc.ca 13 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54319&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 14 http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=2336 15 Contact Ducks Unlimited Canada (Surrey Office, 604-‐592-‐0987), dusurrey@ducks.ca

4.5 Recreation Area

4.5 Regional Park

4.0 Migratory Bird Sanctuary

4.0 Wildlife Management Area

3.0 CRD Sooke hills Water Supply

3.0 Protected Area ELUA

2.5 Conservancy Schedule F

76,487

Ib – IUCN (MOE), II – IUCN (MOE) Ib – IUCN (MOE), II – IUCN (MOE), III – IUCN (MOE), VI – IUCN (MOE) Protected – other (MFLNRO) IV – IUCN (MOE) Ia – IUCN (MOE), Ia – IUCN (FES/WCEL) IV derivative – IUCN (FES/WCEL) Ib – IUCN (MOE), II –

IUCN (MOE)

TANTALIS -‐ Parks, Ecological Reserves,

TANTALIS -‐ Wildlife 13 Management Areas Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Terrestrial Protected 14 Areas 2010 15 Hectares BC

GeoBC

TANTALIS -‐ Parks, Ecological Reserves, 11 and Protected Areas

TANTALIS -‐ 10 Conservancy Areas

and Protected Areas

2013

2008

2010

2012

2011

2013

2012

Appendix 1

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

146,860

139,344

923,449

30,322

121,815

550,448

146,734

92,610

922,836

23,196

70,425

542,671

3,526

0.16%

0.15%

1.00%

0.03%

0.13%

0.59%

0.00%

0.16%

0.10%

1.00%

0.03%

0.08%

0.59%

0.00%

https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54259&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54259&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 18 http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Titles/OGTitles/InfoLetters/IssueDate/Pages/TACRD-‐10-‐10.aspx 19 Layer Name: WHSE_LAND_USE_PLANNING.RKPM_KARST_POTENTIAL_AREA_SP 20 http://www.muskwa-‐kechika.com/management-‐area/resourcemanagement.asp 21 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=4021&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 22 http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_11020_01

6.0 Flathead Watershed Area

6.0 VQA Preserve

6.0 Special Wildland RMZ

6.0 Karst

5.5 Conservation Study Area

5.0 Resource Review Area

4.5 Provincial Parks B

3,533

High Forestry Restriction (FES/WCEL) High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) Multiple Resource

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

II – IUCN (MOE)

II – IUCN (MOE), VI – IUCN (MOE) Protected – other (FES/WCEL)

IUCN (MOE)

2008

1997

2012

2013

Province of British 22 Columbia

2011

Recreational Visual 2012 21 Landscape Inventory

TANTALIS -‐ Parks, Ecological Reserves, 17 and Protected Areas Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas and Responsible 18 for Housing BC Parks Planning and Land Management Section, Ministry of Environment Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch, BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural 19 Resource Operations Muskwa-‐Kechika 20 Management Area

and Protected Areas

Appendix 1

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

604,074

549,985

3,077,640

9,302,636

651,478

1,461,743

244,299

345,809

444,716

2,463,891

5,683,985

507,775

1,434,496

155,422

300,054

0.65%

0.59%

3.33%

10.05%

0.70%

1.58%

0.26%

0.32%

0.37%

0.48%

2.66%

6.14%

0.55%

1.55%

0.17%

0.32%

http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/biodiversity.html http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/biodiversity.html 25 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=51680&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 26 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=36173&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 27 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=34051&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 28 http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=59199&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 29 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=51178&amp;recordSet=ISO19115

8.0 Use Recreation Enjoyment

7.5 Forest Rec Sites

7.0 Wildlife Habitat Area

6.0 Mineral Reserve Sites

6.0 UWR High Logging Restriction

6.0 Old Growth Management Area

6.0 Class1 Coast Grizzly Bear Habitat

Biodiversity Mining Tourism 6.0 Coast LUP

300,469

Restriction – mining, oil & gas (FES/WCEL) High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) High Forestry Restriction (FES/WCEL) Single Resource Restriction – mining (FES/WCEL) High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) High Forestry GeoBC, Ministry of

