UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Total resource design: documentation of a method and a discussion of its potential for application in.. Duff, Julie Elizabeth 1994-02-27

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0406.pdf [ 3.07MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0075254.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075254-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075254-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075254-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075254-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075254-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075254-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

TOTALRESOURCEDESIGN:Documentation ofa method and a discussionofits potentialfor application in British Columbia.byJULIEELIZABETHDUFFB.Sc. (Hons.), University of Edinburgh 1992.A THESIS SUBMITTEDINPARTIALFULFILLMENTOFTHEREQUIREMENTS FORTHEDEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHEFACULTY OFGRADUATESTUDIES(DepartmentofForestResources Management)THEUNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember 1994© Julie ElizabethDuff, 1994We acceptthis thesisIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment ofthe requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, Iagree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I furtheragree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes maybe granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. it is understoodthat copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall notbe allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of1h’tSThe University of BritishColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE-6 (2/88)IIAbstract.Total Resource Design (TRD) was developed forapplication in British Columbia (B.C.)by Simon Bell of the British Forestry Commission. It is based on a process calledLandscape Analysis and Design developed by the U.S. Forest Service and uses a designprocess to translate broad objectives for a forest landscape into a design of ‘managementunits’ and guidelines for their future management. This design is based on an analysis ofthe ecological functioning of the landscape, its visual character and the various resourceuses and values presentin the landscape. Although the process ofdesignis widely used inother professions, its application in a forestry context in B.C. is new. Therefore, inJanuary 1994 atestapplication ofthe process was carried out by the Ministry ofForests inthe WestArm Demonstration Forest, Nelson, B.C.This thesis documents the detailed method for the application of TRD which evolvedduring this test case. It is hoped that this method can be used as guidance for futureapplications ofTRD in the Province.The final results of the West Arm Demonstration Forest test case are not yet known.However, basedon the concepts used in TRD and its predictedoutputs, itis suggested thatTotal Resource Design has the potential to address many current deficiencies in forestplanning in British Columbia. Despite its potential to address these issues, it is emphasizedthatTRD is still in the test stages in B.C. It is also merely a framework to guidethe designand management of a landscape. Its success will rely on the quality of the informationavailable and the commitment of the team responsible for its implementation. Ithas thepotential to greatly improve the effectiveness ofintegrated resource managementofforestlands inBritish Columbia.111Tab’e of Contents.AbstractiiTable of ContentsiiiList of TablesvList of FiguresviAcknowledgementsviiCHAPTER 1: Introduction11.1 Scope of Thesis11.2 Background: Total Resource Design and its Evolution to Date41.3 Objectives7CHAPTER 2: A Reviewofthe Ecological PrinciplesEmployedinTotal ResourceDesign82.1 Introduction82.2 Landscape : A Definition82.3 The ecological functioning of landscapes9CHAPTER 3: Total Resource Design - The Method163.1 Introduction163.2 Total Resource Design: A Design Process173.3 The Total Resource Design Workshop213.3.1 Aims213.3.2 Study Area223.4TheMethod, and Results ofits Applicationto the WestArmDemonstration Forest233.4.1 Preparation233.4.2 Setting Objectives for the Area263.4.3 Survey of the Area263.4.4 Analysis283.4.4.1 Constraints and Opportunities30iv3.4.4.2 Landscape Ecological Analysis 323.4.4.3 Landscape Character Analysis 633.4.5 Scenario Development 673.4.5.1 Concept Design Generation 673.4.5.2 Sketch Design 703.4.6 Assessment 733.4.7 Presentation 753.5 Conclusion 76CHAPTER4: ThePotential ofTotal Resource Designfor General Applicationin British Columbia 794.1 Introduction 794.2 CouldTotal Resource Design Fill Any ‘Gaps’ in Forest ResourcePlanning in B.C 804.3 How Does the ApproachofTotal Resource Design Compare WithThat of Current Integrated Resource Planning Procedures9 824.4Incorporation ofTotal Resource Designintothe Current ForestPlanning Framework 844.5How DoesTotal Resource Design Incorporate the Requirementsof the Forest Practices Code9 864.6An Exampleofa Scenarioin B.C. Whose Properties Suggest theUse of Total Resource Design 90CHAPTER 5: Conclusions98References103Appendix 1: Participants in Workshop108VList of TablesTable 1. Landscape Objectives for the WestArm Demonstration Forest (WADF) 27Table 2. The inventory information collated for the WADF workshop 29Table 3. Constraints and opportunities for the WADF 32Table 4. Landscape structures identified in the WADF 35Table 5. Important flows in the WADF landscape 41Table 6. Flows within the elements ofthe landscape matrix ofthe WADF 44Table 7. Flows within the patches in the WADF landscape 45Table 8. Flows within the corridors in the WADF landscape 46Table 9. Disturbance patterns identified for the WADF 50Table 10. Firecharacteristics and successional pathways forfiregroups 9&1 1 (USForest Service, Montana) 51Table 11. Characteristics and suggested intervention forvegetation types in the WADF..58Table 12. Summary of stand structural objectives for the WADF 59Table 13. Habitatrequirementsin lands adjacent to MountRevelstokeand GlacierNational Parks 95viList of Fi2ures.Figure 1. The steps involved in a design process 18Figure 2 The steps involved in the Total Resource Design process 20Figure 3. The West Arm Demonstration Forest (WADF) 22Figure4 A perspectiveillustrationoftheconstraints andopportunities on the Queens!Laird creek area of the WADF 31Figure 5. The location ofthe main opportunities and constraints in the WADF 31Figure 6. The steps of landscape ecological analysis 33Figure7. Location (and pattern) oflandscape matrix and patches in the WADF 36Figure 8. Location of major corridors in the WADF landscape 36Figure 9. An estimation ofthe locationofmajorflows in the WADFlandscape 41Figure 10. A map of the flows in the WADFwhich link with the surroundinglandscape53Figure 11. Locationof ‘ecological units’ to which stand structuralobjectives can.be applied in the WADF 60Figure 12. Landform analysis ofQueens!Laird areaofthe WADF, planimetricform65Figure 13. Landform analysis ofQueens/Laird areaofthe WADF, perspective view 65Figure 14. Landform analysis of the WADF, planimetric illustration 67Figure 15. Final sketchdesign formanagement units ofthe WADF - planimetnc view....72Figure 16. Sketch design fordesigned units in the Queens/Laird faceof theWADFplanimetric view 72Figure 17. Sketch designfordesigned units in the Queens/Lairdfaceofthe WADFperspective view73Figure 18. Forest planning framework80viiAcknowled2ments.The production of this thesis could not have takenplace without the many hours ofconversation, guidanceand encouragementI received from those peopleinvolved inTotalResource Design, its developmentand itsapplication in British Columbia.Firstly, thanks must go to Mr. Dean Apostolof the U.S. Forest Service and Mr SimonBell of the British Forestry Commissionfor giving generously of their time andknowledge. Theirexperience withthe developmentand application oftheTotal ResourceDesignprocess wasoften required when facedwith problemsorquestionsofinterpretationandtheirencouragement and enthusiasm forthe subject was amotivating forcebehindthisthesis.Thank you alsoto the British ColumbiaMinistryofForests, Nelson Region, forprovidingthe opportunity toparticipate in theirapplicationofTotal ResourceDesign to the WestArmDemonstration Forest. I hope that the broadmindedand insightful approach shown by thestaff of Nelson Region and Kootenay LakeForest Districtcontinues, and that it acts as atemplate forotherregions and districtsto follow. In particular, I mustthankthefollowingfor making me feel very welcomein the Kootenays, and for their unerring supportandencouragement: Dave Crampton, Larry Price(Nelson Forest Region), Chris Mulvihill(Kootenaylake ForestDistrict) and theremaining members oftheWestArm DemonstrationForestplanning committee.Thank you to Susan Hall of Parks Canadafor her insight into the problems faced byprotected areas agencies, and to MelaniePlatz and Allan Lidstone of the IntegratedResources Branch ofthe Ministry of Forestsfor their patience in guiding me throughtheeverchangingand complex world offorestplanning in British Columbia.General appreciation is extended toDr. PeterDooling forhis guidance, to my supervisorycommittee and to my fellow graduate studentsin the Natural Resource Conservationprogram - thank you for the support, engagingdiscussion and camaraderie over the pasttwo years.Thank you finally toAl andto my family - whohave all waited with concernandpatienceformy returnhome.1Chapter 1.Introduction1.1 Scope of the thesis.Total Resource Design (TRD) is an integratedapproach to the planning and designofforest landscapes. It was developedby Simon Bell, a landscape architect andforester withthe British Forestry Commission,and was modeled closely on workby Nancy Diaz andDean Apostol of the Mount Hood NationalForest, Oregon. Essentially, TRD providesastrategyforthe design of apatternofmanagement units across aforest landscape,based onan understanding of how the subjectlandscape functions as an ecologicalsystem. Withinthe structure of a design process, this understandingis combined with objectives forthelandscape and the resources itcontains,and with any policies ordirection fromhigherlevelplanning processes to synthesize solutionsfor the position, attributes and ultimatemanagement ofthese units.It is a frameworkforcompromise and providesa forum forallparties involved with the managementofa landscape, to become actively involvedwith thecreation ofsolutions forits integrated management.Total Resource Design is at present,merely a ‘proposed process’ in British Columbia(B.C.). Bell, who had been involvedwith Diaz and Apostol in the developmentof aprecursorprocess (called ‘LandscapeAnalysis and Design’), introducedTRD to membersof the B.C. Ministry ofForestsin 1993. Recognizing its potential value, andencouragedby the results from Mount Hood in Oregon,it was quickly realized that TRD could haveafuture in British Columbiaandthus should be tested and assessedinapractical application.The initiative for such a test came fromadministrators in Nelson ForestRegion and theKootenay Lake Forest District, whodecided to try to apply Total ResourceDesignto theWest Arm Demonstration Forest (WADF)which is situated just north of the townofNelson, in south-eastern B.C.2A workshop, bringing together all the parties responsible for the management of theWest Arm DemonstrationForestand members ofthe local community, was held in Nelsonin January 1994. Its purpose was to take Bell’s outline method forTRD, to apply it to theWADFand then to analyze the results. Simon Bell returned to British Columbia on 23rdJanuary 1994 to lead the workshop, bringingwith him an outline ofthe methodand an ideaofthe results itshould produce. However, in orderto actually implement the steps of thismethod, Bell and the participants had to determine the details of how each step was to becarriedout using the information resources available and the extentofthe resourceconflictspresent in the areaof study. Throughoutthe workshop he presented a setofgoals which hefelt should be achieved by each step, and, in essence the workshop then became a series ofproblem solving exercises - how could the team work together, within the informationconstraints presentto fulfill each ofthese goals and thus implementTotal Resource Design?By tackling these problems, the workshop resulted in the clarification of a more detailedmethod for the B.C. application of the concepts and original outline method provided byBell.The emphasis of this thesis is to take the experience gained from the West ArmDemonstrationForest application and to combine itwith thework ofBell (MOF 1993a) andthat of Diaz and Apostol of the US Forest Service (Diaz and Apostol 1992) to produce adetailed method for the future application ofTRD in British Columbia. This will providestep by step guidance on how each stage of the method can be approached in the future,with details on some of the problems which can be expected along the way. It will reachbeyond the conclusionsof the workshopitselfand will be the firstin-depth documentationofthe Total Resource Design approach as applied in British Columbia. It is hoped that itwill therefore facilitate further applications of the process in the Province, leading to awider empirical testing ofits performance Within various ecosystems, climatic regions andareas of differing resource use. Ultimately, the results of this testing could be used to3determine whether Total Resource Design can live up to its objectives and so provide theProvince witha practical and feasible forest planning tool.In addition the application of Total Resource Design in B.C. is likely to alsobe ofinterest to members of the international forestry community. For example, basedon hisinvolvementwith the process here, Simon Bell is currentlyattempting to apply a modifiedversion of Total Resource Design to areas of forest in Great Britain. Diaz andApostolcontinue to refine and adapt their Landscape Analysis and Design model inOregon, andwill be watching the resultsofTotal Resource Design with interest. DocumentationoftheapplicationofTRD in British Columbia, as provided by this thesis, will communicatetheprogress which has been madewithTotal Resource Design in this provinceto date.A second componentofthis thesis will be to examine the attributes ofTotal ResourceDesign which may influence whether it can be considered for general usein BritishColumbia. Theapplication ofTRD to the WestArm Demonstration Forest was initiatedtoestablish whether the process could be realisticallyapplied in B.C., and to evaluate whetheror not it would be feasible to implement. Unfortunately, the final resultsof the WADFapplicationlie at least a yearaway and so only limited analyses of its performancecan becarried out. However, other questions which relate not to the specific details or resultsofits application but to the concepts and attributes of the overall process, alsoneed to beaddressed before it could beconsidered for widerapplication. Forexample, isan approachlike Total Resource Design required in British Columbia? Is there a similar approachcurrently in place? If there is, would TRD be an improvement on the status quo ? HowwouldTotal Resource Designfit into the currentforest planning framework, andare thereany particular scenarios in B.C. for which TRD would seem to providean obviousplanning solution ? The answers to these questions should helpto identify the potentialTotal resourceDesign may have forapplication in B.C.4Toconclude this introductorychapter, abriefoverview ofTotal ResourceDesignand itsaims will be provided, followed by anoutlineofhow and why itevolved to this point. Thiswill explain whyTRD was initially deemed potentially useful in British Columbia and thusworthy of testing and further study. Then, in chapter 2, the ecological principles whichform an important part of Total Resource Design will be examined. An account of thedevelopment oftheTRD method, adescription ofthe steps involved and an illustrationofeach using the WADF example will be provided in Chapter 3. Finally, Chapter 4 willdiscuss attributes of the Total Resource Design process which may contribute to itspotential forapplication in B.C.1.2 Background : Total Resource Design and its evolution to dateTotal Resource Design - an overviewTotal ResourceDesign is an integrated and holistic approach to forest design. Appliedto a forestlandscape, its purpose is to provide a meansoftranslating a general direction forthe landscape provided by a higherlevel plan, intoa design for theshape, size and positionof units in the landscape, which can then be managed for various objectives, such astimber, rangeor wildlife. The process ofTotal Resource Design, as its name suggests, isone ofdesign. A design team made up of representativesofthe differentresources withinthe landscape work together, guided by the design framework of the TRD method, toidentify objectives for the landscapeand to carryouta series ofanalyses (ecological, visualand practical opportunities and constraints for management). Based on all of these, theythen develop a ‘target’ for the landscape .This is a desired landscape pattern of patches,corridors and background matrix, which will fulfill all of the resource objectives for thelandscape.The designer on the team, skilled in the design process and the use of visual designprinciples, takes this targetand the results ofthe various analyses and attempts to fitunitsonto the landscape. These will comply with the analyses, will fit visually into the5landscape, and if managed appropriately in the future, should allow the target landscapepatternto be achieved. Through this type ofapproach, the goal ofTotal ResourceDesign isto allow the objectives for the landscape to be met while ensuring the maintenance of theecological functioning and visual quality ofthe landscape.The evolution of Total Resource DesignTRD is an inherently multi-disciplinary process, combining different approachesandprinciples to produce a solution to a problem. Total Resource Design wasdevelopedthrough the combination of approaches and thoughts of individuals trainedin differentways to tackle a common problem the design of forest landscapes. SimonBell, whileworkingon visual landscape design in the Mount Hood National Forest,Oregon, started todiscuss some of the landscapes with Nancy Diaz, the resident landscape ecologist.Herwork in the forest was concerned with designing the management of theecologicalattributes of its landscapes. In essence, what followed was a period of ‘brain-storming’between Diaz, Bell and Dean Apostol, the landscape architect for thenationalforest. Themainquestion they addressed was whether they could use landscape ecologyas a basis fordesign. In other words, could the naturally occurring shapes and distributions of ecologicalelementsin the landscape be used as a template orkey to guide the design ofmanagementunits in the landscape? If so, the product would produce a design which would allowtimberharvesting and managementof the landscape to take place in a way which wouldbeboth ecologically and visuallyacceptable(D. Apostol. pers, corn, 1994).Through discussions and refinementa method developed for the production of suchadesign. This was calledLandscape Analysis andDesign and the resultsofanapplication ofthis technique to an area ofthe Mount Hood National Forest were published by DiazandApostol in 1992. The original stimulus for Diaz’s work on theuse oflandscape ecology inthe design of forest landscapes, and the incentive behind the application of LandscapeAnalysis and Design, was in response to a growing concern, both by the publicand within6the scientificcommunity, overthe effects offorestryon visual and wildlife resourcesat thelandscapelevel. Forest operations ata stand level were normally well plannedand executedin the Pacific Northwest, but their effects on other stands, or cumulatively over a forestlandscape, were rarely considered (Diaz and Apostol 1992). A pattern of clear-cuts anddifferent age classes of younger forest was being imposed on the landscape withoutconsideration ofthe implications forthe biological resources and human interactions. Asarticulatedby DiazandApostol:“As long as forest management agencies carry out activities that changevegetation, new landscape patterns will be created. The paramountquestionis ‘will we allow that process to be informed by our understanding oflandscapes as ecological systems, or will landscape patterns continue toevolve as a proliferation ofindependent actions?’The hope is to encourage amore enlightened, purposeful and objective development of forestlandscapes.” (Diaz andApostol 1992:1.1).Landscape Analysis and Design suggested a methodology which avoided forcing auniform set of restrictions or requirements on the management of forest landscapes butratherrecognized thateach landscape had its own characteristics which should be managedin an individual way. The logic of the process was summarized by Diaz and Apostol asfollows:“1. The landscape should be understood as an ecological system.2. This understanding should be used, along with existing direction andlocal issues to derive objectives aboutlandscape pattern.3. The spatial design ofthat pattern should be used to inform and evaluatethe progressive implementation of land management strategies.”(DiazandApostol 1992:1.2).Bell, through work with the Ministry ofForests in British Columbia, becamefamiliarwith the difficulties faced by forest managers in the Province in trying to reconcile thedifferentresource values in the landscape with the extraction oftimber. He also recognizedsome similarities with those issues which had stimulated the work ofDiaz and Apostol inOregon. Thus, he introduced the concepts Landscape Analysis and Design to B.C.,7modified to accommodate the differentforest planning framework which existshere andcustomized them to incorporate the forestryand ecological terms used in thisjurisdiction.To avoid confusion with the Oregon model, he also gave it a new title - TotalResourceDesign. This thesis is a study of the continued evolution of Total ResourceDesign inBritish Columbia and the potential it may have forwidespread application here in thefuture.1.3 ObjectivesIn summary, the objectives of this thesis are to:1. Documentthe methodfor the application ofTotal ResourceDesign in BritishColumbia;2. Document, where available, the results of a case study application carried out bytheMinistry ofForests on the WestArm DemonstrationForest, Nelson Region;3. Estimate, where possible, the logistical requirements for carrying out TotalResourceDesign, and the implications forthe resources involved;4. Gain a knowledge and understanding ofcurrent Ministry ofForestsadministrative andplanning processes, theirdeficiencies and possible future trends.5. Discuss the ability of TRD to incorporate oraccommodate existing planningframeworks, guidelines and the Forest Practices Code (Province of British Columbia1994); and6. Use the findings from the case study applicationto draw conclusions on thepotentialrole of Total Resource Design in the planning of provincial forest lands inBritishColumbia.8Chapter 2An introduction to the ecologicalprinciples employed in Total ResourceDesign2.1 IntroductionThe purpose of this chapter is toprovide an introduction to the ecologicalprinciplesused in Total Resource Design andso to facilitate an understandingof the contents ofsubsequentchapters. These principleswereemployed by Diaz and Apostolin their processofLandscape Analysis and Design, and asthe two processesare conceptuallyvery similar,they have also been applied inTotal Resource Design. The linch-pinof the approachadopted in TRD is the conceptthat landscapes function as ecologicalsystems. A majoraspect of the method is thereforeto analyze the subject landscapeto try to achieve anunderstanding of how the subjectlandscape functions in this regard.This analysis wasdeveloped by Diaz, a landscapeecologist, and thus it is structuredusing the principles oflandscape ecology (DiazandApostol1992).The unit of study in Total Resource Designis, as has been mentioned, a landscape.Therefore at this point, a definitionof a ‘landscape’ will be provided. Thisshould clarifyfrom the outset, both the contentsand scale ofa landscape, as interpreted bythis thesis.2.2 Landscape a definitionThe word ‘landscape’is one which has undergone an expansionin meaning in thehistory of its use, with the result thatit is currently used with variousmeanings andconnotations. The English word landscapecame from the Dutch word landschapinreference to their early landscapepaintings. This term gradually developed“from a mereindication of an area somewherein space to the character ofan area according to itscontents” (Zonneveld 1988).So, through time its meaning hasbeen taken beyond therealms ofscenic and aesthetic description andhas becomemore synonymous withthe landitselfand its structural composition.9Landscape ecology is concerned with the ecological functioningof spatial units, and alandscape in this contextbecame defined as:“a part of the space on the earth’s surface, consistingof a complex ofsystems, formed by the activityof rock, water, air, plants, animals andman and that by its physiognomy forms arecognizableentity “ (Zonneveld1979 in Forman and Godron 1986:7).Forman and Godron in theirtreatise on landscapeecology,furtherdefine alandscape as:a heterogeneous land areacomposed ofaclusterofinteractingecosystemsthat is repeated in similar form throughout....a landscapeis a distinct,measurable unitdefined by its recognizable and spatiallyrepetitive clusterofinteracting ecosystems, geomorphology and disturbanceregimes” (Formanand Godron 1986:11).This is a much quoted definition in the literature(see Risser 1987, Rowe 1988,Merriam 1988). It was the one used by Diaz andApostol in their development ofLandscapeAnalysisandDesign (Diaz and Apostol 1992)and has been carried through intoTotal Resource Design. According to this definition, alandscapeis a holisticcombinationof all the structural and functional attributes of an area.The interactions between thesestructures and functions determine its characteristicsand enable the landscape to berecognized as a distinctarea of land. In designing a landscapeit is obvious thatTRD mustbe based on an understanding of how all of the componentsand structures in a landscapefunction and interact.2.3 The ecological functioning of landscapesTheprinciples oflandscapeecology are used inTotal ResourceDesign to try to ‘piecetogether’ an understanding ofhow landscapes functionecologically. Many ofthe principlesused are derived from a text written by Formanand Godron, called simply LandscapeEcology (Forman and Godron 1986).Forman and Godron argue that there are threemajor components to understandingecological systems - structures, functions and theinteractions among them (Forman andGodron, 1986). Structures can be thought of as thetangible, physical elements of an10ecosystem, and functionsas the processes performed by the structures.It is the functionalinteractions among the structureswhichmake the ecological systemdynamic.Structure:Theinternal structure ofalandscape has been definedby Forman and Godron as:“the spatial relationships amongthe distinctive ecosystems or ‘elements’present - more specificallythe distribution ofenergy, materials,and speciesin relation to the sizes, shapes, numbers,kinds and configurationsof theecosystems” (FormanandGodron 1986 :11).Forman and Godron define theselandscape elements asthe basic, relativelyhomogeneous, ecologicalelements or units on the landwhich can be ofeither naturalorhuman origin.Once it had been recognized thatlandscapes are composedof structural elements,Forman and Godron setoutto try to identifyafundamental classificationofthese elementswhich would hold truefor every landscape. To do thisthey flew over four very differentlandscapes: anagricultural landscapein the mid-western UnitedStates; a coniferousforestlandscape in Labrador;a tropicalrainforest in Columbia; andaMediterranean landscapeinsouthern France. Oneach flight they noted theirobservations of the patternson thelandscapes beneath them. Hereis anexamplefrom theirflightover the coniferousforest inLabrador:“No evidence of people anywhere.Yetpatches very distinct. Peatlands,recent burned areas, lakes, beavermeadows, insect defoliationarea. Patchsizes and shapes vary greatly. Nostraight borderson patches. Narrowcorridors are present, thoughnot very common. Streamcorridors and lowcurving sandy ridges covered withpine and larch. Occasional intersectionswhere stream tributariescome together. Backgroundforested matrix ofspruce and fir. Naturaldisturbances evident...”