TOTAL RESOURCE DESIGN:Documentation of a method and a discussion of its potentialfor application in British Columbia.byJULIE ELIZABETH DUFFB.Sc. (Hons.), University of Edinburgh 1992.A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Forest Resources Management)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember 1994© Julie Elizabeth Duff, 1994We accept this thesisIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. it is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of 1h’tSThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE-6 (2/88)IIAbstract.Total Resource Design (TRD) was developed for application 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 present in the landscape. Although the process of design is widely used inother professions, its application in a forestry context in B.C. is new. Therefore, inJanuary 1994 a test application of the process was carried out by the Ministry of Forests inthe West Arm 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 of TRD in the Province.The final results of the West Arm Demonstration Forest test case are not yet known.However, based on the concepts used in TRD and its predicted outputs, it is 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 emphasizedthat TRD is still in the test stages in B.C. It is also merely a framework to guide the 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. It has thepotential to greatly improve the effectiveness of integrated resource management of forestlands in British Columbia.111Tab’e of Contents.Abstract iiTable of Contents iiiList of Tables vList of Figures viAcknowledgements viiCHAPTER 1: Introduction 11.1 Scope of Thesis 11.2 Background: Total Resource Design and its Evolution to Date 41.3 Objectives 7CHAPTER 2: A Review of the Ecological Principles Employed in Total ResourceDesign 82.1 Introduction 82.2 Landscape : A Definition 82.3 The ecological functioning of landscapes 9CHAPTER 3: Total Resource Design - The Method 163.1 Introduction 163.2 Total Resource Design: A Design Process 173.3 The Total Resource Design Workshop 213.3.1 Aims 213.3.2 Study Area 223.4 The Method, and Results of its Application to the West ArmDemonstration Forest 233.4.1 Preparation 233.4.2 Setting Objectives for the Area 263.4.3 Survey of the Area 263.4.4 Analysis 283.4.4.1 Constraints and Opportunities 30iv3.4.4.2 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 76CHAPTER 4: The Potential of Total Resource Design for General Applicationin British Columbia 794.1 Introduction 794.2 Could Total Resource Design Fill Any ‘Gaps’ in Forest ResourcePlanning in B.C 804.3 How Does the Approach of Total Resource Design Compare WithThat of Current Integrated Resource Planning Procedures9 824.4 Incorporation of Total Resource Design into the Current ForestPlanning Framework 844.5 How Does Total Resource Design Incorporate the Requirementsof the Forest Practices Code9 864.6 An Example of a Scenario in B.C. Whose Properties Suggest theUse of Total Resource Design 90CHAPTER 5: Conclusions 98References 103Appendix 1: Participants in Workshop 108VList of TablesTable 1. Landscape Objectives for the West Arm 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 of the landscape matrix of the 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. Fire characteristics and successional pathways for fire groups 9&1 1 (USForest Service, Montana) 51Table 11. Characteristics and suggested intervention for vegetation types in the WADF..58Table 12. Summary of stand structural objectives for the WADF 59Table 13. Habitat requirements in lands adjacent to Mount Revelstoke and 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) 22Figure 4 A perspective illustration of the constraints and opportunities on the Queens!Laird creek area of the WADF 31Figure 5. The location of the main opportunities and constraints in the WADF 31Figure 6. The steps of landscape ecological analysis 33Figure 7. Location (and pattern) of landscape matrix and patches in the WADF 36Figure 8. Location of major corridors in the WADF landscape 36Figure 9. An estimation of the location of major flows in the WADF landscape 41Figure 10. A map of the flows in the WADF which link with the surroundinglandscape 53Figure 11. Location of ‘ecological units’ to which stand structural objectives can.be applied in the WADF 60Figure 12. Landform analysis of Queens!Laird area of the WADF, planimetric form 65Figure 13. Landform analysis of Queens/Laird area of the WADF, perspective view 65Figure 14. Landform analysis of the WADF, planimetric illustration 67Figure 15. Final sketch design for management units of the WADF - planimetnc view... .72Figure 16. Sketch design for designed units in the Queens/Laird face of the WADFplanimetric view 72Figure 17. Sketch design for designed units in the Queens/Laird face of the WADFperspective view 73Figure 18. Forest planning framework 80viiAcknowled2ments.The production of this thesis could not have taken place without the many hours ofconversation, guidance and encouragement I received from those people involved in TotalResource Design, its development and its application in British Columbia.Firstly, thanks must go to Mr. Dean Apostol of the U.S. Forest Service and Mr SimonBell of the British Forestry Commission for giving generously of their time andknowledge. Their experience with the development and application of the Total ResourceDesign process was often required when faced with problems or questions of interpretationand their encouragement and enthusiasm for the subject was a motivating force behind thisthesis.Thank you also to the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Nelson Region, for providingthe opportunity to participate in their application of Total Resource Design to the West ArmDemonstration Forest. I hope that the broadminded and insightful approach shown by thestaff of Nelson Region and Kootenay Lake Forest District continues, and that it acts as atemplate for other regions and districts to follow. In particular, I must thank the followingfor making me feel very welcome in the Kootenays, and for their unerring support andencouragement: Dave Crampton, Larry Price (Nelson Forest Region), Chris Mulvihill(Kootenay lake Forest District) and the remaining members of the West Arm DemonstrationForest planning committee.Thank you to Susan Hall of Parks Canada for her insight into the problems faced byprotected areas agencies, and to Melanie Platz and Allan Lidstone of the IntegratedResources Branch of the Ministry of Forests for their patience in guiding me through theever changing and complex world of forest planning in British Columbia.General appreciation is extended to Dr. Peter Dooling for his guidance, to my supervisorycommittee and to my fellow graduate students in the Natural Resource Conservationprogram - thank you for the support, engaging discussion and camaraderie over the pasttwo years.Thank you finally to Al and to my family - who have all waited with concern and patiencefor my return home.1Chapter 1.Introduction1.1 Scope of the thesis.Total Resource Design (TRD) is an integrated approach to the planning and design offorest landscapes. It was developed by Simon Bell, a landscape architect and forester withthe British Forestry Commission, and was modeled closely on work by Nancy Diaz andDean Apostol of the Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon. Essentially, TRD provides astrategy for the design of a pattern of management units across a forest landscape, based onan understanding of how the subject landscape functions as an ecological system. Withinthe structure of a design process, this understanding is combined with objectives for thelandscape and the resources it contains, and with any policies or direction from higher levelplanning processes to synthesize solutions for the position, attributes and ultimatemanagement of these units. It is a framework for compromise and provides a forum for allparties involved with the management of a landscape, to become actively involved with thecreation of solutions for its integrated management.Total Resource Design is at present, merely a ‘proposed process’ in British Columbia(B.C.). Bell, who had been involved with Diaz and Apostol in the development of aprecursor process (called ‘Landscape Analysis and Design’), introduced TRD to membersof the B.C. Ministry of Forests in 1993. Recognizing its potential value, and encouragedby the results from Mount Hood in Oregon, it was quickly realized that TRD could have afuture in British Columbia and thus should be tested and assessed in a practical application.The initiative for such a test came from administrators in Nelson Forest Region and theKootenay Lake Forest District, who decided to try to apply Total Resource Design to theWest Arm Demonstration Forest (WADF) which is situated just north of the town ofNelson, in south-eastern B.C.2A workshop, bringing together all the parties responsible for the management of theWest Arm Demonstration Forest and members of the local community, was held in Nelsonin January 1994. Its purpose was to take Bell’s outline method for TRD, to apply it to theWADF and then to analyze the results. Simon Bell returned to British Columbia on 23rdJanuary 1994 to lead the workshop, bringing with him an outline of the method and an ideaof the results it should produce. However, in order to actually implement the steps of thismethod, Bell and the participants had to determine the details of how each step was to becarried out using the information resources available and the extent of the resource conflictspresent in the area of study. Throughout the workshop he presented a set of goals 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 present to fulfill each of these goals and thus implement Total 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 ArmDemonstration Forest application and to combine it with the work of Bell (MOF 1993a) andthat of Diaz and Apostol of the US Forest Service (Diaz and Apostol 1992) to produce adetailed method for the future application of TRD 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 conclusions of the workshop itself and will be the first in-depth documentationof the 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 of its 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 with a practical and feasible forest planning tool.In addition the application of Total Resource Design in B.C. is likely to also be ofinterest to members of the international forestry community. For example, based on hisinvolvement with the process here, Simon Bell is currently attempting to apply a modifiedversion of Total Resource Design to areas of forest in Great Britain. Diaz and Apostolcontinue to refine and adapt their Landscape Analysis and Design model in Oregon, andwill be watching the results of Total Resource Design with interest. Documentation of theapplication of TRD in British Columbia, as provided by this thesis, will communicate theprogress which has been made with Total Resource Design in this province to date.A second component of this thesis will be to examine the attributes of Total ResourceDesign which may influence whether it can be considered for general use in BritishColumbia. The application of TRD to the West Arm Demonstration Forest was initiated toestablish whether the process could be realistically applied in B.C., and to evaluate whetheror not it would be feasible to implement. Unfortunately, the final results of the WADFapplication lie at least a year away and so only limited analyses of its performance can becarried out. However, other questions which relate not to the specific details or results ofits application but to the concepts and attributes of the overall process, also need to beaddressed before it could be considered for wider application. For example, is an 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 ? Howwould Total Resource Design fit into the current forest planning framework, and are thereany particular scenarios in B.C. for which TRD would seem to provide an obviousplanning solution ? The answers to these questions should help to identify the potentialTotal resource Design may have for application in B.C.4To conclude this introductory chapter, a brief overview of Total Resource Design and itsaims will be provided, followed by an outline of how and why it evolved to this point. Thiswill explain why TRD 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 of the TRD method, a description of the steps involved and an illustration ofeach 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 for application in B.C.1.2 Background : Total Resource Design and its evolution to dateTotal Resource Design - an overviewTotal Resource Design is an integrated and holistic approach to forest design. Appliedto a forest landscape, its purpose is to provide a means of translating a general direction forthe landscape provided by a higher level plan, into a design for the shape, size and positionof units in the landscape, which can then be managed for various objectives, such astimber, range or wildlife. The process of Total Resource Design, as its name suggests, isone of design. A design team made up of representatives of the different resources withinthe landscape work together, guided by the design framework of the TRD method, toidentify objectives for the landscape and to carry out a series of analyses (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 target and the results of the various analyses and attempts to fit unitsonto the landscape. These will comply with the analyses, will fit visually into the5landscape, and if managed appropriately in the future, should allow the target landscapepattern to be achieved. Through this type of approach, the goal of Total Resource Design isto allow the objectives for the landscape to be met while ensuring the maintenance of theecological functioning and visual quality of the landscape.The evolution of Total Resource DesignTRD is an inherently multi-disciplinary process, combining different approaches andprinciples to produce a solution to a problem. Total Resource Design was developedthrough the combination of approaches and thoughts of individuals trained in differentways to tackle a common problem the design of forest landscapes. Simon Bell, whileworking on 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 the ecologicalattributes of its landscapes. In essence, what followed was a period of ‘brain-storming’between Diaz, Bell and Dean Apostol, the landscape architect for the national forest. Themain question they addressed was whether they could use landscape ecology as a basis fordesign. In other words, could the naturally occurring shapes and distributions of ecologicalelements in the landscape be used as a template or key to guide the design of managementunits in the landscape? If so, the product would produce a design which would allowtimber harvesting and management of the landscape to take place in a way which would beboth ecologically and visually acceptable(D. Apostol. pers, corn, 1994).Through discussions and refinement a method developed for the production of such adesign. This was called Landscape Analysis and Design and the results of an application ofthis technique to an area of the Mount Hood National Forest were published by Diaz andApostol in 1992. The original stimulus for Diaz’s work on the use of landscape 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 public and within6the scientific community, over the effects of forestry on visual and wildlife resources at thelandscape level. Forest operations at a stand level were normally well planned and 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 of the implications for the biological resources and human interactions. Asarticulated by Diaz and Apostol:“As long as forest management agencies carry out activities that changevegetation, new landscape patterns will be created. The paramount questionis ‘will we allow that process to be informed by our understanding oflandscapes as ecological systems, or will landscape patterns continue toevolve as a proliferation of independent actions?’ The hope is to encourage amore enlightened, purposeful and objective development of forestlandscapes.” (Diaz and Apostol 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 butrather recognized that each 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 about landscape pattern.3. The spatial design of that pattern should be used to inform and evaluatethe progressive implementation of land management strategies.”(Diaz andApostol 1992:1.2).Bell, through work with the Ministry of Forests in British Columbia, became familiarwith the difficulties faced by forest managers in the Province in trying to reconcile thedifferent resource values in the landscape with the extraction of timber. He also recognizedsome similarities with those issues which had stimulated the work of Diaz and Apostol inOregon. Thus, he introduced the concepts Landscape Analysis and Design to B.C.,7modified to accommodate the different forest planning framework which exists here andcustomized them to incorporate the forestry and ecological terms used in this jurisdiction.To avoid confusion with the Oregon model, he also gave it a new title - Total ResourceDesign. This thesis is a study of the continued evolution of Total Resource Design inBritish Columbia and the potential it may have for widespread application here in thefuture.1.3 ObjectivesIn summary, the objectives of this thesis are to:1. Document the method for the application of Total Resource Design in British Columbia;2. Document, where available, the results of a case study application carried out by theMinistry of Forests on the West Arm Demonstration Forest, Nelson Region;3. Estimate, where possible, the logistical requirements for carrying out Total ResourceDesign, and the implications for the resources involved;4. Gain a knowledge and understanding of current Ministry of Forests administrative andplanning processes, their deficiencies and possible future trends.5. Discuss the ability of TRD to incorporate or accommodate existing planningframeworks, guidelines and the Forest Practices Code (Province of British Columbia1994); and6. Use the findings from the case study application to draw conclusions on the potentialrole of Total Resource Design in the planning of provincial forest lands in BritishColumbia.8Chapter 2An introduction to the ecological principles employed in Total ResourceDesign2.1 IntroductionThe purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the ecological principlesused in Total Resource Design and so to facilitate an understanding of the contents ofsubsequent chapters. These principles were employed by Diaz and Apostol in their processof Landscape Analysis and Design, and as the two processes are conceptually very similar,they have also been applied in Total Resource Design. The linch-pin of the approachadopted in TRD is the concept that landscapes function as ecological systems. A majoraspect of the method is therefore to analyze the subject landscape to try to achieve anunderstanding of how the subject landscape functions in this regard. This analysis wasdeveloped by Diaz, a landscape ecologist, and thus it is structured using the principles oflandscape ecology (Diaz and Apostol 1992).The unit of study in Total Resource Design is, as has been mentioned, a landscape.Therefore at this point, a definition of a ‘landscape’ will be provided. This should clarifyfrom the outset, both the contents and scale of a landscape, as interpreted by this thesis.2.2 Landscape a definitionThe word ‘landscape’ is one which has undergone an expansion in meaning in thehistory of its use, with the result that it is currently used with various meanings andconnotations. The English word landscape came from the Dutch word landschap inreference to their early landscape paintings. This term gradually developed “from a mereindication of an area somewhere in space to the character of an area according to itscontents” (Zonneveld 1988). So, through time its meaning has been taken beyond therealms of scenic and aesthetic description and has become more synonymous with the landitself and its structural composition.9Landscape ecology is concerned with the ecological functioning of spatial units, and alandscape in this context became defined as:“a part of the space on the earth’s surface, consisting of a complex ofsystems, formed by the activity of rock, water, air, plants, animals andman and that by its physiognomy forms a recognizable entity “ (Zonneveld1979 in Forman and Godron 1986:7).Forman and Godron in their treatise on landscape ecology, further define a landscape as:a heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystemsthat is repeated in similar form throughout... .a landscape is a distinct,measurable unit defined by its recognizable and spatially repetitive cluster ofinteracting ecosystems, geomorphology and disturbance regimes” (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 and Apostol in their development ofLandscape Analysis and Design (Diaz and Apostol 1992) and has been carried through intoTotal Resource Design. According to this definition, a landscape is a holistic combinationof all the structural and functional attributes of an area. The interactions between thesestructures and functions determine its characteristics and enable the landscape to berecognized as a distinct area of land. In designing a landscape it is obvious that TRD mustbe based on an understanding of how all of the components and structures in a landscapefunction and interact.2.3 The ecological functioning of landscapesThe principles of landscape ecology are used in Total Resource Design to try to ‘piecetogether’ an understanding of how landscapes function ecologically. Many of the principlesused are derived from a text written by Forman and Godron, called simply LandscapeEcology (Forman and Godron 1986).Forman and Godron argue that there are three major components to understandingecological systems - structures, functions and the interactions among them (Forman andGodron, 1986). Structures can be thought of as the tangible, physical elements of an10ecosystem, and functions as the processes performed by the structures. It is the functionalinteractions among the structures which make the ecological system dynamic.Structure:The internal structure of a landscape has been defined by Forman and Godron as:“the spatial relationships among the distinctive ecosystems or ‘elements’present - more specifically the distribution of energy, materials, and speciesin relation to the sizes, shapes, numbers, kinds and configurations of theecosystems” (Forman and Godron 1986 :11).Forman and Godron define these landscape elements as the basic, relativelyhomogeneous, ecological elements or