STRATEGIC PLAN
Argenta – Johnson’s Landing Area
Landscape Unit K16
DRAFT #6
June 24, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
Introduction
Planning Area
1)
Community Lifestyle, Values and Concerns
2)
Geology and Mineral Exploration
3)
Soil Conservation
4)
Watersheds
5)
Landscape Level Biological Diversity
6)
Stand Level Biological Diversity
7)
Outdoor Recreation
8)
Visual Quality
9)
Timber
10) Archaeology and First
Nations
11) Communication
Issues/Monitoring
List of Figures
1. Kootenay Lake Forest District and landscape units
2. Landscape Unit K16, base features
3. Argenta/Johnson’s Landing base features
4. Argenta/Johnson’s Landing contours
5. Bedrock Geology and Mineral Tenures
6. Terrain Stability
7. Hydrological Features/Stream Reach Assessments
8. K16 Age Classes
9. A/JL Age Classes
10. A/Jl Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification
11. Old Seral Patch
12. Wildlife Habitat Zones
13. Wildfire Condition Class
14. Visual Quality Objectives
15. Operability
16. Douglas-fir beetle hazard
17. Mountain pine beetle hazard
1. Introduction
The Crown forests on the slopes above Argenta
and Johnson’s Landing have the land-use designation “
Basics of Planning
Planning can be defined as the process through which decision-makers gather information and consider the merits and drawbacks of different alternatives before embarking on a course of action. It occurs in all aspects of human activity, from urban design to natural resource management.
It may seem
as if there are hundreds of different planning processes, but generally
speaking all are simply a variation on the following:
1. Gather
relevant information (inventories, hazards, government direction, etc)
2. Examine
and analyze it, objectively, to determine critical issues and implications.
3. Develop
options for consideration by decision-maker.
4.
Implement decisions/strategies
5. Monitor
results and update plan as needed
Clearly, courses of action will be determined by many factors – the objectives of the landowner, the financial viability of a proposal, environmental impacts, and many more. Many decisions are involved, and these typically must be made at a number of different administrative or geographical levels in order for a planning process to function. Government processes are presently in a state of transition, so terminology can be expected to change[1], but the following “hierarchy” of planning/decision-making levels is fundamentally accurate:
Overall government legislation and policies (ie.
Land Use Planning (ie. Kootenay-Boundary Land
Strategic Resource Planning (ie. landscape unit plan)
Operational Planning (ie. forest development plan and
silviculture prescription)
Decisions made at each level are expected to conform to direction provided by the levels above. At the same time, because they examine smaller geographical areas and explore issues in more detail, the lower levels often discover errors in higher-level assumptions. In these cases, feedback to the higher levels should occur so that the necessary corrections can be made.
It should be recognized that District Forest Service and other agency staff generally deal only with the bottom two of these. The feedback process does occur, but until changes are made, agency staff are expected to follow existing legislation, land use designations, and policy direction.
Strategic Planning
The strategic planning level is intended to provide a complete overview and synthesis of available information with regard to the land and resources within a specific geographical area. This information includes inventory maps and data, professional assessments, community issues, and relevant government direction. Various reports and maps are referenced for those who wish to examine the strategic level context in detail. The geographical area may vary, but landscape units are preferred (typically 30,000 to 80,000 hectares in size).
Strategic direction is needed to provide clear direction in terms of strategic-level expectations/requirements, so that operational planners understand what is required. It must also allow sufficient flexibility to operational planners to allow for reasoned trade-offs based on actual field conditions. Strategic plans will generally fail if they are either 1) unclear or 2) overly detailed. Achieving an appropriate balance is always a challenge.
There must, therefore, be a strong link between the strategic and operational planning levels. The operational plan must adhere to the strategic plan, but if field investigations discover errors in the strategic-level information, the strategic plan should change to reflect this. The strategic plan may change for other reasons as well (ie. a change in government direction), in which case operational plans would also have to change. This iterative process allows adaptive management and improvement over time.
A strategic plan may also identify “gaps” in available resource information, and identify priorities for future work.
In order to meet the desires of the Argenta/Johnson’s Landing Planning Group for effective ecosystem-based resource planning, a somewhat unique approach was undertaken: the operational “Forest Stewardship Plan” would be developed more or less concurrently with the Strategic Plan since a major problem in past years has been the lack of a working link between the strategic and operational planning levels. This would allow feedback between the two levels to occur prior to approval of operations on the ground.
The reader will notice that in many cases, direction provided to the operational level is somewhat open-ended. As mentioned above, this flexibility is essential because of the many overlapping resource values and issues that operational planners must consider. It is expected, however, that an operational planner will be able to provide a defensible rationale for proposed activities.
One feedback mechanism to higher levels of government is the Timber Supply Review process, whereby the provincial Chief Forester determines an Allowable Annual Cut for the Kootenay Lake District (also referred to as the Kootenay LakeTimber Supply Area – see Figure 1). The last Timber Supply Review was completed in 2001. Information which was provided to that process is summarized in this document as well.
The following sections follow a somewhat logical sequence, but this is not intended to signify relative importance. The importance of a particular resource value can be expected to change depending on location or the nature of a proposed activity.
The maps in
this document are presented at a relatively small scale for overview purposes
only. Full size maps at 1: 20,000 scale
are available and can be viewed if people wish to look at specific areas in
detail.
Planning Area
For strategic
planning purposes, the most logical geographical area is “Landscape Unit K16”, as shown in Figure
2. However, the majority of this area
consists of the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy, where resource development is
not permitted. Meadow Creek Cedar
operates on a relatively small portion of
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
1. Community Values, Issues
and Concerns
This section contains the following:
A. Community Model of Logging
B. Description of the Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Community
C. General Concerns
D. History of Community Involvement
E. Argenta Community
F. Salisbury Creek Community
G. Johnson’s Landing Community
H. Operational Implications
I. References
The communities of Argenta-Johnson’s landing have engaged in the planning of forestry operations on the Argenta Face through the Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Ecosystem-Based Planning Committee (AJLEPC). Together with agents of MoF and BCTS they form the Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Planning Group (AJLPG). The work of the Committee is based on the following precepts:
A. COMMUNITY MODEL OF LOGGING
A community model of logging is an innovative approach to logging near/in communities where normally the industrial model would be superimposed on the community. It is based on the belief that the industrial model, as currently practiced, is inappropriate near our communities.