(Forman and Godron1986:19).From similardescriptionsofeach ofthe landscapes,the authors observed that despitethe extreme differences which existedbetween the landscapes,they did appearto shareacommon, fundamental structure and“they were composed entirelyofpatches, corridorsand a backgroundmatrix” (Formanand Godron 1986:23).11Function:How do these structures function and howdo they contributetothe overall functioningofthe landscape as an ecological system?The observations ofForman and Godroncan besummarized as follows:Matrix: The most contiguous andconnected vegetation type. Thisinfluences movementwithin the landscape as often objectswill travel through the matrix itself,or will travelthrough corridors and havetocross the matrix at gaps in the corridors.The characteristicsofthe matrix, such as its connectivity andhow hospitable it is to the objectsinvolved, willdetermine how the matrixfunctionsin this regard.Patches: Areas whichcontrast withthe surroundingmatrix. These oftenactas special areasofhabitat for species, and the speciesthey contain depends largelyonthe size and shape ofthe patch. For example, a small patchwill be penetrated easilyby wind and othermeteorological forces, and will thereforecontain a lot ofedge habitat, and sowill supportonly those species adapted to ‘edgeconditions’ (Pickett and Thompson1978). This areaoflandscape ecology, dealing withthe affects of patch size etc. has beencomprehensivelydiscussed in the literature. Islandbiogeography and recent concernsover habitatfragmentation are also concernedwith patch size and the connectionsbetween patches(Harris 1984).Corridors: Linearfeatures formingconnections between patches or areasofmatrix. Formanand Godronidentify four main functionsofcorridors: habitatforcertaintypes of species; aconduit for movement along corridors;a barrier or filter separatingareas; and a source ofenvironmental and biotic effectson the surrounding matrix (Forman andGodron 1986).Again, theexistence and functionofcorridors has been widely discussedin the literature,particularly within island biogeographytheory in relation to their contributionto speciesflows within alandscape (Harris1984).12Interactions:According to Forman and Godron,it is the interactionofthe individual elementsandtheir functions as identifiedabove, which determines howthe landscape will function asawhole (Forman and Godron1986). A wide rangeof landscapeflowsfacilitates interactionboth within and betweenlandscape elements, and withthe landscape pattern in aggregate(thus enabling the landscapeto function as a system).As well as recognizing the roleof the internal components of landscapes,landscapeecology has identified changeas an important influence on howa landscape functionsecologically. For example,change agents such as naturaldisturbances, are oftenresponsible for the creation andalteration of the pattern of structureson the landscape.Forman (1987) observed thata natural disturbance event isgenerally “an excessin the levelof objects (such as animals,plants, water, mineral nutrients,heat etc.) entering anecosystem” (Forman 1987:219).Thus disturbances are much largereventsthan the normalflows entering and leavinglandscape elements. They canbe distinguished from flows bythe factthatthey causeachangein the landscapepattern.The major natural disturbancesrecognized in most forestedlandscapes are fire, windand insectattack(Baker 1989, Kimmins1990). These events cause changesin the numbersand groupings oforganisms occupyingan area and are followed by a sequenceofchangesin the animal, plantand microbialcommunities that will successivelyoccupythe area. Thisprocess is known as ecologicalsuccession (Kimmins 1987).Although landscapes aredynamic and changing, ithas been identified that for anygiven landscape there isa relatively predictable disturbanceregime which will result inaparticular pattern ofvegetationon the landscape over time(Noss and Harris 1986). Thishas led to the proposition thatan understanding of thescale, extent and type of these‘natural’ changes in alandscapecouldconceivably providesome pointers for the designofproposed man madealterations tothe landscape (Agee 1993). Thisis the route followed by13Total Resource Design, anda further description of the rationale usedin the process isgiven below.When attempting to understandthe dynamics and effects of disturbancesin thelandscape, an important factor toconsider is the scale at which theyoccur. As Urban et.al.(1987) observe, the patternimposed on alandscape is generatedbyprocesses at variousscales, both spatially and temporally.Toconceptualize these different scalesofprocess, a‘hierarchical theory’ has beenproposed. This recognizes thata landscape itself is partof aspatial hierarchy (i.e., larger thana landscape element and smallerthan a region) and thatthe changeagents which operatein alandscapealso have a spatialhierarchy which must beunderstood. That is, that naturalprocesses operate within landscapeelements, throughoutlandscapes, and also over a widerextent (such as a region) wherethey may cross severallandscape boundaries. Landscapeboundaries are permeable, andflows can cross themeasily. Zonneveld(1988) thereforeconsiders landscapes tobe ‘open systems’, and in hismind a landscape can only be describedadequately if the influences of“other spatiallylinked components are also considered”(Zonneveld 1988:7). Thus,in any consideration oflandscape functioning, the influencesofadjacentland areas must be considered,as they canact as either a source ora sinkfor flows crossing the bounthriesofthe subjectlandscape.Where does this understandingof a landscape as a functioningecological unit lead?Diaz and Apostol followed thelogic that once identified,the characteristics of the naturallandscape pattern (and itsassociated functions), shouldbe retained in any man-inducedalterationofthe landscape,ifthe natural ecosystem functioningof the landscape was to beretained. Landscape ecology hasidentified that landscape patternsinfluence the ecologicalfunctioning of a landscape (Franklinand Forman 1987), and that humaninduced patternsona landscape can alter the naturalpattern and thus the natural functioningofa landscape.Based on this argument, Diazand Apostol then made the assumptionthat if resourcemanagement is to proceedwithout detriment to the naturalfunctioning of the landscape,14any actions taken should retain, emulateormimic the natural landscapepattern. Any designof, for example, forestry operations ina landscape, should take direction from theecological patterns on the landscape, andfrom the natural processes which created them.Forman and Godron provide furtheradvice. The type of forest mosaic desiredin alandscape, and therefore the type of management whichcan be used (for example, evenaged or uneven aged management), canbe estimated from an examination of the naturaldisturbance regimeofthe landscapeat one pointin time. Forexample:“ifextensive fires, pestoutbreaks and the like are present,then whole tractsare typically even aged stands. If small fires,floods or blowdowns arepresent - a finer scale mosaic of even agedstands is naturally produced. Ifthe natural disturbance is at an even finer scale,such as single treeblowdowns and defoliation, amulti-agedstand develops naturally” (Formanand Godron1986:503).Within Total Resource Design,this information is used to guide the designofmanagement units (principally their sizeand the method by which they canbe managed) sothat individually and together they contributeto a’ pattern’ based on that which wouldbeproduced by natural forces in the landscape.It mustbeemphasized thatTotal Resource Designdoes notfollow ‘nature’ in a narrow andinflexible manner. This is due, in part, tothe difficulties in definingjust what ‘natural’maybe for a landscape. It is recognized that itis not always possible to determine whatthenatural disturbance patterns, or their effects,on a landscape are or have been in the recentpast. This may be due to suppression ofthese disturbances over time, or to significanthuman manipulation of the landscape whichmayobscure any natural patterns previouslypresent. Thus, TRD takes the cluesthat are available from the natural patternsanddisturbance history of a landscape, and triesto adapt them to produce or maintainadistribution of ‘desirable’ structuresin the landscape. This ‘desirable ecosystem character’will not be truly natural (Agee1993), but it is hoped that it will be a step towardsmaintaining natural components oflandscapesduring resource management, andthatit willbe more meaningful and useful than merelybeing given the vague concept of a ‘natural15forest’ to aim towards. In thefuture, with an improved understandingof the naturaldynamics of a landscape, itmay be possible to develop a method throughwhich humanimpacts on a landscape can mimicnature more effectively. For now, however,methodslike those of Total ResourceDesign can only work within the boundsof the limitedinformation available and anawareness of this limitation is very important.Guess workmay be required in many cases.Recognizingthat our informationon how natural landscapes function is notcomplete, themethod derived forTotal ResourceDesign provides a framework foranalysis based on theprinciplesof landscape ecology,which aim to provide as great a levelof understanding ofthe subject landscape as possible.It is hoped that the results of this analysis,despitelimitations, will be sufficient to allowa desirable pattern to be estimated,from whichdesignand management solutionsforintegrated resource managementcan later be derived.16Chapter 3 TotalResourceDesign - the method3.1 IntroductionThe aimsofthischapter are tooutline the stepsin theTotal ResourceDesign method,and to explainhow eachstep evolved throughan applicationof the processto the WestArm DemonstrationForest, Nelson,B.C., which tookplace during a workshopheld inNelson from 24th-28thJanuary 1994.It is hoped thatthis chapter can,ifdesired, stand aloneas a set ofinstructionsforanyfuture applicationofTotal ResourceDesign in BritishColumbia. Itsvalue liesin the factthatit presentsall currentworkonTotal ResourceDesign in B.C.and combines thiswiththe concepts andlessons developedfrom a similar applicationin Mount HoodNationalForest in Oregon(Diaz and Apostol1992). The resultis an interpretationof how TotalResource Designshould be practicallyimplementedif it is to be successfullyapplied inBritish Columbia.It is based ona briefoutlinefor the methodforTRD producedby Bell(Bell 1993a) whichwas found tobe insufficient forimplementationof the processin apractical casestudy (the WestArm DemonstrationForest) and is supplementedby referenceto the workof Diaz and Apostol,and the experiencegained through involvementin theapplicationof TRD to the WestArm DemonstrationForest. The resultsof the WADFapplication arepresented in thischapter bothas an illustrationof the process,and as arecord of the addeddetail requiredto make Bell’soutlineapplicablein practice. Theresultsfrom the WADFapplication shouldalso help to highlightsome of thestrengths andweaknesses ofthe method,which became evidenton its application.Where stepsofTotalResourceDesignhave not beencompletedforthis example,the design teaminvolved have,in effect, madeforecasts to allowfuture completionof the stepsto occur accordingto adecided direction.Total ResourceDesign proceedsin a logicalseriesofsteps.Before these aredescribed,the overall designprocess whichacts as a frameworkfor the stepsof the method,will beexamined to setacontextfor the subsequentdescriptionofeach ofthesteps.173.2 Total ResourceDesign : adesign processTotal ResourceDesign isa design process.The processis commonto all designprofessions, whetherthey are concernedwith buildingsand structures,landscapes orclothing. Eachstarts with aproblem andarrives at a seriesof solutionswithin a context,and, in the end,each has designedan item which mustwork (Nelson1975 in Thiel1981).The design processinvolves purposefulplanning, i.e.,“the designing ofcourses ofactionaimed at changingexisting situationsinto preferredones” (Thiel 1981:32).Thiel continues:“More specificallydesign may besaid to be a meansofoptimizing theuseof limited resources,time and materialsin the realizationofpredeterminedobjectives in circumstanceswhere no satisfactoryprecedents exist.Sinceweare interested inthe “best” wayof accomplishingthis goal, we facethenecessity of originatingand evaluatingalternativesand then choosingamong them.”(Thiel1981:32)Total ResourceDesign is an applicationof this designprocess to forestlandscapes. Assuch it followsthe same fundamentalsteps as those followedin the designof, forexample,a building ora golf course (S.Bell pers, corn,1993). It progressesfrom an identificationof the problemto the productionof various possiblesolution scenarios.Figure 1 showsone interpretationofa general designprocess, andthe steps it involves.Notice thelogical progressionof steps in a designprocess, andthe various pointswhere feedbackoccurs, so thatthe results ofeachphase can beiterated andmodified. Theprocess is dynamicand ensuresthat there is alwaysscope for improvementand theaccommodationof new issuesand stakeholdersas they arise.The resultsof scenariogenerationare simulatedvisually, in drawings,sketches or usinga computer.It is thisvisual articulationof the solutionswhich takesdesign beyondthe realms ofplanning, andprovides graphicswhich can easilybe assimilatedand evaluatedby the publicorthe client.This basicdesignprocess is thetemplate on whichthe methodforLandscapeAnalysisand Design ,and laterTotalResource Designwere based.Details and refinementswereadded to thisframework tomake the designprocess specificto its subject -the forestlandscape- and toallow thelogic and aimsofTotal ResourceDesign to bemet.18NoNoFigure 1. The steps involved in adesign process(Thiel 1981:33)19Bell (1993a) presentedthe method forTRDas a series ofsevensteps as follows:1. Assembly ofthe designteam;2. Identification ofdesignunits;3. Setting objectives;4. Landscape survey;5. Landscape analysis;6. Designconcept generation;and7. Sketch design.Glancing at thesesimple steps, itis unclear how theyfit together toform a sequentialand iterative designprocess as outlinedin Figure 1. For thisreason,the seven stepsproposed by Bell havebeen re-labeledin this chapter andpresented ina manner whichallows the logicalsequential orderof the process to beeasily identified.In essence, thefundamental frameworkoutlined in Figure 1has been revisitedand the generic titlesofeachstephave beenreplaced with labelsspecific toTotalResource Design.Six main steps havebeen recognized,withthe following titles:1. Preparation;2. Setting objectivesforthe landscape;3. Surveyofthe landscape;4. Analysis ofinventoryinformation;5. Scenario development;and6. Assessmentand choiceoffinal design.These steps canbe grouped into two phases:analysis and design.Figure 2 below,showseach of thesesteps and how theyinteract toform a design processin Total ResourceDesign. Shadinghas been used todifferentiatebetween the twophasesofthe process.20LRMPs and other publicparticipation processes.Higher level plans.6. AssessmentChoice of scenario4,Implementation1. Preparationco ze neforTId tifyylntfi bouij(ariesareaoviy/6road jectAs mbl design’Mandate.am>Schedule,)budget etc.Forest Practices Code. Obje yes foe area.Biodiversity guidelines7etc.,7Legal requirements.. I ntory/ rvey.a. Ecologicalb. Biophysical c. Other factorsd. Social factorsfactorsfactors eg. recreation(\Landscape CharacterLandscape EcologicalConstraints andAnalysis Analysisopportunities analysisEcological landscapepattern objectives5.Scenario developmentTesting of scenarios?identification ofimplications of each.LIVisual designprinciples &skills_______Steps in analysisphaserSteps in design phaseFigure2. The steps involvedin theTotal ResourceDesignprocess.21Itis hoped thatthisrevisedpresentationofTotal ResourceDesignwill illustratethatit isreally a ‘customized’design process whichfollows an acceptedframework usedby alldesign professions.3.3 The TotalResource Designworkshop3.3.1 Aims oftheworkshopThe applicationofTotal ResourceDesignto the WestArmDemonstrationForesttookplace in Nelsonfrom the 24th tothe 28th January1994. The workshopwas set up, fundedand administered byMinistry ofForestsstafffrom theNelson Regionand Kootenay LakeDistrict offices. Itwas led byMr. Simon Bell andinvolved stafffrom the MinistryofForests, the Ministryof Environment,Lands and Parks,B.C. Parks Serviceand severalmembers ofthe local public.The aims oftheworkshop werethree- fold:1. To apply themethod and to answerthe question, ‘canTRD be practicallyapplied inB.C.?’;2. To produceaTotal ResourceDesign fortheWestArm DemonstrationForest, to be usedfor the promotionand demonstrationof up-to-date planningand design processestoindustry andthe widerpublic;and3. To evaluate andanalyze the endproduct, in termsof costs, harvestprojections andresource implications,primarily in comparisonto currentIntegratedResource Managementplanning approaches.Objective 1 isthe only one whichhas been achievedto date, andis the primary focusofthis thesis. Theremaining two steps willbecompletedby the MinistryofForests withinthenextyearor two.223.3.2The Study Area.The WestArm DemonstrationForestis anareaofapproximately14, 500hectares locatedon the north shore ofKootenayLake, withinKootenayLake Forest District.I II II IIIOCalgarv IIIO- —r-__L.‘, HeknuOBoise(—, ._‘dl!fo/Figure3. The WestArmDemonstrationForest-This forest wasoriginally designatedas a demonstration forest in responseto localpublic concernswith current-forest managementpractices. It was fconsideredto be anexcellent site foran application ofTotalResource Design becauseof its size, its manyresource valuesand theextentoftheinventoriedinformation whichexistsforeach resourcein the area. The specificresource values ofthe WestArm Demonstration Forest(WADF)have beenlisted by theMinistry ofForests, Nelson Regionas follows:• Fivedomestic watershedswith a total of 166 waterlicenses;1Graphicprovidedby SimonBell, BritishForestry Commission.23• Tourism valuesbecause of its adjacencyto Kokanee Glacier ProvincialPark and theWestArm ofKootenayLake;• Largenumberofwildlifespecies;• An ecological reserveofold growth ponderosapine forest;• Two spawningchannels forKokaneesalmon; and• A viewscape for thetowns ofHarrop andProctorand for boaterson the West Arm ofKootenayLake(MOF (Nelson Region)1992, unpublished).Two biogeoclimaticzones (Meidingerand Pojar 1991) arerepresented in the WestArmDemonstration Forest:The Interior - CedarHemlock (ICH) Zone, which is found in thelower to middle elevations(within this zonethe two subzones ICHdwand ICHmw are themost common); and theEngelmann Spruce- Subalpine Fir (ESSF)zone, which is theuppermostforestedzone in the WADF.With such a wealth ofresource values, in additionto timberand researchinterests, theWestArmDemonstrationForestprovidedachallengingsite forthe first applicationofTotalResource Designin British Columbia.3.4 The Method andthe results of itsapplication tothe WADFThis sectionwill describethe method which evolvedfrom the West ArmDemonstrationForest workshopin a step by step manner,with the results fromthe WADF applicationused as an illustrationforeach step.3.4.1 Preparation.This step encompassesall of the stages whichhave to be completedbefore the TotalResource Design processitself can be started.Once it has beenestablished that aTotalResource Design isrequired for an area(whichmay come froma public planning process24such as a Land and Resource ManagementPlan (LRMP)2or from a higherlevel forestplan, such as a Regional plan) a ‘client’should be identified. This clientis the person orparty forwhom the Total Resource Designis being prepared and could be,forexample, asenior memberof the MinistryofForests, a public planning group,a forest company etc.The ‘client’ will outline the boundariesofthe area of study and providebroad objectivesand direction forits management.Thesedecisions shouldbe related to any issues identifiedfor the areain higherlevel plans andLRMPS, etc.This step also gathers thoseindividuals with expertise andknowledge of the areatogether in a design team.This team will include localstaff from Ministry of ForestsDistrictoffice, the appropriateForest Regional Office, otheragencies (such as MinistryofEnvironment, B.C. Parks,etc.), several interested membersof the public and any otherimportant stakeholders.Atthis pointitis also advisableto divide the total areaintosub-units on paper, for finaldesign purposes. This will facilitatethe design process, makingdata management and thevisual design process less complex.WADFExample.Theclient:The client, although not formallyidentified in this case, wasassumed to be a seniormember of staff of the NelsonForest Region. A design teamwas brought together, andwas responsible for the collectionofdata, its analysis and thedevelopmentofthe design.Itconsisted of 19 participants,representing different disciplineswithin the Ministry ofForests, Nelson Forest Regionand Kootenay LakeForest District, the MinistryofEnvironment (Fish and Wildlife,and Water Managementrepresentatives) and severalmembers ofthe public. Theteam was led by Mr. Simon Bell, whoalso participated as the2jyjp- ‘A strategic,multi-agency,integratedresourceplanat the sub-regional level. Itis based on theprinciplesofenhancedpublicinvolvement,considerationofall resource values,consensus-baseddecsiionmaking, and resourcesustainability’(ProvinceofBritishColumbia 1994:183)25team ‘designer’, dueto his expertisein visual design.For acompletelistof the design teamand the agenciesthey representedat the workshopsee Appendix1.DesignArea:The design area forthis case study wasthe entire WestArmDemonstrationForest. Thiswas divided into16 sub-units,which were determinedusing the naturalfeatures of thelandscape. Oftenthe entire faceof a hillside or theareas betweentwo side valleyswereidentified as units.To do this, possibleunits were firstidentified ona topographic map.These areas werethen photographedfrom the groundand from a helicopter,ensuring thatthe photo pointsand elevations werenoted accurately,thereby compilingacomprehensivepanoramic photographicrecord foreachunit. Usingthe photographs,the final boundariesofeach unit were decidedand plottedon abasemap byKootenayLakeForest Districtstaffprior to the workshop.Broad objectivesand guidelines:Various existingplans for areasof the West ArmDemonstrationForest, and regionalresource guidelineswere used toprovide severalbroad objectivesfor the resources present.For example,the draftInteriorFish, Forestry WildlifeGuidelines(MOE and MOF1993),Soil ConservationGuidelines forTimberHarvesting(InteriorB.C.)