New Concepts and Philosophy - CAPFT · 2018. 8. 28. · 1-4 Forest Management Planning Standard Workshop - PLFD - SRD Unit 1 - Concepts and Philosophy NOTES · analyze variance and

Forest Management Planning Standard Workshop - PLFD - SRD 1-1

F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n n i n g S t a n d a r d W o r k s h o p

Participant Notes

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

L E A R N I N G O U T C O M E

Strategic and operational forest management planning ................................................. 1 - 2

Use and interpretation of CAN/CSA Z809-02 .... 1 - 5

Why CSA? ................................................ 1 - 5

Relevance of CCFM criteria .......................... 1 - 6

Values objectives indicators and targets (VOITs) 1 - 6

Role, responsibility and accountability of RFPs 1 - 7

Evaluating FMPs ....................................... 1 - 9

Unit #1Concepts and Philosophy

Upon completion of Unit 1, you should be able to define Alberta’s approach to Forest Management.

1-2 Forest Management Planning Standard Workshop - PLFD - SRD

U n i t 1 - C o n c e p t s a n d P h i l o s o p h y

L e a r n i n g O b j e c t i v e s :

· Explain strategic and operational Forest Management Planning processes

· Relate how Alberta uses and interprets CAN/CSA Z809-02

· Explain the relevance of the CCFM criteria in Forest Management Plans (FMPs)

· Define the terms value, objective, indicator and target (VOITs)

· Explain the role, responsibility and accountability of a RFP in validating forest management documents

· Outline how Alberta manages the approvals for critical steps in forest management planning

· Summarize how Alberta uses the Standard to evaluate FMP

S t r a t e g i c a n d O p e r a t i o n a l F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n n i n g

Background

The Planning Standard is the result of 4 years of work with forest industry and Department representatives and will replace the 1998 Forest Management Planning Manual.

The implementation date is May 1, 2006.

Understanding the concepts and philosophies that the Forest Management Branch used in developing the Planning Standard is key to understanding how the standard works.

These concepts and philosophies include:

· Strategic and Operational Forest Management Planning Processes

· Use and Interpretation of CAN/CSA Z809-02

· Relevance of CCFM Criteria in FMPs

· Values, Objectives, Indicators, Targets

· Role, Responsibility and Accountability of RFPs

· Approvals

· Evaluating FMPs

N O T E S



N O T E SEfficiencies in planning and plan approvals had to be considered given the number of plans in the queue and the staff available for review. The forest industry has limited resources for planning and prolonged planning processes are not constructive for industry or government.

Principles

The fundamental change to forest management in Alberta has been the shift from the concept of sustained yield to sustainable forest management.

Alberta is focusing on science-based decision-making, validating future forest predictions and adaptive management. Monitoring, reporting and corrective action are necessary to ensure what was planned is achieved.

Clarity of FMP expectations and content, outlined in the Planning Standard, should lead to reduced plan development periods and expedited approvals if submitted plans meet the standards.

Key points:

· clearly defined approval process and planning relationships

· consistency

· acceptance from both the forest industry and government

· standard defines mandatory, minimum and measurable requirements.

· one FMP for one landbase

· improved growth & yield information and data sharing

· equitable sharing of AAC gains and losses.

· linkage to timber supply analysis (TSA assumptions, silviculture transitions, structure retention, watercourse buffers)

· all plans are spatial

· set targets and make forecasts

· validate forecasts

· monitor indicators



N O T E S · analyze variance and report

· adapt/take corrective action

Regenerated stand yield information is key to acquire for the next generation of plans and a 20 year spatial harvest sequence is key to achieving desired future forest.

Authority for forest management

Land management is the authority of the Government of Alberta and delegated to the minister of the Department of Sustainable Resource Development through the Government Organization Act (section 16). The Minister is assigned responsibility for the Forests Act and regulations made pursuant to the Act.

Forests Act clause 5 b. The Minister may make regulations … specifying standard terminology and other specifications… in the preparation of plans, maps, and other related documents …

Forests Act clause 7 The Minister shall administer and manage timber on public land …

Forests Act 14(1)… the Minister may divide forest land into forest management units.

(2) …determine the annual allowable cut of timber … each forest management unit.

Forests Act 16(1) The Minister, … may enter into a forest management agreement … for the purpose of establishing, growing, and harvesting timber…

Forest Management Agreements

FMA Clauses 9 through 14

10(5) The Company shall prepare … forest management plans ….. in accordance with the forest management planning manual prepared by the Minister, as amended from time to time.



N O T E SWorking example

FMA Renewal Template

Updated references to planning

Weyerhaeuser Drayton Valley FMA Agreement (refer to paper copy in reference materials)

Planning heirarchy

Strategic land use plans address the integration of resource uses (e.g., Integrated Resource Plans, Regional Sustainable Development Strategies) and take precedence over operational plans.

Where government publishes policy that changes IRPs or other higher order planning documents, FMPs may require amendment to comply.

Scope

FMAs have a limited scope to establish, grow and harvest and remove timber. Approval to operate must be granted by Alberta. Where land use plans are approved after a FMP has been approved, Alberta and the Organization shall discuss implementation of the strategic land use plan and FMP amendments. FMPs do not set objectives for cumulative impacts, integration of other non-timber resource users. FMPs manage forest vegetation only and mitigate the impacts of forestry operations on other values and users. Generally, it is a coarse filter approach with fine filter checks.

U s e a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f C A N /C S A Z 8 0 9 - 0 2

Companies are encouraged to be certified but there is no requirement under the new standard to be certified. Alberta does not endorse any one certification scheme but recognizes that certification address a marketing need for many companies.



N O T E S W h y C S A ?

There was no need to reinvent a planning system that was Alberta specific. CSA provides a reasonable process based on the following:

· Credible planning framework

· High degree of public involvement

· CCFM Criteria and Indicators - CCFM is credible and recognized world-wide.

· Public involvement is key component

· Collaborative process for determining Values, Objectives, Indicators and measurable Targets

· Requirement for monitoring real (actual) outcomes against planned outcomes

· Continual improvement / adaptive management is a foundation (Plan, Do, Check, Corrective Action)

R e l e v a n c e o f C C F M C r i t e r i a

The CCFM Criteria in essence define Sustainable Forest Management and reflect broadly accepted Canadian Forest Values. They are also accepted and recognized internationally.

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers Criteria for SFM

· Conservation of biological diversity

· Maintenance/enhancement of forest ecosystem productivity

· Conservation of soil and water resources

· Forest ecosystem contribution to global cycles

· Multiple benefits of forests to society

· Accepting society’s responsibility for sustainable development



N O T E SV a l u e s O b j e c t i v e s I n d i c a t o r s a n d T a r g e t s ( V O I T s )

The CSA definitions are as follows:

Value — a DFA characteristic, component, or quality considered by an interested party to be important in relation to a CSA SFM element or other locally identified element.

Objective — a broad statement describing a desired future state or condition of a value.

Indicator — a variable that measures or describes the state or condition of a value.

Target — a specific statement describing a desired future state or condition of an indicator. Targets should be clearly defined, time-limited, and quantified, if possible.

Under the new standards, VOITs are tailored to comply with FMA scope and obligations.

· Indicators identified

· Public consultation may add VOITs

· Targets are set by industry

The FMP monitors indicators and achievement of performance targets is tracked through an Annual report. The Stewardship Report (5 years) focuses on analysis of variance (planned vs forecast) and outlines corrective action taken.

R o l e , R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d A c c o u n t a b i l i t y o f R F P s

Definition RFP

Regulated Forestry Professional who is a Regulated member of the College of Alberta Professional Foresters or the College of Alberta Professional Forest Technologists. Accepted professional titles are RPF or RPFT only (not FIT).

RFPs must submit work as outlined in Annex 2 (e.g. FMP, AOP, Activity reports).



N O T E S The exception to the sign-off component is companies harvesting less than 30,000 m3 annually from public land.

Validated work must contain a signature, professional title (RPF, RPFT), registration number and professional seal.

RFPs are expected to keep records of decisions made, reports filed, etc to support their work.

The validation process gives assurance that work is:

· completed by qualified professionals

· accurate

· prepared with due diligence

Complete and accurate “auditable” records are kept

Government RFPs

An RFP working for SRD may be required to review validated work and:

· Assess accuracy (confirmation)

· Take corrective action for in-accurate work

· Return for clarification or correction

· Refer chronic problems to management (Area Manager, Senior Manager, Planning Section)

The documentation required to demonstrate due diligence is viewed as a significant source for validating accuracy and Alberta will not accept inadequate documentation and may refer such occurrences to the Complaints Director of the appropriate college. Executive Director will file complaint with College on behalf of SRD

Responsibility and accountability

Industry and Government RFPs are both responsible to meet standards for work completed and accountable for work they oversee, complete and submit.

Government RFPs are responsible for complete, accurate and timely reviews and accountable for direction or corrective action.



N O T E SAccountability for work is not transferred to Government upon acceptance or approval.

C r i t i c a l S t e p s

There are two steps in the approval process.

Acceptance

· Work with limited potential risk (e.g., Reforestation information, Operations inspection reports)

· Annex 2 outlines reports and review types

· Approved on date SRD acknowledges receipt

· Notification within 5 days

· Periodic audits to ensure quality of submissions

Appraisal

· Government RFPs examine work for accuracy prior to approval

· Timelines vary with work being reviewed

· Work with far-reaching significant potential risk if inaccurate (FMP, AOP, GDP)

· Validation indicates work is accurate, but SRD due diligence requires work to be examined carefully

· On-going communication prior to submission is required and expected

FMP Agreement-in-principle

Agreement-in-principle is Alberta’s notice to the company that at that point in time, the prepared plan components are acceptable, however, components may be subject to review at a later date and may require revision if supporting information has not been provided.



N O T E S

Agreement in principle has to be documented in some way. The Plan Development Team (PDT) and the Company can determine a flexible method to record approval (formal letters, meeting minutes, email).

The key is for industry to know they have met the standard.

May require review at time of final draft of plan to determine that agreed-to documents and strategies align with final plan. If not, rework .

Agreement-in-principle will be covered in more detail in Unit 4.

E v a l u a t i n g F M P s

Evaluation consists of comparing the FMP against Standards. Basically, the numbered standards are a checklist unless FMB agrees to other requirements (ToR , Approval Letters).

The evaluation is done by Approval Review Committee consisting of Senior SRD staff that make recommendation to FMB Executive Director.

Specific roles and responsibilities of Department staff are discussed in Units 2 and 4.

FMP approvals

FMP Approval is the final approval for Net landbase & Yield curves, Management Strategies and VOITs, Monitoring and Reporting, AACs and other components included in the FMP.

The PDT does not authorize Approvals. Approvals are issued from those with approval authority:

· AVI by RIMB Executive Director (approved prior to FMP approval)

· FMP by FMB Executive Director

Once an Approval Decision is issued, consideration must be given to post-approval work and timelines.



Participant Notes



Unit #2Roles and Responsibilities

Plan development team ............................. 2 - 3

Public participation group ........................... 2 - 5

Department staff ...................................... 2 - 7

Upon completion of Unit 2, you should be able to discuss the roles of key participants in the Forest Management Process.


U n i t 2 - R o l e s a n d R e s p o n s i b i l i t e s


· Explain the purpose and responsibilities of the Plan Development Team

· Explain the purpose and responsibilities of the Public Participation Group

· Explain the role and authorities of Department staff

Industry GovernmentFMA Forest Planner FPS Planning Forester

TSA Analyst TSA Analyst

Woodlands Manager Forest Area Forester(s)

Silviculture Forester Fish and Wildlife Biologist(s)

Company Biologist Representatives from other Departments

Quota Holder(s)

P l a n D e v e l o p m e n t T e a m

The Planning Development Team (PDT) is formed to resolve technical details of a Forest Management Plan and ideally, reach agreement-in-principle on all components of a plan prior to its completion.

Efficient Forest Management Plan development requires that concurrent planning, review and analysis activities occur, and the PDT must work to reduce delays and reach timely agreements. Timely can mean a lot of things to different people, but for the purposes of Forest Management Planning, timely means not unduly delaying the rest of the plan in order to meet agreement-in-principle on a specific component.

Core members

Team size and composition will vary depending on the complexities of issues in an FMA area or Forest Management Unit. Typically, the PDT is comprised of a core team and additional resource personnel as required. A core team is normally comprised of 5 to 10 individuals from industry and government and must include an FMA Forest Planner and a Planning Forester from the Forest Planning Section (FPS). The FPS Planning Forester is government’s lead representative on the PDT for the development of the FMP and is the primary contact for information transfer between the company and government. The Area Forester is the lead contact when discussing the spatial harvest sequence. Other team members may include:



Resource personnel

Resource personnel are not typically involved in all components of the planning process, but are utilized when additional expertise is required to address specific resource issues such as biodiversity, TSA modelling, resource inventories, etc. The number of resource personnel used in Forest Management Plan development is unlimited as their only involvement is to provide information and guidance on how to best address a specific resource issue. Resource personnel may include:

Industry Government*TSA Analyst *TSA / Growth & Yield Analysis

*Woodlands Manager Forest Protection Division

*Harvest Planner Public Lands & Forests Division personnel

*Silviculture Forester Fish and Wildlife Division personnel

*Company Biologist *Representatives from other Departments

*Quota Holder(s) Other experts and specialists

Consultants

* If these individuals are not participants on the core team, they would likely be utilized as resource personnel.

Specific government personnel that may be utilized as resource personnel include:

Forest Protection Division

· FireSmart personnel

· Fire Landscape Management specialists

Public Lands and Forests Division

· Ecologist

· Silviculture Specialists

· Ground Rules Specialists

· Hydrology Specialists

· Range Management Specialists

Fish and Wildlife Division

· Provincial Wildlife Specialists

· Provincial Fisheries Specialists

· Provincial Ecosystem Specialists



N O T E S Representatives from other Government Departments

· Community Development

· Economic Development

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Other specialists/experts as required

Industry and government roles

Roles and responsibilities of the Planning Development Team include:

· Progressive development and review of plan components

· Resolving technical details of a Forest Management Plan

· Reaching agreement in principle in a timely manner such that it doesn’t unduly delay the progress of the plan

· Ensuring consistency of the Planning Standard

· Acting as advisors to the public participation group and the general public

Government personnel have differing roles depending on who is leading the Forest Management Planning process. Under an industry led FMP, company personnel are responsible for research, development and writing the components of the FMP and government constituents provide the following:

· Resource information and guidance relating to department expectations and policies are conveyed to the company, the Public Participation Group and the general public.

· Plan content is consistent with the Planning Standard.

· Progressive review of Forest Management Plan components.

· Final review of the complete plan.

For Forest Management Units that are not under a Forest Management Agreement, Alberta is responsible for all planning, thus, government staff are responsible for research, development and writing the components of the FMP and the PDT consists only of government personnel.



N O T E SP u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n G r o u p

The Public Participation Group (PPG) serves as part of the Public Involvement Process by being proactively involved in the management of a Forest Management Agreement area or Forest Management Unit and assisting with the development of the FMP. The main role of this group is to provide an advisory role to the Planning Development Team (PDT) and can be instrumental in identifying important societal values associated with management of local forests.

A company is obligated to respond to input received by this group. This can be done in one of two ways; by accepting recommendations or advice from the PPG and revising management practices accordingly, or by responding with specific reasons for not accepting it, such as conflict with current legislation or existing agreements and policies.

An effective public participation process accommodates the public’s wide range of knowledge and interests as well as different cultural and economic ties with forests. This should be considered when forming local PPG’s. Members should provide a broad representation of local public and interest groups and structure is dependent upon the following:

· It is important that a company consider broader public interests, particularly where decisions are likely to be seen as regionally significant or contentious. This requires an understanding of relevant interests and positions of interested local parties.

· Specific groups or individuals may be selected or invited to participate. Groups may nominate a representative to participate on their behalf.

· Depending upon location and interests in the area, the FMA holder (or in the case of a non-FMA FMU, the Government) may be limited as to who they can get.

· Time commitments of the participants should also be considered such as their availability to participate (daily, weekly, monthly?) and if they are able to commit to the entire process.



N O T E S It is important that a company document evidence of invitations extended to participants, whether they chose to participate, and if not, the reason for their decision.

In order for participants to have some degree of ownership, there should be some agreement to a set of Basic Operating Ground Rules that will guide the process. This involves determining the relative importance of each of the following, according to local circumstances:

Plan Content: Identify a range of considerations and issues that need to be addressed.

Goals: Define the aim or purpose for the group (i.e. expectations).

Timelines: Determine the expected duration of various stages of the process, including delivery dates for key outcomes.

Communication: Outline provisions for internal and external communications, including how the company or Alberta will communicate with the group and how the group will communicate with each other and with the broader public.

Decision-making Process: Describe how meetings will be conducted and decisions made (e.g. consensus seeking, voting, etc.)

Mechanism to adjust the process: Establish protocols for making changes to the PPG and corresponding process

Access to information: Specify conditions for confidentiality of certain information

Dispute Resolution Process: Develop rules for dealing with conflict and reaching consensus.

Roles and Responsibilities of the PPG

As stated earlier, the PPG serves as part of the FMP’s Public Involvement Process and acts in an advisory capacity to the PDT. It is important that expectations on the part of the participants and the company are clear at the outset and throughout the FMP process to ensure that the group operates both effectively and efficiently.



N O T E SSpecifically, the purpose of the PPG is to:

· Represent the general public and interested parties’ values and needs throughout the planning process.

·Assist and advise the PDT in identifying societal values, particularly during development of initial VOIT’s.

·Provide feedback to the PDT during development of individual components of the FMP and on the completed plan prior to approval.

It should be noted that all comments received by the PPG are to be recorded and included in the Forest Management Plan with explanation how concerns have been addressed or not addressed in the plan.

D e p a r t m e n t S t a f f

Plan Development Team (SRD)

As discussed earlier in this unit, the role of Department personnel on the PDT is to assist in resolving technical issues during the development of industry Forest Management Plans and to provide a progressive review of plan components on industry led Forest Management Plans. This varies on non-FMA Forest Management Units in that the Department is responsible for research, development and writing of Forest Management Plans.

Once plan components have achieved agreement-in-principle, the PDT is responsible to provide written comments on the final draft Forest Management Plan, including comments received from the Public Participation Group, to the Approval Review Committee.

Keep in mind that the entire FMP approval process is to be completed within 100 days, thus, timelines may vary depending on issues with the plan.



N O T E S Approval Review Committee (ARC)

The role of the ARC begins with an appraisal of the review comments received by the Planning Development Team and Public Participation Group. This includes technical reviews from members’ respective disciplines. For example, the Senior Manager of the Resource Analysis Section will complete a technical review of the Timber Supply Analysis and Growth and Yield components of a Forest Management Plan. Based on this appraisal, the ARC prepares recommendations for approval of Forest Management Plans to the Executive Director of the Forest Management Branch.

