Timber Supply — Issue No. 2 — Monday, May 28, 2012 (HTML)

Present: John Rustad, MLA (Chair); Norm Macdonald, MLA (Deputy Chair); Harry Bains, MLA; Donna Barnett, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Bill Routley, MLA; Ben Stewart, MLA

Others Present: Larry Pedersen, Technical Advisor; Jim Snetsinger, Technical Advisor

2. The Committee considered and agreed to its preliminary consultation schedule, as circulated.

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered Questions:

• Dave Peterson, ADM, Tenures, Competitiveness and Innovation & Chief Forester

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
TIMBER SUPPLY


CONTENTS
Page
Committee Meeting Schedule	7
Briefings: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations	9
J. Snetsinger
L. Pedersen
D. Peterson
P. Martin
A. Nussbaum
Other Business	22

J. Rustad (Chair): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our second meeting of our Special Committee on Timber Supply.

Before we get into the agenda today, I want to propose one change to the agenda, and that is item No. 2, the preliminary committee consultation schedule. I know that the presentation from the ministry staff today will be fairly lengthy, and I'm sure there will be lots of discussion, so I'd like to perhaps move that up to item No. 1, if that's okay with committee members.

J. Rustad (Chair): We have a large task in front of us in terms of being able to go out and have the consultation process through the impacted areas of the pine beetle. We also have a very short time frame, and so I took the liberty of trying to figure out a schedule around how to do at least the first leg of it. It was based on your recommendation, Norm, around getting out to the Highway 16 corridor first.

What's in front of us is a schedule to go out and do the week of June 18 as the tour week. That's fairly tight, in terms of being able to get information out and have time available, but it does sort of fit in with how we can get the work done by our mandate.

I thought I'd just quickly throw this out — make sure everybody is okay with that week, or if they have any comments or suggestions. The general idea would be to try to do two communities a day. There would be a process of having a discussion with the mayor and council, perhaps the regional district representatives, as a round-table discussion; a process to have a discussion with the First Nations leadership within the area; and then an opportunity for a public input forum and process.

I guess I'll put it out to committee members in terms of is there…? Do you think we should be thinking about something else in terms of the process? Or do you think we should be trying something else in terms of a schedule?

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): Thank you for organizing this. I would assume that this is a fairly standard way of organizing one of these government committees.

There will opportunities, obviously, for working groups and for concerned individuals within the public hearing process. We would make sure that that's…. I presume, because we are doing this early, we can advertise that widely.

We would also have a process for provincial organizations, in Vancouver and Victoria. Is that the thinking?

J. Rustad (Chair): Yes. This would be the first leg of the consultation process — for the week of the 18th. We would probably require three more days of touring consultation for the Highway 97 corridor, from Kamloops back up towards Prince George, as well as at least three days of provincial opportunities where we would invite groups of a provincial nature to be able to come in and do presentations.

There may also be some opportunity…. I know there have been a few communities that are not on this list that would like to be able to participate in this. We may have to consider some video conferencing or other things. I'm looking at July as being the time when we would do the provincial consultation as well as that last leg down Highway 97.

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): Okay. I don't know if anybody else…. I have no problem with the dates and appreciate the work that's been done on it.

Okay. Which communities go first and that whole process we'll leave up to the Clerk's office in terms of how they can actually coordinate the schedule. Likely what it will mean is to fly into Smithers and do vehicles across and then probably use a charter plane for the latter half of the meeting schedule just to be able to get around and actually be able to make the meetings. Distances are what they are.

With that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses today. The process for this meeting and the meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday the 30th is really to give the committee members a good understanding — or as good an understanding as we can have — of all the background information that's going to lead up to defining what the problem is around the mountain pine beetle epidemic, and then ultimately around what all the options are that we would have available to trying to mitigate the problem to whatever extent is possible.

The intent of the meeting today is to be able to help us as committee members understand more fully the potential challenges that we're facing and the information that goes into that challenge.

To that end, today we have a number of people from the Ministry of Forests: Dave Peterson, who's the ADM of tenures, competitiveness and innovation, and is chief forester; Pat Martin, manager of inventory section; Albert Nussbaum, director, forest analysis and inventory branch; and Allan Lidstone, director, resource management objectives
[ Page 8 ]
branch. I know there are a few other staff that are here as well that can help us with the information.

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): Just a couple of things. First, I appreciate the preparation that's gone into this. This is obviously one of the key parts for us to understand because any decision that we make has to be based on fact rather than on what we wish was the situation. I think that will be part of…. Certainly from the opposition's point of view, we're going to try to dig into some of the numbers that are presented here.

What I did mention to the Chair is that in terms of technical support…. The opposition had hoped that we would be able to put forward a name that would provide technical support — because I think for the most part people here are laymen, and these can be complicated issues that we're talking about — to make sure that we're doing a proper check and balance on what's being put to communities. I think that that would be a useful thing.

I have spoken to the Chair, and I put that forward to the group, that the opposition thinks that it would be useful to have an additional member as technical support, but that's a decision for the committee.

I would like to just use one example of where numbers can often be a complication. It's something that comes out of estimates. It was a question, actually, that was put by the member for Cariboo North. It was around a study. I'll provide it to the committee. It was the Update of the Infestation Projection Based on the Provincial Aerial Overview Surveys of Forest Health and BCMPB Model. It was year 8, by Adrian Walton.

It's an interesting report that people should read. It basically talks about a computer modelling for the mountain pine beetle area. There were some hopeful projections there. Those projections talked about, rather than 80 percent mortality, possibly being between, I think, 59 percent and 67 percent. But within the document if you go to page 13…. If people take a note of it and go and look on page 13, there are a number of caveats on the information that is provided.

It says that "it is possible that the pine losses actually experienced will vary significantly from the estimates of B.C. mountain pine beetle. For example, with B.C. mountain pine beetle, it currently estimates that the Prince George forest district has lost approximately 63 percent of its mature merchantable pine in the mountain pine beetle. However, ministry staff in the Prince George district estimate the current losses to be between 85 and 90 percent."

It is for that reason — and this is capitalized in bold letters — that I strongly recommend not relying on BCMPB for accurate spatial or management unit level estimates of the pine loss due to the mountain pine beetle.

The point is — and I'll come to the point quickly — that within that report there are a number of places where it puts a caveat that this is a computer model and that it's an estimate and that it might not prove, in fact, reliable. But with the government release on this committee, it uses that optimistic number. The last point in the release is that, hey, here's some good news: 58 percent of the pine may be killed by 2021. This is significantly less than the 80 percent kill that was projected six years ago.

So it's there in our initial reach-out to individuals that, despite the warning not to use the numbers in this, it was used, I think, on CBC. It was used again by the Chair. I think it was 67 percent. I presume that this is cited, and it was also used by one of the people that is going to be our technical support.

I guess the point I would make is that these are complex issues. We need to dig down into them. But I think it's important that we feel comfortable that we understand exactly what's happening and try to be putting out information that's as accurate as possible.

I know, as opposition, that we have the obligation to try to dig into the numbers that are presented. But I think for government members too. We have to dig in and make sure that we're not presenting what we want in terms of numbers, but we're presenting, as much as possible, what is factual.

That's what I'd lay out. I know that I'm looking forward to the presentations, and I appreciate the work that's been done. But obviously, we'll be doing our best to try to dig into them.

J. Rustad (Chair): Thank you, Norm. That'll be something we'll have to consider, I guess, as our meetings go.

I apologize to members. I was remiss at the beginning. We should probably do a round of introductions of the members, as well as some other people that are here with the meeting — in particular, our two special advisers to the committee, former chief forester Jim Snetsinger is here, as well as another former chief forester, Larry Pedersen, who is attending the meeting. I'd also like to welcome Bob Simpson, the MLA for Cariboo North, who is here as an observer as well.

Perhaps with that I'll allow committee members to go around and to introduce themselves. Then we will start our presentations, and we'll see how things go, Norm, with regards to your comments there.

