Patrick Martin March 14, 2007 Multi-block Stocking Standards

Message received Concerns: –Workload –We won’t be able to do our jobs well –Risk –Declining standards Comfort, familiar, and set-up for our traditional system

3 Option within FRPA Administrative law Delivering government’s multiple objectives The Chief not the King 2. Why are proposals considered?

4 A good multi-block approach: Provides a broader context Monitors cumulative effects 3. Some potential advantages Links to forest level strategies Improves economic efficiency Structures management flexibility Brings best available science Clarifies purpose

5 SeptemberCF determination criteria: capture productive potential, verifiable, and acceptable risk. OctoberCF rejects early proposal Nov-FebCritiques and revisions March 1“Final” submission 4. Merritt proposal - Chronology

6 5. Overview of the proposal SU-level standards –Conventional uneven-age and IC standards, Max density standards –MAI-based standards Expected MAI  benchmark MAI (subject to rules) Multi-block standards –Overall mean MAI  90% maximum possible MAI –Overall mean MAI(p)  70% max possible MAI –Deciduous density ≤ 1% overall density

7 6. Our vision People –Doing our jobs effectively –Capitalizing on the opportunities provided by the experiment –Sustaining good relationships Forest management –SFM environmentally appropriate, economically viable, socially acceptable Policy framework –Some experimentation with policies, standards, etc –Learning organization –Managing, not trying to eliminate, risk

8 A concerted effort by all of us Victoria staff can contribute by: –Providing training and tech support –Helping get the C&E and stewardship monitoring parts in place –Learning from the experiment What do you suggest? How can you contribute? 7. How do we get there?

9 8. Discussion What do we need to do to make this work?