Senior Manager, Forest Planning Section

Serves as the Chair of the ARC and oversees the development of all FMPs. The Senior Manager serves as a secondary contact for forest management planning information, issues, or concerns (the Forest Planning Section Planning Forester is the primary contact). The Senior Manager has approval authority for FMP Terms of Reference and PPG Basic Operating Rules and the authority to decide whether to bring a forest management planning process to an end if the PDT is unable to reach consensus.

Senior Manager, Resource Analysis Section

Coordinates a technical appraisal of Timber Supply Analysis, Land Base Classification, and Growth and Yield components of a Forest Management Plan with section staff. Has approval authority for these components.

Senior Manager, Harvest and Renewal Section

Coordinates a technical appraisal of Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules, silvicultural and operational aspects of the plan with section staff. Has approval authority for these components.

Senior Manager, Forest Health Section

Coordinates review of forest health strategies and control programs including any related trans-boundary issues. Has approval authority for these components.



N O T E SArea Manager

Provides staff, resources and facilities to assist in meeting the Department’s obligation for Forest Management Unit plan development and review. Coordinates (with Area staff) an appraisal of the FMP and its spatial harvest sequencing for operational feasibility and ensures that the operational implementation of Final Harvest Plans, Annual Operating Plans and General Development Plans are consistent with the approved FMP.

ARC decision making process

Upon completion of the appraisal, the ARC will make recommendation to the Executive Director of the Forest Management Branch to accept or reject the FMP. If the ARC rejects the FMP, or does not agree with a certain components of the FMP, two options exist:

· If the issues concerning the plan are deemed critical, then a decision document is prepared outlining specific work that has to be addressed. A precautionary AAC is set and must be followed by all operators within the FMA until such time that an acceptable FMP is approved.; or

· If the ARC deems the issues as not being critical, an approval decision is issued with post-approval conditions to be completed within specified timeframes.

Preparation of the approval decision

The Approval Decision is purposely written to be concise and free of subjectivity and is written by the Forest Management Planning Section Planning Forester and Senior Manager of the Forest Planning Section, with input from the Forest Area and Senior Managers of Forest Management Branch.

ARC will use this decision document to recommend approval or non-approval of the FMP to the Executive Director of FMB.

The Executive Director of the Forest Management Branch has editing authority on the draft Approval Decision.



N O T E S



Participant Notes



Alberta’s objective for public involvement ...... 3 - 2

Dispute Resolution .................................... 3 - 5

Final authority ......................................... 3 - 5

Unit #3Public Participation

Upon completion of Unit 3, you should be able to describe the public paricipation process during FMP development process in Alberta.


U n i t 3 - P u b l i c Pa r t i c i p a t i o n

N O T E S


· Describe Alberta’s objective for public involvement in the FMP process

· Describe the dispute resolution requirement

· Recognize that Alberta has final authority to make a binding decision

P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s o f C A N / C S A - Z 8 0 9 -0 2 S e c t i o n 5 . 0

Public Participation Programs are approved by Alberta (part of Terms of Reference).

Basic process requirements (from CAN/CSA Z809-02)

The organization shall establish and implement a public participation process by either:

a) starting a new process; or

b) building on an existing process; or

c) reviving a previous process.

Implementation of a public participation process as specified in the CSA standard gives the public an opportunity to be involved proactively in the management of an FMA. Through their participation in the process, the public identifies forest values of specific importance to them.

The public also takes part in the forest planning process and works with the organization to identify and select Sustainable Forest Management objectives, indicators, and targets to ensure that these values are addressed.

FMA holders are responsible for developing and leading a cost effective and meaningful public involvement process. Meaningful public involvement is characterized by sincere efforts to fully explain the issues and seek practical and sensible solutions to issues. The objective is to ensure that those who are interested and/or affected are able to become informed of the planned activities may express their interests, and receive an answer that explains how their interests are addressed, or, if not addressed, why.



N O T E S

Interested parties (from CAN/CSA Z809-02)

The organization shall

a) openly seek representation from a broad range of interested parties, including FMA-related workers, and invite them to participate in developing the public participation process;

b) provide interested parties with relevant background information;

Area-based tenure (FMA) holders are responsible for preparing FMPs and must demonstrate to Alberta that volume-based tenure holders affected by the FMP have been provided with meaningful opportunities to participate in the planning process. Although the Organization must bear the cost of the FMP, volume-based tenure holders are encouraged to reach agreement with the FMA holder to share the direct costs of the planning process (e.g. data sharing, company-specific TSA analysis).

c) demonstrate through documentation that efforts were made to contact Aboriginal forest users and communities affected by or interested in forest management in the FMA;

d) demonstrate through documentation that efforts were made to encourage Aboriginal forest users and communities to become involved in identifying and addressing SFM values;

e) recognize Aboriginal and treaty rights and agree that Aboriginal participation in the public participation process will not prejudice those rights;

Alberta’s consultation policy for First Nations on land management and resource development applies. FMA holders will provide opportunities for meaningful consultation to Aboriginal forest users and communities concerning forest management on the FMA. Meaningful consultation requires consulting in good faith, with honest communication and an open exchange of relevant information before decisions are made. The mechanisms for this shall be outlined in the Terms of Reference for the forest



N O T E S f) establish and maintain a list of interested parties, including those that chose to participate, those that decided not to participate, and those that were unable to participate. The list shall contain names and contact information, as well as any links to the organization.

Basic operating rules (from CSA)

The organization shall demonstrate that

a) the public participation process works according to clearly defined operating rules that contain:

i) content (i.e. Terms of Reference - TOR);

ii) goals (i.e. process);

iii) timelines (i.e. Gantt chart);

iv) internal and external communication (i.e public enquiries and press, submission requirements);

v) resources (including human, physical, financial, information, and technological, as necessary and reasonable);

vi) roles, responsibilities, and obligations of participants and their organizations (i.e. governance);

Participants shall be organized in two groups:

i) Plan Development Team (PDT) - to comprise staff from the Organization and Alberta. The PDT is to reach agreement-in-principle on technical matters in a timely manner and act as advisors to the public. A core membership list shall be published through interpretive bulletins.

ii) Public Participation Group (PPG) - to be formed with representation from interested parties as well as staff from the Organization and Alberta. The mechanism for governance of the PPG is variable and depends on the nature of interested stakeholders.

vii) conflict of interest (mechanism to be articulated in TOR);

viii) decision-making methods;



N O T E SDecision-making is based on a progressive review of plan components and final approval of the FMP. As plan components are developed and agreement is reached by the Plan Development Team, the PDT shall recommend those components receive agreement-in-principle. Agreement-in-principle is not final approval, but rather Alberta’s notice to the Organization that what has been prepared is acceptable to that point. Final approval of all components shall be granted only when the FMP receives final approval.

Final approval of the FMP shall be through an Approval Decision that presents the rationale for approving the plan, direction from Alberta to the Organization to complete additional post-approval work or modify proposed activities, and the allocation of approved annual allowable cuts (AAC).

Before the FMP is submitted, the Organization shall conduct a meaningful review of the complete FMP with the PPG followed by the PDT. The Organization shall submit the comments from the PPG and PDT and its response to the comments along with the FMP. Following these reviews, Alberta shall convene an Approval Review Committee, made up of senior Alberta staff to consider evaluations of the PPG and PDT, and provide recommendations for consideration and final approval.

The FMP development process may be brought to an end when, Alberta believes further discussions will be of limited value in moving the FMP to completion. When this authority is exercised, the Organization shall be directed to prepare the FMP for review by the PPG and PDT, followed by submission to Alberta for a decision. Alberta has sole decision-making authority and will strive to ensure that issues raised in the public involvement process are addressed.

ix) authority for decisions;

A listing of approval responsibilities of Alberta staff for various components of a FMP shall be published in interpretive bulletins from time to time.

x) mechanisms to adjust the process as needed;

xi) access to information (including the CSA Standard);

xii) the participation of experts, other interests, and government; and

xiii) a dispute-resolution mechanism; and



N O T E S

The ToR shall define a dispute resolution process that is effective and timely. The process shall provide clear written guidance for stakeholders to express dissenting views while encouraging meaningful discussion before implementing a dispute resolution mechanism. Alberta shall assist in dispute resolution by facilitating discussions between parties or providing advice. If Alberta is asked to arbitrate an issue or believes that arbitration is necessary, it shall provide direction that is final and binding on all parties.

b) the participants have agreed to the public participation process operating rules.

If participants notify Alberta that they cannot agree to the Basic Operating Rules (BOR), Alberta shall arbitrate.



Participant Notes



Unit #4Planning Process

Terms of reference .................................... 4 - 2

Preliminary forest management plan ............ 4 - 6

Detailed forest management plan ............... 4 - 7

Landscape assessment ..............................4 - 10

Values, objectives indicators and targets ......4 - 20

Upon completion of Unit 4, you should be able to describe the key components necessary to develop a Forest Management Plan.


U n i t 4 - P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s


· Describe the purpose and major components of the Terms of Reference (TOR)

· Explain when a PFMP is prepared and why

· Explain when a DFMP is prepared and why

· Recognize the main components of a landscape assessment and explain their importance to forest management planning

· Explain how VOITs are chosen and how they are used to define forest management objectives and strategies

N O T E S T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e

The Terms of Reference (ToR) is intended to guide development of the Forest Management Plan. A ToR is completed and approved for development of both types of forest management plans (FMP), the Preliminary Forest Management Plan (PFMP) and the Detailed Forest Management Plan (DFMP).

The intended lifetime for the ToR is the beginning of the development of the current plan until the beginning of the next FMP. The components of the ToR are taken from the CSA Z809-02 standard, section 5.3.1. and are further clarified in Section 2.0, Subsection 1.0 of the Planning Standard. The major sections are:

· Content

· Goals

· Timelines

· Internal and External Communication

· Submission Requirements

· Roles, Responsibilities and Obligations of Participants

· Conflict of Interest

· Decision-making Methods

· Authority for Decisions



· Mechanism to Adjust the Process

· Access to Information

· Participation of Experts, Other Interests and Government

· Dispute Resolution Mechanism

· Transition Plan

The ToR is not intended to address or identify particular resource management issues to be addressed; the scope of the ToR is limited to the process for development of the current FMP and to the next FMP.

While all sections of the ToR are important there are a few key components that are the most important.

Timelines

The most important component of the ToR is the timelines. A well thought out schedule of FMP components, development and review periods, and relationship between timings of different component development greatly increases the efficiency and likelihood that the plan will be completed on time and to expectations.

At a minimum the Planning Standard requires that the ToR address the following:

· Vegetation inventory (including understorey inventory) preparation, updates and approval

· Public participation program activities

· Landbase description and yield projection activities and approval

· Forecasting and harvest planning activities

· Ground rule process

· Monitoring program submissions and action plan deadlines

A sample Gantt chart is presented in the Interpretive Bulletin - “Forest Management Planning Roles, Responsibilities, and Approval Authorities”of the Planning Standard.

N O T E S



Roles, responsibilities and obligations of participants for terms of reference

It is important to clarify the role of the two main groups involved in plan development: PDT and PPG.

As presented in Unit 2, the PDT is made of Core and Advisory team members. Core Group members include:

· Company Representatives (FMA and/or Embedded Timber Operators)

· Forest Management Planning Forester

· Senior Timber Operations Forester

· Area Forester(s)

· Fish and/or Wildlife Staff

· Timber Supply Analyst

· Growth and Yield Analyst

Advisory membership is not limited, but will include Forest Protection Staff given priority for FireSmart Community Protection Planning and FireSmart Landscape Planning. Also could include Community Development Staff, Public Lands Staff, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) staff, and other experts.

The Forest Management Planning Forester of the Forest Planning Section, FMB is Alberta’s lead representative on the Team.

The PPG is the means by which the public participates in the forest management planning process. This requirement was discussed as part of Unit 3. PPGs must attempt to include all interested parties in some fashion. There are opportunities to have differing level of involvement from committee member to a referral/review role to an open house participant.

PPG mechanism can be varied, but are essentially advisory roles. In instances where organizations have shared decision making responsibilities with the public (i.e. consensus processes) the government will act as in an advisory role on public policy and local knowledge of forest management issues. In no process will Alberta abdicate its regulatory authority for approvals. The PPG will develop the Basic Operating Rules (BOR), which will govern that process.

N O T E S



Decision-making methods

A key point is the progressive review and approval of FMP components. The PDT will grant agreement in principle on required components.

Where process bogs down, Alberta will provide further direction and decisions. In the event that further discussion will bear little in the way of results, Alberta will direct organizations to prepare the FMP for submission and review by the other members of the PDT.

Following formal submission, Alberta will convene an “Approval Review Committee”, with senior level managers that will consider the review comments from the PPG and the PDT, and will provide recommendations for final approval.

As discussed in Unit 1, the Forest Planning Section will prepare a recommendation to the Executive Director of the Forest Management Branch regarding approval and conditions. The decision will take the form of a “Decision Document”.

Examples of Decision Documents are on the following webpage:

http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/forests/managing/plans/list.html

Authority for decisions

The PDT must “agree in principle” on plan components before they are included in the FMP. The Forest Planning Section of FMB will issue formal sign-off to organization.

Agreement in principle is not final approval but indicates that components are acceptable at that point in time.

Approval of the plan only comes when the complete plan is submitted and reviewed. Final authority rests with the Executive Director of the Forest Management Branch.

Alberta’s decisions are final and binding on all parties.

Transition plan

The new planning standard is quite different from the 1998 Forest Management Planning Manual in regards to detail and requirements. Organizations may be unable to meet some of the standards. Alberta is transitioning in the first round of plans under the new standard. The transition plan section of the Terms of

N O T E S



Reference will be used to identify and approve variance from the required standard of concern.

It should be noted that the “transitioning standards” would not be approved based merely on an organization’s unwillingness to meet Alberta’s requirement, but rather where they are unable. An example would be the forest inventories to be no more than 10 years old. This is a new requirement that given the amount of time new inventories require, may not be able to be completed prior to plan submission. In this case Alberta may approve a variance with the condition that the standard be met the next time a plan is developed. This would be documented in the ToR. The idea is to identify the variances/issues up front rather than later in the process.

Terms of reference approval process

The ToR is developed by the Organization with direction from the Forest Management Planning Forester and the lead Area Forester.

The ToR development is not to be a protracted process, however key items may hold up approval such as insufficient detail of timelines, unacceptable transition plans, and inappropriate approval/decision-making processes.

Final Approval of the ToR comes from the Senior Manager, Forest Planning Section, Forest Management Branch, SRD.

P r e l i m i n a r y F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n

The Preliminary Forest Management Plan (PFMP) is the most basic of the plans. The purpose of a PFMP is to bridge periods between an initial allocation of tenure and approval of the Detailed Forest Management Plan (DFMP). It was required in the past with new Forest Management Agreements, or amended boundaries to a Forest Management Agreement area. Primarily, it is used to set the annual allowable cut (AAC) for the new FMA, as well as articulate the management approach and sequence that will be followed until the DFMP is approved.

N O T E S



The following are the components of a PFMP:

· A brief description of the area

· Initial values, objectives, indicators and targets (VOITs)

· The current Timber Supply Analysis (TSA) for the area

· Spatial harvest sequence

· The ToR for the detailed FMP

There is no mandatory requirement for public involvement in the PFMP, given the need for it to be put in place and the associated short development time (12 months, Spray Lakes Sawmills). Because AAC setting is meant to be a rolling up of current information and not a new analysis, Alberta will not approve increases in harvest levels through PFMPs. Where new analysis, in Alberta opinion, are necessary, aggressive forest management strategies (surge cutting, Enhanced Forest Management Assumptions) will generally not be approved.

PFMPs will remain until replaced by a DFMP (~3-5 years)

It is likely these will not be used much in the future. Current FMA discussions are renewals and current DFMPs remain in place until new DFMPs are approved.

The Director of the Forest Management Branch approves PFMPs.

D e t a i l e d F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n

Detailed Forest Management Plans are a requirement of the Forest Management Agreement. The DFMP is the highest level of operational planning that forest companies undertake.

“The Companies shall submit a forest management plan in accordance with the forest planning standards for the Minister’s approval on or before May 1, 2008 and a new forest management plan on or before May 1, 2018.”

“On the Forest Management Area, the Companies shall, in accordance with the approved forest management plan, follow sound forest management practices designed to provide a perpetual sustained yield of timber from the

N O T E S



productive forest land, while not reducing the productivity of the land.”

“The Companies shall, through sustainable forest management planning, make reasonable efforts to integrate and coordinate the management of the forest resources with all timber disposition holders operating on the forest management area.”

(Source: Tolko Industries, Alberta Plywood, Vanderwell Joint FMA).

The DFMP must demonstrate the commitment of the Organization to Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) practices, to the degree that the Organization has control. A DFMP is not an Integrated Resource Management Plan or a Water Management Plan. The DFMP focuses on the forest management activities of the Organization and embedded timber operators while ameliorating the negative impacts of those activates on the other forest resources. The major focus is on the manipulation of forest cover to create a desirable future forest, but also incorporates best practices in setting and meeting indicators and targets.

DFMPs are generally in place for a ten-year period. There are differing timelines for components ranging from the 10 years to the 200 year planning horizon. DFMPs will take from 3-5 for proper development.

The components of DFMP are listed in section 7.3.7 of the CSA Z809-02 standard and Section 2.2 of the Planning Standard. The Planning Standard clarifies the application of the CSA standard. The components are as follows:

· A comprehensive description of the defined forest area (DFA)

- Corporate overview

- Forest management approach

- Landscape assessment

· A summary of any previous forest management plan and the management outcomes including the learning associated with management review

· A statement of values, objectives, indicators and targets

· Current status and forecasts for each indicator, including a description of the assumptions and analytical methods for forecasting

N O T E S



· A description of the chosen strategy including all significant actions to be undertaken and their associated implementation schedule

· A description of the monitoring program and the associated evaluation of actual and expected

· Outcomes

· A demonstration of the linkages between short term and operational plans and the SFM plan

A comprehensive description of the DFA

Corporate overview

An overview of the organization and any embedded operators within the DFA. Details to include

· Facilities (age, size, and capacities)

· Allowable cuts

· Tenures held

· How long has the company operated in Alberta

· Employment statistics

· Forest or Environmental Management System Certifications

Forest management approach

Generally in Alberta this will be aimed at Sustainable Forest Management. Other types of information may be the level of integration between operators, particular approach to incorporating Natural Disturbance, Natural Range of Variability or Ecosystem Resilience theory. Operating with Single or Dissolved Landbase versus Discrete or Separate. If a company were developing Enhanced Forest Management strategies they would discuss utilization of the Landbase at varying level of intensity or

N O T E S



the Tri-Ad approach.

