Merritt Sustainable Resource Management Plan

Landscape Unit Workshop - "Planning to meet Old Growth Forest Objectives in the Merritt Timber Supply Area"

Some of the questions posed during the workshop are included below.

Are we to assume that the Old Growth policy driving landscape unit planning has been accepted? There is too much information, with not enough time for public to provide any input.

Many provincial level policy decisions that were set before the process began. Sessions like today's can help allow the public to help shape where the proces is going. There is a lot of information but further input can be gathered at later sessions as well as direction from the higher strategic land use planning level. We thought it was time other interests were informed of what information has been gathered and what the process looks like.

Is there flexibility in changing the background information?

Yes, but it will be left to the planning team to decide how to accept new proposed changes or additional information.

Is there a deadline for additional input?

We hope to get as much additional information gathered prior to the completion of the first cut of the OGMA selections expected in March 2002. Comments from this workshop will be considered and posted on the website. There will still be opportunities to participate over the next year at open house reviews.

What is the age of Old Growth?

Policy defines old growth as varying from 140 to 250 years of age depending on the biogeoclimatic zone, but there are also other attributes to consider in the definition, not just age of the trees.
The old growth definition also depends on the type of forest and the specific site, so we are trying to take common elements that represent all sites. The OGMA selection process looks at two main impacts: (1) biological impact, and (2) economic impacts to the industry (in that order).

Why was the higher level planning process not started earlier?

There is a limited capacity of the number of planning processes that can operate at the same time due to limited resources (people, budget, etc.) throughout the province. Resources were given first to planning processes in areas with many contentious issues.

Can you clarify how the distance to cover and maximum distance of 500m across applies to some of the operations with harvested areas greater than 350 hectares and a distance to cover over 500m?

The objective is to maintain mature forest in patches or contiguous areas always within 250 metres of mature forest patches.
Large harvested blocks often manage for heavy cover within the large blocks to meet the standard, through wildlife tree patch (WTP) reserves. In all large blocks, the licensee must meet the natural structural attributes for naturally regenerating large openings. WTP's and other reserves are often used to meet the distance to cover. This can be more difficult in pine beetle salvage operations

In the preliminary OGMA identification, did you rank the values by priority?

No ranking of the values has been completed to date. That’s one of the items we'd like input on today is should we rank some values higher than others? Right now we are just considering all the relevant values and information and making sure that’s in the GIS exercise. Its possible that where the most values overlap, that may be the best option.

What % of contributing timber harvesting landbase (THLB) is used to meet the targets?

This has not been calculated because the OGMA selection is not finalized.
The amount of contributing THLB depends on the state of the landbase at present, and is variable with landbase characteristics. The % in other jurisdictions ranges from 1 to 20%.

Did you incorporate open range and deciduous forest into the selection process for biodiversity attributes?

Open range was excluded, and deciduous forests were not usually an issue due to their mainly seral structure rarely reaching above mature.
Some of the open range/deciduous resource values could be incorporated with other resource value overlays in the final decision
The dominant focus is in looking for the Old Growth forest, so to select deciduous or other seral structure forest there would be a need to show strong values over the distinctly Old Growth structure forest.

How will the two planning processes (LRMP and LUP) work logistically?

Both processes will run parallel each other. The LRMP (higher level) is expected to begin in the spring of 2002, but it may accept, reject or change the way we have done old growth and landscape units. But hopefully it will accept the process. We recognize there are lots of things going on that people are also involved with - advisory panels, etc. so it will be a challenge to keep people focused and particpating in the tasks at hand.

What will you do to manage the unforeseen activity that occurs after the OGMA areas have been established, such as fire, blowdown, insect pests, etc.?

This question should be discussed in the breakout discussion groups at this workshop. It is an ongoing question for "managing the OGMA areas". Should we do anything? What about the risk to adjacent stands or homes? The answer mapy partly depend on where the OGMA is located.

How can you incorporate some values, which may be confidential, or an issue of aboriginal rights, which will have no assigned value?

The objective is to get all community values gathered for the OGMA selection decision. We are asking for the inclusion of all the values to ensure that nothing is missed, and then the priority of the value may be set.
Sensitive resource values may be provided or incorporated as "blind resource values" where the information that is to remain confidential, that is it doesn't have to say what the value is just that it exists.

An approach used in the Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP:

There were negotiated targets from the LRMP process table used and an OGMA Advisory Committee established to decide on the locations
This is a slightly different process used, but it comes to the same end result.

An approach used in the Adams Lake IFPA area near Kamloops used a similar approach to what's being proposed in Merritt.

There the process asked the main question: What is the negative value worth versus the value of the positive values?

We have the ability to analyze the process and decisions and add/delete/redraw selected OGMAs and modify to get the best result. The Adams Lake process also looked at the best value for biodiversity and for economic impacts Hopefully what we learned in that process will be used in Merritt.