Highway 40 Demonstration: Planning a Natural Disturbance

Adopting some natural patterns as guides for landscape planning  is not the same as adopting a natural pattern strategy. Natural disturbance patterns may be used as a conceptual framework, as well as a practical guide.

This section is adapted from the final report to the Forest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta: Andison, D. W. 2006. Large-Scale Natural Disturbance Demonstration Area. Hinton, Alberta, Canada.

The idea is to accept and apply NRV metrics as a complete package on a given landscape as a neutral (and ecologically viable) starting point for planning activities. Other values such as caribou habitat, outfitting or aesthetics are now filtered through the NRV baseline or template. If and when a decision is made to deviate beyond NRV (to satisfy the need for roads, safety, cultural preferences, or specific ecological issues, for example), it can be done so with full awareness of the potential risks. In this way, natural disturbance patterns have the potential to provide a broad ecologically defendable foundation for planning and management that encompasses many other values within it.

What advantages could this proposed alternative planning system offer? What little we have seen so far suggests that many other ecological, social, and economic values are consistent with an NRV strategy. In fact, the more substantial experiments have had considerable success in dovetailing NRV patterns with other values. This should not necessarily be surprising – often word or logic models are sufficient to demonstrate that the natural disturbance model is consistent with the habitat requirements of many species, access issues, aesthetics, and even dealing with the threat of natural disturbance. At the very least, it is safe to say that the breadth and depth of natural patterns have been much more complicated and informative than anyone anticipated, and potentially affects virtually every level of planning, as well as many policies.

The use of an NRV foundation is also theoretically attractive. Consider that it offers the potential to 1) integrate (and potentially simplify) management and monitoring systems, 2) ensure that management decisions have a scientific and ecological foundation (consistent with “ecosystem management”), 3) integrate the planning needs of several institutions, and 4) streamline the planning process. The potential to provide these advantages has gone untested, thus the goal of the Highway 40 Demonstration project was to understand the effectiveness of using natural disturbance pattern knowledge as the foundation for effective operational-scale forest management planning.

The three main objectives of the project were:

1) Evaluate the robustness of an NRV strategy as a foundation for operational planning. The success or failure of individual elements of NRV (such as retention as islands) has little to do with the ability of a holistic NRV strategy to advance sustainable forest management.

2) Identify and explore potential convergences and conflicts of adopting an holistic NRV strategy with existing policies, practices, objectives, and other economic, social, and ecological values. The best way to learn about these issues is from an adaptive, practical application.

3) Build a common understanding of the concept and practice of adopting a natural disturbance based plan. A myriad of opinions exist today on how, to what degree, and where NRV information should be integrated into forest management planning, and to what degree it is possible or advisable. Regardless of the outcome, a large demonstration area will be a powerful communication tool on which to help develop and focus debates, and ultimately informed opinions, strategies, and policies.

Lessons Learned

First, the concept of using natural patterns as a foundation for planning worked. Once we agreed to and got moving with the planning process, it almost always resulted in a decision that was unanimous, and at least had the potential to meet the requirements of all of the identified ecological, economic, and social values. In other words, the idea is basically sound.

Furthermore, in hindsight there was plenty of room for improvement in the details, the overarching structure that we created for the project was sound. The fundamentals of the partnership of the land management agencies, the scope and size of the project, the composition and structure of the various teams, even the location itself, all proved to be wise choices that served us well.

Second, there was tremendous interest in the project, and support of the concept. Even before the planning team began their work, we went to great lengths to outline, and solicit feedback on, the Hwy40 concept to high-level decision-makers within each of the partner organizations. This included a large number of presentations, meetings, and personal tours – many of which were initiated by the respective audiences. In the end, there was unanimous, strong support from all partners for the concept.

The planning process itself was both longer, and more complex than anyone first imagined, and involved several unanticipated events that caused extra work and delays. Not once throughout this process did a single partner, at any level of the hierarchy, suggest that the original project mandate or study area be changed, let alone abandoned. Attendance at planning team meetings over a period of almost three years was very high, and discussions and debates were thorough and meaningful, suggesting that everyone was fully engaged.

Feedback suggested that interest in the project idea was both broad and deep. Many people following the progress of the project live outside of Alberta.

This all indicates that the project has “hit the mark”, which further suggests that our original objective of emphasizing communications and talking about the process is critical, and must continue for some time to come.

Third, the plan features many innovations. In terms of process, this is the first attempt at an holistic “disturbance plan” in Canada, the sheer size and complexity of the planning team is unique, and it is the first known forest land plan to use detailed natural pattern knowledge and expertise as the foundation for all planning decisions. In terms of the outcome, the sheer size of the proposed disturbance plan, the amount and spatial arrangement of residuals, the timing of the disturbance activities, the integration of prescribed burning with harvesting, and the direct linkage to a monitoring program all represent precedents in Alberta. Regardless of that which we were unable to achieve for one reason or another, the list of accomplishments is impressive.

Fourth, there was a disconnect between support for the concept and the acceptance of the reality of the manifestation of the strategy. Despite widespread agreement with the project concept, there was not always agreement with how the concepts translated into reality. On more than one occasion various partners balked at either the direction of, or decisions made by, the planning team. In fact, there was both rebellion (with respect to the process), and outright rejection (of some of the planning outcomes) over the course of the final two years of the project.

In hindsight, some of these issues could have been avoided with a more robust planning process and a more articulate terms-of-reference document (TOR) for the planning team. For example, many of the significant planning issues we encountered during the process were related in some form or another to the relative importance of one voice and/or value over all others. The fact that such instances occurred at all, given the conceptually broad-based nature of the project, suggests that we were not as diligent as we should have been with respect to defining the rules and specific responsibilities for the planning team. Obviously, more rigorous frameworks were required. The challenge in this case was that the Hwy40 team was the proverbial “guinea pig” of NRV foundation planning, and were not given the benefit of previous experience.

However, it is unlikely that even a tightened TOR, and/or a more detailed planning process, would have been entirely successful since some of the issues were institutional in nature, and associated with specific desires, and/or perceived exclusive territory of various agencies of the provincial government. In the end, there was no single consistent message about forest land management being delivered by the government. Thus there were institutional issues that affected the project that extend far beyond the ability or authority of the project to deal with. Notwithstanding the many innovations that we achieved within the Hwy40 project, as long as these institutional barriers exist, a more fully articulated “disturbance plan” will not be possible in Alberta.

Finally, the “open” process of planning required was a challenge. Despite the development of overarching terms of reference for planning, and a careful articulation of the content of the planning team by the project team, the open-ended nature of the Hwy40 process as a first attempt at natural pattern planning was daunting to some on the planning team. Several members were clearly well beyond their “comfort zones”. The anxiety was entirely understandable, and is an unfortunate by-product of the novelty of the project.