D. Barnett: Yes, Donna Barnett, MLA for the Cariboo-Chilcotin and Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Communities.

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): Norm Macdonald, MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

B. Routley: I just want to add that this is about finding the facts. As Norm has put it, we have real trust issues with some of the material being presented. Obviously, staff have to do what they're told by government, and they're going to present whatever kind of view the government wants us to have. So that's great.

I'm sure some of this information will be valuable, but I can't overemphasize the fact that we believe we need to hear from technical people from outside. We've made it clear that we would like to have technical assistance to the official opposition. If this committee is truly going to be relevant in communities, I'm sure that you would agree that people would want to feel comfortable that both sides are feeling comfortable with the information and have drilled down deep into what are key issues.

Obviously, with timber supply we've got controversial issues about inventory that we're going to hear. So we're not prepared to sit here and just be part of a window-dressing exercise. We do want to have a full discussion about these complex issues and make sure that we're certain that the information we're being told is accurate and will help communities now and in the future.

Basically, that's the concern. You know, we're not doing this just because we're opposition. There are examples in the past where we've been told one thing and then, with further drilling down…. Inventory, by the way, is one of them. There's a lot of controversy, but it was not the so-called experts that were correct. At the end of the day it was determined that outsiders who were critical of the process did drag the technical experts up to a larger number than we once had.

I just don't want you to think that we're comfortable with just what we're being presented with. We think we need to be able to double-examine the information and make sure that outsiders, who also have technical experience, can talk to us and witness to this committee.

J. Rustad (Chair): Thank you for that. As I said earlier, we will be having a provincial consultation process. We will have ample time for a number of experts that'll be able to come in from a variety of organizations to be able to give us a significant number of that input.

Perhaps I'd like to, just before we go into the presentation…. We have both Jim and Larry here, who are both independent former chief foresters who are now, of course, no longer chief forester. They're both retired. Perhaps I'm going to put you guys on the spot a little bit — and just let you give a little bit of perspective — about the independent position of the chief forester and, I guess, a little bit of what you could bring to us in terms of how the data and presentation goes.

J. Snetsinger: Well, I was chief forester from November 2004 until March 1, 2012. I had the statutory responsibility to set the allowable annual cut for the management units in British Columbia, both tree farm licences and AAC determinations. That required me to examine all the inventory information — so the socioeconomic and environmental information that affects timber supply — and use professional judgment to come up with an allowable annual cut determination that would be in place for no greater than ten years, according to the legislation.

It's very much an independent office. It's a responsibility that, obviously, I took very seriously. I had great staff providing the best information possible. Where there were risks and uncertainties with the information, I had to take that into account and think about how that could affect the annual allowable cut and think about what we needed to do to improve that information.

So the allowable annual cut isn't a…. There will be presentations today that talk about this. The determination of the annual allowable cut is not based on a mathematical formula. It really comes down to professional judgment and professional decision-making.

I can tell you that while I briefed cabinet ministers and MLAs on my decisions, I never once had any political interference in any kind of decisions that I made. The Crown has an opportunity to provide the socioeconomic objectives of the Crown to the chief forester for his or her consideration in making their statutory decisions, but it is very much an independent decision-making.

We use the best available information possible, and we have, as a chief forester, the ability to influence programs inside the ministry to improve that decision-making as time progresses, where we see some weaknesses.

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm very honoured to be part of this, and I look forward to helping all of the members understand these issues. I fully appreciate the comments that have been made this morning with respect to uncertainty. There is no one number. These are all estimates. They're based on some pretty sophisticated analysis, but it is always a range of uncertainty.
[ Page 10 ]

I would certainly suggest to the committee that it's helpful always to look at that range and define it at its lowest probable boundary, define it at its highest probable boundary and then say: "What does it look like across that range of uncertainty? What are the implications?" Then, based on what Jim was just saying, apply some judgment of where in that range of uncertainty it is most likely that we think the most accurate number is derived. I think we can bring some perspective to that, and I truly look forward to being part of that discussion.

I mentioned to a few people on the way in the door that I grew up in Quesnel. I went to forestry at UBC on a Weldwood of Canada scholarship in 1970. I have said for the whole period of this infestation that this is a very serious issue that needs to be managed in a manner that keeps the interests of the communities in mind. As a rural kid, I just want to say that I very much look forward to participating in that.

I absolutely assure the members that you will hear my most professional and independent, non-partisan views at all times. If anybody thinks otherwise, I would be very happy to have that discussion. So thanks for those few comments.

J. Rustad (Chair): If I may, members, I would like to get to the presentation. Let's see how this unfolds, and then we can proceed with questions and discuss the process for going forward for the next day.

I don't actually have a presentation. This is really a good segue. I also wanted to introduce what I will be able to bring to the work of the committee, because I certainly anticipate working very closely and supporting you very much over the next close to 90 days that you still have in three very distinct roles. I wanted to just touch on that.

First off, I will be bringing to you, in whatever capacity you're interested in, almost 40 years of living and working in the central Interior and all the experience and knowledge set that I have built around that, similar to what Jim and Larry were talking about. That includes four years in the west Chilcotin in the early 1980s when there actually was an earlier pine beetle infestation that you may not be aware of. It covered about 600,000 hectares, so a substantial size in itself, before it collapsed in a period of about two years.

During that four-year period I was heavily involved in all the kind of field work: the field surveys; the single-tree treatments; aerial mapping that we do — and I know we'll be talking about a little bit later in the presentations; overwinter mortality surveys. For example, I still have etched in my memory sitting in a pine stand on a hot, still day in mid-July, and you could literally hear the beetles crawling around under the bark. There were that many of them ready to fly. That's a piece that I bring.

Following that I spent about five years in timber supply planning, actually working under Larry for a portion of that five years, in the Cariboo region, analyzing the impact of that previous beetle infestation on timber supply for the Cariboo region as a whole. Following that, one year heavily involved as the Forest Service representative in the core Cariboo land use planning project. Then, finally, I was a member of the three-member interagency team that wrote the implementation report for the Cariboo land use plan.

After that I spent 11 years working for the forest industry, again in the Cariboo — a number of different companies as part of that — really, partly, still managing the impact from that early 1980s pine beetle infestation, learning how to change harvest, how to change transportation, how to change milling technology.

Then, clearly, that morphed into starting to manage the new pine beetle infestation that will be dominating the work of this group. When I left Tolko in 2005, they were heavily involved not only in the current epidemic but actually still putting through the sawmill trees that were killed from that 1980 infestation — so dead over 20 years. Since that time, since 2005, various assistant deputy minister positions, all connected one way or another with this beetle infestation.

I certainly hope I can help you just from that personal experience in drilling down, as you talk about, into the reality of this epidemic. I also come as ADM, as John said earlier, with ten years competitiveness in innovation. Clearly, one of the parts of your terms of reference is to talk about forest tenures and possible conversion to area-based tenures. That's my staff who are responsible for that, so I will bring that part of it.

Another element of that role of mine is industry transformation. There are some pretty significant things going on within the forest sector that have a bearing on — not directly related, but certainly have a bearing on — the terms of reference of your group. There is new work happening in the pulp and paper sector that really is building on the bioeconomy committee recommendations that came out of this fall.

There is also some pretty substantial activity right now between senior industry and WorkSafe around the sawmill dust issue. I would actually recommend that you probably try and have a quick briefing around that before you get out into your public discussions, because I anticipate it will come up quite often. I've talked to the person who's leading that from the forest industry side. I think it would be good if you just had a bit of an understanding of what's happening on that front before you get into public dialogue.

Finally and by no means the least, as you also introduced earlier, John, I now have taken up the role of chief forester, so that's the third role that I can bring to this committee. I actually don’t anticipate a lot of questions
[ Page 11 ]
coming to me as chief forester because of the advice that you will get from Larry and Jim, but certainly, I am involved in this, because I think the public dialogue that will happen will very much inform future determinations, and the work of this committee and the report of this committee will very much inform future determinations.

