Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the Stuart TSBs …...Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the...

Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the Stuart TSBs (A, B, C) in the Prince George TSA

Scenario Development

Version 1.1

March 31, 2018

Project 419-37

Prepared for: BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Resource Practices Branch PO Box 9513 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9C2

Prepared by: Forsite Consultants Ltd. 330 – 42nd Street SW PO Box 2079 Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4R1 250.832.3366

Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the Stuart TSBs (A, B, C) in the Prince George TSA March 31, 2018

Scenario Development – Version 1.1 i

Overview This Integrated Stewardship Strategy (ISS) project aims to facilitate a respectful and collaborative landscape-level planning process that supports the delivery of defined stewardship outcomes - which in turn improves business certainty for licensees operating within Stuart Timber Supply Blocks (TSB) in the Prince George TSA (formerly the Fort St James District).

The Scenario Development document is the second of seven documents developed through the ISS process. In this phase, the Project Team engaged with a wide array of individuals living and operating within the project area to seek input, information and ideas for developing assumptions and criteria to apply in four scenario analyses: ISS base case, reserve, harvest, and silviculture. This document describes the approach used to select tactics to analyze within each scenario. It also provides details and specific analysis instructions produced through the formation and deliberation of separate teams for each scenario.


Scenario Development – Version 1.1 ii

Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables......................................................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................. iii Document Revision History ................................................................................................................................................. iv

1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Integrated Stewardship Strategy Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Context ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Planning Terms ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Scenario Development Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 3

2 Approach ...............................................................................................................................4 2.1 Situation Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Engagement ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Identifying Tactics ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.4 Describe, Group, and Prioritize Tactics ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.5 Ranking Candidate Scenarios ....................................................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Scenario Teams ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

3 References ........................................................................................................................... 10

Matrix of Tactics .....................................................................................................1

Ranking Candidate Scenarios...................................................................................1

Base Case Scenario Notes ........................................................................................2

Reserve Scenario Notes ...........................................................................................1

Harvest Scenario Notes ...........................................................................................1 Summary of Harvest Scenario Assumptions......................................................................................................................... 2

Silviculture Scenario Notes ......................................................................................1 Summary of Silviculture Scenario Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 2

Combined Scenario Notes .......................................................................................1

List of Figures Figure 1 ISS Scenario Types ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

List of Tables Table 1 ISS Planning terms ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2 Summary of Engagement ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Table 3 Candidate Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4 Objectives, values, issues, and opportunities considered with candidate scenarios .................................................. 8


Scenario Development – Version 1.1 iii

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge and thank the following individuals who contributed in the completion of this phase of the ISS process:

Aaron Day, BCTS (Prince George) Kelly Favron, Conifex (Mackenzie) Adele Chingee, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Ken Zielke, Zielke Consulting (West Vancouver) Adrian Walton, FLNRO (Victoria) Rob Kennett, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Aiden Wiechula, Conifex (Mackenzie) Kevin Hoekstra, FLNRO (Prince George) Andrew Wheatly, FLNRO (Fort St. James) Leanne Elliott, FLNRO (Prince George) Angel Ransom, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Les Dillabaugh, Sinclar (Prince George) Barry Snowdon, FLNRO (Victoria) Leslie McKinley, FLNRO (Prince George) Bev John, Tl’azt’en (Fort St. James) Loni Arman, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Brent Sinclair, Canfor (Mackenzie) Lori Borth, FLNRO (Fort St. James) Brian Smart, Forsite (Sechelt/Salmon Arm) Louise Bett, FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Bruce Middleton, BCTS (Fort St. James) Luke Gleeson, Tsay Key (Mackenzie) Bryce Bancroft, Symmetree (Victoria) Marty Baker, Cabin Owner (Mackenzie) Cam Brown, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Michael Klaczek, FLNRO (Prince George) Carly Blashyn, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Micheline Snively, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Changru Li, Apollo (Fort St. James) Mike McLachlan, FLNRO (Prince George) Cheryl Hodder, Conifex (Fort St. James) Miles Hogan, FLNRO (Prince George) Cosmin Man, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Miodrag Tkalec, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Cyril Thacker, Conifex (Mackenzie) Normand Bilodeau, FLNRO (Prince George) Dan Turner, FLNRO (Kamloops) Trevor Joyce, Sinclair (Prince George) Darcie Fodor, Forsite (Prince George) Patrick Bryant, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Darin Hancock, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Paul Rehsler, FLNRO (Victoria) Dave Johnson, FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Phil Zacharatos, Muskwa Kechika (Kamloops) David Radies, Takla (Prince George) Renel Mitchell, Tl’azt’en (Fort St. James) David Schwarz, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Robin Young, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Doug Ambedian, Canfor(Mackenzie) Rosemarie Sam, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Erica Xie, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Sandra Sulyma, FLNRO (Prince George) Evan Prince, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Sarah Curtis, Canfor (Mackenzie) Fraser MacDonald, CircleM (Mackenzie) Scott McNay, Wildlife Infometrics (Mackenzie) Heather Wiebe, FLNRO (Mackenzie) Shannon Carson, FLNRO (Prince George) Ian Niblett, FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Shawna Case, Kwadacha (Kwadacha) Jackie Brown, FLNRO (Prince George) Shelly Marshall, FLNRO (Prince George) Jeanne Robert, FLNRO (Prince George) Stephen Smyrl, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Jeremy Beal, Forsite (Edmonton) Tanya Kruisselbrink, Conifex (Fort St. James) Jeremy Greenfield, BCTS (Prince George) Terry Lazaruk, Canfor (Vanderhoof) Jessica Koroll, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Traci Van Spengen, FLNRO (Prince George) Jewel Yurkewich, FLNRO (Prince George) Tyler Muhly, FLNRO (Victoria) John DeGagne, FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Vanessa Joseph, Yekooche (Fort St. James) John Poucette, FLNRO (Prince George) Viktor Brumovski, Wildlife Infometrics (Mackenzie) John Rex, FLNRO (Prince George) Wineta, Nak’azdli (Fort St. James) Julia Vanderham, FLNRO (Fort St. James) Kat Gunion, Forsite (Salmon Arm) Katherine Lessard, CSTC Liaison (Fort St. James)


Scenario Development – Version 1.1 iv

Document Revision History

Version Date Notes/Revisions

1.0 Sep 21, 2017 First version distributed to project team for review and comment.

1.1 Mar 31, 2018 Minor corrections and clarifications throughout. Added/revised notes and tables for Harvest, Silviculture, and Combined Scenarios in appropriate appendices. Changed name of this process from Integrated Silviculture Strategy to Integrated Stewardship Strategy.


Scenario Development – Version 1.1 Page 1 of 10

1 Introduction

The British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNR) has initiated an Integrated Stewardship Strategy (ISS) for the Stuart Timber Supply Blocks (TSB) within the Prince George TSA. The ISS is an evolving planning process that aims to provide context for management decisions necessary to achieve forest- or landscape-level objectives. It integrates other planning processes that may have historically been separate or disjointed, such as:

wildfire management planning,

forest health,

wildlife habitat desigNations planning,

biodiversity habitat planning,

cumulative effects, and

silviculture strategies.

Aligning these plans and strategies within a common process will better focus landbase investments, improved planning outcomes, and enhanced communications with First Nations and stakeholders – resulting in increased efficiency and effectiveness to stewardship planning relative to status quo.

1.1 Integrated Stewardship Strategy Objectives

In support of government objectives to mitigate forest health impacts on mid-term timber supply, this ISS project aims to:

Facilitate a respectful and collaborative landscape-level planning process that supports the delivery of defined stewardship outcomes - which in turn improves business certainty for licensees operating within the Stuart TSBs.

This improved certainty will be achieved through the creation of:

1. A common understanding among participants of the goals, values, issues, and challenges facing the Stuart TSBs.

2. A well designed Landscape Reserve Strategy that minimizes impacts to the timber harvesting land base (THLB) while addressing as many stewardship issues as possible. This includes First Nation’s interests and will ultimately help indicate areas on the landbase that are currently suitable for harvesting by licensees.

3. A coordinated Harvest Strategy that identifies approaches to harvest scheduling aimed at addressing common interests (e.g., MBP and spruce beetle salvage, equitable access to green timber, landscape level fuel breaks, etc.).

4. A Silviculture Strategy that provides clear direction on how to achieve improved timber and habitat outcomes in the future through investments in silviculture.

5. A plan for monitoring and evaluating progress and effectiveness towards meeting key goals and objectives that support future management decisions in the Stuart TSBs.

