The Kootenay Lake Forest District is one of three Districts which is piloting the Landscape Unit Planning Guide. Staff of the following have contributed to this:

MoF Forest Practices Branch

MoF Information Management Group

MoF Arrow Forest District

MoF Kootenay Lake District

MoE Kootenay Lake District

Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd.

J.H. Huscroft Ltd.

Atlas/Simfor Project Steering Committee

Interior Reforestation Ltd.

Timberland Consultants Ltd.

This document attempts to describe a number of distinct landscape planning initiatives from various sources, and explain how they have interacted within the Kootenay Lake Forest District. Consequently, it does not contain all aspects of the work which went into the Landscape Unit Planning Guide, the GeoMedia LUP Template, or the ATLAS/SIMFOR Project. For that matter, it does not completely address the complexity of planning issues within the Kootenay Lake Forest District either. It is, however, written from a District perspective.

The ATLAS/SIMFOR modelling for the K6 landscape unit is described in detail in a separate report prepared by Reg Davis of Interior Reforestation Co. Ltd.

The Kootenay Lake Forest District is well known for the complexity of its resource management issues. 41% of the timber harvesting landbase is located within licensed watersheds, and 32% within Visual Quality Objective polygons. Six major provincial parks and many smaller ones occur within the District, attesting to the recreational and biological values of the area.

Management of old growth forests has been a major issue in KLFD for well over ten years. A District study in 1994 confirmed that certain types of old growth forest (large contiguous valley-bottom types) were disappearing rapidly due to the fragmentation pattern of forest development which was occurring in the absence of an overall landscape-level strategy. This development pattern also implied higher development costs and reduced timber availability (as noted in the Timber Supply Review process of 1994-95). When the Biodiversity Guidebook was published in 1995, 90% of KLFD was seen to be in deficit of old growth targets; therefore it became a priority for KLFD to address the issue.

The Kootenay Lake old growth forest issue received another impetus, along with considerable national and international attention, when the "Singing Forest" issue emerged in 1995-96. A Kootenay woman described a "spiritual experience" in the Tenise Creek drainage, which contained 500 hectares of old growth forest. This came to a head when Meadow Creek Cedar Ltd. proposed harvest of 140 hectares in this area. The provincial government agreed that the old growth issue should be addressed prior to harvest. As a result, the landscape unit which contained Tenise Creek (K21) became the first to receive a landscape level plan for old growth.

In addition to the old growth issue, another factor prompted KLFD to focus on landscape level planning. For over 20 years, KLFD had undertaken dozens of Local Resource Use Plans (LRUPs), and developed specific strategies and agreements for individual watersheds. Resource information began to proliferate under the provincial Forest Practices Code and regional Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan. Organization and management of strategic-level information was urgently required by the operational planning level. KLFD had begun this in 1992 based on LRUP areas, but this was quickly shifted to the landscape level in 1995.

Between 1995 and 1997, it became apparent that the timber impacts of the Biodiversity Guidebook could possibly be greater than was assumed in the provincial timber impact study conducted for the Chief Forester with regard to the Forest Practices Code. The LU plan for K21 (Howser) showed an impact of 7.1% on the timber landbase, compared with 2.3% in the timber impact study.

Ironically, neither environmentalists nor the forest industry were happy with the Howser LU Plan, since the "Singing Forest" was not protected from logging, and the overall timber impacts were greater than expected. Similar scenarios began to emerge as planning began in other KLFD LU's.

Faced with these conflicting issues - the urgent need to address the old growth issue, and the growing concerns over timber impacts - the Kootenay Lake Forest District (MoF and MoE FES) adopted an interim strategy. The intent was to keep options open for old growth forest management, while still allowing harvesting to proceed in the short term. This would buy the necessary time to deal with the issue of acceptable timber supply impacts.

Early work had clearly identified the importance of old growth management based on biophysical attributes (structural stand features, patch size, biological productivity, etc) rather than age. KLFD conducted "old growth patch inventories", both in-house and by hiring contract biologists. These areas were termed "old seral patches" (OSPs), to distinguish them from the more permanent designation of "old growth management areas" (OGMAs). The District Manager, in his instructions relative to Forest Development Plan preparation, instructed licensees to try to avoid proposing new development in these areas. If the OSPs could not be avoided, the licensees were asked to suggest alternative areas. Licensees were also instructed to attempt to introduce a range of harvest patch sizes, which helped to free up timber in the short term.