That's all I had for this morning, but again, it's just part of that introduction of all of us in the role going forward.

P. Martin: I'm Pat Martin, manager of forest inventory in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I want to thank the committee for the chance to come and talk to you today about inventory.

Those of us working in the world of inventory are often in the background. It's not often that our issues and our work area gets attention and public attention. I do appreciate the interest that's been shown, and I can tell you that back at the office people are excited by it or energized by the fact that their work, which often goes on quietly in the background, is getting attention and discussion by elected representatives. So thank you.

I've got a very brief presentation. I will touch on what the components of a forest inventory are. I think that's some important background information that would be useful to you. I'll talk about how inventories are produced and maintained.

Then I'll talk about the status of forest inventories in ten management units that I believe are of interest to you in the committee. Last, I'll cover the ministry's inventory projects this current year, with a little bit of a look ahead for the next couple of years.

First off, an inventory is not a single thing. It is a set of products, and that is important to bear in mind. The one important part or component of the inventory is a map of the land and the vegetation cover across the land. Paired with that is a database. So for each component of the vegetation cover — I'll have a picture of this in a moment for you — the database contains the description of that part of the land base; a set of aerial photographs, and that's of very significant importance for other downstream users; ground samples, which is a very important aspect of supplementing the information from components 1 and 2 and also validating it; a series of special GIS layers and other reports.

All these pieces are what we mean by forest inventory, and they are all part of the forest inventory.

My focus is on vegetation. The manager of forest inventory focuses on the vegetation cover. Other resource values — such as, say, wildlife value — are inventoried by other groups.

I'd like to tell you a little bit, or give you a little bit of background, on how inventories are produced and maintained. Here I'm referring to just those first two components of the inventory — the big map and the database of attributes.

How this is done is aerial photographs are taken of the entire management unit. The little picture on the left shows what these look like. Inventory specialists identify areas of vegetation or other land cover that are similar, drawing little — as you can see here — yellow lines around those patches that are similar. Then the characteristics of those polygons are estimated: the species composition in that area, the height, the age and so forth. That description is stored in the database of attributes.

That's a big job for a management unit that can cost up to a million dollars and take, say, three years. What we hope to do then and what we do then is try and maintain that inventory on an annual basis. We can't afford to re-inventory sort of rapidly, so we maintain the inventory. And the little red loop shows the maintenance cycle that we use with the inventories.

Every year when there are new harvested areas, those are transferred into the map. The new cutblock is located in the map. A new polygon is created for that, and a description for that harvested area is put into the attribute database. When areas are reforested, we go back into the attribute database and indicate that this cutblock has now been, for example, planted with lodgepole pine or what have you.

Also, each year we grow each polygon in this database. So we add a year for age — right? A stand of trees will gain a year in age. It will gain a little bit in height. It will increase in volume. We have a set of prediction models that run in the background and grow the stands each year.

The final piece is a fairly new piece in terms of maintaining inventories in British Columbia, and that is to adjust the volumes of polygons for the observed amount of mortality caused by mountain pine beetle. I will say a bit more about that in the next slide, but before I move on….

That is the annual cycle. Then after, say, 20 or 30 years the inventory is ready for a complete refresh — or after a major damaging event, as we've had now with the mountain pine beetle.

Tthen those inventories are ready for a major refresh. Photos are acquired over the entire management unit, and we start the green loop again, where we redelineate the whole land base.

Before I move on, I'd just say that, referring back to the components of the inventory, you can see there are important aspects of the inventory that are left out of this slide. The ground sampling program that I discussed earlier — you won't see that reflected on the slide, and that's
[ Page 12 ]
an important aspect of forest inventory.

Then, in addition, we have a series of inventory improvement projects that we can bring in where we have a targeted area that needs a little bit of repair or if we need to develop some information on an interim basis until we can complete an entire re-inventory. Those inventory improvement projects are not reflected on this slide either, and they're an important part of what we are doing as we try to wrestle with the mountain pine beetle issue.

I want to describe a little bit about what we're doing about the first stage of our attempt to deal with the mountain pine beetle. I view it as a series of steps and stages that we're taking, and this is sort of the first aspect of our attempt to deal with it.

Every year the entire province is flown by forest health specialists, and they sketch the level of damage that they are observing in the forest as they fly back and forth over the forests of British Columbia. That little sketch map is shown on the right. In inventory, we then take this sketch map and load it in a database and overlay it onto our inventory file and transfer the amount of mortality that has been observed in that year down into the inventory file and adjust the volumes of the polygons that have experienced mountain pine beetle damage, adjust those volumes, partitioning them so that we have some of the volume live and some dead, based on what has been observed that year in the overview flights. That is an important aspect of what we're doing about the mountain pine beetle.

Okay, so I'd like to move on and give you a little bit of insight into the state of forest inventories. I've listed down the left the management units that I believe are of interest to your committee. One aspect of the status of inventory that is an important thing to consider is the vintage. By that I mean: in what year were the air photos acquired?

In most management units there's a mix of ages that the photos were acquired. So here I'm generalizing a little bit, but what you'll see is that in most areas you're interested in, the inventories are between one year old — in the case of eastern Williams Lake — and 20 years old, with three exceptions.

The exceptions are large parks — so in Wells Gray Park and Tweedsmuir Park, for example, the inventories are much older; remote areas — so right at the far fringe of the west Chilcotin as we run up into the Coast Mountains, the inventory there is also quite old; and finally, the third exception is 100 Mile House.

In future slides you'll see that we have an inventory underway right now in 100 Mile House. I've listed what is the current information in the file right today, if you were going to run a report out of it. If you were to ask us to do that, that is what we're running off.

All right, so that's vintage. Now, another feature of inventories that's important when you're thinking about their state is the standard to which the data was acquired. In B.C. we largely have information from two different eras.

One is the current era, so modern inventories are acquired to the VRI standard, vegetation resources inventory. The inventories from the '80s are to the FIP standard. So you'll see here that the inventories that are in areas of interest to you have been acquired to a mix of standards.

Then in Quesnel — I mentioned that we have some modern methods that provide us information quickly, sort of interim information, and one of those is something that we refer to as LVI — you'll see I'm indicating that in a part of the area, the inventory is to the VRI standard. Then on the western portion of Quesnel, inventory is to LVI standard.

Another aspect that's important in considering the status of inventory is: to what year did we last update for harvested areas and reforestation? You'll see that in the areas that are of interest to you, pretty much everything is up to date within the last year or two. The one exception is again 100 Mile House, where we have an inventory underway. When the inventory is underway, we often hold off on the updates just to not duplicate our efforts.

Now, there are a few other things that aren't on there, and I'd like to touch on them briefly. One is: what about the ground samples? I mentioned the ground sampling program. In all of those management units we have acquired a variety of ground samples to validate the quality of the data. Some of those ground samples are a few years old now, and some predate the beetle attack. In general, what we have found is that for all of the inventories the volumes are within 10 percent of what we're finding. The ground sample is confirming what's in the photo interpretive file within 10 percent — and some, much better.

The final thing I want to mention about status is that we have full mapping of the timber-growing potential of the forested areas. Foresters refer to this as the site index, and we have full wall-to-wall mapping of all those management units for the timber-growing potential of the area. In most of those units this is derived from detailed mapping of the ecosystems. I just want to draw this to your attention to indicate the richness of the inventory data, the many components of it, and to sort of suggest to you its many uses — in particular, this detailed ecosystem mapping.

I'll turn now and conclude with a couple of slides that talk about the ministry's program of inventory activities this year and touching on future years.

On the six units that are shown on this slide, the ministry has a big program underway. The ministry is focusing its inventory activities in beetle-impacted areas. So what we see here is a range of activities — in some cases large ground sampling programs like in Morice, where we have a program of 100 ground samples this coming year. We'll follow that in 2013 with an audit of the inventory. We'll use the ground samples to test the quality of
[ Page 13 ]
the photo-interpreted inventory, and then we'll take action in '14 and '15, depending on the results of that assessment.

