Maximum Density Policy Change Proposal
The attached decision note package was presented to the Interior OIF groups. The main document is the “Max Density Decision Note Oct 7 2020”. The Coast OIF industry members are asked to review and provide any comments by October 4, 2021.
Appendix_1_MAX_Density_Issues_Note_Oct7_2020
Appendix_2_Combined_Liability_Feb_6_2020
Appendix_3_NIFR_Max_Density_Policy_Letter_Aug 2_2007
Appendix_3_SIFR_Max_Density_Policy_Letter_Feb 8_2006
MAX_Density_Decision_Note_Oct7_2020
Background:
Greg Jorgenson (Victoria) is leading an initiative to update the maximum density guidance for FSPs across the interior of the province. The guidance will need to be reviewed by the Coast OIF. The joint chairs of the Coast OIF asked that we review the guidance to understand how it will influence coastal operations. The intent is to discuss our findings on how the Coast fits into the process considering maximum density and obligation spacing in the province.
We don’t expect that maximum density target is considered on most coastal sites.
· The revised policy will introduce a benefit model (Repression Density Decision Key) to determine density threshold for treatment of high density stands
· Very little application of maximum density Result/Strategy on the Coast
· Very small area 1.3ha spaced as of 2007
· New policy will essentially eliminate obligation to space high density stands prior to free growing (When max density has been listed in the FSP)
· Maximum density has been used in the FSP associated with wildfire risk reduction projects to ensure risk (crown fire) is managed
Essentially, the recommended decision will eliminate the obligation for spacing regenerated plantations due to an arbitrary maximum stem/ha target. The new guidance will use a modelling tool to determine when spacing will have a net benefit to the stand and invested activity cost.
Kylie and I have checked with District offices on how many coastal licensees have a result and strategy in FSPs for maximum density.
We have found maximum density is not considered a common strategy on the Coast.
A quick query in the FSP tracker. General findings:
- Of a total 159, 129 total unique Coast stocking standard IDs in the FSP tracker, only 13,306 of them (approx. 8%) have a maximum density specified (MAX_CONIFER). (Note there may be additional deciduous stocking standards with max density not captured in the FSP tracker)
- Approx 50% of the stocking standards with max density are older (effective 2007 or earlier)
- Some of the max density requirements are for management of unique values (as noted by Kathryn below, for fuel management, or for owl in DCK for example) ie unrelated to reforestation for timber values.
- Chilliwack District has the highest percentage of stocking standards with a max density requirement (61%).
A RESULTS query of Chilliwack juvenile spacing treatments, and of the 27,000+ ha of area juvenile spaced, only 11 ha is listed as funded by “Industry Appraisal”, and only 206 ha (for all funding sources) has been juvenile spaced since 2007. A total of 1.3 ha has been spaced for industry appraisal since 2007 (in a Woodlot). The vast majority of spacing appears to have been done in the 1980s and 1990s (~26,000 ha). I didn’t query the other Districts for spacing but I imagine the trend is similar.
The recommended decision will essentially eliminate the obligation for spacing regenerated plantations due to an arbitrary maximum stem/ha target. The new guidance will use a modelling tool (Repression Density Decision Key) to determine when spacing will have a net benefit to the stand and invested activity cost (for example, could assist decision making in the work some of you have been involved in for “cedar release” where high density hemlock has been spaced to allow a higher proportion of cedar to regenerate).
Ritchard LaBoucane, R.P.F.
Forest Stewardship Section Head
Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development
West Coast Natural Resource Region