Recreation Poly

Wildlife Habitat Areas 28 -‐ Proposed

MTA -‐ Mineral 27 Reserve Sites

Old Growth Management Areas -‐ 25 Legal -‐ Current Ungulate Winter 26 Range

ILMB

2008

2012

2010

Appendix 1

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

516,763

1,039,445

99,662

3,262,944

8,115,278

1,390,784

72,440

608,723

61,787

3,068,477

5,957,975

995,955

0.56%

1.12%

0.11%

3.53%

8.77%

1.50%

0.08%

0.66%

0.07%

3.32%

6.44%

1.08%

https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=54099&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=4021&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 32 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=36173&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 33 http://www.muskwa-‐kechika.com/management-‐area/resourcemanagement.asp 34 http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/biodiversity.html 35 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=51678&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 36 http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/fsw/approved.html

9.0 Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds

Old Growth Management Area 9.0 NLC

9.0 Class2 Coast Grizzly Bear Habitat

9.0 Special Management RMZ

8.0 UWR Modified Logging

8.0 VQA Retention

Public

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) Medium Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) VI -‐ IUCN (FES/WCEL) Medium Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) Medium Forestry Restriction (FES/WCEL) Low Forestry Restriction (FES/WCEL)

Restriction (MFLNRO)

Knowledge Management Branch, 36 MOE

Old Growth Management Areas -‐ 35 Non Legal -‐ Current

Muskwa-‐Kechika 33 Management Area 34 ILMB

Ungulate Winter 32 Range

2007 order in effect

2012

2010

2008

2012

Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. TANTALIS -‐ Crown 30 Tenures Recreational Visual 2012 31 Landscape Inventory

Appendix 1

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

6,440,400

5,911,918

3,380,076

3,719,886

821,338

6.96%

6.39%

1.53%

3.65%

4.02%

0.89%

Low Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) Medium Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) Low Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) 39

ILMB

2010

Community 2012 Watersheds -‐ 37 Current 2012 Recreational Visual 38 Landscape Inventory

https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=56579&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=4021&amp;recordSet=ISO19115 39 http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/central_north_coast/biodiversity.html

10.0 EBM Areas Blue = areas in BC’s parks and protected areas system that BC Parks administers (as listed in the Table on their website). Total area = 12,713,693 h and 13.74 % of BC’s land base (overlap managed to favour designation of highest conservation standing, as per FES/WCEL); 13,146,760 h & 14.2 % if overlap not managed. Pink = nationally-‐designated areas that the Province considers to be a part of the BC land base that is dedicated to protected areas. Total area = 613,075 h and 0.66 % of BC’s land base. Note: we did not include Chilkoot National Historic Trail, which MOE did include in this category. Blue + Pink areas = the total area of the BC land base legally dedicated to protected areas (this includes federal + provincial designations; Total area = 13,326,768 h and 14.4 % of BC’s land base (overlap managed to favour designation of highest conservation standing, as per FES/WCEL). MOE calculates total at 15.1%; 13,759,835 h & 14.86 % if overlap not managed. Notes: Unlike MOE totals, these totals do not include publicly-‐announced protected areas that have not yet been legally established. Additionally, these totals may not include some of the older legislated/OIC parks and ecological reserves that were not determined by GIS, but the difference should not be too significant due to the overall size of the protected areas system.

10.0 VQA Partial Retention

9.0 Community Watersheds

1,413,584

Appendix 2

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

Total Area (hectares)

3,736,934 73,690 404,798 242,002 93,687 542,676 70,425 8,155,239 2,463,963 444,741 7,299,501 4,632,809 7,099,665

