Additionally we have more firewood from current logging operations so contact Richard, our manager, or the KDCFS Office to purchase truck loads.

Below are the terms of reference for the contracted out part of this work for the Cooper/Davis Creek area.

Kaslo and District

Community Forest Society

Terms of Reference

For

Cooper/Davis Creeks

Integrated Resource

Management Plan

(IRMP)

Document Status: DRAFT

Version Number: 2

Created: JA/GL/RA/EB

Whereas:

The KDCFS Board has awarded a contract (value of $5,500.00) to Rod Arnold RPF, of Mirror Lake, BC, to create an Integrated Resource Management Plan for the Forest Development Units (FDUs) known as Cooper Creek South & North and Davis Creek – 2 FDUs identified in the 2008 KDCFS Forest Stewardship Plan. 

GOALS and OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of the Integrated Resource Management Plan is to establish strategies and guidelines needed to ensure that the diverse ecological, timber, recreational, landscape viewscape, watershed and wildlife values of the area are managed and developed in a complementary manner to ensure the ability of the land to sustain these values for future generations.

GOALS:

1. To improve upon current resource inventories and/or evaluations (using existing data) of the major ecological systems of the land: ecological classification, stream classification, timber operability assessment, primary access evaluation, recreation feature inventory, heritage/cultural evaluation, wildlife habitat evaluation, terrain classification and watershed evaluation.
2. To analyze the resource data and values attributable to the Forest Development Units and identify areas of potential conflict and/or opportunity with respect to the development of those values.
3. To identify and delineate areas of similar management constraints/opportunities and establish objectives with respect to the management of all values within these areas.
4. To establish appropriate management strategies and guidelines to govern the development of resources within the FDU. Guidelines will cover the development of recreation, wildlife and timber resources and will be specific to the resource management units identified above.
5. To provide for a mechanism of successful implementation and ongoing monitoring of the IRMP.
6. Address Long Term Strategy’s identification of forest certification as a goal with potential economic and socio/ecological value. Address the question: How well does our current forest management strategy address forest certification systems?

Objectives:

1. Define 3-5 categories of resource constraints within the Cooper and Davis Creek FDUs

2. GIS analysis to determine volume of merchantable timber
1. Based on latest Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) information
2. Identify data gaps and potential deficiencies

3. Conceptual access plan at a landscape level
1. For a permanent road system
2. rough cost estimate required

4. Estimate annual allowable cut (AAC), by volume, over a 50 year time line as per the 2010 KDCFS Long Term Strategy (LTS)
1. Identify 150,000 m3 of Standing Timber Inventory (which can be easily roaded) with special attention to pulp markets (to be able to react quickly for pulp wood)
2. Define by timber type (i.e. fir/larch, spruce/balsam, mixed species) and class (i.e. stand age)

Scope

The Integrated Resource Management Plan for the Davis and Cooper Creek Forest Development Units shall be an operational plan that corresponds to the implementation strategies identified in the 2010 Long Term Strategy. These are:

KDCFS Strategy Implementation

1. Secure support for the strategy from key organizations.

2. Complete designing and establish a strategic evaluation system for the Society’s planning and operations.

3. Further assess the economic impacts of:

a) The KDCFS on Kaslo & Area D residents’ well being to date.

b) The likely impacts from implementing the strategy.

4. Further assess the new Vegetation Resource Inventory for the Society’s license area and integrate new information into the 2011-2015 forest management plans.

5. Secure mandates and funding for Society watershed management and recreation management programs.

6. Establish a program to improve the Society’s governance that advances leadership, decision-making, and evaluation skill.

7. Make decision on certification before the end of 2010.

8. Develop a carbon baseline and identify carbon credit services of KDCFS early in the 2011-2015 action planning period.

9. Design and implement the Society’s first Sustainable Forest Management Plan (SFMP) in the framework of the strategy.

Roles & Responsibilities

• Rod Arnold – Contractor (Conducting IRMP – Overview Plan)
• Greg Lay – KDCFS Long Term Strategy Committee  (Review and Comment)
• John Addison – KDCFS Long Term Strategy Committee (Review and Comment)
• Steve Anderson – KDCFS Long Term Strategy Committee (Review and Comment)
• Richard Marchand – KDCFS Woodlands Manager (Review and Comment)
• Kim Planidin – Forest Tech Contractor (Review and Comment)

Reporting

• Reporting will be done on a bi-weekly basis culminating with a final report.

Public consultation

Two workshops will be conducted to present the IRMP. These workshops will present to the public:

1. Current information available from existing data and analysis expectation based on maps.
2. Summary information of project through map display.

1. Deliverables

• Mapping product in digital and paper copies (scale 1:20,000 with 1:10,000 scale maps of the next 5 year operational plan areas)
• Report will encompass all the factors in the objectives
• Organization of and attendance at public workshops

2. Assumptions

• Project start date – ASAP
• Project completion date – end of September, 2011
• GIS budget needs to be determined
• Project value (without HST) = $5,500.00

Community Advisory Committee

# of Votes                         Yes                  No

1.    Res #1                        7                      36

2.    Res #2                        35                    7

3.    Res #3                        30                    14

———————————————– Discussion —————————————————
The Board recognizes that many members want a commitment to some cash disbursements in the community from our operations. At the AGM last year a resolution was passed which bound the society to disburse $3.00 per meter cut. In a tight lumber market such as we currently operate in this has proven to be problematic because we don’t always make that much. Striving to meet this requirement has pushed the managers to lay out higher quality wood and overlook areas that perhaps should be cut in order to address forest health issues and ensure we are “cutting across our profile”. (Cutting all kinds of our stock and not just taking the good wood and leaving lower quality wood for the future).