units on the land which can be of either natural orhuman origin.Once it had been recognized that landscapes are composed of structural elements,Forman and Godron set out to try to identify a fundamental classification of these elementswhich would hold true for every landscape. To do this they flew over four very differentlandscapes: an agricultural landscape in the mid-western United States; a coniferous forestlandscape in Labrador; a tropical rainforest in Columbia; and a Mediterranean landscape insouthern France. On each flight they noted their observations of the patterns on thelandscapes beneath them. Here is an example from their flight over the coniferous forest inLabrador:“No evidence of people anywhere. Yet patches very distinct. Peatlands,recent burned areas, lakes, beaver meadows, insect defoliation area. Patchsizes and shapes vary greatly. No straight borders on patches. Narrowcorridors are present, though not very common. Stream corridors and lowcurving sandy ridges covered with pine and larch. Occasional intersectionswhere stream tributaries come together. Background forested matrix ofspruce and fir. Natural disturbances evident...” (Forman and Godron1986:19).From similar descriptions of each of the landscapes, the authors observed that despitethe extreme differences which existed between the landscapes, they did appear to share acommon, fundamental structure and “they were composed entirely of patches, corridorsand a background matrix” (Forman and Godron 1986:23).11Function:How do these structures function and how do they contribute to the overall functioningof the landscape as an ecological system? The observations of Forman and Godron can besummarized as follows:Matrix: The most contiguous and connected vegetation type. This influences movementwithin the landscape as often objects will travel through the matrix itself, or will travelthrough corridors and have to cross the matrix at gaps in the corridors. The characteristicsof the matrix, such as its connectivity and how hospitable it is to the objects involved, willdetermine how the matrix functions in this regard.Patches: Areas which contrast with the surrounding matrix. These often act as special areasof habitat for species, and the species they contain depends largely on the size and shape ofthe patch. For example, a small patch will be penetrated easily by wind and othermeteorological forces, and will therefore contain a lot of edge habitat, and so will supportonly those species adapted to ‘edge conditions’ (Pickett and Thompson 1978). This area oflandscape ecology, dealing with the affects of patch size etc. has been comprehensivelydiscussed in the literature. Island biogeography and recent concerns over habitatfragmentation are also concerned with patch size and the connections between patches(Harris 1984).Corridors: Linear features forming connections between patches or areas of matrix. Formanand Godron identify four main functions of corridors: habitat for certain types of species; aconduit for movement along corridors; a barrier or filter separating areas; and a source ofenvironmental and biotic effects on the surrounding matrix (Forman and Godron 1986).Again, the existence and function of corridors has been widely discussed in the literature,particularly within island biogeography theory in relation to their contribution to speciesflows within a landscape (Harris 1984).12Interactions:According to Forman and Godron, it is the interaction of the individual elements andtheir functions as identified above, which determines how the landscape will function as awhole (Forman and Godron 1986). A wide range of landscape flows facilitates interactionboth within and between landscape elements, and with the landscape pattern in aggregate(thus enabling the landscape to function as a system).As well as recognizing the role of the internal components of landscapes, landscapeecology has identified change as an important influence on how a landscape functionsecologically. For example, change agents such as natural disturbances, are oftenresponsible for the creation and alteration of the pattern of structures on the landscape.Forman (1987) observed that a natural disturbance event is generally “an excess in the levelof objects (such as animals, plants, water, mineral nutrients, heat etc.) entering anecosystem” (Forman 1987:219). Thus disturbances are much larger events than the normalflows entering and leaving landscape elements. They can be distinguished from flows bythe fact that they cause a change in the landscape pattern.The major natural disturbances recognized in most forested landscapes are fire, windand insect attack (Baker 1989, Kimmins 1990). These events cause changes in the numbersand groupings of organisms occupying an area and are followed by a sequence of changesin the animal, plant and microbial communities that will successively occupy the area. Thisprocess is known as ecological succession (Kimmins 1987).Although landscapes are dynamic and changing, it has been identified that for anygiven landscape there is a relatively predictable disturbance regime which will result in aparticular pattern of vegetation on the landscape over time (Noss and Harris 1986). Thishas led to the proposition that an understanding of the scale, extent and type of these‘natural’ changes in a landscape could conceivably provide some pointers for the design ofproposed man made alterations to the landscape (Agee 1993). This is the route followed by13Total Resource Design, and a further description of the rationale used in the process isgiven below.When attempting to understand the dynamics and effects of disturbances in thelandscape, an important factor to consider is the scale at which they occur. As Urban et.al.(1987) observe, the pattern imposed on a landscape is generated by processes at variousscales, both spatially and temporally. To conceptualize these different scales of process, a‘hierarchical theory’ has been proposed. This recognizes that a landscape itself is part of aspatial hierarchy (i.e., larger than a landscape element and smaller than a region) and thatthe change agents which operate in a landscape also have a spatial hierarchy which must beunderstood. That is, that natural processes operate within landscape elements, throughoutlandscapes, and also over a wider extent (such as a region) where they may cross severallandscape boundaries. Landscape boundaries are permeable, and flows can cross themeasily. Zonneveld( 1988) therefore considers landscapes to be ‘open systems’, and in hismind a landscape can only be described adequately if the influences of “other spatiallylinked components are also considered” (Zonneveld 1988:7). Thus, in any consideration oflandscape functioning, the influences of adjacent land areas must be considered, as they canact as either a source or a sink for flows crossing the bounthries of the subject landscape.Where does this understanding of a landscape as a functioning ecological unit lead?Diaz and Apostol followed the logic that once identified, the characteristics of the naturallandscape pattern (and its associated functions), should be retained in any man-inducedalteration of the landscape, if the natural ecosystem functioning of the landscape was to beretained. Landscape ecology has identified that landscape patterns influence the ecologicalfunctioning of a landscape (Franklin and Forman 1987), and that human induced patternson a landscape can alter the natural pattern and thus the natural functioning of a landscape.Based on this argument, Diaz and Apostol then made the assumption that if resourcemanagement is to proceed without detriment to the natural functioning of the landscape,14any actions taken should retain, emulate or mimic the natural landscape pattern. Any designof, for example, forestry operations in a landscape, should take direction from theecological patterns on the landscape, and from the natural processes which created them.Forman and Godron provide further advice. The type of forest mosaic desired in alandscape, and therefore the type of management which can be used (for example, evenaged or uneven aged management), can be estimated from an examination of the naturaldisturbance regime of the landscape at one point in time. For example:“if extensive fires, pest outbreaks 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 aged stands is naturally produced. Ifthe natural disturbance is at an even finer scale, such as single treeblowdowns and defoliation, a multi-aged stand develops naturally” (Formanand Godron 1986:503).Within Total Resource Design, this information is used to guide the design ofmanagement units (principally their size and the method by which they can be managed) sothat individually and together they contribute to a’ pattern’ based on that which would beproduced by natural forces in the landscape.It must be emphasized that Total Resource Design does not follow ‘nature’ in a narrow andinflexible manner. This is due, in part, to the difficulties in defining just what ‘natural’ maybe for a landscape. It is recognized that it is not always possible to determine what thenatural disturbance patterns, or their effects, on a landscape are or have been in the recentpast. This may be due to suppression of these disturbances over time, or to significanthuman manipulation of the landscape which may obscure any natural patterns previouslypresent. Thus, TRD takes the clues that are available from the natural patterns anddisturbance history of a landscape, and tries to adapt them to produce or maintain adistribution of ‘desirable’ structures in the landscape. This ‘desirable ecosystem character’will not be truly natural (Agee 1993), but it is hoped that it will be a step towardsmaintaining natural components of landscapes during resource management, and that it willbe more meaningful and useful than merely being given the vague concept of a ‘natural15forest’ to aim towards. In the future, with an improved understanding of the naturaldynamics of a landscape, it may be possible to develop a method through which humanimpacts on a landscape can mimic nature more effectively. For now, however, methodslike those of Total Resource Design can only work within the bounds of the limitedinformation available and an awareness of this limitation is very important. Guess workmay be required in many cases.Recognizing that our information on how natural landscapes function is not complete, themethod derived for Total Resource Design provides a framework for analysis based on theprinciples of landscape ecology, which aim to provide as great a level of understanding ofthe subject landscape as possible. It is hoped that the results of this analysis, despitelimitations, will be sufficient to allow a desirable pattern to be estimated, from whichdesign and management solutions for integrated resource management can later be derived.16Chapter 3 Total Resource Design - the method3.1 IntroductionThe aims of this chapter are to outline the steps in the Total Resource Design method,and to explain how each step evolved through an application of the process to the WestArm Demonstration Forest, Nelson, B.C., which took place during a workshop held inNelson from 24th-28th January 1994.It is hoped that this chapter can, if desired, stand alone as a set of instructions for anyfuture application of Total Resource Design in British Columbia. Its value lies in the factthat it presents all current work on Total Resource Design in B.C. and combines this withthe concepts and lessons developed from a similar application in Mount Hood NationalForest in Oregon (Diaz and Apostol 1992). The result is an interpretation of how TotalResource Design should be practically implemented if it is to be successfully applied inBritish Columbia. It is based on a brief outline for the method for TRD produced by Bell(Bell 1993a) which was found to be insufficient for implementation of the process in apractical case study (the West Arm Demonstration Forest) and is supplemented by referenceto the work of Diaz and Apostol, and the experience gained through involvement in theapplication of TRD to the West Arm Demonstration Forest. The results of the WADFapplication are presented in this chapter both as an illustration of the process, and as arecord of the added detail required to make Bell’s outline applicable in practice. The resultsfrom the WADF application should also help to highlight some of the strengths andweaknesses of the method, which became evident on its application. Where steps of TotalResource Design have not been completed for this example, the design team involved have,in effect, made forecasts to allow future completion of the steps to occur according to adecided direction.Total Resource Design proceeds in a logical series of steps. Before these are described,the overall design process which acts as a framework for the steps of the method, will beexamined to set a context for the subsequent description of each of the steps.173.2 Total Resource Design : a design processTotal Resource Design is a design process. The process is common to all designprofessions, whether they are concerned with buildings and structures, landscapes orclothing. Each starts with a problem and arrives at a series of solutions within a context,and, in the end, each has designed an item which must work (Nelson 1975 in Thiel 1981).The design process involves purposeful planning, i.e., “the designing of courses of actionaimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones” (Thiel 1981:32). Thiel continues:“More specifically design may be said to be a means of optimizing the useof limited resources, time and materials in the realization of predeterminedobjectives in circumstances where no satisfactory precedents exist. Since weare interested in the “best” way of accomplishing this goal, we face thenecessity of originating and evaluating alternatives and then choosingamong them.”(Thiel 1981:32)Total Resource Design is an application of this design process to forest landscapes. Assuch it follows the same fundamental steps as those followed in the design of, for example,a building or a golf course (S. Bell pers, corn, 1993). It progresses from an identificationof the problem to the production of various possible solution scenarios. Figure 1 showsone interpretation of a general design process, and the steps it involves.Notice the logical progression of steps in a design process, and the various pointswhere feedback occurs, so that the results of each phase can be iterated and modified. Theprocess is dynamic and ensures that there is always scope for improvement and theaccommodation of new issues and stakeholders as they arise. The results of scenariogeneration are simulated visually, in drawings, sketches or using a computer. It is thisvisual articulation of the solutions which takes design beyond the realms of planning, andprovides graphics which can easily be assimilated and evaluated by the public or the client.This basic design process is the template on which the method for Landscape Analysisand Design , and later Total Resource Design were based. Details and refinements wereadded to this framework to make the design process specific to its subject - the forestlandscape - and to allow the logic and aims of Total Resource Design to be met.18NoNoFigure 1. The steps involved in a design process (Thiel 1981:33)19Bell (1993a) presented the method for TRD as a series of seven steps as follows:1. Assembly of the design team;2. Identification of design units;3. Setting objectives;4. Landscape survey;5. Landscape analysis;6. Design concept generation; and7. Sketch design.Glancing at these simple steps, it is unclear how they fit together to form a sequentialand iterative design process as outlined in Figure 1. For this reason,the seven stepsproposed by Bell have been re-labeled in this chapter and presented in a manner whichallows the logical sequential order of the process to be easily identified. In essence, thefundamental framework outlined in Figure 1 has been revisited and the generic titles of eachstep have been replaced with labels specific to Total Resource Design. Six main steps havebeen recognized, with the following titles:1. Preparation;2. Setting objectives for the landscape;3. Survey of the landscape;4. Analysis of inventory information;5. Scenario development; and6. Assessment and choice of final design.These steps can be grouped into two phases :analysis and design. Figure 2 below, showseach of these steps and how they interact to form a design process in Total ResourceDesign. Shading has been used to differentiate between the two phases of the process.20LRMPs and other publicparticipation processes.Higher level plans.6. AssessmentChoice of scenario4,Implementation1. Preparationco ze nefor TId tifyylntfi bouij(aries areaoviy/6road jectAs mbl design’ Mandate.am > Schedule, )budget etc.Forest Practices Code. Obje yes fo e area. Biodiversity guidelines7 etc.,7 Legal requirements.. I ntory/ rvey.a. Ecological b. Biophysical c. Other factors d. Social factorsfactors factors eg. recreation(\ Landscape Character Landscape Ecological Constraints andAnalysis Analysis opportunities analysisEcological landscapepattern objectives5. Scenario developmentTesting of scenarios?identification ofimplications of each.LIVisual designprinciples &skills_______Steps in analysis phaser Steps in design phaseFigure 2. The steps involved in the Total Resource Design process.21It is hoped that this revised presentation of Total Resource Design will illustrate that it isreally a ‘customized’ design process which follows an accepted framework used by alldesign professions.3.3 The Total Resource Design workshop3.3.1 Aims of the workshopThe application of Total Resource Design to the West Arm Demonstration Forest tookplace in Nelson from the 24th to the 28th January 1994. The workshop was set up, fundedand administered by Ministry of Forests staff from the Nelson Region and Kootenay LakeDistrict offices. It was led by Mr. Simon Bell and involved staff from the Ministry ofForests, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, B.C. Parks Service and severalmembers of the local public.The aims of the workshop were three- fold:1. To apply the method and to answer the question, ‘can TRD be practically applied inB.C.?’;2. To produce a Total Resource Design for the West Arm Demonstration Forest, to be usedfor the promotion and demonstration of up-to-date planning and design processes toindustry and the wider public; and3. To evaluate and analyze the end product, in terms of costs, harvest projections andresource implications, primarily in comparison to current Integrated Resource Managementplanning approaches.Objective 1 is the only one which has been achieved to date, and is the primary focus ofthis thesis. The remaining two steps will be completed by the Ministry of Forests within thenext year or two.223.3.2 The Study Area.The West Arm Demonstration Forest is an area of approximately 14, 500 hectares locatedon the north shore of Kootenay Lake, within Kootenay Lake Forest District.I II II II IOCalgarv IIIO- —r-__L.‘, HeknuOBoise (—, ._‘dl!fo /Figure 3. The West Arm Demonstration Forest-This forest was originally designated as a demonstration forest in response to localpublic concerns with current- forest management practices. It was fconsidered to be anexcellent site for an application of Total Resource Design because of its size, its manyresource values and the extent of the inventoried information which exists for each resourcein the area. The specific resource values of the West Arm Demonstration Forest (WADF)have been listed by the Ministry of Forests, Nelson Region as follows:• Five domestic watersheds with a total of 166 water licenses;1 Graphic provided by Simon Bell, British Forestry Commission.23• Tourism values because of its adjacency to Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park and theWest Arm of Kootenay Lake;• Large number of wildlife species;• An ecological reserve of old growth ponderosa pine forest;• Two spawning channels for Kokanee salmon; and• A viewscape for the towns of Harrop and Proctor and for boaters on the West Arm ofKootenay Lake (MOF (Nelson Region) 1992, unpublished).Two biogeoclimatic zones (Meidinger and Pojar 1991) are represented in the West ArmDemonstration Forest: The Interior - Cedar Hemlock (ICH) Zone , which is found in thelower to middle elevations (within this zone the two subzones ICHdw and ICHmw are themost common); and the Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir (ESSF) zone, which is theuppermost forested zone in the WADF.With such a wealth of resource values, in addition to timber and research interests, theWest Arm Demonstration Forest provided a challenging site for the first application of TotalResource Design in British Columbia.3.4 The Method and the results of its application to the WADFThis section will describe the method which evolved from the West Arm DemonstrationForest workshop in a step by step manner, with the results from the WADF applicationused as an illustration for each step.3.4.1 Preparation.This step encompasses all of the stages which have to be completed before the TotalResource Design process itself can be started. Once it has been established that a TotalResource Design is required for an area (which may come from a public planning process24such as a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)2or from a higher level forestplan, such as a Regional plan) a ‘client’ should be identified. This client is the person orparty for whom the Total Resource Design is being prepared and could be, for example, asenior member of the Ministry of Forests, a public planning group, a forest company etc.The ‘client’ will outline the boundaries of the area of study and provide broad objectivesand direction for its management. These decisions should be related to any issues identifiedfor the area in higher level plans and LRMPS, etc.This step also gathers those individuals with expertise and knowledge of the areatogether in a design team. This team will include local staff from Ministry of ForestsDistrict office, the appropriate Forest Regional Office, other agencies (such as Ministry ofEnvironment, B.C. Parks, etc.), several interested members of the public and any otherimportant stakeholders.At this point it is also advisable to divide the total area into sub-units on paper, for finaldesign purposes. This will facilitate the design process, making data management and thevisual design process less complex.WADF Example.The client:The client, although not formally identified in this case, was assumed to be a seniormember of staff of the Nelson Forest Region. A design team was brought together, andwas responsible for the collection of data, its analysis and the development