These objectives are meant to align with Provincial Timber Management Goals and Objectives (FLNRO 2014), the Chief Forester’s Provincial Stewardship Optimization/Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB) Stabilization Project (FLNRO 2015) and FLNRO staff.



1.2 Context

This Scenario Development document is the second of seven documents developed through the ISS process:

1. Situation Analysis – describes in general terms the situation for the unit.

2. Scenario Development – describes the development of a Combined Scenario to be explored through forest-level modelling and analysis scenarios:

a) Base Case Scenario – provides a baseline for comparison against other scenarios. It incorporates a broader or more flexible set of assumptions than used for the Timber Supply Review (TSR) process that can only consider legally-established objectives.

b) Reserve Scenario – review and analyze existing and proposed management zoNation and develop strategy options that provide for the sustainable management of non-timber values.

c) Harvest Scenario – review and analyze current and planned timber harvesting plans, infrastructure, and capabilities in the context of the distribution of spruce beetle- and MPB-killed pine salvage opportunities and the landscape reserve scenario. This must consider the current salvage period and the transition into the mid-term timber supply.

d) Silviculture Scenario –provides treatment options, associated targets, timeframes and benefits to minimize the impact of the MPB infestation over the mid-term timber supply.

3. Data Package - describes the information that is material to the analysis including the model used, data inputs and assumptions.

4. Analysis Report –provides modeling outputs and rationale for choosing a Combined Scenario.

5. Operational plan – direction for the implementation of the Combined Scenario.

6. Final Report – summary of all project work completed.

7. Monitoring Plan – direction on monitoring the implementation of the ISS; establishing a list appropriate performance indicators, developing monitoring responsibilities and timeframe and a reporting format and schedule.

This particular document builds upon the Situation Analysis and incorporates input from participants - through various meetings and workshops – that begin to list and describe the various modelling scenarios that will be explored in the upcoming phases of the project. This document also provides a record of the tactics that were not pursued in this iteration of the ISS project so that they may be considered when developing future management strategies.

1.3 Planning Terms

Since planning terms are often misused, misunderstood, and misinterpreted, we have provided a brief description the planning terms that will be used throughout this document (Table 1).



Table 1 ISS Planning terms

Term Answers the question… Used to…

Objective Where to go? Describe what we want to achieve; values, issues, and opportunities to consider

Strategy How do we get there? Describe how we plan to achieve the objective(s); in this case by developing a Combined Scenario and tactical plan(s)

Scenario What if? Examine possible future outcomes by considering alternative tactics and modelling assumptions

Tactic How to address what? Describe specific actions that alone, or in combiNation with other actions, address a strategic objective

Indicator What to track? Measure or describe the state or condition of a tactic

Target On track? Describe the desired state or condition of an indicator

1.4 Scenario Development Objectives

The objectives for this scenario development phase are to:

1. Actively seek input, information, and ideas from First Nations, forest licensees, stakeholders, and FLNRO staff through collaborative engagement;

2. Identify elements to analyze within four scenarios: ISS Base Case, Reserve, Harvest, and Silviculture scenarios;

3. Provide clear direction to the forest analyst for configuring the model; and

4. Identify knowledge gaps that would be beneficial to future analyses.

A fundamental component of this process is developing specific questions for what we are trying to answer through this analysis exercise. This helps to maintain focus on the original intent when considering potential assumptions.

Ultimately, elements from the analysis of these four scenarios (Figure 1) will be combined and applied to develop a Combined Scenario – or integrated strategy – used to develop tactical plans to guide operational and monitoring activities over this first iteration of the ISS process.

Figure 1 ISS Scenario Types



2 Approach

There is no single-way or correct approach for developing scenarios to model. It is not a linear or step-by-step process with a clear beginning and end. This phase of the ISS process involves identifying values, issues, and opportunities, then exploring which combiNation of tactics might best meet the objective(s). It can be organized into several exercises but planners typically work through these iteratively; starting from different perspectives each time. Finally, we are never really done. As this is a process it is important to remember that not all tactics can be modeled in the first iteration, chose first those that can reasonably be analyzed and address the remaining ones in future iterations.

Project Teams for both the Stuart and Mackenzie ISS processes decided to collaborate directly throughout this phase of the project as the study areas are adjacent to one another, some First Nations share traditional territories with both study areas, the same consultant was engaged for both projects, and most values, issues, and opportunities are identical or similar over both study areas. This turned out to be very efficient and cost-effective. The approach used to develop scenarios for this project is described in the subsections below.

2.1 Situation Analysis

The Situation Analysis (Forsite 2016) briefly describes the current situation of timber supply, timber quality, fish and wildlife habitat, biodiversity, climate change adaptation, other development, and other key values and issues. It also summarizes current plans and strategies completed and underway.

The aim of the Situation Analysis document is to set the scene for all stakeholders to think about the range of management issues facing the landbase - including their interest areas and values - and to encourage them to submit information and become engaged in the process. The background information and data gathered for this exercise also helps to identify some of the key values, issues, and opportunities that provide context to potential modelling scenarios being considered.

2.2 Engagement

Equipped with background information of the current situation, the project team felt it was critical to reach out to First Nations, licensees, and other stakeholders, to: introduce the ISS process, gather input on key values and concerns, and solicit ideas and information on potential solutions or tactics to explore. The project team developed an engagement plan that included: mailings, email correspondence and information exchange, phone calls, meetings with information sessions, and workshops.

With no previous examples to demonstrate the evolving ISS process, the project team decided to first develop draft versions of the situation analysis and candidate scenarios to facilitate meaningful and targeted discussions on the ISS process. It was also noted that First Nations, licensees, and stakeholders are typically busy throughout spring/summer. As well, other initiatives were already quite demanding on the available capacity (e.g., TSR for Prince George TSA, Mackenzie Stewardship Initiative, and Omineca Environmental Stewardship Initiative). While this approach seemed effective for most groups, one First Nation member and one licensee expressed that they would have preferred to have been informed or involved from the start.

Table 2 summarizes the various forms of engagement the project team initiated to solicit ideas in developing and prioritizing scenarios to model.



Table 2 Summary of Engagement

When How Purpose Who

Nov 6/15 F2F Meeting Introduce ISS BC Guide Outfitters

Nov 26/15 F2F Meeting Introduce ISS outcomes and involvement BC Timber Sales

Mar 8/16 Half-day Workshop Present/discuss: ISS; scenario development; values, issues, and opportunities; and tactics; opportunity to provide input.

FLNRO Researchers and First Nations Advisors

Mar 9/16 Full-day Workshop Stuart/Mackenzie Licensees and FLNRO

Apr 29/16 Call Discussed modelling for ISS. Tl'azt'en and FLNRO

Jul 20/16 Call/Web Meeting Present/discuss: ISS; scenario development; candidate scenarios, and ranking request.

Licensees and FLNRO

Jul 27/16 F2F Meeting Yekooche

Jul 27/16 F2F Meeting Tl'azt'en

Jul 28/16 F2F Meeting Nak'azdli First Nation

Aug 4/16 Call/Web Meeting Takla Lake First Nation

Jul-Sep/16 Survey to Rank Candidate Scenarios

Identify relative priority of candidate scenarios and tactics; opportunity to provide further input.

First Nations, licensees, guide outfitters, and FLNRO staff

Fall 2016 Call/Web Meetings Discuss establishment of scenario teams to begin development of modelling scenarios.

Project Team (see Appendix 2)

Nov 1/16 Call/Web Meeting Discuss and revise draft scenario notes that summarize modelling details required.

Reserve Scenario Team Members (see Appendix 4)


Base Case Scenario Team Members (see Appendix 3)





Dec 1/16 Call/Web Meeting Discuss and revise draft scenario notes that summarize modelling details required.








Jun 5/17 F2F - All-Day Workshop

Discuss and revise draft scenario notes that summarize modelling details required.

Harvest and Silviculture Scenario Team Members (see Appendix 5 and Appendix 6)

Feb 15/18 F2F - Workshop Discuss and revise preliminary tactics identified for the Combined Scenario that summarize modelling details required.

Project Team (see Appendix 7)

Note: F2F is Face-to-face

As this iteration of the ISS process continues to evolve, the project team will continue to engage First Nations, licensees, and stakeholders.

2.3 Identifying Tactics

Identifying and considering tactics or actions to address values, issues, and opportunities is a significant piece in developing appropriate scenarios. This helps to develop specific questions to answer through the modelling exercises. A matrix of tactics was developed by using three techniques that consider: a) existing sources of information, b) general objectives, and c) existing and desired activities.



