Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Meeting Workbook
Land Based Investment Strategy (LBIS): Forests for Tomorrow (FFT)
Current Reforestation Planning and Delivery Workshop
Sponsored by
Resource Practices Branch BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Meeting Organizer:
Dave Cornwell, Resource Practices Branch
Assembled by:
Terje Vold, Contractor, LBIS Project Support
September 18-19th, 2013
Richmond, British Columbia
3
4
Table of Contents
AGENDA………. .......................................................................................................................................... 5
PURPOSE OF THIS WORKBOOK ................................................................................................................ 7
DAY ONE……… .......................................................................................................................................... 8
THE FFT PROGRAM – WHAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ........................................................................... 8
INTRODUCTIONS AND 7 KEY BUSINESS OBJECTIVES ................................................................................. 8
SESSION 1: FFT STRATEGIC PLAN ........................................................................................................... 11
SESSION 2: INTEGRATING TYPE 4 SILVICULTURE PLANNING INTO FFT PLANNING ................................. 13
SESSION 3: CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................................................... 14
SESSION 4: SOWING REQUESTS ............................................................................................................. 15
SESSION 5: REVIEW BUDGET NUMBERS COMPILED TO DATE - REVIEW STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ........... 17
SESSION 6: ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND WILDFIRE PLANNING ....................................................... 19
SESSION 7: FOREST HEALTH FACTORS IN BURNED AREAS ..................................................................... 20
DAY TWO…….. ........................................................................................................................................ 21
HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS FROM DAY ONE ................................................................................................. 21
SESSION 8: CRITICAL ISSUES .................................................................................................................. 23
SESSION 9: RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 26
SESSION 10: INTERNET BASED MAPPING .............................................................................................. 27
SESSION 11: STAND DEVELOPMENT MONITORING ............................................................................... 28
SESSION 12: FREE GROWING STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 29
WORKSHOP WRAP-UP AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 32
APPENDIX A: LIST OF WORKSHOP INVITEES ......................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX B: WORKSHOP EVALUATION FORM .................................................................................... 35
APPENDIX C: PRE-WORKSHOP INPUT ................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX D: KEY DATES FOR LBIS FFT .................................................................................................. 44
APPENDIX E: LBIS PLANNING AND DELIVERY FRAMEWORK ................................................................. 45
APPENDIX F: LBIS PRIORITIES FOR FFT .................................................................................................. 57
APPENDIX G: ACTIONS FROM FFT FALL 2012 RICHMOND WORKSHOP .................................................. 59
APPENDIX H: LBIS DELIVERY APPROACH ............................................................................................... 61
5
Agenda
Land Based Investment Strategy (LBIS): Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Planning and Delivery Workshop
Location: Vancouver Airport Marriott Hotel 7571 Westminster Highway, Richmond, BC V6X 1A3
DAY ONE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18TH
, 2013
Strategic objectives, budgeting, sowing requests and mandatory reporting
8:30 am
Coffee/tea available – meet and greet
9:00 am
9:20 am
The FFT program – What we have accomplished – Tom Ethier, ADM Resource Stewardship Division
Introductions and 7 Key Business Objectives of this Workshop – Dave Cornwell 1.
9:30 am Session 1: FFT Strategic Plan – Al Powelson
10:00 am Coffee break
10:15 am Session 2: Integrating Type 4 Silviculture Planning into FFT Planning – Paul Rehsler
11:15 am
12:00 pm
1:00 pm
2:00 pm
2:45 pm
3:00 pm
3:45 pm
4:45 pm
Session 3: Climate Change – Kevin Astridge
Lunch - will be provided
Session 4: Sowing requests – sowing levels, stock types, seedling selection – Al Powelson and Kevin Astridge
Session 5: Review plan and budget numbers compiled to date – review strategic
objectives – Al Powelson with Monty Locke
Coffee break Session 6: The Ecosystem Restoration program and introducing controlled burning into
the landscape – landscape level wildfire planning – Al Neal and Kelly Osbourne Session 7: Forest health factors in burned areas – Black Army Cutworm, Rhizina –
Jennifer Burleigh
Day One wrap-up and adjourn
6
DAY TWO: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH
, 2013
Program delivery
7:30 am
Coffee/tea available
8:00 am Housekeeping items from Day One
8:15 am Session 8: Critical Isues
a. Caribou mitigation openings – Matt LeRoy and Monty Locke b. Delivery of caribou mitigation related activities – Dave Cornwell c. Delivery efficiency – the economics of FFT eligible lump sum timber sales – Kerri
Brownie and Dave Cornwell d. The forestry team – delivering activities – building collaboration – Dave Cornwell e. LEAN – identifying the scope and identifying potential Kaizen participants – Dave
Cornwell
9:45 am
10:30 am
Session 9: RESULTS– Caribou mitigation openings, data entry report, training – Caroline MacLeod
Coffee break
10:45 am Session 10: Internet-based mapping – Caribou mitigation openings and other applications – Matt LeRoy
11:00 am
12:00 pm
Session 11: Stand Development Monitoring – Harry Kope
Lunch – will be provided
1:00 pm Session 12: Free growing standards – Ralph Winter
1:45 pm Session 13: FLNR Safety Q&A session – Tom Jackson, Director, Resource Worker Safety
2:30 pm
3:00 pm
Workshop wrap-up and evaluation
Recap meeting action items
Please complete the Workshop Evaluation Form before leaving
Adjourn
Thanks to All Who Participated!
7
Purpose of this Workbook
The purpose of this Workbook is:
To provide a guiding framework for the workshop participants to address key
objectives in support of the LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) program
To provide a reference material for those who are interested but could not attend
the meeting as well as for meeting participants
To set the scene for a meeting that is intended to be interactive, informative,
practical and insightful.
This Workbook and the Workshop design was supported and preceded by Pre-Workshop
Input sought from workshop invitees and others involved in FFT planning and delivery.
This input is included in the Workbook as it helps inform various sessions of the meeting.
Thanks to all who provided input!
Notes
8
Day One
The FFT Program – What We Have Accomplished
This initial session provides Tom Ethier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resource
Stewardship Division with an opportunity to welcome participants to the workshop,
provide opening remarks, and to review key accomplishments of the Forests for
Tomorrow (FFT) program.
Introductions and 7 Key Business Objectives
Introductions
Dave Cornwell will lead this session. Although most people know most of the other
participants at the meeting, there are participants who you may not know. It would be
worthwhile therefore if participants could briefly introduce themselves in terms of their
name and the organizational unit they work for. A list of meeting invitees is provided in
Appendix A.
Agenda and 7 Key Business Objectives
The workshop agenda can be found on pages 3 and 4 of the Workshop Workbook. The 7
key workshop business objectives are:
1. Develop budget for 2014/15 budget process under LBIS (see Session 5 in the
Agenda)
2. Confirm that sowing requests are based on established priorities, capacity to deliver,
and consistent with budget forecast, consider the effects of climate change and site
index for non lodgepole pine (Pli) species (Session 4)
3. Identify and implement cost effective delivery methods to achieve reforestation and
TSM goals – this topic will also include a discussion of critical issues that include
Caribou mitigation openings, program delivery efficiency – including the economic
impact of the BCTS ITSL program and the forestry team concept (Sessions 8)
4. Discuss the strategies and tools available to us – FFT Strategic Plan, RESULTS,
internet based mapping, stand development monitoring (SDM), silviculture planning,
fire management planning and LEAN (Sessions 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
5. Provide overview of provincial planning process – linkages to JALT and LBIS
Steering Committee (via general discussions at workshop)
6. Provide an opportunity to ask questions and get answers about safety (Session 13)
7. Share information (Sessions 3, 6, 7 and 12)
Following the last Session on Day 2 we will distribute a Workshop Evaluation Form
(there is a copy in Appendix B). Please complete this before leaving as we value your
feedback so that future Workshops can better serve your needs. The Workshop will
conclude on Day 2 no later than 3:00 pm so that you can make appropriate travel plans.
9
Thanks to those of you who shared your thoughts and insights as part of the Pre-
Workshop Input; we have tried to capture this in the Workbook and Agenda with all of
the unattributed input provided in Appendix C. As part of the pre-workshop input
request, the following was asked:
Do you have any comments or concerns about the 7 key objectives? Should there be another key
objective?
- Should have discussion on change of FFT scope opportunities (eg: non Pl/Wildfire site
rehab)
- Not really clear to me where objective 5 is clearly being spoken to in the agenda although
I suspect it’s a consideration within a couple of sessions.
Objectives are good as is, but need a serious prioritization effort. What is it that we REALLY
need to settle at this session. For me, it’s critical that we examine the fiscal resources available in
each investment category, settle on allocations to regions in each investment category, and
review/improve the planning process for next year. This must be our focus. Other things can be
done as time permits.
Critically important to ensure that investment planning decisions align with government’s
commitments under the Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan.