Landscape assessment

The landscape assessment tends to be one of the most under-utilized and overlooked aspects of the management plan. Appendix A of Section 2 of the Planning Standard describes the requirements of a landscape assessment.

The purpose of the landscape assessment is to essentially provide an inventory of resource and administrative information of the DFA, to be used for setting preliminary VOITs.

Some common myths occurring within planning processes are:

Myth: the landscape assessment is just a “snapshot” of the current forest.

While this is somewhat true, the landscape assessment also takes on a temporal dimension in describing the current forest condition. Some of the landscape assessment requirements consider this temporal assessment.

· Spatial and temporal variability of cover types and seral stages (i.e. Natural Range of Variability)

· Inherent disturbance regime (i.e. Fire Regime)

· Forest succession trajectories (processes, amount and temporal distribution)

Myth: the landscape assessment is summarized from the Net Landbase used in the Timber Supply

In fact, the landscape assessment may actually provide information to be used in the net down. Through the collection of information pertaining to the planning area, and the subsequent identifying of values, objectives, indicators and targets may lead to zoning parts of the planning area. An example of this would be Caribou Zones.

Development of the landscape assessment should begin soon after approval of the Terms of Reference for the FMP. In this way, discussion of it’s development and ultimate products (maps, tables, statistics) may assist the plan development team and the public participation group in setting preliminary targets and additional indicators beyond government minimums.

N O T E S



A summary of any previous forest management plan and the management outcomes including the learning associated with management review

There are two parts to this section of the DFMP:

· Past performance related to prior FMPs

· Significant Events such as wildfires, land withdrawals, tenure renewals

In the past, most DFMPs began with a clean-slate approach. Many of the commitments from previous plan were not tracked and often monitoring programs were never set up. We need to begin to treat management plans as milestones in a longer-term management strategy rather than the new and distinct “one offs”.

Past performance is based on the results of the monitoring process. Both successes and failures can be used to improve planning and implementation for the next planning cycle. Two concepts that are frequently used are continual improvement and adaptive management. While these concepts are similar in using monitoring and results for new cycles, there are some subtle differences between the concepts.

Adaptive Management Versus Continuous Improvement

© 2006 IEE

Continual improvement has it roots in business management. It is aimed at the incremental improvement to processes, early on in manufacturing. In the context of CSA it is improvement in the SFM system made up of Public Participation Requirements, SFM Performance Requirements (i.e. VOITs), and SFM System Requirements.



Adaptive management has it roots in environmental/ecological management. The term has caught on and is used widely and quite liberally. Three types of adaptive management have been identified. These definitions are as follows:

1. Evolutionary Adaptive Management

Most common is “Evolutionary” adaptive management, in which management policies and practices evolve in response to past performance and changing priorities. This “trial and error” approach to learning about managed ecosystems is highly inefficient.

2. Passive Adaptive Management

“Passive” adaptive management is a more formal approach by which historical information is explicitly used to select what is thought to be the single best management policy. Ecosystem response to the policy is observed, and the policy is adapted accordingly. A major drawback of passive adaptive management is that it confounds environmental and anthropogenic effects because replicates and controls are not utilized. This often leads to conflict over whether ecological responses are due to environmental or anthropogenic effects.

3. Active Adaptive Management

Least common despite its immense potential, is “Active” adaptive management, a systematic process of modeling, experimentation, and monitoring to compare the outcomes of alternative management actions. Here, multiple management policies are applied to the landscape following a rigorous experimental design that allows scientists and managers to compare ecosystem response to alternative management strategies. Through experimental design, active adaptive management accelerates the rate of learning about managed ecosystems, allowing managers to select more effective policies and thereby reducing the economic and ecological cost of resource management.

(Adaptive Management Experiment (AME) Team, 2003)

Alberta’s primary interest in adaptive management is most consistent with the definition of “active adaptive management”, an approach that requires the rigorous application of scientific principles.

N O T E S



N O T E SIn regards to where adaptive management fits in with continual improvement, adaptive management should be seen as feeding the improvement loop with new information/knowledge, especially to the improvement of performance standards, and to a lesser degree improvement of system requirements (e.g. SOPs)

Using the results of past monitoring will cause incremental improvements in forest management if used. A primary example is the monitoring of variance of the spatial harvest sequence implementation. By tracking the areas that were deleted or deferred, this information can be used in successive plans to constantly refine the net landbase.

In addition to monitoring, organizations need to include significant events since the last plan approval that have affected FMP implementation. These can include changes to tenured land, wildfire events and forest health concerns. In the past wildfires have had major consequences for plan development and implementation (e.g. Virginia Hills, House River). The current concerns around MPB are intended to have a large impact on sequencing and trade-offs when developing FMPs.

A statement of values, objectives indicators and targets

As outlined in Unit 1, the CSA definitions are as follows:

Value — a DFA characteristic, component, or quality considered by an interested party to be important in relation to a CSA SFM element or other locally identified element.

Objective — a broad statement describing a desired future state or condition of a value.

Indicator — a variable that measures or describes the state or condition of a value.

Target — a specific statement describing a desired future state or condition of an indicator. Targets should be clearly defined, time-limited, and quantified, if possible.

Essentially, these outline most (but not all) of the commitments of the plan.



N O T E S

The format for capturing the VOITs is Annex 4: Performance Standards of the Planning Standard. As written in Annex 4, Alberta has developed minimum expectation for the VOITs. The VOITS are fairly firm, however, as with anything, we are always willing to discuss enhancements or approaches that exceed the minimums. Although some will suggest that we are usurping the role of the public in the development of the VOITs, the setting of minimums is perfectly acceptable as per the following CSA excerpt:

Indicators are the means of measuring or describing the state or condition of forest values. Interested parties are guided in various ways regarding indicator selection. They are influenced by their own ideas about useful indicators, by the existence of mandatory indicators related to government regulations and policies that relate to the DFA, and by possible reference sets of indicators such as those of the CCFM and the Model Forest Network. The organization’s own internal management policies and procedures may dictate the need for certain indicators, and the interested parties may find it useful to consult with technical experts. The final indicator set is a result of the input from a number of these sources.

(CSA Z809-02)

In addition to the minimum VOITS, organizations need to incorporate those from the public participation process as well. If public values cannot be captured under existing CSA elements, new elements can be added. In general, indicators should relate to “state” conditions rather than process, as the results of processes are difficult to quantify and monitor.

Target statements in Annex 4 contain blank values to be developed as part of the planning process. Preliminary Targets can be drawn from landscape assessment, scientific information/studies, and professional knowledge. It is expected that the preliminary targets will change as forecasting is undertaken.



It important to remember that in setting the VOITs, they need to be constrained relative to the scope of the FMP and regulatory requirements of the organization. For example, limiting oil and gas activities and appointing areas as “Special Places” or protected areas is outside the scope of a FMP, as would requiring organizations to manage wildlife populations.

Current status and forecasts for each indicator, including a description of the assumptions and analytical methods for forecasting

Once selected, it important to understand the current status of each of the indicators. The metrics for the indicators may be slightly different than metrics or stratification done in landscape assessment. The current condition gives a reference point to which to the results of the forecasting process can be compared.

N O T E SThe following diagram shows the relationship and provides examples of VOITs



Essentially, the forecasting, in a large part, is the timber supply analysis (TSA). The requirements for the TSA can be found in Annex 1: Timber Supply Analysis and Growth and Yield. This annex covers the technical and documentation requirements of the forecasting process.

In addition to forecasting the sustainable harvest level and associated timber related measures such as growing stock, piece size, etc., organizations are required to project and assess impacts of harvesting and yield assumptions on other non-timber values as well. These other values include:

· Coarse filter metrics such as Seral Stages and Cover types, Patch Size and Interior Forest

· Wildlife habitat for identified species

· Susceptibility ratings for insect and disease (i.e. Mountain Pine Beetle)

· Impacts on water yield at 3rd order watershed level (~10,000 ha)

· Wildfire Threat Potential (Fire Behavior Potential)

· Carbon?? (Maybe in the future)

Ideally the targets for indicators would be set as objective statements within the timber supply model, and indeed some are. Others are impact assessments at specific points in time as required by Annex 4.

It is important to understand the linkage between the various components of the TSA and the indicators that are being forecast. For example, Trumpeter Swans will be handled through buffering on specifically identified lakes in the net landbase, while spatial distribution and abundance of wildlife habitat will be assessed through the spatial outputs from the timber supply model.

Some indicators may require specific forest regeneration assumptions. In some areas biologists are asking for deciduous areas to be reforested as conifer to create or restore caribou habitat. Other strategies may consider the maintenance of open or lower density stands (A density). These would require consideration of the yield curves to be used.

N O T E S



N O T E SIn addition to the documentation required for the timber supply, it is important that other assessments and models are documented as well. This lends to greater understanding, transparency and duplicability. In cases where there are proprietary concerns, items may be submitted under a separate cover.

A description of the chosen strategy including all significant actions to be undertaken and their associated implementation schedule

As discussed earlier, the process for selection of the chosen strategy is intended to be iterative. The selection should involve the use of goal posting the possible scenarios. The objective of these goal posting runs is to look at forest conditions under extreme scenarios such as:

· No management intervention

· Unconstrained timber objectives

· Biodiversity objectives

· Maximum enhanced forest management assumption

· Maximum fire behaviour potential reduction

This will help narrow the list of possibilities. In the final documentation it is not necessary to provide all of the runs that were undertaken, however it is important to summarize key runs that lead to the decision on the chosen strategy. Runs must be retained so that if requested by Alberta, they can be provided.

Each target must have an action associated with it. Actions are time specific. The FMP must include detail of the actions to be undertaken and their associated timelines. The chosen strategy must contain sufficient quantification and detail that all parties understand what is being planned. Much of the detail will be captured in the VOIT table in the format of Annex 4 of the Planning Standard. The following list is components of the plan where action to be undertaken can be found.



As mentioned:

· VOITs – what will be measured, targets and when/where it will be reported

As well as:

· Silviculture Strategy -Silviculture tactics based on yield stratification/site

· Spatial Harvest Sequence – stands to be harvested and what decade

· Road Corridor Plan – major corridors necessary to access compartments

· Operating Ground Rules –requirements and timing of operational planning

· Genetic Deployment/Crop Plan/EFM – where will stock be deployed and when

· Growth and Yield Plan - Plot establishment and re-measurement

Alternative Regeneration Strategy – completion of standards, surveys standards

A description of the monitoring program and the associated evaluation of actual and expected outcomes

The requirements and forms of reporting will be covered later in the workshop, however it is important to recognize that the plan must consider the reporting framework.

· Stewardship Reporting

- VOITs

- Spatial Harvest Sequence Variance and Analysis

- Growth and Yield Program – Regenerating PSP, Plot Establishment, re-measurements

· Annual Operating Plans

- Reforestation activities, variance from Silviculture Strategies Table

- SHS to FHP variance

N O T E S



· ARIS (Silviculture reporting database)

· Timber Production and Revenue System (TPRS) volumes cut

A demonstration of the linkages between short term and operational plans and the SFM plan

The strongest linkage between the FMP and operations will be the Operating Ground Rules (OGRs). Unlike past processes, the discussions of OGRs is expected to occur during the development of the FMP, rather than afterward. In the past, much of the detail regarding implementation was left to the OGRs, but by that time many of the possible approaches to management were not feasible because they were not accounted for in the FMP. The best time to examine alternatives is during the forecasting phase of the FMP.

Alberta is taking more of a landscape approach to planning. More operational planning is occurring during FMP development, allowing Alberta to expedite operational plans that adhere to the Spatial Harvest Sequence developed in the FMP. This workshop covers this new planning process in greater detail in Unit 6.

Another new FMP requirement for organizations is the Silviculture Strategies Table which outlines the treatments to be used by operators, stratified by yield strata and site types. Adherence to these strategies will be audited, with strategies that fall outside the table requiring more detailed review prior to approval.

The Road Corridor Plan is another important link to operations. Not only is it intended to identify routes to all compartments for use by the forestry companies; it is also intended to be a tool for integration with other industrial operators such as oil and gas companies. A map showing intended routes should lead to better integration even when forest operators have not yet commenced operations in a particular compartment.

N O T E S



The Process of Developing the DFMP



Participant Notes



Unit #5Planning Details

Documentation requirements ..................... 5 - 2

Net landbase ........................................... 5 - 8

Addressing biodiversity ............................. 5 - 11

Yield curves ............................................5 - 18

Timber supply analysis ..............................5 - 24

Spatial harvest sequence ..........................5 - 34

Annual allowable cut (AAC) Standard ............5 - 37

Upon completion of Unit 5, you should be able to explain specific components and processes used to develop a Forest Management Plan.


U n i t 5 - P l a n n i n g D e t a i l s


· Explain the required standards for data used in FMPs and the documentation requirements

· Define the purpose and methodology of determining the net landbase

· Describe how biodiversity can be addressed through Forest Management

· Define the purpose and methodology of developing yield curves

· Describe the process for completing a timber supply analysis and developing the preferred forest management strategy

· Explain the process for developing a spatial harvest sequence

· Discuss Wildfire and AAC Impact

D o c u m e n t a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s

Annex 1 overview

Annex 1 contains the standards for efficient completion of timber supply analyses and forecasts for the desired future forest

· Individual standards are numbered

· Bolded text indicates Alberta’s primary interest

· Plain, numbered text presents specific requirements of the standard

· Text without numbers contains additional detail that clarifies the requirements necessary for meeting the standard

· General headings are italicized

Timber supply analysis has four stages requiring Alberta’s approval:

1. Landbase description

2. Yield projection

3. Forecasting

4. Harvest planning

N O T E S



All submissions related to TSA requiring Alberta’s approval are validated by a RFP. Alberta shall not initiate a review of submissions until RFP-validated submissions are received. The validating RFP is responsible for ensuring the standards in this annex are met.

Alberta shall review submissions in one of two ways:

· by conducting assessments of accuracy, or

· through comprehensive appraisals of validated work where, in Alberta’s opinion, there is risk of significant negative impacts.

Although reviews will not start until validated submissions are received, effective and on-going communication between parties is required during development of the submissions.

Submission requirements

The submissions requirements are:

· All submissions contain RFP-validated checklists

· All submissions are in formats and on media approved by Alberta

· All data used in preparing the FMP must be provided to Alberta on request

· All submissions must include documentation of sufficient detail to enable Alberta to understand and replicate the submission without additional clarification

· When one or more changes to submissions are made, the entire work shall be resubmitted

· One single digital copy of work shall be submitted to Alberta

· All submissions shall be labelled accurately

· All data used in the analysis must be included in the submission to Alberta for verification

· Models or analysis systems used in a submission must be approved by Alberta, prior to use.

The Organization shall initiate its submission by making a comprehensive presentation of the work and data to Alberta and all affected stakeholders

N O T E S



Each data set submitted shall include a data dictionary with the following information:

File name

File type

Name and version of the software used to create the file

For each field, the following must be provided:

Field name

Field length

Number of decimal places (where applicable)

Description/definition of field

Valid codes

A description/definition for each valid code

A description of any processes or calculations used to create derived data

It is imperative that details related to software and hardware are explained clearly to minimize delays. Since new versions and different types of data storage hardware and media are readily available, the Terms of Reference for the FMP shall state the types of media and data formats to be used, or identify the time during the planning process when this matter will be addressed.

Multiple versions of data resulting from successive submissions may result in a delay owing to the additional work it creates for Alberta reviewers. Detailed labelling and controlling the number of copies submitted is essential for expediting reviews.

Alberta considers instances where the documentation provided is found to be inconsistent with the process actually used, to be a significant inaccuracy.

The Government of Alberta has passed the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the “Act”). All records (as defined in the Act) submitted to Alberta are subject to the Act and may be the subject of requests for access under the Act. The Act prohibits the disclosure of business information where disclosure would be harmful to a company’s business interest (as defined in section 16 of the Act). Organizations must be aware of their obligations under this act and copyright legislation. Alberta will honour licensing agreements that affect the data and software used.

N O T E S



Alberta will not:

· proceed with its review until all necessary information has been provided;

· approve submissions where it considers the information to be inadequate.

Vegetation inventory standards

Alberta’s objective is to ensure vegetation inventories used are maintained, and updated. The vegetation inventory used in the FMP has been approved by Alberta. The Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) is the inventory standard for the foreseeable future.

Five audits are required when approving Crown managed AVI data:

• Photo interpretation audit - acceptance accuracy 80%

• Fieldwork audit - work reviewed but no acceptance accuracy specified

• Orthophoto base transfer audit - acceptance accuracy 90%

• Attribute coding audit - acceptance accuracy 95%

• Digital attribute database audit - acceptance accuracy 100%

Alberta believes it is desirable to have in place a credible and cost-effective system for updating AVI to further enhance its utility. Alberta will publish a vegetation inventory and update standard and forest management directives from time to time to address update mechanisms and standards.

The Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) is a critical input for a FMP since the map stand types attributes shall be used to forecast the desired future forest conditions, to implement the FMP through the spatial harvest sequence, and to complete more detailed operational planning. Any shortcomings or deficiencies found in the AVI must be addressed promptly in an update process approved by Alberta.

N O T E S



The ToR for the FMP shall identify and allow time to complete the inventory, inventory updates and approval. The AVI approval is a separate, pre-requisite process to the FMP approval process. If additional information is to be used in the FMP (e.g., understorey inventories) the inventory methodology and resulting data must be approved by Alberta, and any process used to convert such information into an approved format must be documented fully.

A description of the history of the vegetation inventory completed within the FMA is complete and accurate, and a description of the inventory update process used is included.

The company must provide an explanation of all updates performed on the AVI data following the date of photography used in the original photo-interpretation, and a description of the process used to convert the inventory used by the Organization to the standard published by Alberta. The description shall accompany the submission of the AVI data used in determining the net landbase.

The effective date of the inventory is no more than 2 years prior to the submission date of the FMP. Depletions are current as of the effective date.

The forest cover typing in the AVI used in a FMP has been updated according to approved inventory update and/or full replacement standards, and no more than 10 years prior to the effective date.

The ToR addresses the need for an understorey inventory. Understorey classification has been completed according to standards approved by Alberta. Coniferous understorey management is based on data acceptable to Alberta.

Stands with coniferous understories require special consideration. Proposed understorey protection harvests on coniferous landbase must have transitions and yields projected in the TSA based on data acceptable to Alberta.

Metadata

Metadata is complete and accurate and includes information such as inventory version, photography dates, and inventory approval dates.