An obvious technique for identifying tactics is to review the material already presented through other processes. Ideas were readily available and assembled from the situation analysis (section 2.1), latest rationale for AAC determiNation, District Manager guidance, and other existing sources of information.

For this iteration of the ISS, the Project Team discussed and settled on four general objectives. Much of the engagement described in section 2.2 aimed to produce ideas for tactics by asking individuals this question related to the four objectives, “How can we…”

1. MITIGATE fall-down in the mid-term 2. MAINTAIN non-timber values 3. MINIMIZE economic losses due to natural disturbance (MPB, SBB, Fire) 4. MAXIMIZE long-term productivity

For additional context, individuals were shown the table below where colours correspond to the list of objectives above to illustrate the associated scenario type and period along the timber harvest flow that each objective is expected to impact:

Harvest Flow Period (Term) Short Mid Long

Sce

nar

io

Reserve 2 Harvest 3 4

Silviculture 1

The third technique for identifying tactics was to ask individuals to consider current activities occurring across the landscape, as well as, desired activities that could affect identified values.

At this time, a total of 242 original tactic ideas were forwarded to the Project Team for consideration (Appendix 1). Collected from various venues and sources, these tactics ideas span a wide range of values and issues – of which many are quite similar. The tactics/ideas were captured and managed in an Excel spreadsheet that made it easier to organize, group, and summarize.

2.4 Describe, Group, and Prioritize Tactics

Given the array of tactics/ideas assembled, the ISS Project Team determined that the budget for this iteration would support analysis of approximately 5 scenarios. The challenge, then, was to prioritize and integrate as many of the original ideas received as possible. The process for doing this involved several steps.

First, the Project Team and forest analyst assessed and expanded the description of each tactic into:

several classifications (i.e., objective, value/issue/opportunity, tactic type);

analysis potential (i.e., whether and how the tactic might be included in a forest-level analysis); and

general priority class (ranging from low to very high).

These expanded definitions helped group and summarize similar tactics and results.

Each Project Team member was then asked to select approximately 20 tactic types that they felt were most critical to this iteration of the ISS process. This step identified 28 tactic types for closer consideration.



After further discussion and amalgamation as a group, the Project Team narrowed the list of tactic types down to 12 candidate modelling scenarios (see Table 3) aimed to address the four objectives and numerous values, issues and opportunities that exist within the project area (see Table 4).

Table 3 Candidate Scenarios

Scenario Name Description

Riparian Reserves This retention scenario examines ways to address concerns regarding riparian health and loss of long term habitat by:

spatially assigning riparian reserve areas for medium- and large-sized streams; and

increasing average riparian area retained for small-sized streams.

Retention This retention scenario explores ways to maintain the harvest area while providing for the full range of values on the landbase. This could be done by maximizing relative scores assigned across the landbase for:

old forests;

rare sites/ecosystems;

identified cultural interests;

trapping opportunities; and

habitat and identified connectivity for identified wildlife species.

This scenario will also increase stand-level retention within forests attacked by mountain pine beetle.

Pine Salvage This harvest scenario investigates approaches to minimize economic losses from mountain pine beetle damage while mitigating the mid-term fall-down. It will implement specific harvest targets and partitions (TSR) to retain an acceptable distribution of green wood for the mid-term.

Spruce Beetle Management

This harvest scenario examines ways to address stand mortality from spruce beetles by quantifying damage to timber and applying shelf-life assumptions that account for timber degradation.

Minimum Harvest Criteria

This harvest scenario examines physically and economically realistic options to extend and/or modify the operable limits for harvesting (i.e., timber quality/quantity, steep terrain, log delivery methods/distances, available processing facilities).

Access Management This harvest scenario assesses ways to maintain and promote a range of values and maximize long-term productivity by:

Periodically deferring timber harvest within identified wilderness areas to maintain hunting and recreation opportunities;

Minimizing identified road systems to maintain grizzly bear habitat; and

Managing road construction and maintenance over time to reduce landbase impacts.

Watershed ECA This harvest scenario explores modifications in road construction and timber harvesting to reduce the impact on non-timber values within key watersheds highly sensitive to: a) peak flows, b) delivery of fine sediments, and c) loss of riparian function.

Harvest Priority This harvest scenario examines ways to identify and promote the most logical and cost-effective timber harvest opportunities by incorporating key operational considerations.

Wildfire Management

This wildfire scenario explores ways to incorporate stand- and landscape-level wildfire management strategies to address the potential impact or risk from fire. This could be done by maximizing relative scores assigned to reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire and by applying fire stocking standards.

Rehabilitate Stands This silviculture scenario explores ways to improve timber quantity and quality over the mid- and long-term by implementing rehabilitation treatments on unsalvaged, beetle-attacked stands.

Enhanced Silviculture This silviculture scenario improves our understanding of options to realize future gains based on an assessment of risk from climate change and forest health factors. It will examine effects of implementing enhanced silviculture treatments on identified stands (e.g., modified stocking and species with the lens of climate change); aimed to improve timber quantity and quality over the long-term.

Fertilization This silviculture scenario examines ways to mitigate harvest reductions over the mid-term by applying successive fertilization treatments to identified stands (i.e., Sx/Pl, age, site productivity, distance).



Table 4 Objectives, values, issues, and opportunities considered with candidate scenarios

Objective Candidate Scenario

Value/Issue/Opportunity

Bio

div

ers

ity

Clim

ate

Ch

ange

Cu

ltu

ral H

eri

tage

Hu

nt

/ Tr

ap

Re

cre

atio

n

Acc

ess

Fore

st H

eal

th

Har

vest

Silv

icu

ltu

re

Wat

er

& F

ish

Wild

life

- H

abit

at

Mitigate fall-down in the mid-term

Fertilization X X

Minimum Harvest Criteria X X

Rehab Harvest X X X

Spruce Beetle Management X X X

Maintain non-timber values

Access Management X X X

Retention X X X X

Riparian Reserves X X X X X

Watershed ECA X X X

Minimize economic loss due to natural disturbance

Harvest Priority X X

Minimum Harvest Criteria X X

Pine Salvage X X X X

Wildfire Management X X X X

Maximize long-term productivity

Access Management X X

Enhanced Silviculture X X

Other… Minimum Harvest Criteria X

2.5 Ranking Candidate Scenarios

Given the current schedule and budget for this project, only 4 to 8 scenarios could realistically be analyzed in this iteration of the ISS process. This required a means to prioritize scenarios to explore. A description of candidate scenarios was distributed to workshop participants, First Nations, licensees, FLNRO staff, and other stakeholders who had previously engaged in the process. Individuals were asked to carefully consider each candidate scenario and rank them in order of priority – from their perspective – on addressing a considered risk in the TSA (e.g., loss of habitat, reduction in AAC). They were also asked to comment if they felt any scenarios were missing to address an identified issue from this short-list of candidates.

At the same time, the Project Team extended invitations to discuss the candidate scenarios and the ISS process personally or over the phone. Some First Nations, licensees, and FLNRO staff participated in face-to-face meetings and web meetings (see section 2.2).

A total of 18 individuals responded to the ranking survey. The Project Team provided a summary of the overall responses to the respective scenario teams for consideration in prioritizing aspects of the modelling approach (see section 2.6).

2.6 Scenario Teams

Four scenario teams were assembled to flesh out the details and information required to develop modelling scenarios: 1) ISS Base Case, 2) Reserve, 3) Harvest, and 4) Silviculture. Team members were made up of FLNRO staff, licensees, and First Nations, as either active or passive participants. Active team members attended calls and meetings, provided direction and input on scenario elements, and assisted in developing material and securing data/information for the scenarios. Passive team members



attended calls and meetings whenever available but mainly reviewed and commented on material developed.

Each team prepared notes on implementing their scenarios and sensitivities (see Base Case Scenario Notes in Appendix 3, Reserve Scenario Notes in Appendix 4, and Harvest Scenario Notes in Appendix 5, and Silviculture Scenario Notes in Appendix 6). These ideas were carefully considered by the forest analyst and where appropriate, used to prepare the data package and configure the models. These notes were also updated by the forest analyst to reflect new approaches or assumptions.

Scenario teams met on specific dates that were selected through an online survey system (Doodle Poll) to ensure as many people could attend as possible. These meetings are recorded as engagement examples in Table 2.

A dedicated folder (File Transfer Protocol – FTP) was set up to manage information and data exchanged among scenario team members. This provided members with complete and current information as assumptions were being developed.