The LUPG was published in March of 1999, primarily to address the issue of acceptable timber impacts due to old growth management area designation. It contains specific rules by which allowable timber impact budgets are calculated for each biogeoclimatic variant within a landscape unit.

The Forest Practices Branch asked for Districts to volunteer to act as pilots in implementing the LUPG. Since KLFD had been waiting for this specific direction and had to revisit its interim strategy in any case, it made sense to participate.

A critical aspect of this piloting work was to build the necessary datasets to allow use of the mapping/analysis tool GeoMedia, and the LUPG template designed by Information Management Group. This template ensures consistent data analysis to determine LUPG timber impact budgets, along with production of supporting resource data in map form, and placement of candidate OGMAs

Preparation of the necessary GeoMedia datasets was undertaken by Arrow Forest District, which provides Data Service Centre (DSC) services within the Nelson Forest Region.

Considerable consultation with forest licensees had occurred during development of KLFD's interim "old seral patch" (OSP) strategy. However, the forest industry still remained concerned with potential impacts if the existing OSPs became permanent OGMAs. During the revision of the Nelson Region Landscape Unit Planning Strategy in 1999, KLFD agreed to involve licensees as the LUPG was implemented. Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. and JH Huscroft Ltd., which had operating areas within LU K6, provided input and reviewed products, particularly with regard to ATLAS/SIMFOR modelling.

Previous experience in KLFD indicated that numerous options usually existed for old growth management within a landscape unit. Assessment of these options over the long term, for both biological value and timber supply, was not possible with the available tools. A spatially explicit modelling approach was seen as necessary in order to address issues of timber supply, overlapping resource management guidelines, and desired future forest condition.

The ATLAS/SIMFOR Project, funded by the B.C. Science Council, had undertaken a number of initiatives within the Nelson Forest Region. Of particular interest was the potential application for the ATLAS model at the operational planning level. It became evident that the KLFD LUPG Pilot work and the ATLAS/SIMFOR Project had complementary objectives, and agreement was quickly reached to conduct work in KLFD. Interior Reforestation Ltd. was hired to build the necessary datasets for one KLFD landscape unit, and conduct the initial modelling forecasts.

LUPG data summaries were produced for all KLFD landscape units, with the expectation that critical OSPs (within the acceptable timber landbase budget) would become OGMAs before the target date of December 2002. However, a detailed examination of LUPG implications using the GeoMedia LUP Template and ATLAS/SIMFOR could not be completed for the entire District at this time.

It was initially hoped that three KLFD landscape units could be addressed, but time and funding constraints quickly became apparent. Consequently, the K6 (Goat River) landscape unit was chosen for detailed ATLAS modelling and testing of the GeoMedia LUP Template. In addition to the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program, two forest licensees operate in K6: J.H. Huscroft Ltd., and Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. Both agreed to participate through contribution of staff time and provision of available data.

K6 was chosen because of its large size (77,000 hectares) and complexity of resource management issues. It contains several domestic watersheds, visual quality objectives, ungulate winter range, KBLUP caribou habitat, and Kianuko Provincial Park. Additionally, it contains areas of particular interest to the Lower Kootenay Band (Ktunaxa-Kinbasket), who have a Guide-Outfitting tenure within the area. As an interim measure, the Goat River Consultation Forum was established in 1997 to allow dialogue between government, industry, and First Nations.

For landscape units which are not presently in deficit of old growth targets, the LUPG provides clear direction with regard to calculation of timber impact budgets. However, it is ambiguous when dealing with landscape units and variants which are presently in deficit of old growth targets and require a recruitment strategy. 90% of KLFD is in deficit, so this represents a critical policy issue for resolution at higher levels.

The LUPG states that non-contributing forest should be used first, if it contains old growth attributes which are equal or better than those found in the timber harvesting landbase (THLB). In KLFD, as a general rule, attributes are usually superior on the THLB, which would likely result in an unacceptably high timber impact.

KLFD has interpreted the LUPG as follows. Old growth area targets are met by stepping down one age class at a time, and meeting targets from the non-contributing first in each age class, ie. AC 9 NC, AC 9 THLB, AC 8 NC, AC 8 THLB, AC 7 NC, AC 7 THLB, etc.

Once the timber impact budget is known, the MoE FES will usually "trade" these THLB hectares for those in the most desirable OSPs. This has the additional benefit of providing flexibility to avoid areas identified for harvest in the short term.

Even with the principle of obtaining target area from the non-contributing first, the timber impacts appear to be significantly greater than the 2.3% referenced in the LUPG. Preliminary calculations of THLB budgets, for three-quarters of KLFD, indicate an average THLB budget of between 8 and 9 percent.