In the Lakes we are acquiring air photos this year over the entire timber supply area, and we will commence a VRI inventory in 2013. Also, in Vanderhoof we are acquiring air photos over the entire land base and commencing an inventory in 2013. In Fort St. James and in the Prince George districts, components of Prince George TSA, we are acquiring photos but not covering the full land base. In this case we're pursuing one of our inventory improvement works. The photos are taken in strips, and we'll use those to improve portions of the inventory.

The situation is Mackenzie is a little different. We've just finished a full VRI of the southern and central portions of Mackenzie. Last year we completed the ground sampling. This year we will be completing the audit report.

The other units that I believe you're interested in are shown on this slide. Here we have what I would describe as a significant program in three of the six units. In Quesnel we have been very busy in past years completing the VRI in the eastern side and completing an LVI-based inventory in the west. So this year we are simply rounding out the monitoring sampling network, monitoring plot network, that has been established there. That's the extent of our activities this year in Quesnel.

In Williams Lake we have a much larger program. There's a VRI that is completed now in the eastern portion of the TSA, so this is just a wrap-up, a little bit of a mop-up year there. And on the west we have a large LVI-based inventory project that is commencing this year. In future years we'll see ground sampling and the inventory audit analysis.

In 100 Mile House we have a VRI inventory that is underway. It'll wrap up this year, if we're lucky, or probably carry on a little bit into next year. Then future years will see us following with the ground sampling.

In Kamloops we acquired the air photos last year for the entire Kamloops TSA and are commencing the VRI inventory this year. In Merritt less activity. In Robson Valley less activity. We're updating the ecosystem mapping I had spoken about earlier in Merritt. In Robson Valley we finished the audit analysis last year. This year we have no activity planned at this point.

This is my final slide. The mountain pine beetle has posed enormous challenges to us in the inventory program. It's created stand types that we are not used to working with. This has challenged our technology. We have been busy innovating to try to deal with this very difficult situation. It has raised management questions that people did not previously ask of inventories, and we have been working hard to be able to answer those questions.

I'm pretty proud of what the team has accomplished. It has been and continues to be a massive task, and we are busy trying to rise to that challenge.

J. Rustad (Chair): Thank you. I think what we should do is maybe start with a few questions on this presentation before we go into the next presentation, if that's okay with members.

B. Routley: Can you go back to the status of inventory where it talks about VRI versus FIP? Obviously, FIP is an older…. For example, in Morice and Lakes, is that FIP? That's older standard, obviously. Then when you updated it, is this the flyover with the sketchpad? What does the update do?

P. Martin: The update refers to: are we bringing new harvested areas into the map, getting them in the map and adjusting the database to show that we are capturing the new harvest and also the reforestation as those areas are successfully reforested?

It doesn't refer to the adjusting polygons to reflect the amount of pine beetle damage. However, that is done. All the polygons are adjusted that have observed mountain pine beetle damage. They are adjusted each year whether the inventory is a VRI-based inventory or an FIP-based inventory. We do it for them all.

B. Routley: Okay. Well, could you explain for us the difference between VRI and FIP? And what exactly does the acronym mean?

P. Martin: Yeah, you bet. FIP refers to forest inventory planning. It's actually a file structure. We use it. It's just sort of a colloquial term to refer to the inventory standard that was used in the '80s and early '90s before the standards were completely revised and we adopted the new VRI standard, which refers to vegetation resources inventory.

The difference between the two of them? For many timber attributes, there's not that much difference. Back in the '80 and the early '90s we had excellent people working in the inventory program. They were estimating heights and species compositions and ages. That's something foresters have done for years. Many of the elements that are in the FIP are also in the VRI.

VRI did bring in a number of improvements. There's no doubt about it. In particular, it focused beyond just the timber and sort of moved the recording of information to pay more attention to non-timber attributes. For example, shrub cover and these kinds of things are interpreted in the VRI but not in the FIP. But for the purposes of timber, FIP and VRI have similar information.

B. Routley: In order to link these flyover survey mapping inventories with what's actually experienced on the
[ Page 14 ]
ground, as you would know, that requires that there be field verification, that people actually get on the ground. I see that in the inventory program 2012-2015, you talk about only a hundred ground samples in Morice, and in Mackenzie there are 70. Is that the extent of the ground sampling that's taken place?

That's kind of part A of my question. Part B would be: when you actually do field sampling, how does that compare with the photo imaging? Like, how much are you out by…? Obviously, that's an important thing for us to know.

For example, when you have people go out and do timber surveying and they go out and do an area, they could be out by a factor of plus or minus 5 or 10 percent. It depends on the individual who's doing the work. Obviously, we want as accurate information as possible. How comfortable are you with the actual information that the maps show?

P. Martin: Okay, so two parts to your question. One was the ground sampling, and then just my assessment of the reliability of the information.

I haven't…. You know, I'm trying to sort of squeeze a lot of material into only a few slides. There is more ground sampling than I have shown here. We're remeasuring, for example, our permanent sample plots this year, or at least some of them. So that aspect of remeasuring the growth monitoring plots I didn't squeeze onto the slide.

In addition, when we are conducting the photo-based inventories, crews go on the ground to calibrate their eye with the photos. Crews will go on the ground to make sure that what they see when they look at an air photo image, that they have gone to a sampling of those polygons to be on the ground to try and calibrate their eye. There is more on-the-ground work going on in inventory than I have shown in this slide.

Then to your question of: how reliable is the information? Well, I do struggle with that and having a way to convey that. Here's how I frame it in my mind. The extent of damage by mountain pine beetle is vast, as you know — 18 million hectares. We are following what I think is a pretty smart course of action where we're trying to make some preliminary adjustments. That's the best way to think of what happens with these overview flights that we use to adjust the polygons. It's our first stage of adjustment.

Then, as we can, we will follow up with more accurate and more reliable re-inventories. Where are we now with many of these inventories? We're in between — right? We have the original inventory. We're doing all we can to get that as accurate as it can be while we cycle through a complete re-inventory.

The information here, in many cases, is not as good as a brand new inventory — it is not — but it is also, I think, reasonable for the purposes of some of the strategic decision-making that you're going to be talking about.

J. Rustad (Chair): Bill, actually, some other people have got some questions, so I just want to make sure I cycle around. Can I come back to you?

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): I think Bill was on a bit of a track there, and I….

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): I don't mind, because I think he's on a bit of a track, and I'm on a bit of a different place. So if you don't mind, just so that we're not jumping around.

B. Routley: I guess maybe another question is: do we have sufficient number of permanent sample plots in beetle-impacted timber supply areas in order to adequately calibrate our inventory classification work?

P. Martin: Okay. I don't have the number, but I can get it for you. We do. B.C. has quite a large portfolio of permanent sample plots. Overall, provincially we have about 9,000. Not all of those are currently active. Of course, not all of those are in the mountain pine beetle areas.

We have quite a large network of permanent sample plots. Now, there are always little sort of areas of gap or undercoverage in some of those stand types, so we are always trying to identify: are there some particular stand types or age or location where we have less plots than we'd like? But we have a pretty good portfolio of plots.

Actually, I do have, in fact, a little table here, and I'll attempt to read off some numbers, if you like. Here we go. We have 66 permanent sample plots in Morice; 66 in Lakes; 174 in Prince George; 266 in Mackenzie; 39 in the mature stands in Quesnel and 30 in the immature; 98 in Williams Lake; 76 in 100 Mile House; 164 in Kamloops; 136 in Merritt.

B. Routley: Okay. That leads to a follow-up question, and that is: how many of those plots have been revisited recently?

P. Martin: Well, many of those plots have long histories. Some of those plots will have been remeasured three, four, five times going back several decades. But in the last few years we have suspended our remeasurement of permanent sample plots, as we were struggling with our budget. This year we are back in action, and we are remeasuring plots and doing the field reconnaissance that
[ Page 15 ]
it takes to keep the plots in good shape.

