Kootenay HLP/Spatial

1. Kootenay HLP/Spatial

2. 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.

3. 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 1st of that year.

4. 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

5. 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 26th, 2002

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 2003. The data went into spatial analysis to test the HLPO and alternative approaches using SFM indicators

9. 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

10. 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

11. So, how is it supposed to work?

12. THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK ASPATIAL TIMBER SUPPLY REVIEW Gov’t Objectives Round Table Current Management ** Q/A Model Assumptions * Q/A *** Q/A Value Trends TSR Process Data Information Package Load Models Analysis Report Evaluation AAC Determination Model Evolution Sensitivities Sensitivities Public Involvement Public Involvement Rationale Written * 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

13. HLP SPATIAL ANALYSIS FLOW Management Objectives HLP Objectives Policy Direction Local Agreements *Q/A **Q/A • New • Data Inputs • FDP • OGMA • PEM • Merch • Caribou Interpretation Current Management Data Package HLP Variance Load Model(s) ***Q/A HLP Spatial Runs Report Timber & Environmental Trends Recommendation Evaluation Interpretation of Trends • * 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. Outputs HLP Management Decision Pathway

14. HLP SPATIAL ANALYSIS FLOW Management Objectives *Q/A HLP Objectives Policy Direction Local Agreements ****Q/A Interpretation • New • Data Inputs • FDP • OGMA • PEM • Merch • Caribou Management Objective Current Management Data Package HLP Variance Load Model(s) • Modify Rules • Modify Yield Curves • Modify Zoning SFM Learning Objectives ***Q/A SFM Runs HLP Spatial Runs Report Timber & Environmental Trends Recommendation Evaluation Interpretation of Trends • * 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. Outputs HLP /SFM Management Decision Pathway

15. Operational Spatial Application

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

20. Block Creation

22. 20-year blocks within LU

23. Final blocked hectares

24. Results

25. 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

26. Recommendations

27. 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.)

28. 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

29. 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 importanthabitat elements

30. 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.

31. 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