It should be noted that this does not allow for one-third drawdown in Low Emphasis Biodiversity, and may be ameliorated to some extent by strategic location of OGMAs in constrained areas. Finally, this may not be representative of the province as a whole. However, this should be confirmed.

One of the basic working-level tools used in KLFD Planning is MS Access. A database was generated for all KLFD landscape units in March of 1999 based on LUPG specifications and the Timber Supply Review Data Package assumptions. This allowed accurate queries with regard to the timber harvesting landbase, and provided a reference to check results from the GeoMedia Template. As mentioned, it also allowed KLFD staff to calculate preliminary timber budget figures for approximately three-quarters of the District.

This database has been widely used within the District, even outside the realm of landscape planning. It is a simple, yet powerful tool. As with any data application, however, results should always be checked for error. Map reviews, and comparison with other databases, are a simple and effective means of accomplishing this. Results can be expected to vary somewhat - four different K6 databases were compared at one point, as a check on the available data. Differences were relatively minor, and appeared to be due to rounding errors or different analytical procedures.

In support of this need for data review, colour-themed age class maps and acetate overlays of various resource values were generated for KLFD landscape units. Hardcopy maps remain the preferred medium for most operational planning staff.

KLFD planning staff received GeoMedia training at the end of March 2000 and began to explore its applicability to operational planning.

Management, organization, and transfer/translation of data was a significant issue during this project. There has been considerable improvement in recent years, but location of the most up to date data was still problematic at times. KLFD Inventory section is attempting to catalog and manage a data library at the District level. Use of compact diskettes for data storage is increasing.

Once the K6 datasets were completed and GeoMedia installed, the LUPG Template was used to generate Tables 2.8, 2.9 and 3.1 of the LUPG. These figures were confirmed with checks against MS Access summaries and regional biodiversity tables. Minor differences were likely due to rounding errors and the fact that a new LU boundary was determined for K6 by KLFD Inventory section, using TRIM heights-of-land. This updated boundary was used for the GeoMedia LUP Template and ATLAS/SIMFOR runs, but was not available in the MS Access or regional biodiversity data.

A number of test maps were successfully generated by GeoMedia as well. The ability to customize maps at the District level is an important consideration, since there is no consistent provincial or regional colour-theming scheme in place (ie. for age class), and Districts will desire consistency at their level.

It may be desirable to build an additional reporting system into the LUP Template to allow determination of timber impact budgets for recruitment scenarios. Tables 2.8 and 3.1 are of limited value in KLFD due to the significant old growth deficits. However, clarification is required of the LUPG itself before this can be finalized.

GeoMedia appears to be a powerful and useful tool for use at the District level. The only significant limitation to its use appears to be funding availability for production of the necessary datasets. It should be noted, however, that the use of existing maps and analysis results (where available) is preferred by KLFD planners simply because questions are numerous and can be answered in the shortest possible time.

The size of K6 posed significant logistical problems for ATLAS modelling, due to the blocking requirement. Considerable cost savings were achieved by constructing an algorithm which generated the blocks. These were checked by CFI operational planning staff to ensure a reasonable fit to the landscape. Several iterations were conducted, and the results proved satisfactory.

The complexity of resource management in K6 was well recognized prior to the spatial modelling work, but it was brought rapidly home to KLFD and forest industry staff upon viewing the initial forecast runs. With eight resource guidelines in place (domestic watershed, visual quality, winter range, caribou habitat in 2 biogeoclimatic subzones, old growth requirements in 3 biogeoclimatic subzones) all of which could be varied, the number of possible combinations was overwhelming.

The modelling process was complex, and so was the actual process of resource management which was occurring on the ground. In some cases, long-term strategies (ie. for old growth management) had not yet been generated for the long term. This required considerable effort on the parts of the analyst and KLFD/industry planners, to understand the operational implications of modelling assumptions. This was hard work, and was occasionally frustrating. The results of one "worst case" scenario, which indicated virtually no harvest availability for 30 years, triggered a brief alarm and made it into a local newspaper. Industry has since recognized that this scenario did not reflect current management intentions.

In fact, due to the KLFD interim OSP strategy, there is harvest opportunity in K6 in both the short- and long-term. By adopting a "no-harvest" rule in OSPs at the operational planning level, the caribou habitat and old growth requirements can be "turned off" in the ATLAS model, thereby freeing up harvest opportunity elsewhere in the landscape unit.

