Background Information Material accompanying the FSP but is not part of the FSP

Transcription

1 Powell River Community Forest Ltd. FOREST STEWARDSHIP PLAN for Community Forest License K3G Background Information Material accompanying the FSP but is not part of the FSP Approved December 19, 2008 Consolidated to Amendment # 1 and 5 year Extension effective,

2 Table of Contents Background Information Introduction 3 The FSP Background Information Document (backgrounder) 3 Powell River Community Forest Ltd. Contacts 4 Forest Development Units 4 (References to the Forest Stewardship Plan) ORDER ESTABLISHING LANDSCAPE UNITS AND OBJECTIVES Order Establishing Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives Wildlife 6 Mountain Goat 6 Coastal Tailed Frog 7 Queen Charlotte (Northern) Goshawk 7 Marbled Murrelet (MAMU) Water, Fish, Wildlife and Biodiversity within Riparian Areas Community Watersheds & Wildlife and Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Resources Visual Quality Recreation 8.0 Stocking Standards 15 2

3 Background Information Introduction The Forest Stewardship Plan Powell River Community Forest Ltd. is developing this forest stewardship plan to accommodate the Community Forest Licence K3G tenure, acquired through agreements made with the Province of British Columbia. The Municipality of Powell River is the Holder of Community Forest Licence K3G in the Sunshine Coast Timber Supply Area (TSA) and will be managing this tenure through a wholly owned limited company, Powell River Community Forest Ltd. (PRCF), which is directed by a volunteer board of directors. The current members of the Board are listed on the community website found at the following link: The Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) is a planning requirement of the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) for forest tenure holders in British Columbia. The Forest Stewardship Plan is a plan which shows how the licensee will manage all stated government objectives from site to landscape level for a period up to 5 years. There is also an option to extend the plan for an additional 5 years under FRPA s.6(2). FSPs are intended to allow tenure holders to be more responsive to change market conditions and to allow foresters to be innovative in applying management strategies to meet environmental standards in a manner specific to their operating area. The Forest Stewardship Plan is intended to be a concise document stating the management objectives for the resources in the operating areas or Forest Development Units (FDU). The Forest Stewardship Plan is not intended to state methodology or give direction regarding how the management objectives are to be met; that is the role of the Professional to decide. The Forest Stewardship Plan results and strategies must be consistent with government objectives for the management of all resources, and must be measurable and verifiable. The FSP Background Information Document (backgrounder) This FSP backgrounder has been produced to assist persons reading the FSP to understand it and its application, and provide further details regarding the specifics of resource management in Powell River s Community Forest Agreement tenure. The FSP Backgrounder follows the same structure and headings of the FSP. Throughout the FSP document there are references to the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR) and the sections relevant to the FSP document. The FPPR can be viewed at the following website: 3

4 Powell River Community Forest Ltd. Contacts Questions regarding the Powell River Community Forest FSP and this background information document may be directed to the following people: Laurie Hirtle, RPF Forester (FSP author) Results Based Forest Management Ltd. # 8729 Hwy 101, Powell River, B.C. V8A 0H3 Phone rbfm@shaw.ca Chris Laing, RPF Owner Results Based Forest Management Ltd. # 8729 Hwy 101, Powell River, B.C. V8A 0H3 Phone chrislaing@shaw.ca Forest Development Units The community forest tenure is within two Landscape Units and is smaller than either of the landscape units that it is within. Landscape units have been designed to be logical areas for the management of resource values such as biodiversity and old growth retention. The only Landscape Unit included in this FSP, and an FDU, is the Haslam Landscape Unit. The Lois Landscape Unit is identified as a very small portion of the license along the Eastern tenure edge adjacent to TFL 39 and has not been included in an FDU for administrative reasons. No operations are planned within the Lois Landscape Unit during the term of this FSP. The Haslam FDU included in this plan includes all portions of the PRCF license area within the Haslam LU, except those small portions within the Sechelt First Nation s (FN) traditional territory. The portions of the PRCF license area within the Sechelt FN territory have been excluded from the FDU for administrative reasons. No operations are planned within the Sechelt FN territory during the term of this FSP ORDER ESTABLISHING LANDSCAPE UNITS AND OBJECTIVES The Lois Landscape Unit is the only LU with an approved LU plan and within the chart area of PRCF. The Lois LU has legal spatially delineated OGMA s with associated objectives as well as WTR targets by BEC variant. This FSP does not include the Lois LU in any FDUs. The Lois Landscape Unit is identified as a very small portion of the license along the Eastern tenure edge adjacent to TFL 39 and has not been included in an FDU for administrative reasons. No operations are planned within the Lois Landscape Unit during the term of this FSP. 4