of the design. Itconsisted of 19 participants, representing different disciplines within the Ministry ofForests, Nelson Forest Region and Kootenay Lake Forest District, the Ministry ofEnvironment (Fish and Wildlife, and Water Management representatives) and severalmembers of the public. The team was led by Mr. Simon Bell, who also participated as the2jyjp- ‘A strategic,multi-agency, integrated resource plan at the sub-regional level. It is based on theprinciples of enhanced public involvement, consideration of all resource values, consensus-based decsiionmaking, and resource sustainability’ (Province of British Columbia 1994:183)25team ‘designer’, due to his expertise in visual design. For a complete list of the design teamand the agencies they represented at the workshop see Appendix 1.Design Area:The design area for this case study was the entire West Arm Demonstration Forest. Thiswas divided into 16 sub-units, which were determined using the natural features of thelandscape. Often the entire face of a hillside or the areas between two side valleys wereidentified as units. To do this, possible units were first identified on a topographic map.These areas were then photographed from the ground and from a helicopter, ensuring thatthe photo points and elevations were noted accurately, thereby compiling a comprehensivepanoramic photographic record for each unit. Using the photographs, the final boundariesof each unit were decided and plotted on a base map by Kootenay Lake Forest District staffprior to the workshop.Broad objectives and guidelines:Various existing plans for areas of the West Arm Demonstration Forest, and regionalresource guidelines were used to provide several broad objectives for the resources present.For example, the draft Interior Fish, Forestry Wildlife Guidelines (MOE and MOF 1993),Soil Conservation Guidelines for Timber Harvesting (Interior B.C.) (MOF 1993a); and theKootenay Lake Domestic Water Contingency Plan (MOE Nelson 1993 unpublished) wereall consulted. Specific standards for the region for the implementation of the ForestPractices Code had not been released at the time of the workshop, and so the design teamcould only estimate any restrictions this might confer on the management of the area in thefuture. All of this information was collated into a report prior to the workshop by membersof the design team and provided useful reference in the steps which were to follow (MOFNelson 1994 unpublished).263.4.2 Setting objectives for the area.This step interprets directions and guidelines from higher level plans 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 guidelines and other legislation should beidentified and outlined so that they can be incorporated in subsequent steps. The objectivesdetermined at this stage will not necessarily be fixed, as later analysis of the area mayprovide evidence that some of the objectives require modification. It is important that thisinformation can be fed back into the objectives and that they can be altered accordingly.WADF Example:Having carried out the background preparation, decided broad objectives for the areaand selected relevant information from available plans and guidelines, landscape objectivesfor the resources present in the WADF were developed by the design team. A series ofmeasures were devised to accompany each objective. These were essentially a set ofdirections which, if followed, would ensure that the objectives would be met and were feltto be a useful addition to the method originally proposed by Bell.During this stage of TRD, it was often necessary to remind the design team that theobjectives being set were those for the landscape, as there was a tendency for many of thedesign team to become embroiled in stand level detail.The landscape objectives and measures finally produced are outlined in Table 1.3.4.3 Survey of the area.The landscape survey collates information for the area for all resources present, fromavailable inventories and local knowledge. Information on ecological, biophysical andsocial factors is collected, along with any inventory information on the recreation andlandscape characteristics of the area. Social issues, such as local community concerns and27Table 1: Landscape Objectives for the West Arm Demonstration ForestResource Objective Measures1 .Water To maintain and enhance water . do not exceedrecommended equivalent clear cut areasResources quality and the quantity and timing (ECAs)3for watersheds.of flows.. leave buffer zones (width relative to stream class). maintain natural drainage patterns (e.g, avoid areas withmultiple small watersheds as the quality of these will bedifficult to maintain if development takes place).2.Fish To protect and enhance fish and . establish protective zones for critical /sensitive habitats&Wildlife wildlife resources. over time.Resources. . ensure all site/seral types and stages are present at asuitable level at any time (to ensure that the quantity anddistribution of habitat types is maintained through theforest as a whole).3.Soil and To maintain soil! site productivity . minimize presence of roads and landings and otherL.andfomi and reduce site degradation. permanent features (i.e.,the minimum number necessaryResources. to implement the plan).. identify and specify operations for sensitive units.4. Roads (and To minimize the impact of roads . ensure optimum density of roads is proposed.logging while meeting engineer i n g . ensure that locations avoid sensitive areas and blend intosystems). specifications. the landscape.. ensure that road access can be arranged to protect wildlifevalues.5.Timber To maintain a sustainable supply of. determine the AAC4 resulting from the silviculturalResources. timber while integrating other systems to be used in those units that are planned forresources. intervention ( as opposed to those planned for noninterventionlreserve etc.) over the plan period.. ensure that these units are feasible.6.Old Growth To maintain sufficient quality, . ensure existing old growth areas are identified andResource. quantity, types and distribution of managed.old growth over time and landscape. . ensure that areas are identified to be managed to produceold growth to fill gaps or replace areas in due course.. ensure that as much’ old growth’ value is maintained orenhanced throughout the forest.7.Forest To ensure that forest health . ensure that proposed practices)silvicultural systems doHealth. problems remain at an endemic level not promote pests and pathogens.(i.e. not catastrophic - below levelthat can pose an economic risk).8. Recreation. To provide for a variety of . ensure that significant features are preserved.recreational uses appropriate to the . ensure that use is dispersed in space and time.carrying capacity of the forest . ensure that recreation opportunities are protected,ecosystem. specifically in the Kokanee Creek valley.. ensure that the recreational settings are maintained orenhanced in quality.9.Visual To retain a high standard of visual . ensure that units and openings fit the landscape.landscape. integrity across the forest. . ensure that the optimum level of visual diversity ismaintained or enhanced.. ensure that areas of special genius loci are protected.ECAs. The hydrological impact of harvesting is proportional to the % of crown closure removed. The %is expressed in terms of the number of ha of clearcut it is equivalent to.4AAC - Allowable Annual Cut: ‘the volume of timber approved by the chief forester to be harvestedannually’ (Province of British Columbia 1994:173)5 loci- the ‘spirit of place’, unique quality one place has over another (Bell 1993)28existing public use of the area may already be known from previous public participationprocesses such as Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs). This information canbe input into Total Resource Design at this point. If such information has not beenpreviously collated for the area, it should be obtained at this point so that social issues canbe incorporated into the design process.WADF Example:Maps of all of the inventoried information for the WADF which had been produced to datewere assembled and an attempt was made to fill in any gaps in this information using thedesign team’s knowledge of the area. One colour copy of each map was then prepared at astandard scale (1:20 000) and with the study area boundary marked.Table 2 provides a list of the inventory information prepared for the WADF application.3.4.4. Analysis.Landscape analysis is carried out to provide an understanding of how the subjectlandscape functions ecologically and visually and to determine how its attributes couldconstrain or provide opportunity for the development of the forest resources. Thisunderstanding is used along with a knowledge of existing direction and local issues, toderive objectives about a desired ‘landscape pattern’ for the area of concern.Three different aspects of the landscape are analyzed in this step:constraints and opportunities• landscape ecologylandscape ‘character’The implementation of these analyses requires a multidisciplinary approach in which thedesign team work together to build a ‘picture’ of how the landscape functions in respect toall the resources present. They must take the data collected in step 3 and assimilate it intosomething which will form the basis of a design.29Table 2: The inventory information collated for the WADF workpp.Resource Inventory Information Prepared (Mapped)Landscape Landscape units with labels for Landscape Sensitivity Rating6 , VisualQuality/visuals Absorption Capability7, Visual Quality Objectives8and viewpointsAreas of high genius loci.Recreation Inventory of sites and trailsDescription of how the public use the landscapeRecreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)9objectivesPotential for interpretive trailsSilviculture Previous silvicultural activities and NSR (Not Satisfactorily Restocked) areas.Forest Health Areas of known or suspected insect / disease attackTypes of pathogen and population estimationTimber Area of land by timber age classes and inoperable areasAAC for the areaTransportati on and Location of existing roads and potential road locationslogging Inoperable areasThe scope of available logging systemsRiparian areas Location of riparian zones along all water bodies showing minimum protection_________ reqmredHydrology Location of watersheds and areas where buffer zones are required.Routes of water movement.Location of domestic water intakes.Soils - sediment yield Hazard calculated and mapped, on the basis of the combined potentials forhazard sediment delivery, mass wasting and surface erosion (using Map Attribute DataManager Program)Soils - mass wasting Calculations of hazard rating based on soil texture and types. Location of eachhazard rating - mappedResearch Location of areas required for existing and planned research, and of theprotection zones required around each plot.Botany/plant ecology Main biogeoclimatic zones, subzones and site associationsLocation of any rare, unique or sensitive vegetative typesFisheries List of the species present in each water bodyLocation of sensitive sitesList of any threatened or endangered speciesWildlife biology Location of known habitats of some speciesPatterns of migration or movementList of any sensitive or ‘at risk’ populationsArchaeology Location of areas of historical use by indigenous inhabitants, position of stoneoven.Estimated tree height Map of tree height classesclassForest cover Map of forest cover inventory infonnation and complete labelsTopographic features such as mountains and water bodiesTopography Topographical map showing contours at 20 in intervals, streams, roads and anyother man made features.6LSR: extent to which people may be concerned about landscape alterations (MOF 1991)7VAC:ability of landscapes to absorb physical alterations without damage to their scenic values (MOF1991)8 VQOs:Degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape (MOF 1981)9ROS: A system of categorizing recreation opportunities according to the degree of solitude, roaded access,and type of recreational activity. Categories include: Rural, Roaded Resource, Semi-primitive Motorized,Semi-primitive Non-motorized, and Primitive.303.4.4.1 Constraints and Opportunities analysisThe constraints and opportunities analysis is fairly straight forward and does not requiremuch explanation. In brief, it sorts the inventory information into two sections : thosefactors which will constrain the designer’s options for action, and those which will provideopportunities, thus providing guidance on areas in the landscape where certain types ofdevelopment might be possible, or where they should be avoided. Generally, constraintsare often obvious and manifest themselves in guidelines for operations produced for aregion. Others are a result of landscape characteristics and are identified through an analysisof the information collected for the area. Opportunities are often less obvious than theconstraints but can be identified when there appears to be a certain option, or a number ofoptions available for the management of a specific resource in an area. Ideally, the locationof the opportunities and constraints should be illustrated on a map of the area, andannotated with a description of their characteristics. They should also be placed onperspective views of the subject landscape, so that it can be easily incorporated into the laterdesign of the management units.WADF Example:Each member of the team representing a particular resource, briefed the team on thevarious constraints and opportunities associated with ‘their’ resource. The list ofconstraints and opportunities on each resource across the landscape was then expanded ornarrowed through discussion with the team. Those constraints and opportunities whichwould affect the overall design were located on acetate overlays of the base map and latertransferred to perspective photographs, in preparation for the design phase.Figures 4 provides an illustration of how the results of this analysis were illustrated forone area of the WADF (Queens/Laird Creek area), in perspective view. The locations of theconstraints and opportunities across the entire landscape are illustrated in plan form inFigure 5. Table 3 then provides a summary of their main characteristics.31Figure 5. The location of the main opportunities and constraints in the WADF.Figure 4. Perspective illustration of the constraints and opportunities on the Queens/Lairdcreek area of the WADF (south east corner)10 -Extreme / very high mass wasting hazard 1Extreme/ very high sediment yield hazard j limited circumstances.Operability line - the envelope of most areas accessible and economically worthL. Private land boundary - Rectangular and awkward in shape.•e.,Existinc roads.Avoid clearcutting except in10 Graphic provided by Simon Bell, British Forestry Commission32Table 3: Constraints and Opportunities for the WADF.Resource Constraints on development Opportunities for developmentLandscape! Future modification or improvement of the Modification of the shapes of existing blocksvisuals shapes of existing blocks may be would provide opportunities for furtherconstrained by public opinion harvestingVQOs of preservationlretention suggest that In some areas the existing visual condition isthe landscape is of high quality and that this better than the VQO stipulates - thus thereshould be maintained, thus constraining are opportunities for further harvesting inclearcut harvesting in these areas these areasRecreation Logging roads would increase access to Kokanee Creek corridor provides the greatestpristine areas; the negative impacts of this potential for increasing recreationshould be considered opportunity by taking in part of WestKokanee road and trailsFurther opportunities for trail access to smalllakes for day hikingAlteration of the shapes of the ‘square’recreation areas would provide opportunityfor harvesting while improving their shapeTimber a n d Siting of roads close to trails would not be Only great opportunity for clearcut timberengineering publicly acceptable extraction in west Kokanee where no VQOsAreas of high mass wasting and sediment have been assigned by the MOFyield require precautions Some higher elevation areas could beMost harvesting in this area is constrained harvested using helicopterto some extent by existing visual andrecreation activityWildlife & Riparian areas and zones of influence of Late winter habitat on south slopes (and to afish habitats streams. Activities limited in these areas, lesser extent, mid winter habitat) - requiresAvalanche tracks are important bear and open canopy. This is a harvestinggoat habitat suggest retain 60% crown opportunity providing 40% of forestedclosure forest cover lOOm along at least one habitat of height class 3 or greater and 60%side of the avalanche track crown closure are left behind.Old growth reserves and potential reserve There are several areas of old growth whichareas shouldbe preserved could be reserved thus increasingrepresentation of old growth in the landscapeResearch plots Maintain forested buffers around existing There may be opportunities for moreresearch plots - constraint to harvesting, harvesting as a part of future researchIdentified areas have been removed fromoperable forest base for period of 4 yearsfor research purposes3.4.4.2 Landscape ecological analysis.The landscape ecological analysis employed in Total Resource Design was developed byDiaz and Apostol in the Mount Hood National Forest in Oregon (Diaz and Apostol 1992).To quote them directly, the logic behind this stage was to “understand the landscape as anecological system, in terms of structure, function, processes and context within the largerlandscape” (Diaz and Apostol 1992: 4.1). It is based on the principles of landscape33ecology and proceeds in a series of five logical steps, designed to identify the followingfactors:i) Landscape structures;ii) Landscape Flows;iii) The relationship between the structures and the flows;iv) Natural disturbance and succession patterns in the landscape; andv) ‘Linkages’ beyond the landscape.This analysis, as a whole, aims to identify landscape pattern objectives and give guidanceto the designer so that ecological issues can be fed into the development of design scenarios(Bell 1993a). Figure 6 illustrates how the five steps fit together.Figure 6. The steps of landscape ecological analysis.34i) Landscape Structures.Structures in the landscape are identified from an examination of inventory informationand aerial photographs. These are then classified according to the following descriptions:Matrix: the most contiguous and connected vegetation type, terrain or land use.Patches : areas which contrast with the surrounding matrix. They may be homogeneousareas of vegetation, or non- living areas such as rock outcrops, wetlands, clearcuts etc.Corridors : linear features forming connections between patches or areas of the matrix(Diaz and Apostol 1992).To help visualize this classification of landscape structures, Diaz and Apostol used theanalogy of a chocolate chip cookie: the cookie dough is the matrix and the chocolate chipsare the patches.WADF Example:Deciding on the criteria to be used for the identification of the forest matrix in the WADFproved to be difficult as no exercise of this nature had been done before for the forest typespresent. Appearance and physical characteristics alone were not sufficient to allow the teamto delineate between structures. Therefore the functions they carried out in the landscapewere also considered.The first step taken by the team was to examine the available aerial photographs of thearea and the mapped information of forest cover, age classes, height classes andbiogeoclimatic zones and subzones. The matrix (following the definition given above) wasidentified as all those areas of mature forest which had reached the stage of crown closure.Continuous forest cover was felt to be the deciding criteria in this decision. The teaminitially attempted to identify a single age class or group of age classes which wouldconstitute the matrix, but when identified on a map of the area these did not conform to thedefinition of matrix; often one or two age classes were not abundant enough in thelandscape to be considered as the ‘background’ within which the other elements sat.Hence, the wider classification, which used both age and height classes to identify the35matrix, was chosen. Different ‘elements’ of the matrix were then identified. These wereareas of the continuous forest cover which were felt to have different functions and often,different appearances, but which together constituted the matrix. For example, age classes8 and 9 were identified as an element of the matrix because their old growth attributessupport different organisms and functions than younger areas of the matrix. Table 4provides an outline and description of the different elements identified.The remaining ‘non-matrix’ vegetation in the landscape was all of age class 1. Thereforeto identify vegetation patches height classes were used, with the premise that stands ofdifferent 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 corridors present in the landscape, using the definitionsgiven above as guidance. People were recognized as an important component of thelandscape and therefore the patches and corridors created and used by them were alsoincluded.All of the structures identified are outlined in Table 4. Their distribution or patternwithin the West Arm Demonstration Forest are illustrated in Figures 7 and 8.Table 4 Landscape structures identified in the WADFElements of forest matrix DescriptionAlpine/Forest ParklandOld Growth Age class 8&9. If areas of age class 7 show oldgrowth characteristics they could be included in thiscategory.Mid seral Age class 3-6 . Age class 7 may be included in thiscategory if it shows mid seral characteristicsPole stage Forest stages from crown closure to 20m height.