This process does not preclude logging, but permits it in a manner that is acceptable to the residents who must live with, in and beside the process and its effects for a long time. Each community is unique and has individual needs, so the community model is unique in its design for each community.
The basic social, environmental and economic values are still the basis for decision-making and are prioritized in that order, whereas, in industrial logging, economic values are usually given highest priority. When tradeoffs need to occur and decisions need to be made, consideration is first given to the social effect and the social needs and desires of the community.
Values
Our community model intends to mitigate the negative impacts and enhance the benefits. On the Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Face, the values for the majority of residents are described below.
Social: Some of the negative impacts of industrial logging are noise pollution, visual pollution, olfactory pollution, health problems (smoke, stress, etc), road damage and concomitant vehicle damage, nuisances such as large trucks and equipment on the road, destruction (potential and real) of watersheds, loss of employment (eg. Wildcrafting, etc), loss of environment held sacred by locals, loss of wildlife habitat with concomitant loss of food sources, loss of a source of inspiration and relaxation, and relationship stresses. There can be some benefits, such as increased employment (logging, silviculture, etc).
Industrial activity must respect the lifestyles and ways of the existing community, as the community members respect each others’ lifestyles and mores.
Environmental: People in our communities have a heightened sense of “neighbourhood”. We feel a connection with the forest and we steward it. There are economic and other benefits from the various small scale, low impact activities which occur in the forest: hunting, wildcrafting, artistic inspiration, spirituality, physical and mental health. For us, damage and destruction to our neighbourhood causes feelings of anger, grief and loss.
Economic: Most of the economic benefit of industrial logging does not accrue to the locals, but rather benefits the larger jurisdiction (province). Those whose small-scale livelihood depends on the forest (see above paragraph) will suffer negative impacts; those who are employed by logging and silviculture companies will receive benefits.
Process
The planning process has proceeded with the development and signing of a Protocol Agreement which describes processes and procedures for the planning process by a volunteer group of community members (AJLEPC), and Ministry of Forests and BCTS personnel. Community volunteers have consistently worked to inform and invite participation and expression from residents. Various means have been used: questionnaires, requests for submissions, well advertised open meetings, public input sessions at meetings, and face to face meetings.
Community members have indicated that the three most important issues for them are watershed protection, access management, and respect for the community by the logging proponents.
Watershed
Protection:
Water sources must be protected and where doubt exists the precautionary
principle must be used. Many residents
draw their water from the major creeks (Argenta,
Porous and fragile limestone features (karst) exist across the Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Face. Some have been previously identified and studied in detail (Gardner Creek, Johnson’s Landing). Others became apparent when logging did not consider their presence (Bulmers-Salisbury, 2002) where, fortunately, the consequences did not affect domestic water supply (as far as is presently known). Karst features are definitely known to be a part of the Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Face and must be mitigated before logging plans are finalized.
Access Management: Roads will inevitably be built on the hillsides that currently are roadless. In 2004 (time of writing), off road vehicles for summer and winter use are becoming more common, prevalent and inexpensive, thus providing more sources of vehiclular traffic into the neighbouring forest. Currently there is no vehicular traffic into neighbouring forests and residents want that to continue. There are, in the vicinity, many other roads suitable for motorized recreation. Community members have stated repeatedly and in numerous ways that the roads must be gated, deactivated and recontoured.
Residual long term use of the road will be for such purposes as fire interface access and firewood gathering.
Respect: The wishes of the community, and individuals within the community, must be respected. Courtesy on the part of all drivers sharing the road, whether workers or truck drivers, courtesy in terms of limiting noise-making activity to agreed upon times, and an acknowledgement that the people who live in Argenta, Salisbury Creek and Johnson’s Landing have as much right to their peace and safety and the loggers have to their work. The Community Model of Logging seeks a way for the community and the surrounding logging to co-exist without creating undue friction and stress on either side.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE ARGENTA-JOHNSON’S LANDING COMMUNITY
The communities
of Argenta and Johnson’s Landing (A-JL) are unique in both a geographical and
social sense. Located some distance from
population centres, access is provided by a single gravel road. The pristine nature of the
A-JL community members have been consistently involved in forestry issues for over 30 years (see History of Community Involvement below) and have endeavoured to have “all Crown land, from mountain top to lake shore, from Hamill Creek to Fry Creek, included in the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy”.
In general, local residents feel that industrial logging in K16, between Hamill Creek and Fry Creek, is inappropriate: it is too close to the settled areas and of no discernible benefit. One exception may be the interface area to reduce wildfire risk, although it remains to be seen whether the benefits outweigh the impacts.
Interest in forest management activities is high, and residents do not hesitate to oppose development that they feel could be detrimental to the environment and their lifestyle.
Residents derive their water from the creeks, springs and seeps on the A-JL Face. The hillside is used for non-motorized recreation, wildcrafting, artistic inspiration and spiritual sustenance. Many residents have intimate knowledge of the movement and patterns of animals who share the hillside. Organic gardening for home use and profit depend on the unsullied waters, soil and air, as do many of the cottage industries from which residents derive their incomes. There are a number of cooperative endeavours, including land cooperatives, cooperative gardens and two hydroelectric facilities - one licensed facility on Argenta Creek that supplies 17 households, a community freezer and the community hall, and another on Salisbury Creek.
C. GENERAL CONCERNS
A community survey, conducted in 2003 by the AJLEPC, identified a number of issues of concern to residents. Other issues of concern have emerged during the current planning process conducted by the Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Planning Group (AJLPG), the Committee plus MoF and BCTS. The identified issues and community desires/expectations include:
- Protecting Watersheds:
- That there be no roads or logging in the watersheds.
- That there be motorized access control on all roads.
- Wildlife and Habitat:
- That any operations ensure viable habitat for all wildlife from lakeshore to mountain top
- That a local, credible biologist continue to be retained in the planning and development of operations.
- That an ecosystem based approach to forest management be followed which is compatible with FSC principles, and that this be monitored by a third party familiar with FSC standards.