They are all good topics, another one could be “the future of the program” in other words Where
do we go when we finish juvenile stands and current fires reforestation???
Capturing Workshop Discussions
We will be capturing the discussions at the Workshop in two ways:
We will use flip charts to capture key discussion points and action items
We will be using a Livescribe Smart Pen to provide an audio recording solely for
the purposes of assisting us in summarizing key Workshop discussions.
A Workshop Synopsis will be prepared and distributed to all meeting participants and
also shared with other others who could not attend but may be interested. Workshop
presenters should send powerpoints and any other resource material (that is not already
in this Workbook) to Dave Cornwell at [email protected] so that it can either
be included in the Synopsis or posted on the LBIS FFT website.
Suggested Rules of the Road
We commit to do everything we can to work together efficiently and effectively,
and to make every effort to honour and respect the diversity of experience in the
workshop.
We will pledge in our discussions to:
help maximize participation by all participants
ensure that the focus remains on the task assigned
help the group accomplish each task in the allotted time
10
LBIS Delivery Approach
By way of background the current draft of the LBIS Delivery Approach is provided as an
Appendix; a clearer version can also be downloaded from the LBIS website at
http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/home
Workshop Expectations
As part of the pre-workshop input request, the following was asked:
Any other comments or ideas you would like to share? For example, in addition to
meeting the objectives of the Workshop, what expectations do you have for the workshop
– as in “I would consider the Workshop a success if…”
Silv Type 4 topic- I am very interested to see how these analyses will be incorporated
into the FFT planning process… to my mind, there should be a strong linkage between
what activities the model is suggesting that we undertake in order to meet our mid-term
timber supply goals, and how we allocate the LBIS budget. If we don’t do this, then we
won’t get value from the Type 4 work, and we also won’t be maximizing the benefit of
the LBIS $ that we are spending.
I will consider the meeting a success if a prioritized provincial 5 year plan is produced.
I will consider the meeting a success if all staff attending the meeting are engaged and
staff can learn from each other’s successes and failures.
Notes
11
Session 1: FFT Strategic Plan
The purpose of this session is to for Al Powelson to provide highlights of the updated FFT
Strategic Plan that will eventually be posted on the LBIS website http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/node/103.
A key change is that the FFT Strategic Plan promotes the notion that FFT is intended to be a
‘flagship’ program e.g. in the vision and mission statements. A new Goal was added to address
the ‘People’ (staff, public) aspect of the program that addresses training, participation and
inclusiveness.
Within Goal 1, it was important to add that government is provided opportunities (options) and
costs for FFT investments, and that government then decides a level of investment. FLNR then
make the best use of those investments dollars by funding the projects with the greatest benefits.
Below are the Vision, Mission and Goal statements in the updated FFT Strategic Plan.
Vision
The impacts of catastrophic disturbances and constrained timber supplies are: (a)
identified, prioritized and communicated to government to support investment decisions;
and (b) consistent with those decisions, the impacts are effectively and efficiently
mitigated by exemplary stand tending and reforestation activities that enhance forest
values and support forest resilience.
Mission
FFT optimally utilizes available funding to reforest and manage productive forest land
through the use of best science, and in consideration of all forest values and changing
factors.
Goals
Goal 1: Informed decision-making in investing in, and delivering, reforestation and stand
tending activities in an exemplary and transparent manner that improves over time
Goal 2: Improve mid- and long-term timber supply and establish resilient forest
ecosystems
Goal 3: Best return from investments and activities on the forest land base in
consideration of timber and non-timber values
Goal 4: Safety is a fundamental component of all activities and considerations
Goal 5: People-centric approach with active communication, meaningful public
engagement opportunities, and knowledgeable staff.
Objective 5 of this Workshop is to provide an overview of provincial planning process – linkages
to the Joint Area Leadership Team (JALT) and LBIS Steering Committee. We expect general
discussions about this during the Workshop. Below is the pre-workshop feedback on this topic:
12
Provincial LBIS Planning Process This objective of the workshop is intended to provide you with an overview of the provincial
LBIS planning process – linkages to the Joint Area Leadership Team (JALT) and LBIS Steering
Committee.
What are the main questions or issues that you have about the process that you would like
addressed at the workshop? How could the process be improved?
- Would be nice to get a refresher on who is on it and how they conduct business
Let us ensure that we have a clean business stream that includes specific points of engagement
for Regional Management Teams.
We need to ensure our managers understand the importance of meeting the goals. Our work is
time sensitive which my management does not seem to understand.
I don’t know anything about either the JALT or the steering committee
How will the Lean project work to streamline the process of setting priorities for the
program and the component funding categories?
Notes
13
Session 2: Integrating Type 4 Silviculture Planning into FFT Planning
The purpose of this session is to discuss how Type 4 Silviculture Strategies can be
integrated into FFT planning. Paul Rehsler will lead this session and will address:
1. What the Type 4 SS are telling us
2. Where they are taking us
FLNR’s Silviculture Strategies website http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/silstrat/index.htm
provides an overview description of Type 4 SS:
Builds a base case that may differ from the latest TSR base case
Uses other readily available information to update and augment the TSR base case
Includes in-depth forest level modeling and analysis to develop silviculture
strategies and funding needs
Produces management unit level specific harvest level and timber quality
objectives
Provides direction for tree species selection and tree species diversity targets by
BEC subzones
Provides direction regarding landscape level retention targets, harvesting
priorities and climate change
Where other non-timber value strategies exist, and data is readily available,
provides direction on key local non-timber values and concerns
Includes a discussion of treatment risk, including reference to local wildfire
management plans
Helps to develop a spatially explicit five-year plan for silviculture investments
Notes
14
Session 3: Climate Change
The purpose of this session is to discuss climate change considerations for species
selection over the next 5 years. The session will be led by Kevin Astridge.
Notes
15
Session 4: Sowing Requests
The purpose of this session is to review sowing requests – sowing levels, stock types, and
seedling selection. The Session will be led by Al Powelson and Kevin Astridge. Topics
include:
Increasing tree species diversity in our planting programs
The site index of Pw versus Pli and potential opportunities.
Below is the pre-workshop input on this topic (also in Appendix C):
Sowing Requests Sowing requests need to be based on established priorities, capacity to deliver, consistent with
budget forecast, consider the effects of climate change and site index for non Pli species.
The Land Based Investment Strategy 2013/14 to 2015/16 focus and priorities for FFT current
reforestation and timber supply mitigation are identified on pp. 3-4 in the Strategy document
http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/home/LBIS
FFT Guidance regarding the ‘Management of tree species composition’ is provided at
http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/node/103
With the above background, what issues if any come to mind when developing sowing requests
for your area? What other guidance (if any) do you feel would be useful? What would be an
effective way to foster an increase in tree species diversity in our planting programs?
- Sowing requests should reflect higher stocking density standards for Pl. Stocking
standards should be increased from the current target of 1200sph to 2000+.
- Do not force mixed species planting by playing a numbers game. Emphasis must be on
ecological suitable species that are feasible, reliable and maximize timber productivity.
- Understanding that no free growing liability concerns exist within FFT should be
sufficient motivation to ensure tree species diversity that makes sense.
It is very hard to increase tree species diversity and reforest pine ground. We are doing our best
to mix the species but sometime we have to accept that pine is the only preferred species.
Well, stocking standards are still an impediment… lots of our species options for diversity are
only “acceptable” species (Pw, for example), so it is hard to plan to incorporate a large amount of
those other species, knowing that we likely won’t meet the stocking standards (unless we have the
DM approve “one-off” stocking standard variances, but that is a pain). I’m sure there are lots of
ways we could deal with this- such as maybe “FFT-specific” stocking standards.
There is a need to better prioritize which areas get planted, taking into account return on
investment, linkage to timber supply, expected natural regeneration and productivity.
Need to try and incorporate climate change into our species selection. Must be willing to accept
some level of risk.
Discussion on how species mixtures should be deployed in the field, i.e., intimate
16
mixtures or ?
Discussion on the number of guidance documents and whether they can be consolidated
into one document that could be updated as required.
Provide information on “best” stocktypes by species by site limiting factors to update
information in the 1998 stocktype selection guidelines.
Notes
17
Session 5: Review Budget Numbers Compiled to Date - Review Strategic Objectives
The purpose of this session is to review the draft budget number proposed by regions as
well as the strategic objectives of FFT program. Al Powelson will lead the session with
support from Monty Locke regarding timber supply mitigation. Topics include:
Strategic focus – current reforestation
o MPB/Wildfire, caribou mitigation openings, defaulted obligations
o Stochastic (random) events in areas outside of the interior
Strategic focus – timber supply mitigation (TSM)
Background resource material includes:
Key Dates for LBIS (Appendix D)
LBIS Priorities for FFT (Appendix F)
Pre-Workshop Input (Appendix C) which is also highlighted below
Below is the pre-workshop input on this topic (also in Appendix C):
FY 2014/15 budget development
A key outcome of the Fall workshop is to develop the draft budget for 2014/15. Key dates for
LBIS are provided at http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/node/246. The LBIS annual
planning and delivery cycle is summarized on the last page of this Input Request document.