(Essentially height class 2.)Patches:Sapling Height 2-5 mShrub/forb Height 0-imAvalanche TracksRock OutcropsWater Lakes and WetlandsOld bums/berry patchesHardwood areasCorridors:Riparian AreasStreamsRoads/Skid TrailsPowerlines36o 1000 2000f4I i3 pFigure 7. Location (and pattern) of landscape matrix and patches in the WADF.in the WADF landscape37As implied above, a solution to this step of the analysis required discussion andexperimentation, especially in areas where no single type of vegetation was evident as amatrix. It was felt to be a very valuable exercise as it challenged the team to think about thelandscape and its component parts in relation to their ecological contribution to thelandscape. Any difficulties which were encountered related mostly to a lack of detailedsurvey information on the ecological attributes of the area. Generally speaking, inventoriesare carried out within the Forest Service with the purpose of providing information fortimber harvesting prescriptions, not ecological analyses. Labels on forest cover mapstherefore do not tend to yield much detailed information about ‘non tree’ species. In thiscase the team had to find the original survey information and stand descriptions for theWADF to obtain any detailed information on the different seral stages and species ofunderstory vegetation present in the landscape. It is recommended that this information beobtained from files and made available to the design team from the outset in any futureapplication of this process.ii) Landscape Flows:Landscape flows can be thought of as those things that move across or throughlandscapes, whether in the air, over land or in the soil (Diaz and Apostol 1992). Diaz andApostol identify water, wind, fire, animals (flying, swimming and ground based), plantsand humans (of various user groups) as the most important flows in a landscape. Theystress that an aim of flow identification is to develop a pattern of landscape elements whichwill encourage the continued presence of important landscape flows. To help determinewhat this pattern should be, they suggest that the following questions can be asked:“In the future, what flow phenomena will be critical in this landscape?”“Which flow phenomena are most likely to be affected by humanactivities?” (Diaz and Apostol, 1992:4.18).38The aim in answering these questions and incorporating the results into the design is toensure that the temporal variations in flows through the landscape are accounted for.Similarly, the spatial arrangement of the flows in the landscape can be identified andmapped by answering the following questions:“Where in the landscape does a particular flow occur?”“Is it dependent on a particular landscape element (matrix, patch,corridor)?”“What is the direction of the flow?”“What is the timing (e.g., is it seasonal?)” (Diaz and Apostol 1992 :4.19).WADF Example:In order to answer these questions for the West Arm Demonstration Forest, flows wereidentified as those movements which occurred across the landscape elements, ignoringthose which were confined within stands or vegetation types. This emphasis on thelandscape level was to ensure that only those factors which influence, or are influenced by,the landscape structure were identified.This step provoked much discussion within the design team. For example, it wasrecognized that flows would not only have to be identified, but also mapped in thisexercise. This revealed a major gap in the knowledge of the ecology of the West ArmDemonstration Forest. The team members were able to identify many of the animals andotther resources which moved within the landscape, but were unable to accurately locatethese movements in many cases. Nevertheless, an attempt was made, based on theinformation available and the expertise of the team members. They started with those flowsfor which accurate information was available:People:Movement of people within the West Arm Demonstration Forest has been inventoried.The main flow within the West Arm Demonstration Forest is for recreation purposes, alongKokanee Creek Road to and from Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park. An estimated 2000vehicles and 4,200 people use this road annually. Hiking also takes place along West39Kokanee Creek Trail (an average of 70 registered users annually), and the other trailswithin the forest, especially those leading to and from the alpine lakes. Berry picking,hunting, fishing and mushroom gathering also occur in the West Arm DemonstrationForest, taking people throughout much of the landscape. Such general flows were notmapped but were noted for further reference by the team.Water:Water is an important flow within the WADF, as the area contains several communitywatersheds and a total of 274 registered water licenses. Both the quality and quantity ofwater flows in the landscape must therefore be maintained for these reasons, as well as forthe important ecological, recreational and visual roles the water resources of the landscapeplay. The main surface flows occur from the high elevation, down the creeks to KootenayLake.Fish:A resident fish population is present throughout Kokanee Creek and its tributaries. Thesefish both spawn and rear fish in these creeks and then flow downstream into KootenayLake. These flows provide a food resource for some of the wildlife species, as well asrecreation opportunities (fishing). Management of the streamsides affects water quality andcan impact fish population numbers. This flow is vulnerable to human impacts for thisreason.Flows of mammals and birds were less easy to identify. It was known that certainanimals move within the WADF landscape in order to utilize different habitats for food,cover, nesting and den sites. For certain groups, such as ungulates and bears, the locationsof these habitats are known but the precise position, timing and extent of their flows to andfrom these habitats is not. The team felt however that these flows could be roughlyestimated and that an outline of the different types of forest matrix elements, patches andcorridors required for this movement could be provided.40Ungulates:Areas of early, mid and late winter and summer habitat for ungulates (white tail deer,mule deer and elk) have been identifed in the West Arm Demonstration Forest. Thesespecies move through the landscape seasonally between these areas, mainly in anelevational flow. For their populations to be supported, these habitat types need to beretained in the landscape and the movement of the animals between them must not beinhibited by human impacts.Bears:Excellent black bear and grizzly bear habitat is present throughout the West ArmDemonstration Forest. The black bears move throughout the drainages utilizing a widevariety of habitat types. Grizzly bears utilize and move through the avalanche tracks,riparian zones and remote alpine and subalpine areas.Birds:It was difficult to identify any particular flows of birds within the landscape, except forthose species such as osprey, which regularly used different habitat areas for nesting andfeeding and so moved within the landscape in a predictable pattern.Forest pests and diseases were identified in most areas of the WADF, but no majorflows or trends could be identified. Similarly the flows of small mammals and insects in thelandscape could not be estimated due to lack of information on their behavior within thislandscape. It was suspected that much of their movement takes place within stands and thattheir requirements would be met by sound stand level management.The design team limited their investigation of landscape flows to those which they feltwould be obviously affected by any future manipulation of the landscape pattern. Theywere also severely limited to those flows for which information was available. Despite thislimitation, they did feel that they had identified the flows which were of primary concern inthe WADF at the present time, and that if these flows could be maintained in the landscape,41there was a good chance that other flows, as yet unidentified, would simultaneously bepreserved.TableS summarizes the flows identified. The locations of most of these flows are estimatedin Figure 9.Table 5: Important flows in the WADF landscape.Flow DescriptionFish Obvious movement through landscape in streamchannelsUngulates Have predictable seasonal movement patterns andspecific habitat requirementsOsprey Use identifiable areas of the landscape for nestingand perching. Move in and out of the landscape atdifferent times of year.Grizzly Have areas of traditional use for forage. Move inand out of the area from park area to the north.People Movement in landscape for recreation or industry(logging) purposes.Water Movement within stream channels. Additionalmovement along ground surface and within soil.Important areas identified if possible.Avalanches Downward movement of snow with consequencesfor underlying landform, distribution of snow-- within landscape and flora and fauna.• movement.water flows.ungulate migration.Ungulate winter range. AlpineRecreation reserves.Figure 9. An estimation of the location of major flows in the WADF Landscape.42iii) The relationship between the structures and the flows.This stage of the process explains how landscape structures function in relation tolandscape flows. Specifically, it attempts to identify how the individual structures, and thepattern they form on the landscape, interact with or affect landscape flows. Discussionwithin the design team, with extra input from local members of the public or user groups,is used to identify how the main flows ‘use’ the various landscape elements, and when.This is often not an easy step to complete due to an inadequate knowledge of the ecology ofthe subject landscape, in addition to the general lack of understanding of how landscapesfunction. However to facilitate this step, Diaz and Apostol suggest that the design teamkeep the five main functions of ecological systems in mind. i.e.• capture (resources are brought into the system);• production (resources are manufactured within the system);• cycling (resources are transported within the system);storage (resources are conserved within the system); and• output (resources leave the system) (Diaz and Apostol 1992).For example, streams or corridors connecting areas of habitat within a landscape mayprovide cycling functions. Corridors between two adjacent landscapes may supportcycling, capture and output functions. Patches, such as areas of wetland, may act asstorage sites within the landscape (Diaz and Apostol 1992). In addition to these broadfunctions, specific definitions of the functions of matrix, patches and corridors provided byForman and Godron can also be used to try to decide how the structures and flowsidentified in the previous two steps interact. These were described in the previous chapterbut are summarized here for convenience.Matrix: This influences movement within the landscape. The characteristics of the matrix,such as its connectivity and its ‘hospitableness’ to the objects involved, will determine howthe matrix functions in this regard.43Patches: These are often special areas of habitat for species, and the type and number ofspecies they contain often depends on the size and shape of the patch.Corridors: Four main functions of corridors have been identified: habitat for certain typesof species; a conduit for movement along corridors; a barrier or filter separating areas; and asource of environmental and biotic effects on the surrounding matrix (Forman and Godron1986).The definitions given above should provide some guidance in the identification of thefunctions of each of the landscape structures. The team must try to determine how thesefunctions relate to the flows in the subject area, and how the flows ‘tie’ different areas ofthe landscape together and allow the landscape to function as an ecological system.Important pattern relationships between structures which may contribute to functions, suchas adjacency or dispersal of patches, connectivity of matrix,etc., should also be identified atthis point.WADF Example:The main relationships between the structures and the flows in the West ArmDemonstration Forest were identified through a series of discussions within the designteam. Each landscape structural type was considered in turn. Its functional contribution toeach flow was then determined. For example, the old-growth elements of the matrixprovided thermal cover, snow interception and hiding cover for ungulates, snags and nestsites for ospreys, and had important stabilizing functions for water flows. All of thisinformation was tabulated in a spreadsheet, which plotted landscape elements againstflows, with the relationship between them outlined in the units of the spreadsheet. Theseresults are shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8 which show the interactions between the landscapeflows and the matrix, patches and corridors, respectively.44The intention was that, in the subsequent design steps, the team could easily identify theecological requirements for each major landscape flow from these tables. The elementssupporting these functions could then be included in the design for the landscape.Table 6. Flows within elements of the forest matrix in the WADFELEMR.TrS FISH UNGULATES OSPREY GRIZZLY PEOPIE WATER AVALANCHEOF FORESTMATRIXOld -Growth Large Thermal Snags and Thermal Genius loci EvapotransOrganic cover nest sites cover. High quality pirationDebris (LOD) Snow proximal Food source interior MaintainStream bank interception to fishing Bedding landscape natural peaksstability Hiding cover areas in sites. High recreation and low flowsWater quality ICI-ldw Downed value DecreasesShading zone wood - High timber sedimentLitter fall food. value deliveryInsect drop Better in Wildlife viewingwet ESSF Visuallyforested.Medicinal plantsMid seral Less LOD As above Lesser Similar as High recreation As aboveShading value for above - but valueLitter fall nest sites- less High carryingHigh water unless Better in capacity.quality legacies of wet ESSF Better huntingBank old growth and less in (than OG)stability, present ICH MW2 Wildlife viewingInsect dropPole As above Low thermal Legacies Less use Generally low As abovecover needed for unless in or useLow snow this stage near Minor forestinterception to be of avalanche productsuse areas Wildlife viewingWet ESSFLess in ICHMW2Alpine As above Very little No use Very Very high Snow Snowforage important recreation and accumulation accumulationHiding cover for den scenic value in zonesites, summer & Creek head-foraging winter, if watersand cover accessible Late snowWinter melt-summerrecreation-high flowscommercial andrecreation valueViews. Alpinemeadows.Low carryingcapacity45Table 7: Flows within the atches in the forest landscape.PATCHES IN 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 waterconnector46Table 8: Flows within corridors in the WADF forest landscape.CORRIDORS FISH UNGULATES OSPREY GRIZZLY PEOPLE WATER AVALANCHEll’4LANDSCAPERiparian As for old Movement Snags Forage Travel areas Filtration Source ofareas growth corriors. Trails Bank runoffmatrix Forage and Fishing atability Vegetationshelter. Aesthetics Temperature controlcontrols CatchmentDebris zone forloading debrisStreams Movement Water supply Cooling Fishing. Conduit. Sediment]corridors Water Genius loci Human debrisSpawning supply Water consumption- in low abstraction Water forgradient spawning.streams AgriculturaluseTrails/ Pollution. As above Travel As above.Powerlines Increased corridors Not usuallyaccess for Intrusion visuallyfishermen into intrusivehabitatPowerlines Forage and Nesting Christmas Sediment. Notmovement in sites - trees Effects on constructuedright of way perching Horse back temperature in these areasin towers ridingSnowmobiles and crosscountryskiing inright ofways47The effect of the pattern of the patches, corridors and matrix elements on landscapefunctioning was also estimated at this point. For example, in the upper elevations of thelandscape, alpine and alpine/huckleberry patches are frequently found adjacent to wetlandcomplexes. Thus areas used by bears for feeding are closely adjacent to watering areas,making this group of patches a valuable habitat area for bears.In the lower elevations of the landscape, there is a varied mixture of old growth, youngerseral stages and open areas of shrub, forb and grass. This provides many of the attributesrequired by ungulates in winter range areas, i.e., thermal cover, hiding cover and goodquality forage. Thus this pattern is a valuable one for ungulates in the landscape. Figure 7illustrates the pattern of structures in the WADF landscape.iv) Natural Disturbance and Succession.The purpose of this step is to understand how the composition and arrangement oflandscape elements results from the action of large scale natural change agents. It isproposed that once the natural processes and the patterns they create have been identified,this knowledge can be used to guide the design of future landscape patterns (Diaz andApostol 1992). A method for mimicking natural processes in this way will be discussed ina later section. This section applies merely to the identification of natural change agents inthe landscape, their characteristics and the impacts they have on the landscape pattern.Disturbance can be defined as ‘those events that cause change in the existing pattern in asystem’ (Forman 1987:219) and they are therefore larger events than the normal flowsentering and leaving landscape elements. The major disturbances recognized in most forestlandscapes are fire, wind and insect attack (Baker 1980, Kimmins 1990). These eventsoften cause changes in the numbers and groupings of organisms occupying an area and arefollowed by a sequence of changes in the animal, plant and microbial communities whichwill successively occupy the area (ecological succession) (Kimmins 1987). To try to48determine what effect natural disturbances have had on a landscape, the followingquestions can be posed:What agents of change 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 of patches; connectivity; characteristics of thematrix ; etc.)?How might natural landscape patterns have influenced the behavior ofdisturbance phenomena?” (Diaz and Apostol, 1992: 4.26).The answers to these questions should guide the design team towards a picture of what‘natural appearing’ is most likely to mean for the landscape in question. They should beanswered with the primary objective of this analysis in mind, i.e. that it is the effects of thedisturbance and succession on the composition and arrangement of the landscape patternwhich is important and the scale and type of pattern produced by these events is ofparticular importance.WADF Example:The design team identified fire, wind and insects as main agents of disturbance in theWest Arm Demonstration Forest. They felt they could estimate the size and probable returnperiod of such events for different areas of the landscape, based on the vegetation type,biogeoclimatic subzone and their knowledge of the area and its history.Fire:In this area, most of the fires which occur are started by lightning, with the largest numberof 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 hasbeen observed that they burn areas of approximately 5 to 50 hectares in size, with a returnperiod of 300- 400 years. They are likely to be stand replacement fires of high intensity.At lower elevations, in the Interior Cedar Hemlock zone, fires are more 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 fire disturbance pattern can be visualized as49produing 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 with aspect: fireson south and west faces have shorter return periods than those on north and east 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 thebiogeoclimatic zones were also useful in this exercise.Other disturbances: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 a summary of the disturbance patterns which have shaped the landscapeof the WADF, and have the potential to do likewise in the future. The disturbances arelisted by biogeoclimatic subzone.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(Meidinger and Pojar 1991) deals mainly with climax vegetation and provided few 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 in Montana (Fischer and Bradley 1987). The regions studied in this researchlie just to the south of Nelson Forest Region and the use of their data may be possible if the50Table 9: Disturbance patterns identified for the 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 side creeks. 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.than hollows.ES SF Freq: 200-300 years. Spruce bark beetle; 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 & Lodgepole pine - dependsridges. S tan d onsizeoftree.Cancausereplacement fires. catastrophic stand loss.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 standbum less frequently. 