5 7.1.2 ORDER ESTABLISHING PROVINCIAL NON-SPATIAL OLD GROWTH OBJECTIVES For landscape units that do not have legally established Landscape Unit Plans (LUPs) the Order Establishing Provincial Non-Spatial Old Growth Objectives (effective June 30, 2004) is in effect. This includes the Haslam FDU. This order establishes old growth retention levels that must be met, although it does not spatially define them. This order can be viewed at the following website: Old Forest is defined as >250 years of age for NDT 1&2 and all BEC units within the Haslam FDU) Mature Forest is defined as >80 years to 250 years of age for NDT 1&2 and all BEC units within the Haslam FDU) If the amount of old forest in a BEC variant within a landscape unit is insufficient to meet the old forest retention targets, the strategy commits to not harvesting old forest within the contributing, and mature in the non-contributing, and mature in the contributing to the extent required to meet the retention targets. The result/strategy describes a step-down process for meeting the targets that is consistent with the Implementation Policy that accompanied the Old Growth Order and with the direction provided in the Landscape Unit Planning Guidebook. If there is sufficient old forest within a BEC variant within a landscape unit to meet the old forest targets, the result/strategy commits to only carrying out or authorizing timber harvesting that would not result in the amount of old forest available to drop below the target amount. As OGMA s are legally established through landscape unit planning, the holder will amend the FSP to incorporate them. Draft OGMA s are spatially delineated, but have not been specified as meeting the intent of the order as per section A8 of the order. The Holder will ensure road construction or timber harvesting within the draft OGMA s will not reduce the amount of old forest (>250 yrs) available for retention. The holder will work with the Sunshine Coast Forest District to identify suitable replacement area for draft OGMAs affected by the holder s activities. It is important to note that the amount of old forest available (in both the Contributing and Non- Contributing landbase) is insufficient to meet the targets across all BEC units in the Haslam LU. Therefore old forest (in both the Contributing and Non-Contributing landbase) is not available for harvesting. This old forest shortfall can be made up in recruitment area coming from mature forest in the non-contributing landbase. Several draft OGMA polygons within the Haslam LU could be relocated in order to: better address the intent of the order, reduce the impact on timber supply, be multi-functional in the protection of other values, and provide recruitment area of an age which will reach old forest age faster. For example, several draft OGMA polygons are currently placed over areas of young forest. Powell River Community Forest and Sliammon Community Forest are the largest licensees within the Haslam LU. These Licensees have discussed working together, along with other affected licensees, to propose changes to these draft OGMAs. Once Draft OGMAs are located 5