Do you have any questions, issues or comments about the process and deadlines associated with
the development of the FFT budget for 2014/15?
If any issues, what could be done to help address those concerns?
How could the LBIS budget process improve for FFT programs?
- Key dates do not clearly address 5 year plan and AOP submission deadline dates.
- Engagement with regions/districts is really only limited to within category discussions
(except for senior mgm’t level input). Should open discussion more fully to capture
greater between category feedback.
- Delivery/communication piece should also address performance (planned versus actual
(goals & $)) and not just accomplishments. This is what the evaluation section should be
built on and be a consideration in setting priorities for future allocation decisions.
We must review the annual planning cycle to clearly identify the critical points where regions
engage to inform the process.
We need to confirm the information needed from regions at each point, how that information will
be used and by whom. Need to identify the specific investment decision makers.
Where is it that ministry priorities such as the Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan are
incorporated into the process.
I am satisfied with the budget process the program has. Sometime we are asked too early to
provide the numbers.
18
Why are the deadlines for coastal sowing requests so early?
Discussion on making the incorporation of the Woodlot and Community Forest program
into the 5-year plan more efficient. I am not sure how much information was relayed on
to the woodlot associations and community forests by the provincial groups but there was
a considerable amount of “back and forth” with them. I think that they would appreciate
knowing how much money is potentially available to them so that they could plan
accordingly.
The budget process is relatively transparent and I think that it has worked well in the past
so hopefully this year will be no different.
Some discussion on the priorization process if the AOP comes in over budget – what is
the process for Current Reforestation and TSM?
Notes
19
Session 6: Ecosystem Restoration and Wildfire Planning
The purpose of this session is describe the Ecosystem Restoration program and
reintroducing controlled burning onto the landscape and landscape level wildfire
planning. Al Neal and Kelly Osbourne will lead this Session. FLNR’s Ecosystem
Restoration website provides an overview of the program and is located at
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/Restoration/index.htm. Wildfire Management Branch’s
Prescribed Fire website is located at http://bcwildfire.ca/Prevention/PrescribedFire/
Notes
20
Session 7: Forest Health Factors in Burned Areas
The purpose of this session is provide an update on forest health considerations when
delivering FFT programs, and to more specifically address forest health factors in burned
areas such as the black army cutworm and rhizina root rot. Jennifer Burleigh will lead
this session.
Notes
21
Day Two
Housekeeping Items from Day One
The purpose of this timeslot is to address any outstanding items raised in Day One
regarding:
FFT Strategic Plan (Session 1)
Integrating Type 4 Silviculture Strategies into FFT Planning (Session 2)
Climate Change (Session 3)
Sowing Requests (Session 4)
Review Plan and Budget Numbers (Session 5)
Ecosystem Restoration and Wildfire Planning (Session 6)
Forest Health Factors in Burned Areas (Session 7)
If time permits, it may also be worthwhile to quickly review the status of the actions that
stemmed from the LBIS FFT Fall 2012 meeting (see Appendix H).
Objective 4 of this Workshop is to discuss the strategies and tools available to us – FFT
Strategic Plan, RESULTS, internet based mapping, stand development monitoring
(SDM), silviculture planning, fire management planning and LEAN (Sessions 1, 2, 8, 9,
10 and 11). Below is the pre-workshop input on this topic (also in Appendix C):
Another key workshop objective is to discuss the strategies and tools available to us – FFT
Strategic Plan, RESULTS, Internet based mapping, SDM, Silviculture Planning, Fire
Management Planning, and LEAN.
What are the main thing(s) we could do to strengthen the strategies and tools intended to support
you? What strategies and tools are missing?
- Need greater emphasis on SDM to ensure findings get incorporated to amend FFT scope,
objectives, priorities and/or standards.
- Limit fire mgm’t planning to high level planning consideration (type IV) at this time.
- RESULTS utility and maintenance would be better served by only forecasting the next
known treatment/activity rather than applying a regime.
We need a tool to help us to identify mature pine stands which not be harvested. Something like
decision matrix???? (200 km from the mill????)
I still could use some contract templates (schedule A’s, esp) that better reflect the contracts that
districts are tendering out, without being tremendously complicated. And I’ve mentioned before
that we do not have software that can edit pdf documents, so I can’t even change the existing
templates to fit my needs.
ROI training- esp TIPSY. I think there have been some materials circulated, but I haven’t had
time to look at them, and I think it would be helpful to have either a face-to-face training session,
or at least a webinar-type session. This stuff is kind of complicated, and apparently important!
Re: mapping- in my opinion having too many different mapping tools just makes things too
complicated, and many of them won’t get used. I don’t want to have to use anything other than
22
iMap and ArcMap to meet all of my mapping and analysis needs. I may not speak for everyone,
but I really think it’s overkill to have a different mapping tool for every business need (eg, one for
fire management planning, a different one for Cumulative Effects, etc). We should streamline and
try to figure out how to do more with the tools we have already! It would be really cool if there
was more ability to query iMap to be able to produce a map showing, for example, where all of
the openings scheduled for a survey in 2014 are.
Lack of resources may be an obstacle for RESULTS entry where direct district delivery of FFT
projects.
It would be good to have an update/discussion on the use of the Fansier ROI – are people
using it? How are people using ROI to determine treatment/investment priorities?
There needs to be a process to keep silviculture strategies current. There also needs to be
a commitment to funding so that districts can deliver the strategies and have a meaningful
impact on timber supply, particularly in priority impacted TSA’s.
Notes
23
Session 8: Critical Issues
The purpose of this session is to discuss critical issues including caribou mitigation
openings, program delivery efficiency – including the economic impact of the BCTS
ITSL program the forestry team concept. Understanding the critical issues can assist in
the identifying and implementing cost effective delivery methods to achieve reforestation
and TSM goals. The following critical issues will be addressed:
a. Caribou mitigation openings – Matt LeRoy and Monty Locke
b. Delivery of caribou mitigation related activities – Dave Cornwell
c. Delivery efficiency – the economics of FFT eligible lump sum timber sales –
Kerri Brownie and Dave Cornwell
d. The forestry team – delivering activities – building collaboration – Dave Cornwell
e. LEAN – identifying the scope and identifying potential Kaizen participants –
Dave Cornwell
Below are some pre-meeting input comments on this topic (also in Appendix C):
3a. Cost Effective Delivery: One of the key objectives of the workshop is identify and
implement cost effective delivery methods to achieve reforestation and TSM goals
including the economic impact of the BCTS ITSL program.
Assuming that third party delivery would be limited to situations where we do not have the
internal capacity to deliver activities, what in your opinion, are the main thing(s) we could do to
make deliver more effective and efficient?
- Use BCTS to deliver TSA CR investments as a minimum. BCTS should be
implementing any discretionary TSA investments by the crown.
How do you build more competitive contracting community? If you have limited number of
bidders you are getting high prices. Including option to renew and multiyear contract should
help.
More effort to combine FFT and FSMF silv contracts into single, larger contracts. Or including
FFT silv work (non-ITSL) with BCTS silv contracts for greater efficiency- is anyone doing this
already?
BCTS- has any progress been made on having BCTS do ITSLs outside of their operating areas?
I’m not sure if this fits into this topic exactly, but a discussion of how the CFA/ WL work will be
delivered would be good. I’m not totally clear on who is responsible for decision-making about
what projects will go ahead, as well as who will be managing the delivery of that work.
Fertilization typically in the past has gone well.
To improve FFT delivery we need to follow the fertilization delivery model and improve
communications between Region/District and delivery agents. Some districts are under resourced
(FTE’s) to provide adequate oversight of FFT planning and delivery. Due to lack of resources
(time) some districts are not adequately engaged.
Provide a means for staff delivering the program to share “best practices” on contracting,
co-ordination of delivery with other agencies for economies of scale, use of
implementation contractors, etc. throughout the year and not just at the annual meeting.
24
3b. Critical Issues: Part of this key objective is addressing critical issues such as Caribou GAR
area reforestation, strengthening the forestry team (building collaboration between operations
staff, BCTS and external delivery agents), and the LEAN review of the LBIS program.
What other critical issues do you feel need to also be addressed at the workshop as they relate to
cost effective delivery?
Where so you think the LEAN project should be focused?
There is pressing need for clearly articulated strategic direction, preferably in writing, that sets
out the ministry’s intentions respecting reforestation of the Mountain Caribou mitigation
openings.
(PLEASE …. Can we discontinue referring to the caribou openings as “GAR area reforestation”.
That term mis-represents what we are doing
The LEAN initiative has to be focused on:
Finding efficiencies in the annual planning process
Means of establishing priorities across and within investment categories consistent with
LBIS investment objectives and ministry priorities
Effective delivery of investments across regions.