40 years). Allow for seral structure. Occursstage species to change in low elevationcomposition of 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 aresummarized in Table 10. Although the application of this information directly to the WADF51should be approached with caution, it may be useful as a pointer on the types of successionto expect in the WADF following certain fire disturbances.Table 10. Fire characteristics and successional pathways for fire groups nine and eleven(Fischer and Bradley 1987).v) Linkages beyond the plan area:This stage of 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 both live 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 drought increases 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, whiledo occur. Douglas fir, lodgepole pine and spruce often form theoverstory.A stand destroying fire in the climax or near climax stageresults in a herb/shrub stage, followed by a seedling/saplingstage which may include Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, larch,white pine or spruce.Any fire in the seedling/sapling stage reverts the stand tothe shrub/herb condition. Moderate fires in pole sized standswill favour fire resistant Douglas fir and larch overlodgepole pine, spruce, hemlock or sub alpine fir.A severe fire destroys the stand. Where serotinous lodgepolepine is present, seedlings of this species may form a pure ornearly pure stand.Group 11. Moist weather conditions Theoretical climax condition is stands of grand fir, westernWarm, m o i s t predominate, but the region is hemlock or western red cedar. This is rarely achieved as thegrand fir, western occasionally subject to severe seral species are long lived and fire occurs frequently enoughred cedar an d summer drought. Heavy fuel that stands seldom develop beyond the near climax stage.western hemlock loadings exist in most stands Following a stand replacement fire, succession begins withtypes. because of the overall high shrub/herb field. The duration of this stage depends on the(Fischer a n 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 and revert to pioneer seedlings of both climax and seral trees will establish on aspecies. burned site.Pole and mature stands are Low/moderate fires in pole/mature stands favour intolerantusually 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 withstand low thinning fires, but moderate/severe fires willinfrequent due to the high return the site to a shrub/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 which contribute to that interaction.The contribution that the analysis area makes to the wider landscape is also considered.For example, the area may contain a portion 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 let the amount of analysis done in this section be guided by logic, informationand time available as there does not seem to be any systematic way of determining when theanalysis of the functional linkages is sufficient.WADF Example:This step was carried out by several members of the design team in consultation with stafffrom B.C. Parks who administer both the Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park (which liesalong the northern boundary of the demonstration forest) and the Kokanee Creek Provincialpark ( a small area of intensive public use to the south of the 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 main areas of use by the public in both parks and the main areas of use inthe demonstration forest were also identified. Concerns on their management voiced bypark staff were noted by the team for consideration later in the design process.Other linkages with the surrounding landscape, such as water flows, were also 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 WADF which 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 andcharacteristics of management 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 context of the overall objectives for the landscape to produce a ‘vision’ of whatthe ecological landscape pattern should be in the future, if the objectives are to be met whilemaintaining or enhancing the ecological functioning of the landscape. It produces aconceptual map of the pattern of desired landscape structures, illustrating their optimallocation, shape, size and relationship to each other.Three main steps are involved in the production of landscape ecological pattern objectives.54i) Mapping of existing pattern decisions;ii) Inclusion of public concerns and desires for landscape pattern; andiii) Preparation of target landscape pattern objectives.i) Mapping of existing pattern decisionsAny ‘patterns’ provided by the broad objectives for the landscape, higher level 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 asimportant or may require preservation or 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 ecologicalpattern objectives.ii) Public concerns and desires for landscape patternPublic participation processes (such as LRMPs and Local Resource Use Plans(LRUPs)” ) may have taken place for the subject area and will have provided informationon which areas or management practices are of concern to the public, or which take priorityfrom their point of view. This information should be described and mapped at this point sothat the design team can be sure that they 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 a Total ResourceDesign so that this information can be obtained. TRD itself is a detailed planning processand as such cannot incorporate complex public debates. However, several representativesof public groups may be directly involved with the team during Total Resource Design, sothat the exact locations of areas of interest in the landscape can be determined.11 LRUP: A strategic plan for a portion of a Timber Supply Area or Tree Farm Licence that providesmanagement guidelines for integrating resource use in that area (Province of British Co]umbia,1994)55iii) Preparation of target landscape pattern objectives.Once both of the above stages have been completed, the design team must interpret theanalysis information to produce a target landscape pattern which will include the existingpattern decisions and issues of public concern identified in the previous steps.To facilitate this process, questions suggested by Diaz and Apostol can be followed.These should prompt the design team into thinking about the functions in the landscapewhich need to be maintained, enhanced or restored, and to identify a pattern anddistribution of landscape structures which would achieve this. If different zones ormanagement areas with different resource emphases have been identified in a higher plan,then landscape patterns can be compiled more easily for each zone.The questions recommended by Diaz and Apostol are as follows:“Are there some rare, unusual, critical or unique landscape elements wewant to protect or enhance, e.g. wetlands, travel corridors, blocks of oldgrowth with interior habitat etc.?”“Are there patches or areas of the matrix between which connectivityshould be maintained?”“Is there anything missing that should be introduced or restored?”“To what extent, and where, do we want to emulate certain elements ofnatural landscape patterns? If one believes that 1) ‘natural ‘ levels ofdiversity (of composition, structure and process) sustains ecosystemresilience and 2) species diversity is fostered by habitat diversity, then thereis much to be gained by mimicking some aspects of landscape patternscreated through natural processes. Just what these are and how they can berecreated in a managed landscape deserves serious consideration at thisstep.”“Are there areas of the landscape where it is desirable to minimizefragmentation?”“Are there areas where a high degree of edge and contrast is desirable?”“Are there areas where gradual changes rather than sharp edges aredesirable?” (Diaz and Apostol 1992:4.45).When carried out by a design team, it will become obvious that there will always be morethan one possible target landscape pattern - there is no one ‘right answer’ and subjectivedecisions will be required. However, a framework has already been established to provideguidance on these decisions, based on the direction and pattern decisions established inplans and guidelines, and from public input. The challenge for the team is to work within56this framework to produce a creative solution scenario which will provide a ‘vision’ for thefuture and which is not too rigidly bound by current thinking and management restrictions.Once ecological landscape pattern objectives have been produced, the design team mustthen be aware of the limitations of this target pattern before it is incorporated into the 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 alter the landscape pattern. Any of these occurrences will requirethe target pattern to be revised. Thus the pattern must not be regarded as a long term fixedtarget. It should be flexible and open to re-evaluation and iteration when necessary. Apostolsuggests that the team should think twenty years ahead when developing a target pattern orvision (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 adapt and incorporate change, thus reducing rigidity and futuredissatisfaction with the results.WADF Example:When given the goal of producing desired ecological landscape pattern objectives, thedesign team for the West Arm Demonstration Forest decided to tackle it in two phases. Thefirst phase, which arose out of discussion, deviated from the proposed method and tried topredict a dynamic future pattern based on their understanding of the disturbance regimes in57the area. This phase was completed during the workshop. The second phase returned to theabove method. It was initiated during the 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 within the team can be described as follows:‘1. An estimation of the natural disturbance patterns in the WADF has been made.2. It is suspected, based on existing knowledge of the area, that the vegetation patternwhich currently exists is a function of these disturbances and the climatic conditions at thetime they occurred.3. This current pattern is a snapshot in time. Disturbance and succession produce an everchanging, dynamic pattern on the landscape. Areas of matrix, patches and corridors are notfixed in space. Therefore it would appear necessary to try to manage for a ‘dynamicpattern’.4. This can perhaps be done by mimicking the dynamics of the disturbances over time .i.e.mimic the cause of the change in the belief that this will produce a ‘natural’ result. If this isto happen, it must be done while maintaining the ecosystems’ successional pathways, sothat they can recover naturally.5. In proposing prescriptions for mimicking natural disturbances, the followinginformation must be known:- what natural disturbances occur in a landscape (or have occurred in the past)?- what areas of the landscape or vegetation types do they affect?- what are the characteristics of these disturbances (size, frequency, intensity)?- what landscape structures do they produce (i.e what is their effect on the vegetation? Areany trees or other living vegetation left behind? If so, what density and distribution of deadtrees are left ?)586. This information can be combined to derive a set of ‘structural objectives’ for areas ofsimilar vegetation type, climate and disturbance regime, which if achieved will successfullymimic local patterns and processes over time.’Resulting from this train of thought was an identification of the characteristics of thenatural disturbances associated with the different biogeoclimatic subzones present in thelandscape. These are outlined in Table 11. From these characteristics, a set of ‘standstructural objectives’ was produced. These outline how stand types in certainbiogeoclimatic zones could be managed (in terms of a residual structure after harvesting) tomimic the natural disturbances occurring in the respective zones. A description of thesubzone to which each structural objective applied accompanied each objective. This isillustrated in Table 12. The position of each of these subzones in the West ArmDemonstration Forest was located on a map (Figure 11) and provided guidance on how thecomponents of the current vegetation pattern could be managed to maintain, to somedegree, the dynamic changes occurring naturally in the landscape, and thus perpetuate anatural ecological pattern.Table 11: Characteristics and suggested intervention for vegetation types in the WADF.Letters in italics are the codes given to each of these types.Zone Characteristics (and suitable intervention.)Alpine Krummlsolz and parkiand - petering out. No intervention recommended. Climatically controlleddynamics. ATESSF Inoperable OperableiOO- .500 hectare natural burns in the higher 50 hectare openings in the section nearest tomore remote locations. Control? mw2. Openings contain refugia patches,En irregular shapes, bigger areas. Occur on NE,S & W aspects. 150 year disturbancefrequency.ESOICHmw2 Low probability of fire High probability of fireLow fire hazard. This Areas of mature forest This zone is on a High fire hazard.type found in valley Has pockets of root rot NE-SW orientation Found on S & Wbottoms. Old growth etc. Found on N&E Openings usually ridges. Similar toareas, slopes. G r o u p have much left ESSF. Could burnLow/no intervention selection is suggested behind - islands, patches.recommended. MWn MWg ‘vets etc. MWi MWbICHdw Moister DrierMoist area. Drier areas.Fairly open stands similar to drier mw2. S & W slopes and coarse soils. Open standsMature stands with root rot pockets. Run into with 2 story structure. Dense patches left indrainages with aW orE aspect. little present. locally moist pockets. Occasional clearanceD Win with large vets left behind. Group selectionsuggested.D Wd59Table 12: Summary of stand structural objectives:Stand Type Description Structural ObjectiveAlpme/ Open structure; some kruinmholz, clusters No intervention recommended.parkland of trees of all age classes.ESSF Located in non-operable areas. Likely Will let fires burn to some degree in mostdisturbance 100-500 ha natural fires. remote areas.In non-burned areas stand structure:mature forest interspersed with largeopenings (100-500 ha) with ‘treed’exclusions and some standing dead trees.Patches left in seeps, along streams and onsome benches.ESSF50 Found in operable forest. 50 ha treatment Structures as a result of fire (300 yearunits (mean area). Similar fire periodicity as periodicity), insects and diseases:ESSFn, however fire suppression is a standing dead trees; openings with refugiarequirement. Management could mimic fire patches - irregular shapes; larger areas ondisturbance. S&W aspects that on N&E aspects.ICHmw2,11 Low fire hazard in valley bottoms, wet Low/no intervention recommended.riparian areas and old growth, due to wet Structural objective: canopy closure, largehabitat. trees, large organic debris, multistoriedcanopy, small gaps (1-2 tree lengths) -typical old growth habitat.ICHmw2g Found on moist, N&E slopes. Mid-late seral stages with some old growthFire disturbances, frequency 200 years - patches and standing veterans; mainlyproducing openings of approx 150 ha in even-aged, many species and closed canopysize. Standing veterans remain after fires. (60-80%);2 storied stand,understory ofclimax species. Openings of 150 ha.Group selection suggested.ICHmw2j Found on mesic/submesic sites. Even aged, two storied canopy. CrownFire periodicity increased from mwg closure 50-70%. Individual large veteransSmaller unburned patches survive fires (0.25 within the canopy.- 2 ha in size). Clearcut with reserves suggested.ICHmw2b Found on xeric and sub-xeric sites on S&W Few patches left & individual largeridges. Increased fire periodicity, similar to veterans. Understory present in openICHdw - 150 years, scale 100-500 ha. patches, mostly Lodgepole pine & Westernlarch regeneration.ICHdwm Found on N&E aspects/wetter areas with Open stands with a mosaic of age classespatches of grand fir and western red cedar on present in patches.wet areas. Fire periodicity: surface firesevery 30-50 years. Stand replacement firesevery 100-150 years.ICH dwd Found on S&W aspects. Predominantly Wide spacing; multistoried canopy; somePonderosa pine, Douglas fir and some patches on wet sites and fire exclusions.Western larch. Hardwood patches present. Numerous large veterans.Fires: surface fires 30-50 years and standreplacement fires every 100-150 years,Heavily diseased with frequent insectattacks.Figure 11: Location of ‘ecological units’ to which stand structural objectives can be appliedin the WADF.Limitations to this approach have since been recognized by members of the designteam. It relies on a sound knowledge of disturbance and succession patterns in the subjectlandscape. As has been noted already in this chapter, details of many of the successionalpathways in the ecosystems of British Columbia are not currently known. Similarly, theimpacts of disturbances are intensity dependent (D. Crampton pers, corn, 1994) andpresently little is known about the effects of different intensities of disturbances such as fireon the succession pathways followed by the vegetation. Despite these limitations and theestimates which were required as a result, the design team did feel that this was a usefulprocess to go through and that it will provide some logical direction for the futuremanagement of the landscape pattern.61Stage 2.Having provided a method for mimicking the natural disturbance pattern on thelandscape, the design team realized that they still had to return to the proposed method forthis step, in order to provide a framework which would guide the designer in decidingwhere units should be designed, and within which the stand structural objectives could beapplied. This framework would include public concerns, administrative specifications andguidelines, and incorporate areas for protection, special management or restoration whichwere recognized in the ecological analysis. It is reasonable to assume that large scalemimicking of natural fires in the West Arm Demonstration Forest would not necessarily beacceptable, due mostly to the visual impact that this would have. Such patterns wouldprobably also be in conflict with existing pattern decisions present in plans and guidelinesfor the area and would not be welcomed if they impacted on, for example an ecologicalreserve or recreation area. Thus it was felt that a target ecological pattern would help toreach such a compromise, within which the stand structural objectives could be used astools for the implementation of the pattern.WADF Example:This stage of TRD has not yet been completed for the West Arm Demonstration Forest.There was not enough time available at the initial workshop to do this; however asubsequent meeting of the design team took place in Nelson to discuss this next step(August 1994). It identified many difficulties in establishing a ‘target landscape pattern’,the most limiting of which was felt to be the current lack of information on the amounts ofcertain landscape elements required for the maintenance of, for example, wildlifepopulations. It is known by the team that late winter and mid-winter habitat is required forungulates in the WADF. Similarly, there is a desire to increase the proportion of old growthforest represented in the landscape. In order to come up with a target pattern are it was to bedecided where these areas should be located in the landscape and what size they should be.62The team admitted that this might be difficult to determine, but that it should be possible.So, they decided to arrange a subsequent set of meetings of the design team and to prepareindividual target patterns for each of the resources present in the landscape before the firstof these meetings, in the fall of 1994. At this meeting, the team will sit down together, withall relevant parties around the table, to discuss an overall target landscape pattern. This willnecessitate optimisation of the various resources, guided by the overall objectives for thelandscape, and based on the results of the ecological analyses carried out.Several comments were made by the team while discussing this step of TRD. It wasobserved that difficulties would be encountered in coming up with resource target patterns,simply because such a process required a radical change in approach, especially for thoseindividuals administering non-timber resources. For example, at the moment, staff of theMinistry of Environment, Habitat Protection Branch, are mostly reacting to the proposals toharvest produced by the Ministry of Forests. They try to protect habitats by restricting theterms of the harvesting and in effect saying ‘no - we don’t want that!’. Total ResourceDesign requires all resource representatives to say to the rest of the team “this is what wewant’. It requires them to be pro-active. This is a position which many resourcerepresentatives consider to be ideal, but yet have not had the time or resources to address inthe past (G. Fox. pers,com, 1994). Thus they are largely unprepared to provide an answeras their informational and inventory resources are not designed to produce this kind ofinformation. This step will thus stimulate a change of approach to forest planning bymaking all representatives at the table equal partners in their right to state their ‘desires’from the landscape. The final decision on a target landscape pattern will be decided andendorsed by the team as a whole, providing a common management goal.It was felt that this would be difficult to achieve in practice, but the team recognized thatthis was an approach which was necessary and timely and so aimed to have it completedbefore the end of 1994.633.4.4.3 Landscape character analysisLandscape Character applies to the collective result of all of the different components of alandscape - visual, cultural, ecological, historical - working together to produce what is inessence the ‘identity’ of a landscape. To date in the Total Resource Design method,primarily the ecological character has been analyzed. Other aspects of landscape charactersuch as historical or cultural associations with the landscape, or some of its parts, can bedetermined from local knowledge and archived or inventoried information. This should berelatively accessible to the design team. What remains to be analyzed is the visual characterof the landscape. The ability to ‘read’ the landscape character will enable the design team todetermine where and how management units can be fitted into the landscape in a mannerwhich is sympathetic to its visual character.The method employed in Total Resource Design is based on an approach usedextensively by the British Forestry Commission which concentrates on an examination oflandform (Lucas 1991). It contributes to an understanding of the visual character of thelandscape by identifying the characteristics of its topography, its undulating ridges andhollows, the combinations of mass and space and other aspects of landform and how theseare arranged. This landform analysis is accompanied by an examination of features in alandscape which also contribute to its character. Together these analyses aim to provide thefundamental understanding of the visual characteristics of the landscape, which can later beharnessed when attempting to design the management units.Thus this section is split into two parts:a. Landform analysis: an analysis of landform structure using ‘visual forces’.b. Landscape feature analysis: an analysis of the elements of diversity, natural features andvegetation.64i) Landform analysis:On a topographic map and corresponding perspective photographs of each design unit, thedominant ‘lines of visual force’ in the landscape are identified. ‘Visual force’ is explainedas the “illusion or sensation of movement created by a static image, object, or thejuxtaposition of a number of elements 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 concave landforms. The implication forforestry is that if a 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 in the landscape.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 of the three dimensional structure and form of the landscape. This can thenbe used by the designer when designing the shapes and positions of units on the landscape.Figures 12 and 13, prepared by Bell for one area of the WADF, show how these analysescan be illustrated in both plan and perspective views.ii) Land Feature Analysis.