N O T E S



Landbase description standards

These standards describe the procedure and steps required to establish the net landbase and report the spatial classified landbase. Agreement-in-principle of the landbase description and yield projections shall be concurrent.

Descriptive information has been provided to Alberta.

Other pertinent data may also be provided, (e.g., land use updated, ecosites, wildlife habitat, visual resources, soils, terrain).

· Description outlining type and purpose of data set (e.g., land use update)

· Level of accuracy of data collection (i.e., scale)

· Age or collection date.

Data source

· Description of how data is used in the TSA and spatial harvest sequence

Copies of additional data sets used during the landbase classification process have been provided to Alberta as requested.

The distribution of the net landbase by FMU, sustained yield unit, single combined (deciduous/coniferous) landbase, or separate distinct deciduous and coniferous landbases, and for the entire area, has been submitted in a detailed table.

Summarized data must be consistent with summaries used for determining the net landbase and processed attributes.

Summarized areas must be consistent throughout the FMP.

Explanations must be included for variance(s) between the current areas and any previously reported areas. If variances cannot be explained, a detailed account shall be provided as to why it was not possible to make a comparison. Changes in landbase classification are a significant matter and analyses of variance(s) from previous analyses are essential to evaluate the magnitude and impact of these changes.

See the department website under Forest Management Manuals and Guidelines, and Directives for the following documents:

· Alberta Vegetation Inventory (AVI) Standards Manual

· 97-12 Verification of Disposition Holder Forest Inventories

N O T E S



N e t L a n d b a s e

Landbase is a general term used to identify land area managed for all uses.

Within a landbase there can be areas managed for conifer production identified separately from areas managed for deciduous production.

The landbase can be identified as an integrated landbase where flows of conifer and deciduous volumes come from the entire landbase.

Land can be classified as productive, potentially productive or non-productive. Only productive land and clearcuts classified as potentially productive contribute to the land eligible to be included in the net landbase. Burnt stands are not assumed to contribute to the net landbase until they are identified as carrying a productive forest type in subsequent inventories, or there is a commitment to reforest them.

- grassland- cutbank- open muskeg and bog- sand, silt and clay- rock and barren- soil and barren- flooded land- water- cleared land- cultivated land- unclassified land

Cover Type Classification

Productive

- brush and burnt- clear cut- insect and disease killed- windfall

Potentially Productive

- coniferous scrub- deciduous scrub

- treed muskeg

Forested Non - Forested

Non-Productive

Land Base

- grassland- cutbank- open muskeg and bog- sand, silt and clay- rock and barren- soil and barren- flooded land- water- cleared land- cultivated land- unclassified land

Cover Type Classification

Productive

- brush and burnt- clear cut- insect and disease killed- windfall

Potentially Productive

- coniferous scrub- deciduous scrub

- treed muskeg

Forested Non - Forested

Non-Productive

Land Base

Gross Land Base, in terms of timber supply, refers to the area that is potentially available for timber production. The FMU/SYU/FMA.

Net Land Base is that portion of the gross land base that actually contributes to timber production (buffers, protected areas, unproductive stands, or sensitive wildlife areas removed).

In creating a net landbase we must ensure we identify all quantifiable features we may wish to measure or manage.

It is important in identify all features that will be managed or reported on up front. It becomes very time consuming and onerous to continually backtrack to add additional features into the net landbase.



Land base definition

Included in the list, but not limited to, are all inventory (i.e. AVI) area, linear developments, PNTs with surface restrictions, some grazing leases, DRSs, Indian reserves, industrial sites, parks, wilderness areas, conservation areas and other protected areas, non-forested land, private land, inoperable area due to slope and elevation constraints, riparian and other buffers, and ecological and wildlife features.

- recreation areas- wildlife reserves- natural areas- ecological reserves

Exclude forest landwhich prohibits or precludes

timber harvesting

Net Land Base

- 45+%slopes- unstable soils- access constraints- subjective deletions

Exclude inoperable orIsolated stands

- road reserves- stream buffers- lake buffers- seismic lines

Exclude groundrule deletions

Gross Land Base

Determine Boundaries of Area

Harvested areas

The accurate classification of the status of harvested areas is essential for management. Harvested areas must be classified by harvest date and reforestation survey status. The classification of harvested areas must be consistent with reforestation records and plans.

Subjective deletion example

Stands with Lt as 1st or 2nd Species

Stands with Sb or P Leading, Origin < 1965 (except where the U/S is viable)

Stands that will not reach 15 meters tall by 180 years



Landbase classification

The landbase classification uses the different layers of data to classify or group the attributes into similar groups for analysis. Calculated analysis items include; broad cover group, age, landbase type, yield curve, habitat features, land status, area, etc.

Submission

The submission of a net landbase document must include;

· Complete attribute and spatial data

· Data dictionary

· Complete and full documentation of landbase classification process

Both overstory and understory descriptions must be present in the final net landbase attribute file. An explanation of how horizontal stands are classified must also be included.

Processed attributes must be included in the landbase file; yield stratum, landbase assignment, ageclass assignment, net stand area, net landbase indicator field, all inventory updates, all additional processed attributes, classification of reforestation areas consistent with reforestation records.

Documentation

The landbase classification must be fully documented. It must be;

· Written in plain English

· Transparent

· Replicable

It is imperative that the landbase documentation be fully transparent so all processes used in classifying the landbase are replicable and can clearly be understood in respect to the VOITs that have been established. It is important that the document be written in plain English instead of program code like English, as there are many different programming languages that use different syntaxes and change over time.

A recent submission that had a process description that read “SUBSTRING(PLANNED.[B_ENT_DATE],1,4)” was deemed unacceptable.

N O T E S



Every field used in the classification of the net landbase, whether it be an original field from the AVI or whether it be an analysis field must be documented in the data dictionary.

Programming codes

Programming code is used to aspatially classify the landbase type of a polygon. A typical landbase netdown program will contain hundreds of lines of such code.

Documentation review

· Check to ensure basic submission requirements of FMPS are met.

· Review documentation for replicability, transparency, completeness and alignment with VOITs.

· Conduct logic checks.

· Verify data dictionary.

A d r e s s i n g B i o d i v e r s i t y

Approach to biodiversity management in FMPs

Forest management plans require focused objective statements, with clear measurable targets using specified indicators. Performance Standard in FMPS utilizes CSA matrix in which each planning objective includes:

· Objective statement

· Indicator

· Target

· Means to identify target

· Means to achieve target

· Monitoring and measurement

· Reporting

· Acceptable Variance

· Response

N O T E S



The FMPS specifies objectives and indicators. Target language is provided but the quantitative part of target is derived through the planning process and reflects environmental/ social / economic tradeoffs.

As mentioned in Unit 1, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) definition of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) involves 6 criteria:

· Conservation of biological diversity

· Maintenance/enhancement of forest ecosystem productivity

· Conservation of soil and water resources

· Forest ecosystem contribution to global cycles

· Multiple benefits of forests to society

· Accepting society’s responsibility for sustainable development

Note that conservation of biodiversity is only one part of SFM

The Canadian Standards Association SFM elements of biodiversity include:

· Ecosystem Diversity

· Species Diversity

· Genetic Diversity

· Protected Areas

The FMPS has related ecosystem and species diversity to the coarse and fine filter components to managing for biodiversity. Both components are required to ensure conservation of biodiversity.

The FMPS also provides direction for Implementation Monitoring (i.e. was target achieved?) and other processes such as the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Program required for Effectiveness Monitoring (i.e. was biodiversity conserved?).

N O T E S



The FMPS Performance Standard (Annex 4) has used the structure provided by CAN/CSA Z809-2 to provide government’s expectations on what attributes of biodiversity must be addressed in forest management plans.

Ecosystem diversity (coarse filter)

Ecosystem diversity objectives are required at landscape and stand scales.

Landscape Scale Diversity

Objective: maintain biodiversity by retaining the full range of cover types and seral stages

The purpose of this is to ensure representation of the full diversity of ecosystem types and forest ages across the landscape. Separate targets for gross and net landbase are required to ensure representation of higher productivity cover types in older seral classes.

Example of target setting in C5 and Tolko-Buchanan FMA:

· Use of “natural disturbance paradigm” to propose seral stage targets

· Use of Landscape Assessment as current “snapshot” of seral stage distribution

· Social/ economic/ environmental tradeoffs made through iterative Timber Supply Analyses

· In the absence of ecosystem inventory at appropriate scales, a simple surrogate ecosystem representation analyses can be done using “Timber Productivity Ratings” and net landbase deletion rationales

Objective: avoiding landscape fragmentation

The intent is to minimize the contribution of forest management to landscape fragmentation. Two indicators for this objective are “patch size distribution” and “interior forest.”

N O T E S



The purpose of the patch size distribution indicator is to move away from equal-sized, evenly spaced harvest openings to a diversity of harvest patches based on natural disturbance principles. This can be achieved through spatial harvest sequence of harvest units and planning for linear features less than 8m wide (such as seismic lines) that do not split patches.

The purpose of the interior forest indicator is to compliment the patch size distribution indicator and ensure interior old forest is maintained through the planning period. The target is based on the same natural disturbance principles as patch size indicator.

Interior old forest is defined as old forest beyond the zone of influence of forest edges. This zone of influence is 60 m from a hard edge such as a cutblock but is reduced as adjacent stands grow.

The plan for C5 is an example where the interior forest was projected for 100 years. The analysis tool used was the spatial timber supply model, Patchworks.

Objective: minimizing access

Access structures such as roads and trails have no analog in nature and negatively impact a wide variety of species.

Impacts include: fragmentation effects, human activities (hunting), altered water flows through watersheds, and altered predator/ prey dynamics.

It is important to understand the limited scope of this objective as the Planning Standard does not regulate other users on the landscape. This objective focuses on forestry access structures.

While quantitative targets are required, the plan should focus on coordination strategies with other industrial users to minimize access footprint.

Objective: minimize uncommon plant communities

The purpose of this objective is to ensure maintenance of identified rare plant communities in planning area.

Planners can use existing or future data sources to select communities and targets. Examples of existing data sources are Alberta Natural History Information Centre (ANHIC) and Biodiversity/Species Observation Database (BSOD). Ecosite phase mapping can also be used to identify possible rare plant communities.

N O T E S



Objective: maintain unique habitats provided by wildfire and blowdown

The two indicators for this objective are “area of unsalvaged burned forest” and “area of unsalvaged blowdown”.

Post disturbance (fire and wind) communities are important contributors to landscape biodiversity with many species specializing on these habitats.

The unsalvaged burned forest indicator is linked to the“Fire Salvage Strategy Framework”.

· It is Important to note that this indicator is unique in that it does have a quantitative target specified in the standard.

Objective: retain ecological values and functions associated with riparian zones

The purpose is to maintain integrity and ecological functions of riparian habitats across the landscape. Riparian areas contribute to both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity.

The OGRs provide direction on managing riparian areas. Compliance with OGRs is therefore the target. The OGRs specify different buffer widths based on waterbody classification.

OGR makes provision for variances from specified buffers widths. This provision should only be used to better address riparian habitat protection objectives or to allow for SRD approved research studies.

Stand scale diversity

Objective: retain stand level structure

The two indicators for this objective are “area or volume residual structure” and “Coarse woody debris”.

The purpose of the residual structure indicator is to retain pre-disturbance legacies of vertical residual structure in harvested areas. Residual structure will provide present and future sources of snags, nesting and foraging habitats, shelter, and coarse woody material. The target is informed by natural disturbance principles (The Foothills Model Forest Quicknotes are a good source of information).

N O T E S



The distribution of residual structure may be modified to meet operational realities. For example, focusing retention in larger clumps or islands of trees will likely address operational realities while also maximizing biological effectiveness.

Riparian buffers required by the OGRs do not contribute to the target for this objective. However, target setting should consider that riparian buffers also contribute to stand level structure.

The residual structure in islands large enough to be captured by AVI (2 hectares) also contribute to landscape scale seral stage targets.

The purpose of the downed woody material indicator is to retain pre-disturbance legacies of downed woody material in harvested areas. Coarse woody material provides important habitats to nonvascular and vascular plants, microorganisms, and invertebrate and vertebrate animals. The target is informed by pre-harvest levels of downed woody material.

Strategies for maintaining appropriate distributions of downed woody material in harvest areas will be an important component to addressing this objective.

Objective: maintain integrity of sensitive sites

The purpose of this objective is to maintain integrity of sensitive sites such as mineral licks, dens, nesting areas, and game trails. The OGRs provide for forested buffers around breeding sites, hibernacula, nesting areas, dens, mineral licks, and natural springs for a variety of species. DFMP strategies should be consistent with this OGR direction.

Objective: maintain aquatic biodiversity by minimizing impacts of water crossings

The process based indicator for this objective is the “Forestry water crossings in compliance with Code of Practice for Water Course Crossings.” The applicability of this code to forestry operations is found in the OGRs.

N O T E S



Species diversity (fine filter)

Species diversity, or fine filter objectives are required for species whose habitat requirements are not addressed through the coarse filter ecosystem diversity objectives.

The rationale for species selection can be based on the following:

· Listed species – Alberta or federal

· Species of management concern

· Species of public interest

· Species as indicators of key coarse filter habitat attributes (e.g. old forest dependant species, interior forest/edge sensitive species)

The indicator and target may be either focused on habitat (area) or on population (trends, numbers). In most cases the area of suitable habitat is the preferred indicator as forest management has a more direct influence on habitat than it does on population.

Objective: genetic diversity

The genetic diversity objective in the FMPS addresses genetic diversity of natural tree populations. Genetic diversity of all other species is assumed to be addressed through ecosystem and species diversity objectives.

Objective: retain wild forest populations for each tree species in each seed zone through establishment of in-situ reserves

The indicator is the number and area of in-situ genetic conservation areas to be established in the defined forest area. The target is required to conform to Standards for Tree Improvement in Alberta. The target will be the portion of the required number of genetic conservation areas determined in consultation with Alberta and other FMAs in the same seed zone.

Objective: Retain wild forest genetic resources through ex-situ conservation

This objective requires participation in government/industry genetic cooperatives as defined in the Standards for Tree Improvement in Alberta.

N O T E S



Protected Areas

There is a limited scope to the “Protected Areas” element in the FMPS. Designation of protected areas does not occur through DFMP planning, but instead through higher-level strategic planning processes involving other resource sectors.

The indicators and targets are process-based requiring consultation between FMA holder and adjacent protected areas agencies.

Y i e l d C u r v e s

A yield projection is the relationship between yield and stand age for a given stratum. In the simplest example ,it can be defined as the relationship between age and volume based on a set of age/volume observations.

Stratum: 1-D

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Stand Age (years)

Yie

ld (m

3/ha

)

Yield Projection

Stratum: 1-D

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Stand Age (years)

Yie

ld (m

3/ha

)

Yield Projection

In the example above, the scatter of dots are age/volume pairs observed in individual plots for this “1-D” stratum. Using these observations, a best fit relationship is determined by using non-linear regression.

This yield projection is used as an input into the Timber Supply Analysis.

For a stand in this stratum, you can look up an estimated volume at any age. So, as a stand is forecast/aged in the Timber Supply Analysis it tracks along this yield projection, until such time it is selected for management activity and the age at that point in the forecast and the yield projection for that stratum are used to estimate yield.

It is important to note that this is a strategic level model. Individual stands will have actual volumes, which may vary significantly around this strategic level mean estimate.

Yield projections should be based on local ground data.



Ground data

The first set of data, which is critical in support of yield projection development, is a base vegetation inventory, using AVI that is in place.

The next thing that needs to be done is to collect ground based plot data within the framework of the AVI. Given the number of stands in a management unit it is not possible to get ground observation in every stand. Due to the complexity of the AVI , it is not possible to get ground based observations for every possible combination of AVI attributes. So, we must stratify stands into broad classes based on their AVI attributes and conduct samples within these broad types.

One must ensure the link to the ground sample and the AVI stand are maintained. The resulting data then provides a mean estimate of the conditions in that broad group being sampled.

Stratification

A stratification scheme needs to be defined before sampling can take place. Stratification of the landbase can take a number of forms.

In the past companies were not provided much in the way of direction for how they stratified their landbase other than the general requirement that the 4 broad cover types be separated. As outlined in the planning standard we now are moving toward a base set of 10 strata.

Cover Type Strata # Strata NameD I Deciduous

II Hardwood/PineIII Hardwood/SpruceIV White Spruce/HardwoodV Pine/HardwoodVI Black Spruce/HardwoodVII White Spruce leadingVIII Pine leadingIX Black Spruce leadingX Douglas Fir leading

CD

C

DC

Note that this does not limit a company from further dividing these strata should they need to meet specific management objectives. The 10 base strata are intended to differentiate broad cover group and leading species types. A company may decide to further divide this based on natural subregion, crown closure, productivity, presence of understory, other ecological factors, etc. Note that any layers used to help with stratification must have been audited and accepted by SRD as an acceptable layer for use in the DFMP.



Also you must be sure that the stratification covers every part of the operable landbase, i.e. every area that is in the active landbase must be assigned to a yield strata.

Once base strata have been agreed to, a sampling scheme must be determined. There are a number of forms a sample design can take.

Volume sampling data in support of yield projection development can take various forms. Temporary sample plots or permanent sample plots can be used. Depending on the intended modeling methodology PSPs may be required. Sample designs must be submitted to Alberta and approved before field work commences. Sample design can take various forms but the key characteristic which is common to all sample design is that it must be an unbiased sample.

Once you have the data collected the data must be compiled.

Data is first compiled to the tree level. Taper functions are used to estimate merchantable volume for a given tree based on predefined utilization standards. Utilization standards are typically defined by stump height, minimum log length, stump diameter outside bark and top diameter inside bark.

Tree volumes are then compiled to the plot level and further compiled to the per hectare stand level. Depending on the intended modeling methodology, other characteristics may be needed at the plot level such as top height, average height, stems per hectare, piece size (volume per stem), etc.

The plot is linked to the landbase inventory. The AVI attributes associated with the stand that the plot falls into are used to stratify the plot into yield classes. Any other spatial layers used in the stratification definition are also linked to the plot to help assign it to a stratum (example, natural subregion).

Plots may not be included in the final yield projection analysis for a number of reasons. If the plot falls into a stand with AVI attributes that are subjectively deleted from the net landbase they are not included in the yield analysis. If it falls into any part of the passive landbase (for example, riparian buffers) it is excluded from analysis. Also if the plot and the area around it has been harvested or burned since measurement it is excluded from yield analysis. Only plots that fall in the current active landbase are included in yield projection.

N O T E S



Once all necessary plot characteristics have been compiled and we have identified which plots are eligible for use in modeling we can begin modeling.