2.0 Total 3,739,703

2.5 Total 76,487

3.0 Total 432,119

4.0 Total 242,879

4.5 Total 93,854

5.0 Total 550,448

5.5 Total 121,815

6.0 Total 13,200,600

7.0 Total 3,077,640

7.5 Total 549,985

8.0 Total 10,110,136

9.0 Total 6,332,397

10.0 Total 12,352,318 Grand Total 50,992,229

Reconciled Area (hectares) 111,847

Note: Total BC Land Base = 94,759,990 h

1.0 Total 111,847

Rank

13.35%

6.84%

10.93%

0.59%

3.33%

14.27%

0.13%

0.59%

0.04%

0.26%

0.90%

0.08%

13.94%

0.12%

7.67%

5.01%

7.89%

0.48%

2.66%

10.02%

0.08%

0.59%

0.04%

0.26%

0.44%

0.08%

13.94%

0.12%

Percent of Land Base Percent of Land Base Reconciled

35,371,977 65.39% 49.28% green = areas with PPAs and other conservation designations for which FES/WCEL have classified as having potential to offer stronger conservation value, based on their descriptions, e.g., long timeframe, legal entrenchment, etc. Total area = 5,276,059 h and 15.55 % (overlap managed to favour designation of the highest conservation standing, as per FES/WCEL); 5,369,152 h and 16.06 % if overlap not managed. Yellow = areas with designations for which FES/WCEL have classified as having potential to offer moderate conservation value, based on their descriptions. Total area – 11,063,943 h and 13.16 % (overlap managed to favour designation of the highest conservation standing, as per FES/WCEL); 16,828,225 h and 18.16 % if overlap not managed.

APPENDIX 2: AREA TABLE -‐ GROUPED DESIGNATIONS BY RELATIVE STRENGTH OF CONSERVATION (MAP 3)

APPENDIX 3: DESIGNATIONS SUMMARY TABLE -‐ Ranking, Classification by Management Objective, and Rationale DESIGNATIONS: Conservation and Resource Restriction Map 1

CLASSIFICATION BY ‘STRENGTH OF RATIONALE & NOTES CONSERVATION’ MANAGEMENT RANKING OBJECTIVE Map 2 (FES/WCEL) 1 IUCN category or level of Resource Restriction (as suggested by whom)

Map 3

(value represents order, not criteria-‐ based weighting; 1 is highest)

Ecological Reserve

Ia – IUCN (MOE) Ib – IUCN (MOE)

National Park

II – IUCN (MOE)

National Park Reserve

II – IUCN (MOE)

Protected – other Greater Vancouver Water (MFLNRO) District

National Wildlife Area

Ia – IUCN (MOE) V – IUCN (MOE)

Conservancy – Schedule E

Ib – IUCN (MOE) II – IUCN (MOE)

Fee Simple Conservation Lands

IV derivative -‐ IUCN (FES/WCEL)

Appendix 3

-‐ Protected by provincial Cabinet order under BC’s Ecological Reserve Act and by legislation though the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act -‐ Established to preserve representative and special natural ecosystems, plant and animal species, features and phenomenon. -‐ All extractive land and resource uses prohibited; scientific research and educational functions are the primary uses, and most are open to the public for observational uses only. -‐ Protected by legislation through the Canada National Parks Act -‐ Country-‐wide system of representative natural areas of Canadian significance -‐ By law, management priority is given to the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes. -‐ Area set aside as a national park pending settlement of outstanding aboriginal ‘land claims’. -‐ During this interim period, the National Parks Act applies; traditional hunting, fishing and trapping activities by Aboriginal peoples continue; may include local Aboriginal people's involvement in park reserve management. -‐ No logging since 2002. Reserved from mineral claims. Watersheds gated with supervised access; recreation not generally allowed. Very strong public/policy protection. -‐ Federal lands protected under Canada Wildlife Act regulations, -‐ Created and managed for the purposes of wildlife conservation, research, and interpretation -‐ Most activities in National Wildlife Areas require a ministerial permit and must not interfere with wildlife conservation.

-‐ Protected by legislation through the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act or by Cabinet order under the Park Act -‐ No commercial logging, mining, or hydroelectric power generation, except local run of river projects. -‐ Lands owned by entities with a legal mandate to conserve private land of ecological significance; the properties are secured and managed for the conservation values. -‐ Habitats of high biodiversity value and at greatest risk of being lost -‐ Activities must not degrade ecological values. Permitted activities include: research, and based on historical use, hunting and light recreation; Mineral Tenure Act continues to allow mining activities, unless