6 such that the intent of the Non spatial Old Growth Order is met, the holder will treat them as legal OGMAs in order to meet the intent of the Order. The holder and the other licensees have a good working relationship with one another and a shared commitment to achieving the intent of the Order. Until appropriate OGMA polygons are established, the holder will ensure any proposed harvesting does not reduce the amount of old forest below that required to meet the retention targets, as per the Order Wildlife Specific information regarding the management of specific species within the Sunshine Coast Forest District (SCFD), including allowable impacts to timber harvesting landbase (THLB) has been provided in a notice from the MOE. This notice (referred to as the Notice ) and other supporting information can be found through this website: otices_and_supporting_info/species_at_risk/sunshine_coast_fd/ The results/strategies for wildlife rely on the notice and supporting info to guide the identification of suitable habitat required for the survival of species at risk. Within this FSP, specific Results or Strategies have been developed to meet the requirements of the Notice for the following Species at Risk: Mountain Goat At time of writing, there are no approved UWR polygons in any of the FDU s shown in this plan. The MoE has approved the establishment of ungulate winter ranges for the Sunshine Coast Forest District. These UWR's do not currently highlight habitat in this plan area. The UWR accounts for the full target within in the Notice. Information on these approved UWR and their General Wildlife Measures (GWMs) can be found in the associated Orders #U and #U Coastal Tailed Frog The strategy identifies the amount, distribution and attributes consistent with the Notice. The result/strategy also commits to not constructing road or harvesting timber within management areas that have been identified as suitable habitat for coastal tailed frog. At time of writing, the management areas depicting Coastal Tailed Frog do not indicate any habitat within the FDU s shown in this FSP plan. During field operations, streams within the holders operating areas containing tailed frogs can be identified at the block level, when riparian classification for streams in and adjacent to proposed road construction and timber harvesting occurs. This knowledge will be kept in-house as shared with the appropriate agencies by the Holder of this plan. It can also be used in the development of landscape level plans. 6

7 An area has been selected by BC Timber Sales that was originally identified by the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, to be of high value for Coastal Tailed Frog that will be proposed as a WHA to MOE to meet the requirements of the Notice. The habitat is a creek riparian area in the Mt. Elphinstone chart, in the Chapman Landscape Unit recommended by Ascaphus Consulting in the report titled Assessment of red-legged frog (Rana aurora) and coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) conservation values on Mt. Elphinstone, of August 30, Queen Charlotte (Northern) Goshawk Licensees have selected areas within the SCFD that has been identified as good and best quality habitat, and of sufficient size to meet the requirements of the notice. Suitable Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentile s laingi) habitat was selected using a habitat supply model that was developed for the SCFD. The habitat model follows Habitat Suitability Index methodology developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and was reviewed by the BC Northern Goshawk Recovery Implementation Group. Habitat ratings for forest polygons were ranked as best, good, moderate and low according to the RIC (1999) Habitat Suitability Rating Standards for the suitability of Northern Goshawk nesting habitat, shown in the table below. RIC (1999) Habitat Suitability Rating Standards Value Rating Code (%) of best habitat 1 Best >75 <100 2 Good >50 <75 3 Moderate >25 <50 4 Low >0 <25 At time of writing, the holder of this license has determined that suitable Queen Charlotte (Northern) Goshawk habitat for the SCFD a) meets the amount, distribution, attributes and characteristics described in the Notice for the Sunshine Coast Forest district (dated March 2, 2006) and is sufficient as the habitat is located outside the FDU s applicable to this plan. Marbled Murrelet (MAMU) In the notice, the desired amount of overall habitat has been stated and yet to be determined in the district. The amount provided in the Notice is specifically stated as the amount of suitable habitat found in the non-contributing land base plus a maximum net mature timber harvesting land base impact of 495 ha. The strategy clearly defines suitable attributes for identifying habitat based on whether or not a detailed aerial survey has taken place. The area of suitable habitat can be summarized annually and measured against the area of suitable habitat at the time the Notice was provided. In the case where nesting habitat has been spatially 7