(MOF 1993a); andtheKootenay LakeDomestic WaterContingencyPlan (MOENelson 1993 unpublished)wereall consulted. Specificstandards for theregion for theimplementationof the ForestPractices Codehad not been releasedat the time of theworkshop, andso the design teamcouldonlyestimateany restrictions thismightconferonthe managementofthe area in thefuture. All ofthisinformation wascollated intoa reportpriortothe workshopby membersofthe design teamand provideduseful referencein the steps whichwere to follow(MOFNelson 1994unpublished).263.4.2 Setting objectives for the area.This step interprets directions and guidelines from higher levelplans and refines theminto more specific objectives for the area and its resources.At this stage any requirementswhich must be met in the area under the Forest Practices Code(Province of BritishColumbia 1994), biodiversity or wildlife guidelinesand other legislation should beidentifiedand outlined so that they can beincorporatedin subsequent steps. Theobjectivesdetermined at this stage will not necessarily be fixed,as later analysis of the area mayprovide evidence that some ofthe objectives require modification.It is important that thisinformationcan be fedbackinto the objectives and thatthey can bealteredaccordingly.WADFExample:Having carried out the background preparation, decidedbroad objectives for the areaand selected relevantinformationfrom available plansand guidelines, landscape objectivesfor the resources present in the WADF were developedby the design team. A series ofmeasures were devised to accompany each objective.These were essentially a set ofdirections which, iffollowed, would ensurethat the objectives would be met and were feltto be auseful addition to the method originallyproposedby Bell.During this stage of TRD, it was often necessaryto remind the design team that theobjectives being set were those for thelandscape,as there was a tendency for many of thedesignteam to becomeembroiled in stand level detail.Thelandscape objectivesand measures finally produced are outlinedinTable Survey of the area.The landscape survey collates information for the areafor all resources present, fromavailable inventories and local knowledge.Information on ecological, biophysical andsocial factors is collected, along with anyinventory information on the recreation andlandscape characteristics ofthe area. Social issues,such as local communityconcerns and27Table 1: Landscape Objectives for the WestArm Demonstration ForestResource Objective Measures1.Water To maintain and enhance water. do not exceedrecommended equivalent clear cut areasResources quality and the quantity and timing(ECAs)3forwatersheds.offlows.. leavebuffer zones (widthrelative to streamclass). maintainnatural drainage patterns (e.g,avoid areas withmultiple small watersheds as the quality of these will bedifficult tomaintainifdevelopmenttakes place).2.Fish To protect and enhance fish and . establishprotective zonesfor critical /sensitive habitats&Wildlife wildliferesources. over time.Resources. . ensureall site/seral types and stages are present at asuitablelevel at any time (to ensure thatthe quantity anddistribution of habitat types is maintained through theforest as a whole).3.Soil and To maintain soil! site productivity . minimize presenceof roads and landings and otherL.andfomi andreducesitedegradation. permanentfeatures (i.e.,the minimum number necessaryResources. to implementthe plan).. identify and specify operations for sensitiveunits.4. Roads (and To minimize the impact of roads . ensureoptimumdensityofroads is proposed.logging while meeting engineeri ng . ensurethatlocations avoidsensitiveareas andblend intosystems). specifications. thelandscape.. ensure thatroadaccesscanbearranged toprotect wildlifevalues.5.Timber To maintain a sustainable supply of. determine the AAC4resulting from the silviculturalResources. timber while integrating othersystems to be used in those units that are planned forresources.intervention(as opposed to those planned for noninterventionlreserve etc.) overtheplanperiod.. ensure that theseunits are feasible.6.OldGrowth To maintain sufficient quality, . ensureexisting old growth areas are identified andResource. quantity, types and distribution of managed.oldgrowthovertime andlandscape. . ensurethat areas areidentifiedtobemanaged toproduceold growth to fill gaps orreplace areas in due course.. ensure that as much’ old growth’ value is maintained orenhancedthroughoutthe forest.7.Forest To ensure that forest health . ensurethat proposed practices)silvicultural systems doHealth. problems remainatanendemiclevel not promotepests and pathogens.(i.e. not catastrophic - below levelthat canposean economicrisk).8. Recreation. To provide for a variety of . ensurethat significantfeatures arepreserved.recreational uses appropriate to the . ensurethatuseis dispersedin space and time.carrying capacity of the forest . ensure that recreation opportunitiesare protected,ecosystem. specificallyin theKokaneeCreek valley.. ensure that the recreational settings are maintained orenhancedinquality.9.Visual To retain a high standard of visual . ensurethatunits and openings fit thelandscape.landscape. integrity across theforest. . ensurethat the optimum level of visual diversity ismaintainedorenhanced.. ensurethat areas ofspecial genius loci areprotected.ECAs. Thehydrologicalimpactofharvesting is proportional to the% ofcrown closure removed. The %is expressed in terms of thenumberofha ofclearcutit is equivalentto.4AAC- AllowableAnnual Cut: ‘the volumeoftimberapprovedby thechiefforester to beharvestedannually’ (ProvinceofBritish Columbia 1994:173)5loci- the‘spiritofplace’,uniquequality oneplacehas over another(Bell 1993)28existing public use of the area may already be knownfrom previous public participationprocesses such as Land and Resource ManagementPlans (LRMPs). This informationcanbe input into Total Resource Designat this point. If such information has notbeenpreviously collated forthe area, it shouldbe obtained at this point so that social issuescanbe incorporated into the design process.WADFExample:Maps ofall ofthe inventoriedinformationforthe WADFwhich hadbeen produced todatewere assembled and an attemptwas madeto fill in any gaps in this information usingthedesign team’s knowledge ofthe area. Onecolour copy ofeach map was then preparedatastandard scale (1:20 000) and withthe study areaboundary marked.Table2 provides alistofthe inventoryinformation prepared fortheWADFapplication.3.4.4. Analysis.Landscape analysis is carriedout to provide an understanding of how thesubjectlandscape functions ecologically and visuallyand to determine how its attributes couldconstrain or provide opportunity for thedevelopment of the forest resources.Thisunderstanding is used along with a knowledgeof existing direction and local issues,toderive objectives abouta desired ‘landscape pattern’ for the areaofconcern.Threedifferentaspectsofthelandscape areanalyzed inthis step:constraints and opportunities• landscapeecologylandscape ‘character’The implementation ofthese analyses requiresa multidisciplinaryapproach in whichthedesign team work together to builda ‘picture’ ofhow the landscape functions in respecttoall the resources present. They musttake the data collected in step 3 and assimilateit intosomething which will form the basisofadesign.29Table 2: The inventory informationcollatedfor theWADFworkpp.Resource Inventory InformationPrepared (Mapped)LandscapeLandscape units with labels for Landscape SensitivityRating6, VisualQuality/visualsAbsorption Capability7, Visual QualityObjectives8and viewpointsAreas ofhighgenius loci.Recreation InventoryofsitesandtrailsDescription ofhow thepublicuse thelandscapeRecreationOpportunity Spectrum(ROS)9objectivesPotential forinterpretive trailsSilviculture Previous silviculturalactivitiesandNSR (Not SatisfactorilyRestocked) areas.ForestHealth Areasofknownor suspectedinsect / diseaseattackTypes ofpathogenandpopulationestimationTimber Areaoflandby timberage classes andinoperableareasAAC fortheareaTransportation and Locationofexistingroads andpotentialroadlocationslogging Inoperable areasThe scope ofavailablelogging systemsRiparianareas Locationofriparianzones along all water bodies showingminimumprotection_________ reqmredHydrology Locationofwatersheds and areas wherebuffer zones arerequired.Routes ofwater movement.Location ofdomesticwaterintakes.Soils - sediment yield Hazardcalculated and mapped, on the basis ofthe combined potentials forhazard sedimentdelivery,mass wasting and surface erosion (using MapAttributeDataManagerProgram)Soils - mass wasting Calculations ofhazard rating based on soil texture andtypes. Locationof eachhazard rating - mappedResearch Locationof areas required for existing and plannedresearch, and of theprotectionzones requiredaroundeach plot.Botany/plantecology Main biogeoclimaticzones, subzones and site associationsLocationofany rare,uniqueor sensitivevegetativetypesFisheries Listofthespecies presentineachwaterbodyLocationof sensitive sitesListofany threatenedor endangered speciesWildlifebiology Locationofknownhabitats ofsome speciesPatternsofmigrationormovementList ofany sensitiveor ‘at risk’ populationsArchaeology Location ofareas ofhistorical use byindigenous inhabitants,position of stoneoven.Estimated tree height Map oftreeheightclassesclassForestcover Mapofforestcoverinventory infonnationand complete labelsTopographicfeatures such asmountainsand water bodiesTopography Topographicalmap showingcontours at 20inintervals, streams,roadsand anyothermanmadefeatures.6LSR: extent to whichpeoplemay be concernedaboutlandscapealterations (MOF 1991)7VAC:abilityoflandscapes to absorbphysical alterations withoutdamageto their scenic values (MOF1991)8VQOs:Degreeofacceptablealterationofthe characteristic landscape(MOF 1981)9ROS: A systemofcategorizingrecreationopportunities according tothedegreeofsolitude,roadedaccess,andtypeofrecreational activity. Categoriesinclude: Rural,RoadedResource,Semi-primitiveMotorized,Semi-primitiveNon-motorized,andPrimitive.303.4.4.1 Constraints and Opportunities analysisThe constraints and opportunities analysis is fairlystraightforward and doesnot requiremuch explanation. In brief, it sorts the inventoryinformation into two sections : thosefactors which will constrain the designer’s options foraction, and those which will provideopportunities, thus providing guidance onareas in the landscape where certain types ofdevelopment might be possible, or wherethey should be avoided. Generally, constraintsare often obvious and manifest themselvesin guidelines for operations produced for aregion. Others are aresultoflandscape characteristicsand are identified through an analysisof the information collected for the area. Opportunitiesare often less obvious than theconstraints but can be identified when thereappears to be a certain option, or a number ofoptions available forthe managementofa specific resourcein an area. Ideally, the locationof the opportunities and constraints should beillustrated on a map of the area, andannotated with a description of their characteristics.They should also be placed onperspective views ofthe subjectlandscape,so that itcan be easily incorporated into the laterdesignofthe management units.WADFExample:Each member of the team representing a particularresource, briefed the team on thevarious constraints and opportunities associatedwith ‘their’ resource. Thelist ofconstraints and opportunities on each resourceacross the landscape was then expandedornarrowed through discussion with theteam. Those constraints and opportunities whichwould affect theoverall design were locatedon acetate overlays ofthe base map and latertransferred to perspectivephotographs, in preparationforthe design phase.Figures 4 provides an illustration ofhowthe results of this analysis were illustratedforone areaofthe WADF(Queens/Laird Creekarea), in perspectiveview. The locations oftheconstraints and opportunities across the entire landscapeare illustrated in plan form inFigure5. Table 3 then provides a summaryoftheirmain characteristics.31Figure 5. Thelocation ofthe main opportunities and constraints in theWADF.Figure 4. Perspectiveillustration ofthe constraints andopportunities on the Queens/Lairdcreekareaofthe WADF(south eastcorner)10-Extreme / very high mass wasting hazard1Extreme/ very high sediment yield hazardjlimited circumstances.Operability line - the envelope of most areasaccessible and economicallyworthL. Private land boundary - Rectangular and awkwardin shape.•e.,Existinc roads.Avoid clearcutting exceptin10Graphicprovidedby SimonBell, BritishForestry Commission32Table 3: Constraints and Opportunities forthe WADF.Resource Constraints ondevelopment Opportunitiesfor developmentLandscape! Futuremodificationor improvement of the Modification of the shapesofexisting blocksvisuals shapes of existingblocks may be would provide opportunitiesfor furtherconstrainedbypublicopinion harvestingVQOsofpreservationlretentionsuggestthat In some areas the existing visual conditionisthelandscapeis ofhighqualityand thatthis better than the VQO stipulates - thusthereshould be maintained, thus constrainingare opportunities for further harvesting inclearcutharvestingintheseareasthese areasRecreation Logging roads wouldincrease access to Kokanee Creekcorridorprovidesthegreatestpristine areas; the negative impactsof this potential for increasing recreationshouldbeconsideredopportunity by taking in part of WestKokaneeroadandtrailsFurther opportunities fortrail access tosmalllakes forday hikingAlteration of the shapes of the ‘square’recreation areas would provide opportunityforharvesting whileimproving theirshapeTimber a n d Siting ofroads closeto trails would not be Only great opportunityfor clearcut timberengineering publiclyacceptableextraction in west Kokanee where no VQOsAreas of high mass wastingand sediment havebeen assignedby theMOFyieldrequireprecautionsSome higher elevation areas could beMost harvesting in this areais constrained harvestedusinghelicopterto some extent by existing visualandrecreationactivityWildlife & Riparian areasand zones of influence of Late winterhabitat on southslopes (and to afish habitats streams. Activitieslimited in these areas, lesser extent, mid winterhabitat) - requiresAvalanche tracks are important bearand open canopy. This is a harvestinggoat habitat suggest retain 60% crownopportunity providing 40% of forestedclosureforest cover lOOm alongatleast one habitat ofheight class 3 or greaterand 60%sideoftheavalanchetrackcrownclosureareleftbehind.Old growth reserves and potential reserveThere are several areas of old growth whichareasshouldbepreserved couldbe reserved thus increasingrepresentationofoldgrowth inthelandscapeResearch plots Maintain forestedbuffers around existing There may beopportunities for moreresearchplots - constraint toharvesting, harvestingas apartoffutureresearchIdentified areas have been removedfromoperable forest base for period of 4yearsforresearchpurposes3.4.4.2 Landscape ecologicalanalysis.Thelandscape ecological analysisemployed inTotal Resource Designwas developedbyDiaz and Apostol in the MountHoodNational Forest in Oregon (Diazand Apostol 1992).To quote them directly, the logic behindthis stage was to “understand the landscapeas anecological system, in terms of structure,function, processes and contextwithin the largerlandscape” (Diaz and Apostol1992: 4.1). It is based on the principlesof landscape33ecology and proceeds in a series of fivelogical steps, designed to identify the followingfactors:i) Landscape structures;ii) Landscape Flows;iii) The relationshipbetween the structuresand the flows;iv) Natural disturbance and successionpatterns in the landscape; andv) ‘Linkages’ beyond the landscape.This analysis, as a whole, aims to identify landscapepattern objectives and give guidanceto the designer so thatecological issues canbe fed into the developmentofdesign scenarios(Bell 1993a). Figure 6 illustrates howthe five steps fit together.Figure 6. The steps oflandscapeecological analysis.34i) Landscape Structures.Structures in the landscape areidentifiedfrom an examination ofinventory informationand aerial photographs. Thesearethen classified according to the followingdescriptions:Matrix: themostcontiguousandconnected vegetation type, terrainorland use.Patches : areas which contrast withthe surrounding matrix. They maybe homogeneousareas ofvegetation, or non- livingareas such as rock outcrops, wetlands,clearcuts etc.Corridors : linear features formingconnections between patches or areasof the matrix(DiazandApostol 1992).To help visualize this classificationoflandscape structures, Diaz andApostol used theanalogy ofachocolatechip cookie:the cookie dough is the matrixand the chocolate chipsare the patches.WADFExample:Decidingon the criteriato beusedforthe identificationoftheforest matrix in theWADFproved to be difficultas no exerciseofthis nature had been done beforefor the forest typespresent. Appearance and physicalcharacteristicsalone werenot sufficientto allow the teamto delineate between structures.Therefore the functions they carriedout in the landscapewere also considered.The first step taken bythe teamwas toexamine the availableaerial photographs ofthearea and the mapped informationof forest cover, age classes, heightclasses andbiogeoclimaticzones andsubzones. The matrix(following thedefinition given above)wasidentified as all those areasofmature forest whichhad reachedthe stage ofcrownclosure.Continuous forest coverwas felt to be the deciding criteriain this decision. The teaminitially attemptedto identify a single age classor group of age classes which wouldconstitute the matrix, butwhen identifiedon a mapofthe area these did notconform tothedefinition of matrix; oftenone or two age classes werenot abundant enough in thelandscape to be consideredas the ‘background’ within whichthe other elements sat.Hence, the wider classification,which used both age andheight classes to identify the35matrix, was chosen. Different ‘elements’ of the matrix were thenidentified. These wereareas ofthe continuous forest coverwhich were feltto have differentfunctions and often,differentappearances, butwhich togetherconstituted the matrix. For example, age classes8 and 9 were identified as an element ofthe matrix because their old growth attributessupport different organisms and functionsthan younger areas of the matrix. Table 4provides anoutline and description ofthedifferentelements identified.The remaining ‘non-matrix’ vegetationinthe landscape was all ofage class 1. Thereforeto identify vegetation patches heightclasses were used, with the premise that standsofdifferent heights carried out different functions,especially in relation to wildlife habitat.Other patches, such as avalanche tracks,rock outcrops and water bodies were alsoidentified, as were the various corridorspresent in the landscape, using the definitionsgiven above as guidance. People wererecognized as an important componentof thelandscape and therefore the patches and corridorscreated and used by them were alsoincluded.All of the structures identified are outlined inTable 4. Their distribution or patternwithin the WestArm Demonstration Forestare illustrated in Figures 7 and8.Table4Landscape structures identified in the WADFElements of forest matrixDescriptionAlpine/ForestParklandOldGrowthAge class 8&9. If areas of age class 7 showoldgrowthcharacteristics theycouldbeincludedin thiscategory.MidseralAge class 3-6 . Age class 7 may be includedin thiscategoryifit shows midseral characteristicsPolestageForest stages from crown closure to 20mheight.(Essentially heightclass 2.)Patches:Sapling Height2-5 mShrub/forb Height0-imAvalancheTracksRock OutcropsWaterLakesandWetlandsOldbums/berrypatchesHardwoodareasCorridors:RiparianAreasStreamsRoads/SkidTrailsPowerlines36o10002000f4I i3pFigure7. Location(and pattern) oflandscapematrix and patches in the WADF.in theWADFlandscape37As implied above, a solution to thisstep of the analysis required discussion andexperimentation, especially in areaswhere no single type of vegetation was evidentas amatrix. It was feltto be a very valuableexercise as itchallengedthe teamto thinkabout thelandscape and its component partsin relation to their ecological contributionto thelandscape. Any difficulties whichwere encountered related mostly toa lack of detailedsurveyinformationon the ecologicalattributes ofthe area. Generallyspeaking,inventoriesare carried out within the Forest Servicewith the purpose of providing informationfortimber harvesting prescriptions, notecological analyses. Labels on forest covermapstherefore do not tend to yield muchdetailed information about ‘non tree’ species.In thiscase the team had to find the originalsurvey information and stand descriptionsfor theWADF to obtain any detailed informationon the different seral stages and speciesofunderstory vegetation presentin thelandscape. It is recommended that thisinformation beobtained from files and made availableto the design team from the outsetin any futureapplication ofthis process.ii) Landscape Flows:Landscape flows can be thoughtof as those things that moveacross or throughlandscapes, whether in theair, over land or in the soil (Diaz and Apostol1992). Diaz andApostol identify water, wind, fire,animals (flying, swimming andground based), plantsand humans (of various usergroups) as the most important flowsin a landscape. Theystress that an aim offlow identificationis todevelop a patternoflandscapeelements whichwill encourage the continued presenceof important landscape flows. Tohelp determinewhat this pattern should be,they suggest that the following questionscan be asked:“Inthe future, whatflow phenomenawill becritical in this landscape?”“Which flow phenomena aremost likely to be affected byhumanactivities?” (Diaz and Apostol,1992:4.18).38The aim in answering these questionsand incorporating the resultsinto thedesign is toensure that the temporal variationsin flowsthrough the landscape areaccounted for.Similarly, the spatial arrangementof the flows in the landscape can be identifiedandmapped by answering thefollowingquestions:“Where in the landscape doesaparticular flow occur?”“Is it dependent on aparticular landscape element (matrix,patch,corridor)?”“What is the direction ofthe flow?”