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

DESIGNATIONS: Conservation and Resource Restriction Map 1

Provincial Park A

CLASSIFICATION BY ‘STRENGTH OF RATIONALE & NOTES CONSERVATION’ MANAGEMENT RANKING OBJECTIVE Map 2 (FES/WCEL) 1 IUCN category or level of Resource Restriction (as suggested by whom)

(value represents order, not criteria-‐ based weighting; 1 is highest)

Ia – IUCN (MOE) Ib – IUCN (MOE) II – IUCN (MOE) III – IUCN (MOE)

Provincial Park C II – IUCN (MOE) VI – IUCN (MOE) Conservancy – Ib – IUCN (MOE) Schedule F II – IUCN (MOE)

2 2.5

Protected Area -‐ ELUA

Ib – IUCN (MOE) II – IUCN (MOE) III – IUCN (MOE) VI – IUCN (MOE)

Capital Region Water Supply and Sooke Hills Protection Act

Protected – other (MFLNRO)

Wildlife Management Area

IV – IUCN (MOE)

Migratory Bird Sanctuary

Ia – IUCN (MOE) Ia – IUCN (FES/WCEL) for the

following Migratory Bird Sanctuaries currently “unclassified” by MOE: Christie Islet, Esquimalt Lagoon, and Nechako River.

Map 3

Appendix 3

lands are reserved under that act or mineral rights are held by owner. [Note: because of the difficulty in assessing the precise nature of the legal restrictions involved, this category does not include other forms of fee simple conservation lands, e.g., those secured through “conservation covenants”]. -‐ Protected by legislation under the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, or by Cabinet order under the Park Act. -‐ Dedicated to the preservation of their natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public; management priority varies by category of park -‐ No natural resource use without park use permit, which must not be granted unless it is necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park; effectively restricts resource extraction. -‐ Same management and protection as Class A Parks, but managed by ministerial-‐appointed local board -‐ Protected by legislation through the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, or by Cabinet order under the Park Act. -‐ No commercial logging, mining, or hydroelectric power generation, except local run of river projects. -‐ Roads permitted with park use permit for the purpose of providing access to natural resources lying beyond the conservancy (as opposed to Schedule E Conservancies). -‐ Protected by Cabinet order under BC’s Environment and Land Use Act -‐ Nature of protection depends on terms of the Cabinet order; only areas subject to orders prohibiting commercial resource activity included here -‐ Some grandfathered activities may be permitted, e.g., hunting, trapping, and grazing. -‐ Owned by CRD. No logging and reserved from mining activity. Water supply area closed, except to water sampling, road maintenance and reservoir management. Note: Leech Watershed excluded from dataset (active mining claims). -‐ Established by regulation under BC’s Wildlife Act -‐ Designated for the benefit of regionally to internationally significant fish and wildlife species or their habitats -‐ Written permission of the regional manager is required before using land or resources; resource extraction like forestry or mining may be allowed -‐ Established by regulation under Canada’s Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 -‐ Activities harmful to migratory birds or the eggs, nests or habitat of migratory birds prohibited except with permit

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

DESIGNATIONS: Conservation and Resource Restriction Map 1

CLASSIFICATION BY ‘STRENGTH OF RATIONALE & NOTES CONSERVATION’ MANAGEMENT RANKING OBJECTIVE Map 2 (FES/WCEL) 1 IUCN category or level of Resource Restriction (as suggested by whom)

(value represents order, not criteria-‐ based weighting; 1 is highest)

Regional Park

IV derivative – IUCN (FES/WCEL)

4.5

Recreation Area

Ib – IUCN (MOE) II – IUCN (MOE)

4.5

Provincial Park B

II – IUCN (MOE) VI – IUCN (MOE)

4.5

Resource Review Protected – other Areas (RRA) (FES/WCEL)

Conservation Study Area (CSA)

II – IUCN (MOE)

Karst Areas

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

Special Wildland RMZ in Muskwa-‐ Kechika Management Area VQA – Preserve

High Forestry Restriction (FES/WCEL)

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

Multiple resource Flathead restriction – Watershed Conservation Act mining, oil & gas (FES/WCEL)

