Out of 86 landscape unit/ecological subzone units in the Kootenay Lake Forest District, 73 presently fall short of old growth forest targets as per Biodiversity Guidebook. In order for harvesting to continue in the short term, it is necessary to develop a recruitment strategy which will allow old growth targets to be achieved over time.

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); therefore it became a priority for KLFD to address the issue.

Work began in September of 1995, and the process has evolved considerably since then. The importance of an objective, attribute-based old growth patch inventory is now clear (Appendix I). In 1997, nine landscape units were inventoried in this manner by contract biologists, and licensees were instructed to avoid placing new development proposals in certain of the "old seral patches" which had been identified. This allowed development to be approved in other portions of these landscape units. This report includes a summary and update of landscape units which had previously been inventoried.

Remaining landscape units, which had no interim OSPs identified, became a priority for 1998 - particularly K8, K11, K22, K24, and K25. As funding was not available for contract work, the authors used available information and met with forest licensees to identify potential areas for old growth management and at the same time attempt to minimize impact on proposed logging development. OSPs identified previously for other landscape units were discussed at these meetings, and modified if agreement could be reached. The identified OSPs have been selected based on observable biophysical attributes, rather than just forest cover age class, but it is recognized that more detailed fieldwork is desirable prior to finalization of old growth management areas (OGMAs).

It is recommended that OSPs be reviewed on an annual basis, and modified based on the best available resource data and policy direction.

Since a second, more detailed, phase of old growth planning was clearly necessary, attempts were made to find more than the BGB target hectares in OSPs, to allow flexibility to subsequent decision-making.

OSPs were identified for purposes of caribou habitat requirements (within KBLUP caribou habitat polygons) as well as for general biodiversity.

OSPs have been identified to address the issue of old growth requirements/deficits. As such, they are not, in most cases, considered available for harvest in the short term, and licensees are asked not to propose new harvesting within identified OSPs. Exceptions are noted below.

1. Blocks approved on previous FDPs may proceed, subject to stand-level considerations.
2. It is expected that some types of forest harvesting could be acceptable in OSPs, provided that critical old growth attributes are maintained or enhanced. This may, in fact, be highly desirable in some ecosystems, such as NDT 3 and 4. The authors expect that there will be less harvest opportunity in NDT 1 and 2 OSPs. If a licensee wishes to propose harvest within an OSP, a solid ecological rationale will be required. The key points would be retention or creation of old growth attributes (those which would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes) and economic feasibility of harvest.
3. Road access through OSPs is acceptable if no reasonable alternative location exists.
4. Salvage of catastrophic timber loss due to wildfire, blowdown, or pests/pathogens is generally acceptable.
5. Licensees may propose alternate OSPs if a rationale is provided. However, harvest proposals should not be made within OSPs until agreement is reached with MoE/MoF.

About half of the KLFD landscape units had previously received attribute-based old growth patch inventories. For the remaining LU's, forest cover maps, TRIM maps, licensee Forest Development Plans, air photographs, terrain stability maps, and local knowledge were the primary information sources. Existing seral stage levels were based on the Nelson Forest Region reports NFRCAR141c(97/10/01) and NFRCAR142b(97/09/29), updated for disturbance by licensees and KLFD staff. Targets were as per Biodiversity Guidebook (unadjusted for actual Regional protected area by subzone), and forest land was as per Nelson Region definition (basic classes 0, 10, and 12). Where other relevant studies were available, they were considered as well.

OSP boundaries were designed primarily to capture large areas of remaining unfragmented forest, follow topographic features, and minimize impact on timber harvest opportunity. Boundaries should therefore be fine-tuned as part of the next, more detailed, planning stage. In some cases OSPs were amalgamated or dropped, so there are some gaps in numbering. As well, it was not possible to generate a uniform data set for all landscape units, so age breaks vary depending on the data which was available.

Area figures were generated using GIS where possible. Other areas were obtained using a planimeter and dot-grid. The authors intend to have all OSPs digitized as soon as possible, for analytical purposes.

The authors would like to acknowledge the high level of cooperation and ground-level knowledge of the forest licensees and Small Business Forest Enterprise Program. We also thank Franco Delbello, who produced 1:50,000 forest cover and TRIM acetate maps for this project.

KOOTENAY LAKE FOREST DISTRICT

A FOUR-STAGE APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE LEVEL PLANNING

October 15, 1998

Base Maps for Landscape Unit Planning

1:50,000 is the preferred scale. A colour-themed forest age map is generated (see colouring scheme below) with linework which defines private land, parks, biogeoclimatic subzones, and operability.

AC    NP_CD            HP 650 #         Red, Green ,         Blue Colour

1         0,10,12             4                     255,255,0                 yellow

2         0,10,12            187                 205,190,137             light brown

3         0,10,12             90                     168,115,0             dark brown

4         0,10,12             21                     214,255,0             light green

5         0,10,12             23                     115,255,0             medium green

6         0,10,12             25                     0,255,115               dark green

7         0,10,12             156                 255,168,255              light pink

8         0,10,12             37                     255,0,214               dark pink

9         0,10,12             34                     168,0,255                 purple

Additionally, two 1:50,000 acetate overlays are generated: 1) TRIM (100 m. contours)/ base features, and 2) standard forest cover. The latter are used for "official" OSP boundaries, as they are easily copied and can be readily translated by licensees onto 1:20,000 maps. Mapsheet neat lines are included on both of the above maps.