“What is the timing (e.g., isit seasonal?)” (DiazandApostol 1992:4.19).WADFExample:In order to answer these questionsfor theWestArm DemonstrationForest, flows wereidentified as those movements whichoccurred across the landscapeelements, ignoringthose which were confinedwithin stands or vegetationtypes. This emphasison thelandscape level was to ensurethat only those factors whichinfluence, orare influencedby,the landscape structure wereidentified.This step provoked much discussionwithin the design team.For example, it wasrecognized that flows wouldnot only have to be identified,but also mapped in thisexercise. This revealed amajor gap in the knowledge ofthe ecology of the WestArmDemonstration Forest. The team memberswere able to identifymany of the animals andotther resources which moved withinthe landscape, but wereunable to accurately locatethese movements in many cases.Nevertheless, an attemptwas made, based on theinformationavailable andthe expertise ofthe team members.They started with those flowsforwhichaccurate informationwas available:People:Movementofpeoplewithin the WestArm DemonstrationForest has been inventoried.The main flow within theWestArm Demonstration Forestis forrecreation purposes,alongKokanee Creek Road to andfrom Kokanee Glacier ProvincialPark. An estimated 2000vehicles and 4,200 peopleuse this road annually. Hikingalso takes place along West39Kokanee Creek Trail (an average of70 registered users annually), and the other trailswithin the forest, especially thoseleading to and from the alpine lakes. Berry picking,hunting, fishing and mushroomgathering also occur in the West Arm DemonstrationForest, taking people throughoutmuch of the landscape. Such general flows werenotmappedbutwere noted forfurtherreference by theteam.Water:Water is an important flow withinthe WADF, as the area contains several communitywatersheds and a total of274 registered waterlicenses. Both the qualityand quantity ofwaterflows in the landscape musttherefore be maintained for these reasons,as well as forthe important ecological, recreationaland visual roles the waterresources ofthe landscapeplay. Themain surface flows occurfrom the high elevation, down the creeks to KootenayLake.Fish:A resident fish population is presentthroughoutKokanee Creek and its tributaries.Thesefish both spawn and rear fish in these creeksand then flow downstream into KootenayLake. These flows provide a food resourcefor some of the wildlife species, as well asrecreation opportunities (fishing). Managementofthe streamsides affects waterquality andcan impact fish population numbers.This flow is vulnerable to humanimpacts for thisreason.Flows of mammals and birds wereless easy to identify. It was knownthat certainanimals move within the WADF landscapein order to utilize different habitatsfor food,cover, nesting and den sites.For certain groups, such as ungulatesand bears, the locationsofthese habitats are knownbutthe precise position, timing andextentoftheir flows toandfrom these habitats is not.The team felt however that these flowscould be roughlyestimated and that an outlineof the different types offorest matrixelements,patches andcorridors required forthis movementcouldbe provided.40Ungulates:Areas of early, mid and late winter andsummer habitat for ungulates (white tail deer,mule deer and elk) have been identifedin the West Arm Demonstration Forest.Thesespecies move through the landscapeseasonally between these areas, mainlyin anelevational flow. For theirpopulations to be supported, these habitattypes need to beretained in the landscape and the movementof the animals between them must not beinhibited by human impacts.Bears:Excellent black bear andgrizzly bear habitat is present throughout the WestArmDemonstration Forest. The black bearsmove throughout the drainages utilizinga widevariety of habitat types. Grizzlybears utilize and move through the avalanchetracks,riparian zones andremote alpine and subalpineareas.Birds:It was difficultto identify any particularflows ofbirds within the landscape,except forthose species such as osprey, whichregularly used different habitat areasfor nesting andfeeding and so moved within thelandscape inapredictable pattern.Forest pests and diseases were identifiedin most areas of the WADF, but nomajorflows or trends couldbe identified. Similarly the flows ofsmallmammalsand insects in thelandscape could not be estimateddue to lack ofinformationon their behavior within thislandscape. It was suspected that muchof their movement takes placewithin stands and thattheirrequirements would bemetby sound stand level management.The design team limited their investigationoflandscape flows to those which theyfeltwould be obviously affectedby any future manipulation of the landscapepattern. Theywere also severely limited to those flowsforwhich information was available.Despite thislimitation, they did feel thatthey had identified the flows which wereofprimary concern inthe WADF atthe present time, and thatifthese flows could be maintainedin the landscape,41there was a good chance thatother flows, as yet unidentified,would simultaneouslybepreserved.TableS summarizes the flowsidentified. The locationsof mostofthese flows are estimatedin Figure 9.Table 5: Importantflowsin the WADFlandscape.FlowDescriptionFishObvious movement throughlandscape in streamchannelsUngulatesHave predictable seasonal movementpatterns andspecifichabitatrequirementsOspreyUse identifiable areas of the landscapefor nestingand perching. Move in andout of the landscape atdifferent times ofyear.GrizzlyHave areas of traditional usefor forage. Move inandout oftheareafromparkareato thenorth.PeopleMovement in landscapefor recreation or industry(logging) purposes.WaterMovement withinstream channels. Additionalmovement along groundsurface and within soil.Importantareasidentifiedifpossible.AvalanchesDownward movementof snow withconsequencesfor underlying landform,distribution of snow-- withinlandscapeandfloraandfauna.• movement.waterflows.ungulate migration.Ungulate winterrange. AlpineRecreation reserves.Figure 9. Anestimationofthe locationofmajor flowsin the WADFLandscape.42iii) The relationshipbetween the structuresand the flows.This stage of the process explainshow landscape structures functionin relation tolandscape flows. Specifically, itattempts to identify how the individual structures,and thepattern they form on the landscape,interact with or affect landscapeflows. Discussionwithin the design team, withextrainput from local members of the publicor user groups,is used to identify how the mainflows ‘use’ the various landscape elements,and when.This is often notan easy step tocompletedue to an inadequateknowledge ofthe ecologyofthe subject landscape, in additionto the general lack ofunderstanding ofhow landscapesfunction. However to facilitatethis step, Diaz and Apostol suggest thatthe design teamkeep the five main functions ofecological systems in mind.i.e.• capture (resources are broughtintothe system);• production (resources are manufacturedwithinthe system);• cycling (resources are transported withinthe system);storage (resources are conservedwithin the system); and• output (resources leave the system)(DiazandApostol 1992).For example, streams or corridorsconnecting areas of habitat withina landscape mayprovide cycling functions. Corridorsbetween two adjacent landscapesmay supportcycling, capture and output functions.Patches, such as areasof wetland, may act asstorage sites within the landscape(Diaz and Apostol 1992). Inaddition to these broadfunctions, specific definitionsofthe functions ofmatrix, patches andcorridors provided byForman and Godron canalso be used to try to decidehow the structures and flowsidentified in the previous two steps interact.These were described in the previouschapterbutare summarized here forconvenience.Matrix: This influences movement withinthe landscape. Thecharacteristicsofthe matrix,such as its connectivity andits ‘hospitableness’ to the objects involved,will determinehowthe matrix functions in this regard.43Patches: These are often specialareas of habitat for species,and the type and numberofspecies they containoften dependson the size and shape ofthe patch.Corridors: Fourmainfunctions ofcorridorshave been identified: habitatfor certain typesofspecies; aconduit formovementalong corridors; a barrieror filter separating areas;andasource ofenvironmental andbiotic effects on the surroundingmatrix (Formanand Godron1986).The definitions given aboveshould provide someguidance in the identificationof thefunctions of each of thelandscape structures. The teammust try to determine howthesefunctions relate to the flowsin the subject area, and howthe flows ‘tie’ different areasofthe landscape togetherand allow the landscapeto function as an ecologicalsystem.Importantpattern relationshipsbetween structures whichmay contribute to functions, suchas adjacency ordispersalofpatches, connectivity ofmatrix,etc.,should also be identifiedatthis point.WADFExample:The main relationships betweenthe structures and the flowsin the West ArmDemonstration Forestwere identified through aseries of discussions withinthe designteam. Each landscapestructural type was consideredin turn. Its functional contributiontoeach flow was then determined.For example, the old-growthelements of the matrixprovided thermal cover,snow interception and hidingcoverfor ungulates,snags and nestsites for ospreys, and hadimportant stabilizing functionsfor water flows. Allof thisinformation was tabulatedin a spreadsheet, which plottedlandscape elementsagainstflows, with the relationshipbetween them outlinedin the units of the spreadsheet.Theseresults are shownin Tables 6, 7 and 8 whichshow the interactions betweenthe landscapeflows and the matrix,patches and corridors, respectively.44The intention was that, inthe subsequent design steps, the teamcould easily identify theecological requirements foreach major landscape flow fromthese tables. The elementssupporting these functionscould then be included in thedesign forthe landscape.Table 6. Flows within elements ofthe forest matrix in theWADFELEMR.TrS FISHUNGULATES OSPREY GRIZZLYPEOPIE WATER AVALANCHEOFFORESTMATRIXOld -Growth Large ThermalSnags and Thermal Genius lociEvapotransOrganic covernest sites cover. High qualitypirationDebris (LOD) Snowproximal Food source interiorMaintainStream bank interceptionto fishing Bedding landscapenatural peaksstability Hiding coverareas in sites. High recreation andlow flowsWater qualityICI-ldw Downed valueDecreasesShadingzone wood - High timbersedimentLitter fallfood. value deliveryInsect dropBetter in Wildlife viewingwetESSF Visuallyforested.Medicinal plantsMid seral LessLOD As aboveLesser Similar as High recreationAs aboveShading value forabove - but valueLitter fall nest sites-less High carryingHigh water unlessBetter in capacity.qualitylegacies of wetESSF Better huntingBankold growth and less in (thanOG)stability,present ICH MW2 Wildlife viewingInsect dropPole As above Low thermalLegacies Less use Generallylow As abovecover needed for unlessin or useLow snow this stage nearMinor forestinterception to be of avalancheproductsuse areas Wildlife viewingWetESSFLess in ICHMW2Alpine As above Very littleNouse Very Veryhigh Snow Snowforage importantrecreation and accumulation accumulationHiding cover for denscenic value in zonesites, summer&Creekhead-foraging winter, ifwatersand cover accessibleLate snowWinter melt-summerrecreation-high flowscommercial andrecreation valueViews. Alpinemeadows.Low carryingcapacity45Table 7: Flows withinthe atches in theforest landscape.PATCHESIN FISH UNGULATES OSPREY GRIZZLY PEOPLE WATER AVALANCHELANDSCAPESapling Less shade More forage Little use As for Impenetrable Less snow(than matrix) than in unless matrix Gathering (than matrix)Organic matrix legacies Christmas trees Increasedmaterial Hiding cover present runoff (andInsect drop temperaturechange)Shrub!forb Increased High quality As above As above Berry picking Increased Colonizationwater forag Wildcrafting snow can increasetemperature Little hiding Hunting accumulation, risk if indue to cover Views out but also avalanchedecreased Not visually increased peak zoneshade forested flowsIncreased Wildlife Decreasedpredation viewing summer flowsEasy access Adversefor fishermen comments ifDecreased badly designedstability ofstreamchannelBare/Grass! As shrub! forb Moderate As above As above As above Severe Can increaseForb but more forage Firewood alteration to risk if inextreme Very little hydrology avalanchehiding cover Increased zonesedimentationHardwoods Increased Little snow Big, old Little use Firewood Little snowlitter interception cottonwoods Visual diversity interceptionLOD Little cover are used Fall coloursShading Moderate! Special woodsInsect little forage Some huntingdropping production Some gatheringNutrient gainAvalanche Affect quality Forage ‘Home’ View-points Affect quality AvalanchesTracks. of water throughout- Forage Landscape of water tend to runAdds substrate use different diversity Adds substrate down existingDams elevations Wildlife Dams tracksseasonally viewing Affect waterMovement Gathering channels andDanger (winter) change bankcharacteristicsRock Salt licks Rock climbing Fast runoff Often sourcesoutcrops Goat habitat Viewpoints Can be used toSouth aspect Prospecting control- warming Hang gliding direction ofVisual diversity avalancheLakes Sport fish Water source Fishing StorgaeCooling Camping! Filtration!hiking sediment trapsSwimming! Pollutionrafting GiardiaWetlands Food. Forage at Forage Wildlife Filtration!Filtering edges Cooling viewing, sediment trapsRearing Water source Hunting.habitat Educational(connected to valuelake orstream)Fresh waterconnector46Table8: Flows withincorridors intheWADFforestlandscape.CORRIDORS FISH UNGULATESOSPREY GRIZZLY PEOPLE WATERAVALANCHEll’4LANDSCAPERiparian As for old MovementSnags Forage Travel areas Filtration Sourceofareas growth corriors.Trails Bank runoffmatrix Forage andFishing atability Vegetationshelter.Aesthetics Temperature controlcontrols CatchmentDebris zone forloading debrisStreams Movement Water supplyCooling Fishing. Conduit. Sediment]corridorsWater Genius loci Human debrisSpawningsupply Water consumption- in lowabstraction Water forgradientspawning.streamsAgriculturaluseTrails/ Pollution. As aboveTravel As above.Powerlines Increasedcorridors Not usuallyaccess forIntrusion visuallyfishermeninto intrusivehabitatPowerlines Forage andNesting Christmas Sediment.Notmovement in sites - treesEffects on constructuedright of way perchingHorse back temperature in these areasin towers ridingSnowmobiles and crosscountryskiing inright ofways47The effect ofthe pattern of the patches, corridorsand matrix elements on landscapefunctioning was also estimated atthis point. For example, in the upper elevations ofthelandscape, alpine and alpine/huckleberrypatches are frequently found adjacentto wetlandcomplexes. Thus areas used by bears forfeeding are closely adjacent to watering areas,making this groupofpatches avaluablehabitatareaforbears.In the lower elevationsofthe landscape,there is a varied mixtureofold growth,youngerseral stages and open areas of shrub,forb and grass. This provides many oftheattributesrequired by ungulates in winter rangeareas, i.e., thermal cover, hiding cover andgoodqualityforage. Thus thispattern is avaluableone forungulates in the landscape. Figure7illustrates the patternofstructuresin the WADFlandscape.iv) Natural Disturbance and Succession.The purpose of this step is to understandhow the composition and arrangementoflandscape elements results from the actionof large scale natural change agents. Itisproposed thatonce the natural processesand the patterns they create have been identified,this knowledge can be used toguide the design of future landscapepatterns (Diaz andApostol 1992). A method formimickingnatural processes in this way will bediscussedinalater section. This section applies merelyto the identificationofnatural change agentsinthe landscape, theircharacteristicsand the impacts they have on thelandscape pattern.Disturbancecan be defined as ‘those eventsthatcause change in theexisting patternin asystem’ (Forman 1987:219) and they aretherefore larger events than the normalflowsentering and leaving landscapeelements.Themajordisturbances recognized inmostforestlandscapes are fire, wind and insect attack(Baker 1980, Kimmins 1990). These eventsoften cause changes in the numbers andgroupings oforganismsoccupying an areaand arefollowed by a sequence ofchanges in theanimal, plant and microbial communitieswhichwill successively occupy the area (ecologicalsuccession) (Kimmins 1987). To tryto48determine what effect natural disturbances have had on a landscape, the followingquestions can be posed:What agents ofchange at the landscape level would have existed in thenatural ecosystem?What would their effect have been on the landscape pattern (arrangement,composition, size and shape ofpatches; connectivity;characteristics ofthematrix;etc.)?How might natural landscape patterns have influenced the behavior ofdisturbance phenomena?” (Diazand Apostol, 1992: 4.26).Theanswers to these questions should guide the design team towards apicture ofwhat‘natural appearing’ is most likely to mean for the landscape in question. They should beanswered withthe primary objective ofthis analysis in mind, i.e. thatit is the effects ofthedisturbance and succession on the composition and arrangement ofthe landscape patternwhich is important and the scale and type of pattern produced by these events is ofparticular importance.WADFExample:The design team identified fire, wind and insects as main agents of disturbance in theWestArm Demonstration Forest. They felt theycouldestimate the size and probable returnperiod of such events for different areas of the landscape, based on the vegetation type,biogeoclimaticsubzoneand theirknowledgeofthe areaand its history.Fire:In this area, mostofthe fires which occurare started by lightning, with the largestnumberof strikes occurring in the higher elevations. However these do not tend to develop intofires very often in this zone (Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir zone). When they do, it hasbeenobserved that they burn areas ofapproximately 5 to 50 hectares in size, witha returnperiod of300- 400years. They are likely to be stand replacementfires ofhighintensity.Atlowerelevations, in the InteriorCedarHemlockzone, fires aremore frequent and bumin larger areas (50-500 hectares). Both surface and crown fires occur. These alter thestands but do not often replace them. Thus the firedisturbancepattern can be visualizedas49produing small but intense disturbances infrequently at high elevations. Larger areas ofdisturbance are produced more frequently at lower elevations where they are less intenseand tend to leave vegetation behind. In all cases, return frequencies vary withaspect: fireson southand west faces have shorterreturn periods than those on northandeast faces.As the current policy is to suppress all wild fire in this area, the above information wasderived from historical records and from examining the patterns and structures of thosestands aged 100 years or more. Studies of the fire characteristics of each of thebiogeoclimaticzones were also useful in this exercise.Otherdisturbances:The team considered fire to be the dominant disturbance regime in the West ArmDemonstration Forest. However insects, wind and snow have also impacted areas of thelandscape in the past. It was noted however, that these factors usually worked incombination to produce landscape scale disturbances. For example, wind, in associationwith insects, can have a landscape scale impact in all zones, one which insects or windalone would not produce.Table 9 provides asummary ofthedisturbance patterns which have shaped the landscapeof the WADF, and have the potential to do likewise in the future. The disturbances arelistedby biogeoclimaticsubzone.Succession:The design team found that very little information was available on the successionalpathways in the WADF. The Biogeoclimatic classification of the ecosystems of B.C(Meidingerand Pojar 1991) deals mainly with climax vegetationand providedfew clues onthe successional pathways of these ecosystems. However, members of the design teamsuggested that it may be possible to draw on research carried out by the United StatesForest Service inMontana (Fischerand Bradley 1987). The regions studied in this researchliejust to the south ofNelson ForestRegion and the use oftheirdatamay be possible ifthe50Table 9: Disturbance patterns identifiedforthe WADF.Zone Fire - Insects Wind Snow/Ice.Alpine Freq. 300-400 years Cold and short season. Wind funnels upESSFwc4 Size: 5-50hectares. Spruce bark beetle; and down lake.Stable pattern for 300- western balsam beetle. 3 Deflects400 years. year life cycle; episodes occasionally intoOccur on S&W facing infrequent. Linked to sidecreeks. Createsslopes: short returns, storm / avalanche. small gaps withProduce more open trees left behind.stands; coarser soils. Linked to dead /Occur in ridges rather dying trees.thanhollows.ESSF Freq: 200-300 years. Sprucebarkbeetle; As above.Size: 50-500 hectares. Western balsam barkStable pattern for 200- beetle. Follows ice/snow300 years. Occur on damage. Pine beetle inS&W facing slopes & Lodgepolepine - dependsridges. S tan d onsizeoftree.Cancausereplacementfires. catastrophicstandloss.ICHmw2 Freq: 150-250 years. Lot of insects in this As above. Snow break onSize: 150- 500 years. zone. Armillaria i n stems - thinningLess intense fires than hardwoods. Eventually agent a n dabove. N&W slopes replaced by conifers (35- changes standbumless frequently. 40years). Allow forseral structure. Occursstage species to change in low elevationcompositionof stands. mw2. Douglasfir is m o s tsusceptible.Elevational belt.ICHdw Surface fires - Freq: 10- As above. As above.20 years. Start on rockoutcrops & coarse soils.S&W facing slopes.Produce open stands;less dense & less fuelloading. Surface &crown fires : 100-150years.ecosystems are found to be sufficiently similar to those in the West Arm DemonstrationForest.The two fire ‘groups’ recognized by Fischer and Bradley which appear to correlate tothose found in the WADF are ‘group nine’ (moist, lower sub alpine habitat types), and‘group eleven’ (warm, moist grand fir, western red cedar and western hemlock habitattypes).The fire characteristics and successional pathways followed by these types aresummarizedinTable 10. Although the application ofthis informationdirectlyto the WADF51should be approached with caution, it may be useful as apointeron the typesofsuccessionto expectintheWADFfollowing certainfire disturbances.Table 10. Fire characteristics and successional pathways for fire groups nine and eleven(Fischerand Bradley 1987).v) Linkages beyond the plan area:This stageof Total Resource Design identifies any functional ‘linkages’ which existbetween the subject landscape and its surroundings, to try to ‘fit’ the landscape into theFire Group Fire characteristics Description of expected succession.Group 9. The relatively high loadings The potential climax forest would be composed of pureMoist lower sub of bothlive and dead fuels, stands of subalpine fir, spruce or hemlock. The climaxalpine habitat combined with periodic situation on any of these sites requires a long time totypes. summer droughtincreases the develop and consequently is rarely found. Near climax(Fischer and chance for severe, stand situation is more common and is characterized by a denseBradley 1987:55) replacement fires when fires understory of subalpine fir, spruce and hemlock, whiledooccur. Douglas fir, lodgepole pine and spruce often form theoverstory.A stand destroying fire in the climax or nearclimax stageresults inaherb/shrubstage, followedby a seedling/saplingstage whichmay includeDouglas fir, lodgepole pine, larch,whitepineor spruce.Any fire in the seedling/sapling stage reverts the stand totheshrub/herb condition. Moderatefires inpolesizedstandswill favour fire resistant Douglas fir and larch overlodgepolepine, spruce, hemlockorsub alpinefir.A severefiredestroys thestand. Whereserotinouslodgepolepineis present, seedlings ofthis species may form apureornearlypure stand.Group 11. Moist weather conditions Theoretical climaxconditionis stands ofgrand fir, westernWarm, moi s t predominate,buttheregionis hemlock or westernred cedar. This is rarely achieved as thegrandfir, western occasionally subject to severe seral species arelonglivedandfireoccursfrequentlyenoughred cedar and summer drought. Heavy fuel thatstands seldom developbeyond thenearclimax stage.westernhemlock loadings exist in most stands Following a stand replacementfire, succession begins withtypes. because of the overall high shrub/herb field. The duration ofthis stage depends on the(Fischer an d plant productivity. This sets availability of tree seed and the occurrence of multipleBradley 1987:69) the stage for severe, burns.widespread fires. Stands are If seed is available and multiple burns do not occur,replaced andrevertto pioneer seedlings ofbothclimax and seral trees will establish on aspecies. burned site.Pole and mature stands are Low/moderatefires in pole/mature stands favourintolerantusually dense and although seral species over climax cedar, grand fir or westernthis leads to high fuel hemlock as these are less fire resistant. Climax stands mayloading, severe fires are withstandlow thinningfires,butmoderate/severefires willinfrequent due to the high returnthe site to ashrub/herb stage.moisture status.context of its surroundings. It examines how the most important flow phenomena in the52analysis area interact with areas beyond its boundaries, and identifies the landscapestructures whichcontribute to that interaction.The contribution that the analysis area makes to the wider landscape is also considered.For example, the area may contain aportion of a critical migration route for a particularspecies. The positions of the linkages on the landscape, with an idea of their scale andimportance should be indicated on a map. Diaz and Apostol (1992) recommend that thedesign team letthe amount ofanalysis done in this section be guided by logic, informationand time available as there does not seem to be any systematic way ofdetermining when theanalysis ofthe functional linkages is sufficient.WADFExample:This step was carriedoutby several members ofthedesignteam in consultation with stafffrom B.C. Parks who administer both the Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park (which liesalong the northern boundary ofthe demonstration forest) and theKokanee CreekProvincialpark(asmall areaofintensive public use to the south ofthe WADF).Through this collaboration, the main areas and routes used by wildlife (mainly ungulatesand grizzly bear) for movement into and out of the demonstration forest from KokaneeGlacier park were identified. Estimations were then made as to the extent and timing ofthese flows The mainareas ofuse by the public in both parks and the main areas of use inthe demonstration forest were also identified. Concerns on their management voiced bypark staffwere noted by the team forconsiderationlaterin the design process.Other linkages with the surrounding landscape, such as waterflows, werealso identified.All of the flows and annotations describing the flows are marked on the map shown inFigure 10.53Figure 10. An map of the flows in the WADFwhich link with the surrounding landscapes.vi) Ecological landscape pattern objectives:Thus far, a method for analyzing