8 defined, the amount of habitat class 1, 2 and 3 can be documented and the draw down of suitable habitat can be measured to ensure the amount in the Notice is maintained. In recent modeling it has been determined that, although not precisely, the attributes as described in the R/S (age class 8 and 9, height class 4) best predict marbled murrelet habitat. In general these attributes tend to over-estimate the amount of habitat. At the time of writing this FSP, Licensees in the Sunshine Coast Forest District have identified sufficient suitable Marbled Murrelet (MAMU) nesting habitat within Sunshine Coast Forest District to almost fulfill the requirements of section 3 of notice for MAMU. The third section of the notice allows the conservation of MAMU habitat areas up to a maximum of 495 ha within the THLB of the SCFD. Since the Notice was given, 11 WHA's have been established in the Howe Landscape Unit and 2 WHA's have been established in the Brittain Landscape Unit. These WHAs account for 428ha in the mature THLB. This leaves 67ha remaining in the THLB. In addition to this, the WHA s located within the Bunster FDU were one of the first WHA s created to protect MAMU habitat and are shown on the FSP maps. The WHAs in the Bunster LU contain over 2000 ha of habitat. As per FPPR s 7 (3), the objective set by goverement for wildlife in regards to MAMU in the Bunster LU, can be considered addressed. The holder is therefore exempt from a result/strategy in regards to MAMU in the Bunster LU Water, Fish, Wildlife and Biodiversity within Riparian Areas The size of, restrictions within and retention of tree cover within riparian management areas zones (RMA) is a good example of where professional reliance will improve forest management. The RMA consists of the Riparian Reserve Zone (RRZ) and the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ). In many past cases of implementing strict numerical rules for RMAs has resulted in inappropriate management and RMAs either too large or too small. Every riparian area is different and so are the values related to that riparian area. The results or strategies for RMAs in this FSP allow the professional developing the site plan to take into consideration the specific characteristics and both RRZ and RMZ requirements of each site, rather than just adopt arbitrary boundaries. The considerations listed in the results and strategies will be documented in the site plan prepared by the forester. Result or Strategy for Retention of Trees in a Riparian Management Zone FPPR s.12 (3) The amount of retention to remain in a Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) will be determined at the site level by the prescribing Forester and specified in a plan. The factors that will be considered by the prescribing Forester when determining the amount of retention in the RMZ include; (a) The type of management regime that is required for a riparian area, having regard to; (i) the relative need to buffer the aquatic ecosystem of a stream from the introduction of materials that are deleterious to water quality or fish; (ii) the role played by trees and under-story vegetation in conserving water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat and biodiversity; (iii) the need to maintain stream bank and stream channel integrity; 8

9 (iv) the relative importance and sensitivity of different riparian classes of streams, wetlands and lakes in conserving water quality, fish habitat, wildlife habitat and biodiversity. (b) The type, timing or intensity of forest practices that can be carried out within the context of a management regime referred to in paragraph (a). (c) The role of forest shading in controlling an increase in temperature within a temperature sensitive stream, if the increase might have a deleterious effect on fish or fish habitat. Result or Strategy for Conditional Exemption under FPPR Section 12.3(5) for Enhanced and Protection Activities Prior to any work being completed within a Riparian Management Area (RMA) or Riparian Reserve Zone (RRZ) to enhance wildlife values, fisheries values, biodiversity values or to protect water quality, determine if the proposed enhancement activities are consistent with the objective of improving the overall quality. Proposed enhancement activities will consider all values listed above and will not be completed to the detriment of one of the other values measured over the long term. The following process will be followed when proposing enhancement work in the RMA; A detailed plan is developed for the proposed enhancement or protection works; the plan is signed by a qualified professional; the work is implement in accordance with the plan or as amended; The situations where water quality protection activities may be required occur in the Community watershed areas. The idea behind this conditional exemption is to better manage water quality on non-fish S3 streams with a 20 meter reserve zone. Situations may exist where retaining a 20m reserve zone on a non-fish S3 (which would be considered S6 outside the watershed) would cause a greater negative impact to water quality and other values, due to blow down of the reserve. This exemption could only apply if the holder has a detailed plan/rationale, developed by a professional hydrologist, which outlines how retaining the reserve zone is not the best management practice for protecting water quality within the Community Watershed. This holder as well as other licensees has expressed interest in retaining a hydrologist to conduct an up to date CWAP/management strategies for the Halsam Lang community watershed. The management strategies which come from this assessment may include harvesting strategies for non-fish S3 streams in regards to water quality protection. Result or Strategy for Conditional Exemption under FPPR Section 12.3(5) for Harvest Activities This result/ strategy is designed for sitations where retention of a narrow strip of trees would be required between an existing road and a proposed cutblock. This exemption will allow for harvesting of timber on the upslope side of an existing road within a RRZ. Situations may arise where an existing road has been constructed within a RRZ. The RRZ could be situated in a way that creates a small strip of trees of the uphill side of the road which are prohibited from harvesting. This would force the holder to build an unnecessary road to access timber beyond that narrow strip of RRZ as well as leaving a narrow strip of windthrow prone trees along the road causing a safety concern. This exemption will only be applied by a qualified professional and will not cause a material adverse effect on water, fish, wildlife, and biodiversity. 9