Map 3

Appendix 3

5.5

-‐ Lands owned by municipality or regional district -‐ No mining or drilling -‐ Allowable uses governed by local by-‐laws, which must be consistent with purpose of park dedication; public access generally promoted -‐ Established by Cabinet order under Park Act -‐ Resource use in Recreation Areas requires ministerial approval; resource extraction, like logging or mining, may be allowed. -‐ Established by Cabinet order under Park Act -‐ A park use permit must not be issued respecting an interest in land or natural resources “unless, in the opinion of the minister, to do so is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park concerned.” May permit a broader range of activities and uses than a Class A Park. -‐ Established by a series of Ministerial orders under the Government Actions Regulation (Forest and Range Practices Act-‐ FRPA) and the Environmental Protection and Management Regulation (Oil and Gas Activities Act) -‐ No oil & gas tenures or logging for minimum 5-‐yr period in this identified boreal caribou habitat -‐ Road access permitted to access external, adjacent oil & gas tenures -‐ Part of a larger area originally held under Environment and Land Use designation while First Nation issues were addressed; most of the site around this CSA has now been designated a Conservancy -‐ There are existing mineral tenure issues in the Hakai CSA which is included in this category -‐ Established by Ministerial order under Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) as a resource feature -‐ Allows sustainable forest practices while protecting the integrity of karst systems and individual karst features; recreation where appropriate. -‐ No specific laws/policies to restrict oil & gas development; with respect to mining, would be reviewed on a case-‐by-‐case basis with input from MOE and other agencies, and might be part of permit condition. -‐ Given legal effect through the Muskwa-‐Kechika Management Area Act -‐ Emphasis on conservation, wilderness, and recreation -‐ Single resource restriction (logging); roaded access for mineral exploration is to be temporary and subject to impacts assessment and public review. -‐ Visual quality objectives established for scenic areas by Ministerial order under Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) -‐ Logging openings very small in scale and not easily distinguishable from the pre-‐harvest landscape -‐ Established by legislation through Flathead Conservation Act -‐ Mining, oil and gas development restricted -‐ Logging, trophy hunting, new road access, and quarrying are permitted activities. -‐ Note: Dominion Coal Block area removed as is federally-‐owned land without legal restriction on coal

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

DESIGNATIONS: Conservation and Resource Restriction Map 1

BMTA (Biodiversity, Mining & Tourism Areas in the Coast LUP) Grizzly Bear Habitat – Class 1 (Coast LUP) OGMA – legal current UWR – high logging restriction

CLASSIFICATION BY ‘STRENGTH OF RATIONALE & NOTES CONSERVATION’ MANAGEMENT RANKING OBJECTIVE Map 2 (FES/WCEL) 1 IUCN category or level of Resource Restriction (as suggested by whom)

Map 3

(value represents order, not criteria-‐ based weighting; 1 is highest)

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) High Forestry Restriction (FES/WCEL)

-‐ Established by Ministerial order pursuant to Land Act, or under former Forest Practices Code -‐ Generally no logging

-‐ Ungulate Winter Ranges are established by Ministerial order pursuant to the Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) -‐ Areas mostly on the coast, as need to maintain old-‐ growth cover and corridors. [Note: we included all UWR data for areas where “no logging” is permitted.] -‐ Established by Ministerial order under Mineral Tenure Act or the Coal Act. -‐ Includes “no registration” reserves for mineral, placer and coal claims.

Mineral Reserve Single resource Sites – Type MPC restriction – mining (ECOL, ENVI, INRE, (FES/WCEL)

Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA)

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

Recreation Sites (formerly, “Forest Recreation Sites”) UREP

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

7.5

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

VQA – Retention

High Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

UWR – Modified logging

Medium Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

NAT, PROT, WLDL, WLDN, FNAT, FNTL, FNCS, FNTA, FNSG, IRA, PADD, PARK)

Appendix 3

mining. -‐ Established by Cabinet order pursuant to the Environment and Land Use Act -‐ Commercial timber harvesting and commercial hydro-‐ electric power projects are prohibited -‐ Located adjacent to existing Conservancies and other types of Protected Areas -‐ Land use objectives established by Ministerial order pursuant to Land Act -‐Single resource restriction (logging)