the ecological functioning of a landscape has beendescribed. In section 3.5, the design phase of the process will be outlined, in which thedesign team will be concerned with actually designing the shape, location andcharacteristicsofmanagement units. Before this is done, this step is carried out to act as abridge between analysis and design. It involves making sense of the ecological analysis,within the contextof theoverall objectives for the landscape to producea ‘vision’ ofwhatthe ecological landscapepattern should be in the future, ifthe objectives are tobe metwhilemaintaining or enhancing the ecological functioning of the landscape. It produces aconceptual map of the pattern of desired landscape structures, illustrating their optimallocation, shape, sizeand relationshipto each other.Threemain steps are involved in the production oflandscapeecological pattern objectives.54i) Mapping ofexisting pattern decisions;ii) Inclusionofpublic concerns and desires for landscapepattern; andiii) Preparation oftarget landscape pattern objectives.i) Mapping ofexisting pattern decisionsAny ‘patterns’ provided by the broad objectives for the landscape, higherlevel plans orother guidelines and specifications are identified and mapped at this point. For example,there may be habitats or resources within the landscape which have been identified asimportantormay require preservationor special management in the future. Specificationsmay exist for harvest unit size, silvicultural systems, proportion of forest cover to beretained, number of openings for wildlife habitat etc. These are all decisions about thefuture landscape pattern which have already been made. These should be described andmapped. The result will act as a first ‘building block’ for the establishment of ecologicalpatternobjectives.ii) Public concerns and desires forlandscape patternPublic participation processes (such as LRMPs and Local Resource Use Plans(LRUPs)”)may have taken place for the subjectareaand will have provided informationon which areas ormanagement practices are ofconcern to thepublic, orwhich take priorityfrom theirpointofview. This informationshould be described and mappedat this point sothatthedesign team can be sure thatthey are incorporating public values in the final design.If public participation processes have not been set up for the area in question, seriousconsideration should be given to initiating one in advance of attempting aTotal ResourceDesign so that this information can be obtained. TRD itselfis a detailed planning processand as such cannot incorporate complex public debates. However, several representativesofpublic groups may bedirectly involved withthe team during Total Resource Design, sothatthe exactlocations ofareas ofinterestin the landscape can bedetermined.11LRUP: A strategicplanfor aportion ofaTimber Supply AreaorTreeFarm Licencethatprovidesmanagementguidelinesforintegratingresourceusein thatarea(ProvinceofBritishCo]umbia,1994)55iii) Preparation oftargetlandscape pattern objectives.Once both ofthe above stages have been completed,the design team must interpret theanalysis information to producea target landscape pattern which will include the existingpattern decisionsand issuesofpublic concernidentified in the previous steps.To facilitate this process, questions suggested by Diazand Apostol can be followed.These should prompt the design team into thinkingabout the functions in the landscapewhich need to be maintained, enhancedor restored, and to identify a pattern anddistribution of landscape structures which wouldachieve this. If different zones ormanagement areaswith different resource emphaseshave been identified in ahigher plan,then landscape patterns can be compiled more easily foreach zone.The questions recommended by DiazandApostol are as follows:“Are there some rare, unusual, criticalor unique landscape elements wewant to protect or enhance, e.g. wetlands, travelcorridors, blocks of oldgrowth withinteriorhabitatetc.?”“Are there patches or areas of the matrix betweenwhich connectivityshould bemaintained?”“Is there anything missing that should be introducedor restored?”“To what extent, and where, do we want to emulatecertain elements ofnatural landscape patterns? If one believesthat 1) ‘natural ‘ levels ofdiversity (of composition, structure and process)sustains ecosystemresilience and2) species diversity is fostered byhabitatdiversity, then thereis much to be gained by mimicking some aspectsof landscape patternscreated through natural processes. Just what theseare and how they can berecreated in a managed landscape deserves seriousconsideration at thisstep.”“Are there areas of the landscape whereit is desirable to minimizefragmentation?”“Are there areas whereahigh degreeofedge and contrastis desirable?”“Are there areas where gradual changes ratherthan sharp edges aredesirable?” (Diaz andApostol 1992:4.45).When carried out bya design team, it willbecome obvious that there will always bemorethan one possible target landscape pattern- there is no one ‘right answer’ and subjectivedecisions will be required. However,aframework has already been established to provideguidance on these decisions, based on thedirection and pattern decisions establishedinplans and guidelines, and from public input. The challengefor the team is to work within56this frameworkto produceacreativesolution scenariowhich will providea ‘vision’ forthefutureand which is not too rigidly bound by currentthinkingand managementrestrictions.Once ecological landscape pattern objectives have been produced, the design team mustthen beawareofthe limitationsofthis target patternbefore it is incorporatedintothe designphase. Essentially, this pattern will have been produced based on a limited knowledge andunderstanding of the landscape function, with available expertise, and with theincorporation of current social concerns and desires. Over time, knowledge of landscapefunctioning will grow, social concerns and desires for the landscape will change, as willthe pattern decisions contained in higher plans and guidelines. Natural disturbances mayintervene and completely alterthe landscape pattern. Anyofthese occurrences will requirethe target patternto be revised. Thus the pattern mustnot be regarded as a long term fixedtarget. Itshould be flexibleand open to re-evaluation and iterationwhen necessary. Apostolsuggests thatthe team should think twentyyears ahead when developing a target patternorvision (D. Apostol. pers. com. 1994). This can be taken into the design phase and used toguide design in the short term such as the first five years. Then the landscape patternobjectives should be re-evaluated. The team should ask, “does this pattern objective stillprovide sound guidance? Is it still the ‘desired future objective?” This revisiting of theecological vision for the landscape will ensure that the design and management of thelandscape will continue to adaptand incorporatechange, thus reducing rigidity and futuredissatisfaction with the results.WADFExample:When given the goal ofproducing desired ecological landscape pattern objectives, thedesign team for the WestArm Demonstration Forestdecided to tackle itin two phases. Thefirst phase, which arose out ofdiscussion, deviated from the proposed method and tried topredicta dynamic future pattern based on theirunderstanding ofthe disturbance regimes in57the area. This phase was completedduring the workshop. The second phase returned to theabove method. It was initiated duringthe workshop and continued in the months to follow.Phase 1:The team examined the current ecological patterns present on the landscape (shown inFigure 7). They then considered how these related to the disturbance regimes they haddetermined for the landscape (shown in Table 9). The thought processes which thenoccurred withinthe team can be described as follows:‘1. Anestimation ofthe natural disturbance patternsin the WADFhas been made.2. It is suspected, based on existing knowledge of the area, that the vegetation patternwhich currently exists is a function ofthese disturbances and the climatic conditions at thetimethey occurred.3. This current pattern is a snapshot in time. Disturbance and succession produce an everchanging, dynamic pattern on the landscape. Areas ofmatrix, patches and corridors are notfixed in space. Therefore it would appear necessary to try to manage for a ‘dynamicpattern’.4. This can perhaps be doneby mimicking the dynamicsofthe disturbances over time .i.e.mimic the cause ofthe change in the beliefthat this will produce a ‘natural’ result. If this isto happen, it must be done while maintaining the ecosystems’ successional pathways, sothat they canrecovernaturally.5. In proposing prescriptions for mimicking natural disturbances, the followinginformationmustbe known:- what natural disturbances occurin alandscape (orhaveoccurred in the past)?- whatareas ofthe landscape orvegetation types do they affect?- whatare the characteristics ofthese disturbances (size, frequency, intensity)?- whatlandscape structures do they produce (i.e what is theireffect on the vegetation? Areany trees orother living vegetationleft behind? Ifso, whatdensity and distribution ofdeadtrees are left ?)586. This information can be combined to derive aset of ‘structural objectives’ for areas ofsimilarvegetation type, climateand disturbanceregime, whichifachieved will successfullymimiclocal patterns and processes overtime.’Resulting from this train ofthought was anidentification ofthe characteristics ofthenatural disturbances associated withthe different biogeoclimatic subzones presentin thelandscape. These are outlined in Table11. From these characteristics, aset of ‘standstructural objectives’ was produced.These outline how stand typesin certainbiogeoclimatic zones could be managed(in termsofa residual structure afterharvesting)tomimic the natural disturbances occurringin the respective zones. A description ofthesubzone to which each structural objectiveapplied accompanied each objective. Thisisillustrated in Table 12. The positionof each of these subzones in the WestArmDemonstration Forestwas locatedon amap(Figure 11) and provided guidanceon how thecomponents of the current vegetationpattern could be managed to maintain,to somedegree, the dynamic changes occurring naturallyin the landscape, and thus perpetuate anatural ecological pattern.Table 11:Characteristics andsuggested interventionforvegetationtypes in theWADF.Letters in italicsare the codesgiven to eachofthese types.Zone Characteristics(and suitable intervention.)Alpine Krummlsolzandparkiand - petering out. Nointerventionrecommended. Climaticallycontrolleddynamics. ATESSF InoperableOperableiOO- .500 hectare naturalburns in the higher 50 hectareopenings in the sectionnearest tomore remote locations.Control? mw2.Openings contain refugiapatches,Enirregular shapes, biggerareas. Occur on NE,S & W aspects. 150 yeardisturbancefrequency.ESOICHmw2 Low probabilityof fireHigh probability of fireLow fire hazard. ThisAreas ofmature forest Thiszone is on a High firehazard.type found in valley Haspockets ofroot rot NE-SWorientation Found onS & Wbottoms. Old growth etc. Foundon N&E Openingsusually ridges. Similartoareas,slopes. G r o up have much left ESSF. CouldburnLow/no interventionselectionis suggested behind- islands, patches.recommended. MWnMWg ‘vets etc.MWi MWbICHdw MoisterDrierMoist area.Drierareas.Fairly open standssimilar to drier mw2. S &W slopes and coarsesoils. Open standsMature stands with rootrot pockets. Run into with2 story structure.Dense patches left indrainages with aWorE aspect. littlepresent. locallymoist pockets. OccasionalclearanceDWinwith large vetsleft behind. Groupselectionsuggested.DWd59Table 12: Summaryofstand structuralobjectives:StandType DescriptionStructural ObjectiveAlpme/ Open structure; somekruinmholz,clusters Nointerventionrecommended.parkland oftrees ofall ageclasses.ESSF Locatedinnon-operableareas. Likely Will letfires burn to some degreein mostdisturbance 100-500hanaturalfires. remoteareas.Innon-burnedareas standstructure:matureforestinterspersedwithlargeopenings (100-500ha)with ‘treed’exclusionsandsomestanding deadtrees.Patches leftin seeps, along streamsandonsome benches.ESSF50 Foundinoperableforest. 50hatreatment Structures as aresultoffire (300 yearunits (meanarea). Similarfireperiodicityas periodicity),insects anddiseases:ESSFn,howeverfire suppressionis astandingdead trees; openings withrefugiarequirement. Managementcouldmimicfirepatches - irregularshapes; largerareas ondisturbance. S&W aspects that on N&E aspects.ICHmw2,11 Lowfire hazardin valleybottoms, wet Low/nointerventionrecommended.riparianareas and oldgrowth,duetowet Structural objective: canopyclosure, largehabitat.trees,largeorganicdebris,multistoriedcanopy, small gaps (1-2 tree lengths)-typical oldgrowthhabitat.ICHmw2g Found on moist, N&Eslopes. Mid-lateseralstages with someoldgrowthFiredisturbances,frequency200 years -patchesandstandingveterans;mainlyproducing openings ofapprox150hain even-aged,many speciesandclosedcanopysize. Standingveteransremainafterfires.(60-80%);2 storiedstand,understoryofclimax species. Openings of 150 ha.Group selection suggested.ICHmw2j Found on mesic/submesicsites. Evenaged, twostoriedcanopy. CrownFireperiodicityincreasedfrommwgclosure50-70%. Individual large veteransSmallerunburnedpatches survivefires(0.25within the canopy.- 2 hainsize). Clearcutwithreserves suggested.ICHmw2bFoundon xericandsub-xericsites onS&W Few patches left &individuallargeridges. Increasedfireperiodicity, similarto veterans. UnderstorypresentinopenICHdw - 150 years, scale 100-500ha. patches, mostlyLodgepolepine &Westernlarchregeneration.ICHdwm FoundonN&Easpects/wetterareas with Open stands withamosaicofageclassespatches ofgrandfirandwesternredcedaron present inpatches.wetareas. Fireperiodicity: surfacefiresevery30-50 years. Standreplacementfiresevery 100-150 years.ICHdwd Found on S&W aspects. PredominantlyWide spacing; multistoriedcanopy; somePonderosapine,Douglas firand some patches on wet sitesandfireexclusions.Westernlarch. Hardwoodpatchespresent.Numerouslarge veterans.Fires: surfacefires 30-50 years and standreplacementfiresevery 100-150 years,Heavilydiseasedwithfrequentinsectattacks.Figure 11: Location of‘ecologicalunits’ to which stand structuralobjectivescan be appliedin the WADF.Limitations to this approach havesince been recognizedby members of the designteam. Itrelies on a sound knowledgeof disturbance and successionpatterns in the subjectlandscape. As has been notedalready in this chapter, detailsof many of the successionalpathways in the ecosystemsof British Columbia are not currently known.Similarly, theimpacts of disturbances areintensity dependent (D. Cramptonpers, corn, 1994) andpresently little is known aboutthe effects ofdifferentintensitiesofdisturbances such as fireon the succession pathwaysfollowed by the vegetation. Despitethese limitations and theestimates which were requiredas a result, the design team didfeel thatthis was a usefulprocess to go through and thatit will provide some logical directionfor the futuremanagementofthelandscapepattern.61Stage 2.Having provideda method for mimickingthe natural disturbancepattern on thelandscape, the designteamrealized that theystill had to return tothe proposedmethod forthis step, in order toprovide a frameworkwhich would guidethe designer in decidingwhere units should bedesigned,and within which thestand structural objectivescould beapplied.This frameworkwould includepublicconcerns, administrativespecifications andguidelines, and incorporateareas forprotection,special managementor restoration whichwere recognized in theecological analysis.It is reasonableto assume that large scalemimicking ofnatural firesin the WestArm DemonstrationForest would notnecessarilybeacceptable, duemostly to the visual impactthat this would have.Such patterns wouldprobably also bein conflictwith existingpattern decisions presentin plans and guidelinesfor the area and wouldnot be welcomed ifthey impacted on,for example an ecologicalreserve or recreationarea. Thus it wasfelt that a target ecologicalpattern would helptoreach such a compromise,within which the standstructural objectivescould be used astoolsforthe implementationofthe pattern.WADFExample:This stageofTRD hasnot yet beencompleted forthe West Arm DemonstrationForest.There was not enoughtime available at theinitial workshop todo this; howeverasubsequent meetingof the design team took placein Nelson to discussthis next step(August 1994).It identified many difficultiesin establishing a ‘target landscapepattern’,the mostlimitingofwhich was felt to bethe currentlackofinformationon the amounts ofcertain landscapeelements requiredfor the maintenance of,for example, wildlifepopulations. It is knownby the team that latewinterand mid-winterhabitatis required forungulates in the WADF.Similarly, there isadesire to increasethe proportion ofoldgrowthforest represented inthe landscape. In orderto come up with a targetpattern are it wasto bedecidedwhere theseareas should be locatedin the landscape and whatsize they should be.62The team admitted that this mightbe difficult to determine, but thatitshould be possible.So, they decided to arrangea subsequentsetofmeetings ofthe design teamand to prepareindividual target patterns foreach ofthe resources presentin thelandscape before the firstofthese meetings, in thefall of1994. At this meeting, the team willsitdowntogether, withall relevant parties aroundthe table, to discussan overalltargetlandscape pattern. Thiswillnecessitate optimisation ofthe various resources, guidedby the overall objectives for thelandscape, and based on the resultsofthe ecological analyses carriedout.Several comments were madeby the team while discussingthis step of TRD. It wasobserved thatdifficulties would beencountered incomingup withresource target patterns,simply because such aprocess required a radical changein approach, especiallyfor thoseindividuals administering non-timberresources. For example, at the moment,staffof theMinistry ofEnvironment, HabitatProtection Branch, are mostly reactingto the proposals toharvest produced by theMinistry ofForests. They try toprotect habitats by restricting theterms of the harvesting andin effect saying ‘no - we don’t wantthat!’. Total ResourceDesign requiresall resourcerepresentatives to say to the restof the team “this is what wewant’. It requires themto be pro-active. This is a positionwhich many resourcerepresentativesconsiderto be ideal, but yet have not had thetime orresources toaddress inthe past (G. Fox. pers,com,1994). Thus they are largely unpreparedto provide an answeras their informational and inventoryresources are not designed toproduce this kind ofinformation. This step willthus stimulate a change of approachto forest planning bymaking all representativesat the table equal partners intheir right to state their ‘desires’from the landscape.The final decision on a target landscapepattern will be decided andendorsed by the team as awhole, providing acommon managementgoal.Itwas feltthatthiswouldbe difficulttoachieve in practice, buttheteam recognizedthatthis was an approach which wasnecessary and timely and soaimed to have it completedbefore theendof 1994.633.4.4.3 Landscape character analysisLandscape Character applies to the collectiveresultofallofthedifferentcomponents ofalandscape - visual, cultural, ecological, historical - working togetherto produce what is inessence the ‘identity’ of a landscape. To date in theTotal Resource Design method,primarily the ecological characterhas been analyzed. Otheraspects oflandscape charactersuch as historical or cultural associations with thelandscape, or some of its parts, can bedetermined from local knowledgeand archived orinventoriedinformation. This should berelatively accessible to the design team. Whatremainsto beanalyzed is the visual characterofthe landscape. Theabilityto ‘read’ the landscapecharacterwill enable the design team todetermine where and how management units can befitted into the landscape in a mannerwhich is sympathetic to its visual character.The method employed in Total Resource Designis based on an approach usedextensively by the British Forestry Commission whichconcentrates on an examination oflandform (Lucas 1991). It contributes to an understandingof the visual character of thelandscape by identifying the characteristicsof its topography, its undulating ridges andhollows, the combinations ofmass andspace and other aspectsoflandform and how theseare arranged. This landform analysis is accompaniedby an examination of features in alandscape which alsocontribute to its character. Togetherthese analyses aim to providethefundamental understanding ofthe visual characteristicsofthe landscape, which can laterbeharnessed whenattempting todesign the managementunits.Thus this section is splitinto twoparts:a. Landform analysis: an analysis oflandformstructureusing ‘visual forces’.b. Landscape featureanalysis: an analysisoftheelements ofdiversity, natural features andvegetation.64i) Landform analysis:On atopographic map and corresponding perspective photographsofeach design unit, thedominant ‘lines ofvisual force’ in the landscape are identified. ‘Visual force’ is explainedas the “illusion or sensation of movement created by a static image, object, or thejuxtapositionofanumber ofelements in a composition or landscape” (Bell 1993 draft:7).Put simply, in a natural landscape the eye tends to be drawn down spurs, ridges andconvex landforms and up into hollows, valleys and concavelandforms. The implication forforestry is that ifa harvesting block is shaped or positioned in a manner which disruptsthese ‘lines of force’, a strong visual tension will occur causing the block to look out ofplace inthelandscape.For each design unit, identifying the main lines of force on both plan and photographicperspective, and between different views, will ensure accuracy. Major ridges andconvexities are identified on a map in red, with the valleys and concavities identified ingreen. On completion, the structure of the topography will become clear, giving anunderstanding ofthe three dimensional structureand form ofthe landscape. This can thenbe used by the designer whendesigning the shapes and positions ofunits onthe landscape.Figures 12 and 13, prepared by Bell forone areaof the WADF, show how these analysescan beillustrated in both plan and perspective views.ii) Land FeatureAnalysis.This part of the analysis identifies features in the landscape which contribute to itscharacter, especially those which help to determine its diversity and visual absorptioncapability. Important in this step is the identification of a pattern to the presence ofthesefeatures, why they occurin the landscape and where. As Bell explains:“There will be some underlying logic to why some features occur wherethey do - rockoutcrops relatedto geology, erosionandlandform; vegetationto drainage; water features to landform structures and geology” (Bell 1993draft :53).Figure 12. Landform analysisofQueens!Lairdareaofthe WADF, planimetric form12Figure 13. Landform analysis ofQueens/LairdareaofWADF - perspectiveview1312Graphicprovidedby SimonBell, BritishForestry Commission.13Graphicprovidedby SimonBell,BritishForestryCommission65The location of each of these features is recorded on overlays on the perspectivephotographs for each design unitand accompanied by detailed annotations, to provide amoredetaileddescription oftheircontributiontothe landscape character.In addition to the landform and land feature analyses, notes ongeniusloci andthe scaleofthe landscapecan be addedtofurtherassist the designer’s understanding ofthe landscape.WADFExample:These analyses were completed by the team during the workshop, proving that alandscape characteranalysis could be carried out by everyone, regardless ofdesign skills,aftera little practice, and withasurprising degree ofconsistency. It thus provided afairlyobjective wayofdetermining the composition and nature ofthe landforms in the studyarea,providing guidance forthe designerin subsequent steps ofthe TRD process.The ‘lines offorce’ were marked on both a copy ofthe base mapfor each ofthe 16 subunits, and on overlays ofthe perspective photographs for each sub-unit. When identifiedearly in theTotal Resource Design, process the linesofforce acted as ‘links’ between planand perspective and were used to help the team when they were attempting to transferfactors (such as theconstraints and opportunities) from the plammetric inventory maps ontothe perspective views.The resultof the landform analysis for the wholeofthe WADF is shown in Figure 14.673.4.5. Scenario DevelopmentThis stageofTotal ResourceDesign is the design stageofthe process, thatis, the stagewhen solutions are actually produced on paper in a graphic form. It consists oftwo stepswhich proceed in a sequential manner. They have been called ‘concept design generation’and ‘sketch design generation’ by Bell, but whatever the labels, the approaches applied inthese steps are recognizedcomponents ofany design process (Booth 1983). Concept design generationThis is the first step of the design phase. Itpulls together all the conclusions and ideaswhich have emerged from the previous steps, to produce general and loose arrangementsofa solution. This ‘concept’ design step is described furtherby Booth:o 1000 2000..