Integrated Visual Design (IVD)

Cam Campbell P.Ag. MBCSLA University of Reading Presentation - February 18th 2002

The Bear Lake Integrated Visual Design Plan Case Study

BC Ministry of Forests Forest Practices Branch Penticton Forest District

Context – Why Integrated Visual Design?

Catalysts Strategic land and resource planning initiatives BC Forest Practices Code 1995 (et al) And now --- FRPA (2002)

Issues Licensees avoiding VSA’s– Realization its not

business as usual!

Conventional forest planning approaches were not working well in VSA’s (short time horizons, poor designs, not optimising timber op’s etc.)

Recognized an approach / tools required that addressed the visual design component in an integrated manner (e.g. functional considerations, etc resolved at same time.)

Genesis of IVD Mof / Forestry Commission collaboration (Simon

Bell et al)

Integrated Forest Design - Antecedents

Integrated landscape analysis methods (McHarg, Hill et al – 1960’s)

Forestry Commission - Forest Landscape Design Process (Crowe, Lucas and Bell)

USDA Forest Service - Landscape Analysis and Design Process (Diaz and Apostal)

Total Chance Planning / IRM (various jurisdictions)

BC Ministry of Forests - Integrated Visual Design / Total Resource Design Processes (Marc, Bell, Campbell, Rennie et al).

The IVD Process

Follows a classic landscape planning approach of setting objectives, inventory, analysis, design, evaluation and documentation / revisions.

Incorporates TRD / Total Chance Planning concepts

Considers all dimensions of landscape simultaneously (functional / economic / ecological / aesthetic)

Incorporates both creative and analytical decision making processes

Uses plan and perspective design methods simultaneously to aid in design / understanding for impacts

The Bear Lake IVD Case Study

Aims

1. To test / evaluate the IVD process in action

2. To provide strategic direction for the long-term development / optimisation of timber resources adjacent to Bear Lake given visual and other constraints.

 

Desired Outputs:

1st pass harvest / landscape development concept that achieved visual quality and other HLP objectives

Project Context

Institutional Context

Situated in South Central BC, 20 km. from the City of Kelowna in the Okanagan Valley

Area part of BC. Ministry of Forests Small Business Programme

Land use / resource management governed by higher level plan (Okanagan LRMP)

Broad range of recreational, visual, environmental, wildlife and timber resources and values.

Plan assembled by Ministry of Forests team and consultant designer

Project Context

•1600 ha. Planning area

•Visually sensitive steep, west facing slopes along lakeshore

•IDF / MS BGSZ

•NDT 3 (frequent stand initiating events)

•Extensive Pl and Fd

•Commercial recreation interests

•MoF recreation site

• Community Watershed

•Moose Winter Range

•Fish resources (stream and lake)

Project Context

Viewpoint A (Rec. Site – North End of Bear Lake Viewing East

Viewpoint D (South End of Bear Lake Viewing North)

Phase 1: Setting Design Objectives

Higher Level Planning

Direction derived primarily from Okanagan / Shuswap LRMP and FPC– this includes objectives relating to:

Biodiversity / ecosystem function Recreation Forest Health Visual Landscape (VQO R-PR / M in

backcountry) Fish and wildlife Access management Community water supply / quality Riparian management Timber development

Other area specific objectives were identified by members of the design team. (e.g 1st pass volume)

Phase 2: Landscape / Resource Inventory Disassembling the Landscape

1. Inventory of Key Influences

2. Mapping

3. Visibility

4. Landscape Character

Abiotic, Biotic and Cultural Influences

Forest cover (age class, species, volume, density, site index)

Operability criteria Harvest criteria Biogeoclimatic zones Forest Health Natural disturbance types Recreation Visibility / landscape character Fish and wildlife habitat Terrain hazards Riparian influences Existing use Adjacent land uses Archaeology Access Slope

Regulatory Community watershed Soils Stand dynamics Hydrology Aspect Trails Trap-lines

Inventory / Mapping of Landscape Influences

Visibility Analysis

Landform and Landscape Character Analysis -

Phase 3: Landscape Analysis Defining Landscape Structure / Understanding Interactions

Re-assembling the Landscape

1. Composite Constraints

2. Design Units

3. Opportunities and Limitations

4. Area Specific Issues / Objectives Strategies

5. Design Guidelines

• Often Known as the So What! Phase

Composite Constraints

Composite Constraints

Aim - to define broad patterns in operability -- the fixed / variable aspects of landscape

Composite Constraints

Design Planning Units

Design Planning Units

•Aim – Organize inventory information in a meaningful manner – identifying areas of relatively homogeneous site characteristics and then describing each in terms of inventory information

•Forms the basis for an Opportunities and Limitations analysis

For each Design Unit, interactions among landscape influences are made explicit in terms of opportunities or limitations to development

Suggests how landscape design is constrained / enhanced by landscape influences

Begins to suggest strategies / ideas for how specific areas might develop and change over time

Opportunities and Limitations

Design Issues, objectives and strategies specific to each design unit were identified. These:

1. formed the basis of the design programme;

2. guided the scope and nature of the design exploration occurring in subsequent phases of the project.

2. Expressed strategies for addressing issues / objectives

Issues, Objectives and Strategies

Phase 4: Landscape Design Phase Translating Design Direction into Physical Form

 

Design Concept

Composite Constraints

Conceptual Design Diagram

•Documents the loose ideas about how the area might develop formed during the analysis phase

•Serves as a bridge between the analysis and detailed design phases

•Expressed quickly as bubble diagrams / sketch plans. – includes annotation about harvest and silvi. Systems, access, levels of retention within stands etc.

Harvest Design Studies

The issues / strategies identified in the previous stage informs the design exploration of individual cut-blocks – The Design Concept provides a broad framework within which this occurs

Aim – design of a complete pattern of harvest shapes to a reasonable level of resolution and detail (paper location / design)

It is an iterative process involving much trial and error – quickly exploring and testing ideas to arrive at a balanced solution

Unit Design Guidelines

•When designing the individual harvest units, ideas form about how to employ retention patches, boundary configuration etc. to address visual quality or other objectives.

•These are captured as design guidelines that can assist the engineer in their detailed paper / field design and layout.

Conceptual Harvest Design (Total Chance)

•Ultimately, a workable pattern of harvest units is developed to a reasonable level of detail (scheduling, boundaries, possible access, harvest system, outputs)

•This can be modeled and evaluated to test its fitness in the context of project objectives

Evaluating and Testing the Design

1st Pass Development

Summary of IVDRelationship Between Phases and Steps

Observations and Summary – The Good

Organizes, summarizes and manages large amount of information in meaningful manner

Design decisions occur in an integrated manner rather than the traditional approach of “taking the landscape to bits” and then prescribing an action for each element (as per current practice); - Design evolves from landscape / cultural influences

Reduces complexity of problem by breaking the larger problem down into smaller more manageable problems which, when solved, contribute to the resolution of the whole

Process is transparent and graphic allowing for public / agency / NGO scrutiny

Process is versatile and can be employed at varying scales – from site to landscape scale

Well suited to FRPA structure (strategies and results)

Provides managers with greater operational flexibility in constrained areas by identifying all possible development opportunities (in context of resource / regulatory constraints)

Observations and Summary – The Challenging

Demands longer term thinking

Requires visual communication and modelling technology / expertise

Requires expertise that is not traditionally part of the profession of forestry (e.g. design methods) – suggests additional expertise required (e.g. Larcs)

.