- FSC certification is the goal of the Ecosystem Based Management Committee.
- Times of Operations:
- That the workday for everyone of the A-JL Face be between 0600 and 1800 hours on weekdays only (excluding holidays and weekends).
- That industrial operations on the A-JL Face are permitted for the 9-month period between Autumn Equinox (Sept 21) and Summer Solstice (June 21).
- Roads and Wildfires:
- That all roads be small and narrow, and replanted and
recontoured as soon as possible, except for identified portions of main
haul roads, which are to be locked at the intersection with the main
Johnson’s Landing road.
- That identified portions of main haul roads may be retained as
part of interface fire management plans and other identified community
values.
- That interface management be part of the planning operations.
- That main haul roads, where they connect with the main A-JL
road, will be gated and lockable.
- That, since wildfires are often started by human activity,
activity on the Face shall be restricted in times of high fire danger.
- Pollution From Industrial Use:
- That, since the sights, smells and sounds of logging, road
building, and dealing with slash have negative impacts including health
hazards, these activities be restricted to methods which are the least
polluting and have the least impact on soil, water, air, wildlife and the
social fabric.
- Accountability:
- That local hiring is preferable.
- That pre-operational meetings with contractors and compliance
officers is mandatory.
- That activities be monitored by a third party familiar with
FSC standards.
- Chemical Pesticides:
- That none be used.
- Operations Adjacent to
- That community interface zones (for fire management and
protection of other values) be established.
1975 MoF/KFP plans to log
1976 MoF agrees to
1. Form Folio Committee (FC);
2.
A one year moratorium on
logging
3. The community to be involved in all stages of planning; and
4. Community reps to have equal say as other agencies.
1977 Planning goes ahead for CP 21 in Argenta. Logging begins in December.
1978 A quote from Art Joyce, the district ranger at Lardeau re CP 21: "This type of logging would not have occurred without strong community control."
1979 The FC defines the folio area as lying
between Hamill Creek and
1. Development of the folio plan;
2. No development in area until plan is complete; and
3. No application for developments until plan is complete.
1979 The MoF response states that they will not allow logging until the folio plan is completed and approved. It also asks that the FC meet with MoF and the established licensee KFP (Kootenay Forest Products) to complete a workable harvesting plan for the area.
1980 KFP initiates a meeting with the FC to discuss logging plans in the area. FC and local residents agreed more information was needed before planning could commence. They requested accurate soil and ecological mapping, base-line data on creeks and springs, social impact predictions and a community plan. MoF supplies funding for water monitoring.
1981 FC meets with MoF, consultants and public. Progress to date reviewed, and notes that "the objective of the process is to produce a resource folio and a mutually agreeable plan for forest management of the area." "Until the plan is complete the MoF has made a commitment not to grant any cutting permits in the folio area."
1982 A survey taken this year showed community preference for Woodlots over other forms of tenure.
1983 The RDCK, in a paper called 'Watershed Planning' states "In the past, timber production has been a dominant consideration ... but it must now take its place in the overall scheme of integrated resource management."
1984 The idea of a locked gate first appears. MoF
presents FC with a draft version of their development plan. KFP becomes Westar.
Planned logging of Bulmers-Salisbury seen as 'demo' of good logging practices.
Argentans oppose logging, especially in the
1985 During 1985-1986 the political climate was
right for the granting of woodlots, due partially to the unsettled quota
situation. MoF indicated that they would grant two woodlots in the Kootenay
Lake TSA, whereupon Dick Brenton applied for a 1000 acre woodlot northeast of
1986 "In 1986 MoF suggested that the whole folio area come under the jurisdiction of a single company. Opposition from the Folio Committee led instead to the decision that the folio area would be managed under the small business program."
1987 Community approves construction of 4 km access road at Bulmer-Salisbury with the following agreements in place:
1. MoF agreed to have pilot cars for each load of right-of-way logs;
2. Not to haul when school bus is on road;
3. Not to begin logging until highway is upgraded.
1987 Several groups opposed to logging surface:
1. The 'Opposed to Logging Group'
2.
Concerned Citizens for the
Vanishing
3. ProTerra
1988 Public opposition to both the logging at
Bulmer-Salisbury and the FC grows. Dick Brenton is on the FC but also
has woodlot in
ProTerra proposes to expand the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy to include folio area.
1989 MoF wants to extend B-S road 1.7 km. FC
refuses on the basis that it contravenes the 1987 agreement. The new MoF reps
seem unfamiliar with the folio data.
Bill Wells, a member of the folio committee, applies for a woodlot in Johnson’s
Landing. Nigel Starbuck, the only member of the FC opposed to logging, resigns.
From a letter from Dave Putt, FC, to Hans Anderssen, MoF: "Public
confidence in the folio process depends on a step by step resolution of the
potential conflicts. The process worked well up to 1987 but considerable public
controversy resulted from the way in which the engineering section handled the
initial Bulmers' roadbuilding without reference to what had been agreed on by
the FC. We do not want to see a repeat of that situation, further undermining
confidence in the folio process."
From meeting notes between the FC and MoF (March 28, 1989): "No work to be done in Bulmers-Salisbury until 3 blocks underway satisfactorily. No contracts let until public road work completed at B-S. Will include planning for Forest Service roads in our folio process and road contracts to be negotiated in the same manner as cutting permits."
1990 Bill Wells applies for a woodlot and resigns from FC. Both Argenta and Johnson’s Landing upset over former FC members applying for woodlots. Concerns that the woodlots would be exempt from the folio planning process (involving public input), which was the case.
1991 - In a meeting on April 9 MoF re-stated their intent to log blocks 1, 2 and 3 at Bulmers-Salisbury as a demonstration of performance prior to further logging on the unit.
Questions raised concerning the mission of the FC: Is it to promote 'good logging' or to express the wishes of the communities, not favoring one resource over another?
May 27 letter from Al Bradley to the Argenta FC stating that MoF had received a junction permit for the S-B road. Huge outcry from the communities, because the main road hadn't been upgraded yet, but MoF implied that they were going to start hauling.
1992 to 2000 The A-JL road, north of the B-S road, was widened before hauling began.
- Folio committee disbanded
- Road building and logging of the B-S Face proceeded without community
involvement and was greater than originally understood.