Modeling is the step where we try to define the relationships observed in the data. There are a number of ways this can be done but three approaches will be discussed here.

The simplest of the three approaches is the empirical volume age relationship. Given the set of plot observations a non-linear regression is conducted to find the best fit relationship between volume and age.

An estimate is made for conifer and deciduous yield separately for a given stratum.

The modeller must use some professional judgment as there are endless amounts of non-linear regression functions which could potentially be used; however, not all functions will produce ‘biologically reasonable’ results. However, that is not to say that it does not have to fit the existing data.

A more complex and less common method is the use of a 2 step modeling approach. First, a model must be fit between height and stand age. This usually takes the form of a site index model which in effect produces a number of height age relationships that are different for different site conditions. A volume height relationship is the second step. Finally, a yield table / curve is produced as an input for the TSA. This curve is the combination of the two other relationships for a given stratum. Note that a fairly extensive PSP system is necessary to conduct this type of modeling.

Growth models take various forms. The two that are most applicable in Alberta are the Mixedwood Growth Model (MGM) and the Growth and Yield Projection System (GYPSY). These types of models would most appropriately be used to help define post-harvest yields.

MGM is an individual tree level growth model. You must provide MGM with a set of starting conditions and various events and MGM grows the stand through time and provides stand and tree characteristics through time. Volume is just one output.

GYPSY is a stand level growth model. Again you provide GYPSY with stand characteristics and it will grow the stand forwards or backwards through time.

N O T E S



Much efforts have been put into improving both of these growth models in recent years as these are going to be integral in helping us link post-harvest yields to early stand conditions.

Adjustments

A number of yield projection adjustments are often required.

Cull is one such adjustment. An estimate of cull is most commonly derived from recent scaling data and is typically applied as a flat rate adjustment to the predicted yield.

Another, adjustment which is often required is the addition of stand decline. The model may not take care of this possibly due to lack of data in the older age classes. This is most often an issue in deciduous stand types.

In addition to yield projections piece size must also be modeled.

Validation

Whatever modeling methodology is used, we need to assess whether the yield projections are valid. We take a number of steps to ensure they are reasonable.

First, we look to see that the yield projection that is produced biologically reasonable. We also look at best fit regression statistics such as r squared. These statistics can provide some insight as to how well the model fits the data.

We also require a graphical plot of the estimated yields against the age class means. This helps with a visual assessment of whether or not the estimation fits the data.

N O T E S



For example, in the graph on the left, the yield projection appears to be a consistent over prediction. In the graph on the right, the yield projection appears to be a relatively good fit to the means.

In all cases a monitoring program is required that measures yield over time and is intended to help identify inaccurate yield projections so that corrective action can be taken in a timely manner.

Monitoring

Growth and yield monitoring is typically taken care of out side of the scope of yield projection development but is an integral part of any DFMP as it provides the assurance that we are testing our assumptions over time. Thus, with this we have the means to identify problems and take corrective action if necessary.

A growth and yield plan has three base objectives:

· to meet desired future model development initiatives

· monitor specific assumptions made in current yield estimation

· satisfy any approval criteria associated with current DFMP.

In order to achieve these objectives one must establish a number of samples; TSP, PSP, regen survey. Effort is targeted in both natural origin stands and post-harvest stands. In recent years, SRD has shifted focus in these programs to the post-harvest side of things, as this typically represents an area which we do not have a lot of data and information.

0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

4 0 0

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 00 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 2 0 0

0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

4 0 0

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 00 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 1 8 0 2 0 0

N O T E S



Summary

In summary you must have a plan and have developed this plan in the context of your management objectives. Start with a base inventory and a ground sample that have been determined based on some stratification scheme. From there process the data and develop relationships between volume and age for each stratum. Validate the yield projection with whatever means are available and commit to monitor any assumptions made in the yield projections.

Timber Supply is an output after addressing ecological integrity, social, economic and cultural values. Timber Supply Determination is the process followed to obtain the long-term sustainable harvest level for a given area.

T i m b e r S u p p l y A n a y l s i s

Before a TSA can begin certain components of the Management Plan must be in place:

· ToR

· VOITs

· Net Landbase

· Yield Curves

It is important to have all management values in place before moving onto the TSA. This allows all necessary data requirements to be built into the model and helps to avoid backtracking.

The outcome of the TSA must be a representation of the management values, not fitting management options to a pre-determined AAC. We don’t want to put the cart before the horse.

Forecasting is the analysis of a range of realistic forest management scenarios, and the selection of the preferred scenario representing the optimum result. The assumptions and output of the preferred scenario dictate the forest management activities that shall be used in implementing the plan.

The scenarios evaluated in forecasting may affect the landbase description and yield projection phases, which may have to be modified to enable effective forecasting that adequately characterizes the results of various strategies.

N O T E S



Local Yield Information- Yield Curves- Volume Tables

Growth and Yield

CalculateLRSYA

Sequence theSelected AAC

Select AnnualAllowable Cut

SustainableHarvest Level

Obtained

ResultsUnacceptable

AnalyseResults

Alternative HarvestScenarios

Harvest Modelling - Woodstock - SilvaSym - Patchworks

Timber SupplyData Inputs

Aggregated land base- Yield Classes- Age Classes- Compartmentalization

Net Land Base

Timber Supply Criteria- Harvest System- Min. Harvest Age- Rotation/Green-up/Regen Lags

ManagementObjectives

As seen in the flowchart, the various components of a timber supply come together to allow an iterative process to be followed to evaluate various scenarios until an acceptable sustainable balance of values is attained. Again, this is leading to an acceptable future forest condition based on current data and values. Subsequent analyses in time will have different values and data that will without doubt generate different results.

Timber Supply Model Requirements

· Capable of addressing different treatments; e.g. clear cut or selective harvesting, overstory removal/release of understory, regeneration assumptions (yield, land base)

· Able to employ multiple yield curves (e.g. site, species, location)

· Able to simulate alternative management strategies (e.g. maximize volume while maintaining specified level of wildlife habitat)



· Accommodate spatial operational constraints (i.e. compartments, harvest system, retention period)

· Interfaced with GIS (and hence AVI) to look at options/results of alternatives

Model types

Linear Programming or LP

· Optimization – IE – Maximize volume

· Generates a harvest schedule that meets objectives/constraints

· Woodstock

Simulation

· User tells model what harvest rules to follow

· IE – Cut oldest first

· Silvasym, Patchworks, Stanley

While we typically speak of LP models as maximizing volume, we could just as well maximize habitat or minimize piece size or control other values that are deemed important management objectives. Constraints are then placed on a LP model to force the model to meet additional management criteria.

LP produces the best results under a given set of circumstances by determining “the timing and extent of actions for you”. Simulation requires the modeller to “specify how much of any action to apply in a given period”.

The current standard for sustainability in Alberta requires:

· A planning horizon of 200 years

· An even flow of volume throughout the planning horizon

· The amount of operable growing stock must be stable over the last quarter of the planning horizon

· Allowances are made in the planning standard for uneven flow scenarios if, in Alberta’s opinion, the result will lead to a more acceptable future forest condition

The maximum allowable tolerance in the periodic harvest is +/- 5% of the planning horizon average.

N O T E S



Stands that are below the minimum harvest age or above the maximum piece size are not considered operable and would therefore not be considered as part of the operable growing stock. This really is a measure of how much standing “mature” timber is available at any point in time. Other provinces have some age class distributions that are skewed so much towards younger age classes that this year they are growing next years harvest.

Other management actions such as seral stage and wildlife habitat maintenance can achieve results such as maintaining growing stock levels by keeping more older and ergo operable growing stock on the landbase.

Submission

The submission must include a description of the forecasts completed and the rationale used in the review and analysis of each scenario.

Two main points are to be considered:

· forecasted forest structure

· forecasted timber supplies

A data set (file) must be provided containing the post-harvest forest condition for the preferred forest management strategy, for 0, 10, 20 and 50 years for each FMU and/or sustained yield unit. The data set shall depict:

Compartment Yield strata Age classContributing land base areaNon-contributing land base areaConiferous growing stockDeciduous growing stockOther data to describe outputs for values, objectives, indicators and targets Harvest Schedule (i.e. definitive stand list)

A data set (file) must be provided containing the harvest schedule for 70 years for the preferred forest management strategy, for each FMU and/or sustained yield unit, compartment and period.

N O T E S



The data set shall report:

· Area harvested by yield strata, age class, harvest activity (harvest/treatment regime), reforestation transition and management intensity (basic/enhanced); Coniferous and deciduous volume harvested (primary and secondary); Coniferous and deciduous piece size; spatial schedule of stands selected for harvest

Management & analysis assumptions

Managed assumptions represent management decisions or activities for which there are a range of options that can have a significant impact on the preferred scenario. The rationale for each managed assumption must be explained and the following managed assumptions must be addressed at minimum:

· Yield curve (strata) transitions

- Same to same

- Pure conifer to mixedwood

· Regenerated yield / Silviculture regimes

- Natural vs. fully stocked

· Linkage to regeneration standards

· Impact of EFM (Enhanced Forest Management)

· Landbase assignments for coniferous and deciduous timber

- Coniferous understory management

· Understory response to overstory removal.

Proposed understorey protection harvests on coniferous landbase must have transitions and yields projected in the TSA based on data acceptable to Alberta.

N O T E S



· Acceptable green-up constraints

Default green-up is 20 years for coniferous and 10 years for deciduous

The green-up constraints may be altered as long as the result is acceptable. The minimum criteria for acceptability of alternate strategies are:

a. The opening size predicted for the first two 20-year periods falls within the natural range of variability (NRV). Analyses of the forest cover inventory in the area will provide guidance regarding acceptable opening sizes, and,

b. The distribution of proposed harvesting is generally acceptable to stakeholders, or,

c. A biodiversity analysis acceptable to Alberta has been completed.

· Allowances for natural disturbance events

- Insects & Disease

- Fires

Alberta’s policy is not to plan an annual fire loss, but to recalculate when catastrophic loss occurs. Previously we calculated an annual loss (max 10%) as well as recalculating the AAC when catastrophic loss occurred - essentially a double accounting.

Fire loss was based on the % of productive landbase lost for a 22 year period (1960-1982). Applied at old forest level, not FMU level.

Under current policy when land is burned it is considered as potentially productive. Burned areas shall be deleted from the net landbase unless the forest manager commits to reforest the areas, or an approved forest cover inventory shows that acceptable forest cover has been re-established.

· Timber drain mechanism

Account for, report and allocate timber drain

N O T E S



· Strategic forest management access plan

A proposed road corridor plan describing the permanent road network needed to access the total net landbase and implement the spatial harvest design must be completed. This plan outlines the most probable locations for road corridors that will enable access to each subunit on the FMA for forestry purposes. The level of detail required is that of a Phase I road corridor plan. Access management for purposes other than forestry will be directed and determined from other government planning initiatives.

A 5% reduction in reforested area following harvest shall be incorporated into the TSA to account for losses from unsuccessfully reclaimed temporary roads, decking and processing areas. Organizations may minimize this reduction through analysis of survey data on actual losses in each FMP.

· Timber operability and economic limitations

At minimum, piece size (trees/cubic metre) must be predicted for the entire planning horizon to ensure that precipitous declines in the future are avoided. A minimum harvest age shall be established for each yield stratum that reflects the operability limits and piece size.

· Biological/ecological strategies

Biological/ecological strategies include in block stand retention targets. Retained merchantable volumes must be measured and treated as production.

· Water yield predictions and riparian issues management

The impacts on water yield must be predicted. Watershed modeling and analysis will determine an acceptable target for water yield increase following harvesting for third order watercourses. The ToR will describe the models to be used and assessments to be completed

· Visual quality strategies

· Standards for Tree Improvement in Alberta

If the preferred scenario includes enhanced stand growth and yield due to tree improvement activities, the organization must describe how the requirements of the Standards for Tree Improvement in Alberta have been addressed

N O T E S



· Grazing interests

· Senescence and stand breakup

· Wildlife habitat requirements/maintenance

The objectives and constraints are what are applied to a timber supply model to control its actions to meet the management values and targets. You’ll see that there are a lot of similarities between the objectives and constraints and the previous management and analysis assumptions.

· Adjacency Requirements - entry age, establishment period

· Green-up requirements - crown closure

· Harvest compartments & harvest sequence

· Understory management

· Natural disturbance allowances – fire, insect, disease

· Access & development limitations

· Block size limitations

· Maintenance of age class distributions

· Reforestation requirements

· Timber operability and economic limitations

· Minimum harvest ages

· Minimum piece size

· Growing stock maintenance

· Structure retention, wildlife, connectivity, biodiversity, etc.

· Maintain Polygon/opening size distribution. At what scale?

· Concern with fragmentation &/or aggregation

· Water yield

N O T E S



Preferred scenario selection

A detailed explanation of the decision making process used to select the preferred management scenario is required. Many preliminary forecasts/scenarios will be explored in arriving at the preferred scenario. A summary discussion must be provided explaining the alternate scenario explorations.

To evaluate whether projected timber supplies are sustainable the following must be considered:

· Volumes projected

· Tree size, silviculture and haul distances are reasonably stable throughout the entire planning horizon

The following is part of the text from Section 5.5 of Annex 1 which succinctly describes the process used in arriving at the Preferred Forest Management Scenario.

“Forecasting effort must be focused on evaluating complete scenarios that are practical and reasonable. This complex process is often very confusing to participants and as result, decision-making can be difficult. There will be many preliminary forecasts completed to assess various management options which must be documented and archived; however, only the preferred scenario shall be submitted with full documentation, and a summary discussion of the next two or three most likely possible scenarios. Due diligence requires that all practical and reasonable scenarios be evaluated in the process used to select the preferred scenario and that these forecasts be comprehensively evaluated with other participants in the planning process. All data on scenarios must be retained and available to Alberta on request, but need not be submitted automatically”.

Sensitivity analysis

The real goal of exploring various scenarios is to ensure that some minimum amount of sensitivity analysis is performed. Sensitivity analysis is the determination of how sensitive the harvest level is to changes in constraints or assumptions.

A change in the harvest schedule is just as a important as a change in the harvest level.

N O T E S



There are three major types of sensitivity analyses within timber supply analysis.

Analysis to determine where bottlenecks occur:

· Impact of minimum harvest age

· Impact of green-up requirements

· Impact of regeneration lag

Analysis to determine impact of constraints:

· Constraints that are a result of sustainable forest management

· Impact of age class distribution constraints (like old growth retention)

· Impact of wildlife habitat requirements

· Impact of flow policy constraints

Risk assessment analysis:

· Assessment of risk involved with regenerated yield or Enhanced Forest Management assumptions.

For example, you may assume that regenerated yields are 120% of natural yields. What are the repercussions if you harvest at an increased level based on this assumption and the assumption is incorrect?

· Assessment of yield projection risks.

· Assessment of risk associated with accelerated harvests.

Accelerated timber harvesting may be an acceptable forest management approach to; mitigate wildfire risk or forest health issues, age-class imbalances, address timber production and quadrant/period balancing.

These type of risk assessments usually entail evaluating the forecasted flow with the assumption and then comparing it to what the real flow would have been without the assumption after following the assumption harvest rate for 20 years.

Risk is measured as the percent change between the two flows.

N O T E S



Conditions for accelerated harvest are:

· It occurs over the first 20 years of the planning horizon,

· The recommended harvest level does not exceed 125% of the unaccelerated average even flow harvest level, and

· The average even flow harvest level for the remaining 180 years is not less than 90% of the unaccelerated average even flow for the entire planning horizon.

A key point to remember is that with a maximum 10 year replanning time frame we have the ability to identify anomalies and validate or refute assumptions in a fairly short amount of time (in comparison to a 200 year planning horizon). There would have to be very significant assumptions errors to have a significant effect on the long term AAC in a 10 year period. With timber supply time is on our side as (up to a point) we use very long projections shielded by even flow. Other resource values may not have that luxury.

S p a t i a l H a r v e s t S e q u e n c e D e v e l o p m e n t

There are several stages involved in developing a harvest sequence.

Initial stage

· Define compartments (i.e. operating units) and compartment level sequence (i.e. which compartments are available for harvesting and when)

· Look at age classes, geographic distribution of mature operable net land base, profile of operable land base

· Landscape assessment of values (e.g., habitat, interior forest)

· Existing operations and infrastructure (FMA holders, Quota Holders, MTU)

· Haul distance, timing of operations (winter versus summer)

· Laid out and planned blocks, existing licences, future required licences

N O T E S



· Preliminary constraints and objectives incorporated into the TSA model

· Require both spatial harvest schedule for min 70 years, 20 years Spatial Harvest Sequence (SHS) with next 10 years of definitive stands for harvest

· TSA model output

Intermediate stage

· Work with all operators to allocate spheres of interest/ stands for harvest

· Consider wood flow; deciduous in conifer blocks; conifer in deciduous blocks

· Preliminary review of model output for isolated stands, disbursed harvest etc. utilizing photography, inventory

· Impacts to non-timber values

· Field verification of remaining stands for operability, rationale for deleting stands, adherence to timber profile

· Select addition area or stands necessary to achieve volumes

· Model re-run to assess impact on AAC, other non-timber values

Final stage

· Sign-off by all operators.

Planning and operational implementation conditions

The following are planning and operational implementation conditions taken from Section 6 of the Planning Standard:

“The harvest area (ha) shall not exceed 100% of the total area (ha) in the approved SHS/SDT by compartment per decade without a management review. During forecasting, the SHS has been evaluated and it is confirmed the SHS can be converted to a Final Harvest Plan (FHP) (see Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules) by deleting less than 20% of the total area (ha) by compartment per decade. For operational flexibility, the area (ha) deleted from the SHS may be replaced with an equivalent area (ha)

N O T E S



of stands from the net landbase.

· The SHS shall incorporate any harvest areas that are planned or approved in operating plans at the time of the effective date for the inventory.

· The second decade of stands identified in the SHS are included in this plan to facilitate the transition to the next FMP. These stands shall be reviewed during the development of the next FMP, due at the end of the first decade.

· Alternative SHS implementation protocols, as follows, may be acceptable to Alberta. The harvest area (ha) shall not exceed 110% of the total area (ha) in the approved SHS/SDT by compartment per decade without a management review. During forecasting, the SHS has been evaluated and it is confirmed the SHS can be converted to a FHP. For operational flexibility, stands may be deleted (as above) from the SHS and replaced with an equivalent area (ha) of stands from the net landbase within the following limits.