-‐ Wildlife Habitat Areas are established by Ministerial order pursuant to the Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) -‐ Minimize the effects of forest and range practices on Identified Wildlife situated on Crown land and to maintain their limiting habitats throughout their current ranges and, where appropriate, their historic ranges. In some cases, this will entail restoration of previously occupied habitats, particularly for those species most at risk. -‐ Designate critical habitats in which activities are managed to limit their impact on the Identified Wildlife element for which the area was established. -‐ May be established by Ministerial order pursuant to the Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) as resource features -‐ Not part of the timber harvesting land base

-‐ Imposed under Section 11 of the Land Act to protect recreation values (including recreation corridors and foreshores) -‐ Mining and forestry permitted -‐ Visual quality objectives established by Ministerial order under Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) -‐ Logging openings are small in scale, difficult to see, and natural in appearance -‐ Ungulate Winter Ranges are established by Ministerial order -‐ Mostly in interior & north, to maintain enough canopy cover and corridors. [Note: We included all UWR data

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

DESIGNATIONS: Conservation and Resource Restriction Map 1

CLASSIFICATION BY ‘STRENGTH OF RATIONALE & NOTES CONSERVATION’ MANAGEMENT RANKING OBJECTIVE Map 2 (FES/WCEL) 1 IUCN category or level of Resource Restriction (as suggested by whom)

Map 3

(value represents order, not criteria-‐ based weighting; 1 is highest)

Special RMZ in the Muskwa-‐ Kechika Management Area

VI – IUCN (FES/WCEL)

Grizzly Bear Habitat – Class 2 (Coast LUP) OGMA – non-‐ legal current

Medium Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO) Medium Forestry Restriction (FES/WCEL)

Fisheries Sensitive Watersheds

Low Forestry Restriction (FES/WCEL)

Community Watersheds

Low Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

VQO – Partial Retention

Medium Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

EBM Areas (Coast LUP incl. unprotected areas on Haida Gwaii)

Low Forestry Restriction (MFLNRO)

where logging is permitted.] -‐ Given legal effect through the Muskwa-‐Kechika Management Area Act -‐ Commercial and industrial activities managed to maintain ‘special’ values/features -‐ Emphasis on identified non-‐extractive values with respect to wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish and fish habitat, heritage and culture, scenic areas and recreation. -‐ Land use objectives established by Ministerial order pursuant to Land Act -‐ 50% habitat must be maintained -‐ No legal order spatially establishing OGMA, but non-‐ spatial old growth order applies -‐ Therefore, forest licensees required to prepare a forest stewardship plan (FSP) may choose to incorporate these areas in their FSP as a way of achieving the non-‐spatial order that is in effect in the management area where they operate. -‐ Established by Ministerial order pursuant to the Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) -‐ Area of land in a watershed with significant downstream fisheries values and significant watershed sensitivity -‐ Ministerial order sets out management direction to conserve important watershed-‐level attributes protecting fisheries values. -‐ Established by Ministerial order pursuant to the Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) -‐ ‘Lighter-‐touch’ commercial logging is permitted -‐ Recreation occurs -‐ Visual quality objectives established by Ministerial order under Government Actions Regulation (FRPA) -‐ Logging openings are easy to see, small to medium in scale, and natural in shape -‐ These are areas outside of Protected Areas and BMTAs -‐ According to MFLNRO staff, there are some constraints on logging, generally considered to be ‘lighter touch’ logging (pers. comm., 2011)

NOTES: Designations and data that were not included in this mapping project: We made a decision not to include proposed and/or announced parks, protected areas, and resource management zones that were not legally designated at the time of map development (2012) with the exception of non-‐legal OGMAs and EBM Areas, and did not include legal resource management zones that permit more intensive resource development. The regional parks data is incomplete as it was beyond the resources of this project to contact each of the approximately regional districts in the province (~ 28) to see if they would be willing to share their parks data. With respect to conservation on the 5% of BC’s land base that is privately owned, we included only fee simple conservation lands owned by entities with a legal mandate to conserve private lands, because some of the private land conservation arrangements, e .g., covenants (which we were told could cover more than 12,000 hectares) and Ducks Unlimited Stewardship Agreements (which we were told could cover more than 142,000 hectares for wetland creation, protection, and maintenance), are owned by private landowners who do not have to release their data. 5