2000 FDP for the Argenta Face presented by MoF, was greeted with dismay and opposition by residents.
2001 - FDP amendment, for the Argenta Face, presented
(without public consultation)
- Community interest heightened with letters to District Manager, Al Bradley,
and community surveys
- Silva Forest Foundation hired to critique FDP
- November – Silva report presented
- December 18 – public meeting with Silva and MoF (85 residents, Silva – Herb
Hammond, Erik Leslie, MoF – Al Bradley, Al Pollard, Dale Anderson) led to
creation of Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Ecosystem-Based Management Committee to
work with MoF.
2002 - April – first meeting of committee and MoF
(Dale Anderson, Al Pollard, Sandi Best, Rick Mazzocchi) and Mike Knapik –
- April – John Cathro placed on MoF contract as facilitator to the process
- May – field trip for community input/education to “Blue Blob” (last, high
elevation, controversial block proposed for logging)
- September – Johnson’s Landing holds public meeting with MoF and Meadow Creek
Cedar to object to incredible noise and negative impacts of helicopter logging
of beetle killed trees.
- September – regular monthly meetings of Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Planning
Group begin.
2003 January -
MoF announced spring start to road building on Argenta Face
- Public meeting
held
February - Community survey undertaken. From that survey came an
indication of
prevalent community attitudes and values.
1. Domestic water quality seen as most important
to protect and preserve.
2. Nearly all respondents support the work of
the AJLEPF.
3. Interest in forestry issues is high; and
4. Much of the opposition to forestry operations
is focussed on the
negative impact of the road
December Protocol Agreement signed.
2004 April -Fire
Awareness workshop sponsored by MoF
December – Issues/Solutions Table completed, except for 2 items (timing of
operations and locked gate). The goal is
to have a public presentation at the Argenta hall early in 2005.
2005 January – Committee meets with District Manager, Garry Beaudry, to request gate.
"Salisbury Creek", as it is called, is a 130 acre lake front property owned by Pauline McGeorge and her 4 children. There are currently 5 residences on the property all of which take their water from Salisbury Creek. There is also a hydroelectric installation with extensive under ground infrastructure designed to supply all of the residences with water, power, and telecommunications cable. The intake for the hydro electric is located about 200 metres above the A-JL road bridge crossing at Salisbury Creek.
The McGeorges have recently undertaken harvesting operations on their property. John Cathro was hired to assist with development of a management plan. The objectives of the harvesting include fire interface management, forest health and ecosystem restoration, and generation of revenue for completion of the hydro-electric project.
The presence of harvesting operations on the Bulmer Salisbury Face has not been a major issue in general, but there have been and continue to be some concerns. There have been occasions when noise was a problem, especially on spur one, at inappropriate times such as at 5 am, or on week ends and holidays. The landing at the end of spur one was utilized during beetle tree removal in 2002 which was very noisy and disruptive. We continue to be concerned about spur one providing public access to our north east boundary, particularly in view of the standing water there which ultimately runs into Salisbury Creek above one water intake. We would prefer to see spur one re-contoured and replanted for the last few hundred metres.
Salisbury Creek residents do not have a problem with the Salisbury Bulmer main haul continuing to provide recreational access to the high country. It is felt that use of it for recreational access would cause less disruption to local residents than would the Kootenay Joe road (or its replacement) or the proposed Argenta road.
Purcell Alliance for Wilderness (PAW) mandate
2. Geology and Mineral Exploration
The geological history of this area has been summarized by Utzig, Wells and Warner (1983). Mining activity has been minimal in the past, and there is only one current mineral tenure in the area (Figure 5 – base geology and mineral tenures). However, the area is not considered well-explored, due to the lack of road access. The Ministry of Energy and Mines considers mineral potential to be high.
Mineral exploration and development are
allowed on
The Ministry of Energy and Mines collects performance bonding, monitors and inspects active and concluded exploration sites, and ensures compliance with permit conditions. Successful exploration results in eligibility to enter into production permitting procedures. For proposed large mine developments, the Environmental Assessment Process is applied, particularly in the later stages of exploration.
Of particular importance is the presence of limestone in the planning area. The resulting karst features allow subterranean movement of water, and makes delineation of watershed boundaries difficult.
Operational implications to forest management: Road construction and other activities involving heavy machinery or blasting can damage karst structures and affect water flow patterns. Prescribed burning on shallow soils can damage soil productivity. Additionally, worker safety can be a concern if sinkholes are concealed by surface vegetation or other material. Areas proposed for development should be carefully examined in the field, and karst features avoided unless a defensible rationale is provided not to avoid it.
References
Karst Management Handbook for
Utzig, Wells and Warner (1983). Resource Inventory of Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Watersheds
Figure 5.
3. Soil Conservation
From the perspective of sustainable ecosystem management, protection of the soil resource is fundamental since this the basis of biological activity. Keeping soils productive and in place is also fundamental to protection of water, which is also essential to ecosystem health.
Most soil damage can be attributed to roads and landings, since these effectively remove the area in question from production. Roads and skid trails can also alter natural drainage patterns and thereby increase the likelihood of surface erosion and landslides. Intense prescribed burns or wildfires that remove the surface organic duff layers also reduces soil productivity.
Operational implications: The “total chance” concept should be applied when planning road requirements for an area. The intent is to ensure that required access is achieved by the minimum amount of total roads, while avoiding sensitive or unstable areas. Minimizing road widths will also reduce the total roaded area. Existing drainage patterns should be maintained as far as possible, by culverting or other measures. Partial or full deactivation of roads should be conducted if they are not required for extended periods of time. Aerial or cable harvesting systems can also be used to minimize road and trail requirements.
Terrain Stability
Terrain stability mapping was completed for the Argenta-Johnsons Landing area in 1983 by Utzig, Wells and Warner. This was upgraded to current Forest Practices Code standards for Level “B” (Detailed) mapping by Wells in 2002 (Figure 6). This mapping identifies areas according to the likelihood of landslide occurrence.