The harvest area (ha) must not exceed 110% of the approved S·HS/SDT area (ha) by yield stratum and compartment, and shall not exceed 100% of the yield stratum area (ha) by decade unless otherwise approved by Alberta. (i.e. no single stratum harvest area shall exceed 100%)

Variances from the SHS and SDT have been totalled and reported for all operational plans addressed in the current FMP at the time of operational planning (i.e., preparing the harvest design for an area as per the Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules),

Variances shall be identified as additions or deletions. Deletions are either permanent deletions from the net landbase or deferrals to a later time, and are organized as follows:

Operational changes in harvest area due to:

· Covertype boundary changes for operational efficiency.

· Additional buffers or deletions required that were not deleted from the net landbase (e.g., historical sites, wildlife sites, additional stream buffers, steep slopes, unstable areas, land use).

N O T E S



Inventory changes in the harvest area due to:

· Inaccuracies in cover typing, (i.e., incorrect leading species, non-edge-tied map sheets).

· Errors in net landbase determination (e.g., private lands not deleted, existence of understorey not included in the covertype classification). Variances from the SHS resulting from understorey management shall be classified as inventory errors. Alberta shall require that the inventory be updated very quickly to address such errors.

· Covertypes deleted or deferred for economic reasons.

Submission requirements

· Mapped SHS for the first two 10 year harvest periods.

· Strata description table summarizing area by yield strata by ageclass to be harvested in the first two 10 year periods.

· The SHS must reflect the net landbase strata profile.

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f N e w A n n u a l A l l o w a b l e C u t s S t a n d a r dThe following is information on the New Annual Allowable Cuts Standard taken from Appendix A – Annex 1 of the Planning Standard:

Annual allowable cut (AAC) is the volume or area of timber that may be harvested annually from a forest management unit (FMU), as established by the Minister.

The Minister has the right to change the annual allowable cut of an FMU and the corresponding authorized FMA, Quota and DTA volumes at any time when, in his opinion, it is in the interests of good forest management.

N O T E S



The following principles and rules shall be used in allocating revised AACs:

· The annual allowable cut for an FMU shall normally be re-assessed every 10 years but may change in the interim if Alberta believes there is sufficient reason. In either event, changes in AAC shall be effective at the beginning of the timber year in which the AAC is approved.

· When FMUs are consolidated, the new FMU commencement date shall coincide with the effective date for the revised AAC.

· In the event that FMUs or allocations are merged, the new allocation shall be the sum of the previous allocations unless otherwise agreed to by all parties affected and approved by Alberta.

· When an AAC is revised irrespective of the reason, the volume available in the cut control period shall be the sum of the revised AAC for the period it was in effect, plus the previous AAC for the period it is in effect.

· AACs shall be revised when a new timber supply analysis is approved, or more than 2.5% of the net landbase is deleted. The AAC shall be reduced by an amount equal to the percentage of net landbase deleted.

Circumstances that require a revision to the approved AAC can result from:

· Changes to net landbase due to factors such as (but not limited to) updated inventory, fires, deletions for other land uses, changes to FMU boundaries, and changes in subjective or Operating Ground Rule deletions

· Changes in yield projections

· Changes in utilization standard

N O T E S



The revised AAC has been allocated using methods acceptable to Alberta. The following applies

· Percentage allocations (coniferous timber quotas and some deciduous timber allocations)

- Where tenure documents allocate a percentage of the AAC, the volume allocated shall be the percentage multiplied by the revised AAC.

- Volume allocations (most deciduous timber allocations, some coniferous allocations)

- Where tenure documents allocate a volume, the volume shall be allocated if it is available after the percentage allocations are completed.

· Area allocation

- Where tenure documents allocate the timber on a specific area and state exemptions, the AAC minus the exemptions (in the following priority - percentage then volume) shall be allocated to the area allocation unless specified otherwise in tenure documents.

Timber supply and reforestation impacts from wildfire

Wildfire impacts to timber supplies will be addressed in the following manner in timber supply analyses and reforestation. Note that a similar approach may be used for insect and disease outbreaks (i.e., Mountain Pine Beetle) or other disturbance events which impact timber supply and forest land base.

Principles:

If wildfire has affected the net productive forest landbase of a forest management unit by more than 2.5% a revised AAC will be determined.

Burned area shall be removed from the productive forest landbase to determine the revised AAC.

Burned area may be included the productive forest landbase and contribute to the post-fire AAC given the following being met:

- The organization commits to reforest the landbase to provincial regeneration standards (or approved alternative regeneration standards). Managed stand yield assumptions will apply with the new reforestation start date.

- Company doesn’t commit to regeneration standards, but does commit to conduct a survey acceptable to Alberta. A reduced yield assumption (i.e., low site, different yield stratum, lower density - e.g., AB) compared to the pre-harvest covertype yield is applied.

N O T E S



N O T E S



Participant Notes



Unit #6Implementation

Ground rules ............................................ 6 - 2

Operational planning process ..................... 6 - 10

Planning and monitoring for partial harvest ..6 - 13

Implementation of reforestation adjustments 6 - 22

Tracking variances to the spatial harvest sequence ..................................................6 - 31

Performance Monitoring ...........................6 - 33

Upon successful completion of Unit 6, students will be able to identify the linkages between strategic and operational plans and manage the successful implementation of each.


U n i t 6 - I m p l e m e n t a t i o n


· Explain the development process for Ground Rules and their application and purpose, and the connection between Ground Rules and Spatial Harvest Sequencing

· Explain the operational planning process for AOP’s, GDP’s and Compartment Assessments

· Discuss the Planning and Monitoring Standards for Partial Harvest

· Discuss the implementation of Reforestation adjustments

· Explain the process for tracking variances to the spatial harvest sequence and subsequent reporting.

· Explain the role of Performance Monitoring and Reporting in Forest Management Planning

G r o u n d R u l e s

Introduction

Detailed Forest Management Plans (DFMPs) are long-term plans that outline high-level management objectives, sustainability, and timber production assumptions for a specified Forest Management Agreement. DFMPs consist of a timber supply analysis (conducted to establish an annual allowable cut), and a set of statements/commitments by the company, explaining how they intend to ensure social, environmental and economic sustainability of the forest resource, in exchange for the rights to access the resource to generate profit for the company.

To ensure achievement of the DFMP, the Minister requires all agreement holders to conduct planning, harvest, road building and reforestation activities according to a defined set of standards and specifications, which are commonly refer to as the Timber Harvest Planning and Operating Ground Rules (OGRs). OGRs highlight important management principles, define operating and planning objectives, present standards and guidelines for timber harvest, road development, reclamation, reforestation and integration of timber harvesting with other forest uses. FMA ground rules can also apply to Quota holders and permittees with timber dispositions “embedded” within a FMA unless the Quota or permittees disposition specifically states otherwise.

Before continuing to delve into the purpose and application of OGRs, and how they link to the Spatial Harvest Sequence, we will briefly outline how OGRs are developed (and what triggers their development).

N O T E S



OGRs development process

Once a DFMP is approved, the Minister requires the re-opening of existing company ground rules for discussion and revision. Revision is necessary to ensure operational tactics (based on Ground rules) used by the company during harvest and reforestation activities, support the achievement of higher-level values and objectives stated in the DFMP.

The process of opening a Ministerial approved set of ground rules starts with the formation of an Operating Ground Rules Committee. Committee membership may vary depending on circumstances of each FMA zone. Public participation may be required. Membership typically consists of: several representatives from the company, embedded Quota Holder representatives, PLFD staff (1-3 people from the Area, 1 from FMB), FWD staff (1-2 people) and Alberta Environment staff. A Chairperson and Secretary, a set of procedural guidelines, an agreement on the process used to make decisions, a schedule of activities to be developed and an approval process.

OGRs purpose and their application and connection to the spatial harvest sequence

Ground rules are the practices used in planning and conducting timber harvesting operations which constitute the methods used to implement decisions made in the FMP and other higher level plans such as Integrated Resource Plans (OGRs, Section 1.0 page 5). A set of OGRs typically addresses ten key areas: Operational Planning, Utilization, Integration with other users, watershed protection, habitat management, silviculture, soils, forest health/protection, road(s) and reporting. This section of Unit 6 will focus on the operational link between the operating ground rules and the various stages of the operational Forest Management Planning Process. Following that, we will discuss important aspects of OGRs as they related to the Spatial Harvest sequence.

N O T E S



Direction for operational planning

As discussed previously, the OGRs outline the submission requirements for all aspects of the operational planning process. Compartment Assessments (CAs), General Development Plans (GDPs), Final Harvest Plans (FHPs) and Annual Operating Plans (AOPs) are all clearly explained in Section 3 of the OGRs.

Implementing strategies from the DFMP

As part of the DFMP, companies are required to forecast a range of realistic forest management scenarios and the selection of the preferred scenario representing the optimum result. Key outputs of the preferred scenario are: timber harvest levels and a spatial (mapped) harvest sequence showing the stands scheduled for harvest in the first 20 years of the planning horizon (Annex 1). On the ground implementation of the Spatial Harvest Sequence occurs via the operational planning requirements specified in the OGRs. The Final Harvest Plan consists of the laid out spatial harvest sequence for a 5 year period. The FHP is submitted for acceptance through the requirements of Section 3 of the OGRs.

Structure retention (SR)

Structure retention targets are developed in the DFMP and implemented through the OGRs. Protocols for the amount of structure to be retained, its location and configuration are prescribed in Section 7.4 of the Operating Ground Rules.

7.4.1 Residual structure shall be retained in harvest areas during harvest and silviculture operations (including salvage operations) according to the FMP regarding the amount of structure, size of patches, species, composition, and distribution. In the absence of direction in the FMP, the following standards apply.

7.4.3 Forest operators shall retain structure in the following manner:

a) Leave larger patches rather than multiple smaller patches.

b) leave individual stems of residual structure throughout harvested areas, as available.

c) leave as many individual stems of non-merchantable trees, shrubs and snags as operationally and silviculturally feasible.

N O T E S



I. Leaning snags or trees of non-merchantable species that are greater than 6 m in height that create a safety hazard may be felled to create safe working conditions.

II. Snags within 40 m of roads, camps, landings, fence lines, power lines and machine maintenance areas may be felled to create safe working conditions

7.4.4 The following are guidelines for the spatial distribution of residual structure:

a) Retain residual structure near woody debris piles (and vice versa).

b) Retain residual structure near the harvest area boundary to create a gradual ecotone between the harvest area and un-harvested forest.

c) Retain residual structure in patterns and locations that minimize the potential for blowdown.

d) Retain residual structure near ephemeral draws and intermittent streams.

e) Retain residual structure within inoperable areas whenever possible.

The FMP identifies where understory needs to be protected through the SHS and subsequent silviculture transition that occurs in the TSA. When a stand is harvested, the timber supply model requires a silvicultural transition strategy to know how to continue to grow the stand. The following ground rules ensure protection of the conifer understory as prescribed in the DFMP. The stands that will be protected, what trees are worth protecting, the level of protection, the acceptable amount of damage to Understorey from operations and how companies to monitor success are all described in the OGRs.

7.5.1 The FHP shall specify harvest areas for understorey protection vs. avoidance techniques. Detail on protection techniques shall be described in the FHP harvest area comments and DHAPs.

7.5.2 Understory discovered in the field, but not previously identified shall be protected as per 7

7.5.3 Stands shall be assigned to the deciduous or coniferous landbase in the FMP based on the approved vegetation inventory.

7.5.4 A minimum of one half (50%) of the total number of acceptable stems (preharvest) in an understory shall be

N O T E S



N O T E Sretained without harvest damage.

7.5.5 Pre-harvest acceptable stems are two metres or more in height, are within 75% of the average understory stand height, have 50% or more live crown, are of good health and vigour, and are crop trees as defined by the Survey Manual.

7.5.6 Post-harvest acceptable stems have 50% or more live crown and less than 25% of the crown lost due to top breakage, bole scars (bark removed to the cambium) less than 10 cm (vertical length) and less than 20% of the bole circumference, and are crop trees as defined by the Survey Manual.

7.5.9 A post-harvest regeneration survey shall be conducted 3 - 5 years after harvest to assess success to determine yield curve assignments and protection objectives. In the coniferous landbase the regeneration standard shall be as approved by Alberta. In the deciduous landbase, the regeneration standard shall be the deciduous standard in the Survey Manual.

Wildlife

Landscape level habitat objectives, provincial wildlife policies and fine filter strategies for individual species are all implemented through the SHS. Sections 7.1.1 – 7.1.2 of the ground rules require companies to vary the size and distribution of harvest areas in a compartment based on representative natural variation present within the landscape. Small permanent watercourses are required to have wildlife corridors connecting their uplands. Corridors should be focused on natural travel corridors and may contribute towards structure retention targets.

Utilization

The Timber Management Regulations specify the minimum requirements for utilization of the timber resource. The TSA may go to a higher level of utilization that would also be implemented through the OGRs. Sections 4.2.1 – 4.2.5 of the OGRs provide direction as to how tree utilization is to be managed to achieve the utilization objective specified in the FMP.



N O T E S4.2.1 The tree/piece utilization standards is stated in the

applicable timber disposition and shall normally be one of the following standards. (The example of the 15/10 coniferous utilization is provided for reference only, there are multiple utilization standards for conifer, deciduous and salvage timber).

15/10 Utilization

· Merchantable Tree: one that has a minimum diameter of 15 cm outside bark at stump height (30 cm) and a usable length of 4.88 m to a 10 cm diameter (inside bark).

· Merchantable Piece: one that is 2.44 m (plus 5 cm trim allowance) or longer, with a 10 cm (inside bark) small end, where rot content or form does not render it unusable.

4.2.2 Coniferous and deciduous log butts or large ends exhibiting advanced decay greater than 50% in area of the cut surface (basal area) may be bucked at 0.61 m intervals or less to 50% sound wood.

4.2.3 Maximum stump height when measured from ground level shall be no more than 30 cm or that used in the timber supply analysis for the FMP (e.g., 15 cm.). Exceptions may be approved in the FHP. (e.g. to delineate harvest areas, create rub posts for understory protection)

Watercourse buffers

The netdown of the landbase uses the provincial buffer requirements as a baseline for removing the merchantable timber from the landbase. Detailed requirements for classifying and protecting watercourses, restrictions for crossing watercourses, sediment control, and timing requirements for operations in wet areas are all detailed in Section 6 of the OGRs. The following ground rules detail these requirements.

6.0.1 Watercourses shall be classified according to Table 1, Watercourse Classification. In the event the channel classification is not distinctly evident, the width shall be determined by the average of measurements taken at 50m intervals at representative points of undisturbed stream channel over the length of the watercourse bordering the block.

· A minimum of four measurements is required with the



measurement location flagged for audit purposes.

· The channel width is measured from where the bank begins to slope down towards the channel bottom across to the same point on the opposite bank.

· Where the distance bordering the block is not enough for four measurements, reduce the measurement interval as required.

6.0.3 Measures must be implemented, including temporary and permanent erosion control measures, to minimize erosion and sedimentation into the watercourse or waterbody.

6.0.4 Riparian protection areas shall be established as in Table 2, Standards and Guidelines for Operating beside Watercourses. Where uncertainty exists on the classification of the watercourse, the watercourse protection area shall be that required by the higher class of watercourse.

6.0.5 All unmapped or incorrectly classified watercourses encountered during operations shall be given the appropriate protection as described in Table 2.

6.0.6 Unless otherwise approved in a FMP variances from the standards in Table 2, must demonstrate that aquatic and terrestrial objectives are met. Any such proposals shall undergo a full review by Alberta prior to being considered for approval.

6.0.7 Sediment, logging debris or deleterious materials (e.g., fuels, oils, greases, industrial or household chemicals or refuse) shall not be deposited into the water or onto the ice of any watercourse or water body during road construction, maintenance, harvesting, reclamation or silviculture operations.

6.0.8 Equipment shall cross watercourses only at approved crossings.

6.0.9 Logs shall not be decked in watercourses, riparian areas, or seepage areas.

6.0.10 Authorized in-stream activities in fish-bearing watercourses shall be scheduled to avoid disturbing migration, spawning and incubation of fish species, and carried out in such a manner as to avoid stream sedimentation.

N O T E S



6.0.11 Beaver ponds shall have same classification as the watercourse flowing out of the pond as measured at the smallest width within 50m of the dam.

6.0.12 Harvesting is not permitted within water source areas during non-frozen periods.

Monitoring

There is a monitoring requirement under watercourse crossings, 11.26.

Summary

Ground Rules Development

Once a DFMP is approved, the Minister requires the re-opening of existing company ground rules for discussion and revision. Revision is necessary to ensure operational tactics (based on Ground rules) used by the company during harvest and reforestation activities, support the achievement of higher level values and objectives stated in the DFMP.

The purpose and application of OGRs and their connection to the SHS and why this is important to you

Ground rules are the practices used in planning and conducting timber harvesting operations which constitute the methods used to implement decisions made in the FMP and other higher level plans such as Integrated Resource Plans (OGRs, Section 1.0 page 5). A set of Ground rules typically addresses ten key areas: Operational Planning, Utilization, Integration with other users, watershed protection, habitat management, silviculture, soils, forest health/protection, road(s) and reporting. Embedded timber operators are required to apply FMA ground rules to their operations (i.e. Quotas, permits) unless the embedded operators disposition states otherwise.

As part of the DFMP, companies are required to forecast a range of realistic forest management scenarios and the selection of the preferred scenario representing the optimum result. Key outputs of the preferred scenario are: timber harvest levels and a spatial (mapped) harvest sequence showing the stands scheduled for harvest in the first 20 years of the planning horizon (Annex 1, p.p. 48, lines 24-31). On the ground implementation of the

N O T E S



Spatial Harvest Sequence occurs via the operational planning requirements specified in the OGRs. The Final Harvest Plan consists of the laid out spatial harvest sequence for a 5 year period. The spatially sequenced FHP serves as a “bridge” or link between the higher level objectives and commitments agreed to by the company in the DFMP through the ten key OGR requirements (Operational Planning, Utilization, Integration with other users, watershed protection, habitat management, silviculture, soils, forest health/protection, road(s) and reporting). By ensuring the company adheres to the OGRs, you are in effect, ensuring the company adheres to the goals and objectives set out originally in the DFMP. You might recall, that a DFMP explains how a company intends to ensure social, environmental and economic sustainability of the forest resource. As an officer with Alberta, it is your role to ensure these three requirements are met.

O p e r a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s

Introduction

Previously, we outlined the Provincial requirements that companies are required to negotiate the development of the ground rules beginning shortly after the DFMP receives final approval. We also discussed the purpose and application of the ground rules and the role they carry out in ensuring achievement of the DFMP and the associated commitments. In this section, we will review the “Operational Planning” ground rule requirement. Operational Planning is critical to ensuring that the desired future forest described in the DFMP is achieved.