-—IKey:.Lines of force running down ridges.Lines offorce runningup drawsand gullies.Figure 14. LandformAnalysisofthe WADF, plammetricillustration68“The purpose is toidentify the bestand mostappropriate relationshipsthatshould exist between the major proposed functions andspaces of thedesign. The intent is to gain an insight about which functionsand elementsshould be associated with each other, and whichshould be separated. Thedesigner is striving for the absolute functionalrelationships among thevarious parts ofthe design”(Booth1983:294).Diagrams produced at this stage aresimplistic and abstract, representing the designfunctions and spaces as general outlines or ‘bubbles’, which can be arranged to produce‘ideal relationships’ among the elementsand their functions. Important to the wholeprocess of design is the investigationof alternative solutions. Thus several scenariosshould be produced at this stage, to allow comparisonsto be made at a later date in thesearch foran appropriate design solution.The basis of Bell’s design process lies in the factthat the landscape itself will provide“structure, pattern and context” from whichthe designer canperceive anumberofpossible‘directions’ for the design (Bell 1993a).Theecological landscape pattern objectives, constraintsand opportunities analysis andthe landform/features analysis should be overlaidon a base map. They should also bepresented in perspective form for each design unitof the landscape and overlaid ontoperspective photographs, so that the design can occurin both plan and perspective. Theecological pattern objectives will providethe designer with direction as to where certaintypes ofunits (forexample, corridorunits, patches,areas to be preserved) should be placedonthe landscape and will alsoprovide pointersas to the necessaryscaleofthese units. Theconstraints and opportunities analysis willidentify where the location of units mightbeinadvisable due to practical constraintson management. It will also remind the designerofall the resource factors which have tobe considered in the design of each unit. Thelandscape character analysis will provideinformation about the underlying natureof thelandform. Becauseofthe strong influencethattopography has over vegetation patterns and69flows in a landscape, it will help the designerto understand how patternsmight be placedon alandscape in a way which will promote connectivity and reflect natural landscapediversity (Diaz and Apostol 1992).This step is one of assimilation, innovation and compromise. Bellsuggests that aperiod ofcontemplationofthe landscape and experimentationwith shapesshould help thedesigner envision how the landscape could be dividedinto shapes following topographyand vegetation patterns. As these shapes emerge and are sketched roughly,they canthen becompared with the ecological pattern objectives to see howthe two can be linked together(Bell 1993a). The resulting conceptdesigns can then be discussedwithin the design teamand with the public, and iterated until it is felt that the designs adequatelymeet all oftheobjectives for the landscape. Thesketches should thenbe annotatedwith notes on what theshapes might represent in the landscape (for example,areas to protect, areas whereharvesting is possible) as well as notes on the generalmagnitudeofthese shapes. This stepis thus a rough assimilation of previous analyses into an outlinefor the design ofmanagementunit shapes.WADFExample:This step was incompleteat the endofthe workshop andwas carriedout by SimonBellin GreatBritain, where an estimation ofthe ecological pattern objectives(as these had notbeen quite completedor mapped by the design team) were overlaid(in perspective view)and examined in relation to the objectives for thearea. Rough ‘bubbles’ were drawn onperspective photographs of the differentdesign units, which corresponded to areas whereunitscould be placed. These diagrams were annotatedwith notes on the characteristics ofthe underlying landscape, which would be important inthe final design oftheir shape andlocation andeventual management.These concept sketches were developed straight intofinal sketch designs by Bell,without any iteration ordiscussion with the design team,due mostly to the fact that Bell70was working in Britain. This is a fault with this particular application and should not berepeatedin any subsequentapplications. Sketch design.This stage ofscenario developmentis again presentin any general design process and isdescribed by Booth as follows:“with the basic theme offorms in mind, thedesignerconverts thebubbles andabstract symbols ofthe concept design into specific and exact forms. Whiletrying to adhereto the functional and spatial arrangement ofthe concept plan,the designer is also attempting to create a composition of forms that areattractive to the eye. The composition should be based on the basicprinciplesofdesign and form composition”(Booth 1983:299).To facilitate this step in Total ResourceDesign, Bell has imported the principles of forestlandscape designwhich have been developed by the British Forestry Commission and havebeen used by Bell and his colleagues in Britain in the design of forest plantations andharvesting overthe pastdecade. They attempt to provide a vocabularywhich will allow theindividuality of landscapes to be described and understood. Those components of thelandscape which contribute to its attractiveness can be identifiedand used as abasis fortheformationofa designforforestryin that landscape, be itplanting or harvesting. The majorprinciples identified by the Forestry Commission for use in forest landscapes are: shape,scale, visual force, diversity, unity and genius loci (Lucas 1991).The most valuable aspect of the British approach to forest landscape design,is theemphasis placed on thecharacteristics ofthe underlying landscape (D. Apostol pers. corn.May 1994), an approach first developed by Dame Sylvia Crowe (Crowe 1966, Crowe1978). Crowe recommended that the topographical base of the landscape be ‘allowed tospeak’ and provide guidance, primarily on the shape of the blocks on the landscape.Thisunderstanding is broughtto the design phaseofTRD in theform ofthe landscape character71analyses. The principles of visual landscape design can then be used to determine thespatial characteristics of the units being designed, to ensure that they fit in with theseunderlying characteristics.WADFExample:SimonBell was asked to finish the designof the management units on the perspectivephotographs of the area. These were then transferred into a planimetric form, to produce afinal mapofthe WestArm DemonstrationForest showing the managementunits, to whichappropriate standmanagementobjectives couldbeattached. This perspective to planimetrictransformation is tedious and difficult to achieve with accuracy when done manually.However, the British Forestry Commission has thesoftware capability to carry this out bycomputer, acapabilitywhich is notpresent withinthe B.C. MinistryofForests at this time.Onlyone design scenariowas produced by Bell forthis application. This was because theWADF application was a demonstration project, set up to illustrate the Total ResourceDesign process and to illustrate some ofits results. Again, in any subsequent applications,several scenarios should be produced if the ‘client’ is to have sufficient choice in theoutcome.The final productofthe Total ResourceDesign plan, the mapofthe locationand shapesofthe management units accompanied by perspective view simulations produced by Bellare shown below. Both illustrations show the ecological units (biogeoclimatic subzones)within which the designed units are located. This allows reference to be made to the standstructural objectives applicableto each designed unit.72Figure 15. Final sketchdesign formanagementunitsoftheWADF - planimetricview.Figure 16. Sketch design for designed units in the Queens/Laird face of the WADF -perspectiveview14.14Graphicprovidedby SimonBell,BritishForestry Commission73NFigure 17. Sketchdesign fordesignedunitsinthe Queens/Laird faceofthe WADF -planimetricview153.4.6 Assessment.Once the sketch designshave been completed by thedesigner for each scenario,andagreed to by the designteam, decisions mustthenbe made as to how thedesignedunits ineach scenario willactually be managed. Thesedecisionsare based onanassimilation oftheresults of the analyses andare guided by the general objectivesfor the landscape, theecological landscapepattern objectives and thestand structural objectives.Once thesedecisions have been made,the implications of eachscenario on the variousresourcespresent in the landscape suchas timber, recreation, wildlife,landscape quality etc.can beestimated. Simulationsfor each scenario can alsobe produced, using simplegraphictechniques or computergenerated graphics,to illustrate how the managementunits willappear on the landscapeunder these managementdecisions. The different scenarios15Graphicprovidedby SimonBell,BritishForestryCommission.74accompanied by the implicationsof theirimplementation and the graphic simulations, canthen betake to the ‘client’ forassessment.This step requires the ‘client’ to examine each scenario and its identified implications,and to question the abilityofthe designs to meet the objectives definedforthe landscapeatthe startofthe process. A decisioncan then be made as to which scenario is most suitableto the ‘client’s’ requirements, or if none are suitable, that iteration and alteration ofascenariomaybe required toreachacompromise.Once adecision has been made, the chosen scenario can beimplemented by the client.Theresults of this implementation must be monitored carefully and evaluatedagainst theoriginal objectives. Alterations of the design can be made if this performanceis notsatisfactory and observations madecan be used in the compilation ofany future designs.Itis important that this step is carried out and that the process does not stop with a decisionon the design to be implemented. As landscapes are dynamic and maychangeunexpectedly, and because societal values and objectives for a landscape will alsochangethrough time, it is vital that any Total Resource Design producedbe updated and revised atfrequent intervals. This will ensure that managementofthe landscape remainsflexible andcan reactrapidly to any situation.WADFExample:A final sketch design has been produced by Bell for the West ArmDemonstrationForest application (shown in Figure 15). This is however, merelyan illustration of theshapes and location ofmanagement units across the landscape. No decisionsas to how andwhen each of these units is to be managed, has yet beenmade. Thus, although there is acompleted pattern of shapes, there is no firm concept as yet,of how the structure andappearance of these units will change through time. Thispattern, which will determinewhetheraunitwill act as acomponentofthelandscapematrix, or as apatchofacertain ageclass, or as an area of ungulate winter range or a ripanan zone,is necessary before any75assessmentcan be made on the effectiveness ofTRD in meeting its objectives.Once it hasbeen completed, quantitative assessments of timber flows and road costscan then becarried out, and the attributes ofthe landscapepatterns created can be examinedin respectto the other non timber resources, such as wildlife habitat, water quality andquantity,recreation experience, etc. In terms of visual resources,the management units have beendesigned to ‘fit’ the landscape, so that they flow around contours andrelate to thecharacteristics of the landscape, suchas its scale, diversity etc. However, the managementofeach unit will dictate its appearance in terms ofcolourandtexture, and scheduling willalso determine the amount of disturbance in the landscape at anyone time. Thus the finalmanagement regime for the landscape is required before a full idea of the impactof thedesignon the visual characterofthe landscape can be made.Until the Total Resource Design process iscompletedforthe WestArm DemonstrationForest, littlecan be determinedabout its potential impacts on thelandscape. It is hoped thatthemethod followed will produce favorable results which can be realisticallyimplemented.Production of several management scenarios for the designed unitsshould allow theMinistry to the take the final design to the local communityfordiscussion and feedback, todetermine their responseto this new approach toforestplanningin theirarea. Each scenarioshould be accompanied by the results of an evaluationof its potential effects on theresources of the landscape, so that an informed decision can be made bythe client as towhether or not a Total Resource Design should be applied,and if so - which scenariowould be the most acceptable.3.4.7 Presentation of the Total Design PlanThe final landscapedesign plan documenthas notyet beencompiled by the Ministry ofForests. When this is done, Bell recommends thatthe plan should be presented as asequenceofmaps and graphics, with verbal descriptionskept to aminimum (Bell 1993a).This level of planning provides landscape level guidance,so detailed site specifications76need not be included. The necessary informationcan be effectively presented in a visualform as a series ofmaps showing eachstep in theTotal Resource Design process,i.e., thesurvey information, the results ofthe analyses,and the final maps and perspective sketchesshowing the management unit boundaries.These should be accompanied by introductoryparagraphs to provide a familiarizationwith the area and its objectives,and with the listsandtables oflandscape and stand levelobjectives which have been derivedby TRD (Bell1993a). Simulations showing how thelandscape will appear through time willalso beuseful.3.5 ConclusionThe end results of the application of Bell’sproposed method for Total ResourceDesign to the West Arm DemonstrationForest were two fold. Firstly, theworkshopnecessitated and resulted in the evolutionofadetailed methodforthe applicationofTRD inBritish Columbia. Secondly, it initiatedthe first major steps in the production ofa TotalResource Designforthe WestArm DemonstrationForest. This should be completed bytheMinistry ofForests (WADFmanagementteam) in the nearfuture, hopefully by theend of1995. ThisTotal Resource Design will providethe guiding direction for all operationsinthe West Arm Demonstration Forest overthe short term, and if re-evaluatedat regularintervals, it should also provide soundlong term guidance. As wellas these tangibleoutputs ofthe workshop, it alsointroduced many of the staffofNelson Forest Region totheTotal Resource Design approach andconsequently provideda sourceoffeedback on theattributesofthe process itself.The design team felt thatthe TRDprocess had many benefits, relatedto its capability tocontribute to an increased publicacceptance offorest operations, themaintenanceof longterm sustainability of the forestand an increased level of job satisfactionfor forestmanagers. This approach would, after all,provide an opportunity forthe holistictreatmentof forest landscapes and wouldenable the profession to returnto the practice of77stewardshipofall forest resources. Thedominant negative aspectofTotal Resource Designrecognized by the team was related to its cost and the time requiredfor its completion.Although no timberforecasts have yet been estimated from theresults ofthe workshop, itwas suspected by the team that it would result in a smaller yield oftimber from the WestArm Demonstration Forest, at least over the short term. Itwouldalso require silviculturalsystems, such as group selection and partial cutting, which themselveswould be lesseconomically efficientthan clearcutting practices. ThecostofTotal Resource Design as aplanning process was also found to be high. The WADF workshopcost $2300 inpreparation and materials alone, 232 person hours for preparationand a further 560person hours which were spent by the design team participating inthe workshop and awayfrom theirother duties. At the end of the workshop,the process had not been completed.The design ofthe management unit shapes was finishedby August 1994, approximatelysix months afterthe original workshop. A considerableamountofgroup discussion withinthe designteam is still required to provide managementdecisionson how each ofthese willbe managed in the future. There is no question that futureapplicationsofTRD should nottake as long as the initial test case, as the steps will havebeen clarified and expertise willhave been generated. However, bearing in mind thatSimon Bell did much of the designwork on this project, to implement Total ResourceDesign in the future the Ministry ofForests will need to recruitor train their own staffin visual design techniques and willhave to purchase the CAD (ComputerAided Design) software necessary to produceaccurate planimetric representations ofperspective designs.When considering any futureapplicationofTotal Resource Design in B.C.,these costs will have to be balanced againstthe many positive benefits discussed above. The designteam accepted that the approachprovided byTotal Resource Design will be increasinglydesired in the coming years, giventhe growing pressures on the Ministry of Foreststo perform in an environmentally andvisually responsible manner, whichmaypossibly make thejustification ofeconomiccostseasierin the future.78The next question to be asked regardingTotal Resource Design concerns its futureapplication in British Columbia.The WADF example has provideda method and anestimation of the capabilities, advantages,limitations and costs of the process. However,there are many other practical considerationsconcerning the suitability ofTotal ResourceDesign forwidespreadapplicationin B.C. These will be the subjectofthe next chapter.79Chapter 4The potential of Total Resource Design for general application in BritishColumbia4.1 IntroductionThe purpose of this chapter is to examine the attributes of theTotal Resource Designprocess in the context of current and possible future forest planning and designrequirements in British Columbia. Primarily, itwill try to determine whetheraprocess suchas TRD is actually needed in B.C. at the present time. To do thisitwill identify deficienciesin the currentplanning frameworkwhichTRD could help fill. It will then try to estimate ifTotal Resource Design would be an improvementon the status quo, and whetheritwouldeasily fit into the current forest planning framework. It is therefore anticipating a scenariowherestaffin the MinistryofForestsheadquarters are introduced toTotal Resource Designand are requiredto evaluateits potential as aplanning tool.It must be remembered thatcurrentplanning and policyconditions may change throughtimeand thus ifthe performance and suitability ofTRD is currentlyjudged unsuitable forsome reason (forexampleeconomics) thepossibility exists thatthe criteriaformaking thisdecision may change in the future. This could result in Total Resource Design beingconsideredin amore, orless favorablelightatsome future time.This chapter is composed of five sections. The first four address the followingquestions:1. Are there any ‘gaps’ in forest resources planning in B.C. whichcould be filled byTRD?2. How does its approach compare with that of current integrated resource planningprocedures?3. How wouldTotal ResourceDesign fitinto the forest planning framework?4. WouldTRD meetthe legal requirementsforforest management in B.C. contained in theForestPractices Code (Province ofBritish Columbia 1994).80To conclude the chapter, an example of a particular resource management scenariowhose properties suggest the useofTotal Resource Designwill be investigated to illustratethe potential the process may have for the coordination of multiple resource interests insensitiveforest areas.4.2 TRD - could it fill any ‘gaps’ in current forest resource planning inB.C.?The Ministry of Forests is responsible for the administration of the provincial forestlands in B.C. It has a broad mandate to carry out Integrated Resource Planning of theselands (provided by theMinistryofForests Act, The ForestAct and theRange Act(Duffy1990)) whichit currentlyattempts through the hierarchical planning framework illustratedbelow:TSA: Timber Supply Area(aform ofvolume-basedtenureofprovincialforestlands)TFL: TreeFarmLicense(aformofarea-based tenureofprovincial forestlands)Figure 18. Forest Planning Framework (Duffy 1990 :29).81An importantdeficiency in the currentforest resources planning framework, forwhichTotal Resource Design could potentially provide a solution, has been recognized by theMinistry of Forests (A. Lidstone. pers, corn, 1994). Within this framework, planningjumps’ from strategic coverage of large spatial areas at the forest management level andabove, to detailed operational plans, often carried out for small portions of the forestmanagementplan area. Planning at the intermediate spatial scale ofthe landscape, appliedconsistently across the provincial forest land base is absent. Local Resource Use Plans(LRUPs) do provide strategic direction, objectives and guidelines at the scale of thewatershed. However, these are only carried out in circumstances where complex resourceissues require detailed planning for their resolution (Ness 1992), and are not in place foreveryareaofprovincial forestland in the province.Discussion within the Ministry of Forests (between ministry planners and managers)and with industry identified that landscape level planning might address some of the longterm planning needs and conflicts which currentlyexist by providing forest planning atthis‘missing’ intermediate spatial scale (A. Lidstone. pers, com, 1994). Recognition of thevalue of landscape level planning has thus been included within the proposed ForestPractices Code (Province ofBritish Columbia 1994), wherelandscape level planning willbe officially recognized and required. TheForestPractices Code ofBritish ColumbiaActwill provide ‘enabling’ legislation to allow DistrictManagers to establishlandscape units16and objectives fortheir managementwherever and whenever they are needed (Province ofBritish Columbia 1994). What are not yet in place, however, are detailed guidelines forthe formulation of these objectives, or for the production ofcoordinatedprescriptions forthese landscapes. This suggests apossible futurerole ofTRD, which provides amethodbywhich such integratedlandscape managementcould be achieved.As alluded to above, as well as providing a spatial link between planning levels,landscape level planning is intended to provide an important link between strategic and16LandscapeUnit: “A planning area, up to 100 000hain size, basedon topographicorgeographicfeaturessuch as awatershed orseries ofwatersheds”. (ProvinceofBritishColumbia 1994:183)82operational planning. It will take broad objectives and guidelines fora largeareaand refinethem into more specific directions for a landscape, from which detailed operational plansfor cutblocks and road layouts, for example, can take their direction. Landscape levelplanning will therefore attempt to provide a firm planning base which will ensure that alloperational plans forsmall areas withinalandscapeare compatible witheach otherand withthe overall objectives for the landscape (M. Platz. pers, corn, 1994). The ability ofTRD toprovide such a ‘translation’ between strategic and operational plans would also suggestitasapossible method forbridging this gap.The MinistryofForests has notprogressed significantly beyondan identificationoftheneed for landscape level planning but they have expressed an interest in Total ResourceDesign and its application in the WestArm Demonstration Forest. They have recognizedthat it provides a practical example of a method for the application of a landscape levelplanning and design process in B.C. and as such is a source of ideas for the type ofapproach whichmay be required toimplementthemanagementoflandscape units.4.3 TRD - how does its approach compare with that of current integratedresource planning procedures ?In addition to its contribution to the development oflandscape planning, Total ResourceDesign may also offer a more effective approach to Integrated Resource Management(IRM) than that provided by currentintegrated resource planning procedures.Twokey advantages ofTRD in achieving effectiveintegrated resource managementcan benoted.i) Total Resource Design offers acoordinatedapproach to resource planning.ii) Total Resource Design approaches theplanning from adifferent perspective, onethat is‘landscape led’83i) A coordinated approach toresourceplanning.Currently, IRM is carried out on provincial forest lands through the establishment ofguidelines, requirements and the implementation of objectives from higher level plans.These attempt to protect non-timberresources through the restrictionofharvesting. Eachresource, such as, biodiversity, wildlife and fish, water, visual resources, range etc., isprotected by its own set of guidelines or restrictive mechanisms and each tends to beadministered by a different branch of the Ministry ofForests, or with the involvementofother Ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment. Often, the management of oneresource is planned to meet its own objectives, independent from other resources in thatlandscape. The division