Appendix 3

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

IUCN Management Categories Ia: Strict Nature Reserve Strict Nature Reserves are protected from all but light human use in order to preserve all geological and geomorphical features of the region and their biodiversity, which is often dense and restricted to exclusively to scientific monitoring, study or education. Being such preserved environments, Strict Nature Reserves can be used as an indicator of external human influence, which can be increasingly difficult to guard against as climate and air pollution are potentially able to penetrate protected area boundaries. Occasionally Strict Nature Reserves are of spiritual significance to surrounding communities in which case the people are generally allowed to continue the practice of their faith and may be directly involved in the area's conservation and management objectives, though perpetual human intervention would more suitably be allocated to categories IV or V. Ib: Wilderness Area Generally larger than Strict Nature Reserves, the main objectives of these areas is to provide an environment in which biodiversity and ecosystem processes (including evolution) are allowed to flourish or experience restoration if previously disturbed by human activity. Human use is limited, often allowing only those who are willing to travel of their own accord rather than via established touristic activities. Wilderness areas can be classified as such only if they are devoid of modern infrastructure, although they allow human activity to the level of sustaining indigenous groups living wilderness-‐based lifestyles. II: National Park Similar to the objectives of Wilderness Areas, National Parks provide protection for functioning ecosystems, but tend to be more lenient with human visitation and the supporting infrastructure. National Parks are managed in a way that may contribute to local economies through promoting educational and recreational tourism on a scale that will not reduce the effectiveness of conservation efforts. The surrounding areas of a National Park may be for consumptive or non-‐consumptive use, but should nevertheless act as a barrier for the defence of the protected area's native species and communities to enable them to remain sustainable in the long term. III: Natural Monument or Feature These are comparatively smaller areas that are specifically allocated to protect a natural monument and its surrounding habitats. Natural Monuments or Features can be natural in the wholest sense, or include elements that have been influenced or introduced by humans. The latter should hold biodiversity associations or could otherwise be classified as a historical or spiritual site, though this distinction can be quite difficult to ascertain. As such, the classification then falls into two subcategories, those in which the biodiversity in uniquely related to the conditions of the natural feature, and those in which the current levels of biodiversity are dependent on the presence of the sacred sites that have created an essentially modified ecosystem. Natural Monuments or Features have a high cultural or spiritual value which can be utilised to gain support for conservation challenges. IV: Habitat/Species Management Area Habitat/Species Management Areas focus on more specific areas of conservation in correlation to an identifiable species or habitat that requires continuous protection. These protected areas will be sufficiently controlled to ensure the maintenance, conservation and restoration of particular species and habitats -‐ possibly through traditional means -‐ and public education of such areas is widely encouraged as part of the management objectives. Habitat or Species Management Areas may exist as a fraction of a wider ecosystem or protected area and may require varying levels of active intervention including -‐ but not limited to -‐ the prevention of poaching, creation of artificial habitats, halting natural succession and supplementary feeding practices. V: Protected Landscape/Seascape Protected Landscapes and Seascapes cover entire bodies of land or ocean which engages a range of for-‐profit activities within the management plan. The main objective is to safeguard regions that have built up a 'distinct character' in regards to their ecological, biological, cultural or scenic value. Protected Landscapes and Seascapes allow a higher level of sustainable interaction with surrounding communities (such as traditional agricultural and forestry systems) and should represent an integral balance between people and nature. Protected Landscapes and Seascapes are one of the more flexible categories and may be able to accommodate contemporary developments such as ecotourism whilst maintaining historical agrobiodiversity and aquatic biodiversity management practices. VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources Category VI is a more encompassing classification that is based on a mutually beneficial relationship between nature conservation and the sustainable management of natural resources in correspondence the livelihoods of surrounding communities. A wide range of socio-‐ economic factors are taken into consideration in creating local, regional and national approaches to the use of natural resources. Though human involvement is a large factor in the management of these protected areas, developments are not intended to allow for wide-‐scale industrial production. These areas would be particularly suitable to vast areas that already have a low level of human occupation that has had little or no negative impact on the environmental health of the region, as a proportion of the land mass is expected to remain in its natural condition -‐ a regulation to be enforced on a national level, and usually with specificity to each protected area. Governance has to be developed to adapt to the diverse and possibly growing range of interests that arise from the production of sustainable natural resources. http://www.unep-‐wcmc.org/iucn-‐protected-‐area-‐management-‐categories_591.html