Contract approval process by the ADM. Can ADMs approve the budget and not each contract
separately?
See 3a. re: delivery (i.e. More effort to combine FFT…..)
Lean…lots of possibilities
What about one regarding planning and prioritizing projects? This could include how budgets are
allocated provincially between districts, and then a process for prioritizing potential projects
within districts (assuming we will never have enough money to do everything we want to),
incorporating things like the Silv Type 4 Analyses.
Also- Planning and tracking activities… I know we are supposed to be using Results, but there
are still some frustrating gaps in what we can do with it.
Contracts- planning, administering, monitoring, document templates
Caribou Recovery mitigation blocks:
How to address potential cost creep with the Caribou Recovery mitigation blocks now
that we are managing to a potentially higher standard (i.e., planting density) than the
licensee?
Executive direction on how to incorporate into district FFT programs.
Timber Supply Mitigation:
Discussion on ramping up/changing direction based on results of silviculture strategies,
eg., thinning prescriptions have been developed and contractor capacity built up;
strategies are indicating “best” investments are mpb rehab treatments. How should these
treatments be phased in and what impact will this have on both funding envelopes?
Lean:
Lean project should be focused on a process for setting treatment priorities at a MU level
based on silviculture strategies and on local, regional and provincial priorities (not just
provincial priorities such as stated in the silviculture funding criteria).
25
Notes
26
Session 9: RESULTS
The purpose of this session is describe RESULTS-related topics such as handling
mountain caribou mitigation openings, data entry report card, and training. Caroline
MacLeod will lead this Session.
Notes
27
Session 10: Internet Based Mapping
The purpose of this session is to discuss internet-based mapping and how it can be used
to address Caribou mitigation openings and other applications. Matt LeRoy will lead this
Session.
Notes
28
Session 11: Stand Development Monitoring
The purpose of this session is to describe and provide an update on Stand Development
Monitoring (SDM). Harry Kope will lead this session. In June 2011, FREP Extension
Note #18 addressed: Monitoring Post-Free-Growing Stand Conditions in Five Timber
Supply Areas Throughout British Columbia: What Are We Seeing So Far? which is
posted at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/frep/publications/extension_notes.htm
Notes
29
Session 12: Free Growing Standards
The purpose of this Session is to learn about the “Free from brush – free growing criteria”
in Appendix 9 of the Silviculture Survey Procedures Manual that was recently updated in
April 2013. Ralph Winter will lead this session. The Manual including Appendix 9 can
be accessed at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/silviculture/Silviculture_Surveys.html
A summary of the criteria is provided in Figure A9-1 that is shown below
Notes
30
Session 9: FLNR Safety Q & A Session
The purpose of this session is provide an opportunity for staff involved in FFT delivery to
ask questions to Tom Jackson, Director, Resource Worker Safety, concerning safety
issues or concerns that they have. Tom will also address:
1. The Safety Management system
2. Working safely in burned areas and MPB killed stands
3. Using safe certified contractors
FLNR safety website link: http://gww.nro.gov.bc.ca/home/safety/index.html
Some Safety material is posted on the LBIS FFT websites at
http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/node/103
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hcp/fia/landbase/fft/safety.htm
Below are some pre-meeting input comments on this topic (also in Appendix C):
Safety A FLNR Safety Q & A session with Tom Jackson, Director, Resource Worker Safety is intended
for the workshop.
What are the main questions or issues that you have about safety that you would like addressed at
the workshop?
- Why does the FFT program not adopt a safe certification requirement for designated high
risk activities/treatments (if not for all).
As we moved the program delivery to the districts we are not supposed to ask for contractors to
be safe certified. This seems backwards. Can we improve there?
On the topic of burned/MPB killed stands, how should we (or contractors) deal with falling of
danger trees in areas with difficult access? We don’t have roads to all of our project areas, and
I’ve been told that heli evac is not acceptable as the main means of emergency evac, but there
could be a significant walk or ATV ride to an ETV.
Discussion on whether the formation of an FFT Safety Committee would be useful for
sharing information and best practices, and providing a Q&A specific to FFT. Could
develop a website with resource materials.
31
Notes
32
Workshop Wrap-Up and Evaluation
The purpose of this timeslot is to wrap-up discussions at the two-day workshop, to thank
all who attended for their contributions, and to encourage everyone to complete the
Workshop Evaluation Form.
Workshop Synopsis
As noted in the first session in Day One, a Workshop Synopsis that captures the
highlights and action items stemming from the Workshop will be prepared and shared
with all participants. Workshop presenters should send powerpoints and any other
resource material (that is not already in this Workbook) to Dave Cornwell at
[email protected] so that it can either be included in the Synopsis or posted on
the LBIS website.
Workshop Evaluation
A short one-page form will be distributed (see Appendix B) where we ask that you
provide us feedback on how well the 7 stated objectives for the meeting were met, as well
as any other comments you wish to share about the workshop and how it was managed.
Thanks to all Workshop Participants!
Notes
33
Appendix A: List of Workshop Invitees
Name Organization
Delee Anderson Vanderhoof District
John Andres Campbell River District
Kevin Astridge Resource Practices Branch
Paul Barolet North Island – Central Coast District
Robert Barta Cariboo-Chilcotin District
Lorne Bedford Resource Practices Branch
Aaron Benterud Coast Mountains District
Carolyn Beurskens Mackenzie District
Brian Broznitsky Kamloops District - Clearwater
Kerri Brownie BC Timber Sales Branch
Donna Brochez Nadina District
Glen Buhr Skeena Stikine District
Jennifer Burleigh Resource Practices Branch
Jeff Burrows Prince George District
Scott Byron BC Timber Sales Stuart-Nechako
Marley Chewter Fort St James District
Lauri Como Quesnel District
Dave Cornwell Resource Practices Branch
Jacques Corstanje Coast Mountains District
Francesco Cortini LBIS communications consulting support
Nola Daintith Cariboo Region
Mike D’Aloia Fort Nelson District
Sam Davis Mackenzie District
John DeGagne Vanderhoof District
Bill Dobbs BC Timber Sales Stuart-Nechako
Scott Dunn Campbell River District
Tom Ethier ADM, Resource Stewardship Division
Larry Fielding BC Timber Sales Prince George
Attila Gereb South Island District
Cindy Gibson Cariboo-Chilcotin District
Dave Gill BC Timber Sales Okanagan-Columbia
Neal Gooding Fort St James District
Rainer Gruenhage Sunshine Coast District
Dave Hamilton BC Timber Sales Strait of Georgia
Mark Hamm Cariboo-Chilcotin District
Jevan Hanchard Skeena Stikine District
Larry Hanlon Kootenay/Boundary Region
Caitlin Harrison BC Timber Sales Stuart-Nechako
Steve Hind Kalum District
John Hopper BC Timber Sales Kamloops
Susan Hoyles Omineca Region
Elizabeth Hunt Peace District
John Illes Nadina District
Tom Jackson Resource Worker Safety
Ljiljana Knezevic Omineca Region
Harry Kope Resource Practices Branch
Lyn Konowalyk Rocky Mountain District
Shelley Kupryk Kamloops District
34
Katherine Ladyman Okanagan Shuswap District
Bill Laing BC Timber Sales Nadina
Kevin Lavelle Selkirk District
Matt LeRoy Resource Practices Branch
Monty Locke Resource Practices Branch
Heather MacLennan Thompson Rivers District
Caroline MacLeod Resource Practices Branch
Mike Madill Thompson/Okanagan Region
Rob Martin BC Timber Sales Strait of Georgia
David McArthur 100 Mile House District
Leith McKenzie Thompson/Okanagan Region
Ted McRae Okanagan Shuswap District
Anna Monetta Omineca Region
Ed Nedokus Cascades District
Allen Neal Provincial Ecosystem Restoration Strategic Team Leader
Guy Newsome BC Timber Sales Cariboo-Chilcotin
Bill Olsen 100 Mile House District
Brent Olsen Thompson Rivers District
Kelly Osbourne Wildfire Management Branch
Bernie Peschke Thompson/Okanagan Region
Ann Peter Chilliwack District
Jennifer Plummer Skeena Stikine District
Carl Pollard Fort St James District
Brad Powell Quesnel District
Allan Powelson Resource Practices Branch
Paul Rehsler Resource Practices Branch
Katherine Rogers BC Timber Sales Babine
Enrique Sanchez Chilliwack District
Katrina Sigloch Thompson Rivers District
Carolyn Stevens Nadina District
Rodger Stewart Cariboo Region
Len Stratton BC Timber Sales Prince George
Peter Stroes Cascades District
Norma Stromberg-Jones Prince George District – McBride Field Office
Jack Sweeten Chilliwack District
Andrew Tait Fort St James District
Kevin Telfer Coast Region
Geoff Tindale BC Timber Sales Branch
Miodrag Tkalec Mackenzie District
Ron Van der Zwan Thompson Rivers District
Mary Viszlai-Beale Fort Nelson District
Terje Vold LBIS project consulting support
Barb Wadey Selkirk District
David Weaver Resource Practices Branch
Craig Wickland Coast Region
George Williamson 100 Mile House
Ralph Winter Resource Practices Branch
35
Appendix B: Workshop Evaluation Form
How well do you feel the objectives of the Workshop were addressed? Were you satisfied with
Workshop logistics? Please put an X in the column that best reflects your views
Workshop Objectives Not met Partially
Met
Met Exceeded
1. Develop budget for 2014/15 budget process under
LBIS (Session 5)
2. Confirm sowing requests are based on established
priorities, capacity to delivery, and consistent with
budget forecast (Session 4)
3. Identify and implement cost effective delivery
methods in consideration of critical issues (Session 8)
4. Discuss the strategies and tools available to us
(Sessions 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
5. Provide overview of provincial planning process (via
general discussions at workshop)
6. Provide an opportunity to ask questions and get
answers about safety (Session 13)
7. Share information (Sessions 3, 6, 7 and 12) Any Comments on Particular Sessions? (please identify with Session #1, 2, etc)
Workshop Logistics If not satisfied, your comments to
improve most appreciated
Satisfied Not
Satisfied
Comment
Workshop organization
Workshop venue (meeting room,
refreshments/lunch)
Workshop agenda
Other (please specify)
36
Appendix C: Pre-Workshop Input
Pre-Workshop Input to assist us in preparing for the
FFT Current Reforestation and Timber Supply Mitigation Workshop September 18-19
th, 2013 – Richmond, BC
The key objectives of the workshop are to:
1. Developing the budget for 2014/15 budget process under LBIS.
2. Confirm that sowing requests are based on established priorities, capacity to
deliver, consistent with budget forecast, consider the effects of climate change and
site index for non Pli species.
3. Identify and implement cost effective delivery methods to achieve reforestation
and TSM goals – this topic will also include a discussion of critical issues that
include Caribou GAR area reforestation, program delivery efficiency – including
the economic impact of the BCTS ITSL program and the forestry team concept.
4. Discuss the strategies and tools available to us – FFT Strategic Plan, RESULTS,
Internet based mapping, SDM, Silviculture Planning, Fire Management Planning,
and LEAN
5. Overview of provincial planning process – linkages to JALT and LBIS Steering
Committee.
6. Safety.
7. Share information through case studies.
Key Objectives Do you have any comments or concerns about the 7 key objectives? Should there be another key
objective?
- Should have discussion on change of FFT scope opportunities (eg: non Pl/Wildfire site
rehab)
- Not really clear to me where objective 5 is clearly being spoken to in the agenda although
I suspect it’s a consideration within a couple of sessions.
Objectives are good as is, but need a serious prioritization effort. What is it that we REALLY
need to settle at this session. For me, it’s critical that we examine the fiscal resources available in
each investment category, settle on allocations to regions in each investment category, and
review/improve the planning process for next year. This must be our focus. Other things can be
done as time permits.
Critically important to ensure that investment planning decisions align with government’s
commitments under the Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan.
They are all good topics, another one could be “the future of the program” in other words Where
do we go when we finish juvenile stands and current fires reforestation???
37
1. FY 2014/15 budget development A key outcome of the Fall workshop is to develop the draft budget for 2014/15. Key dates for
LBIS are provided at http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/node/246. The LBIS annual
planning and delivery cycle is summarized on the last page of this Input Request document.
Do you have any questions, issues or comments about the process and deadlines associated with
the development of the FFT budget for 2014/15?
If any issues, what could be done to help address those concerns?
How could the LBIS budget process improve for FFT programs?
- Key dates do not clearly address 5 year plan and AOP submission deadline dates.
- Engagement with regions/districts is really only limited to within category discussions
(except for senior mgm’t level input). Should open discussion more fully to capture
greater between category feedback.
- Delivery/communication piece should also address performance (planned versus actual
(goals & $)) and not just accomplishments. This is what the evaluation section should be
built on and be a consideration in setting priorities for future allocation decisions.
We must review the annual planning cycle to clearly identify the critical points where regions
engage to inform the process.
We need to confirm the information needed from regions at each point, how that information will
be used and by whom. Need to identify the specific investment decision makers.
Where is it that ministry priorities such as the Mid-Term Timber Supply Action Plan are
incorporated into the process.
I am satisfied with the budget process the program has. Sometime we are asked too early to
provide the numbers.
Why are the deadlines for coastal sowing requests so early?
Discussion on making the incorporation of the Woodlot and Community Forest program
into the 5-year plan more efficient. I am not sure how much information was relayed on
to the woodlot associations and community forests by the provincial groups but there was
a considerable amount of “back and forth” with them. I think that they would appreciate
knowing how much money is potentially available to them so that they could plan
accordingly.
The budget process is relatively transparent and I think that it has worked well in the past
so hopefully this year will be no different.
Some discussion on the priorization process if the AOP comes in over budget – what is
the process for Current Reforestation and TSM?
38
2. Sowing Requests Sowing requests need to be based on established priorities, capacity to deliver, consistent with
budget forecast, consider the effects of climate change and site index for non Pli species.
The Land Based Investment Strategy 2013/14 to 2015/16 focus and priorities for FFT current
reforestation and timber supply mitigation are identified on pp. 3-4 in the Strategy document
http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/home/LBIS
FFT Guidance regarding the ‘Management of tree species composition’ is provided at
http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/node/103
With the above background, what issues if any come to mind when developing sowing requests
for your area? What other guidance (if any) do you feel would be useful? What would be an
effective way to foster an increase in tree species diversity in our planting programs?
- Sowing requests should reflect higher stocking density standards for Pl. Stocking
standards should be increased from the current target of 1200sph to 2000+.
- Do not force mixed species planting by playing a numbers game. Emphasis must be on
ecological suitable species that are feasible, reliable and maximize timber productivity.
- Understanding that no free growing liability concerns exist within FFT should be
sufficient motivation to ensure tree species diversity that makes sense.
It is very hard to increase tree species diversity and reforest pine ground. We are doing our best
to mix the species but sometime we have to accept that pine is the only preferred species.
Well, stocking standards are still an impediment… lots of our species options for diversity are
only “acceptable” species (Pw, for example), so it is hard to plan to incorporate a large amount of
those other species, knowing that we likely won’t meet the stocking standards (unless we have the
DM approve “one-off” stocking standard variances, but that is a pain). I’m sure there are lots of
ways we could deal with this- such as maybe “FFT-specific” stocking standards.
There is a need to better prioritize which areas get planted, taking into account return on
investment, linkage to timber supply, expected natural regeneration and productivity.
Need to try and incorporate climate change into our species selection. Must be willing to accept
some level of risk.
Discussion on how species mixtures should be deployed in the field, i.e., intimate
mixtures or ?
Discussion on the number of guidance documents and whether they can be consolidated
into one document that could be updated as required.
Provide information on “best” stocktypes by species by site limiting factors to update
information in the 1998 stocktype selection guidelines.
39
3. Cost Effective Delivery Methods and Critical Issues 3a. Cost Effective Delivery: One of the key objectives of the workshop is identify and
implement cost effective delivery methods to achieve reforestation and TSM goals
including the economic impact of the BCTS ITSL program.
Assuming that third party delivery would be limited to situations where we do not have the
internal capacity to deliver activities, what in your opinion, are the main thing(s) we could do to
make deliver more effective and efficient?
- Use BCTS to deliver TSA CR investments as a minimum. BCTS should be
implementing any discretionary TSA investments by the crown.
How do you build more competitive contracting community? If you have limited number of
bidders you are getting high prices. Including option to renew and multiyear contract should
help.
More effort to combine FFT and FSMF silv contracts into single, larger contracts. Or including
FFT silv work (non-ITSL) with BCTS silv contracts for greater efficiency- is anyone doing this
already?
BCTS- has any progress been made on having BCTS do ITSLs outside of their operating areas?
I’m not sure if this fits into this topic exactly, but a discussion of how the CFA/ WL work will be
delivered would be good. I’m not totally clear on who is responsible for decision-making about
what projects will go ahead, as well as who will be managing the delivery of that work.
Fertilization typically in the past has gone well.
To improve FFT delivery we need to follow the fertilization delivery model and improve
communications between Region/District and delivery agents. Some districts are under resourced
(FTE’s) to provide adequate oversight of FFT planning and delivery. Due to lack of resources
(time) some districts are not adequately engaged.
Provide a means for staff delivering the program to share “best practices” on contracting,
co-ordination of delivery with other agencies for economies of scale, use of
implementation contractors, etc. throughout the year and not just at the annual meeting.
3b. Critical Issues: Part of this key objective is addressing critical issues such as Caribou GAR
area reforestation, strengthening the forestry team (building collaboration between operations
staff, BCTS and external delivery agents), and the LEAN review of the LBIS program.