of responsibility in this approach, makes coordination of themanagement of resources difficult, providing an obstacle to effective integrated resourcemanagement offorest resources.The advantage of Total Resource Design over this piecemeal approach, is that itincorporates all resource interests into one planning and design process. This provides aforum for interaction, discussionand compromise withinthe design team and produces oneplan (aTotal ResourceDesign) forthe landscape. This provides a vision for the landscapeand for all resources - resulting in a common direction, common goals, and aframeworkfor the coordination of the actions of all the resource managers present. This iscommunicated in the form ofadesign forall possible managementunits on the landscape,andadescription of the agreed direction for their management through both the shortandlong term. In theory, this should provide for less conflict, improved communication andfewer misunderstandingsin the subsequentmanagementofthe landscape.ii) A ‘landscape led’ approach to the planning oftimberextraction in the landscape.Total Resource Design adopts a different philosophy to the management ofnaturalresources in the landscape than existing IRM mechanisms. As mentioned above, thecurrentapproach to integrated resource management is to allow timber harvesting to occurundera84setof constraints. Inother words, within non-reserved provincial forest lands the potentialfor forest operations exists everywherewhere harvesting is technically and economicallyfeasible, and this land base is then diminished with the imposition of restrictions toaccommodate the other resources. An observation of this approach reveals that there is atendency for merely the minimum requirements for non timber valuesto be met, as theprocess sets standards beyond which there is little incentive to perform.Total Resource Design adopts an almost ‘inverted’ approach to the protectionof non-timbervalues. The main focusofTRD is to ensure thatall ofthe identified resources in thelandscape are adequately provided for, at which pointproposals forharvesting can be thenbedeveloped in the land base which remains. It thus concentrates on planning what is to beleftbehind afterharvesting, ratherthan what is to be removed. This approach suggests thatnon-timber interests will be more successfully integrated into forest operations and thusmaintained through time. For each of these reasons, TRD would seemto possess someadvantages over the status quo in pursuing effective integrated resource management. Itcertainly attempts to consider all the resources as ‘equal partners’ and avoids letting oneresource, such as timberextraction, dominatethe decisions taken forthe managementof thelandscape. Its addition to the current planning hierarchy wouldcertainly seem to bejustifiedgiven the currentneed foralandscape level approach to IRM.4.4 Incorporation of TRD into the current forest planning frameworkAs suggested above, Total Resource Design could mostlikely be incorporatedinto theforestplanning frameworkat the landscape planning level. i.e. betweenforestmanagementplanning, and resource managementplanning, providing guidanceatthis spatial level and alinkbetween strategic and operational planning. In addition,the ability ofTotal ResourceDesign to coordinate the management of many resources in alandscape suggests that itcould be incorporated into Total Resource Planning - a new landscape level planninginitiative being developed by the Ministry of Forests.In 1993, before TRD had been85formally introducedinto British Columbia bySimon Bell, the Integrated ResourcesBranchin Victoriadeveloped the conceptofTotal Resource Planning (TRP).Itevolvedinresponseto a number of factors , most notably publicdemands for ‘ecosystem management’,theideas oflandscapeecologists suchas Franklin in the PacificNorthwestofthe United States(Franklin and Forman 1987), andquestionsas to how foresters in British Columbiacouldimplement new Fish Forestry anda Wildlife Guidelines (MOE and MOF1993). As itsname implies, Total Resource Planningemphasizes the considerationofall resource valueswhen proposing any forest operationsin an area. In theory this should alreadyhappen asforest planning should be carriedout under the Ministry of Forest’s integratedresourcemanagement policy. However, manyobjectives ofintegrated resourcemanagement are notconsistently addressed inthe current planning framework(MOF 1993b). In response tothis and the otherstimulimentioned above, the MinistryofForests released a proposal forTotal Resource Planning in August1993. In their introductory documentthey defineTRPas:a process that designs long term forestdevelopment and guides timberharvesting over an entire area,such as a watershed and confirmshowapproved objectives foridentified resource values will beachieved in theground” (MOF 1993b :1).It is proposed that TRP will translatethe broad resource management objectivesprovided by higher level plansinto on-the-ground developmentdirection, in a methodwhich will consider all knownresource values and the environmentallimitations of theplanning area. Itis aimedto be a landscape level planningprocess, which ifdeveloped willhelp to fulfill the Ministry’s newlandscape level planning initiatives,with the addeddimension ofconsidering all resourcesin an area before deciding on how timber shouldbeextracted. It is intended to beaplanning tool which is tobe implemented onlyafterland usedecisions for an area havebeen madewhich permit the harvestingoftimber. TRP will thenenable this harvesting to be plannedwith consideration of all otherresources (M. Platz.pers, corn, 1994).86Feedback on the proposed process from government staff, industry representatives,environmental organizations and members of the public has been mostly positive, withTotal Resource Planning considered to have many benefits (MOF and MOE1993).However, the details as to how these Total Resource Plans’ will be completed haveyet tobe determined, and how exactly broad managementobjectives can be ‘operationalized’intoon the ground prescriptions is as yet unclear (A. Lidstone. pers, com, 1994).It must bestressed thatTotal ResourcePlanning is still in the conceptual stages ofdevelopment,yetsome forest districts in B.C. are currently carrying out TRPs - with little guidanceorconsistentmethod ofapplication (MOF Golden ForestDistrict 1993).From this perspective,Total Resource Design and the methodology it suggests fortheactual design of operational prescriptions is of interest to the Ministry of Forestsas theysearch for an appropriate method for the implementation ofTRP (A. Lidstone.pers, corn,1994). The objectives and final products of the two processes, althoughdevelopedindependently, are very similar and so it is possible thatTRD could merely beconsideredas a method by which Total Resource Planning can be implemented. Withinthe currentemphasis on planning forall resources, Total Resource Designcould also ensure thatvisualresource management and ecological functioning in particular are includedin TotalResourcePlanning.4.5 How TRD incorporates the requirements for forest managementin B.C.contained in the Forest Practices CodeOn 16th May 1994, the Forest Practices Codeof British Columbia Act wasintroduced in the Provincial legislature. This act willbe accompanied by a series ofstandards andregulations , which will set out themandatory requirements which must bemet, under the authority of the new Act, when carrying out any forest operationsonProvincial forest land in B.C. (Province ofBritish Columbia 1994). ‘The Code’87encompasses all aspects of forest practices; it outlines requirements for planning, theprotection and management of forest resources and specifications for on-the-groundoperations. As such, under law, any new planning approach such as Total ResourceDesign would have to comply with the requirements of the Code in its approach, itstreatmentofresources and its results. This section will briefly outline whetherTRD meetsthe Forest Practices Code, and will also examine whetherthere are areas ofthe Code itselfwhich couldconstrain oractively supportthe use ofTRD in the Province.From an inspection of the proposed regulations and standards which have beenproduced to date (Province ofBritish Columbia 1993, ProvinceofBritish Columbia 1994),it would appearthatTotal ResourceDesign incorporates manyofthe requirementsoutlined,and does not seem to conflict with them in any significant way. This is due in most part, tothe ecological basis of TRD, and to the emphasis placed within the process onaccommodating all forest resources present in the production of the final design. In theWest Arm Demonstration Forest example, the broad objectives used to guide the designprocess came from adraft managementplanforthe forest (MOF Nelson Region 1994). Allofthe guidelinesand recommendations setout in this planmetthe specifications laid outinthe Code, and in mostcases were more stringent. With such aplan providing direction to aTotal Resource Design, itcan be assumed thata frameworkforcompliance with the ForestPractices Code is already in place. If no such plan exists for an area, it will be importantthat objectives and any prescriptions developed by a TRD are checked against therequirements ofthe Code so that no conflicts ensue. This will have to be done so that thefinal design will comply with the law, even though there may be some instances wheredoing so may interfere with its ‘landscape led’ approach.Forexample, aconstrainttoTotal ResourceDesign maycome from the requirementforthe “establishment and adherence to Visual Quality Objectives” (VQO5) (Province ofBritish Columbia 1993: iii). When TRD is used to design a landscape level plan for an88area, itaims to accommodate any descriptiveVQOs provided for the area. Forexample, inalandscape witharetention VQO, the level ofdisturbanceadvocated will be minimal, andthe alteration of the landscape will not be visually apparent. This does not conflict withTotal Resource Design and can beincorporated into its process. However, aproblem maybecome evidentifthedesign team are bound by the numerical descriptors attached to eachVQO. For example, where there is a retention VQO, up to 5% of the landscape may bechangedby forestryoperations (MOF 1993c). This is 5 % ofthe planimetric representationofthe landscape unit. This percentage may seem small when illustrated inplanimetricform,but depending on the scale ofthe landscape, the slope involved, the position ofthe viewerand the Visual Absorption Capability of the landscape, 5% can look very different fromlandscape to landscape. It may be too large fora small scale landscape, or far too small inone where large shapes and patterns are naturallyoccurring. These numerical descriptorsforVQOs will constrain theTotal Resource Design process by imposing an arbitrary scaleofdisturbance on a landscape, irrespective of the nature and scale of the landscape beingconsidered.Within the Forest Practices Code, it states that “forest operations planned in visuallysensitive areas must be designed and carried out to meet approved Visual QualityObjectives” (Province of British Columbia 1993 :30). Thepertinentquestion regarding thisrequirement is ‘will this requirement be enforced qualitatively or quantitatively - bymeasurement of the % of the landscape disturbed?’ Total Resource Design can workcomfortably within the frameworkofVQOs and produce landscape alterations which meetthe descriptions provided by VQOs. However, if VQOs are enforced quantitatively, theywill provide a severe constraint on theTotal Resource Design philosophy by imposing anirrelevantand non-site specific scale ofdisturbanceon the landscape.A second instance ofthe use ofnumerical values to restrictmanagement has also beenincluded in the ForestPractices Code in the form ofa limitation on the sizeof cutblocks (40ha for the Vancouver, Nelson and Kamloops Regions, and 60 ha for the Cariboo, Prince89George orPrince Rupert regions (ProvinceofBritish Columbia 1994:107)). Atfirst glancethis might also seem to constrainTotal Resource Design as the essence ofTRD lies in thefact that it allows the landform and natural disturbance patterns ofalandscape to suggesthow the landscape should look, which in turn dictates the size, shape and position ofharvesting units on the landscape and the type of silvicultural system used. There may beareas where, all resources considered, alargerthan mandated block size could beadvocatedand would fit with the landscape. In such scenarios, rigid constraints, such as a maximumallowed block size, would prevent TRD from providing a result which is ‘landscape led’.However, the Code goes on to state that in certain cases, there will be exceptions to thissizerestriction where:“the cutbiock incorporates characteristics of natural disturbances.Characteristics that mustbe incorporated are irregularedges and green-treeretention or forested patches, and may include wildlife trees and coarsewoody debris” (Province ofBritish Columbia 1994 :107).In theWestArm Demonstration Forest application ofTRD, stand structural objectiveswere produced which were based on the effects ofnatural disturbances and which, for themost part, advocated the retention offorested patches and green trees. Therefore, in thiscasecutbiock size limits would not be a majorrestriction. Where natural disturbances in alandscape areused to guideTRD in this way, this section ofthe Code should not provide amajorobstacle.As well as merely complying with the Code and adapting to incorporate itsrequirements, the approach used in Total ResourceDesign would alsoseem to gain supportfrom the Forest Practices Code. Most notably, by providing a method for coordinatingmultiple resources towards an integrated solution for landscape management TotalResource Design would seem to provide a vehicle for the achievement of many of theIntegrated Resource Management requirements outlined in the Code. For example,concerning the planning oftimber harvesting the Code states:90“To achieve IRM objectives, the prescription of cutblock sizes,shapesand patterns should be based on a considerationof such factors aswindfirmness, edge effects, desired wildlife traveland dispersal corridors,fisheries sensitive zones, aesthetic values, biological diversity,roles ofecosystem components in ecological processes,natural disturbance regimesand the feasible application of harvesting and site preparationmethods”(Province ofBritish Columbia 1994:101).To carry this out without any kind of guiding framework or method wouldbe verycomplex, confusing and time consuming. Total ResourceDesign provides such amethod,could incorporate each ofthe resourceconcerns mentionedand would resultin the designofthe cutblock shapes, sizes and distributionacross thelandscape. As no other method hasyetbeen suggested otherthan thestatus quo ofreactive, piecemealalterations to harvestingproposals, Total Resource Design, or a similarapproach, would appear to have acontribution to maketowards an effectiveimplementationofthe Forest Practices Code.4.6 An example of a scenario in B.C. whoseproperties suggest the use ofTotal Resource DesignFinally, in this chapter, ageneral managementscenarioto which the application ofTotalResource Design would seem to be very suitable willbeexamined. It is hoped that this willidentifya furtheraspectofthe possible scope this processcould have in forest planning inBritish Columbia.From the stand-point that it provides a mechanism within whichthe design of timberharvesting units is driven by theecological and visual characteristicsof the landscape, TRDcould be considered as a responsible approachto forestry which should have wideapplication throughout the province. However, thereareresource management scenarios inthe province at present, with certain resourcecharacteristics and concerns, which wouldlend themselves specifically to the applicationofTotalResourceDesign.91The particularstrengths ofTotal ResourceDesignlie in its use ofthe design process tolead a multidisciplinary design team to a seriesof spatially illustrated solutions for theintegration ofresourceuses in the landscape. Thus, TRDwould appear to predispose itselffor application to areas ofthe provincial forest landswhich require extensive cooperationbetween various agencies and stakeholders, whoseecological functioning and visualqualityareparticularly importantand for which detailedand explicitmanagement guidanceis required. However, as Total Resource Designcannot efficiently includeextensive publicinputor resolve complex social or political issues relatedto forest lands, it is notsuitablefor making land use decisions. It should be applied onlyto those landscapes forwhich aland use decision has been made,and thus for which guidance on the nature of suitableresource uses is available. The role ofTRD is to takethis guidance and produce a designfor the integration ofthese resource uses across the landscape.In light ofthese attributes ofTRD, one particular scenario appearsto suggest itselfasan ideal future subject for Total Resource Design namelythe design of resource uses onprovincial forest lands adjacentto parks and protected areas.In general, protected areas are established to providefor recreation enjoyment, to“stimulate educational and scientific interestandto conserve ecosystems in a pristine state”(Dearden 1988:256). It has been suggested that nature conservationin particular is notnecessarily being achieved by these areas, basedon a survey of the ‘State of the World’sParks’ carried out by Machlis and Tichnell in 1985(cited in Dearden 1988). Most of thethreats to the natural components of protected areas appearto originate outside theirboundaries (Dearden 1988), forexample from forestry,mining, agriculture and commercialdevelopment. A report on the parks and protectedareas of British Columbia by the B.C.Caucus of the Canadian Assembly on NationalParks and Protected Areas in 1985 alsorecognizedthe increasing threats to the protected areasin B.C. from external sources:92“Resource developments around parks as well as potential access corridorsthrough parks are perceived as significant threats to several of our largewilderness parks” (Dooling 1985:244).Much of this concern is based on the recognition that administrative boundaries ofprotected areas act as ‘filters’ allowing flows to move both into and outof the areas, thusmaking them permeable to external influences (Schonewald-Cox and Bayless 1986). Oneresult of this realization has been the recent emphasis on the management of completeecosystems, which often requires the management of lands beyondthe administrativeboundaries ofthe protectedareas.In British Columbia, there is no doubt that forestry operations occurring adjacent toprotected areas are of considerable concern to protected area agencies (Dearden1988;Dunster 1985). This is especially true around those parks whose areas are too small toincorporate complete ecological systems or landscapes. Theseprotected areas cannotprovide all ofthe necessary habitatelements fortheir residentwildlifespecies and rely onadjacent lands to provide these requirements. Forestry operationson these areas have thepotential to eliminate such habitats, isolate populations by providingobstaclesto movementbetween habitats and effectively decrease the size of the park, as theeffects oflogging tothe park boundary often extend beyond the cut area into the parkitself. As Deardenobserves:“When logged to the boundary, windthrow may take downfurther treesinside the boundary. Even when no trees fall insidethe boundary, theecological effects oflogging will still beapparent forsome distanceinto thereserve, through for example, a greater abundance of ecologicaledgespecies and hydrological and micro-climaticeffects”(Dearden 1988:257).Parks whose mandates include the preservation of scenic beauty andthe provision ofisolated wilderness recreation experiences can also be impacted visuallyby resource usesalong theirboundaries. Dunster observed this situation in theRocky Mountain NationalParks:“within the national parks the extentofwilderness areais rapidly shrinking,even though the physical boundaries arenot changing. This reflects theincreasing activities beyond the boundaries, with loggingon the westernside and oil/gas exploration on the eastern side”(Dunster1985 :24).93He continues, “in many ofthese areas, evidence of exploitationis visible from a longway within the park, thus eliminating the sense of isolationthat these areas oncehad”(Dunster 1985:24).If the ecological and visual values of protected areas are to bepreserved, theseobservations suggest that each parkand its surrounding landscapesshould be managed asan interacting unit . They possess common resources,such as wildlife, recreation users andviewsheds, which ‘flow’ throughout and betweenthe naturally defined landscapes,ignoring the administrative boundary. Different management objectivesand practices oneither side of this boundary have obviously resulted in the compromiseof many of theflows originating within protected areas. Buthow canthese distinctmandates be preserved,while allowing the provincial forest lands to be managedin amanner which is sympatheticto both the adjacentprotectedareas and the forestry sector?The following case study involving Glacierand MountRevelstokeNational Parks, willhighlight the present concerns the Canadian Parks Service hasregarding the effects offorest operations in the adjacent Revelstoke and GoldenForest Districts. It will attempt toillustrate why, in this situation, Total Resource Designmay provide an effectiveapproachto the managementofthese areas.Glacier and Mount Revelstoke National Parks are situatedjust 20kms apart and aremanaged by the same staffand withsimilarobjectives.GlacierNational Park is situated inthe Northern Selkirk ranges of the Columbia Mountains. Itis 1350 km2in size and isrecognized for its diverse wildlife and especiallyfor its large grizzly bear population, andforits spectacular mountain scenery. MountRevelstokeNational Park is much smaller(260km2)and lies to the east of Glacier NationalPark in the Clachnacudainn Range of theColumbiaMountainsand is alsoknown for its wildlife populations.Currently, despite the broad management responsibilitiesof the Parks Service, theprimary concern of the staffof these parks is the maintenanceof healthy populations of94wildlife within the parks, and the continued functioningof their ecological systems (S.Hall, pers. corn. 1993). Despite the large numbersof visitors which enter both parks viathe Trans-Canada highway, management of the recreationand visual resources in andaround the parks is given relatively little consideration,due to the current difficulties thestaffhave in meeting their ecological mandate.This difficulty is dueto:i) The small size of the two parks, and the resulting relianceon adjacent provincial forestlands forthe provisionofvital wildlife habitatattributes.ii) Forestry practices on these adjacent lands whichalter the forest cover and have anegative impact on the wildlife populations using theseareas.This is explained in more detail by Susan Hall, thepark ecologist for both Glacier andMount Reveistoke National Parks:“MountReveistoke and Glacier National Parksare too small and lackingin key habitats to maintain viable populations ofmoose, caribouandgrizzly,the species thought to have the most stringent habitat requirementsin ourarea. The parks encompass about half the land area required to supportasmall population (150 individuals) of grizzly andcaribou. For the parks tofunction as ecological reserves, park boundary areasneed to be managedwith compatible goals and in terms ofthe park’slimitations. For example,with an estimated 16% old growth remainingin the parks, and little of itbelow 3000 feet, provincial land will have to fulfill most ofthis area’simmediate requirements for old growth”(memofrom S. Hall to R.O.Planning, Golden Forest District. 1993).The response by the park staff to this situation has beento inform the Ministry ofForests of their concerns and to provide guidanceon how these habitat requirements canbest be incorporated into forestry operations.In effect, they have provided Golden andReveistoke Forest Districts with an outline ofthe park’s ideal objectives for themanagement ofadjacentforest lands, and a descriptionofwhat is, in essence, their visionforadesirable futureecological pattern forthese areas.Table 12 details some of the desired landscape elementsthe park staff would like to seemaintainedorenhanced in lands adjacent to the parks.95Table 12 Habitat requirements in lands adjacent to Mount Reveistokeand Glacier National Parks(information containedin a memo. from S. Hall to R.O. Planning,Golden Forest District. 