Appendix 3

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

APPENDIX 4: GIS METHODOLOGY USED TO DEVELOP THE MAPS This document provides a summary of the GIS methodology used to process, analyze and map the conservation and resource-‐restricted areas of British Columbia. The goal of this project is to use existing data to create the most complete and up-‐to-‐date map of lands in British Columbia currently under conservation designation or restricted resource management. The methods employed are intended to ensure that there are no overlapping data, and subsequently, no ‘double-‐counting’ of areas. Data representing federal, provincial, municipal and fee simple conservation protected lands have been acquired by MTS Consulting, ForestEthics Solutions, and a GIS volunteer. In cases where there was duplication of data, ForestEthics Solutions determined the ranking of data sets through expert review, and eliminated the duplicate data with inferior data ‘currency’ (old datasets, etc.). Data was obtained for the majority of designations through the British Columbia Geographic Data Discovery Service in 2012, and the maps were developed using a commonly-‐used scale for provincial-‐wide planning purposes. Stemming from a need to avoid double-‐counting in areas that have more than one designation, we worked with legal and scientific experts from West Coast Environmental Law and the Ministry of Environment to distill a relative “strength of conservation” ranking. As a result, when all designations (“layers”) are ‘toggled on’ in the case of static, print, and/or the interactive PDF online versions, the designation we ranked as having a higher strength of conservation will be the one visible for that area on the map, as well as the one counted in the “reconciled” area calculations. See Appendix 1for the listing of the forty designations, their “strength of conservation” ranking, and data source used. Once the designations were ranked, the data w ere broken-‐out by designation. These layers were dissolved to eliminate any overlapping data with the same designation. This process was repeated for the other maps’ categories. Next, each dissolved dataset was clipped to the terrestrial boundary of British Columbia. This was done to ensure that only terrestrial conservation designations were captured (marine portions of protected areas were not included), and to ensure that comparative statistics for conservation designations would be completed on a standardized basis. The next part of data processing consisted of ‘erasing’ any data that were overlapped by a more protective designation. In the diagram below, polygon ‘A’ (the more protective designation overlaps with polygon ‘B’, which has a less protective designation. The overlapping area, represented by polygon ‘C’ is erased from polygon ‘B’. Effectively, this was achieved by combining all of the rankings into one unified dataset. Where, if there was an overlapping dataset, the top ranked set would “erase” the ones beneath it.

Appendix 4

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013

To combine all datasets, each one was converted from polygonal or “vector data” to grid or “raster” data. The diagram below displays the two different types of data. As can be seen from the image below, area and shape are preserved while precision is lowered.

Vector Data

Raster Data

This was done for two reasons. First, raster processing is considerably less processor-‐intensive than vector processing, and second, by transforming all data into a common 5m grid, slivers and gaps between datasets were effectively eliminated. Using the processed spatial data, statistics were calculated for each B.C. designation and IUCN category for the province of British Columbia. The area of designated lands was calculated as absolute numbers (hectares) and percentages of the British Columbia land base (excluding marine portions). Note: there are some issues with the data, process used and end products to be aware of. In many cases, within and between data sets, the boundaries between polygons did not match. This can result from a number of situations, such as data being at different scales, or data being digitized from different sources. Correcting these line-‐work issues is beyond the scope of this project. A consequence of the data processing method outlined above, was minor deviations in areas between the data sets. Fortunately, as the grid size used was so small (5m), deviations are not noticeable at the provincial level or even the hectare-‐level scale. However, in some instances, there will be a minute discrepancy between the posted land areas of some designations and those that have been calculated as part of the process.

Appendix 4

Drawing the Line | A ForestEthics Solutions Report | Written by Marlene Cummings | February 2013