At this time, the project budget did not allow for the completion of the Silviculture Scenario, Combined Scenario, or Tactical Plan.



3 References

Forsite 2016. Forsite Consultants Ltd. Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the Mackenzie Natural Resources District - Situation Analysis. Version 1.4. January 8, 2016. 81p.

FLNRO 2015. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Chief Forester Information Bulletin - Stewardship and Stabilizing the Timber Harvesting Land Base. March 2015. 6p. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/rco/external/!publish/FMLT%20Publish/North%20Island%20Central%20Coast/April%2015%202015%20FMLT%20Meeting/Chief%20Forester%20Information%20Bulletin%20FINAL.docx

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/rco/external/!publish/FMLT%20Publish/North%20Island%20Central%20Coast/April%2015%202015%20FMLT%20Meeting/Chief%20Forester%20Information%20Bulletin%20FINAL.docx

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/rco/external/!publish/FMLT%20Publish/North%20Island%20Central%20Coast/April%2015%202015%20FMLT%20Meeting/Chief%20Forester%20Information%20Bulletin%20FINAL.docx


Appendix 1 – Scenario Development – Version 1.1 Page 1 of 8

Matrix of Tactics

The following table lists all the tactic ideas gathered to date for both the Stuart and Mackenzie Natural Resource Districts. These ideas were used to develop a matrix of tactics for developing modelling scenarios.

ID Description Tactic/Action

1 Encourage the utilization of marginal stands within the harvestable landbase.

Encourage the harvest of Balsam Leading and Deciduous Stands through a partition.

2 Stand mortality from insects and disease is a natural, significant and ongoing process within these forests. How can we utilize biomass to its full potential?

Explore opportunities with establishment of portable or remote chipping facilities and barging capabilities to reduce cycle times and lower utilization criteria.

3 Remove stands with yields that never meet the minimum harvest criteria; do not replace them due to natural non-logging disturbance.

Sensitivity that revises TSR assumption and reduces the THLB due to low productivity stands; become candidates for reserves.

4 New area-based tenures proposed to accommodate First Nation interests will reduce the TSA landbase.

Exclude proposed FNWL from the harvestable land base.

5 Deciduous - Maximize utilization of all trees; diversify species use (e.g., aspen, birch)

Explore the harvest contribution from commercial deciduous species.

6 Deciduous - Maintain mid-term (more value?) Identify other economic timber values such as deciduous licence.

7 MFR should consider planting deciduous stands. Deciduous trees can be used in bio-refineries

8 Protect spruce stands from impacts from spruce beetle Prioritize harvest/trap tree establishment in Spruce beetle areas (difficult to model but needs to be considered); model dead Sx.

9 Protect spruce stands from impacts from spruce beetle

10 Spruce Beetle - Maintain mid term Focus harvest on live/green attack; target harvest for sanitation.

11 Spruce Beetle - Shelf-life on spruce Shorter than Pl (~2 years).

12 Spruce Beetle - Recent forest health surveys have captured a significant increase in spruce beetle activity.

Identify cumulative spruce mortality and develop shelf-life assumptions.

13 Balsam decline (balsam bark beetle, spruce budworm and heart rot) has led to extensive stand mortality and significant loss of merchantable volume.

Identify cumulative balsam mortality and develop shelf-life assumptions.

14 Rate stands based on infestation and likelihood of control (e.g., infrastructure exists to access/hauling costs, etc.); (i.e., focus on stands with a high probability of reducing overall susceptibility within cost recovery of valuable wood/probability of spread if attacked (rate based on proximity to other susceptible stands)).

15 Reduce volume loss to insect and pathogens (Jeanne Robert)

Rate stands based on susceptibility to major forest health agents (e.g., bark beetles, pathogens, dry rusts).

16 Non-Recoverable Losses

17 Concerns of blowdown in pine stands particularly in riparian areas and WTPs

18 Spruce Beetle - Control of annual blowdown to keep IBS infestation to a minimum

Salvage licence

19 Recent pine rust surveys suggest that mean in certain ecosystems of these units, rust levels are the highest in BC.

Develop an approach to explore effects that these pine rust levels have on future timber supply.

20 Is diversification of species being practices in managed stands?

21 Caribou Identify disturbance levels in Low Elevation Winter Range in the context of recovery plan thresholds (65% undisturbed).

22 Licensee provides connectivity in a year; then in subsequent year’s harvest in that area

Connectivity - wildlife.

23 Wildlife Connectivity Terrestrial Ecosystems - Tl’azt’en Nation has proposed wildlife corridors connecting high value terrestrial ecosystems to promote healthy populations of wildlife, especially those species that Tl’azt’en depend on for survival.

Exclude harvesting within the proposed areas.

24 Tl’azt’en Nation has proposed three riparian corridors that provide high value summer and fall forage habitat in close proximity to areas of potential denning habitat.

Consider draft general wildlife measures.




25 Tl’azt’en Nation has proposed expansion of the draft WHA for Tl’o ba Grizzly Bear.

Consider draft general wildlife measures.

26 Diverse habitat opportunity for different species (moose, ungulates, grizzly, First Nations rights/title/interests)

Multiple aged stands to allow different habitat types.

27 Protection of Douglas fir stands for deer habitat

28 Habitat needs to be maintained in order to have stable wildlife populations including fur bearers. This will make a more sustainable trapping industry.

Maintain a component of each LU as undisturbed habitat for trapping opportunities.

29 Wildlife is important and First Nations’ want assurance that their sustenance needs are going to be met.

30 Habitat for moose and elk is important as they are an important food source.

31 Poorly placed WTPs are an issue because these are blown down. Ungulates need intact WTPs and riparian areas. WTPs should be placed in live (non-pine) stands.

32 Caribou habitat is a significant concern

33 Reduce the risk of loss due to wildfire through landscape-level fire management strategies.

Set modelling objectives to prioritize stand types according to forest management priorities (e.g., harvest, retention, silviculture) for wildfire management and schedule treatments to reduce fire risk.

34 Prioritize/rank areas for actioning fires to protect timber and non-timber values.

35 Remove all fuel hazards; reduce fuels.

36 Reforest fires FLNRO operations (FFT).

37 Fire losses Implement fire management standards throughout THLB to increase efficiency of fire management (fuel breaks).

38 Include wildfire management plan information for consideration with tactical plans.

39 Landscape-level planning (harvest/retention) and monitoring is not being conducted within designated low-elevation UWRs.

Develop a tactical plan for harvesting within designated UWRs.

40 Wilderness value (also related to non-roads) Minimize open roads; grizzly habitat; security areas.

41 Defer harvest of stands that will be viable in mid-term.

42 Target stands that will soon be non-economic (shelf life expires).

43 Implement a partition to retain an acceptable distribution of green-wood for the mid-term.

Limit harvest of non-pine leading coniferous stands to 950,000 m³/yr (21%); with no more than 300,000 m³/yr from southwest portion (7%).

44 Extend shelf-life (sensitivity); shorter or larger.

45 Reduce short-term harvest.

46 Change modelling parameters to show an even flow.

47 Increase utilization Maximize MPB salvage.

48 Develop North - Encourage utilization of the entire land base, particularly development in the north, to relieve current harvest pressure in the south (i.e., CF direction (Mackenzie) to shift salvage northwards after 10 years; before green-wood is harvested in the south). Are operating areas recognized or appropriate?

Constrain harvest so that during the salvage period 2/3 must come from Pl stands and limit the harvest of non-pine in the south to 300k m³/yr (i.e., Partition).

49 Optimize the salvage of dead pine while it retains commercial value.

Schedule harvest to target stands that will no longer be merchantable following their shelf life. Minimize the amount of dead pine remaining at the end of the salvage period.

50 Identify stands that are pushed over the minimum harvest criteria when biomass (value) is added to sawlog.

51 Reduce loss due to shelf-life Rank for salvage (SI, Value, location) and habitat; max benefit.

52 Salvage Priority

53 Maximize short-term harvest.

54 "Physical and economic conditions introduce significant complexity in considering appropriate harvest levels (steep terrain, log delivery methods/distances, timber quality and species, available processing facilities). Extending operability limits can mitigate a fall-down but this should be realistic/performance-based. If licensees can demonstrate significant performance in lower volume stands, it may be possible to mitigate the projected mid-term decline




55 Mackenzie: Minimum 151 m³/ha conifer on ≤46% slope; 250m³/ha on slopes >46%; dead pine salvage only on slopes ≤36%; plus minimum average volume limit of 200 m³/ha.