What other critical issues do you feel need to also be addressed at the workshop as they relate to
cost effective delivery?
Where so you think the LEAN project should be focused?
40
There is pressing need for clearly articulated strategic direction, preferably in writing, that sets
out the ministry’s intentions respecting reforestation of the Mountain Caribou mitigation
openings.
(PLEASE …. Can we discontinue referring to the caribou openings as “GAR area reforestation”.
That term mis-represents what we are doing
The LEAN initiative has to be focused on:
Finding efficiencies in the annual planning process
Means of establishing priorities across and within investment categories consistent with
LBIS investment objectives and ministry priorities
Effective delivery of investments across regions.
Contract approval process by the ADM. Can ADMs approve the budget and not each contract
separately?
See 3a. re:delivery.
Lean…lots of possibilities
What about one regarding planning and prioritizing projects? This could include how budgets are
allocated provincially between districts, and then a process for prioritizing potential projects
within districts (assuming we will never have enough money to do everything we want to),
incorporating things like the Silv Type 4 Analyses.
Also- Planning and tracking activities… I know we are supposed to be using Results, but there
are still some frustrating gaps in what we can do with it.
Contracts- planning, administering, monitoring, document templates
Caribou Recovery mitigation blocks:
How to address potential cost creep with the Caribou Recovery mitigation blocks now
that we are managing to a potentially higher standard (i.e., planting density) than the
licensee?
Executive direction on how to incorporate into district FFT programs.
Timber Supply Mitigation:
Discussion on ramping up/changing direction based on results of silviculture strategies,
eg., thinning prescriptions have been developed and contractor capacity built up;
strategies are indicating “best” investments are mpb rehab treatments. How should these
treatments be phased in and what impact will this have on both funding envelopes?
Lean:
Lean project should be focused on a process for setting treatment priorities at a MU level
based on silviculture strategies and on local, regional and provincial priorities (not just
provincial priorities such as stated in the silviculture funding criteria).
4. Strategies and Tools
41
Another key workshop objective is to discuss the strategies and tools available to us – FFT
Strategic Plan, RESULTS, Internet based mapping, SDM, Silviculture Planning, Fire
Management Planning, and LEAN.
What are the main thing(s) we could do to strengthen the strategies and tools intended to support
you? What strategies and tools are missing?
- Need greater emphasis on SDM to ensure findings get incorporated to amend FFT scope,
objectives, priorities and/or standards.
- Limit fire mgm’t planning to high level planning consideration (type IV) at this time.
- RESULTS utility and maintenance would be better served by only forecasting the next
known treatment/activity rather than applying a regime.
We need a tool to help us to identify mature pine stands which not be harvested. Something like
decision matrix???? (200 km from the mill????)
I still could use some contract templates (schedule A’s, esp) that better reflect the contracts that
districts are tendering out, without being tremendously complicated. And I’ve mentioned before
that we do not have software that can edit pdf documents, so I can’t even change the existing
templates to fit my needs.
ROI training- esp TIPSY. I think there have been some materials circulated, but I haven’t had
time to look at them, and I think it would be helpful to have either a face-to-face training session,
or at least a webinar-type session. This stuff is kind of complicated, and apparently important!
Re: mapping- in my opinion having too many different mapping tools just makes things too
complicated, and many of them won’t get used. I don’t want to have to use anything other than
iMap and ArcMap to meet all of my mapping and analysis needs. I may not speak for everyone,
but I really think it’s overkill to have a different mapping tool for every business need (eg, one for
fire management planning, a different one for Cumulative Effects, etc). We should streamline and
try to figure out how to do more with the tools we have already! It would be really cool if there
was more ability to query iMap to be able to produce a map showing, for example, where all of
the openings scheduled for a survey in 2014 are.
Lack of resources may be an obstacle for RESULTS entry where direct district delivery of FFT
projects.
It would be good to have an update/discussion on the use of the Fansier ROI – are people
using it? How are people using ROI to determine treatment/investment priorities?
There needs to be a process to keep silviculture strategies current. There also needs to be
a commitment to funding so that districts can deliver the strategies and have a meaningful
impact on timber supply, particularly in priority impacted TSA’s.
5. Provincial LBIS Planning Process
42
This session of the workshop is intended to provide you with an overview of the provincial LBIS
planning process – linkages to the Joint Area Leadership Team (JALT) and LBIS Steering
Committee.
What are the main questions or issues that you have about the process that you would like
addressed at the workshop? How could the process be improved?
- Would be nice to get a refresher on who is on it and how they conduct business
Let us ensure that we have a clean business stream that includes specific points of engagement
for Regional Management Teams.
We need to ensure our managers understand the importance of meeting the goals. Our work is
time sensitive which my management does not seem to understand.
I don’t know anything about either the JALT or the steering committee
How will the Lean project work to streamline the process of setting priorities for the
program and the component funding categories?
6. Safety A FLNR Safety Q & A session with Tom Jackson, Director Resource Worker Safety is intended
for the workshop.
What are the main questions or issues that you have about safety that you would like addressed at
the workshop?
- Why does the FFT program not adopt a safe certification requirement for designated high
risk activities/treatments (if not for all).
As we moved the program delivery to the districts we are not supposed to ask for contractors to
be safe certified. This seems backwards. Can we improve there?
On the topic of burned/MPB killed stands, how should we (or contractors) deal with falling of
danger trees in areas with difficult access? We don’t have roads to all of our project areas, and
I’ve been told that heli evac is not acceptable as the main means of emergency evac, but there
could be a significant walk or ATV ride to an ETV.
Discussion on whether the formation of an FFT Safety Committee would be useful for
sharing information and best practices, and providing a Q&A specific to FFT. Could
develop a website with resource materials.
7. Case Studies
43
Presenting or sharing FFT operational case studies is a good way to share lessons learned with
other staff.
Would you be willing to present or share a case study? If yes, for what area and topic?
- This is where Clay (SR Mgm’t Services) should make a formal presentation of his ITSL
economic analysis.
Communication: Project photos or short videos Photos or short videos that represent various FFT activities and accomplishments that staff have
made would be useful to share as they can improve FFT communications and our ability to
maintain and improve the program.
Please share any photos or short videos you may have with a short description of project (e.g.
where in BC; what is activity; who was involved; date; key accomplishment) provided below.
Other Any other comments or ideas you would like to share? For example, in addition to
meeting the objectives of the Workshop, what expectations do you have for the workshop
– as in “I would consider the Workshop a success if…”
Silv Type 4 topic- I am very interested to see how these analyses will be incorporated
into the FFT planning process… to my mind, there should be a strong linkage between
what activities the model is suggesting that we undertake in order to meet our mid-term
timber supply goals, and how we allocate the LBIS budget. If we don’t do this, then we
won’t get value from the Type 4 work, and we also won’t be maximizing the benefit of
the LBIS $ that we are spending.
I will consider the meeting a success if a prioritized provincial 5 year plan is produced.
I will consider the meeting a success if all staff attending the meeting are engaged and
staff can learn from each other’s successes and failures.
Appendix D: Key Dates for LBIS FFT1
Key Dates
01-Jun Canvass FLNR executive on goals, objectives and strategic priorities (including scope)
01-Jun Conduct on-line query of stakeholders about this fiscal LBIS and suggestions for change or alteration next fiscal LBIS
Mid-May to late June
Manual brushing completed
Mid June Spring planting completed
Week July 1 Meet with Regional Resource Managers to begin regional and district engagement process where applicable
July 1-Aug 31 Investment category leads begin development of draft outputs and targets for the next three years
31-Jul Submit a completedd survey package to the Regional FFT staff for interim field audit
Mid-Aug to late Sept
Chemical brushing treatments completed
Sept 18-19 Current Reforestation/LBI Fall workshop - location TBD
15-Sep Submit sowiing request to Nursery Services for summer planting program
26-Sep Provide draft activity outputs and targets for next fiscal to RPB
30-Sep (i) call for quarterly report; (ii) summer planting completed
Oct 1-31 Seek Regional, District, First Nations, and stakeholder input into draft next fiscal LBIS
15-Oct Submit sowing request to Nursery Services for spring planting program
01-Nov Submit draft next fiscal LBIS to FLNR executive for consideration in next fiscal service plan and budget discussions
30-Nov All completed planting activities are reported into RESULTS by Nov 30th
06-Dec Submit first draft of the next fiscal year's management unit budget to the Regional FFT staff
15-Dec Run reports on planned activities for current and next fiscal and ensure alignment with completed activities; AOP and five year plan; make changes as required
Dec-Jan Provide Districts and Regions with a summary of planned outputs and targets for the next fiscal year
Jan Update Regions and stakeholders on focus and draft budget of the next fiscal LBIS
1 Note that the Key Dates posted at http://lbis.forestpracticesbranch.com/LBIS/node/246
are intended to change to reflect the revised dates capture in this Appendix
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
45
Appendix E: LBIS Planning and Delivery Framework
Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
The Land Based Investment Strategy (LBIS) Planning
and Delivery Framework describes the annual LBIS
planning and delivery cycle and outlines roles and
responsibilities.
