Operational Planning Issues

Jim Hunt RPF N&R Forest Management Ltd.

Squamish

Kathryn Willis RPFBCTS, Campbell River

Richmond, Feb. 10, 2011

Prescription Development

• Lumping and Splitting

• Scale of Treatment Areas

• Access

• Mapping

• Timing of Harvest

• Other questions

Biological Factors First

• Species composition

• Site Index

• Age

• Health

• Moisture/Nutrient regime

• Crown expansion

• Height/diameter ratio

Numerous Polygons Assessed

• Greater effort with small polygons.

• Audits are now asking for heights and diameters.

• How much time to assess stands?• How rigorously should biological

criteria be applied?

What Level of Stratification?

• What priority of stands acceptable?

• Good ground has mainly been done, medium priority now getting more consideration.

• Do ROI on stratum or polygons?

• Preferable to treat a drainage at a time.

Lumping and Splitting

• Different professionals use different judgments to split out stands or lump them together to create treatment units.

• Both are defensible.

• More guidance or discussion or analysis on lumping/splitting would be helpful.

Biological and Operational Factors

• Biological is #1.

• Balance with practicality.

• Increasing heli company efficiency should yield better costs and value.

Scale of Treatment Area• Small polygons are problematic.

• At 20 ha, pilot spends half of time turning.

• 60 m wide swaths, apply for seconds in small or irregular shaped areas.

• Hard to achieve accurate coverage and application rate.

• Costs increase and risk of payment penalty increases with small block size.

• Pilots prefer 500 m swaths across the contour.

• Ferry distances and elevation lifts are big cost factors.

• What are practical parameters for projects?

–Block size

–Proximity of blocks

Planning• Current contracts driven by funding, up

to contractor to find areas.• Strategic approach would be better.• Where will treatments occur in coming

years?• Group projects to use ground efficiently.• Better planning with inventory.

Time of year

• Moving into higher elevations, more remote ground.

• Late season - additional costs (plowing).

• Safety concerns.• Empty trucks descending steep

inclines.• FIA funding timing.

Access

• Traditional B-train access.

• WAA grain trucks can now access smaller load sites on more rugged, steeper roads.

• Could develop more remote projects.

Road Work

• Should budgets include costs to improve road access?

• Difficult to anticipate access, rehab.

Mapping

• Buffers time consuming to prescribe.

• May not reflect visible flow at treatment.

• Prudent to map buffers to reduce risk of overflying and reflect accurate areas.

• Good to have overflow area.

Mapping Technology

• On-board Trimble nav system calculates area by swath length and width.

• Downloaded shp files digitized to produce area for RESULTS.

• Final areas can vary from monitored areas.• Can be problematic with small Work Areas.• Aim for large Work Areas to reduce

mapping discrepancies.

Timing of Harvest

• Consultation with licensees currently recipient responsibility.

• Probably better for hands-on contractor to consult on harvest planning.

• Hard to get good responses from Licensees and BCTS on future harvest.

• Important driver of ROI

Water Quality

• 4.1.(b).v “Water quality monitoring plan, if appropriate to the water resource of the Work Area”

• When is ‘appropriate’ if not in a community watershed or around water licenses?

High Site Index

• Some conflicting information on selection of stands with SI>32.

• Not preferable, but may yield a benefit.

• Quality of Tipsy data?

Site Index vs ROI

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

32 33 34 35 36 37

Site Index

RO

I

Species At Risk• Any concerns with SAR?

Summary