In an attempt to meet the desire of members for guaranteed disbursements without compromising our operations the Board is proposing that the disbursement be guaranteed as a percentage of profits earned rather than an arbitrary number attached to each cubic meter. Such a promise – to give away money that you hope to earn on each cubic meter – can be problematic. In contrast, a promise to disburse a percentage of profits, of money earned and in the bank, is safe and prudent.

Some may fear that the profits will be whittled away before the disbursement calculation is made but the wording of the resolution in conjunction with the structure of the budget preclude this possibility.

The proposed resolution will devote 40% of profits, a significant commitment, to these purposes. Note, however, that this is written as a minimum allowing the Board to disburse more if the economics and good sense make that feasible.

————————————————– Discussion ———————————————————–

Currently we deduct $3/m3 from each meter logged and this is given to the community in the form of a dividend. What does $3/m3 represent? $3/m3 is a 5% guaranteed minimum return each year to the owners of the forest who are the residents of the Village of Kaslo and Area D. All Boards must apply the same formula so it is easy to build this small return into the annual financial plan. The beauty of this formula is it is easily affordable, constant and tinker proof. 

The 20/20 formula (20% dividend, 20% legacy fund) proposed in Resolution # 1 awarding 40% of profit each year is subject to interpretation by every Board. It can be manipulated as desired to show whatever the Board of the day wishes to show as profit. It removes accountability, dividend reliability and every measure of financial performance. It could be too much in some years, not enough in others and possibly nothing in some. 

The 5% formula is the only way the community will be treated fairly and reliably regardless of Board philosophy. 

Resolution # 2 asks you to restructure the $3/m3 formula so that $2 goes to the community dividend and $1 to the legacy fund. The most important part of the legacy fund is how this money will work for the community. Currently the legacy fund does not work for the community. You will be asked in Resolution # 3 to fix this problem. 

Resolution #3 (submitted by Bruce Freeman)
Be it resolved that $1\m3 be placed in the newly established legacy fund within CFNKL on the same basis as the community dividend is calculated. The money must be turned over to CFNKL 90 days after the fiscal year end. This resolution will supersede the original legacy fund structure from four years ago.

————————————————– Discussion —————————————————-

You are being asked to put $1/m3 into a dedicated KDCFS legacy fund within the Community Fund of North Kootenay Lake Society (CFNKLS). The reason is simply that CFNKLS’s parent organization, Osprey Foundation, has already set up a financial plan that pays three times the rate of return that we could get from the bank. That is the good part. 

What needs fixing is the structure for community disbursements. Under the current CFNKLS structure the money collected from the entire community (1,500 people) can only be given back to registered charities which represent about 20% of the community. The 60 – 80 other organizations, clubs, groups, associations, etc. that comprise a large part of the spirit of our community do not qualify. Even though they comprise 80% of our community they cannot receive any money from CFNKLS. 

This must be fixed by CFNKLS so all of the community is fairly rewarded when the money comes back, or failing this, the KDCFS will do this ourselves and we can go to the same financial planners and establish our own dedicated legacy fund. CFNKLS is easiest if they amend their community disbursement structure. 

The second problem is the time it will take before the Community gets any money back. Currently the money will go into a long term savings fund that will collect money for 25 – 40 years while it reaches the magical million dollar goal before it returns one dollar. During that time the community will lose at least two out of every three dollars they put in. Why? Because by the time the community starts getting their interest back, inflation (attrition) will reduce the purchasing power of our money by 65%. That is the best case scenario. We will not have a legacy fund by definition until money is flowing back to the community. All we will have for the next quarter and possibly half a century is a long term savings account. 

So how to fix this? First, CFNKLS must add the KDCFS to their approved recipient list. Second, because the legacy fund is now funded by the community dividend and is structured and sustainably funded each year, the interest each year should go back to the KDCFS community dividend. Each year the legacy fund receives $25,000 (full logging year) and each year it gives back all the interest. As the fund grows, and it will always grow using this plan, the interest payments coming back to the KDCFS will also increase each year. Those dollars represent the first dollars ever put in. This reduces the attrition losses over time because we are taking back our first dollars that were worth more then and replacing them with new dollars which are worth less now. 

By the time the fund reaches the goal of one million dollars, it will have already paid the entire one million back to the community dividend. This only works if the legacy fund has guaranteed funding and can return all interest each year. Eventually the fund will have its one million dollars, the community dividend will have received back its entire million dollar input and the legacy fund will now fulfill its original intention. It is a win win for everyone in the community. 

None of this works under the discretionary 20/20 of profit formula. In fact the community will lose most of its money in today’s purchasing power. Many people alive today will never live long enough to see one dime and the biggest loser will be this community for the next 25 – 40 years. 

This sounds complicated and I understand, but I will say once more, the $3/m3 plan outlined in resolutions two and three is the best option. The reason for recommending that the legacy fund go through CFNKLS is that they are already set up to do this and it benefits CFNKLS in the long run. It is assumed that CFNKLS will make the necessary adjustments. Failing this, the KDCFS will manage the fund ourselves because the stakes are enormous for the community.