10 Zone 2 of IWMP: Lakeshore Management Area Another important consideration was the recommendation stemming from the IWMP process regarding a recommended Lakeshore Management Area. The following is an excerpt from the Haslam/Lang IWMP (1999) document and will be used to help manage the newly created Lakeshore management zone: Haslam Lake is considered a Class L1 lake over 1000 ha. Under the FPPR, no riparian reserve or riparian management zone is required. However, as Haslam Lake is a significant regional water supply, a conservative approach to development adjacent to the lakeshore is merited to ensure long term protection of water quality while also maintaining important lakeshore habitat attributes. LMA's will be established on Haslam Lake as follows: Upper Haslam Lake A Lakeshore Management Area comprised of a 10m Lakeshore Reserve Zone and a variable width (between 20m and 40m) Lakeshore Management Zone will be established along the perimeter of Haslam Lake within the Upper Haslam Lake. The purpose of the LMA is to protect water quality through entrapment of sediment and contaminants, maintain bank stability and limit erosion on foreshore areas, and maintain fisheries and biodiversity values associated with riparian areas. The LMA is to build upon otherwise constrained areas and should not be considered a hard line, but rather, it should consider local topographic features and unique habitats. Upland areas adjacent to the LRZ will be designated as a Lakeshore Management Zone maintaining the integrity and wind firmness of the LRZ being a primary objective of the LMZ. Within this zone, maintenance of old seral structures throughout the rotations should be a guiding principle in any forestry or development proposals. The retention of a component of dominant/codominant conifers will function as veteran trees in addition to retention of large deciduous stems such as red alder and big leaf maple. Such individual trees within forest stands provide important structural diversity within forest stands at all seral stages. From a biodiversity and wildlife perspective, concern exists with adequate retention of large diameter trees adjacent to the lakeshore to provide old seral forest structural attributes such as cavity nesting opportunities for bats, owls, woodpeckers and waterfowl. Special consideration should be given to the following treatments within the LMZ: feathering of harvest block boundaries to maintain wind firmness and increase structural diversity retention of no less than 30% of the existing basal area in forested stands in the LMZ to maintain a diverse stand structure through the rotation retention of forested polygons adjacent to gullies or draws in whole or part retention of all existing CWD within the LMZ no salvaging in any reserve areas (i.e. WTP, gullies, or the LRZ) use of low ground pressure/ground impact yarding systems within the LMZ. This will also facilitate better feathering of block edges and retention of individual dominant/veteran trees. 10