A caribou habitat suitability index (HSI) was tested using SIMFOR. Of particular interest was the map which showed caribou HSI for K6 assuming that there was no forest cover. In this scenario, none of the landscape unit ranked high, of course, but some of the best area from a topographical sense showed up in areas which were extensively harvested (particularly the Skelly Creek drainage). This led MoE biologists to consider an option - in the long-term - of meeting caribou habitat requirements in an area which had not previously received serious consideration. MoE staff supported use of a HSI rather than basing caribou habitat requirements only on forest cover age.

Approximately 60 modelling runs were conducted. In a more general sense, however, a number of conclusions can be drawn from this work:

1. As mentioned, communication and understanding (the two are not always synonymous) must occur between the analyst and the operational planners. Often, they speak very different languages. For example, in the above OSP/worst case scenarios, the analyst referred to "turning off the old growth and caribou guidelines and excluding OSPs from harvest", whereas the KLFD planner viewed this as "meeting the old growth and caribou guidelines by excluding OSPs from harvest". To complicate matters further, by some oversight the analyst had not been advised of the KLFD OSP strategy.
2. The number of potential modelling runs is almost unlimited, and assumptions/consequences must be carefully evaluated in each case. There appears to be a learning curve for each landscape unit; hence it appears that a quick answer to a complex mix of issues is unlikely to emerge. Furthermore, inventory data and management guidelines change rapidly and necessitate repeated testing. The strength of spatially explicit modelling such as ATLAS is likely to emerge over an extended period of time, with ongoing involvement from the operational level. At this time, it is hoped that KLFD and industry planners may be able to do further work with the completed K6 dataset. Optimal benefit would likely be found if the operational planner with field experience also has the skills to run ATLAS effectively.
3. The intent of the KLFD OSP strategy is clearly demonstrated by these results. More detailed work is necessary before a definite conclusion can be drawn. For example, it was expected that the OSPs would not represent a permanent removal from harvest. Once forest ages sufficiently elsewhere in the landscape unit, all or part of the OSPs might be made available for harvest, and the caribou/biodiversity guidelines "turned back on".
4. The use of habitat suitability indices shows considerable promise with regard to fine-tuning habitat requirements at the operational level. It is recognized, however, that this will only represent an improvement if the biophysical data and habitat requirements can be accurately defined. At present, ungulate winter range is considered more difficult to define than is caribou habitat. However, caribou habitat is considered the most limiting resource management guideline in K6 with regard to timber supply, so the applicability is clear.
5. Examination of landscape unit age class maps at different "time slices" in the future is extremely beneficial in terms of evaluating the cumulative impact of resource management guidelines. Considerable work remains - one objective is to achieve a desired patch size distribution over K6 while meeting all resource guidelines. This may require numerous runs and map examinations.
6. Considerable work remains to gain optimal benefit from this project. KLFD and industry staff hope to gain sufficient internal expertise to allow them to conduct ATLAS/SIMFOR runs on their own.
7. As with GeoMedia, the main limitation to operational use of ATLAS appears to be the cost of dataset preparation. Another factor is the degree of training required. Even with training, operational planners are likely to spend a relatively small proportion of their time operating this model, due simply to other day-to-day requests and priorities. It may be necessary to have specialist staff or consultants assume this role.

A comparison between the GeoMedia LUP Template and ATLAS modelling databases showed only minor differences in seral stage distribution within K6. In the course of the pilot work, it became clear that these tools perform different functions. However, KLFD staff are confident that these functions are complementary at the operational level.

GeoMedia and the LUP Template are intended to provide standard, official, timber impact budgets and supporting maps for OGMA identification. The best biological candidate OSPs are then selected, within the timber impact budget. Generally, there may be numerous possibilities, with varying degrees of timber impact, operational costs, or HSI. ATLAS/SIMFOR provides a tool to evaluate these and other options, to the potential benefit of both biodiversity and timber supply.

Since this document is written from a District perspective, the final word in this story goes to MS Access and supporting maps. GeoMedia and ATLAS/SIMFOR are impressive, and as a consequence it is easy to overlook some of the simple, yet critical, working-class tools. At the operational level, information requests are numerous, and answers required on short notice. Hardcopy maps and quick data queries are the fundamental tools needed to provide this.

Forest Practices Branch provided funding for production of 1:50,000 acetate maps (for all KLFD landscape units) of the following resource values, with accompanying MS Access databases:

• Environmentally Sensitive Areas
• Caribou Habitat
• Licensed Watersheds
• Operability
• Ownership
• Visual Quality Objectives
• Ungulate Winter Range
• Terrain Stability