Each stage of the five main stages of operational planning is in place to ensure the FMA holder address specific issues and concerns that the Minister may have at the appropriate time. Recall that at the time a DFMP receives approval the planning team attempted to address variables such as:

· issues and concerns about the forest land base and the growing stock

· the values of various stakeholders

· the impact of harvesting, reforestation and road building activities on the resource ( i.e. utilization standards)

As the DFMP ages, these and many other variables can and will

N O T E S



change. The most recent example is the pace of exploration and development by the Oil and Gas sector. DFMPs developed prior to the most recent boom may not accurately reflect afforestation and its associated impacts as well as roading and its “friendliness” to the forest companies operations).

Compartment Assessments (CAs), General Development Plans (GDPs), Final Harvest Plans (FHPs) and Annual Operating Plans (AOPs) are the “suite of planning tools” that we use to manage the inherent variability in characteristics that affect the original DFMP assumptions such as stakeholder values, economics (boom in oil means more disposable income which has resulted in more ATV’s sold, more recreation, more public concern over industry activity, and the environment (natural disturbances such as MPB, fire losses). In this part of the unit, we will be discussing the role of GDPs, FHPs, CAs and AOPs, and upon completion, you should be able to explain the purpose and role of each plan.

Overview of the planning process and critical elements

The following outlines the operational planning process as detailed in the OGRs. Excerpts from Section 3.0 to 3.5 inclusive, and section 4.1 are located in the Reference Materials section of this binder.

*where a CA is required, the FHP and AOP are appraised.



Summary

Operational planning is critical to ensuring that the desired future forest described in the DFMP is achieved. There are five main stages of operational planning in place to ensure the FMA holder addresses specific issues and concerns that the Minister may have at the appropriate time. The process we refer to as “Operational Planning” has five main components: they are an approved FMP, Compartment Assessments, General Development Plans, Final Harvest Plans and Annual Operating Plans. Combined, these five components are the “suite of planning tools” that Alberta uses to manage the inherent variability in characteristics that affect the original DFMP assumptions. Each has a specific purpose, and ground rules. The key is that you know the purpose of each component and recognize when a different operational plan is triggered or required.

· Approved Forest Management Plan .

· Compartment Assessment - are required when information or major issues are identified that have not been addressed in the FMP.

· General Development Plan – gives a comprehensive description of a forest operator’s proposed harvest strategy, road building plans and reclamation operations for a five-year period. The GDP guides all integration activities.

· Final Harvest Plan – Is a map and associated report describing the laid out harvest plan.

· Annual Operating Plan – articulates in detail, the activities proposed for the current year and must be approved by Alberta before timber operations shall commence. AOP components include: Operating Schedule and Timber Production, Applicable FHPs, CAs (if applicable), Reforestation Program, Fire Control Plan, Road Plan and General Development Plan.

Government staff should focus a majority of their time reviewing the DFMP and the SHS developed as a result of the DFMP. To focus review efforts on FHPs is almost irrelevant as the sequence of harvest, size, location of harvest, etc. is predetermined at the time the FMP is approved.

N O T E S



Field staff need to monitor the variance in the SHS by compartment. Variance indicates there may be a problem with the TSA. Variance greater than 20% of the SHS per compartment per decade may trigger the requirement for the development of a new Compartment Assessment.

P l a n n i n g a n d M o n i t o r i n g S t a n d a r d s f o r P a r t i a l H a r v e s t

Understory protection harvesting: protecting understory crops through harvest operations.

Background

Understories of spruce and fir often exist in aspen dominated stands in many parts of the boreal forest. These understories are often not captured on inventories unless a special effort (leaf-off photo-interpretation) has been made. Even with enhanced inventories, the nature of the understory, like the variation in heights, spatial distribution and density is poorly documented.

Understories represent a potential (and perhaps ‘non-utilized’) source of fibre as well as provide for other forest values like aesthetic, biodiversity retention or wildlife. Understories are potentially ‘not utilized’ in existing TSAs in that its presence is often assumed (at a level based on a limited inventory or sampling process), though the actual amounts present are often significantly higher. Entwined with the often poor understanding of how much is ‘out there’, is also a poor understanding of where it exists (which stands) and what condition it is in. Thus understories may be small/short, clumped in one portion of the polygon through to well-distributed trees just below canopy (i.e. just 3m below the canopy). The value (both intrinsic and to the TSA) of this wide range in understory types makes protection of the fibre differentially attractive depending on the objectives of its protection, and the assumptions of its “value” after harvest.

N O T E S



The final complexity in understories and their protection, is that often land base is allocated to operators based on ‘stand types’ such that ‘pure D’ (based on overstory AVI call) may be allocated to the deciduous operator despite the fact there is a large cohort of understory conifers. The exact opposite allocation for the same land also exists. Thus the “value” of the understory (both the known and unknown actual amounts of understory) is often based on a single operator’s needs and when this there is a real or perceived play for these understories, disagreements often emerge.

For the purposes of Forest Management Planning, two understory protection types are recognized. They are, (1) Understory Avoidance and (2) Understory Protection. Understory avoidance is a term applied to harvests where protection of the understory is secondary to overstory removal and is required where understories are found on landbase being managed for the deciduous volume. This harvest may be characterized by passive protection of understory stems such that operators are encourage to protect the understories when encountered. Little pre-harvest planning and/or special layout is carried out to document where or how the understory is to be protected. Understory protection is often associated with harvests where the protection of the understory is the primary harvest objective and is practiced where the landbase is being managed for the conifer volume. This harvest type is characterized by high effort in protecting the understory, often accompanied by specialized harvest layouts (herring-bone extraction trails), and significant pre-planning for the specific polygons to be harvested.

Both understory protection approaches (avoidance or protection) seek to maintain an existing understory for multiple reasons. These include the capture (in the future) of the coniferous volume in deciduous stands through 1) ‘release’ of understories thus shortening their rotation, 2) incidental conifer replacement with minimal establishment expenses, or 3) inexpensive method of establishing mixedwoods stands. Protection of understories may also have no explicit fibre value but can provide for reduced aesthetic impact from clearcutting, reducing line-of-site for wildlife conservations efforts, increase the stand structure complexity post-harvest or provide for additional biodiversity post-harvest.

N O T E S



The value of a particular stand to providing for the intended outcome depends mostly on its initial condition and secondly on the success of the protection harvest. Initial conditions of particular interest are the amount of understory (both density and stocking), its spatial distribution within the stand (clumpy or evenly distributed), the size range of trees to be retained (is there a uniform height or a huge range in heights) and finally, how was the preceding data collected (photo-interpret, walk-through, pre-harvest assessment etc.). Ultimately, however, despite the pre-harvest conditions and the success (or lack thereof) of the understory protection harvest, it is ONLY the final condition that will provide value of whether or not the assumed objective will be met.

An assessment protocol (in the Guidelines document and mandated in the OGRs) gives Alberta’s view of what variables should be assessed in a post-understory protection harvested areas (strip cutting patterns) and what stand types are needed post harvest to achieve certain broad stand type objectives (C, CD, or DC). The need for the assessment system (not exactly a regeneration survey, but it is to perform the same purpose) is to ensure that the necessary conditions, post protection harvest, have been attained. The assessment is a grid-based ground survey of mil-hectare plots that provides rules around how trees are enumerated based on the objectives of the harvest. The survey should be done between years 3-5 post treatment, a time that accounts for suckering of aspen and the greatest likelihood of capturing the majority of windthrow. At present, the assessment system has not been widely applied both due to the poor understanding of what tree and stand conditions are necessary to meet objectives (as these are often not known) and as the reporting of results is currently not part of ARIS (there is no “Satisfactorily Restocked” reporting requirement).

When understory protection systems are proposed, several key issues must be resolved if the prescriptions, harvesting and monitoring are to be linked to assumed objectives (fibre or otherwise). The post UP harvest yield assumptions are often quite aggressive, particularly with the time between UP harvest and ‘final’ harvest which is often very short. Post UP harvest yield assumptions also tend to be highly simplistic, such as ‘jumping’ from a D curve to a DC or CD curve. An associated issue is how the extraction trails, decking areas and in-block roads will contribute to the future stand yield and any additional treatments (planting) needed to attain final harvest condition.

N O T E S



Understory avoidance harvests are associated with less-rigorous protection planning, and are also associated with less aggressive post UP harvest assumptions. Low density and/or highly clumped understories are often harvested with an avoidance harvest system. For the most part, such harvest systems retain either small amounts or patches of understory and it is assumed that the cutblock will resemble a clearcut with ‘excessive’ advanced regeneration. As such the normal regeneration survey systems and timings will be applied.

Conclusion

Understory protection harvesting is often practiced to capture a greater value from an existing understory often in terms of fibre but also other forest values. Avoidance is mandated on ‘deciduous landbase’ and a protection is mandated on ‘coniferous’ landbase as the latter requires greater care in protecting the existing understory. Understanding how the cutblock practice of protecting understories fits with the assumptions of the Timber Supply Analysis is critical to determining its success. Significant variance is often found in Forest Management Plans as to the post understory protection harvest assumptions of yield and/or other values. An assessment to determine understory protection success is required to demonstrate that the conditions resulting from the UP harvest have been attained.

Commercial thinning

Benefits

In theory, a possible benefit of commercial thinning is the possible increase in fibre yield through the capture of natural mortality. The total growing stock on the site is fixed by the site’s carrying capacity, such that as individual trees grow larger in size, fewer can be accommodated on the site. Stand density will remain relatively constant to the point where self-thinning begins. As trees continue to grow in size within the latter zone, stand density also is reduced. Where the reduction in density (mortality) is from the loss in trees of a merchantable size, the potential loss in fibre can be offset through a commercial thin that harvests trees most likely to die prior to the planned harvest.

The reallocation of site resources (space, water, nutrients, light etc.) to a reduced number of stems resulting in final piece size that is typically larger in thinned stands. Hence, the value of the end product may be increased over what would be expected if a commercial thin had not carried been implemented.

N O T E S



Commercial thinning, when properly implemented, may increase a stand’s resilience to environmental and some pest stressors. Sanitation treatments and/or reduction in stand density may favour crown development such that residual tree’s risks of mortality may be reduced. Partial harvests of this nature can be designed and implemented where evidence has shown that the proposed treatment regime provides the best management option to mitigate the stressor. For example, commercial thinning may assist in “beetle-proofing” pine stands against the mountain pine infestations. It is recommended that treatments that form a component of an overall pest management system be submitted to pest management specialists for review and input.

An invalid assumption to note

Commercial thinning prescriptions do not increase stand productivity. The physical and biological factors that limit productivity cannot be typically increased through commercial thinning alone. If properly implemented at an early stage in stand development, commercial thinning may capture density-induced mortality.

Risks

Commercial thinning in Alberta should be considered a high-risk prescription. Indeed, there are few examples of successful commercial thinning operations in Canadian forestry.

The primary risk associated with commercial thinning is the excessive reduction in growing stock that reduces final harvest yield to a point where it is no longer compatible with the yield projections. Where capturing stand mortality is the goal of the planned treatment, it is essential that the actual reduction in stand density be such that the final harvest volume at the planned rotation is equivalent to that forecasted in the absence of the partial harvest. In practice, operations often prematurely harvest volume originally allocated to the final harvest. Should the Timber Supply Analysis (TSA) not account for this early volume withdrawal, the sustainability of the timber resource will have been compromised and fibre sustainability is seriously compromised.

Forecasts of increased piece size value may not be realized at time of final harvest due to volatile market conditions and/or product substitutions. Furthermore, forecasted value gains may not be realized due to inaccurate predictions of residual tree/stand responses to the proposed treatments.

N O T E S



Commercial thinning may result in physical damage to residual growing stock during thinning operations leading to operationally induced mortality of residual growing stock. Increased windthrow or stem breakage of the residual trees will further reduce growing stock. These operationally induced reductions in growing stock may inadvertently reduce stand density below full site occupancy.

Reductions in stand density may affect understory vegetation, thermal and hiding cover, as well as tree species composition and size impacting the arboreal habitat characteristics. The impacts of commercial thinning on these values should be carefully considered. It is also important that this stand management activity be assessed in the forest/landscape context. The amount, timing and spatial distribution of these treatments may alter habitat availability and cumulatively impact wildlife.

Stand Selection Criteria

Commercial thinning proposals must consider both stand and site conditions in the selection of stands that will maximize the return on investment, while simultaneously minimizing risk of failure and negative impact on non-timber values. It is worth noting that the majority of naturally regenerated stands are poor candidates for commercial thinning.

The following criteria are suggested:

Stands with the highest site index typically respond to thinning with the greatest absolute increase in yield and should be given priority. In contrast, poorer sites should be avoided since reduced absolute gain, as opposed to percentage response often reported in the scientific literature, would result in lower economic yields.

Stands that are understocked prior to treatment should not be considered for thinning since a reduction in growing stock will reduce final harvest volume and/or timing.

Unmanaged stands should be considered poor candidate stands and assessed individually and with caution. These stands typically have trees with poor crown form (LCR < 30%) and high height to diameter ratios (>100:1) that will retard the stand response to thinning and increase the residual growing stock’s risk of loss due to windthrow or stem breakage.

There is currently a lack of evidence that tree age per se is an important limiting factor in a stand’s response to thinning. However, trees in over mature stands will typically have poor crown and stem characteristics making them poor choices for treatment.

N O T E S



Stands with obvious signs of windthrow, breakage or insect and disease infestations must be avoided. Stands infected with minor levels of mistletoe or gall rust infestations may be given priority for treatment with a goal of stand sanitization. Approval of such treatments should be subject to review by forest health specialists.

Stands growing on poorly drained sites must be avoided. High water tables may promote shallow rooting leading to poor tree stability and high incidences of wind throw following treatment. Increased risk of soil compaction and direct root injuries from machine activities are also associated with harvesting on moist soils.

The focus for thinning treatments should be on younger stands preceding an age class gap. Volumes realized from CT can reduced the impact of reduced wood supply during periods caused by age class gaps.

Mammal and insect population cycles that may result in increased tree mortality following thinning must be taken into consideration.

Proposals may not involve re-treatment of a stand or entry into an adjacent buffer within five years of a previous treatment. The protection of residual trees and buffers must be maintained for at least five years to allow time for root systems, foliage and/or diameter growth to respond to the previous treatment.

Stands with adjacency constraints that prevent optimal sequencing will be given priority. This will allow the harvest to capture mortality without compromising the cover retention required to meet adjacency requirements.

Treatment Methodologies

Commercial thinning treatments must be from ‘below’ (i.e. removing trees from the lower crown classes to favour dominant and co-dominant trees). Thinning from below captures volume at highest risk of mortality due to intra-specific competition. The remaining dominant/co-dominant trees are likely to be of better vigour and hence more likely to favourably respond to new stand conditions.

N O T E S



Removal of trees primarily from co-dominant and dominant crown classes (i.e. thinning from above) should not normally be permitted so as to prevent high grading. The removal of individual dominants and co-dominants will only be approved to release adjoining trees of identical crown class (i.e. dominant and co-dominant trees are not to be removed to release intermediate trees), to sanitize the stand, to allow for machine access, or to remove wolf trees.

Harvesting damage

Residual stems and surface rooting are susceptible to damage from poorly planned and implemented operations. Such injuries can greatly impact a stand’s ability to respond to an increase in growth resources. Hence, physical damage to residual growing stock must be minimized.

For thinning operations, unacceptable bole damage is defined as any area greater than 400 cm squared where bark is removed to the cambium layer. A post-operation survey must be undertaken to assess damage. A maximum of 5% (unless otherwise approved) of the residual trees in a thinned stand may be damaged.

AAC Chargeability

As per Forest Management Branch (FMB) Directive 98-03 “Quota Production Chargeability” volumes from commercial thinning will only be non-quota chargeable under a Department approved thinning plan.

In cases where excessive damage or mortality has occurred in response to thinning, the Area Manager will consider whether the post-treatment stand’s ability to respond has been compromised and may direct the operator to harvest the entire remaining stand, resulting in a reassessment of timber dues and all harvested volume being charged against the operator’s AAC.

Reforestation Requirements

Reforestation obligations will not normally be applicable to commercial thinning as the latter, by definition, is not a regeneration cut. However, reforestation liability must never be waived.

N O T E S



If a stand’s density falls to a level below full site occupancy as a result of either harvest or subsequent damage attributed to the treatment, the operator may be required, at the discretion of the Area Manager, to clearcut the stand and reforest it within two years, as described in S. 141, regardless of when the final harvest is scheduled. Situations where reforestation within two years will be required include blowdown, severe insect infestations or disease outbreaks, or excessive mechanical damage. Such a finding will necessitate the reassessment of timber dues and all harvested volume being charged against the operator’s AAC.

Where damage thresholds stated as a condition of the AOP approval are not met, a penalty for contravention of Section 100(a) of the Timber Management Regulation may be considered.

Submission, Review and Approval

The review and approval of proposals must proceed cautiously due to the potential adverse effect on allocated timber supply. Plans will be evaluated subject to these guidelines and their compatibility with objectives as stated an approved DFMP. This evaluation should also include a consideration of the potential impacts the operation may have on non-timber values. The Area Manager will approve operations through the AOP approval process.

Commercial thinning proposals must include a crop plan that address each of the following:

· Specific objectives of proposed treatment(s).

· Description of treatments (i.e. what is to be removed), methods, and timing. Prescriptions based on “percentage removals ” should be viewed with caution due to the lack of uniformity between candidate stand conditions. Rather, crop plans should relate the number and type of trees to be removed to the desired future stand structure.

· Pre-harvest assessment consisting of species composition, stand structure (height/density, stand table), live crown ratio, slenderness coefficient, total stand volume, and site index.

· Projection of total and merchantable yield and product value expectations for both treated and non-treated scenarios. It is up to the proponent to provide defensible evidence that the treatment will not reduce final harvest volume below that of the non-treatment scenario, nor increase rotation length.

N O T E S



· Preventative measures to be implemented to mitigate against treatment-induced mortality due to windthrow, root injuries, disease and insect.

· Impact of proposed treatment on specific wildlife species, fuel loading, and aesthetics.

· RFP signature.

Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring will allow both the operator and the Department to measure the benefits of certain treatment regimes within a variety of stand structures and ages to determine if treatment objectives were obtained. By developing growth and yield data for each treatment type and situation, future treatments can be modeled more accurately. These impacts can be used to project new AAC levels, as well as help in the design of future crop plans. As the information base regarding thinning treatments evolves, the information requirements will decrease.

The Growth and Yield Section of the Forest Management Branch should be consulted as to what information is required.

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f R e f o r e s t a t i o n A d j u s t m e n t s

Government staff need to identify reforestation commitments in the forest management plan and recognize what needs to be monitored during implementation. Staff also need to understand how adjustments to AAC will be made for changes due to reforestation results or enhanced forest management practices.