11 establishment of no work zones as required within the LMZ to facilitate retention of existing snags and wildlife trees within the LRZ without compromising worker safety ZONE 3 of IWMP: Lang Creek 100m Management Area & Temperature Sensitive Streams Yet another important consideration was the recommendation s stemming from the IWMP process regarding Zone 3, specifically the Lang Creek 100m Management Area and Temperature Sensitive Streams. Lang Creek 100m Management Area The area is a 100m management area along Lang Creek existing in the portions of this community license area. Several OGMA designations are anchored along Lang Creek and protection is offered in these reserves. The PRCF will establish this 100m Management Area when conducting operations and will carefully limit the potential for impacts to water resource values, wildlife, and fisheries habitats. Special consideration should be given to the following treatments within the Lang Creek 100m Management Area: RMA s are to be established as per the Results & Strategies defined in this FSP. Harvesting activities are to utilize low impact machinery. During reforestation efforts, integrated brush control methods are recommended (e.g. Spot fertilization at time of planting). Herbicide is not permitted in this zone. No new trail development. No broadcast fertilization. Temperature Sensitive Streams: The minister responsible for the Wildlife Act, the Minister of Environment or delegate, by order may designate a portion of a fish stream as a temperature sensitive stream under the authority of Section 15 of the Government Actions Regulation (GAR). There are currently no streams designated as Temperature Sensitive in this plan by GAR, however in the IWMP, Suicide (Anderson) Creek is referred to as a temperature sensitive creek due to its importance as a refuge for fish and its mitigating effects on temperatures in Lang Creek during low flows. In addition, in the most recent CWAP report (Carson 2003), sub-basins 8 and 10 where categorized Sensitive as these catchments drain directly into Lang Creek. The results or strategies for RMA s in this FSP allow the professional developing the site plan to take into consideration the specific characteristics and both RRZ and RMZ requirements of each creek and develop site plans that accommodate the values assigned Community Watersheds There is one Community Watershed (CW) within the Community Forest covered by this FSP, both have had a Watershed Assessment Procedure (WAP) completed for them listing management provisions required to maintain water qualities. The Community Watershed Guidebook, which defines CW's and operational guidelines, can be viewed at this website: 11

12 Please contact the Powell River Community Forest to arrange to view a CWAP completed for any CW s covered by this FSP. Figure 1. Designated Community Water Licenses within the FSP Area Haslam/Lang Community Watershed Haslam LU In developing the strategy for community watersheds it was determined that the objectives set by government for the water in a community watershed could be maintained without having to go through the rigours of completing a full CWAP. All community watersheds under the code were by regulation put under the rigours of the CWAP assessment procedures guidebook (1999) and as time passed, the original data from these assessments has already helped managers quantify the dynamics of various watersheds. Updated CWAP s to a large extent do not recalculate the known variables of the original reports but try to build on the dynamics of the watershed and focus managers on sensitive areas and/or controllable forest practices. The key components of the CWAP are maintained as part of this strategy and include: ECA (equivalent clear cut area) in which no more than 30% of the entire watershed can be in a state that is not 90% hydrological recovered when consideration is given to the silviculture system, regeneration growth, the location of the area in the watershed including important elevation band, or other similar factors; or Maximum Cut Block Size- where the maximum net area of a cut block to be reforested in the watershed will not exceed 40ha, and Average Cut Block Size- for the watershed will not exceed 20 ha. Other factors considered in the development of this strategy and contained in the CWAP are road density and mass wasting potential. Given improved road construction techniques and best management practices that include; minimizing the amount of road constructed, construction of narrow road right-of-ways, the use of geo-textile fabrics, grass seeding disturbed soil concurrent with construction, maintaining water in natural drainage courses, and deactivating roads following use, it is felt that road density and mass wasting potential is adequately addressed through the use of practice requirements outlined in the FPPR. Similarly the introduction of Surface soil stability mapping for all Community Watersheds and both commitments to use 12