56 Stuart: Pl-leading 140 m³/ha; non-Pl-lead 182 m³/ha; max slope 62%"

Explore alternative assumptions for minimum harvest criteria (volume, slope, haul distance)

57 DMK TSR sensitivity decreased Avg vol/ha requirement.

58 Remove criteria for average stand volume limit of 200m³/ha."

59 Enhance harvest chance Reduce harvest age assumptions; borrow from future.

60 Capture dead pine Reduce minimum volume/hectare based on distance to mill.

61 Improving the infrastructure (road building) would allow acceptable cycle times, therefore increasing the THLB.

"Explore alternative assumptions for cycle time.

62 Type 4 - Expanding the Economically Operable Land Base added 2.5% throughout the mid-term."

63 Access management (spatial and temporal).

64 Species mortality; connector road issues; all roads max 0.6 km/km2; long roads bad.

65 Maintain the best harvest opportunities for current and future timber supply and log quality.

The model should select the best stands to harvest but licensees could help refine key operational considerations (e.g., access or distance limitations).

66 Efficiency of resource use Maximize use of infrastructure (e.g., minimize construction of new roads over time).

67 Existing haul distances/cycle times used to identify harvestable stands do not reflect current or future road development and are not suitable for tactical level planning.

Develop better methodology to assign haul cycle distances/times.

68 Improve access (land and water) and infrastructure Funding; transportation system in Mackenzie needs improvement.

69 Size of THLB and economics of stands Better understand implications of haul distances.

70 Wildlife (i.e., some species at risk and road density thresholds); reduce density habitat productive landbase loss

Address access management and minimize creation of more roads (how much THLB is lost to roads and what are opportunities to address road rehabilitation, etc.).

71 Release non-required constraints Evaluate to determine if any constraints are not useful (Post WTPs); no new WTPs.

72 Stabilize and maximize THLB Overlap reserves where possible.

73 Stratify sites and focus additional resources on bust sites Site index driven decisions; identify best sites for investment.

74 "Ensure that designated and proposed habitat desigNations:

75 ~ meet wildlife requirements and are connected in a way that maintains effective migration

76 ~ are collocated to minimize the impact on other forest resource values, and

77 ~ accommodate First Nation wildlife interests." Set modelling objectives to prioritize stand types according to current and future habitat capability.

78 Caribou populations Rate caribou habitat and maximize high value in reserves.

79 Focus on land use from a population perspective not a habitat viewpoint

Allocate more to those that need more and less to those that need less.

80 Wildlife Application of efficient reserves on landscape.

81 Wildlife Assess efficiency of existing (colocation).

82 Colocation.

83 Max options to address all values with reserves Start with clean slate for colocation (OGMA).

84 Where possible, incorporate priorities identified within First Nations Land Use Plans (e.g., Tl’azt’en).

Explore alternative assumptions for reserving areas within First Nations priority areas.

85 First Nation’s strength of claim areas; are we likely to get this information?

Prioritize strength of claim areas for retention.

86 Cultural interests must be protected and maintained

87 Specific mention of protecting burial grounds, watersheds and salmon bearing sensitive streams

88 Medicines and sustenance plants are gathered even in dead pine stands. Pine and non-pine stands need to be protected.

89 Landbase productivity Evaluate overall production of the landbase for all values while maintaining a viable forest industry; Establish a baseline.




90 Fires - other values Are spatial OGMAs co-located areas moved when values change?

91 With limited funding, there is a need to prioritize silviculture investments.

Set modelling objectives to prioritize stand types according to expected returns (e.g., SI, haul distance, and terrain/harvest constraints).

92 To balance the uplift AAC, the Chief Forester guidance is to increase stand-level retention within moderately or severely attacked forests based on opening size.

Increase WTR requirement within priority areas (or across the board?) or alternatively some patch size requirement.

93 Regionally important wildlife (i.e., marten, northern goshawk)

Identify areas for increased retention (i.e., CWD, WTPs, and connectivity); ID wildlife species; increase in-block retention.

94 Tl’azt’en Nation has proposed candidate reserves to help achieve landscape objectives for old growth retention and spatial biodiversity (i.e., spatial OGMA).

Exclude harvesting within the candidate area.

95 Consider non-timber values when planning possible rehabilitation of MPB sites

Use natural disturbance areas (MPB) to contribute to landscape biodiversity; natural young stands have value.

96 How can we accelerate/increase areas with old growth attributes for constrained units?

Thin/space mid-seral to mature stands where old growth attributes are in deficit.

97 Manage rare sites/ecosystems (CDC) Use existing info PEM data to map sites.

98 Species dependent on old forest habitat Maintain ‘natural’ (NDU science) amount of old forest in landscape units; ensure representative areas are captured (e.g., species, site, crown closure).

99 Important to maintain landscape level biodiversity

100 Old growth reserves are important and recruitment stands for future old growth need to be protected.

101 Species dependent on interior old forest habitat Maintain large contiguous patches of old forest over time in landscape units.

102 Second growth species diversity Mixed plantation increase; density.

103 Reduce monocultures Increase amount of mixed stands on the landscape.

104 Landscape connectivity

105 Identify areas of core security habitat; >10km2 (undisturbed).

106 How do we maintain wilderness quality? For example, a guide outfitter (CircleM) has identified key areas (important and essential) with specific management objectives.

May be best addressed through access management; no permanent roads within priority areas. Within priority areas set an objective to schedule concentrated harvest over a short period then delay.

107 Harvest timing (spatial and temporal).

108 Grizzly Bear Identify road densities by LU.

109 Rehabilitate temporary road sections to prevent access into these wilderness areas.

110 Maintain the function of key watersheds that are highly sensitive to: a) peak flows, b) delivery of fine sediments, and c) loss of riparian function. All have sensitive fish species present (Tl’azt’en Nation n=10).

Explore alternative assumptions for reserving areas identified as FSWs.

111 Subsistence Food Fisheries Watersheds - Tl’azt’en Nation’s top management priority is to maintain, conserve, and protect ecosystems supporting subsistence harvest of wild foods (n=~25).

Implement a forest cover requirement within SFFWs with a max ECA.

112 Watershed sensitivity Model looking at ECA; CWS and identified Watersheds (guides).

113 Implement a forest cover requirement within FSWs with a max ECA.

114 Water quantity/peak flow (public safety/infrastructure) Watershed assessment/planning; better operational planning.

115 Appropriate macro and micro watershed harvest limits/amounts; ECAs (disturbance limits).

116 Watershed impacts.

117 Keyoh Watershed Management Units - Tl’azt’en Nation has identified KWMUs to reflect keyoh areas and the full extent of the surrounding watershed.

Develop a modelling approach that reflect management emphasis for connectivity according to the % assigned for each unit.

118 Water tables are rising due to timber harvesting and dead pine.

119 Are watershed impacts incorporated into the AAC decision?

120 How does harvesting of spruce stands affect watersheds?

121 Changes in hydrology in the central plateau.

122 Consider wider small stream reserves within SFFWs; increase aspatial reduction.

123 Fish and aquatic species and water temperature Appropriate riparian management/protections.




124 Riparian - temperature sensitive species - buffers.

125 Water quality (sediment; temperature) Reserves/buffers to minimize temperature and run-off.

126 Plants Increase RMZ.

127 Temperature sensitive streams - Protect the water quality of streams with sensitive fish species present.

Increase retention along smaller order streams feeding identified fish streams.

128 Average aspatial assignments for riparian areas are not conducive for identifying opportunities to co-locate potential areas as wildlife habitat desigNations.

Develop methodology to spatially assign riparian reserve areas for large and medium sized streams and revise the average aspatial assumption for small streams.

129 Riparian values need to be respected and maintained.

130 Riparian areas are ideal trapping areas.

131 To protect riparian areas (where pine grows to the water), deciduous stands should be established.

132 More consideration should be given to feathering edges and making wind firm boundaries.

133 Throughout the mid-term, salvage material that can still be utilized - including scattered green wood.

Rehabilitate stands after that do not have sufficient secondary structure.

134 Already identified stands expected to fall below merch after salvage period; harvest these first and rehab

135 Develop haul distance thresholds for viable rehabilitation activities within the northern portion of each unit."

136 What can we do with mature dead pine stands that have degraded below their merchantability limit?

Rehabilitate unsalvaged stands without sufficient secondary structure to increase mid-term, mitigate fire hazard and regenerate quicker.

