230 likes | 258 Views
Operational Planning Issues. Jim Hunt RPF N&R Forest Management Ltd . Squamish Kathryn Willis RPF BCTS, Campbell River Richmond, Feb. 10, 2011. Prescription Development. Lumping and Splitting Scale of Treatment Areas Access Mapping Timing of Harvest Other questions.
E N D
Jim Hunt RPFN&R Forest Management Ltd.SquamishKathryn Willis RPFBCTS, Campbell RiverRichmond, Feb. 10, 2011
Prescription Development • Lumping and Splitting • Scale of Treatment Areas • Access • Mapping • Timing of Harvest • Other questions
Biological Factors First • Species composition • Site Index • Age • Health • Moisture/Nutrient regime • Crown expansion • Height/diameter ratio
Numerous Polygons Assessed • Greater effort with small polygons. • Audits are now asking for heights and diameters. • How much time to assess stands? • How rigorously should biological criteria be applied?
What Level of Stratification? • What priority of stands acceptable? • Good ground has mainly been done, medium priority now getting more consideration. • Do ROI on stratum or polygons? • Preferable to treat a drainage at a time.
Lumping and Splitting • Different professionals use different judgments to split out stands or lump them together to create treatment units. • Both are defensible. • More guidance or discussion or analysis on lumping/splitting would be helpful.
Biological and Operational Factors • Biological is #1. • Balance with practicality. • Increasing heli company efficiency should yield better costs and value.
Scale of Treatment Area • Small polygons are problematic. • At 20 ha, pilot spends half of time turning. • 60 m wide swaths, apply for seconds in small or irregular shaped areas. • Hard to achieve accurate coverage and application rate. • Costs increase and risk of payment penalty increases with small block size.
Pilots prefer 500 m swaths across the contour. • Ferry distances and elevation lifts are big cost factors. • What are practical parameters for projects? • Block size • Proximity of blocks
Planning • Current contracts driven by funding, up to contractor to find areas. • Strategic approach would be better. • Where will treatments occur in coming years? • Group projects to use ground efficiently. • Better planning with inventory.
Time of year • Moving into higher elevations, more remote ground. • Late season - additional costs (plowing). • Safety concerns. • Empty trucks descending steep inclines. • FIA funding timing.
Access • Traditional B-train access. • WAA grain trucks can now access smaller load sites on more rugged, steeper roads. • Could develop more remote projects.
Road Work • Should budgets include costs to improve road access? • Difficult to anticipate access, rehab.
Mapping • Buffers time consuming to prescribe. • May not reflect visible flow at treatment. • Prudent to map buffers to reduce risk of overflying and reflect accurate areas. • Good to have overflow area.
Mapping Technology • On-board Trimble nav system calculates area by swath length and width. • Downloaded shp files digitized to produce area for RESULTS. • Final areas can vary from monitored areas. • Can be problematic with small Work Areas. • Aim for large Work Areas to reduce mapping discrepancies.
Timing of Harvest • Consultation with licensees currently recipient responsibility. • Probably better for hands-on contractor to consult on harvest planning. • Hard to get good responses from Licensees and BCTS on future harvest. • Important driver of ROI
Water Quality • 4.1.(b).v “Water quality monitoring plan, if appropriate to the water resource of the Work Area” • When is ‘appropriate’ if not in a community watershed or around water licenses?
High Site Index • Some conflicting information on selection of stands with SI>32. • Not preferable, but may yield a benefit. • Quality of Tipsy data?
Species At Risk • Any concerns with SAR?