13 qualified professionals to assess slope stability and potential mass wasting at the site level during planning phases greatly reduces the risk of sedimentation into water supplies from forest operations. The terrain guidelines used in the Community Watershed Guidebook are inserted below. Where multiple licenses are operating in a watershed, the holder will take into consideration as best he can, those factors that contribute to the overall amount of harvesting and road construction in the watershed and will proceed with caution with primary forest activities when the specified limits could be exceeded. Further evaluation by a hydrologist may be considered when determining hydrological impacts to watersheds near their limits or other consultation to better understand their effects. Terrain Guidelines Forest harvesting and road development will be guided by the most recent CWAP, Watershed management strategy, and the Community Watershed Guidebook. The terrain guidelines from the Community Watershed Guidebook are summarized as follows: terrain stability field assessments must be completed on terrain mapped as class IV or V or where there are instability indicators. o terrain polygons rated as class V are precluded from harvesting and road construction. o terrain polygons rated as class IV, with high (H) sedimentation potential will not be available for clear-cutting detailed site inspections will be required before approval of harvesting within class IV-H polygons (mapped polygons may contain areas of lower or higher classes that can only be determined by detailed site inspection) o any proposed harvesting must be within a stable area, identified by detailed site inspection, within the class IV-H polygon Areas with high or very high surface erosion potential and moderate or high sediment delivery potential: o no excavated or bladed trails, unless approved by a terrains/soils specialist after detailed site inspections Surface soil erosion field assessments are required for all road construction and modification in class H and VH soil erosion potential polygons & Wildlife and Biodiversity landscape level & stand level Landscape Level The landscape level strategy adopts the practice requirements as per s. 64 and 65 of the FPPR. The result/strategy is therefore measurable or verifiable against the practice requirements. Stand Level For FDU's that have legally established Landscape Unit Plans, retention targets will be consistent with Wildlife Tree retention targets as specified in the LUP. Currently the Bunster and Lois FDU have legally established landscape unit plans with wildlife tree retention targets. 13

14 The stand level strategy can adopt the s. 66 and 67 of the FPPR for landscape Units that do not have legally established Landscape Unit plans such as in the case of the Haslam however, the Haslam FDU will seek a conditional exemption as specified below. The average area covered by wildlife tree retention areas that relate to the cut blocks remains consistent with FPPR S. 66(1) at a minimum of 7% of the total area of the cut blocks across blocks, however in the Haslam FDU, the timeframe for achieving the results are over the term of the plan rather than annually. The WTR targets (Haslam) are applied over the term of the plan to allow for operational flexibility. Result or Strategy for Conditional Exemption under FPPR Section 12.5(1) Wildlife Tree Retention (Haslam FDU only) In preparing a result for Wildlife Tree retention an alternative result can be applied in FDUs with no approved landscape unit plan. This alternate result does not apply to FDU s in approved landscape units. The challenge of conserving biodiversity is to protect, over the long term, all species and genetic variants from serious declines or extinctions caused by human interaction. Maintaining biodiversity requires planning over a landscape or watershed area as well as designing a system of protecting appropriate attributes at the stand level. The Haslam FDU that forms this FSP is consistent with landscape unit boundaries established by government and therefore can be considered an appropriate scale to manage biodiversity at the stand and landscape level. In developing the alternative result for stand level biodiversity the factors outlined in schedule A of the FPPR were considered. 2 (a) the size, structure, amount, location and other characteristics of trees that: (i) make trees suitable for wildlife habitat, and (ii) have ecological attributes that contribute to stand level biodiversity. To adequately manage for stand level biodiversity wildlife tree patches should ideally be a minimum of 0.25 ha. in size, have both vertical and horizontal stand structure attributes (e.g. wildlife trees, downed coarse woody debris etc.) and maintain some level of forest influence. Forest influence is the internal area of the patch at least one tree length from the edge of an opening (Weyerhaeuser - based on 5 years of research by their Adaptive Management Working Group). In the majority of cases, following the default requirements for small blocks <10 hectares would not provide large enough WTRA's to effectively manage for stand biodiversity and forest influence. The following examples illustrate WTRA sizes for small blocks: 7 ha. Cut block = ha. WTRA limited forest influence 5 ha. Cut block = ha. WTRA no forest influence 2 ha. Cut block = ha. WTRA no forest influence In most cases small cut blocks don t have as much internal area located away from forest edge as due larger cut blocks. The shorter distance to the forest edge associated with smaller cut blocks (<10 Ha.) allows stand level species to move from the cut block into adjacent stands. The 14