137 Advanced regeneration found in pine-leading stands could contribute to long-term (and possibly mid-term) timber supply.

Develop an approach to identify stands with acceptable secondary structure to identify stands for modelling plus candidate stands for rehab.

138 Fire risk Burn areas to reduce risk and get cheap reforestation.

139 Integrate with WMB fire management plan (i.e., some stands better off burned).

140 The intent is to add volume to these stands to reduce the depth of the front end of the trough. Issues with First Nations?

"Repeated fertilization of late rotation, near mature stands (40-80years)

141 Bigger gains with multiple treatments

142 f(avail stands)."

143 Maximize volume in midterm Fertilization of mid-term stands.

144 Grow more Enhanced silviculture; increase utilization (stump height); class A seed; fertilize; rehabilitation.

145 Direct high-value seed to high value sites.

146 Take advantage of B-class seed inventories on lower-value sites.

147 Utilizing improved planting stock whenever possible can significant improve future harvest opportunities (disease resistance; increase volume; merchantable sooner).

Develop methodology to spatially assign seed planning units used to apply genetic gains and explore various implementation scenarios.


Identify the forest-level benefits associated with existing assumptions for genetic gains (i.e., with/without GW).


Explore the impact of employing GW projected 25yrs from now or expanding seed use guidelines.

150 Increase planting density on sites with higher risk of disease.

151 Produce a greater proportion of machine stress rated (MSR) lumber or reduce the impacts of some forest health agents.

Manage for higher densities on a portion of the landbase.

152 Improve value of second growth stands Plant higher densities.

153 Reforestation needs to occur.

154 A plan for forest rehabilitation is needed because of the significant pressure on the green timber in the midterm.

155 Partial Cut in Constrained Areas - How can we salvage stands impacted within constrained units? Particularly non-spatial, forest cover requirements like ECA, Seral Stage, WTR, or visuals; less likely with spatial desigNations like UWR, WHA, or OGMA.

Explore opportunity of partial cutting within constrained areas while maintaining habitat function.

156 Partial Cut in Constrained Areas - Timber Access Partial cutting within visuals.




157 Improve habitat quality, hydrologic recovery, and recovery of pine-dominated riparian areas for shade to reduce in-stream temperatures.

Plant trees and shrubs on non-THLB sites with no reforestation obligations (habitat focus).

158 Create diversity in future log products by encouraging larger piece sizes. Sacrifice short- mid-term volume for long-term quality? (i.e., extend rotations)

"Manage for long rotations (increase MHA criteria on selected sites.

159 DQU T4 sensitivity extended MHA (added 90% CMAI criterion)

160 DMK TSR sensitivity increasing Avg vol/ha requirement."

161 Thin (PCT/CT) identified stands to increase average piece size while sacrificing volume.

162 Manage for product (i.e., grade) Prioritize stands based on economics for product. Sawlog vs. chips; biofuel; structure plant.

163 Plant (stocking standards) to optimize for end products; tactic for bioenergy stands.

164 There is significant uncertainty associated with site productivity due to lack of local sample data.

Explore alternative assumptions for natural and managed site indices.

165 Include climate change considerations.

166 Reduce risk of fire (consider how to) stop climate change

167 How can we adapt to projected changes in climate; in particular temperature (mean, min, max) and precipitation.

Range expansion; plant Lw and Fdi.

168 Healthy Ecosystem Promote Resilience (diversity; age classes; climate based seed transfer)

169 Climate change Assisted migration.

170 How is climate change factored into the data and AAC decision?

171 Reduce cumulative impacts of multiple developments Avoid multiple cutblocks in area where already pipelines, mines, etc.

172 Impacts (of large cutblocks in one area) on wildlife, water, overall forest health

Large cutblocks in one area.

173 What are the cumulative impacts of the decisions being made that impact the ground?

174 Diversify the economy.

175 Support as many First Nation and non-First Nation communities as possible in north rather than all development in one area and moving on (socio-economic timber)

Timber harvesting across different areas in region; economic activity for First Nations and small communities.

176 Incidental harvest of healthy trees by increasing block size

Target harvest to smallest unit of infested forest possible (sanitation)

177 First Nation: spruce removed by truckload pine harvested in PG and spruce harvested in FSJ; impacts to mid-term supply in Stuart (cumulative effects)

First Nation concerns; damage stands 30% non-pine by licence

178 Guide outfitter concerns Model same input

179 Relax LU/BEC (spatial) requirements; same(?) target at TSA

180 Don’t harvest anymore

181 Redundancy - dead with distance; target

182 Define area required for each initiative so that it can be evaluated

Allocate accordingly; ha of specific value

183 Quantify values Real expectation; trade-offs

184 People’s expectations and needs

185 Aquatic life (commercial/cultural species) - JR Rate of Development (reduce risk); thresholds

186 Identify sensitive/important areas

187 Integrated-inclusive planning (communities and First Nations)

188 Harvest Cost Reduce cost of development (scale-based cruise; FFT-Silviculture costs; Allocate

189 Fish Passage (reduce obstructions)

190 Road and crossing design/maintenance

191 Cultural heritage Include communities; in-field review

192 Soil conservation Monitoring

193 Use field data to update data

194 First Nations interests, concerns, issues for FLs, Fish and wildlife, water, biodiversity (First Nations probably have their own category) as in more non-timber values (Jackie)

Have First Nations at workshops like this at the concept stage; early engagement is key for




195 Negative impacts to water, plant collection for sustenance and medicinal purposes; further impacts to warm temperatures/slow moving creeks, rivers and near to eutrophic lakes (classification)

Plants, wildlife - detrimental impact of herbicides and fertilization

196 Put out all fires

197 Identify disturbance (timely manner) Inventory process

198 Regeneration Prioritize stands (e.g., site index) for silviculture ROI (e.g., FFT)

199 Is sanitation really effective? How much economic loss in this practice?

200 Broadcast burn (habitat improvement; fuel management)

201 Quality site information Updated photos and PEM/LiDAR

202 VRI

203 What do we have now Enhanced inventory

204 Manage scope Upfront expectation management

205 Rural embracement Education; talk to communities with results

206 Political support

207 Improve inventory Tenure allocation consistent with available inventory (FNWL; CFA)

208 More balance is needed with harvesting pine and other species

209 No capacity to participate in the PG TSA TSR

210 What capacity is available from MFR

211 First Nations need to be involved in land use planning and plans developed to be used.

212 True participation and reflection of values initiates a land use planning process.

213 First Nations want a more accessible and renewable licenses that address economies of scale.

214 Uneven playing field between First Nations’ licenses and BCTS wood.

215 Uncertainty about the shelf life of dead pine. How is shelf life managed?

216 TUS and land use planning are required for their territory prior to licensees cutting in non-pine areas. MFR must involve other agencies for this work (ILMB and MOE)

217 Co-decision making in TSR

218 Revenue sharing needs to happen

219 Aboriginal title must be addressed

220 Concerns about apportionment following the AAC decision and how much will be apportioned to First Nations’ licenses.

221 Caribou habitat Identify disturbance levels in Low Elevation Winter Range in the context of recovery plan thresholds (65% undisturbed).

222 Caribou habitat Reduce industrial footprint in identified high and low elevation caribou habitat.

223 Caribou habitat Maintain connectivity within caribou range, and between caribou seasonal ranges

224 Caribou habitat Avoid destroying and harvesting in areas of known caribou forage habitat

225 Caribou habitat Avoid increasing forage for alternative wolf/bear prey species such as moose in areas of caribou range.

226 Caribou/Grizzly habitat Use existing corridors/roadways, minimizing the number of new linear features and disturbances on the landscape

227 Caribou/Grizzly habitat Reduce site lines on inactive forest roadways and linear features. Encourage visual screening through rehabilitation of linear features.

228 Caribou habitat Reduce use of eskers and other sites supporting terrestrial lichen for sources of gravel.

229 Caribou habitat Coordinate industrial activity to occur concurrently, and to occur during 'least risk' timing windows for species like caribou.

230 Caribou/Grizzly habitat Promptly restore linear features and work to reduce the densities of linear features on the landscape.

231 Maintain a diversity of habitat for different species (ungulates, grizzly, fur bearers)

Moose and Elk require adequate deciduous forage, and others require open canopy lichen dominated sites. We need to maintain these sites across the landscape.




232 Manage for other regionally important species and groups such as owls, migratory birds, beaver

Should promote the protection of riparian areas and the maintenance of shallow water wetlands. The harvesting and promotion of coniferous tree growth in riparian areas does not promote the maintenance of shallow water wetlands by beaver. This can have negative cascading effects on staging migratory birds, sediment capture, and stream flow.