Operational implications: Activities which create significant soil disturbance and which alter natural drainage patterns are of particular concern. On class IV (high mass wasting hazard) and class V (very high hazard), Terrain Stability Field Assessments (TSFA)s must be conducted by qualified professionals prior to roadbuilding or logging. In addition to on-site hazard evaluation, the consequences of a landslide will be assessed (Risk = Hazard X Consequence). Development areas above high hazard terrain will be field assessed as well (this is often referred to as the “flat over steep” issue).
Timber Supply Review Assumptions: The most recent Timber Supply Review assumed that, on average, 30% of class IV polygons and 90% of class V polygons would be unavailable for harvest, due primarily to access limitations and economic feasibility. Additionally, the amount of existing road was estimated and subtracted from the calculated “Timber Harvesting Landbase”.
References
Soil Conservation Guidebook, 2nd edition (2001)
Utzig, Wells and Warner (1983). Resource Inventory of Argenta-Johnson’s Landing Watersheds
Wells (2002). Updated terrain stability mapping for Argenta-Johnson’s Landing.
Figure 6.
4. Domestic Watersheds
Domestic watersheds are those which are licensed for consumptive use but are not community watersheds. Guidelines for domestic watershed management were generated by the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy (1997).
Part of the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan included confirmation that watersheds would continue to supply both timber and water, and included a section on contingency planning (ie. responsibilities and actions to be undertaken if water supplies are impacted).
The Riparian Management Area Guidebook specifies riparian reserve zones (roadbuilding and harvesting largely excluded) and riparian management zones (activities limited to those of minimal impact) for various categories of streams. Additionally, the Kootenay-Boundary Higher Level Plan Order specifies a 30 meter riparian management zone upstream from domestic watershed intakes to the point at which stream order changes.
Streams: (S1-S4 refer to fish streams or community
watersheds)
|
Riparian
class |
Avg channel
width (m) |
Reserve zone
width (m) |
Management
zone width (m) |
|
S1 large
rivers |
>100 |
0 |
100 |
|
S1 except
large rivers |
>20 |
50 |
20 |
|
S2 |
>5,<20 |
30 |
20 |
|
S3 |
>1.5,
<5 |
20 |
20 |
|
S4 |
<1.5 |
0 |
30 |
|
S5 |
>3 (not
fish or CW) |
0 |
30 |
|
S6 |
<3 (not
fish or CW) |
0 |
20 |
|
S6 |
<3
(domestic w/s) |
0 |
30 |
Wetlands:
|
W1 (> 5
ha.) |
10 |
40 |
|
W3 (1-5 ha) |
0 |
30 |
In 2003, EBA Consultants Ltd. were hired to conduct a hydrological assessment of the A/JL area. This included assessment of channel stability, confirmation of watershed boundaries and water system points of diversion (PoDs), identification of other sensitive areas, and recommendations to minimize impacts of development on the water resource. Chief among these recommendations is this: ”For these reasons (instability) and the fact that there are numerous water PoDs in the watershed, it is recommended to presently avoid development in the Argenta Creek Watershed. [2]
Much of this information is presented in Figure 7.
Operational implications: In general, the removal of trees has little effect on water quality and quantity if the area harvested is less than 20-25% of a watershed area at any
Figure 7.
point in time. Most of the problems which may occur are associated with roads, trails, andother forms of soil disturbance. Minimizing the amount of road in a watershed, avoiding sensitive areas, careful construction, and regular checking/maintenance are of particular importance to watershed management. Human activity and potential for contamination is also a concern. Contingency planning, as outlined in the KBLUP Implementation Strategy, is recommended prior to operations that occur within domestic or community watersheds. A summary of this is provided as Appendix “A”.
Timber Supply Review Assumptions:
Domestic watersheds are divided into three classes based on size. Each class is assigned a maximum percentage that can be in an “equivalent to clearcut”[3] state. Once a harvested area regenerates and the young forest is 9 meters tall, it is considered to be “hydrologically greened up”.
Class 1 (springs and seeps): 15% maximum equivalent clearcut area (ECA).
Class 2 (less than500 hectares): 20% maximum ECA.
Class 3 (500 hectares or larger): 25% maximum ECA [4]
Riparian areas from mapped streams were removed from the Timber Harvesting Landbase (however it was recognized that this likely underestimated the amount of actual riparian area since many small streams are not mapped. This is because the AAC is determined at the level of the TSA. Actual riparian areas will be identified in the field.
References
Community Watershed Guidebook (1996)
EBA Consultants (2004). Hydrological Assessment.
Kootenay-Boundary Higher Level Plan Order (2002).
Riparian Management Area Guidebook (1995).
5. Landscape Level Biological Diversity
(Note that, in this case, the term “landscape” has an ecological context and does not refer to visual landscape management).
Biological diversity (or biodiversity) is the diversity of plants, animals and other living organisms in all their forms and levels of organization, and includes the diversity of genes, species and ecosystems, as well as the evolutionary and functional processes that link them.
The concept of “ecosystem-based management” emerged from the relatively new discipline of landscape ecology. The fundamental premise is to minimize risk of species extinctions by designing management activities (such as logging) to resemble natural processes, patterns, and residual structures as far as possible.
Planning for biodiversity typically occurs at two distinct stages: landscape unit level and stand level. This portion of the Strategic Plan focuses on landscape-level issues; stand-level measures are discussed in a separate section.
Landscape units are large areas of land,
often 50,000 hectares or greater in size.
K16 contains 39,800 hectares, of which 29,900 hectares are Purcell
Wilderness Conservancy 1,500 hectares are private, and 8,400 hectares are
The following amount of
BC Timber Sales: 5920 ha.
Meadow Creek Cedar: 2150 ha.
Woodlot 491: 330 ha.
Landscape planning attempts to ensure a balance over time of different forest ages – recently harvested areas, young stands, mature stands, and old growth. Since a forest is a dynamic entity, undergoing constant growth and death, the locations of the different seral stages will change over time. Figure 8 indicates the current age class pattern in K16, and Figure 9 shows the same information for the Argenta-Johnson’s Landing planning area.
It is recognized that it is not possible to mimic natural events exactly. Prior to wildfire suppression, natural disturbances varied from small to enormous, in some cases with whole drainages or faces burning in a single year. Also, logging has significant differences from wildfire, due to construction of roads and removal of material from site. However, it is feasible to alter logging practices to more closely resemble natural disturbances, by introducing a wide range of harvest patch sizes, and retaining a certain number of residual trees within a cutblock.