B. Routley: When was the last time this work was done as part of the inventory program? What year?

P. Martin: I think we missed a couple of years there, and I'm going to look to Albert here for a little bit of help as well. I would say it would be going back to maybe…. What do you think — '07, '08?

A. Nussbaum: No, I think it's a little later than that. Maybe more towards '09. But part of the reason we didn't remeasure during the infestation was that the plots were in a significant state of change, as were those inventories. So to be honest with you, you want to wait until the infestation is over before you remeasure. Otherwise, what you're really catching is an infestation in progress.

We also made the choice not to do extensive inventories in the middle of the infestation for the same reason. You're going to spend money, and next year it's going to be in a different state. It's a tricky business when you're in the midst of a massive change. You have to be pretty astute on how you spend your resources.

B. Routley: Did these plots…? Are they only within the timber-harvesting land base, or do they represent, basically, all forested areas?

P. Martin: They are predominantly within the timber-harvesting land base. That has been the focus of plot location — not exclusively, but dominantly.

J. Rustad (Chair): Thank you. Actually, I'm going to put myself on the list first for a question.

Obviously, there's a lot of harvesting that goes on throughout the land base on a yearly basis, and that harvesting happens within a wide range of the various polygons that contribute to our inventory status. The inventory is obviously updated to note that it's been harvested, but do we actually take any of the information that we get from the harvesting — some volume information, the type of species, etc. — and do any comparison of that information of the trees that are harvested to the actual inventory, in terms of what sort of accuracy it is at?

P. Martin: For the purposes of the inventory work, we do not make a lot of use of that information. That information is analyzed by others for a variety of purposes, but at this point we have not made a lot of use of it in terms of updating the inventory.

D. Peterson: John, if I can, though, this actually ties to part of Bill's question as well. One of the ways that those sketch maps get verified — and, again, that's what I did for four years, sketch-mapping — is that they are then used to direct the harvesting. When you're sketch-mapping, you do everything from assuming…. You'll estimate the percentage that's attacked, all the way down to identifying single trees. Then people go out and try and find those single trees or find the stands that you say there's 20 percent attack in, on the ground.

There is a huge verification loop then — not within the formal inventory verification as far as ground sampling — when you're harvesting or your single-tree practitioners actually go out on the ground and find what you've sketched from the air. So there is a substantial verification that happens through that process.

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): First, I just want to thank you, Mr. Martin, for the presentation. I think part of the passion you have for the job and those that you represent comes through in the presentation.

I just have three questions. The first one…. I wonder if we could go to slide 5, just so that I could reference what you have there.

You talked about a vintage, and I think you told us that that means the date of the aerial photography. So the forest inventory specialists that I've talked to advised me that it's also referred to as the survey date.

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): Okay. So under the forest inventory planning, or the FIP standard, 90 percent of the forest cover polygon descriptions or attributes were determined through photo interpretation of aerial photographs. I'm told that the scale is 1 to 15,000 or 1 to 20,000 in scale.

Also, the provincial forest inventory was on a ten-year resurvey or re-inventory cycle with inventory updates occurring as needed, and prior to the TSA timber supply reviews, they were on a five-year cycle. That's what I've been told, and I understand that biometricians recommend this ten-year resurvey or re-inventory cycle for each unit using new aerial photography for statistical reasons of accuracy because of the rate at which land use, forest policy, geographical features and forest cover composition change over a decade.

Now, on the slide — and you referred to it — I note that six of the ten TSAs are still to the FIP standard, and you've said that that's a pretty good standard but, nevertheless, not the best standard. Yet they have survey or vintage dates that exceed ten years, some by as much as two or three, a decade.

The first question that I have, then: in addition to improving ground sampling, has the Forests Ministry conducted inventory audits in any of the ten TSAs during the last ten years to assess the statistical accuracy and relevancy of the inventory data and the need to recalibrate through classification of new aerial photography?

P. Martin: Yes. Not all areas in the last ten years, but some for sure have had ground sampling to test the quality of the photo-interpreted inventory. So, yes, some have.

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): The second question I have is, then, on the same slide. If we examine the four TSAs under the new vegetation resource inventory, or VRI standard, we can see that the survey or vintage date exceeds ten years.

Now, maybe I could get you to go back to slide 3, please. On this slide the green line shows a 20- to 30-year resurvey or re-inventory cycle, at which time new aerial photography photographs are taken and a TSA is resurveyed or re-inventoried with 90 percent of the description of forest cover polygons still being determined through photo interpretation.

So I was directed to sections of the final report of 2005 of the vegetation inventory working group, which reported to the resource inventory committee. It was noted that the group did not recommend a specific resurvey or re-inventory cycle for the new VRI standard but that the group did recommend, in recommendation No. 53, that periodic recalibration be done as necessary.

Now, I've been told that under the VRI standard, 90 percent of the forest cover polygon descriptions or attributes are still determined through photo interpretation of aerial photographs at 1 to 15,000 or 1 to 20,000 scale. So one might argue that in the ten TSAs affected by the mountain pine beetle, this last decade in central and northern B.C. has seen more change in land use and forest cover than in previous decades.

The second question is: are not the statistical reasons for a ten-year resurvey or re-inventory cycle with photo interpretation of new aerial photographs more compelling today than they were prior to the VRI standard?

P. Martin: Well, I think the principles are still the same, and in fact, many of the same people who wrote that report are still working in the field. So in that report, as well as today, when there's a big change in the forest, that is typically when we trigger a re-inventory cycle. I think you'll see that that is, in fact, what's happening right now. We are busy trying to re-inventory these areas.

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): You had also mentioned that you dealt with budget realities. We've seen a number of groups point to the fact that there's no question that the professionals know what needs to be done but that, nevertheless, you're depending upon political decisions. So how big an impact were the budget constraints that you had to work with?

I mean, you've made the best of it. There's no question that we have dedicated people making the best of it. But we have the professional group that represents you and others in the room saying that it's simply an untenable thing to expect this work to be done if the budget's not there. Is that a fair question first? If not, then that's fine.

P. Martin: Well, inventory is expensive. It's an expensive proposition, and of course, as the manager of inventory, I would like to see a large inventory budget. But there are, of course, a lot of other priorities that government has, so I accept that, and I try and focus my efforts on, with the allocation that I get, picking those projects that add the most value, that are the most useful things to do.

Inventory budgets vary through the years, and that is always the way it is with inventory, it seems. This year we have a $7.5 million operating budget, and we are very well resourced, I feel, this year.

N. Macdonald (Deputy Chair): Okay. But then next year the budget collapses. Obviously, by increasing the re-inventory or resurvey cycle of ten to 20 years or 30 years, there's an obvious administrative benefit of a sizeable cost reduction to accommodate the declining budgets for forest inventory over the last decade.

My final question is this. I'm wondering on what technical basis the ministry recently decided a 20- to 30-year resurvey or re-inventory cycle was appropriate. Did the ministry undertake a statistical analysis to support the change? If so, would you please see that the committee receives the relevant technical analysis and reports to support this decision. Or is it that this is driven strictly by the constraints of the budget reality that's there for the ministry?

P. Martin: I think really what it is, is that…. I've tried to show what it is in reality, in practical terms. Sometimes, in some of these documents, people are just sort of indicating: "Oh, ideally, it might be nice to do something on a ten-year cycle." But you know, I've never fully agreed with that. It can take up to five years to do the inventory once, the first time. So you'd only have five years with the inventory, then you'd be back at it again.

Frankly, I don't think ten years is the right number. I think if we do a quality job of updating for harvest and reforestation, if we have good growth models to grow those stands, we don't need to get back in there on a ten-year cycle. I think, to some degree, we are our own worst enemy by proclaiming some of these things that we then end up in fact not really being able to follow up on.

I'm fairly comfortable with a 20-year to 30-year period, if there hasn't been some massive change in the forest. Once that happens, once that occurs, then it is time to re-inventory, no doubt.