233 Maintain Interior Forest Habitat Edge effects extend far into the forest interior, greatly reducing the amount of high quality interior forest habitat that many species rely on.

234 Increase size of riparian buffers. This will improve the habitat quality of these areas post-harvest for species of owl, fur bears and ungulates. This will also work to reduce run-off, and decrease in-stream temperatures

235 Culvert maintenance and replacement. Must work to reduce obstructions to fish passage.

236 Consider non-timber values as targets during the rehabilitation of MPB sites

Consider opportunities to restore sites to Caribou UWR's, forage for other ungulates.

237 Reduce overland water flow Work to reduce peak flows, the delivery of fine sediments by enhancing riparian areas.

238 Restore riparian areas. Work to restore riparian areas so that they are providing shade and reducing runoff.

239 Monitoring of soil fertility. Working to reduce the movement of fine sediments into waterbodies, and to maintain the productivity of the land base and harvested stands. Reduce harvesting in areas that could be prone to erosion.

240 Wildlife Increase wildlife reserves on the landscape.

241 Recognize biodiversity value of standing dead pine forests.

Dead pine can benefit biodiversity and provide habitat heterogeneity on landscape. Insect eating birds for instance will benefit from the standing dead trees.

242 Reduce density of planted stands. Current planting plans call for high density planting across managed blocks. This results in homogeneous closed canopy stands with no natural analogue on the landscape Planting a diverse mix of tree species and reduce densities would better mimic natural stands.



Ranking Candidate Scenarios



Base Case Scenario Notes



Reserve Scenario Notes



Harvest Scenario Notes

The ISS project teams acknowledge and thanks the following individuals for their role in developing the approach and assumptions for this harvest scenario. This involved preparation for and participation in a workshop held in Prince George on June 5, 2017 that considered both harvest and silviculture scenarios for both the Stuart (Prince George TSA – TSBs A, B, C) and Mackenzie ISS projects.

Attended Workshop (June 5, 2017) Invited but Unable to Attend Workshop

Organization Name Organization Name

BCTS (Prince George) Aaron Day BCTS (Prince George) Jeremy Greenfield

Canfor (Mackenzie) Doug Ambedian BCTS (Vanderhoof) Bruce Middleton

Canfor (Vanderhoof) Terry Lazaruk Canfor (Prince George) Sara Cotter

Conifex (Fort St. James) Tanya Kruisselbrink Canfor (Mackenzie) Sarah Curtis

Sinclar Group (Prince George) Les Dillabaugh Canfor (Mackenzie) Erik Olson

Sinclar Group (Prince George) Trevor Joyce Canfor (Mackenzie) Brent Sinclair

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Lori Borth Carrier (Prince George) Keith Taite

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) John DeGagne Conifex (Mackenzie) Kelly Favron

FLNRO (Mackenzie) Darin Hancock Conifex (Fort St. James) Cheryl Hodder

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Dave Johnson Conifex (Mackenzie) Aiden Wiechula

FLNRO (Prince George) Leslie McKinley Dunkley (Prince George) Doug Perdue

FLNRO (Prince George) Mike McLachlan Dunkley (Prince George) Tim Pritchard

FLNRO (Prince George) John Pousette Frost Lake (Prince George) Shane Perry

FLNRO (Victoria) Paul Rehsler KDL (Fort St. James) Ross Hamilton

FLNRO (Mackenzie) Miodrag Tkalec KDL (Mackenzie) Mike Pek

FLNRO (Fort St. James) Andrew Wheatley West Fraser (Fraser Lake) Jaret Van der Giessen

Symmetree (Victoria) Bryce Bancroft FLNRO (Prince George) Kevin Hoekstra

Forsite (Salmon Arm) Patrick Bryant FLNRO (Fort St. James) Kelly Izzard

Zielke (West Vancouver) Ken Zielke FLNRO (Prince George) Jewel Yurkewich



Summary of Harvest Scenario Assumptions

HARVEST SCENARIO: Which stands should be prioritized for harvest/salvage in the short term (and what are the mid/long term consequences of not following this strategy)?

Tactic Element ISS Base Case Scenario ISS Harvest Scenario

Description Criteria Description Criteria

Minimum Harvest Criteria: How low are we prepared to go over a short period of time when options are limited?

Minimum Harvest Criteria

Volume per Hectare

Non-MPB Stands Min 182 m3/ ha Take a look at what other stand types are out there at 140-182

MPB Stands Min 140 m3/ ha

Can go below 140 (100?) - bioenergy plants - 100km radius effective distance. What stands? ITSIL? Other opp? Adjacency to sawlog stands may be a factor.

Itemize what the opp is below 140? 3-hr cycle time with 100 m3/ha and min vol and 35% slope. May want to keep vol at 140 - explore diff between inv-to-cruise-to-mill?

Age Minimum Harvest Age 95% of the AU's culmiNation age

Harvest Priority: Which stands should be prioritized for harvest in the short term?

Harvest Priority

Partition

Pine-Leading Stands Min 80% for first 20 yrs try doing run with all partitions turned off

a run with none - see where opps are.

Deciduous Stands Max 8% over planning horizon

No harvest que; search for near-optimal solution

Haul Distance Haul Cycle Times Max 11.5 hrs (one-way) to processing facility

Leave alone for now - need to get info from others first.

Access Timing 13 Example locations (~21,000 ha THLB)

Max 30% THLB every 35 yrs (first period varies by location)

Not going to change anything now

Product Profile

Not included See product profile sheet Report only?

Wildfire Management: Which treatments (harvest patterns and silviculture) can help to mitigate the increasing risk of large wildfires from unsalvaged stands and climate change?

Wildfire Management

Fuel Breaks Not included Encourage logging

WUI Not included silvi - reduce fuel build up (SS or harvesting activities, use debris) - bring Ed Korpela and others back in

Fire Threat Rating

Not included Use this data to help with priorities to harvest and inform silvi investments



Silviculture Scenario Notes

The ISS project teams acknowledge and thanks the following individuals for their role in developing the approach and assumptions for this silviculture scenario. This involved preparation for and participation in a workshop held in Prince George on June 5, 2017 that considered both harvest and silviculture scenarios for both the Stuart (Prince George TSA – TSBs A, B, C) and Mackenzie ISS projects.

Attended Workshop (June 5, 2017) Invited but Unable to Attend Workshop

Organization Name Organization Name

BCTS (Prince George) Aaron Day BCTS (Prince George) Jeremy Greenfield

Canfor (Mackenzie) Doug Ambedian BCTS (Vanderhoof) Bruce Middleton

Canfor (Vanderhoof) Terry Lazaruk Canfor (Prince George) Sara Cotter

Conifex (Fort St. James) Tanya Kruisselbrink Canfor (Mackenzie) Sarah Curtis

Sinclar Group (Prince George) Les Dillabaugh Canfor (Mackenzie) Erik Olson

Sinclar Group (Prince George) Trevor Joyce Canfor (Mackenzie) Brent Sinclair

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Lori Borth Carrier (Prince George) Keith Taite

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) John DeGagne Conifex (Mackenzie) Kelly Favron

FLNRO (Mackenzie) Darin Hancock Conifex (Fort St. James) Cheryl Hodder

FLNRO (Vanderhoof) Dave Johnson Conifex (Mackenzie) Aiden Wiechula

FLNRO (Prince George) Leslie McKinley Dunkley (Prince George) Doug Perdue

FLNRO (Prince George) Mike McLachlan Dunkley (Prince George) Tim Pritchard

FLNRO (Prince George) John Pousette Frost Lake (Prince George) Shane Perry

FLNRO (Victoria) Paul Rehsler KDL (Fort St. James) Ross Hamilton

FLNRO (Mackenzie) Miodrag Tkalec KDL (Mackenzie) Mike Pek

FLNRO (Fort St. James) Andrew Wheatley West Fraser (Fraser Lake) Jaret Van der Giessen

Symmetree (Victoria) Bryce Bancroft FLNRO (Prince George) Kevin Hoekstra

Forsite (Salmon Arm) Patrick Bryant FLNRO (Fort St. James) Kelly Izzard

Zielke (West Vancouver) Ken Zielke FLNRO (Prince George) Jewel Yurkewich



Summary of Silviculture Scenario Assumptions

The silviculture scenario will be configured to maximize harvest flow while being constrained to an annual budget of $3 million for the first 20 years. Silviculture Scenario question: Are there alternatives to current basic silviculture practices that would benefit future outcomes (both timber and non-timber)?