Three factors are of particular importance when planning at the landscape level:
-
retention of a certain amount of old growth forest,
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
- the pattern of early seral areas
(new/young forests) which are being created through -harvest or natural
disturbances, and
- retention of wildlife tree patches and other residual structure within harvested areas.
The naturally occurring levels of these attributes vary considerably depending on factors like topography, frequency of lightning, amount and kind of fuels, and the ecological classification of an area.
The Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification
(BEC) system is used in
BEC zones are labelled according to the climax tree species which occur there, for example, Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) and Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir (ESSF).
These zones are further divided into subzones, variants, and site series. Figure 10 shows BEC subzones for the planning area. A brief description of each is provided below:
ICHdw (dry warm interior cedar-hemlock subzone):
Moist climatic region, hot summers with mild winters and light snowfall. Tree species diversity is extremely high, with climax stands typically containing cedar, hemlock, Douglas-fir, paper birch, western larch, and/or ponderosa pine. Most settlement has occurred within this subzone, which encompasses a number of major valley bottom areas. It is classed as Natural Disturbance Type 3 (ecosystems with frequent stand-initiating events, such as wildfire). However, some dry sites may actually be NDT 4 (frequent stand maintaining fires).
ICHmw2
(Columbia-Shuswap moist warm interior cedar-hemlock subzone):
Moist climatic region, hot and moist
summers with mild winters and light snowfall. Climax stands typically have
western hemlock and western red cedar. This is the most common subzone in the
Kootenay Lake Forest District. The ICHmw2 is particularly prevalent in the
lower elevations of the
ESSFwm
(wet mild Engelmann spruce – subalpine fir subzone):
Moist climatic region, higher elevations of
the western
AT
(Alpine Tundra):
High elevation sites with relatively few trees. Severe limitations to plant growth, and an extremely short growing season. Tree species which are adapted to the AT include Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, alpine larch, and whitebark pine. Often contains excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation, year-round. The alpine tundra is classed as Natural Disturbance Type 5 (alpine/subalpine ecosystems, various disturbance agents with slow recovery).
New BEC mapping has been completed for the Kootenay Lake Forest District, but will not be in use until additional interpretive work is completed.
Figure 10.
Old Growth and Mature
Landscape Unit
K16 has been designated “Low” biodiversity emphasis. This does not mean that biodiversity is not
important. The designation refers to
amount of old growth and mature forest requirements, as specified in the 2002
Kootenay-Boundary Higher Level Plan Order.
In “Low”
emphasis landscape units, only one-third of the total old growth forest
requirement must be identified at this time.
However, a strategy is still needed to demonstrate that the full old
growth requirements will be met over time.
Parks and other protected areas contribute to meeting these targets.
Old growth is
defined as greater than 250 years for ESSFwm and ICHmw2, and greater than 140
years for ICHdw. Mature forest is
greater than 120 years for ESSFwm and greater than 100 years for ICHmw2 and
ICHdw.
K16 Old
Growth Targets:
|
|
Target |
Existing |
Surplus/ |
|
|
|
Ha (1/3) |
Ha |
Deficit |
|
|
ESSFwm |
471 |
1229 |
+758 |
|
|
ICHmw2 |
222 |
890 |
+668 |
|
|
ICHdw |
80 |
226 |
+146 |
|
K16
Mature Forest Targets:
|
|
Target |
Existing |
Surplus/ |
|
|
Ha |
Ha |
Deficit |
|
ESSFwm |
950 |
3738 |
+2788 |
|
ICHmw2 |
889 |
3790 |
+2901 |
|
ICHdw |
158 |
550 |
+392 |
Old growth and mature forest requirements are not in deficit
in K16. However, a candidate old growth
management area (or “old seral patch”) has been identified in the Argenta Creek
area to assist meeting the full old growth targets over time for the lower
elevation ICHdw (Figure 11). This has
not been formally established yet. Old
growth management areas will be established by the Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management (MSRM).
Additionally,
Herbison (2002) identified additional zones in which the retention of old
growth attributes is recommended (Figure 12).
Some of these may be considered by MSRM as possible OGMAs, or may
involve varying amounts of harvest depending on operational factors.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Early Seral Patch Size
Distribution
In order to
more closely mimic natural disturbances (a fundamental principle of protecting
biodiversity), a wide range of harvest sizes is recommended. However, this is a relatively “soft” target,
which is not intended to override other considerations such as terrain
stability or watershed management.
“Early seral” refers to forests which are between 0 and 40 years of age. The Forest Practices Code Biodiversity Guidebook recommends the following patch size distribution:
Size
of Early Seral Patch
<40
ha 40-80 ha 80-250 ha
ESSFwm (NDT 1): 30-40% 30-40% 20-40%
ICHmw2 (NDT 2): 30-40% 30-40% 20-40%
ICHdw (NDT 3): 20-30% 25-40% 30-50%
Currently, the
Size
of Early Seral Patch
<40
ha 40-80 ha 80-250 ha
ESSFwm (NDT 1): 32 ha (15%) 0 ha (0%) 175 ha (85%)
ICHmw2 (NDT 2): 336 ha (68%) 158 ha (32%) 0 ha (0%)
ICHdw (NDT 3): 80 ha (100%) 0 ha (0%) 0 ha (0%)
Herbison (2002)
discusses the patch size issue in relation to the Argenta-Johnsons Landing area
and provides recommendations.
Wildfire Issues
Suppression of wildfires over the last century has resulted in a significant departure from the natural ecology of the area, and resulted in increased risk to numerous values.
The 2003 wildfires have increased local awareness of the potential danger to life and property from wildfires. The community has developed an organizational structure to address issues such as fuel reduction, training, and overall preparedness.
Figure 13 shows, in a general sense, the degree of departure from natural wildfires. Lower elevations typically burned more frequently than higher elevations, but these fires were less intense since there was less time between fires for fuels to build up.
Operational implications: Development should be planned so as to avoid identified old growth management areas and ensure that old growth and mature targets are met over time. A range of harvest patch sizes is desirable. Issues such as wildland-urban interface issues should be considered, and opportunities explored to use timber harvesting as a tool to reduce wildfire hazard.