The First Law of Planning states: "Planning is very difficult, especially if it is about the future."

It is even more difficult to plan for a resource or value if you don't know how much you have, its locations, or its quality. For this reason, the Kootenay Lake Forest District conducts an inventory of old growth forest as a first step when conducting landscape-level planning for old growth management.

The forest cover inventory files (.fc1) provide a starting point, but they contain a limited number of old growth attributes. Additionally, the forest inventory labels are generated based on a TSA-level stratification process and therefore are less accurate at the landscape or polygon level.

Analyses of old growth levels and targets has tended to focus on a single attribute: age class. As a preliminary step this is reasonable, but at the field level "old growth forest" refers to specific habitat types which are defined by many attributes other than age. The attribute-based old growth inventory will usually include forests which are below the target old growth ages (as per Biodiversity Guidebook), simply because desired attributes are present or are reasonably likely to emerge over time.

Existing maps, airphotos, and local knowledge can provide sufficient information to complete at least an overview inventory of old growth. An aerial assessment is recommended if possible, as this allows checking of existing information and collection of additional field observations. If time and funding permit, ground calls allow for more detailed collection of attribute data; however our experience suggests that air calls are both economical and effective.

The term "old growth" can be misleading. In terms of wildlife habitat, it refers to forest types, characteristics, and structures which are usually found in older forests - however, it is these attributes which provide the habitat value, not the age per se. Therefore, a meaningful old growth inventory will focus on attributes within defined patches of forest, since many attributes are a function of patch size, shape, and location.

In the Kootenay Lake Forest District, the following are standard attributes which are considered when conducting an old growth inventory:

This is not a definitive list; the relative importance of attributes will change considerably depending on the biophysical characteristics of landscape units. Fine-tuning of the attribute list is the first task of the individual who is conducting an old growth inventory of a landscape unit. The amount of time and funding available for the project will also influence which attributes are evaluated.

There is considerable professional subjectivity involved in this exercise. Many attributes cannot realistically be defined and measured in quantitative terms, and therefore must be qualitatively assessed for value (in terms of low, medium, and high). As well, once the attribute data is gathered for an old seral patch (OSP), the overall value of the patch must be inferred by considering all the attributes together. It has been suggested that this step could be made more objective by constructing an algorithm, but efforts to date have not been promising, and we feel that, at present, professional judgement and accountability are far more reliable.

Complete evaluation of all forested land in a landscape unit should not be necessary. Only the best old growth candidates need to be evaluated. However, in order to provide flexibility to decision-makers and minimize disruption to planned short-term harvest, more than the Biodiversity Guidebook target old growth hectares should be identified in an old growth patch inventory. In KLFD, as a rule of thumb, we like to see an additional 50% over and above the BG targets.

Up to this point, the old growth inventory must be kept strictly objective and focussed on biophysical attributes. Overlap or conflict with other values (such as timber) should not be factored in to the old growth assessments at this stage. If this happens, then the objectivity of the inventory, and the individual responsible, is compromised. Evaluation of conflicts, identification of overlaps, and subsequent decision-making should occur as part of the planning stage.

Once the inventory is completed (and documented in a dated report), each OSP should be evaluated in terms of other resource values, especially timber impact (both short- and long-term). The statutory decision-maker(s) can then decide which OSPs to exclude from short-term harvest (5-10 years), while more detailed work is undertaken to confirm and finalize old growth requirements.

Phase 3: Define short-term harvest areas

The KLFD approach is tied in with the patch distribution issue; we are trying to deal with both at once. Since most of our LU's are in deficit for large old and large young patches, it makes sense to identify large OSPs rather than small ones, where possible to do so. By keeping options open for large old growth patches, we can be reasonably certain that large harvest patches are ecologically acceptable - even desirable.

Once an interim OSP strategy is in place, licensees are invited to propose a range of harvest patch sizes, as per Biodiversity Guidebook recommendations. It goes without saying that these patches must be operationally feasible, consistent with other aspects of the Forest Practices Code, near or past culmination, and that stand-level biodiversity measures must be given careful consideration.

Phase 4: Detailed LU Planning

In KLFD, the identification of interim OSPs is a short-term measure, designed to keep timber moving and keep old growth options open until more detailed planning can be completed. Issues are then addressed such as connectivity, old growth contributions from inoperable and netted-down forest land, establishment of OGMAs, and harvest opportunities within OGMAs. In KLFD, we include known information, strategies, and agreements regarding other resources, and incorporate all this into a concise plan document (the Howser Plan is an example).

In such a document, brevity is essential (the effectiveness of a plan is often inversely proportional to its length). Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "completed" plan. It will need regular (usually annual at least) maintenance and updating if it is to remain relevant.

Back to Planning and Land Information homepage