This document has been prepared by the Corporate
Initiatives Division (Strategic Initiatives Branch) in
collaboration with the Resource Stewardship Division
(Resource Practices Branch). It will be reviewed
annually and updated as required.
Land Based Investment Strategy:
Contact:
Resource Practices Branch:
Allan Powelson, R.P.F.
P: 250-812-5054
Planning and Delivery Framework
April 2012
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
46
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
47
Context
The Land Based Investment Strategy (LBIS) was created in 2010 through consolidation of the
former Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands/Ministry of Natural Resource Operation’s mix of
land-based programs in order to ensure that limited funding will be expended in the most
efficient and effective way. The consolidated programs and associated funding included: the
Forest Investment Account – Land Based Investment program (FIA-LBIP); Forests for Tomorrow
(FFT); invasive plants; and forest health.
In 2011, following the creation of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations (MFLNRO), the LBIS was evaluated to consider:
How the strategy’s scope and suite of activities for 2012/13 and beyond could reflect
government’s priorities for the broader natural resource sector; and,
How it could contribute to the achievement of the ministry’s vision of “environmental
sustainability and economic prosperity”.
This framework reflects the recent evaluation of the LBIS and has been prepared to
describe the annual LBIS planning and delivery cycle, and outline roles and responsibilities
for staff involved with the strategy. This framework will be reviewed annually and
updated as required.
LBIS Purpose
The purpose of the LBIS is to guide ongoing resource investments and short-term targeted
investments in British Columbia’s natural resources to realize environmental sustainability and
economic prosperity.
LBIS funding is a distinct vote under MFLNRO, and is managed by the ministry’s Resource
Practices Branch.
LBIS goals and guidance for planning land-based investments were developed by the ministry’s
Corporate Initiatives Division (Strategic Initiatives Branch) in collaboration with the Resource
Stewardship Division (Resource Practices Branch).
Roles and Responsibilities are outlined in Appendix 1.
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
48
LBIS Goals
The goals of the LBIS are to:
Actively manage a portfolio of natural resources to uphold and enhance their value.
Mitigate impacts due to catastrophic environmental disturbance or human action.
Act on immediate needs/emerging priorities to enable the use of B.C.’s natural
resources and contribute to the achievement of economic, social and environmental
benefits.
LBIS Scope
Eligible investment categories and priorities will be determined annually using the strategic
direction from the following sources:
The Ministry’s service plan goals and objectives.
Annual regional and provincial work plans that identify key priorities and projects.
Other government commitments as described in the Throne Speech, Canada Starts
Here: the BC Jobs Plan, specific initiatives, Minister’s priorities, etc.
As well, some of the existing LBIS activities and projects may have long-term strategies that
identify priority work to be completed over a number of years.
LBIS Investment Principles
LBIS funding is for ‘on the ground’ activities that provide economic, environmental and social benefits to British Columbians.
LBIS funding is for discretionary investments, beyond standard obligations of licensees/tenure holders.
LBIS funding is not intended for activities that are part of the ministry’s operational land management programs including those that do not have an ‘on the ground’ focus.
Investment categories are determined each year based on LBIS goals, objectives, and strategic priorities. Funds will be allocated between and within investment categories considering the potential contribution to the goals, objectives and strategic priorities of the LBIS, relative to cost.
Land based investment activities will be delivered using the method deemed most effective and efficient to achieve the LBIS goals and objectives.
All investment category planning teams will seek additional external funding, where possible, to assist in achieving the LBIS goals and objectives.
The planning and allocation process will be open and transparent.
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
49
LBIS Annual Planning and Delivery Cycle An annual planning and delivery cycle has been prepared to explain the stages in the planning
process and describe the key deliverables that will be produced as the LBIS is prepared each
year.
See diagram Appendix 2.
Annual Allocation of LBIS Funding The annual allocation of LBIS funding, including the budget for activities in each of the eligible investment categories, will be determined each year using the following steps:
1) An investment rationale will be developed for each eligible investment category based on LBIS goals, scope, investment principles, and priorities.
The investment rationale will describe:
the issue(s) being addressed including the size and general area of impact within the province;
the proposed activities, outputs, targets and budget needs (required to fully address
the issue);
how an investment would result in a significant contribution to achieving key
government priorities;
if applicable, how an investment would address a MFLNRO statutory responsibility;
how much total funding would be required to resolve the issue;
how long it would take to resolve the issue at the proposed funding level;
the benefit(s) that could be achieved from an investment including: the types of
benefits e.g., economic/job creation, social, environmental with quantifiable and
qualitative information as available; and, how an investment would assist in the
achievement of indicators or targets in other investment categories;
whether there could be a significant risk or lost opportunity (social/safety,
economic, environmental) if the activity was not completed in the next fiscal year;
and,
opportunities for partnering/leveraging funding.
2) The investment rationales will be evaluated by each of the investment category teams, using a criteria ranking tool, to assess how the proposed activities align with:
key government priorities and statutory responsibilities;
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
50
the benefits that can be derived from the activities (economic, environmental and
social);
return on investment;
the opportunity for partnering/leveraging funding; and,
the risk or loss of opportunity of not implementing the proposed activity.
The criteria ranking tool is based on the Priority Ranking tool used in MFLNRO’s business planning process. Each evaluation criteria has a set of questions and associated points to help the reviewers assign a ranking score. The total points for the evaluation of each investment rationale will be tallied and an average score will be calculated. A draft budget allocation across the investment categories will be determined taking into consideration the ranked average scores for each of the evaluated investment categories. In order to capture input from a broad perspective, input on the evaluation of investment rationales and the draft budget allocation will be sought from across the ministry including provincial/branch and from each of the ministry regions. Starting with the 2012/13 planning and delivery cycle, input to the budget determination process will be gathered via the ministry’s Provincial Stewardship Leadership Team.
3) A draft recommended budget allocation will be presented to the ministry executive, for
approval by the Deputy Minister.
4) The final annual budget for LBIS will be determined through the ministry’s budget allocation process.
The criteria ranking tool is included in Appendix 3.
Reporting, Auditing and Evaluation of LBIS Achievements An annual report will be produced to report on performance indicators and program accomplishments towards the achievement of LBIS goals. Additional periodic reports e.g., quarterly reports, may be produced as required and/or directed in a format as specified. Auditing/quality assurance will be carried out to ensure that funded activities are consistent with
government standards as appropriate.
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
51
LBIS Communications and Engagement A communications plan will be developed, reviewed and updated annually to determine what, how, and when to communicate to the public about LBIS. As part of the communications plan, a website that includes current and relevant LBIS information will be maintained. An engagement strategy will be developed to focus initially on how the LBIS is being refined for 2012/13. Stakeholders, communities and First Nations will be considered in developing the engagement strategy.
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
52
Appendix 1: Roles and Responsibilities
Deputy Minister
Responsible for:
Approval of the Land Based Investment Strategy.
Assistant Deputy Minister -Resource Stewardship Division
Responsible for:
Approval of the transfer of funds between eligible investment categories.
Resource Stewardship Division, Resource Practices Branch (RPB)
Responsible for:
Develop, and update as required, a planning and delivery framework to facilitate: the
determination of LBIS scope, goals, investment principles, eligible investment
categories, and the investment allocation; reporting, auditing and evaluation of LBIS
achievements; communication and engagement as required through the annual
planning and delivery cycle.
Supporting the annual planning and delivery cycle by:
o Gathering and analyzing information to determine provincial priorities, and eligible
investment categories;
o Coordinating the development of investment rationales and outputs and targets for
each eligible investment category;
o Coordinating the annual funding allocation process;
o Preparing LBIS updates to the rolling 3 year strategy;
o Providing technical expertise and staff resources as required by the Corporate
Initiatives Division;
o Distributing communications materials and reports e.g., via internet or as
determined in the LBIS framework;
o Supporting engagement activities as required;
o Overall coordination of investment category teams through the annual planning and
delivery cycle e.g., managing the overall LBIS budget; managing activity standards;
gathering and compiling input from category teams for the annual budget allocation
process; gathering and compiling accomplishments for quarterly and annual
reports; auditing and quality assurance on activities as required; annual program
evaluation for continuous improvement.
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
53
Investment Category Leads
Responsible for:
Supporting the annual planning and delivery cycle by:
o Coordinating input from the specific category teams to develop and/or update,
and evaluate (using the criteria ranking tool) investment rationales for the
annual funding allocation process;
o Participating in the determination of, and reporting on, outputs and targets
specific to investment categories, required to achieve LBIS priorities, goals, and
objectives;
o Managing activity standards in collaboration with RPB;
o Providing oversight for the delivery of category specific activities included in the
LBIS e.g., coordinating First Nations information sharing;
o Supporting communication and engagement activities as required; and,
o Auditing/quality assurance to ensure that activities are consistent with
government standards.