Figure 13.
Timber Supply Review Assumptions: The above figures and requirements for old growth and mature forest were factored into the timber supply modelling process for the TSA by Landscape Unit.
References
Biodiversity Guidebook (1995)
Braumandl and Curran (1992). A Field Guide to the Identification and
Interpretation of Ecosystems for the
Herbison, B. 2002. Wildlife Overview and Habitat Inventory.
Landscape Unit Planning Guide (1999)
Kootenay-Boundary Higher Level Plan Order (2002)
Stand-Level
Biological Diversity
Wildlife Tree Patch Requirements
The Biodiversity Guidebook provides minimum requirements for retention of structural diversity on cutblocks. In large openings, additional retention is desirable.
ESSFwm 0%
ICHmw2 1%
ICHdw 5%
Herbison (2002) recommends higher levels of
structural retention on cutblocks than shown above, and identifies priority
structures (ie. snags, large woody debris, surviving “vet” trees) to retain
where feasible.
Additionally, this report outlines basic habitat requirements for 30 species which are considered of particular interest in the A/JL planning area. It included an assessment of deer and elk winter ranges, travel corridors, old growth, riparian areas, threatened and endangered species, priority structures for retention, and unique habitat types such as mineral licks, wallows, snags, and coarse woody debris. This information was incorporated in a set of management objectives recommended for the habitat management zones shown on Figure 12
Operational implications: Field refinement of the initial habitat mapping should occur in order to evaluate habitat issues on a site-specific basis. See Herbison (2003) for more detailed recommendations for the Argenta-Bulmers face unit. Final decisions on structural retention require careful assessment of many factors, such as Workers Compensation Board regulations that limit the ability to retain snags, and issues such as forest health and potential windthrow that can reduce operational feasibility of structural retention.
Timber Supply Review Assumptions: The above wildlife tree patch requirements were incorporated into the last Timber Supply Review. Of the other wildlife habitat types, only ungulate winter ranges were considered. A minimum requirement of 40% of a forested area was required to be 81 years or older.
References
Biodiversity Guidebook (1995)
Herbison (2002). Wildlife Overview and Habitat Inventory,
Argenta Creek to
Herbison (2003). Detailed Habitat Mapping for the Argenta-Bulmers face unit.
Kootenay-Boundary Higher Level Plan Order (2002)
7. Outdoor Recreation
Non motorized recreation is the predominate form of recreational use in the planning area.
For protection of water quality and quantity, reduction of human caused forest fire risk and community support, it is vital to restrict access (both motorized and non-motorized) in the planning area. New roads must be minimized in both length and width and trails used wherever possible, see section 6. Serious consideration need be given to roads being gated and / or recontoured and replanted.
The trailhead of the
The Salisbury Forest Service Road is used to provide access to the alpine and adjacent peaks. The Kootenay Joe road is steeper and more difficult but is also used.
Residents use a number of other trails and locations within the planning area, particularly at lower elevations.
There are no commercial recreation tenures within the planning area at this time.
8. Visual Quality
Approximately one-third of the operable Crown forest in Kootenay Lake Forest District is visible from major highways and communities. These areas are formally noted as a Class 1 Scenic Areas under the Kootenay-Boundary; Higher Level Plan Order. Timber harvesting is limited in terms of the amount and severity of visible logging which can occur, based upon the assigned visual quality objectives (VQOs):
“Retention” - harvesting should not be visually apparent. In other words, a person looking at the landscape would probably not recognize any alteration as logging unless he or she was specifically looking for it. The scenic quality is retained.
“Partial Retention” - harvesting may be visible, but it does not dominate the viewscape. Small openings, irregular shapes, and partial cutting systems attempt to mimic natural openings in the landscape, and do not significantly reduce the scenic quality.
“Modification” - harvesting may be readily visible, and may be a dominant feature in the landscape. However, cutblock shape and design are still applied, so as to minimize visual impact (in other words, avoid regular, square cutblocks). This category is usually in background views.
Class 1 Scenic Areas are generally assigned to either “Retention” or “Partial Retention”, depending on factors such as viewing distance, and the degree of use of key viewpoints. VQOs have not yet been formally established. Earlier VQO maps showed the Argenta-Bulmers face as “Retention”, and the southern portion as “Partial Retention”. However, the VQO mapping for the Kootenay Lake District is being updated at this time, and the new maps show the entire area as “Partial Retention” (Figure 14). The new mapping will be subject to a public review process prior to formal establishment.
Operational implications: The amount of visible harvesting which an area can absorb varies depending on viewing distance, viewing angle, existing uniformity/patchiness, slope, and other factors. Within visually sensitive areas, forest companies must conduct Visual Impact Assessments (VIAs), which may include computer models or photographic mock-ups of proposed harvest blocks and their appearance from specific viewpoints. Generally speaking, impacts on visual quality can be minimized by irregular block boundaries and variable retention of forest within openings.
Timber Supply Review Assumptions: A maximum amount of recent disturbance was allowed for each of the VQO categories: Retention (5%), Partial Retention (15%), and Modification (25%). The time for visual recovery varied depending on growing conditions and the steepness of slopes.
References
Visual Impact Assessment Guidebook, 2nd edition (2001)
Figure 14.
10.
Timber/Tree management
At the present time, wildfire suppression, logging, and other forms of human activity have resulted in a significant departure from historical ecological processes (see “Landscape Level Biodiversity” chapter for more detailed discussion on this topic).
Some degree of ecological restoration can be achieved by growing trees over time, and creating young (“early seral”) forests through harvest and fire, so that the amount and distribution of species and ages resembles that which would be expected under a natural disturbance regime. These patterns of young and old forest will vary over time of course.
Given the land-use designation of the A/JL area, timber harvesting is clearly government’s preferred means of accomplishing this where ecologically and economically feasible. However, other areas should be considered for prescribed burning, or a “let burn” policy for wildfires, where feasible.