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 of thesefeatures, why they occur in the landscape and where. As Bell explains:“There will be some underlying logic to why some features occur wherethey do - rock outcrops related to geology, erosion and landform; vegetationto drainage; water features to landform structures and geology” (Bell 1993draft :53).Figure 12. Landform analysis of Queens!Laird area of the WADF, planimetric form 12Figure 13. Landform analysis of Queens/Laird area of WADF - perspective view1312 Graphic provided by Simon Bell, British Forestry Commission.13 Graphic provided by Simon Bell, British Forestry Commission65The location of each of these features is recorded on overlays on the perspectivephotographs for each design unit and accompanied by detailed annotations, to provide amore detailed description of their contribution to the landscape character.In addition to the landform and land feature analyses, notes on genius loci and the scale ofthe landscape can be added to further assist the designer’s understanding of the landscape.WADF Example:These analyses were completed by the team during the workshop, proving that alandscape character analysis could be carried out by everyone, regardless of design skills,after a little practice, and with a surprising degree of consistency. It thus provided a fairlyobjective way of determining the composition and nature of the landforms in the study area,providing guidance for the designer in subsequent steps of the TRD process.The ‘lines of force’ were marked on both a copy of the base map for each of the 16 subunits, and on overlays of the perspective photographs for each sub-unit. When identifiedearly in the Total Resource Design, process the lines of force acted as ‘links’ between planand perspective and were used to help the team when they were attempting to transferfactors (such as the constraints and opportunities) from the plammetric inventory maps ontothe perspective views.The result of the landform analysis for the whole of the WADF is shown in Figure 14.673.4.5. Scenario DevelopmentThis stage of Total Resource Design is the design stage of the process, that is, the stagewhen solutions are actually produced on paper in a graphic form. It consists of two 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 recognized components of any design process (Booth 1983).3.4.5.1 Concept design generationThis is the first step of the design phase. It pulls together all the conclusions and ideaswhich have emerged from the previous steps, to produce general and loose arrangements ofa solution. This ‘concept’ design step is described further by Booth:o 1000 2000..-— IKey:. Lines of force running down ridges.Lines of force running up draws and gullies.Figure 14. Landform Analysis of the WADF, plammetric illustration68“The purpose is to identify the best and most appropriate relationships thatshould exist between the major proposed functions and spaces of thedesign. The intent is to gain an insight about which functions and elementsshould be associated with each other, and which should be separated. Thedesigner is striving for the absolute functional relationships among thevarious parts of the design”(Booth 1983:294).Diagrams produced at this stage are simplistic and abstract, representing the designfunctions and spaces as general outlines or ‘bubbles’ , which can be arranged to produce‘ideal relationships’ among the elements and their functions. Important to the wholeprocess of design is the investigation of alternative solutions. Thus several scenariosshould be produced at this stage, to allow comparisons to be made at a later date in thesearch for an appropriate design solution.The basis of Bell’s design process lies in the fact that the landscape itself will provide“structure, pattern and context” from which the designer can perceive a number of possible‘directions’ for the design (Bell 1993a).The ecological landscape pattern objectives, constraints and opportunities analysis andthe landform/features analysis should be overlaid on a base map. They should also bepresented in perspective form for each design unit of the landscape and overlaid ontoperspective photographs, so that the design can occur in both plan and perspective. Theecological pattern objectives will provide the designer with direction as to where certaintypes of units (for example, corridor units, patches, areas to be preserved) should be placedon the landscape and will also provide pointers as to the necessary scale of these units. Theconstraints and opportunities analysis will identify where the location of units might beinadvisable due to practical constraints on management. It will also remind the designer ofall the resource factors which have to be considered in the design of each unit. Thelandscape character analysis will provide information about the underlying nature of thelandform. Because of the strong influence that topography has over vegetation patterns and69flows in a landscape, it will help the designer to understand how patterns might be placedon a landscape in a way which will promote connectivity and reflect natural landscapediversity (Diaz and Apostol 1992).This step is one of assimilation, innovation and compromise. Bell suggests that aperiod of contemplation of the landscape and experimentation with shapes should help thedesigner envision how the landscape could be divided into shapes following topographyand vegetation patterns. As these shapes emerge and are sketched roughly, they can then becompared with the ecological pattern objectives to see how the two can be linked together(Bell 1993a). The resulting concept designs can then be discussed within the design teamand with the public, and iterated until it is felt that the designs adequately meet all of theobjectives for the landscape. The sketches should then be annotated with notes on what theshapes might represent in the landscape (for example, areas to protect, areas whereharvesting is possible) as well as notes on the general magnitude of these shapes. This stepis thus a rough assimilation of previous analyses into an outline for the design ofmanagement unit shapes.WADF Example:This step was incomplete at the end of the workshop and was carried out by Simon Bellin Great Britain, where an estimation of the ecological pattern objectives (as these had notbeen quite completed or mapped by the design team) were overlaid (in perspective view)and examined in relation to the objectives for the area. Rough ‘bubbles’ were drawn onperspective photographs of the different design units, which corresponded to areas whereunits could be placed. These diagrams were annotated with notes on the characteristics ofthe underlying landscape, which would be important in the final design of their shape andlocation and eventual management.These concept sketches were developed straight into final sketch designs by Bell,without any iteration or discussion 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 berepeated in any subsequent applications.3.4.5.2 Sketch design.This stage of scenario development is again present in any general design process and isdescribed by Booth as follows:“with the basic theme of forms in mind, the designer converts the bubbles andabstract symbols of the concept design into specific and exact forms. Whiletrying to adhere to the functional and spatial arrangement of the 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 basic principlesof design and form composition”(Booth 1983:299).To facilitate this step in Total Resource Design, Bell has imported the principles of forestlandscape design which 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 over the past decade. They attempt to provide a vocabulary which will allow theindividuality of landscapes to be described and understood. Those components of thelandscape which contribute to its attractiveness can be identified and used as a basis for theformation of a design for forestry in that landscape, be it planting 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 the characteristics of the 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 brought to the design phase of TRD in the form of the 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.WADF Example:Simon Bell was asked to finish the design of the management units on the perspectivephotographs of the area. These were then transferred into a planimetric form, to produce afinal map of the West Arm Demonstration Forest showing the management units, to whichappropriate stand management objectives could be attached. This perspective to planimetrictransformation is tedious and difficult to achieve with accuracy when done manually.However, the British Forestry Commission has the software capability to carry this out bycomputer, a capability which is not present within the B.C. Ministry of Forests at this time.Only one design scenario was produced by Bell for this application. This was because theWADF application was a demonstration project, set up to illustrate the Total ResourceDesign process and to illustrate some of its results. Again, in any subsequent applications,several scenarios should be produced if the ‘client’ is to have sufficient choice in theoutcome.The final product of the Total Resource Design plan, the map of the location and shapesof the 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 applicable to each designed unit.72Figure 15. Final sketch design for management units of the WADF - planimetric view.Figure 16. Sketch design for designed units in the Queens/Laird face of the WADF -perspective view14.14 Graphic provided by Simon Bell, British Forestry Commission73NFigure 17. Sketch design for designed units in the Queens/Laird face of the WADF -planimetric view153.4.6 Assessment.Once the sketch designs have been completed by the designer for each scenario, andagreed to by the design team, decisions must then be made as to how the designed units ineach scenario will actually be managed. These decisions are based on an assimilation of theresults of the analyses and are guided by the general objectives for the landscape, theecological landscape pattern objectives and the stand structural objectives. Once thesedecisions have been made, the implications of each scenario on the various resourcespresent in the landscape such as timber, recreation, wildlife, landscape quality etc. can beestimated. Simulations for each scenario can also be produced, using simple graphictechniques or computer generated graphics, to illustrate how the management units willappear on the landscape under these management decisions. The different scenarios15 Graphic provided by Simon Bell, British Forestry Commission.74accompanied by the implications of their implementation and the graphic simulations, canthen be take to the ‘client’ for assessment.This step requires the ‘client’ to examine each scenario and its identified implications,and to question the ability of the designs to meet the objectives defined for the landscape atthe start of the process. A decision can then be made as to which scenario is most suitableto the ‘client’s’ requirements, or if none are suitable, that iteration and alteration of ascenario may be required to reach a compromise.Once a decision has been made, the chosen scenario can be implemented by the client. Theresults of this implementation must be monitored carefully and evaluated against theoriginal objectives. Alterations of the design can be made if this performance is notsatisfactory and observations made can be used in the compilation of any 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 may changeunexpectedly, and because societal values and objectives for a landscape will also changethrough time, it is vital that any Total Resource Design produced be updated and revised atfrequent intervals. This will ensure that management of the landscape remains flexible andcan react rapidly to any situation.WADF Example:A final sketch design has been produced by Bell for the West Arm DemonstrationForest application (shown in Figure 15). This is however, merely an illustration of theshapes and location of management units across the landscape. No decisions as to how andwhen each of these units is to be managed, has yet been made. 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. This pattern, which will determinewhether a unit will act as a component of the landscape matrix, or as a patch of a certain ageclass, or as an area of ungulate winter range or a ripanan zone, is necessary before any75assessment can be made on the effectiveness of TRD in meeting its objectives. Once it hasbeen completed, quantitative assessments of timber flows and road costs can then becarried out, and the attributes of the landscape patterns created can be examined in respectto the other non timber resources, such as wildlife habitat, water quality and quantity,recreation experience, etc. In terms of visual resources, the management units have beendesigned to ‘fit’ the landscape, so that they flow around contours and relate to thecharacteristics of the landscape, such as its scale, diversity etc. However, the managementof each unit will dictate its appearance in terms of colour and texture, and scheduling willalso determine the amount of disturbance in the landscape at any one time. Thus the finalmanagement regime for the landscape is required before a full idea of the impact of thedesign on the visual character of the landscape can be made.Until the Total Resource Design process is completed for the West Arm DemonstrationForest, little can be determined about its potential impacts on the landscape. It is hoped thatthe method followed will produce favorable results which can be realistically implemented.Production of several management scenarios for the designed units should allow theMinistry to the take the final design to the local community for discussion and feedback, todetermine their response to this new approach to forest planning in their area. Each scenarioshould be accompanied by the results of an evaluation of its potential effects on theresources of the landscape, so that an informed decision can be made by the 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 landscape design plan document has not yet been compiled by the Ministry ofForests. When this is done, Bell recommends that the plan should be presented as asequence of maps and graphics, with verbal descriptions kept to a minimum (Bell 1993a).This level of planning provides landscape level guidance, so detailed site specifications76need not be included. The necessary information can be effectively presented in a visualform as a series of maps showing each step in the Total Resource Design process, i.e., thesurvey information, the results of the analyses, and the final maps and perspective sketchesshowing the management unit boundaries. These should be accompanied by introductoryparagraphs to provide a familiarization with the area and its objectives, and with the listsand tables of landscape and stand level objectives which have been derived by TRD (Bell1993a). Simulations showing how the landscape will appear through time will also beuseful.3.5 ConclusionThe end results of the application of Bell’s proposed method for Total ResourceDesign to the West Arm Demonstration Forest were two fold. Firstly, the workshopnecessitated and resulted in the evolution of a detailed method for the application of TRD inBritish Columbia. Secondly, it initiated the first major steps in the production of a TotalResource Design for the West Arm Demonstration Forest. This should be completed by theMinistry of Forests (WADF management team) in the near future, hopefully by the end of1995. This Total Resource Design will provide the guiding direction for all operations inthe West Arm Demonstration Forest over the short term, and if re-evaluated at regularintervals, it should also provide sound long term guidance. As well as these tangibleoutputs of the workshop, it also introduced many of the staff of Nelson Forest Region tothe Total Resource Design approach and consequently provided a source of feedback on theattributes of the process itself.The design team felt that the TRD process had many benefits, related to its capability tocontribute to an increased public acceptance of forest operations, the maintenance of longterm sustainability of the forest and an increased level of job satisfaction for forestmanagers. This approach would, after all, provide an opportunity for the holistic treatmentof forest landscapes and would enable the profession to return to the practice of77stewardship of all forest resources. The dominant negative aspect of Total Resource Designrecognized by the team was related to its cost and the time required for its completion.Although no timber forecasts have yet been estimated from the results of the workshop, itwas suspected by the team that it would result in a smaller yield of timber from the WestArm Demonstration Forest, at least over the short term. It would also require silviculturalsystems, such as group selection and partial cutting, which themselves would be lesseconomically efficient than clear cutting practices. The cost of Total Resource Design as aplanning process was also found to be high. The WADF workshop cost $2300 inpreparation and materials alone, 232 person hours for preparation and a further 560person hours which were spent by the design team participating in the workshop and awayfrom their other duties. At the end of the workshop, the process had not been completed.The design of the management unit shapes was finished by August 1994, approximatelysix months after the original workshop. A considerable amount of group discussion withinthe design team is still required to provide management decisions on how each of these willbe managed in the future. There is no question that future applications of TRD should nottake as long as the initial test case, as the steps will have been clarified and expertise willhave been generated. However, bearing in mind that Simon Bell did much of the designwork on this project, to implement Total Resource Design in the future the Ministry ofForests will need to recruit or train their own staff in visual design techniques and willhave to purchase the CAD (Computer Aided Design) software necessary to produceaccurate planimetric representations of perspective designs. When considering any futureapplication of Total Resource Design in B.C., these costs will have to be balanced againstthe many positive benefits discussed above. The design team accepted that the approachprovided by Total Resource Design will be increasingly desired in the coming years, giventhe growing pressures on the Ministry of Forests to perform in an environmentally andvisually responsible manner, which may possibly make the justification of economic costseasier in the future.78The next question to be asked regarding Total Resource Design concerns its futureapplication in British Columbia. The WADF example has provided a method and anestimation of the capabilities, advantages, limitations and costs of the process. However,there are many other practical considerations concerning the suitability of Total ResourceDesign for widespread application in B.C. These will be the subject of the 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 the Total Resource Designprocess in the context of current and possible future forest planning and designrequirements in British Columbia. Primarily, it will try to determine whether a process suchas TRD is actually needed in B.C. at the present time. To do this it will identify deficienciesin the current planning framework which TRD could help fill. It will then try to estimate ifTotal Resource Design would be an improvement on the status quo, and whether it wouldeasily fit into the current forest planning framework. It is therefore anticipating a scenariowhere staff in the Ministry of Forests headquarters are introduced to Total Resource Designand are required to evaluate its potential as a planning tool.It must be remembered that current planning and policy conditions may change throughtime and thus if the performance and suitability of TRD is currently judged unsuitable forsome reason (for example economics) the possibility exists that the criteria for making thisdecision may change in the future. This could result in Total Resource Design beingconsidered in a more, or less favorable light at some 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. which could be filled by TRD?2. How does its approach compare with that of current integrated resource planningprocedures?3. How would Total Resource Design fit into the forest planning framework?4. Would TRD meet the legal requirements for forest management in B.C. contained in theForest Practices Code (Province of British Columbia 1994).80To conclude the chapter, an example of a particular resource management scenariowhose properties suggest the use of Total Resource Design will be investigated to illustratethe potential the process may have for the coordination of multiple resource interests insensitive forest 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 the Ministry ofForests Act, The Forest Act and the Range Act ( Duffy1990)) which it currently attempts through the hierarchical planning framework illustratedbelow:TSA: Timber Supply Area ( a form of volume-based tenure of provincial forest lands)TFL: Tree Farm License (a form of area-based tenure of provincial forest lands)Figure 18. Forest Planning Framework (Duffy 1990 :29).81An important deficiency in the current forest resources planning framework, for whichTotal 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 forestmanagement plan area. Planning at the intermediate spatial scale of the 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 forevery area of provincial forest land 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 currently exist by providing forest planning at this‘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 of British Columbia 1994), where landscape level planning willbe officially recognized and required. The Forest Practices Code ofBritish Columbia Actwill provide ‘enabling’ legislation to allow District Managers to establish landscape units 16and objectives for their management wherever 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 of coordinated prescriptions forthese landscapes. This suggests a possible future role of TRD, which provides a method bywhich such integrated landscape management could 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 and16Landscape Unit: “A planning area, up to 100 000 ha in size, based on topographic or geographic featuressuch as a watershed or series of watersheds”. (Province of British Columbia 1994:183)82operational planning. It will take broad objectives and guidelines for a large area and 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 for small areas within a landscape are compatible with each other and withthe overall objectives for the landscape (M. Platz. pers, corn, 1994). The ability of TRD toprovide such a ‘translation’ between strategic and operational plans would also suggest it asa possible method for bridging this gap.The Ministry of Forests has not progressed significantly beyond an identification of theneed for landscape level planning but they have expressed an interest in Total ResourceDesign and its application in the West Arm 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 which may be required to implement the management of landscape units.4.3 TRD - how does its approach compare with that of current integratedresource planning procedures ?In addition to its contribution to the development of landscape planning, Total ResourceDesign may also offer a more effective approach to Integrated Resource Management(IRM) than that provided by current integrated resource planning procedures.Two key advantages of TRD in achieving effective integrated resource management can benoted.i) Total Resource Design offers a coordinated approach to resource planning.ii) Total Resource Design approaches the planning from a different perspective, one that is‘landscape led’83i) A coordinated approach to resource planning.