B. Stewart: I guess in respect of the time and the people that are here, I'm just wondering if the overview that we're looking for and the questions that we all have about the process…. Perhaps we should leave that to
[ Page 17 ]
some written submissions so that the proper information can be brought forward and these people could be called back to answer some of the questions that, obviously, we're all going to have once we have all the information.

My concern is that we're going to run out of time with the other people that are here to present today.

J. Rustad (Chair): That's true. There is a fair bit more information that we have to go through. I think it's also probably a good idea in terms of the context of what the inventory is going to be contributing and, ultimately, how it goes into the overall annual allowable cut. That process, I think, would be important to perhaps go through.

With that, with the member's indulgence, I have one question, then I'll go to you, Bill, for a second.

Just the question you had around the cycle of 20 to 30 years in inventory. I've been thinking about…. Obviously, all of our land base isn't just in the timber supply areas. We also have TFLs, and they are managed to various standards as well.

I'm just wondering: in terms of the TFLs — and I know they don't fall directly under the ministry — do they follow a very similar pattern in terms of the inventory work that's done and the re-inventory and the update type of process?

P. Martin: Yes, generally speaking. There is, however, a little bit more variation in what processes are followed within the TFLs. There's a little bit wider range of what they do than we follow within the rest of the provincial system, where we try and keep with kind of a tight system.

J. Rustad (Chair): Thanks. Just for anybody…. Sorry about using the acronyms. TFL is a tree farm licence, and it's a form of area-based tenure, versus the TSA, or timber supply area, which is a volume-based area.

B. Routley: Yeah. I've actually got a group of questions. The problem with what you're suggesting is that if we get rammy and try to force through…. This isn't a court of law. This is a committee trying to understand what is really foundational.

If we can't trust the inventory information, then really everything else that we do is useless, in my view. I'm alarmed, as a deputy critic, to have met with forest professional associations, to have heard from industry…. A common theme is that we don't have good inventory information. Just about every professional body has suggested that there are areas of concern.

I've got a series of questions that I would like to ask, but I think it's worthwhile for everybody. I mean, if you don't want everybody to hear the answers to the questions, that's really up to you, but I believe that this is a critical issue for this committee to be able to move forward with any certainty or feeling of comfort. There are thoughtful questions that we took time to prepare to go in and make sure that everybody hears the same thing.

I don't see any reason why we can't ask these questions, take more time if necessary, to review all of the other data and make sure that…. This is foundational. If we can't…. I'm prepared to work later or longer hours if necessary to make this happen. It's certainly important to me, and I think it's important to communities.

Again, this brings up for me the issue of: is this just some fast-track process to try to ram through something that you've already prewritten within 90 days and present it? If you want to do that, just do it now. Like, why waste my time coming to these meetings and thinking that I'm actually part of something where I can ask thoughtful questions.

If it's not the case that you have no interest in what we have to say or no interest in the questions, that's fine. We can do that too.

J. Rustad (Chair): Thanks for that, Bill. Just in response to that, one thing I will note. As a legislative committee, this is a rather extraordinary committee in that I can't remember in my time — seven years, now going on eight years — where a legislative committee has the same number of opposition members as government members, excluding the Chair. The intent of this is to be able to try to be as fulsome as possible through this process, within a time frame, to be able to work together and ultimately to try to bring forward some recommendations to the best of our abilities.

I appreciate your comments around that, but around this committee, that's certainly the intent and how I see this committee going forward. We are going to do our best to try to come to some conclusions down the road.

You're right about the information that comes in. That's very critical. We need to be able to have confidence in the information. I'm leaning more towards being able to have more questions and, if we need to, perhaps add some additional committee meetings to make sure that everybody is comfortable.

At the same time, I also want to be a little cautious that this isn't the estimates. We've got to be a little cautious about that.

Before we go into more questions, one question that I've come up with now around this is for a little bit of context around inventory. Inventory is critical. Obviously, it's a building block and a piece that goes into the process. Perhaps if I could ask Dave or one of our special advisors on the inventory and some of the variations that may happen in inventory: how does that impact on ultimately doing the calculations around doing the timber supply review and setting annual allowable cuts?

A. Nussbaum: It's interesting. The whole time I've been sitting here I've been thinking about the problem
[ Page 18 ]
that this committee is charged with. Is the inventory really a stumbling block to the decisions it has to make? My perspective on it is that it probably is truly not going to be problematic.

The reason I say that is it is clear that the mountain pine beetle has wreaked havoc in areas of the province — not all of it. I think the key that we do have to understand is: where is the infestation the worst? On average, how much of the forest has been eaten up? Then what, if anything, does this committee think needs to happen in response to that?

You know, the damage is there. You're going to be travelling to the districts. The staff that live in those areas are going to be reflecting on what they see. So you have the inventory as a backing, but you have people as well.

The strategic decisions you are making, I think, are…. The inventory can inform that in a general sense — what's happened to the forest. I think people will confirm that. From that, I think the committee can grapple with the big question and the very serious question that it has before it: does it require a change in the management framework we've put in place over the last 90 years in this province, in response to that, in order to rebalance the socioeconomic equation?

To be honest with you, I don't think it is a stumbling block. I don't think it is going to be precise, and I don't think people should get hung up on the fourth decimal place. The question that's posed here is: do we need to make a fairly significant change to the management framework in this province or not? I think the information is adequate for that decision.

D. Peterson: John, I'll just be quick. I deferred to Albert because I believe that actually his presentation — rather than me trying to talk about it — then explains how the inventory information and how uncertainties around that inventory information feed into the timber supply analysis process and AAC determination process. I believe that's exactly what his presentation can help the committee understand.

J. Rustad (Chair): Thank you. With that, if I may, Harry, and then I'll go back to you, Bill, in a second.

H. Bains: I am interested to wait and see what the presentation will show, but I think if you look at the terms of reference of this committee…. I'm looking at it and sitting here. On one hand, it's saying recommendations that could increase timber supply — timber supply from what? I mean, if you don't know the inventory, if it's not a stumbling block, then how do you increase — an increase from what? What are we talking about, you know, in trying to do our job here?

So to me, I think it is important to see what's there and what is damaged, what is useable, and then how do we go around to make this timber supply increase — at the same time, including direction on the potential scope of changes to the land use objectives? I think I will be interested to see what your presentation will show — you know, that the inventory isn't a stumbling block in achieving the goal that we are charged with.

A. Nussbaum: No, you know, there really wasn't a question there. I think, really, as we proceed with the committee and we talk more about the inventory and all the other aspects of what we've got in front of us, everyone will form their own opinion, as they should. They've got two excellent decision-makers at their side to help them navigate the uncertainty. And there will be uncertainty.

J. Rustad (Chair): Thank you for that. So what I'd like to propose…. Bill, I know you've got a bunch of other questions. So if there's one other burning question that you'd like to go, I'd like to go to that. I don't want to cut off the discussion around inventory, because I think it is valuable for all committee members to hear those questions, to hear the answers around them.

What I would like, with your indulgence, is — I noticed most of your questions are of a written nature — that we be able to do another presentation, get through the process of the presentations for today, and then ask the experts to come back on Wednesday, because I recognize that we only have about half an hour's time left today on this.

So we'll ask the other experts to come back Wednesday, and we'll be able to pick up where we left off in terms of questions there, if that's acceptable. If we haven't got all of those answered, we'll see what we can do about maybe having a committee meeting on Thursday as well.

B. Routley: Yeah, if you're suggesting that we're going to have sufficient time to ask all the questions that we have, that's fine.

J. Rustad (Chair): Well, we'll do the best we can to allot as much time as possible. If that means we've got to try to work on a weekend or whatever other processes, that's what we'll do. We have a time frame that we need to get through. The purpose of this is for people to be able to be as comfortable as possible, knowing that we may not have all the answers, so that we can start having some deliberations near the end of July, after public input and many other sessions around what the answers may be, if any, that we would come forward with.

Would you be comfortable with then moving forward with the other presentation, trying to get as much of that done as we can today, and then come back on Wednesday and ask the experts to be back as well for Wednesday?

