Kootenay HLP/Spatial

Objective of the Review To support government in determining whether the HLPO, including both efforts to interpret and implement it, reflects the required balance of social, economic and environmental values of the citizens of the Kootenay-Boundary region.

HLP Review The first HLP Order was signed off by three ministers in December of 2000 which included a policy in Part 3 called Monitoring and Review It was intended by government that a formal review be undertaken in the first six months of 2004 with results submitted to ministers by July 1 st of that year.

Task Force Recommended KBLUP Timber Targets range remain unchanged from 4.7 to 5.2 million meters Commitment to long term planning Continued support for refining spatial analytical tools in assessing timber supply and the associated environmental risk Continued support for most projects, including field testing the results Chief Forester consider partition cuts to promote the attainment of pushing the envelope of wood availability and hence test the economic viability of these actions

Review (Continued) In the process of field testing the objectives (putting them into effect on the ground through approval of operational plans), it became apparent that industries concern around access to economical wood was real in certain locations Government reviewed the mature objective, amended requirements for mature and replaced the 2001 Order with a new HLP Order signed October 26 th, 2002

Review (Continued) Under the new order government in consultation with communities, forest licensees and other interests will create thresholds for timber supply, costs and timber profiles that would initiate a review of Objectives 1 to 9. This resulted in a perception by some companies that equity for impacts was not equally distributed

So what happened next? Slocan approached the Deputy of MSRM with a proposal to solve the perceived equity question by Implementing a Sustainable Forest Management Planning Process that would improve on the HLP An MOU was signed off between MSRM and Slocan to use SFM to improve on legal objectives. Addendums were signed off by Tembec, Pope & Talbot and Kalesnikoff

SFM MOU and Addendums Intent was to use a criteria and indicators approach to improve on HLP objectives and jointly develop with MSRM the workplan to do this including cost sharing. This resulted in cost sharing 1.4 Million in projects in The data went into spatial analysis to test the HLPO and alternative approaches using SFM indicators

Spatial Analysis Goals To assist in implementing the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan (Part 3 Requirements) To develop forest-related spatial planning in the old Nelson Forest Region Provide linkage of strategic, tactical and operational plans To get operational planners aware of and using spatial planning tools

Spatial and SFM Project Objectives To create databases and processes suitable for spatial analyses To cover all of the old Nelson Forest Region To incorporate both wood supply and environmental values To create software which utilizes this data Evaluate the trends coming out of the analyses for determining need for change

So, how is it supposed to work?

THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK ASPATIAL TIMBER SUPPLY REVIEW Gov’t Objectives Current Management TSR Process Data Information Package Load Models Analysis Report Evaluation AAC Determination Rationale Written * Q/A *** Q/A ** Q/A Model Assumptions Value Trends Round Table *District, Agencies & Analyst sign off. (Map, line work, management assumptions) **Analyst and specific expertise (interpreting management assumptions into model assumptions) *** Chief Forester reviews data inputs, management assumptions, model assumptions with either District & Agency staff in TSR, or TFL staff in MWP’s Public Involvement Model Evolution Sensitivities

HLP Objectives Policy Direction Local Agreements Current Management Data Package HLP Variance Load Model(s) HLP Spatial Runs Outputs HLP Evaluation Interpretation of Trends Report Timber & Environmental Trends Recommendation Management Decision Pathway *Q/A Data & Attribute information should be signed off by custodians of layers. **Q/A Analyst, MSRM, Licensees, Agencies sign off by custodians of layers. ***Professional Sign off. Should be involved at Q/A Model Assumptions. *** Q/A * Q/A Interpretation Management Objectives HLP SPATIAL ANALYSIS FLOW ** Q/A New Data Inputs  FDP  OGMA  PEM  Merch  Caribou

HLP Objectives Policy Direction Local Agreements Current Management Data Package HLP Variance Load Model(s)  Modify Rules  Modify Yield Curves  Modify Zoning SFM Learning Objectives HLP Spatial Runs SFM Runs Outputs HLP Evaluation Interpretation of Trends Report Timber & Environmental Trends Recommendation Management Decision Pathway *Q/A Data & Attribute information should be signed off by custodians of layers. **Q/A Analyst, MSRM, Licensees, Agencies sign off by custodians of layers. ***Professional Sign off. Should be involved at Q/A Model Assumptions. ****Professional Sign off after agreement by Analyst, licensees & professional. *** Q/A * Q/A **** Q/A Management Objective Interpretation Management Objectives HLP SPATIAL ANALYSIS FLOW /SFM New Data Inputs  FDP  OGMA  PEM  Merch  Caribou

Operational Spatial Application

Orthos were key Clarified forest cover information. Used as a visual tool for identifying terrain features, roads, creeks.

Block Creation

20-year blocks within LU

Final blocked hectares

Results

Results The review was completed to the satisfaction of the government Spatial analysis costs were reduced from $150,000 down to $17,000 per MU In specific units a 20 year supply of accessible wood was confirmed using new tools Uncertainties in spatial data version control, coding and currency continue to be a problem

Recommendations

Recommendations 1. MSRM (ILMA)should develop and deploy a principled management system that includes:  standardized data sets that are directly linked to legal objectives  forest estate spatial analysis standards  a decision-making support pathway for interpreting spatially-explicit modelling results and integrating them into strategic decision-making (HLPOs, LRMPs, SFMPs, FSPs, etc.)

Recommendations 2. In support of recommendation #1, MSRM (ILMA)should assume and assign authority for setting and ensuring consistent standards or practices related to:  reliability and accuracy of resultants and source data  data nomenclature  metadata documentation  spatial modelling netdown logic and modelling assumptions used for input and output layers  custodianship for data layers, including data manipulation, verification and full documentation

3. Establish baseline conditions for comparing future proposed HLP changes against, including:  disturbing the non-THLB  appropriate site productivity adjustments for each MU  genetic gains over time for each MU  consistent approach to MHAs  a full suite of indicators and associated benchmarks to monitor the effectiveness of the HLPO to meet environmental objectives “future desired conditions” that describe the optimal abundance and distribution of important habitat elements

4. The HLPO should be kept current through an open and transparent process that involves affected stakeholders. 5. Roll all variances into a new Order and clarify understanding of what is required.

Some of the recommendations have been acted on by developing a stronger relationship between data and decisions through; The faciltation of the Spatial Data Parntership