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-timber resources through the restriction of harvesting. 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 of Forests, or with the involvement ofother 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 of forest 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, discussion and compromise within the design team and produces oneplan (a Total Resource Design) for the landscape. This provides a vision for the landscapeand for all resources - resulting in a common direction, common goals, and a frameworkfor the coordination of the actions of all the resource managers present. This iscommunicated in the form of a design for all possible management units on the landscape,and a description of the agreed direction for their management through both the short andlong term. In theory, this should provide for less conflict, improved communication andfewer misunderstandings in the subsequent management of the landscape.ii) A ‘landscape led’ approach to the planning of timber extraction in the landscape.Total Resource Design adopts a different philosophy to the management of naturalresources in the landscape than existing IRM mechanisms. As mentioned above, the currentapproach to integrated resource management is to allow timber harvesting to occur under a84set of constraints. In other words, within non-reserved provincial forest lands the potentialfor forest operations exists everywhere where 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 values to be met, as theprocess sets standards beyond which there is little incentive to perform.Total Resource Design adopts an almost ‘inverted’ approach to the protection of non-timber values. The main focus of TRD is to ensure that all of the identified resources in thelandscape are adequately provided for, at which point proposals for harvesting can be thenbe developed in the land base which remains. It thus concentrates on planning what is to beleft behind after harvesting, rather than 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 seem to 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 timber extraction, dominate the decisions taken for the management of thelandscape. Its addition to the current planning hierarchy would certainly seem to bejustified given the current need for a landscape level approach to IRM.4.4 Incorporation of TRD into the current forest planning frameworkAs suggested above, Total Resource Design could most likely be incorporated into theforest planning framework at the landscape planning level. i.e. between forest managementplanning, and resource management planning, providing guidance at this spatial level and alink between strategic and operational planning. In addition, the ability of Total ResourceDesign to coordinate the management of many resources in a landscape 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 introduced into British Columbia by Simon Bell, the Integrated Resources Branchin Victoria developed the concept of Total Resource Planning (TRP). It evolved in responseto a number of factors , most notably public demands for ‘ecosystem management’, theideas of landscape ecologists such as Franklin in the Pacific Northwest of the United States(Franklin and Forman 1987), and questions as to how foresters in British Columbia couldimplement new Fish Forestry and a Wildlife Guidelines (MOE and MOF 1993). As itsname implies, Total Resource Planning emphasizes the consideration of all resource valueswhen proposing any forest operations in an area. In theory this should already happen asforest planning should be carried out under the Ministry of Forest’s integrated resourcemanagement policy. However, many objectives of integrated resource management are notconsistently addressed in the current planning framework (MOF 1993b). In response tothis and the other stimuli mentioned above, the Ministry of Forests released a proposal forTotal Resource Planning in August 1993. In their introductory document they define TRPas:a process that designs long term forest development and guides timberharvesting over an entire area, such as a watershed and confirms howapproved objectives for identified resource values will be achieved in theground” (MOF 1993b :1).It is proposed that TRP will translate the broad resource management objectivesprovided by higher level plans into on-the-ground development direction, in a methodwhich will consider all known resource values and the environmental limitations of theplanning area. It is aimed to be a landscape level planning process, which if developed willhelp to fulfill the Ministry’s new landscape level planning initiatives, with the addeddimension of considering all resources in an area before deciding on how timber should beextracted. It is intended to be a planning tool which is to be implemented only after land usedecisions for an area have been made which permit the harvesting of timber. TRP will thenenable this harvesting to be planned with consideration of all other resources (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 MOE 1993).However, the details as to how these Total Resource Plans’ will be completed have yet tobe determined, and how exactly broad management objectives can be ‘operationalized’ intoon the ground prescriptions is as yet unclear (A. Lidstone. pers, com, 1994). It must bestressed that Total Resource Planning is still in the conceptual stages of development, yetsome forest districts in B.C. are currently carrying out TRPs - with little guidance orconsistent method of application (MOF Golden Forest District 1993).From this perspective, Total Resource Design and the methodology it suggests for theactual design of operational prescriptions is of interest to the Ministry of Forests as theysearch for an appropriate method for the implementation of TRP (A. Lidstone. pers, corn,1994). The objectives and final products of the two processes, although developedindependently, are very similar and so it is possible that TRD could merely be consideredas a method by which Total Resource Planning can be implemented. Within the currentemphasis on planning for all resources, Total Resource Design could also ensure that visualresource management and ecological functioning in particular are included in TotalResource Planning.4.5 How TRD incorporates the requirements for forest management in B.C.contained in the Forest Practices CodeOn 16th May 1994, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act wasintroduced in the Provincial legislature. This act will be accompanied by a series ofstandards and regulations , which will set out the mandatory requirements which must bemet, under the authority of the new Act, when carrying out any forest operations onProvincial forest land in B.C. (Province of British 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, itstreatment of resources and its results. This section will briefly outline whether TRD meetsthe Forest Practices Code, and will also examine whether there are areas of the Code itselfwhich could constrain or actively support the use of TRD in the Province.From an inspection of the proposed regulations and standards which have beenproduced to date (Province of British Columbia 1993, Province of British Columbia 1994),it would appear that Total Resource Design incorporates many of the requirements outlined,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 a draft management plan for the forest (MOF Nelson Region 1994). Allof the guidelines and recommendations set out in this plan met the specifications laid out inthe Code, and in most cases were more stringent. With such a plan providing direction to aTotal Resource Design, it can be assumed that a framework for compliance 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 of the 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.For example, a constraint to Total Resource Design may come from the requirement forthe “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, it aims to accommodate any descriptive VQOs provided for the area. For example, ina landscape with a retention VQO, the level of disturbance advocated will be minimal, andthe alteration of the landscape will not be visually apparent. This does not conflict withTotal Resource Design and can be incorporated into its process. However, a problem maybecome evident if the design 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 bechanged by forestry operations (MOF 1993c). This is 5 % of the planimetric representationof the landscape unit. This percentage may seem small when illustrated in planimetric form,but depending on the scale of the landscape, the slope involved, the position of the viewerand the Visual Absorption Capability of the landscape, 5% can look very different fromlandscape to landscape. It may be too large for a small scale landscape, or far too small inone where large shapes and patterns are naturally occurring. These numerical descriptorsfor VQOs will constrain the Total Resource Design process by imposing an arbitrary scaleof disturbance 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). The pertinent question 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 framework of VQOs and produce landscape alterations which meetthe descriptions provided by VQOs. However, if VQOs are enforced quantitatively, theywill provide a severe constraint on the Total Resource Design philosophy by imposing anirrelevant and non-site specific scale of disturbance on the landscape.A second instance of the use of numerical values to restrict management has also beenincluded in the Forest Practices Code in the form of a limitation on the size of cutblocks (40ha for the Vancouver, Nelson and Kamloops Regions, and 60 ha for the Cariboo, Prince89George or Prince Rupert regions (Province of British Columbia 1994:107)). At first glancethis might also seem to constrain Total Resource Design as the essence of TRD lies in thefact that it allows the landform and natural disturbance patterns of a landscape 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, a larger than mandated block size could be advocatedand 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 thissize restriction where:“the cutbiock incorporates characteristics of natural disturbances.Characteristics that must be incorporated are irregular edges and green-treeretention or forested patches, and may include wildlife trees and coarsewoody debris” (Province of British Columbia 1994 :107).In the West Arm Demonstration Forest application of TRD, stand structural objectiveswere produced which were based on the effects of natural disturbances and which, for themost part, advocated the retention of forested patches and green trees. Therefore, in thiscase cutbiock size limits would not be a major restriction. Where natural disturbances in alandscape are used to guide TRD in this way, this section of the Code should not provide amajor obstacle.As well as merely complying with the Code and adapting to incorporate itsrequirements, the approach used in Total Resource Design would also seem 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 of timber harvesting the Code states:90“To achieve IRM objectives, the prescription of cutblock sizes, shapesand patterns should be based on a consideration of such factors aswindfirmness, edge effects, desired wildlife travel and 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 preparation methods”(Province of British Columbia 1994:101).To carry this out without any kind of guiding framework or method would be verycomplex, confusing and time consuming. Total Resource Design provides such a method,could incorporate each of the resource concerns mentioned and would result in the designof the cutblock shapes, sizes and distribution across the landscape. As no other method hasyet been suggested other than the status quo of reactive, piecemeal alterations to harvestingproposals, Total Resource Design, or a similar approach, would appear to have acontribution to make towards an effective implementation of the Forest Practices Code.4.6 An example of a scenario in B.C. whose properties suggest the use ofTotal Resource DesignFinally, in this chapter, a general management scenario to which the application of TotalResource Design would seem to be very suitable will be examined. It is hoped that this willidentify a further aspect of the possible scope this process could have in forest planning inBritish Columbia.From the stand-point that it provides a mechanism within which the design of timberharvesting units is driven by the ecological and visual characteristics of the landscape, TRDcould be considered as a responsible approach to forestry which should have wideapplication throughout the province. However, there are resource management scenarios inthe province at present, with certain resource characteristics and concerns, which wouldlend themselves specifically to the application of Total Resource Design.91The particular strengths of Total Resource Design lie in its use of the design process tolead a multidisciplinary design team to a series of spatially illustrated solutions for theintegration of resource uses in the landscape. Thus, TRD would appear to predispose itselffor application to areas of the provincial forest lands which require extensive cooperationbetween various agencies and stakeholders, whose ecological functioning and visualquality are particularly important and for which detailed and explicit management guidanceis required. However, as Total Resource Design cannot efficiently include extensive publicinput or resolve complex social or political issues related to forest lands, it is not suitablefor making land use decisions. It should be applied only to those landscapes for which aland use decision has been made, and thus for which guidance on the nature of suitableresource uses is available. The role of TRD is to take this guidance and produce a designfor the integration of these resource uses across the landscape.In light of these attributes of TRD, one particular scenario appears to suggest itself asan ideal future subject for Total Resource Design namely the design of resource uses onprovincial forest lands adjacent to parks and protected areas.In general, protected areas are established to provide for recreation enjoyment, to“stimulate educational and scientific interest and to conserve ecosystems in a pristine state”(Dearden 1988:256). It has been suggested that nature conservation in particular is notnecessarily being achieved by these areas, based on 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 appear to originate outside theirboundaries (Dearden 1988), for example from forestry, mining, agriculture and commercialdevelopment. A report on the parks and protected areas of British Columbia by the B.C.Caucus of the Canadian Assembly on National Parks and Protected Areas in 1985 alsorecognized the increasing threats to the protected areas in 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 out of 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 beyond the administrativeboundaries of the protected areas.In British Columbia, there is no doubt that forestry operations occurring adjacent toprotected areas are of considerable concern to protected area agencies (Dearden 1988;Dunster 1985). This is especially true around those parks whose areas are too small toincorporate complete ecological systems or landscapes. These protected areas cannotprovide all of the necessary habitat elements for their resident wildlife species and rely onadjacent lands to provide these requirements. Forestry operations on these areas have thepotential to eliminate such habitats, isolate populations by providing obstacles to movementbetween habitats and effectively decrease the size of the park, as the effects of logging tothe park boundary often extend beyond the cut area into the park itself. As Deardenobserves:“When logged to the boundary, windthrow may take down further treesinside the boundary. Even when no trees fall inside the boundary, theecological effects of logging will still be apparent for some distance into thereserve, through for example, a greater abundance of ecological edgespecies and hydrological and micro-climatic effects”(Dearden 1988 :257).Parks whose mandates include the preservation of scenic beauty and the provision ofisolated wilderness recreation experiences can also be impacted visually by resource usesalong their boundaries. Dunster observed this situation in the Rocky Mountain NationalParks:“within the national parks the extent of wilderness area is rapidly shrinking,even though the physical boundaries are not changing. This reflects theincreasing activities beyond the boundaries, with logging on the westernside and oil/gas exploration on the eastern side”(Dunster 1985 :24).93He continues, “in many of these areas, evidence of exploitation is visible from a longway within the park, thus eliminating the sense of isolation that these areas oncehad”(Dunster 1985:24).If the ecological and visual values of protected areas are to be preserved, theseobservations suggest that each park and its surrounding landscapes should be managed asan interacting unit . They possess common resources, such as wildlife, recreation users andviewsheds, which ‘flow’ throughout and between the naturally defined landscapes,ignoring the administrative boundary. Different management objectives and practices oneither side of this boundary have obviously resulted in the compromise of many of theflows originating within protected areas. But how can these distinct mandates be preserved,while allowing the provincial forest lands to be managed in a manner which is sympatheticto both the adjacent protected areas and the forestry sector?The following case study involving Glacier and Mount Revelstoke National Parks, willhighlight the present concerns the Canadian Parks Service has regarding the effects offorest operations in the adjacent Revelstoke and Golden Forest Districts. It will attempt toillustrate why, in this situation, Total Resource Design may provide an effective approachto the management of these areas.Glacier and Mount Revelstoke National Parks are situated just 20 kms apart and aremanaged by the same staff and with similar objectives. Glacier National Park is situated inthe Northern Selkirk ranges of the Columbia Mountains. It is 1350 km2 in size and isrecognized for its diverse wildlife and especially for its large grizzly bear population, andfor its spectacular mountain scenery. Mount Revelstoke National Park is much smaller (260km2) and lies to the east of Glacier National Park in the Clachnacudainn Range of theColumbia Mountains and is also known for its wildlife populations.Currently, despite the broad management responsibilities of the Parks Service, theprimary concern of the staff of these parks is the maintenance of healthy populations of94wildlife within the parks, and the continued functioning of their ecological systems (S.Hall, pers. corn. 1993). Despite the large numbers of visitors which enter both parks viathe Trans-Canada highway, management of the recreation and visual resources in andaround the parks is given relatively little consideration, due to the current difficulties thestaff have in meeting their ecological mandate.This difficulty is due to:i) The small size of the two parks, and the resulting reliance on adjacent provincial forestlands for the provision of vital wildlife habitat attributes.ii) Forestry practices on these adjacent lands which alter the forest cover and have anegative impact on the wildlife populations using these areas.This is explained in more detail by Susan Hall, the park ecologist for both Glacier andMount Reveistoke National Parks:“Mount Reveistoke and Glacier National Parks are too small and lackingin key habitats to maintain viable populations of moose, caribou and grizzly,the species thought to have the most stringent habitat requirements in ourarea. The parks encompass about half the land area required to support asmall population (150 individuals) of grizzly and caribou. For the parks tofunction as ecological reserves, park boundary areas need to be managedwith compatible goals and in terms of the park’s limitations. For example,with an estimated 16% old growth remaining in the parks, and little of itbelow 3000 feet, provincial land will have to fulfill most of this area’simmediate requirements for old growth”(memo from S. Hall to R.O.Planning, Golden Forest District. 1993).The response by the park staff to this situation has been to inform the Ministry ofForests of their concerns and to provide guidance on how these habitat requirements canbest be incorporated into forestry operations. In effect, they have provided Golden andReveistoke Forest Districts with an outline of the park’s ideal objectives for themanagement of adjacent forest lands, and a description of what is, in essence, their visionfor a desirable future ecological pattern for these areas.Table 12 details some of the desired landscape elements the park staff would like to seemaintained or enhanced in lands adjacent to the parks.95Table 12 Habitat requirements in lands adjacent to Mount Reveistoke and Glacier National Parks(information contained in a memo. from S. Hall to R.O. Planning, Golden Forest District. 