With that, then, I'd like to perhaps ask you to move on with the second part of the presentations.

A. Nussbaum: By no means did I mean to diminish what I think is before the committee. I think it is a pivotal decision that is being made here — probably some of the most significant in my career. With that, I'm going to spend some time talking about the timber supply review program — the components, the rigour, a little bit about how it addresses uncertainty, which is always in play. So I'm going to move on here.

This overview slide has been slightly changed on the weekend, after it was sent. But what I wanted to talk about here today was just what timber supply is; a little bit about the provincial context that we have before us — just about the province, the forests; a little bit about the legislative requirements that define why we have a process in place to inform an annual allowable cut; the timber supply review process, in some detail, and the information inputs that are reflected in that.

Then I was going to talk a little bit about a timber supply forecast, sort of in a generic form for a mountain beetle unit so you could start thinking about sort of the short, mid and long term, as we discuss it as analysts.

So what is timber supply? Timber supply, in our world, is not synonymous with an inventory level. Timber inventory is a measure of the standing trees out there. We've talked extensively about how that's determined. It's also vegetation cover and the like, but we're going to talk for the time being about trees — volume and species.

The timber supply is a measure of the flow of timber that can come out of that forest over time in a sustainable fashion. I would compare timber supply sort of to a lake analogy. You determine how much water is flowing into the lake. You try to figure out how much water you need to allow for people to drink, utilize the water, and for the fish to survive. Then what remains, you pull out for other purposes. You're trying to find a level of flow of timber from the forest that does not deplete it over time and allows for the other values in the forest.

That was the first thing I was going to cover. The second is now the provincial context. You know, B.C. is a vast place. It has about 95 million hectares of area. Of that 95 million, there's a fair bit of rock and ice and tundra and the like, so the forested land base is about 55 million hectares. That varies a little bit. It depends exactly on what you define as forest. Of course, it's sensitive to that.

Currently we believe that the land available for timber harvesting is about 22 million hectares of that 55 million hectare total, but the timber-harvesting land base does change. It's because it is an assessment of what is ultimately available economically as well as what's available after other values are considered. Then there's the annual area harvested, which equates to somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 hectares annually of that 22 million.

Now we're going to briefly talk about ownership. As I'm sure most of the members here are aware, B.C.'s forests are largely Crown-owned. So 95 percent of the land of B.C. is in public ownership. Of the forested component, it's about 90 percent. So the vast majority of B.C.'s forests are in Crown hands.

In order to manage the forest estate and to provide access for industrial uses, we have a system of what we call management units that are laid out across the province. There are sort of two major forms. There are timber supply areas, which have multiple licence holders within a single unit. Then you have tree farm licences, where generally it's one holder of the licence. There is some private land associated with some of the TFLs.

In addition to these major tenure forms that cover the majority of the province, there are also smaller tenure forms — community forest agreements, First Nations woodland tenures, woodlot licences — that are also at play across the land base. But the majority of the harvest comes from these two significant tenure forms and the currently 72 management units that represents. That number floats around quite a bit. That's all I had for the provincial context piece.

Now I'm going to move on to the legislation component, which in my mind is kind of the third element I want to talk to today. I'm going to hit on this twice — once at a high level, and then while we're talking about the TSR review process, I'm going to talk about it in a little more depth.

Section 8 of the Forest Act requires that the chief forester determines the annual allowable cut for each timber supply area and tree farm licence at least once every ten years. It can be shorter than that, and it has been in most of the mountain pine beetle units because the change has been so rapid. But it can be up to ten years.

The chief forester is responsible for that under section 8 of the Forest Act. Community forests, First Nations woodland tenures, woodlot licences and stuff — the annual allowable cut in these units is determined by the regional executive director or the district manager.

In determining these AACs, the chief forester is an independent statutory decision-maker. Jim alluded to this, this morning, in that generally there is no political interference in these decisions. There's also a division between who decides who gets the volume and how much volume is in play. The chief forester determines how much volume the forest can sustain, and the minister is the one that does the apportionment. So there is a division between the person that actually determines the level and the person that determines who gets the volume.

That's all I was going to say about legislation at this point. We'll come back to it when we're talking about the
[ Page 20 ]
TSR process in some detail.

Now I'm going to talk about what an AAC is. The allowable annual cut is the amount of timber that is permitted to be harvested annually from a particular area. It is used as a basis for regulating harvest levels to ensure sustainability of timber production. In operational practice there is a little bit of flexibility offered licensees with regard to how much they harvest annually.

Over a five-year period they need to balance out at the AAC. Technically, they could harvest more in one year. It means they have to harvest less in a subsequent year because every five years there's a cut control period that checks.

Let's talk about the annual allowable cut and actual harvest levels that have been experienced. In 1999 — which we consider sort of a pre-beetle situation — the TSAs and TFLs had an annual allowable cut, in total, of about 71 million cubic metres. In 2011 the total AAC was about 78 million cubic metres, with the majority of that increase, above what I call the pre-uplift level, focused on harvesting beetle-impacted stands.

In 2011 the actual harvest from all of the TSAs and TFLs, the same land base, was 60 million, which was substantially below the 78 million, but that has more to do with markets. You can allow…. Of course, we increased the AACs to facilitate the harvest of beetle-impacted, but you can't control world markets like the U.S. housing market. So in reality, the uplifts were never fully actioned. It's just a function of economics.

Just remember that the agent of change on the landscape is not the ministry. The agent of change on the landscape is the licensees who harvest. They're the ones that choose how much they're going to harvest. They don't have to harvest the AAC assigned to them.

Now I'm going to turn to the timber supply review objectives. So now I'm talking about the program that was put together to provide information to the chief forester to determine the annual allowable cut.

The objectives of the program are to identify the economic, environmental and social information that reflect current management practices; to identify First Nations and public interests and the current concerns that may be impacted by an AAC determination; and to identify where improved information is required for future timber supply reviews and to provide the chief forester with the information that must be considered in determining an AAC. Really, it's a package that involves all stakeholders, with the objective of arriving at a defendable decision that's administratively fair and transparent.

Let's talk about what a generalized TSR schedule looks like. We start by preparing what we call a data package or an information report. What this does is it outlines all of the assumptions that the timber supply analysis that we're going to carry out is going to assume. It describes all the data layers that are going to go into the analysis, all the management assumptions that are going to be made, and it is laid before all the stakeholders to review and have input. And they do comment.

After that information report is released, there is a public review period, as you can see in the blue box there. After we receive public input and stakeholder input from all types, some of those assumptions in the information report can be modified to reflect that input where needed, then and now. Since the report is prepared…. Really, the analysis is carried out, and then the analysis is reported on. This again goes out as a public release. There's an opportunity, again, for the public to review the outcome of the analysis and comment.

Then comes the day where, subsequent to the analysis report, we actually prepare a third document. It's what we call a decision binder, and it's really a massive briefing binder that pulls together all of the information that we've collected, all the public input we've received and puts it in front of the chief forester. Usually we have a two-day meeting where we sit down and grind through all the details. Usually there are 40 to 50 consideration factors that the chief has to consider in weighing this decision.

Then a rationale is written that clearly describes how he's considered the information and thought his way through all of the uncertainties — the certain data and the uncertain data — and arrives at a carefully weighed decision. That decision is conveyed and again goes out for public release. All of this information is found on our website.

These decisions are revisited, like I said, on a ten-year schedule or less, depending on what the rate of change is in the unit, or if there are issues that really bring the AAC into question, then obviously it has to be reconsidered. So it's a very thorough process, and it takes time.

The normal time is 22 months, but we have done them in much shorter periods, one of which was when Larry was about to go on retirement. We had to do a couple of mountain pine beetle determinations in fairly short order. So it could be as short as six months if we know exactly what the problem is. In that case, we sure did. It was the mountain pine beetle. But generally the process is one to two years.