1993)Habitat DescriptionGrizzly springrange Low elevation (lessthan 915 m) feeding areas, also comprising winter and springungulate range. Forest-riparian-avalanche complexes comprisehigh use earlyspring range that is mostly lacking in theparks. The Mica and Reveistoke damseliminated a large portion of the formerly available grizzlyand ungulate springrange, so this habitatis now incritically short supply in ourarea.Grizzly summer and Mid elevation(1220-1524m) - berry producing areas. Since logging cultures atfallrange. mid-elevations havecreatedextensiveberryproducing areas, whileinfrequentandsmall fires within the park in recent years have resultedin relatively few berryproducingareas in the park, bears are expected to leavethe parks in the sununer toaccess this habitat. Bears are subsequently at riskfrom hunting and poaching,henceourmajorconcernis aboutopen access toparkboundary areas.Moose winter and Low elevation (less than915 m), south facing mature forest (for snowspring range. interception) adjacent to forageproducingareas. Brushed-in cultures adjacent toremaining old growth at low elevations now provides winterrange which isthreatenedby subsequent secondpass loggingandprograms ofbrushcontrol.Caribou early winter Low elevation (less than1220m), north facing, old growth (greater then 140(Nov. 1-Jan 15) years) cedar- hemlockand lower spruce-fir forests. Caribou are unable to accessrange. their high elevationranges because snow has not yet firmed up sufficientlytosupport their weight and allow them to access lichenfoundhigh in the canopy ofold growthhighelevationforests. Oldgrowthcedar hemlockforests are thereforecritical habitats during Nov-Dec - earlyJanuary.Theseforests arehowever slatedto be cut and maintained as a mixture of youngto mature forests, which are notlikely toprovidecaribourequirements forshelter,predatoravoidanceandfood.Caribou late winter Upper slopes (above 1525m)and ridge tops in old growth spruce fir forests and(Jan 16-April 15) parkland. Lichen on standingor fallen trees is only food source. Although thisrange. habitatmay not be as threatenedby logging,itis vulnerable to fragmentation.Caribou spring Similar to early winter ranges: low elevationareas with green foliage. Access to(April 16-June 30) theseareas formovementandsecurityfrompredators is critical.range.Caribou movement Vertical corridors of matureopen forest, linking high elevation late winterandcorridors, summer ranges with low elevationearly winter and spring ranges are required.Caribou will not use dense semi-matureforests. Plantation establishmentin theabsence of open mature forest movementcorridors has the potential to preventcaribou from accessing low elevation rangeswhich are important forageareas forpregnantfemales andare critical forsuccessfulcalfproduction.Itis obvious from this information that parks staffhaveidentified all of theelementsofthe landscapes surrounding the parks whichareofimportance to the maintenanceof theirwildlife populations. This has beenpassed to the relevant Forest Districts,who try toincorporate it into the development of harvestingblocks and Pre-Harvest SilviculturalPrescriptions. The park staff appear to be relativelysatisfied with the cooperation theyreceive from the Ministry of Forestsand most of the companies operatingin the area.96However they are concerned that the current processhas a tendency to achieve only theminimum requirements and that it is time consumingand piecemeal in its approach,requiring park review of and commenton Ministry of Forest wildlife guidelines, subregional plans, resource management plansand even PHSPs at the individual cut-blocklevel (S. Hall. pers, corn, 1993). This leavespark staff with little time or resources forthemanagement ofotherpark resources, whichitself makes any integration ofthese resourceswith wildlife and ecological values verydifficult (S. Hall. pers, com, 1993).In contrast, TRD could incorporate the informationin Table 12 as ecological patternobjectives for these landscapes, from whichaspatial representationofthe patterns couldbeused to design the location and attributesof possible harvesting units. Thus necessarypatches ofhabitat, and corridors orareasofforest matrix required formovementofwildlifethrough the landscape could be integrated intothe design of units in the landscape. Useofvisual design principles in this process wouldalso ensurethe integration ofvisual resourcemanagementconcerns.The development of aTotal ResourceDesign could be carried out by a designteamcomprising members of the two main agencies involved.The design process itself couldthen facilitate compromiseand resultin a total resource design foreach landscape abuttingthe parks, providing a common directionforthe managementofthese areas throughtime.Itis hoped that this would reduce theneed for continual communication betweenpark staffand the Ministry of Forests. Regular re-evaluationof the design plans would ensure thatany changing requirements ofeitheragency could be inserted into the design process.There is nodoubt that any future implementationofTRD on these lands will require thecommitment ofboth Parks Canada and theMinistry of Forests to this ecologicallybaseddesign approach. It is possible that thisapproach will result in smaller volumesoftimberfrom these areas, at leastforthe short term.This impact, ifknown, will have to beweighedagainstthe benefits to the park resourcesthatTRD can bring. It is also possible,in some97scenarios, that the designofthe block shapes for timber harvesting overtime throughTRDcould result in the productionofmoretimberover the nextthree to four passes by ensuringthatall suitable timberis accessibleand preventing the isolationoftimberstands whichcanoccur due to a lack of forward planning. Whatever the decision reachedon the economicimpacts ofTRD, it isprobablyrealistic to predictthatonly an ecologically based approachto the management of lands around protected areas, such as thatprovided by TotalResource Design, will ensure the effectiverealizationoftheir purpose.This is only one proposed application ofTotal Resource Design in British Colombia,but it is hoped that it has provided an example of the particular capabilities of suchanapproach, and specifically an illustration of its potential to integrate ecologicaland visualvalues into the planning of harvesting units.While the impacts ofTotal Resource Designon timber flows and othereconomic factorsare still unknown, many points have been raised in this chapterwhich would suggest thatithas the potential to meet many forest planning needs in the province at the presenttime.Mostofthe arguments in its favourstem from the predictedabilityoftheprocess to providemore effective integrated resource management, at alandscape level,and within a methodwhichwould link strategic direction toon-the-ground operationalprescriptions. While theevidence on whether TRD will live up to this expectationrests on the completion of theWest Arm Demonstration Forest example, conceptuallyit would appear to offer manyfactors which are currently needed in British Columbia.98Chapter 5ConclusionsThe main objectives of this thesis were to document a detailed method fortheimplementation of Total Resource Design in British Columbia, and to speculateon thepotential role ofTRD in the future offorest planning in B.C. Through an investigationofboth ofthese topics it was possibleto draw the followingconclusions.5.1 A method for Total Resource Design.It was possible to take an outline of a method forTRD provided by Bell (Bell 1993a),combine itwith the workof Diazand Apostol (1992) andexperiences from theapplicationofTotal Resource Design to the WestArm DemonstrationForest (WADF), to document adetailedmethod for the application ofTRD in British Columbia.The use of the WADF example illustrated problems encounteredin a practicalapplication ofTRD, and provided an insight into how these problems could beovercomeby poolinginformationand intellectual resources available.This example also provided an illustration and clarificationof many of the conceptsemployed inTotal ResourceDesign.The method should be regarded merely as a framework or strategy to facilitatetheproduction of solutions for the management of a forest landscape, solutionswhich willboth maintain ecological functioning and allow each oftheobjectives setforthe landscapeto be met. Its success will depend on the qualityof information available, and thecommitmentof the team to working through a method whichmay be complex and timeconsuming in places.99Unfortunately, becauseofadditional responsibilities and commitments on the partofthedesign team for the West Arm Demonstration Forest, the final sections of the WADFexample and thus the details of the method have not yet been completed. Itmay be overayearuntil the project is finally finished, a timeframe which was felt to be beyond the scopeof this thesis. However, a future direction for completion of the final steps ofthe projecthas been outlined by the design team . This direction was used to try to complete themethod descriptionproduced in Chapter 3. The final sections ofthe method must thereforebe approached with a little caution in any subsequent applications,and communicationmade with the WADFdesign team to confirm whether the predicted approach was alteredonce theirprojectwas completed.As a final Total Resource Design has not yet been completedfor the West ArmDemonstration Forest, an analysis of the final product cannotyet be made. This isunfortunate as it would have been useful to discuss the performanceof the method in apractical example in this thesis. Such an analysis will alsobe required to evaluate thesuitability ofthe process forfuture application in B.C. Forexample,what will the impactsofsuch adesign be on timberflows from alandscape?What will timber extraction and roadcosts be underthis design? On a more qualitativenote, will it effectively maintainimportantecological functionsofthe landscape? Will maintaining certainpatchesand corridors in thelandscape actually maintain or enhance population numbers ofcertainspecies? The TRDmethod will allow the team to prescribeacertain target pattern forthelandscape which it ishoped will meetwildlife objectives, but will this pattern actually proveeffective in meetingthese objectives in practice? As TRD is based on an incomplete knowledgeandunderstanding oflandscape dynamics, even the design team involvedwith the project arenot certain of its likely results. A final design implementedon the ground and closelymonitored through time should provide not only an illustrationofwhether the process canproduce an effective form of Integrated Resource management,but should also allow100scrutinyofmany ofthe ecological conceptsincorporated into the process. Further projectsthroughout the Province, based in areas of differing ecological conditions and resourcepressuresshould also be implemented to try to determine the flexibility ofTotal ResourceDesign and determine whetheror not itcould be applied effectivelyacross the wide rangeofecological and resource use pressures in BritishColumbia.5.2 The potential role of Total Resource Design in forestplanning in B.C.Despite the absence ofan analysis ofthe performanceofTRD in the WADFapplication,it was felt that there were several attributes of the approach which couldbe examined todetermine whether it could contribute to forest planningin B.C. This examinationconcluded thatTotal Resource Design would provide anew and moreeffective approachtoforest landscape planning in B.C. The main reasons behind this conclusionare summarizedas follows:TRD involves the applicationofthe design process to a forest subjectin B.C.The design process itself is not new. It is routinely used and tested in manyother fieldssuch as architecture and urban design. The application ofdesign principlesto forestry isalso not new. For example, the British Forestry Commission has developeda processcalled ‘landscapedesign planning’ which assimilates analysis information with objectivesto produce integrated design of forest plantations (S. Bell pers, corn,1993). The MountHood project (Diaz and Apostol 1992) was also an applicationof the design process to aforest subject. It combined British expertisein forest design, with landscape ecologicalprinciples to produce an integrated design for managementunits in a natural forestlandscape. The use of integrated design in forestry in B.C.is, however, a new concept,and the WADFapplication ofTotal Resource Design was thefirst example of its kind inthe Province. Traditionally, within the Ministry of Forestsdesign has been synonymousonly with visual resources and Visual Resource Management hasbeen under theadministration ofthe Recreation Branch and not the Integrated ResourcesBranch. This is101not an ideal framework for the promotion of the wider capabilities of design, nor theintegration ofvisual resources into forest planning or management. However, based onboth the WADF example and the experiences in otherjurisdictions, the design processwould appear to have much to offer forest resource planners in B.C. It would provide aguiding strategyfor the integrationofresources and the designofmanagementunits acrossthe forest landscapes ofthe Province.TRD provides an opportunity forthe ‘proactive’ managementofall resources.Total Resource Design provides an opportunity for resource managers of non-timberresources to say ‘this is what we want to see in a landscape for the positive managementand promotion ofour resource’. Currently, managers ofresources such as wildlife, water,recreation and visual resources rarely get such an opportunity. Their primary role is‘reactive’ and involves imposing restrictions on harvesting and demanding changes inharvesting proposals to ensure the protection of their resource (G.Fox. pers. corn. 1994).Total Resource Design encourages positive management goals for all resources, andattempts to put all of these resources on an equal footing at the stage of the planningprocess whereoperations are being prescribed.TRD provides a step by step method forlinking strategic and operational plans.The Forest Practices Code, and the proposed Total Resource Planning process haveboth recognized the need fora ‘bridge’ between these two types ofplans, preferably at thelandscape scale, and both claim to provide that link (Province ofBritish Columbia 1994,MOF 1993a). However, neitherprovide acomplete step by step method which would leada team ofresource managersfrom strategic direction to actual prescriptions foroperations,in a manner which would integrate and give consideration of all resources acrossalandscape and through time. One of the major contributions TRD could make to forestplanning is B.C. is the provision of such a method.102Testing and application of TRD across B.C. in a variety of landscape types andresource use pressures should be thought of as a long term goal in the development andanalysis of the process. However, a short term goal may be to apply TRD to thoselandscapes which have specific problems to which its application may be particularlysuitable. For example, those landscapes on the periphery of protected areas wherecoordinatedcooperation between agencies and resource users is required for the effectivemanagement of these areas could benefit greatly from the application of TRD. It issuggestedthatthe next step in the developmentofTotal Resource Designin B.C. should beto testthe process in sucha scenario to determine whetheror not it would indeedfacilitatethe planning and management of these areas and allow management agencies to worktowards acommon goal.It has been suggested that the approach advocated in Total Resource Design could meetseveral important deficiencies in current forestplanning approaches. This conclusion hasnot yetbeen supported in practice and would seem to be ‘a lotto live up to’. Whetheror notit can be met may well determine the future of TRD in the Province. However, theindividuals involved in the WestArm Demonstration Forest application, although reservingjudgmenton the process forthe timebeing, feel thatifthey can get through the last stagesand produce and implement a final design, the results will be good. It is seen as anopportunity to actively design the landscape of the West Arm Demonstration Foresttowards a target ‘vision’ of landscape structure and function and (at the stand level)towards desirable stand structures. This vision, once complete, will be basedon the naturaldynamics of the landscape and should provide a sound framework for future operationalprescriptions.The WADF team agree that the concept of a ‘landscape led’ process such as TotalResource Design is much needed in B.C. and that the time has come to consider the103feasibility ofsuch processes for future application across the Province. The application ofTRD to the West Arm Demonstration Forest is a first step towards evaluating theperformanceofa ‘landscape led’ approach to forest design in B.C. Theimportantquestionis, can TRD live up to the expectations? Those involved with the WADF application arehopeful that it will, and that it will prove to be arealistic and feasible approach to forestlandscape management, not only in the West Arm Demonstration Forest, but across theProvince as a whole.104References.Personal Communications.Apostol, D. Landscape Architect,U.S Forest Service, MountHood National Forest.Telephoneconversation,April 1994.Bell, S. Landscape Architect,BritishForestry Commission. Meeting,1993.Crampton, D. ResearchBranch, Ministry of Forests,Nelson Forest Region. Telephoneconversation, June 1994.Fox, 0. Habitat ProtectionBranch, Ministry of Environment,Nelson. Meeting, August1994.Hall, S. ParkEcologist, CanadianParksService, Revelstoke. Meeting, November1993.Lidstone, A. Integrated ResourcesBranch, Ministry ofForests, Victoria. TelephoneConversation, April 1994.Platz, M. Integrated ResourcesBranch, Ministry ofForests, Victoria. Telephoneconversation, May 1994.Publications cited.Agee, J.K. 1993. FireEcology ofPacificNorthwest Forests.Island Press. WashingtonD.C.Baker, W.L. 1989. Landscapeecology and nature reservedesign in the Boundary WatersCanoeArea, Minnesota.Ecology 70(1): 23-35.Bell, S. 1993aForestLandscapeDesignHandbook.B.C. MinistryofForests.Victoria.Bell, S. 1993. Elementsof visualDesign in the Landscape. E&FN Spon. London.Booth, N.K. 1983. Basic ElementsofLandscape Architectural Design.Elsevier. NewYork.Crowe, S. 1966. Forestryin the Landscape. ForestryCommission Booklet No.18.H.M.S.O. London.Crowe, S. 1978. The LandscapeofForests and Woods. ForestryCommission BookletNo. 44. H.M.S.O. London.Dearden, P. 1988. ProtectedAreas and the Boundary Model:Meares Island and PacificRim National Park. The CanadianGeographer32: 256-265.Diaz, N. and D. Apostol. 1992.ForestLandscape Analysisand Design : A ProcessforDeveloping and ImplementingLand Management Objectivesfor Landscape Patterns.USDA ForestService. PacificNorthwestRegion.105Dooling, P.J. 1985. Parks andProtected Areas in British Columbiain the SecondCentury. British Columbia CaucusReport. In R.C. Scace and J.G. Nelson(ed.). Heritagefor Tomorrow. Canadian Assemblyon National Parks and ProtectedAreas, Vol 3.Canadian Parks Service.pp157-316.Duffy, D.M. 1990. A Reviewof the British Columbia CrownLand Allocation andManagement Planning Process.A background paper prepared forthe British ColumbiaForestResources Commission. ForestResources Commission. Victoria.Dunster, J.A. 1985. Coordinatedco-operation: The need for understanding.In R.C.Scace and J.G. Nelson (ed.)Heritagefor Tomorrow. CanadianAssembly on NationalParksandProtectedAreas., Vol3. Canadian Parks Service. pp.157-189.Fischer, W.C. and A.F. Bradley.1987. FireEcologyofWesternMontanaForestHabitatTypes. United States DepartmentofAgriculture, Forest Service. IntermountainResearchStation. General Technical ReportINT-223.Forman, R.T.T. 1987.The Ethics ofEvolution, the Spreadof Disturbance and LandscapeEcology. In M.G. Turner (ed.)Landscape Heterogeneity andDisturbance: SpringerVerlag. New York.pp 213-229.Forman, R.T.T. and M.Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology.John Wiley and Sons. NewYork.Franklin, J.F. and R.T.T.Forman. 1987. Creating landscapepatterns by forestcutting:Ecological consequencesand principles. Landscape Ecology.1(1): 5-18.Hall, S. 1993. Memorandumto D. Monchek, R.O. Planning,Ministry of Forests,Golden Forest District(unpublished).Harris, L.D. 1984. The FragmentaedForest: Island BiogeographyTheory and thePreservationofBioticDiversity.University ofChicagoPress.Chicago.Kimmins, J.P. 1987. ForestEcology. Macmillan Publishing.New York.Kimmins, J.P. 1990. Designingdisturbance in the B.C. forest landscape:the predictionofecological consequences. InA.F. Pearson and D.A. Challenger(ed.) Forests - WildandManaged : Differencesand Consequences.Students forForestry Awareness.January 19-20 1990. UniversityofBritish Columbia. Vancouver.pp.177-192.Lucas, O.W.R. 1991. TheDesignofForestLandscape. OxfordUniversity Press. Oxford.Meidinger, D and J. Pojar.1991. Ecosystems ofBritish Columbia.Ministry of Forests[B.C.]. Victoria.Merriam, G. 1988. Landscape ecology:The ecology ofheterogeneoussystems. In M.R.Moss (ed.) Landscape Ecology andmanagement : Proceedings ofthe Firstsymposium ofthe Canadien SocietyforLandscapeEcologyandManagement.UniversityofGuelph. May1987. Polyscience Publications.Montreal. pp.43-SO.Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks [B.C.] and Ministryof Forests [B.C.]. 1993.InteriorFish, Forestryand WildlifeGuidelines (draft).106Ministry of Environment[B.C.], Nelson. 1993. Kootenay LakeDomestic WatershedContingencyPkin (unpublished).Ministry of Forests [B.C.].1981. Forest Landscape Handbook.Province of BritishColumbia. Victoria.Ministry ofForests [B.C.].1991. ForestLandscape management.In MinistryofForests[B.C.]. RecreationManual,Chapter 11. Province ofBritish Columbia.Ministry ofForests [B.C.]. 1993a.Soil Conservation Guidelinesfor TimberHarvesting(InteriorB.C.). Provinceof British Columbia.Victoria.Ministry of Forests [B.C.]1993b. Total Resource Planning.An Integrated ResourceManagement Approachto Forest Development: A ProposedProcess - August 1993.ProvinceofBritish Columbia.Victoria.MinistryofForests [B.C.]1993c. Provincial VisualLandscapeManagement Guidelines(draft). ProvinceofBritishColumbia. Victoria.Ministry of Forests [B.C.],Golden Forest District. 1993.Total Resource Planning -guidelines (unpublished).Ministry ofForests [B.C.],Nelson Region. 1992. ForestSciences,Nelson ForestRegionResearchSummary.Sept 1992 (unpublished).Ministry ofForests [B.C.],Nelson Region. 1994. WestArmDemonstration Forest Plan.Draft. (unpublished).Ministry of Forests [B.C.] andMinistry of Environment,Lands and Parks [B.C.]. 1993.Total Resource Planning :A proposedprocess - August1993. Summary ofComments.Province ofBritish Columbia.Victoria.Ness, K. 1992. Resource Planningin the Ministry ofForests :A Glossary ofPast andPresentTerms. Ministry ofForests[B.C.].Victoria.Noss, R.F. and L.D. Harris. 1986.Nodes, Networks and MUMs:Preserving diversityatall scales. EnvironmentalManagement10(3): 299-309.Pickett, S.T.A. and J.N. Thompson.1978. Patch Dynamicsand the Design of NatureReserves. Biological Conservation13: 27-37.Province of British Columbia.1993. British Columbia ForestPractices Code . Rules.ProvinceofBritish Columbia. Victoria.ProvinceofBritish Columbia.1994. British ColumbiaForestPractices Code : Standardswithrevisedrulesandfieldguide references. Province ofBritish Columbia. Victoria.Risser, P.G. 1987. LandscapeEcology : State of the art.In M.G. Turner (ed.)LandscapeHeterogeneityandDisturbance. Springer-Verlag.New York.pp.3-14.Rowe, J.S. 1988. LandscapeEcology : The study of terrainecosystems. In M.R. Moss(ed.) Landscape Ecology andManagement. Proceedingsofthe First symposiumoftheCanadien SocietyforLandscape Ecology andManagement.University of Guelph.May1987. Polyscience Publications. Montreal.pp.35-42.107Schonewald-Cox. C.M. and J.M. Bayless.1986. The Boundary Model : A geographicalAnalysis of Design and Conservationof Nature Reserves. Biological Conservation38:305-322.Thiel, p. 1981 Visual Awareness andDesign : an introductoryprogram in conceptualawareness,perceptualsensitivityandbasic designskills. UniversityofWashingtonPress.Seattle.Urban, D.L., R.V. O’Neill and H.H.Shugart Jr. 1987. Landscape Ecology: Ahierarchical perspective can help scientistsunderstand spatial patterns. BioScience37(2):119-127.Zonneveld, I.S. 1988. Landscape Ecologyand its application. In M.R. Moss(ed.)LandscapeEcologyandmanagement: Proceedings ofthe Firstsymposiumofthe CanadianSocietyfor Landscape Ecologyand Management. University of Guelph. May1987.Polyscience Publications. Montreal.pp. 3-14.108Appendix 1Participants : Total ResourceDesign Workshop, Nelson 24-28th January1994Simon Bell British ForestryCommission.MinistryofForests:Dave Crampton Research -Nelson Forest Region.Harry Quesnel Research - NelsonForest Region.Dave Grant Engineering- Nelson Forest RegionBernie Peschke Silviculture- Nelson Forest Region.Larry Price Planning - NelsonForest RegionJim Schafthuizen Small Business- Kootenay Lake District.Jim Annunziello Silviculture- Kootenay Lake Disthct.Chris Mulvihill Inventory -Kootenay Lake District.Steve Flett Recreation -Kootenay Lake District.Heather Smith Recreation - KootenayLake District.Dale Anderson Planning- Kootenay Lake District.Peter Lewis Planning - KootenayLake District.MinistryofEnvironment:Gerry Fox Habitat Protection Branch- Ministry of Environment - Nelson.Dwain Boyer Watermanagement- Ministry ofEnvironment - Nelson.BC Parks:Gary Price Boundary ZoneManager, West Kootenay District -Nelson.Public:Hans Elias Public RepresentativeDiane Luchtan PublicObserverObservers:Ralph Archibald Integrated ResourcesSection - Victoria (Observer).Julie Duff MastersStudent, USC.109


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items