There is considerable economic value to the timber in the A/JL area. Logging on the Salisbury Face removed 31,589 cubic meters of timber over the last two decades, with an estimated value at the mill gate of $2.4 million. Stumpage payments to the provincial government were $1.05 million, with costs (planning, road building, salaries, silviculture, etc) of $630,000. It is recognized that some costs are not captured in the above figures, but it is also understood that additional “spin-off” economic benefits exist as well (For example loggers spending their paycheques here, government services, etc).
Figure 15 shows the "operable" landbase. This is a general indication of the forest land which is considered feasible for timber harvesting. There are numerous smaller areas within the indicated area which are also not feasible to harvest, and there are instances where harvesting has proven feasible above the "operability line". In general terms, however, timber value tends to diminish at higher elevations, while the costs of road building and harvesting usually increase. At a certain point, therefore, the value of timber drops below the cost of extracting it.
Priority areas for harvest are those where significant mortality is expected due to agents such as bark beetles. Figure 16 shows the relative hazard of Douglas-fir beetle infestation, and Figure 17 shows the same for mountain pine beetle.
A recent timber supply analysis indicated a potential sustainable harvest rate of approximately 4,000 cubic meters per year from the AJL planning area. However, this was based on the assumption that all of the operable forest would be accessible and that timber would be salvaged from areas which experience significant wildfire, windthrow, or bark beetle mortality.
Operational implications: There are several basic principles which, if followed, should ensure that logging has a strong ecological base.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
1) Establish a harvest rate which allows a range of stand ages to be maintained over time.
2) Introduce a wide range of harvest patch sizes
3) Retain stand-level structural diversity on cutblocks (ie. wildlife trees, snags, woody debris).
4) Anticipate tree mortality due to natural disturbance agents such as bark beetles and wildfire, and prioritize harvest in these areas.
5) Minimize the amount of soil damage and other environmental impacts due to roads, trails, landings, etc.
6) Reforest promptly to species which are ecologically suited to grow on the site.
It is also desirable to harvest at or near the “culmination age” where feasible, as this provides the highest yield of timber over time from an area[5].
Timber Supply Review Assumptions: The Timber Supply Review is a complex and detailed process which utilizes mathematical modelling to forecast timber harvest. The process is well documented in the 2001 Kootenay Lake TSA Analysis Report and Rationale for AAC Decision. Timber supply forecasts for individual landscape units (such as K16) were generated through the Kootenay Lake Spatial Analysis project
References
Kootenay
Pedersen (2001). Rationale for AAC Decision, Kootenay
11. Archaeology and First Nations
The Ktunaxa-Kinbasket, Shuswap, and Sinix’t
Peoples have made use of the
Operational implications: Development proposals should be referred to the above First Nations for review and comment. Proposed roads and cutblocks must be assessed by a qualified archaeologist for potential to impact on archaeological sites and, if required by the District Manager, a field-based archaeological impact assessment conducted.
9. Communication
Issues/Monitoring
ACTION: This section to be revisited after the completion of the Operational Plans.
(This section will need ongoing attention.. At the present time, the protocol agreement pretty much covers off commitments to ongoing communication, and regular meetings keep everyone reasonably up to date on what’s going on. Once the strategic plan and operational plans are in place, however, meetings will probably be less frequent. Expectations will have to be clear and consistent to make sure that information and issues are passed along effectively. “Rumour checking” should be prompt and ongoing by all concerned.
Monitoring
is a key component of any planning process, and can take a number of different
approaches. Periodic reviews of plan
documents, coupled with field trips and expert assessments, should allow
evaluation of performance and prompt modification of approaches where
necessary. It is critical that any
monitoring program be both relevant and feasible to implement, and that all
parties have the same expectations.
References
Protocol Agreement (2004).
APPENDIX “A”
Watershed Contingency Planning and Responsibilities
1.
Land use designation
It is
recognized that some people do not agree with the current land use designation
(
2.
Contingency planning
The first
priority, then, is to minimize the likelihood of damage occurring to water
supplies or delivery systems. Major
negative impacts due to development are actually quite rare. However, this possibility will remain
regardless of the quality of operations.
Contingency planning refers to advance agreements and other preparations
which will allow a rapid response in the event that water supplies are disrupted. The Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan
Implementation Strategy (1997), provides a detailed summary of what a
contingency plan can entail.
3.
Accountability and responsibility
However, as a
starting point, water licensees usually prefer a clear answer to the
question: “If logging or road
development damages my water source or delivery system, who is responsible for
correcting damages?” (Corrective
measures could include re-establishment of natural drainage patterns, clearing
of debris, repair or replacement of water delivery systems, or provision of
interim drinking water, depending on the circumstances).
The following
is the Kootenay Lake Forest District’s interpretation of current policy and
procedures. In light of government
restructuring and ongoing legislative changes,Practices Code, people should be
aware that some changes will likely occur.
Responsibilities of different agencies will shift to some degree. However, we expect the commitment to
protection of water quality and quantity to remain.
1. The tenure holder is accountable for their
actions. If they damage water supplies
or water systems due to their activities, they are responsible for corrective
action.
2. Water licensees are responsible for
obtaining valid water licenses, maintaining systems which are capable of
withstanding natural fluctuations in water quality and quantity, and for
correcting damages due to natural events.
(Note, however, that the Provincial Emergency Program can be approached
for assistance with major events).
3. Under existing policy, as the authorizing
government agency, the Forest Service is accountable for unforeseen
consequences of forest development on Crown land. For example, if water supplies were damaged
by actions authorized by the Forest Service, and the forest company had
followed all the rules and regulations, then the Forest Service would be
accountable.
4. In the past, determination of cause has
been the joint responsibility of the Forest Service District Manager and the
Regional Water Manager (previously with the Ministry of Environment, Lands
& Parks). At the present time, it is
not clear which agencies will be involved in this after the current
restructuring is complete. Clearly, the
Forest Service will remain in a lead role, and will cooperate with other agencies. Water licensees and the forest tenure holder
would be involved in the investigations if they so wished.
If water
supplies are impacted, water users should immediately contact the tenure holder
and the Kootenay Lake Forest District, who will respond as quickly as
possible.
Each situation
would likely be unique, and would have to be addressed on that basis. The nature and cause of the problem would
need to be determined. Generally,
qualified geotechnical or hydrological specialists conduct a field
investigation for this purpose.