Background

The focus of the Planning Standard is to ensure that all forest management plans contain a “strong and direct connection between the desired future forest condition and a spatially planned harvest sequence, and, predictions of forest growth and yield and actual stand level performance”. In the remainder of this part of Unit 6, we will be discussing key reforestation commitments that ensure the achievement of a stated desired future forest and, the role of Alberta staff in monitoring these commitments to ensure modelling assumptions of forest growth and yield link to observations at the stand level.

N O T E S



The four mandatory key reforestation initiatives outlined in the planning manual are:

· Silviculture regimes - developed for all strata.

· Alternative Regeneration Standards (ARS) - are developed, and the standards relate to each yield projection used in the FMP

· Allowable cut adjustments - have been applied, based on reforestation results and enhanced forest management practices

· Wildfire & reforestation obligations

Silviculture regimes by strata

Source: Section 5.8.2 and Appendix C – Annex 1

Key Points

· A listing of time-specific silviculture treatments for each strata from the Forest Management Plan

· The intent is to establish a starting point for regeneration in the forest management planning system (the “plan” part of the plan-do-check cycle)

· Not meant to be ‘prescriptive’ but the range of acceptable practices based on actual results and professional knowledge

Provides a basis for continual improvement of silviculture practice

We need to increase the probability of success i.e. meeting regeneration standards through improvements and refinements to silviculture practices

· Monitor prescription in Reforestation Program of the Annual Operating Plan for alignment. (Reforestation Monitoring Program)

The term ‘crop plan’ refers to the time-specific interventions on a stand. We are essentially asking for a ‘crop plan’ for each FMP stratum. When reviewing the crop plan, some stratum have a

N O T E S



‘transition’ objective due to silviculture treatment. For example, some FMPs have an assumption that a certain percentage of CD stratum will be treated to create a pure coniferous (C stratum). Another example is ‘incidental’ conifer replacement on D stand types that are harvested – a certain component of conifer is assumed to be created in the regenerating stand creating a DC or CD cover type for example. This assumption must be described in the Silviculture Regime developed for each stratum and carried through to the silviculture portion of the Annual Operating Plan and related regeneration targets (stratum declaration per directive 2005-01). For example, actual D stand types harvested by the company need to be ‘declared’ to a DC stratum and treated to create conifer in order to meet the related silviculture regime.

Strata ‘transitions’ that are planned as an objective are different than historical unplanned transitions or ‘conversions’ of stratum based on regeneration survey results that are built into some yield curves to make them ‘conservative’. For example the company objective may have been to create a C stratum, but at the time of regen survey its shown that a certain percentage of these cut blocks have ‘converted’ to CD, and a certain percentage to DC, etc. This should be built into yield curve assumptions for C stratum to ensure they are ‘conservative’.

Summary

In summary, the strata transition assumption is reflected in the yield curves, the silviculture regime and ultimately in the reforestation program outlined in the AOP. When reviewing silviculture regimes by strata) staff need to ensure they focus monitoring efforts on:

· Review of the reforestation program of the AOP to ensure alignment with the FMP silviculture regime. Variances are justified.

· Through reforestation monitoring (after AOP approval), as part of Forest Operations Monitoring, check to see that practices as planned in the AOP occurred. Focus review on practices necessary to achieved ‘enhanced’ yield assumptions from the FMP.

N O T E S



Alternative regeneration standards

The Interpretive Bulletin is located in the Reference Materials section of this binder.

· Key Standards– Section 4.3, Annex 1 and Table 1 of Yield Projection Bulletin.

· Provincial Standards – basic (4 stratum) and not ‘linked’ to individual Forest Management Plan yield projections

There are many aspects of the current ‘orange manual’ or provincial regen survey manual that will apply in ARS. For example, the same parameters make up the regen standards: 1) height, 2) stocking, 3) free to grow. Under ARS, we will be asking for ‘density’ information, which will provide a ‘linkage’ to yield curves for which density is the driving variable.

The concept of ‘Free to grow’ is a controversial subject. There is little long-term data to determine the ‘right’ free to grow standard. We will entertain other options other than the cylinder approach, but it has to scientifically and professionally valid.

There will be 10 provincial stratum (vs. the current 4) leading species based (this is outlined in Darren Aitken’s talk).

Forest Management Branch will entertain options to the provincial regen survey standard but likely only 2 other types – another ground based system and possibly an aerial system.

· Alberta Regeneration Standards Science Council Report – August 2001

· Emphasized the need for better linkage between regeneration standards and growth and yield projections

· AFPA commissioned report by Dick Dempster (Nov 2004) – gave more ‘details’ on how to create the link technically

Recommendations from the Alberta Regeneration Standards Science Council were very ‘high level’ and didn’t give specific technical recommendations. Dick Dempster’s report was much more specific and useful in providing a technical process by which we could base development of ARS.

· Created the ARS bulletin using much of the Dempster report and additional SRD requirements

N O T E S



· All FMA holders must have ARS complete by 2010

· Initial development out of sync w/ FMP timelines. Will be in sync after 2010.

Although 2010 is the objective, we are still working on a schedule for completion due to the sheer number of FMAs and non-FMA units. Non-FMA units will be given a lower priority (may adopt adjacent FMA standards if valid). FMAs who are working cooperatively will be given high priority by SRD. There is limited SRD capacity to work on ARS development.

All ARS proposals will be subject to review by the FMB management team with the Director of FMB chairing the review. We will likely engage experts in different aspects to review specific parts of proposals (i.e. free to grow standards, height standards, non-standard parameters, etc.).

Summary

Over the next few years, forest renewal standards in Alberta will be revised based on science. Standard 4.3 outlines government requirements surrounding the development of alternative regeneration performance standards. Key components of any new standard created are: stocking, height by species, free-to-grow and density by species. The intent of ARS is to accurately differentiate yield stratum for harvested areas based on measured tree and/or regenerating stand characteristics. Alternatives to the current regeneration performance standards will have to be scientifically and professionally valid. All companies are expected to have developed science based regen standards for stratum within their individual FMAs by 2010.

The Forest Operations Monitoring Protocol (FOMP), which includes reforestation monitoring, will specify areas of focus for field staff monitoring of reforestation, including alternative regeneration standards and following silviculture prescriptions from the silviculture regime in the forest management plan and alignment with the annual reforestation program in the AOP.

N O T E S



Allowable cut adjustment based on reforestation results and EFM treatments

Source: Appendix A, Annex 1, Standards 2.3.2, and 2.4

· See also FMB Directive 2005-01

· Standard 3.11, Annex 1– Harvest Area Classification Based on Reforestation Results

The net land base determination at the start of an FMP is based on a ‘snapshot’ of the regeneration status of regenerating cutblocks based on the most recent survey information in ARIS.

Allowable harvest levels must be adjusted if:

· Reforestation is not meeting standards (based on performance survey results).

· Enhanced Forest Management treatments are not occurring on the ground.

Reforestation failures (Directive 2005-01)

· Assessed at the time of performance survey (the end of the reforestation phase of an opening).

· All ‘failed’ performance surveys in a single year are assessed:

- Does opening meet the regen standard of a different stratum?

- What is the total stratum area that doesn’t meet regeneration standards?

· Total stratum area not meeting regeneration standards is summed and an allowable cut adjustment is calculated.

· Annual adjustments are summed at the end of a production control quadrant and applied to the next production control quadrant (similar to ‘overcuts’)

· Upward adjustment possible under ARS.

N O T E S



Enhanced forest management (EFM) practices

· EFM = thinning, fertilization, drainage, tree improvement (genetics)

· Allowable Cut Effect (ACE) is granted based on planned EFM treatments to specific stand area in the spatial harvest sequence

Two types of thinning may be contemplated in the silviculture regime for an EFM strata resulting in yield increase (ACE) they are pre-commercial thinning (no merchantable timber is obtained) and commercial thinning (commercially viable timber obtained).

ACE is reflected in an increase in the yield curve for the Strata. This ‘increase’ is dependent on the type of EFM applied (genetics, thinning, etc.), as it will affect stand development differently in terms of the stand development trajectory. For example, genetics increases the ‘magnitude’ of the entire yield curve. Thinning changes the ‘shape’ of the yield curve. So when and how much yield is increased, varies depending on the treatment. This should be explicitly shown in approved ‘EFM’ yield curves.

· See the formulas for determining allowable cut effect, allocation to different operators in the FMU, and volume penalty for not completing EFM treatments.

· Need to assess every 5 years whether areas are being treated and adjust quadrant allowable cuts if treatments not occurring.

Note that there are very few FMPs that currently have yield curves that depend on EFM assumptions and treatments such as thinning. Some plans have a ‘genetic improvement’ assumption. Genetically improved planting stock is referred to as ‘stream 2’ in the Standards for Tree Improvement Manual. The amount of deployment of ‘stream 2’ material area-wise needs to be monitored and reported to us every 5 years along with a map as part of Stewardship Reporting of the FMP.

Summary

To ensure achievement of the desired future forest, staff should monitor:

· Companies implementation of the approved Enhanced Forest Management practice/regimes, spatially and temporally.

· Cut block stocking, paying particular attention to stocking percentages reported by companies at the end of performance survey stage (year 14 for C, CD and DC). Total stratum area of blocks failing to meet the appropriate performance survey standards is summed and the AAC is adjusted accordingly.

· The Forest Operations Monitoring Protocol which includes reforestation monitoring (will have more detail on how to do this).

N O T E S



Wildfire &reforestation obligations

Timber Management Regulation 143.7 outlines the ability of the Minister (as represented by the Executive Director of Forest Management Branch) to provide exemption to the reforestation requirement of reforested areas affected by wildfire.

Source: Appendix B – Annex 1

· Burned area is removed from productive forest landbase and AAC calculations, unless industry commits to reforestation.

· 3 types of area burned & related obligations (salvage areas, regenerating cutblocks and burned potentially productive area)

1. Salvage areas

· Reforestation is optional for non-competitive permits issued to existing tenure holders in the FMU.

· Reforestation is mandatory for competitively sold permits.

2. Regenerating Cutblocks

· Blocks that have not had a performance survey are considered ‘regenerating’

· Industry obligated to reforest, unless an exemption (waiver) is granted by FMB Director

· Waivers not granted if block burned before treatment or reforestation investment by industry

Its important to emphasize that with a fire, the regenerating cutblocks burned need to be confirmed on a map comparing fire boundary to block boundary. If more than 50% of a block area is affected by a burn then the entire block is considered burned. If less than 50% of a block is burned, the area of the unburned portion should be modified but the same block is maintained in ARIS, etc. A new opening should be created for the burned portion.

3. Unsalvaged Area which is ‘potentially productive’

This strategy was employed with the Virginia Hills fire with Whitecourt area companies in foothills pine as a means of minimizing the impact of the fire by keeping burned area in the productive land base and thus contributing to yield (lowered curve - a very effective strategy in pine forest types).

N O T E S



Wrap Up

PLAN

· Silviculture regimes by stratum

· Alternative regeneration standards

DO

· Regeneration & EFM treatments

CHECK

· Regeneration survey results

· EFM treatment monitoring

ADJUST

· Quadrant allowable cut (every 5 years)

· Silviculture regimes and regen standards (next FMP)

For additional explanation, contact your Harvesting & Renewal Section Reforestation Specialists:

· Andre Savaria – 422-5914

· Ken Greenway – 422-4017

· Marty O’Byrne – 624-6209

Documents Cited

• Alternative Regeneration Standards Information Bulletin

• Ground Rules Framework (see section on Reforestation Program of the Annual Operating Plan)

• FMA-specific Ground Rules applicable to student’s Forest Area

• Alberta Regeneration Survey Manual

• Standards for Tree Improvement in Alberta

• Directive 2005-01 – Regeneration Stratum Declarations and Allowable Cut Adjustments.

N O T E S



T r a c k i n g V a r i a n c e s t o t h e S p a t i a l H a r v e s t S e q u e n c e

In this section of Unit 6, we explain the process for varying the spatial harvest sequence and outline the circumstances in which variance is permitted. Provincial requirements for accounting/tracking and updating records in situations where the SHS is varied, are also covered.

Introduction

The scheduling of stands for harvest depends upon the merchantability criteria outlined in the disposition holder’s tenure document (i.e., FMA, or Quota certificate) and the assumptions used in the TSA for the area. Pertinent assumptions are comprised of deletions from the net land base (e.g. subjective deletions, buffers, protected areas) and parameters that limit the availability of stands for harvest scheduling (e.g., earliest age of harvest, green up limits). The spatial harvest sequence is the result of the interaction of these combined assumptions and defines the stands to be harvested by period required to produce the sustained harvest level. The assumptions in the TSA are reflected in the SHS and although it would be ideal to follow the SHS exactly, common sense dictates that some variance within the SHS is unavoidable. In the remainder of this section, we will explain the process for varying the spatial harvest sequence and outline the circumstances in which variance would be permitted. We will also discuss Provincial requirements for accounting/tracking and updating records in situations where the SHS is varied.

Variance

Variance (SHS) is defined as any deletion to a stand schedule in the spatial harvest sequence.

Companies have the ability to vary from the SHS by either adding or deleting blocks or area from blocks to the limits set out in 3.4.1 of the OGRs. Area added to blocks is summed as part of total area harvested by compartment/decade and compared against the total SHS area to evaluate the 100% rule in 3.4.1 (c). The area deleted is tracked as variance and compared against the 20% rule 3.4.1(b) and summarized as per 4.1.1 of the OGRs.

N O T E S



4.1.1 Variances from the SHS shall be categorized and reported as follows:

Variance from the SHS shall be tracked and reported by compartment. The cumulative total variance for all FHP’s will be reported for compartments with more than one FHP and tracked in the GDP. Variances shall be identified as either permanent deletions from the net landbase, or deferrals to a later time, and organized as follows:

a) Deleted from net landbase

· Unmapped or larger than required watercourse buffers

· Slopes

· AVI resolution – productive to non-productive

· Isolated stands

b) Deferred from net landbase

· Inventory resolution – incorrect age of stand

· Structure retention

· Isolated stands

4.1.2 Variances (areas and percentages) from the SHS shall be reported annually in a format acceptable to Alberta.

Variance is presented in the FHP by showing the SHS polygon in comparison to the laid out FHP harvest area.

The block variance is reported in tabular format and summarized by compartment/decade to help in auditing of the plan prior to Acceptance.

The total compartment variance/decade is shown in the GDP volume table to help in the Appraisal of the GDP.

Summary

Assumptions in the TSA are reflected in the SHS and although it would be ideal to follow the SHS exactly, common sense dictates that some variance within the SHS is unavoidable. In the case where the original SHS for the area in question proves to be less than ideal, companies have the ability to vary from the SHS by either adding or deleting blocks or area from blocks to the limits set out in 3.4.1 of the ground rules.

N O T E S



The Final Harvest Plan must undergo a full review by the Province of Alberta if:

· the variance by compartment per decade is greater than 20% of the area sequenced in the strata description table; or

· the harvest area (ha) exceeds 100% of the total area in the SHS or strata description table by compartment per decade as tracked in the GDP, or

· if the FHP is not validated by an RFP; or

· if the FHP contravenes any ground rule(s).

Companies are required to report all variances (areas and percentages) from the SHS annually in a format acceptable to Alberta.

R o l e o f P e r f o r m a n c e M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g i n F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n n i n g

Performance monitoring and reporting is of key value in so many areas of forest management planning.

Annual reports

Annual reports provide statistics of current accomplishments as compared to FMP targets. There is no expectation for full analysis of “why” any variances are occurring. Companies are expected to be aware of any trends indicated and look to find solutions to problem areas

· Status of each indicator (Annex 4)

· List of annual accomplishments

· Report actual outcomes vs. forecast results (targets)

N O T E S



Stewardship report

The Performance Monitoring Stewardship Report is a comprehensive analysis of the results of the past 5 years. It should include all the Annual Report information plus an explanation of why variances occurred. It should also explain what corrective actions have taken place or what are planned to be done and when.

The ToR has identified deliverables and timelines for various planning products over the term of the FMP and some check has to be kept of these items. Many are due for next FMP – 10 years into the future.

· i.e., Vegetation Inventory status

- Underway, completed, approved?

· Understorey inventory status

Landscape

Government policy changes may require FMPs to be changed to align with policy. Some changes may be as a result of Company requests or natural disturbances.

Landbase changes can have a significant effect on AAC and forest sustainability

FMAs have a compensation clause based on % removals

AACs will be recalculated when the landbase area is affected by 2.5% or more.

· Land use updates are current

· Landbase changes

- Anthropogenic and natural

· Access limitations

· FMA land withdrawals (% FMA area)

· Disturbance impacts (<2.5%)

- Fire, Land use, Forest Health

N O T E S



The government wants effective public consultation to be taking place and wants to ensure that a company is honouring its obligations for consultation. As part of the process, documentation must be kept and the process must be reviewed to ensure meaningful consultation is occurring.

Aboriginals will be treated separately and Aboriginal policy may change the requirements for consultation (who/how).

AAC inputs must be monitored and validated through time. Operations must be monitored as well to ensure that assumptions in TSA are carried through to implementation (I.e. utilization standard, stump heights, planting improved stock, EFM treatments are happening)

Timber Salvage is a big issue. Tracking and reporting total timber drain from the FMA is important for sustainability. Are understories being protected? Are the ARS developed and implemented for the next plan?

Follow-up on FMP approval is required – generally staff in FMB look after this but Areas have some responsibility. An annual update of OGRs is required to keep current.

Short term plans report some accomplishments and track variance. The Forest Area must monitor to ensure Company is on track but they do not approve variances!

Forest conditions have an impact on biodiversity. The FMP establishes the conditions to be achieved. AACs can be affected positively or negatively if these are conditions are not monitored and corrective action taken. Expected habitat conditions can be affected if not monitored.

General

· Access corridor plan vs. actual

· FireSmart

· Water yield and riparian

· Visual quality

· Grazing/Timber integration

· Spatial Harvest Sequence

N O T E S



Summary

Why do we monitor performance? To evaluate whether or not the company did what it said it would do in the FMP.

Is monitoring important? Yes!

The issues most important to monitor have an impact on the long-term sustainability of the forest. Without monitoring, the FMP is another expensive document that will sit on shelf.

· FMP assumptions support AAC

· Landbase changes impact AAC

· Future forest condition is founded on management strategies being achieved

· Non-timber values depend on achievement of seral stage targets

· Data quality issues will be identified

- accuracy, gaps, updates

We must constantly evaluate the performance and impacts to make sure the decisions made at the time of planning are still valid. Timely identification of variance will enable effective corrective action to be taken.

N O T E S