View DNR: Timber Management
Includes Windows based software, user manuals etc.
The following docs may help people trying to understand this process.
Pre-Treatment Assessment (PTA) Methods and Tools
by Tim McGrath Forestry Division, L&F 2018
Gives example of how to conduct a PTA, definitions etc. “This PTA system was first published as part of the Tolerant Management Guide (McGrath, 2007) to gather the information necessary to prescribe appropriate harvest treatments for specific ecosystems and stand conditions. This report introduces the tools to collected PTA and report PTA data for use in harvesting plans or in making claims for silviculture funding.
Digital Wind Exposure Map for Nova Scotia
Kevin Keys et al., 2017
Pre-Treatment Assessment Viewer
Includes Wind Exposure and FEC Soil Type Layers; a water layer shows the same info as on the HPMV but watercourses are more clearly highlighted.
Also see Nova Scotia Silvicultural Guide for the Ecological Matrix July 2021
pp 72-72; and Appendix 1, page 176ff
From p. 73: Note:
The PTA software is currently being revised to enable it to run on multiple computer platforms as a geo-spatial web-based application that integrates the spatial and attribute information into the same database. It is also being updated to incorporate the SGEM revisions.
An overview of the PTA Process
From an investigative article by Linda Pannozzo, 2017 in the Halifax Examiner
…That got me thinking. How do these harvest sites on crown land get chosen anyway? That is, what kind of vetting process do companies have to go through to end up on the Harvest Plans Map Viewer and eventually approved? I sent this question to Bruce Nunn and I was somewhat surprised by what I got back.
Here is the process:
1. The Licensee [in this case Northern Pulp] identifies a proposed harvest area and identifies any sensitive features requiring mitigation with data available to them.
2. DNR’s Integrated Resource Management or IRM Teams review the harvest plan to determine if any harvesting can occur in the planned area.
3. The Licensee proceeds with Pretreatment Assessment and any field surveys required (i.e. BFL surveys) and refines the plan based upon information gathered.
4. The Licensee may post the block to the HPMV (Harvest Plans Map Viewer) at this point.
5. The Licensee submits the refined plan to DNR for a comprehensive review conducted by the IRM team. All available data on sensitive features are referenced during the review and other DNR professional staff consulted if required.
6. The IRM Team reviews the proposed plan and rejects, approves or approves with conditions (i.e. changes required). The plan may be field audited by DNR.
7. The plan is posted on the HPMV if not posted at step 4.
8. Public comments are addressed and changes made if required.
9. If the area is approved, the licensee is notified.
So, forest companies (licensees) post the harvest blocks, not the DNR, and the companies are permitted to post the plans while the IRM review is taking place. The public has 20 days to comment, the DNR have 35 days to approve the plan, and if it’s “selected for further review,” time is extended to 60 days. I asked Nunn why a licensee, that could post a harvest plan at step #4 would wait until step #7 to do so:
The HPMV posting system was designed to allow the Licensee flexibility in harvest scheduling while still providing for public input on proposed harvest plans. Any new information received at any time before harvesting will be considered in final approvals.
I take this to mean, they post sooner if they hope to cut sooner. Nunn says that Northern Pulp posted the Twin Lakes blocks at step #4 in the process, and the blocks are currently under review by the IRM team and the public.