Tactic Element Stuart ISS Silviculture Scenario Sensitivity


Rehabilitating MPB Impacted Stands: How can rehabilitation of unsalvaged, beetle-attacked stands improve timber quantity and quality over the mid- and long-terms?

Rehabilitating MPB Impacted Stands

Eligible Stands Unlogged MPB-impacted stands

Conifer Leading Slope <=35% >=40% stand percentage dead <100m3/ha live volume Stand Age >=40 yrs at time of attack BEC: SBS, ESSF VRI SI for Existing Natural Stands: >=10 PHR SI for Existing Managed Stands: Pl >=19; Others >=15

Timing Windows

Stands unlikely to be salvaged/harvested According to minimum harvest criteria; first 40 years only

Treatment Costs

Marginally Economic (>= 50m3/ha) - Harvest/Knockdown/Site Prep/Plant

$1500/ha

Uneconomic (<50m3/ha) - Knockdown/Site Prep/Plant $2000/ha

Add distance cost beyond 2 hrs (one way) $50/ha each 2 hrs (one way)

Treatment Responses

Transition stands onto future managed stands as if harvested

(e.g., improved OAFs, lower regen delay, select seed)

Anticipated Issues

Access limitations (new road construction prohibitive) n/a





Fertilization: How can successive stand fertilization treatments mitigate harvest reductions over the mid-term while maintaining a positive return on investment?

Fertilization (note: not included in

combined treatments)

Eligible Stands

Young natural stands Age 26 to 60

Existing managed stands Age 16 to 25

Current/future managed stands Age 0 to 15

Species (model selects priority) (Sx & Pli) >=80%

BEC Zones SBS, ESSF

Site Index (note thresholds correspond to existing AUs; not from FFT guidelines)

mSI >14

Slope <=35% (may need to add criterion)

Timing Windows

See Fert Response sheet; application every 10 years; progressively closest from harvest date (i.e., delay harvest eligibility 10yrs after last application)

Treatment Costs

All stands Each treatment: $450/ha

Treatment Responses

See Fert Response sheet

Anticipated Issues

Blocked by First Nations concerns





Enhanced Basic Silviculture: How can a combiNation of basic silviculture treatments improve timber quantity and quality over the long-term?

Enhanced Basic Silviculture

Eligible Stands Future managed stands (see Eligible Enhanced sheet)

Timing Windows

As stands that are harvested/regenerated in the model

Treatment Costs

Incremental planting of trees sown with select seed $285/ha

Switch from natural to planted $1000/ha

Treatment Responses

Planting method Natural to 100% planted (where possible)

Planting density Increase to 1700 with genetic gains

Regeneration delay Decrease from 2 to 1 yrs

OAF1 From 85% to 89%

Anticipated Issues

Currently lacks funding source; possibly operational cost allowance



Combined Scenario Notes

The remaining schedule and budget did not allow further external engagement. Instead, members of the ISS project teams met in Prince George on February 15, 2018 identify the approach and assumptions for the combined scenario. This considered both Stuart (Prince George TSA – TSBs A, B, C) and Mackenzie ISS projects and involved the following individuals: Andrew Wheatley, Bryce Bancroft, Darin Hancock, Dave Johnson, Heather Wiebe, John DeGagne, Kevin Hoekstra, Leslie McKinley, Lori Borth, Mike McLaughlin, Miodrag Tkalec, Patrick Bryant, Paul Rehsler.

The following table outlines the tactics from existing scenarios that will be included in the combined scenario for the Stuart ISS.

Combined Adjustments Scenario Modelling Run Approach Tactics for Stuart

Yes No change Base Case Riparian Reserves Base Case – Implement

Spatial delineation of riparian reserves added to the resultant; adjusts landbase description. (DP 2.1.9; AR 1.1)

Yes No change Base Case Wildlife Habitat Base Case - Implement

Spatial delineation of approved, proposed, and draft habitat areas added to the resultant; adjusts landbase description. (DP 2.1.6 and 2.2.4; AR 1.1 and 3.2.4)

Yes No change Base Case New Tenures Base Case - Implement

Spatial delineation of revised CF, FNWLs, and AOI added to the resultant; adjusts landbase description. (DP 2.1.3; AR 1.1)

No Drop Base Case Watershed ECA Base Case - Report only

Monitor and/or implement a forest cover requirement within identified watersheds. (DP 2.2.6; AR 3.2.2)

Yes No change Base Case Watershed ECA Sensitivity - Apply Tl’azt’en Thresholds

Monitor and/or implement a forest cover requirement within identified watersheds. (DP 2.2.6; AR 3.5)

No Drop Base Case Caribou Habitat Base Case (Post Process) - Federal Recovery Strategy & BC Regulated Areas

Report only (no harvest control); post-processing exercise to assess anthropogenic disturbance; both Federal Recovery Strategy & BC Regulated Areas. (DP 2.6; AR 3.3)

No Drop Base Case Caribou Habitat Sensitivity (Post Process) - Federal Recovery Strategy & BC Regulated Areas

Harvest control applied; post-processing exercise to assess anthropogenic disturbance; both Federal Recovery Strategy & BC Regulated Areas. (DP 2.6; AR 3.3)

Yes No change Base Case Pine Beetle Base Case - Implement

Implement a number of assumptions for adjusting yields and harvest partitions. (DP 2.4.8; AR 3.1)

Yes No change Base Case Pine Beetle Base Case – turn on WTR strategy with salvage zones

Adjust wildlife tree retention based on opening size by implementing patch groups adjusted relative to the current distribution. (DP 2.2.3; AR 1.1)

No No change Base Case Spruce Beetle Base Case - Implement IBS

Not modelled. (DP 2.4.10)




kill

No Drop Base Case Access Base Case - Set up timing constraints but keep turn them off

Spatial delineation of identified areas valued for wilderness and Grizzly Bear habitat added to the resultant; apply timing constraints. (DP 3.1; AR 3.4)

No Drop Base Case Access Sensitivity - Turn on timing constraints

Yes Lock candidate reserves for 40 years; likely future sensitivity by dropping NHLB from constraint score; possibly add this and/or ESI to Combined sensitivity

Reserve Candidate Reserves

Scenario - Temporal Model

Select candidate reserves that meet multiple criteria and thresholds and can provide a preliminary spatial result to work from. (DP 4.1; AR 4)

No Drop Harvest Minimum Harvest Criteria

Scenario - Minimum Harvest Criteria

Explore MPB salvage treatment opportunity. (DP 4.2.1; AR 5.2.1)

Yes Apply higher weights; shorter period; accept some impact

Harvest Wildfire Management

Scenario - Wildfire Management

Harvest is prioritized for those stands that are rated as extreme by the 2015 Provincial Strategic Threat Analysis (PSTA) – wildfire threat component datase and coniferous-leading stands covering the identified fuel breaks. (DP 4.2.2; AR 5.2.2)

Yes Add 1.5M partition from A&B Blocks and drop pine/decid;; uncertain about biomass partition

Harvest Harvest Priority Scenario - Harvest Priority

Includes 2 partitions (pine-leading; deciduous). (DP 4.2.2; AR 5.2.2)

No Drop Harvest Harvest Priority Scenario Sensitivity - Harvest Priority

Exclude 2 partitions (pine-leading; deciduous). (DP 4.2.2; AR 5.2.2)

No Drop Silviculture Combined Treatments

Scenario - Combine Rehab, Fert, and Enhanced Basic (Include volume from rehab)

Maximize harvest flow with annual budget of $3 million on a combiNation rehab, fert (excluding Stuart), and enhanced basic treatments. Includes all volume recovered through rehabilitation. (DP 5; AR 6)

Yes Higher/Lower Budget? Target on volume excluding rehab; report age class and harvest by state; plus harvest of rehab stands

Silviculture Combined Treatments

Scenario - Combine Rehab, Fert, and Enhanced Basic (Exclude volume from rehab)

Maximize harvest flow with annual budget of $3 million on a combiNation rehab, fert (excluding Stuart), and enhanced basic treatments. Excludes all volume recovered through rehabilitation. (DP 5; AR 6)




Yes Accept hit up to 5%; add new class (0-1 ha with 0% and 1-5 ha up to 5%) to create better block shapes/locations

Harvest Harvest Priority Implement Opening and Patch Size Criteria

Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the Stuart TSBs …...Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the Stuart TSBs …...Integrated Stewardship Strategy for the...