1993)Habitat DescriptionGrizzly spring range Low elevation (less than 915 m) feeding areas, also comprising winter and springungulate range. Forest-riparian-avalanche complexes comprise high use earlyspring range that is mostly lacking in the parks. The Mica and Reveistoke damseliminated a large portion of the formerly available grizzly and ungulate springrange, so this habitat is now in critically short supply in our area.Grizzly summer and Mid elevation(1220-1524 m) - berry producing areas. Since logging cultures atfall range. mid-elevations have created extensive berry producing areas, while infrequent andsmall fires within the park in recent years have resulted in relatively few berryproducing areas in the park, bears are expected to leave the parks in the sununer toaccess this habitat. Bears are subsequently at risk from hunting and poaching,hence our major concern is about open access to park boundary areas.Moose winter and Low elevation (less than 915 m), south facing mature forest (for snowspring range. interception) adjacent to forage producing areas. Brushed-in cultures adjacent toremaining old growth at low elevations now provides winter range which isthreatened by subsequent second pass logging and programs of brush control.Caribou early winter Low elevation (less than 1220m), north facing, old growth (greater then 140(Nov. 1-Jan 15) years) cedar- hemlock and lower spruce-fir forests. Caribou are unable to accessrange. their high elevation ranges because snow has not yet firmed up sufficiently tosupport their weight and allow them to access lichen found high in the canopy ofold growth high elevation forests. Old growth cedar hemlock forests are thereforecritical habitats during Nov-Dec - early January. These forests are however slatedto be cut and maintained as a mixture of young to mature forests, which are notlikely to provide caribou requirements for shelter, predator avoidance and food.Caribou late winter Upper slopes (above 1525m) and ridge tops in old growth spruce fir forests and(Jan 16-April 15) parkland. Lichen on standing or fallen trees is only food source. Although thisrange. habitat may not be as threatened by logging, it is vulnerable to fragmentation.Caribou spring Similar to early winter ranges: low elevation areas with green foliage. Access to(April 16-June 30) these areas for movement and security from predators is critical.range.Caribou movement Vertical corridors of mature open forest, linking high elevation late winter andcorridors, summer ranges with low elevation early winter and spring ranges are required.Caribou will not use dense semi-mature forests. Plantation establishment in theabsence of open mature forest movement corridors has the potential to preventcaribou from accessing low elevation ranges which are important forage areas forpregnant females and are critical for successful calf production.It is obvious from this information that parks staff have identified all of the elements ofthe landscapes surrounding the parks which are of importance to the maintenance of theirwildlife populations. This has been passed to the relevant Forest Districts, who try toincorporate it into the development of harvesting blocks and Pre-Harvest SilviculturalPrescriptions. The park staff appear to be relatively satisfied with the cooperation theyreceive from the Ministry of Forests and most of the companies operating in the area.96However they are concerned that the current process has a tendency to achieve only theminimum requirements and that it is time consuming and piecemeal in its approach,requiring park review of and comment on Ministry of Forest wildlife guidelines, subregional plans, resource management plans and even PHSPs at the individual cut-blocklevel (S. Hall. pers, corn, 1993). This leaves park staff with little time or resources for themanagement of other park resources, which itself makes any integration of these resourceswith wildlife and ecological values very difficult (S. Hall. pers, com, 1993).In contrast, TRD could incorporate the information in Table 12 as ecological patternobjectives for these landscapes, from which a spatial representation of the patterns could beused to design the location and attributes of possible harvesting units. Thus necessarypatches of habitat, and corridors or areas of forest matrix required for movement of wildlifethrough the landscape could be integrated into the design of units in the landscape. Use ofvisual design principles in this process would also ensure the integration of visual resourcemanagement concerns.The development of a Total Resource Design could be carried out by a design teamcomprising members of the two main agencies involved. The design process itself couldthen facilitate compromise and result in a total resource design for each landscape abuttingthe parks, providing a common direction for the management of these areas through time.It is hoped that this would reduce the need for continual communication between park staffand the Ministry of Forests. Regular re-evaluation of the design plans would ensure thatany changing requirements of either agency could be inserted into the design process.There is no doubt that any future implementation of TRD on these lands will require thecommitment of both Parks Canada and the Ministry of Forests to this ecologically baseddesign approach. It is possible that this approach will result in smaller volumes of timberfrom these areas, at least for the short term. This impact, if known, will have to be weighedagainst the benefits to the park resources that TRD can bring. It is also possible, in some97scenarios, that the design of the block shapes for timber harvesting over time through TRDcould result in the production of more timber over the next three to four passes by ensuringthat all suitable timber is accessible and preventing the isolation of timber stands which canoccur due to a lack of forward planning. Whatever the decision reached on the economicimpacts of TRD, it is probably realistic to predict that only an ecologically based approachto the management of lands around protected areas, such as that provided by TotalResource Design, will ensure the effective realization of their purpose.This is only one proposed application of Total Resource Design in British Colombia,but it is hoped that it has provided an example of the particular capabilities of such anapproach, and specifically an illustration of its potential to integrate ecological and visualvalues into the planning of harvesting units.While the impacts of Total Resource Design on timber flows and other economic factorsare still unknown, many points have been raised in this chapter which would suggest that ithas the potential to meet many forest planning needs in the province at the present time.Most of the arguments in its favour stem from the predicted ability of the process to providemore effective integrated resource management, at a landscape level, and within a methodwhich would link strategic direction to on-the-ground operational prescriptions. While theevidence on whether TRD will live up to this expectation rests on the completion of theWest Arm Demonstration Forest example, conceptually it 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 for theimplementation of Total Resource Design in British Columbia, and to speculate on thepotential role of TRD in the future of forest planning in B.C. Through an investigation ofboth of these topics it was possible to draw the following conclusions.5.1 A method for Total Resource Design.It was possible to take an outline of a method for TRD provided by Bell (Bell 1993a),combine it with the work of Diaz and Apostol (1992) and experiences from the applicationof Total Resource Design to the West Arm Demonstration Forest (WADF), to document adetailed method for the application of TRD in British Columbia.The use of the WADF example illustrated problems encountered in a practicalapplication of TRD, and provided an insight into how these problems could be overcomeby pooling information and intellectual resources available.This example also provided an illustration and clarification of many of the conceptsemployed in Total Resource Design.The method should be regarded merely as a framework or strategy to facilitate theproduction of solutions for the management of a forest landscape, solutions which willboth maintain ecological functioning and allow each of the objectives set for the landscapeto be met. Its success will depend on the quality of information available, and thecommitment of the team to working through a method which may be complex and timeconsuming in places.99Unfortunately, because of additional responsibilities and commitments on the part of thedesign 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. It may be over ayear until the project is finally finished, a time frame which was felt to be beyond the scopeof this thesis. However, a future direction for completion of the final steps of the projecthas been outlined by the design team . This direction was used to try to complete themethod description produced in Chapter 3. The final sections of the method must thereforebe approached with a little caution in any subsequent applications, and communicationmade with the WADF design team to confirm whether the predicted approach was alteredonce their project was completed.As a final Total Resource Design has not yet been completed for the West ArmDemonstration Forest, an analysis of the final product cannot yet be made. This isunfortunate as it would have been useful to discuss the performance of the method in apractical example in this thesis. Such an analysis will also be required to evaluate thesuitability of the process for future application in B.C. For example, what will the impactsof such a design be on timber flows from a landscape? What will timber extraction and roadcosts be under this design? On a more qualitative note, will it effectively maintain importantecological functions of the landscape? Will maintaining certain patches and corridors in thelandscape actually maintain or enhance population numbers of certain species? The TRDmethod will allow the team to prescribe a certain target pattern for the landscape which it ishoped will meet wildlife objectives, but will this pattern actually prove effective in meetingthese objectives in practice? As TRD is based on an incomplete knowledge andunderstanding of landscape dynamics, even the design team involved with the project arenot certain of its likely results. A final design implemented on the ground and closelymonitored through time should provide not only an illustration of whether the process canproduce an effective form of Integrated Resource management, but should also allow100scrutiny of many of the ecological concepts incorporated into the process. Further projectsthroughout the Province, based in areas of differing ecological conditions and resourcepressures should also be implemented to try to determine the flexibility of Total ResourceDesign and determine whether or not it could be applied effectively across the wide rangeof ecological and resource use pressures in British Columbia.5.2 The potential role of Total Resource Design in forest planning in B.C.Despite the absence of an analysis of the performance of TRD in the WADF application,it was felt that there were several attributes of the approach which could be examined todetermine whether it could contribute to forest planning in B.C. This examinationconcluded that Total Resource Design would provide a new and more effective approach toforest landscape planning in B.C. The main reasons behind this conclusion are summarizedas follows:TRD involves the application of the design process to a forest subject in B.C.The design process itself is not new. It is routinely used and tested in many other fieldssuch as architecture and urban design. The application of design principles to forestry isalso not new. For example, the British Forestry Commission has developed a processcalled ‘landscape design 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 application of the design process to aforest subject. It combined British expertise in forest design, with landscape ecologicalprinciples to produce an integrated design for management units in a natural forestlandscape. The use of integrated design in forestry in B.C. is, however, a new concept,and the WADF application of Total Resource Design was the first example of its kind inthe Province. Traditionally, within the Ministry of Forests design has been synonymousonly with visual resources and Visual Resource Management has been under theadministration of the Recreation Branch and not the Integrated Resources Branch. This is101not an ideal framework for the promotion of the wider capabilities of design, nor theintegration of visual resources into forest planning or management. However, based onboth the WADF example and the experiences in other jurisdictions, the design processwould appear to have much to offer forest resource planners in B.C. It would provide aguiding strategy for the integration of resources and the design of management units acrossthe forest landscapes of the Province.TRD provides an opportunity for the ‘proactive’ management of all 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 of our resource’. Currently, managers of resources 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 where operations are being prescribed.TRD provides a step by step method for linking strategic and operational plans.The Forest Practices Code, and the proposed Total Resource Planning process haveboth recognized the need for a ‘bridge’ between these two types of plans, preferably at thelandscape scale, and both claim to provide that link (Province of British Columbia 1994,MOF 1993a). However, neither provide a complete step by step method which would leada team of resource managers from strategic direction to actual prescriptions for operations,in a manner which would integrate and give consideration of all resources across alandscape 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 wherecoordinated cooperation between agencies and resource users is required for the effectivemanagement of these areas could benefit greatly from the application of TRD. It issuggested that the next step in the development of Total Resource Design in B.C. should beto test the process in such a scenario to determine whether or not it would indeed facilitatethe planning and management of these areas and allow management agencies to worktowards a common goal.It has been suggested that the approach advocated in Total Resource Design could meetseveral important deficiencies in current forest planning approaches. This conclusion hasnot yet been supported in practice and would seem to be ‘a lot to live up to’. Whether or notit can be met may well determine the future of TRD in the Province. However, theindividuals involved in the West Arm Demonstration Forest application, although reservingjudgment on the process for the time being, feel that if they 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 based on 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 of such processes for future application across the Province. The application ofTRD to the West Arm Demonstration Forest is a first step towards evaluating theperformance of a ‘landscape led’ approach to forest design in B.C. The important questionis, can TRD live up to the expectations? Those involved with the WADF application arehopeful that it will, and that it will prove to be a realistic 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, Mount Hood National Forest.Telephone conversation, April 1994.Bell, S. Landscape Architect, British Forestry Commission. Meeting, 1993.Crampton, D. Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, Nelson Forest Region. Telephoneconversation, June 1994.Fox, 0. Habitat Protection Branch, Ministry of Environment, Nelson. Meeting, August1994.Hall, S. Park Ecologist, Canadian Parks Service, Revelstoke. Meeting, November 1993.Lidstone, A. Integrated Resources Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria. TelephoneConversation, April 1994.Platz, M. Integrated Resources Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria. Telephoneconversation, May 1994.Publications cited.Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press. WashingtonD.C.Baker, W.L. 1989. Landscape ecology and nature reserve design in the Boundary WatersCanoe Area, Minnesota. Ecology 70(1): 23-35.Bell, S. 1993a Forest Landscape Design Handbook. B.C. Ministry of Forests.Victoria.Bell, S. 1993. Elements of visual Design in the Landscape . E&FN Spon. London.Booth, N.K. 1983. Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design. Elsevier. NewYork.Crowe, S. 1966. Forestry in the Landscape. Forestry Commission Booklet No.18.H.M.S.O. London.Crowe, S. 1978. The Landscape of Forests and Woods. Forestry Commission BookletNo. 44. H.M.S.O. London.Dearden, P. 1988. Protected Areas and the Boundary Model: Meares Island and PacificRim National Park. The Canadian Geographer 32: 256-265.Diaz, N. and D. Apostol. 1992. Forest Landscape Analysis and Design : A Process forDeveloping and Implementing Land Management Objectives for Landscape Patterns.USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region.105Dooling, P.J. 1985. Parks and Protected Areas in British Columbia in the SecondCentury. British Columbia Caucus Report. In R.C. Scace and J.G. Nelson (ed.). Heritagefor Tomorrow. Canadian Assembly on National Parks and Protected Areas, Vol 3.Canadian Parks Service. pp 157-316.Duffy, D.M. 1990. A Review of the British Columbia Crown Land Allocation andManagement Planning Process. A background paper prepared for the British ColumbiaForest Resources Commission. Forest Resources Commission. Victoria.Dunster, J.A. 1985. Coordinated co-operation: The need for understanding. In R.C.Scace and J.G. Nelson (ed.) Heritage for Tomorrow. Canadian Assembly on NationalParks and Protected Areas., Vol 3. Canadian Parks Service. pp.157-189.Fischer, W.C. and A.F. Bradley. 1987. Fire Ecology ofWestern Montana Forest HabitatTypes. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain ResearchStation. General Technical Report INT-223.Forman, R.T.T. 1987. The Ethics of Evolution, the Spread of Disturbance and LandscapeEcology. In M.G. Turner (ed.) Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance: 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 landscape patterns by forest cutting:Ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecology. 1(1): 5-18.Hall, S. 1993. Memorandum to D. Monchek, R.O. Planning, Ministry of Forests,Golden Forest District (unpublished).Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmentaed Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and thePreservation ofBiotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.Kimmins, J.P. 1987. Forest Ecology . Macmillan Publishing. New York.Kimmins, J.P. 1990. Designing disturbance in the B.C. forest landscape: the predictionof ecological consequences. In A.F. Pearson and D.A. Challenger (ed.) Forests - Wild andManaged : Differences and Consequences. Students for Forestry Awareness. January 19-20 1990. University of British Columbia. Vancouver. pp. 177-192.Lucas, O.W.R. 1991. The Design ofForest Landscape. Oxford University Press. Oxford.Meidinger, D and J. Pojar. 1991. Ecosystems ofBritish Columbia. Ministry of Forests[B.C.]. Victoria.Merriam, G. 1988. Landscape ecology: The ecology of heterogeneous systems. In M.R.Moss (ed.) Landscape Ecology and management : Proceedings of the First symposium ofthe Canadien Societyfor Landscape Ecology andManagement. University of Guelph. May1987. Polyscience Publications. Montreal. pp.43-SO.Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks [B.C.] and Ministry of Forests [B.C.]. 1993.Interior Fish, Forestry and Wildlife Guidelines (draft).106Ministry of Environment [B.C.], Nelson. 1993. Kootenay Lake Domestic WatershedContingency Pkin (unpublished).Ministry of Forests [B.C.]. 1981. Forest Landscape Handbook. Province of BritishColumbia. Victoria.Ministry of Forests [B.C.]. 1991. Forest Landscape management. In Ministry of Forests[B.C.]. Recreation Manual, Chapter 11. Province of British Columbia.Ministry of Forests [B.C.]. 1993a. Soil Conservation Guidelines for Timber Harvesting(Interior B.C.). Province of British Columbia.Victoria.Ministry of Forests [B.C.] 1993b. Total Resource Planning. An Integrated ResourceManagement Approach to Forest Development: A Proposed Process - August 1993.Province of British Columbia. Victoria.Ministry of Forests [B.C.] 1993c. Provincial Visual Landscape Management Guidelines(draft). Province of British Columbia. Victoria.Ministry of Forests [B.C.], Golden Forest District. 1993. Total Resource Planning -guidelines (unpublished).Ministry of Forests [B.C.], Nelson Region. 1992. Forest Sciences, Nelson Forest RegionResearch Summary. Sept 1992 (unpublished).Ministry of Forests [B.C.], Nelson Region. 1994. West Arm Demonstration Forest Plan.Draft. (unpublished).Ministry of Forests [B.C.] and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks [B.C.]. 1993.Total Resource Planning : A proposed process - August 1993. Summary of Comments.Province of British Columbia. Victoria.Ness, K. 1992. Resource Planning in the Ministry of Forests : A Glossary of Past andPresent Terms. Ministry of Forests [B.C.].Victoria.Noss, R.F. and L.D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, Networks and MUMs: Preserving diversityat all scales. Environmental Management 10(3): 299-309.Pickett, S.T.A. and J.N. Thompson. 1978. Patch Dynamics and the Design of NatureReserves. Biological Conservation 13: 27-37.Province of British Columbia. 1993. British Columbia Forest Practices Code . Rules.Province of British Columbia. Victoria.Province of British Columbia. 1994. British Columbia Forest Practices Code : Standardswith revised rules andfield guide references. Province of British Columbia. Victoria.Risser, P.G. 1987. Landscape Ecology : State of the art. In M.G. Turner (ed.)Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Springer-Verlag. New York. pp. 3-14.Rowe, J.S. 1988. Landscape Ecology : The study of terrain ecosystems. In M.R. Moss(ed.) Landscape Ecology and Management. Proceedings of the First symposium of theCanadien Society for Landscape Ecology and Management. 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 Conservation of Nature Reserves. Biological Conservation 38:305-322.Thiel, p. 1981 Visual Awareness and Design : an introductory program in conceptualawareness, perceptual sensitivity and basic design skills. University of Washington Press.Seattle.Urban, D.L., R.V. O’Neill and H.H. Shugart Jr. 1987. Landscape Ecology : Ahierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience 37(2): 119-127.Zonneveld, I.S. 1988. Landscape Ecology and its application. In M.R. Moss (ed.)Landscape Ecology and management : Proceedings of the First symposium ofthe CanadianSociety for Landscape Ecology and Management. University of Guelph. May 1987.Polyscience Publications. Montreal.pp. 3-14.108Appendix 1Participants : Total Resource Design Workshop, Nelson 24-28th January1994Simon Bell British Forestry Commission.Ministry of Forests:Dave Crampton Research - Nelson Forest Region.Harry Quesnel Research - Nelson Forest Region.Dave Grant Engineering - Nelson Forest RegionBernie Peschke Silviculture - Nelson Forest Region.Larry Price Planning - Nelson Forest 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 - Kootenay Lake District.Dale Anderson Planning - Kootenay Lake District.Peter Lewis Planning - Kootenay Lake District.Ministry of Environment:Gerry Fox Habitat Protection Branch - Ministry of Environment - Nelson.Dwain Boyer Water management - Ministry of Environment - Nelson.BC Parks:Gary Price Boundary Zone Manager, West Kootenay District - Nelson.Public:Hans Elias Public RepresentativeDiane Luchtan Public ObserverObservers:Ralph Archibald Integrated Resources Section - Victoria (Observer).Julie Duff Masters Student, USC.109