FLNRO Regional and District Staff
Responsible for:
Supporting the annual planning and delivery cycle by:
o Identifying strategic gaps and opportunities in the LBIS planning process;
o Collaborating with investment category leads and RPB e.g., to recommend
tactics needed to achieve LBIS goals, objectives, indicators and targets; and to
identify priority treatment areas;
o Balancing activity proposals to optimize achievement of regional/district
indicators and targets in alignment with LBIS goals and priorities;
o Collaborating with RPB in the development of (delivery allowance) cost caps;
o Achieving LBIS outputs/targets within their respective region/district where they
are directly responsible for delivery;
o Communicating provincial, regional/district indicators, targets and tactics for
LBIS and where applicable, supporting additional communication and
engagement activities as required;
o Where applicable, managing regionally held recipient agreements;
o Where applicable, reviewing information sharing with First Nations undertaken
by third parties (delivery agents) to ensure it is adequate for the LBIS project to
proceed;
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
54
o Providing information about the achievement of LBIS outputs for preparation of
annual (and other) reports and where applicable, ensuring timely entry of
accomplishments into databases, e.g., RESULTS;
o Auditing/quality assurance to ensure that activities undertaken are consistent
with government standards.
o Monitoring program implementation collaboratively with RPB and other staff.
Reviews may be done on recipient agreement holders, contractors, districts, BCTS
and industry work.
Provincial Stewardship Leadership Team
Responsible for:
Supporting the annual planning and delivery cycle by:
o Identifying strategic gaps and opportunities in the LBIS planning process;
o Providing input to the LBIS budget determination process;
o Providing input to the program evaluation process.
LBIS Forests for Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013
55
Appendix 2: LBIS Annual Planning and Delivery Cycle
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 56
Appendix 3: LBIS Criteria Ranking Tool LBIS Ranking Criteria Description Points
Key Government Priority Is the activity a high profile priority of
Cabinet or the Minister or a key objective of the ministry service plan?
MFLNRO and/or Government priority (e.g. supported by
Minister or Cabinet announcement)
15
MFLNRO priority (Deputy Minister/ADM direction) or has
been identified as a regional priority
10
Not a MFLNRO priority, however it has been identified as a
regional or district or provincial priority by the investment category
3
None of the above 0
Statutory Responsibility Does the activity address a MFLNRO statutory responsibility? (does not
include legal reforestation obligations)
Directly required to make statutory decisions or adhere to statutory requirements
10
Indirectly required to make statutory decisions or adhere to
statutory requirements
7
Not required to make statutory decisions or adhere to
statutory requirements
0
Scope of Benefit Magnitude of the expected impact in
addressing MFLNRO goals, objectives and strategic priorities
Provides provincially significant benefits in at least one
category – social/safety, economic, environmental
15
Provides regionally significant benefits in at least one
category – social/safety, economic, environmental
10
Provides locally significant benefits in at least one category
– social/safety, economic, environmental
5
No significant benefits 0
Multiple Benefits What is the potential for the activity to
provide positive benefits in more than one category (social/safety, economic,
environmental)
Provides high or moderately significant benefits in all three
categories (social/safety, economic, environmental)
10
Provides high or moderately significant benefits in two categories (social/safety, economic, environmental)
5
Reliability of Benefits Strength of evidence that the activity
will result in the projected outcomes
High likelihood that outcomes will be realized 6
Moderate likelihood that outcomes will be realized 4
Low likelihood that outcomes will be realized 2
No likelihood that outcomes will be realized 0
Risk/Opportunity/Urgency If the activity is not completed this
fiscal year, does it pose a significant risk or lost opportunity (social/safety,
economic, environmental)?
Poses significant risk or loss of opportunity 9
Poses moderate risk or loss of opportunity 6
Poses low risk or loss of opportunity 3
No risk or loss of opportunity 0
Job Creation To what extent will the allocation of
resources to this activity create employment opportunities?
Provincial significant long and short term employment 7
Regionally significant long and short term employment 4
Locally significant long and short term employment, or addresses government’s objectives for Aboriginal job
creation
2
No or minimal long and short term employment 0
Return on Investment To what extent will the allocation of resources to this activity create greater
return on investment or benefit cost
ratio?
Provincially significant social, safety, economic or environmental return on investment
9
Regionally significant social, safety, economic or
environmental return on investment
6
Locally significant social, safety, economic or environmental return on investment
5
No return on investment or minimal benefit 0
Partnering/Leveraging To what extent will the allocation of resources to this activity attract the
resources of other parties or
organizations
Provincially significant partnership/leveraging 6
Regionally significant partnership/leveraging 4
Locally significant partnership/leveraging 2
No likelihood of partnership/leveraging 0
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 57
Appendix F: LBIS Priorities for FFT
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 58
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 59
Appendix G: Actions from FFT Fall 2012 Richmond Workshop
Below are the Actions from the Fall 2012 FFT Workshop that are in the Meeting Synopsis:
Session 1: Review Budget Numbers
Action #1: Updating 2013/14 Annual Operating Plan (AOP) and 5-Year Plan. Al Powelson will
send FLNR operations staff a digital copy of the draft AOP and 5-Year Plan in excel with guidance on
how it needs to be updated and by when. Note: This was done via Al’s Sept. 19th 2012 e-mail to staff.
Action #2: Unit Costs. Al Powelson will review unit costs per treatment activity and how these line up
(e.g. between adjacent management units) to assess that they are reasonable.
Action #3: Updating reported accomplishments in RESULTS. Caroline MacLeod will provide data
on reported accomplishments in RESULTS per district and flag any potential discrepancies for
applicable districts.
Session 2: Debrief Activities Completed to Date
Action #4: Community forests. Work with Community Forest to integrate their requests in the District
5-year plans.
Action #5: Third party delivery. If staff have experienced concerns with third party delivery, please
raise them with Dave Cornwell so that he can work with the delivery agent to resolve the concern and
improve communications.
Session 5: Backlog NSR, RESULTS Data Trends and Training Needs
Action #6: Updated Backlog NSR data. A new extract (graph) based on the most recent run of
RESULTS data will be available to district staff before the September 20th Backlog NSR meeting.
Action #7: RESULTS training needs. Please let Caroline know of your training needs as they relate to
RESULTS reporting as it is critical that FFT program investments and accomplishments get reflected in
RESULTS,
Action #8: RESULTS reporting issues. All openings with issues will be sent by Caroline and Matt to
each district so they can be addressed/resolved.
Action #9: Form RESULTS working group. A working group with Lilijana Knezevic, Barb Wadey,
Carolyn Stevens, Dave C., Al P. and others who may be interested should be formed to assist
Caroline/Matt address various RESULTS issues faced by operations staff such as forward planning,
labeling (remove/retire), review of large areas, how to address historic (outdated) planned activities, how
to clean-up RESULTS data, etc.
Action #10: Update legal obligations. Any caribou mitigation decisions by government that result in
some areas being waived as a legal obligation to reforest need to be reflected in RESULTS.
Session 6: Wildfire Management Branch: Opportunities for Collaboration
Action #11: Stocking standards to support wildfire management objectives. Resource Practices
Branch to work with Wildfire Management Branch and operations staff to develop suitable standards.
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 60
Session 9: Case Study: BCTS – Collaboration in Deliver
Action #12: Identify opportunities to improve MOU/ITSL. Staff should share any ideas to improve
the LBIS BCTS MOU or use of the ITSL for FFT Current Reforestation to address local needs with
Dave Cornwell.
Action #13: Involving major licensees in their chart areas. The BCTS MOU and eligibility criteria
could be adapted for use with major licensees so they have opportunity to be involved in FFT delivery.
Session 10: Resource Worker Safety and Hand Falling Guidelines
Action #14: FLNR Safety Management System. Contact Tom Jackson if any questions or concerns
about FLNR’s Safety Management System as it rolls out including policy, guidance, and roles and
responsibilities.
Action #15: New falling certificate and designated supervisor requirements. All applicable
FLNR/BCTS staff need to get message out about April 1st, 2013 requirements for a falling certificate and
designated supervisor. If the company has any concerns about the requirements, have them contact Tom
Jackson.
Session 11: Forest Health
Action #16: Locally developed stocking standards that address forest health. Contact Jennifer and
your regional forest health specialist if interested in developing stocking standards that address local
forest health issues.
Action #17: Identify your forest health training needs to Branch or regional forest health staff.
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 61
Appendix H: LBIS Delivery Approach
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 62
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 63
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 64
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 65
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 66
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 67
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 68
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 69
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 70
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 71
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 72
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 73
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 74
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 75
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 76
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 77
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 78
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 79
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 80
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 81
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 82
LBIS Forests For Tomorrow (FFT) Workshop Workbook September 2013 Page 83