Let's talk about the components that go into it. I'm going to sketch them fairly high, and then we're going to touch on them in a little more detail. The timber supply analysis is only one component of what goes into the timber supply review process. You can see it on the top left.

There's socioeconomic information that is brought to the determination. It talks about economic dependence of the communities in the area, the amount of jobs that come from the forest sector and the like. Then there's a public review and First Nations consultation process and all the feedback that's received from that, which you see in the centre of this diagram on the top.

All of that is coming to the chief forester. He also has to
[ Page 21 ]
consider the legislation under which he operates, section 8 of the Forest Act. The legislation allows for the government to describe its social and economic objectives of the Crown — their interests.

The social and economic objectives of the Crown are expressed by the minister and are considered carefully. Then out of all of this comes that AAC determination and written rationale. So those are the pieces, and we're going to talk a little bit about these elements now.

Section 8 of the Forest Act says that the chief forester must specifically consider — and I can assure you that our rationales make sure that he does — the rate of timber production. I'm going to talk more about that on the next slide.

The short- and long-term implications of alternative harvest rates. That's so that he gets a sense of how the forest responds to alternate rates of harvest; the economic and social objectives, as expressed by the minister; and abnormal infestations, which we certainly have here — devastations and major salvage programs planned. So that's what section 8 of the Forest Act says he has to do.

Under the rate of timber production he must consider the composition of the forest and the expected rate of growth, the expected time to re-establish forests, any silviculture treatments and their responses.

Utilization, decay, waste and breakage. It's really about what is getting used and what is not getting used. Of course, when you harvest stands, not everything makes it to the mill, particularly in dead stands. That's also quite problematic.

Constraints on and requirements for other uses. This is really what Allan's going to speak to when he gets to it, which is those other uses of the forest — of which there are many.

I'm just going to touch on non-timber values, and I'm going to leave the lion's share of this to Allan. Suffice it to say that there are quite a number of non-timber values that are derived from the forest, and they need to be considered, too, because the people of B.C. value them highly. With that I'm just going to move on.

Now I'm going to talk about the chief forester's guiding principles. So the AAC determination is a professional judgment and not a calculation. The reason this is the case is that some aspects of determining AAC are quite defined and other aspects are less so — there's more uncertainty in them. It's also quite a weighing game between the social, economic and environmental considerations. At the end of the day, some of those are calculable and some of them are not. So it is really a determination. That's why we do not call it a calculation.

AACs reflect current practices and are not intended to drive management objectives. We're trying to reflect reality here and not speculate highly on what could be possible. It is essential to assess and minimize risk where we're considering uncertain data.

One of the things that's inside that timber supply review process is quite a few scenarios. Where there is uncertainty, we do sensitivity analyses where we vary different attributes and see how the timber supply is impacted by changing those uncertain elements. One of the significant risk management elements in a timber supply analysis is sensitivity analysis.

Another way of dealing with uncertainty is to revisit your decisions before they get too old, so that you can update them. So the AACs are determined frequently to ensure they incorporate updates in data and knowledge. That's why, for example, we're not leaving mountain pine beetle–impacted management units on a ten-year cycle. Things are changing too rapidly and our knowledge of what's happening in the forest is being updated and what the industry is capable of doing in terms of harvest.

AAC determination cannot account for speculation on the outcome of land use decisions, treaties, etc., so the chief forester generally considers these decisions when they become legal realities. He doesn't speculate in advance on what the outcome of land use plans are going to be or treaties.

I think the timber supply review process is quite an amazing integrator of what we know. It is one of the few forest management experiences I've been in where you really talk about everything that's going on in the forest at a strategic scale. So it integrates the current legislation — that would be the Forest and Range Practices Act — and then you've got the regulation associated with that. Coming in at the top, you've got current management practices that we learn from the districts and from licensees.

Also informing that, you have planning, protected area strategy. The different higher-level plans all come together. They go into the timber supply analysis. All of that gets integrated and helps inform the determination.

Now I'm going to talk a little bit about the element on the chart that has to do with social and economic objectives of the Crown. These are expressed in letters from the minister. We live with two letters at the current time. The first one, I think, was more around 2007 or whatever it is — '08 — and it speaks to the importance of a stable timber supply.

This is a Coleman letter, I believe — a competitive and sustainable forest industry. It speaks to the mountain pine beetle infestation. It talks about the need for long-term community stability, maximizing value from dead timber, respect for other resource values, considering manufacturing capacity in your determinations.

This is the context the government wants Jim to think about — or the decision-maker at the time, the chief forester — when he's making his decisions. I use the term "Jim" because under most of my tenure Jim has been my chief forester. Anyway, change and transition in coast forest industry, land use plans and public and First Nations consultation. So that's the first letter.
[ Page 22 ]

The second one, which is more recent, in 2010, is not a replacement. I'd consider it an addendum, and it speaks more to mid-term timber supply. This is really what you're going to be grappling with as well. It says that despite government initiatives and a lot of what it's been up to — the creation of groups to try and work on the timber supply problem — there are significant social and economic impacts on forest-dependent communities expected for the mountain pine beetle infestation.

This letter says it is necessary to reassess the management objectives in administrator processes and determine how best to balance objectives of non-timber values and timber supply to achieve a range of social and economic benefits. It is this letter that really, I think, speaks to the need to see whether a rebalance is warranted in these units between timber and non-timber values and asks us to really look into it and do some analysis and think about it.

Ultimately, this is what we bring to you. That's my assessment of the letter. It spoke about doing it in timber supply review, but really we've done it as one big special analysis project, which you're about to be briefed on in a week and a half.

J. Rustad (Chair): Albert, if I may, I'm just concerned, because I know you've got a number of slides left and as a committee we're going to run out of time here in about two or three minutes as the bells start ringing and people have other commitments. I'm just wondering: would this be a logical place, perhaps, to conclude and pick it up again on Wednesday, if that's possible?

A. Nussbaum: I think if I could get two or three more slides in, it would be a better break point.

First Nations consultation. There's a huge public consultation process involved with this as well. The First Nations consultation process is defined by case law, and there is plenty of it. This process is carefully designed to make sure that it follows case law and meets the consultation requirements.

I'm going to speak very briefly to the last component. These are all the pieces, which were on that slide some time ago, that make up the process.

The final one is the AAC rationale. This is where the chief forester has to really lay out his decision, and it has to withstand legislated review. It states the AAC and the applicable dates.

It provides a detailed record of the chief forester's reasoning. It includes a comprehensive accounting for each relevant factor. It describes uncertainties, risks and inputs and identifies where new and better information is needed. It is really the record of the decision on what's needed. And with that, I'll stop.

J. Rustad (Chair): Members, if I may, I think we should plan Wednesday for 8 a.m. to 11. Originally, we were scheduled just to go until ten. I think, as long as that's okay with the Clerks in the room, that we should plan to be here until 11.

Also, I'd like to discuss with members and the Clerk's office as to whether or not there is an availability for some time on Thursday morning, if required, given the number of questions and the level of comfort that I think is important that we all have in terms of the overall process and the importance of this — the work of the committee.

With that, I would like to thank the presenters. I apologize that we weren't able to quite get through everything. I look forward to hearing the rest of the presentations on Wednesday.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Chair:	* John Rustad (Nechako Lakes BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	* Norm Macdonald (Columbia River–Revelstoke NDP)
Members:	* Harry Bains (Surrey-Newton NDP)
	* Donna Barnett (Cariboo-Chilcotin BC Liberal)
	* Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	* Bill Routley (Cowichan Valley NDP)
	* Ben Stewart (Westside-Kelowna BC Liberal)
	* denotes member present
Other MLAs:	Bob Simpson (Cariboo North Ind.)
Clerks:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Morgan Lay (Committee Researcher)
	Larry Pedersen (Technical Advisor)
	Larry Snetsinger (Technical Advisor)

Witnesses:	Allan Lidstone (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)
	Pat Martin (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)
	Albert Nussbaum (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)
	Dave Peterson (Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON TIMBER SUPPLY

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
TIMBER SUPPLY