15 proposed strategy focuses on providing larger functional WTP s in cut blocks > 10 hectares in size that will provide the necessary elements for stand level species to survive. (b) The extent to which wildlife habitat areas, ungulate winter ranges, riparian management areas, old growth management areas, scenic areas and other areas established to manage forest resources (i) provide suitable wildlife habitat, and (ii) assist in the conservation of stand level biodiversity, including old growth Cultural Heritage Resources This Community Forest Agreement has been awarded to the PRCF and located within the Sliammon First Nation traditional territory. A small portion of the PRCF chart are is within the Sechelt First Nation traditional territory but this area has not been included in any FDUs under this FSP. There are no planned operations for these areas over the term of this plan. The strategy ensures that PRCF, by following the strategy, will not only respect the rights of the Sliammon First Nation but also ensures the cultural heritage resources are conserved and if necessary protected for the Sliammon First Nation. PRCF will also work with the entire Community to ensure that other heritage values are recognized and managed appropriately Visual Quality Management for visual quality applies to the Crown forested land within scenic areas identified in this license area. The strategy commits road construction and cut block harvesting to being consistent with the visual quality objectives established within scenic areas on the Sunshine Coast. The strategy allows for VQO's to be exceeded in certain circumstances; such as where road construction or cut block harvesting are located adjacent to areas that are not subject to VQO's (i.e. private land) or areas of Crown land subject to mineral tenures (i.e. gravel pits/quarries) or powerline R/W corridors provided cut-block configuration exhibits aspects of good visual design, but not limited to just these examples. A visual assessment will be completed for planned developments that are located in a scenic area with an established visual quality objective (VQO). The visual assessment will review the visual landscape from significant public view points and other viewpoints deemed necessary and will be guided by the methods described in the Visual Impact Assessment Guidebook (2nd. Ed., January 2001) Recreation Management for recreation under this plan is restricted to FRPA s. 181, whereby an area established or continued under the Forest Practices Code was grand parented. This was the case for the Sweetwater Recreational Trail. The objective and subsequent Result and Strategy is fairly straightforward, allowing protection of the trail and if done with care and attention, a crossing of the trail is possible if conditions are met. 15

16 On a more forward looking note, the Recreation Objectives spelled out in the Statement of Goals and guiding principles endorsed by the Community Board s Plan for Management, the Board stated: To manage the type, location and intensity of recreation activities in the watershed in a way that minimizes risks to water supplies. PRCF maintains an open door policy in regard to working with recreational groups on how to best manage for recreational resources. Sunshine Coast Trail No legal objectives have been established for the Sunshine Coast Trail, however a document of Management Principles was produced December 8 th, 2009 (File: /16104). These principles provide management guidance and negate the need for legal objectives for the trail. Established trails under FRPA s. 56 with no legal objectives are to be managed using the practice requirements for resource features under FPPR s. 70. Duck Lake Rec Area No legal objectives have been established for the Duck Lake Recreation area. Established trails/rec sites under FRPA s. 56 with no legal objectives are to be managed using the practice requirements for resource features under FPPR s Stocking Standards The FSP Stocking Standards specify the regeneration date, free growing height and stocking standards for the situations or circumstances where FPPR S. 44(1) applies (Stocking standards are in Appendix 1). The following background information will aid in clarifying the application of stocking standards for users. Appendix 1-Stocking Standards also contains further explanation and application on stocking standards applicable to this FSP. Hardwood Management- (Red Alder) As the harvesting of alder species has occurred traditionally in the Haslam watershed under the management of Northwest Industrial Hardwoods Inc (A Weyerhaeuser Business), a continued hardwood management (red alder) strategy not only may be the most appropriate for a given site but may borrow from the historically successful alder management and apply to the CFA lands. It is not the intention of the standards to allow widespread hardwood management. The Sunshine Coast Timber Supply Area analysis has recognized hardwood management on a limited basis and does set a portion of the AAC for broadleaf harvesting. The next Timber Supply Review (TSR III) will likely further address hardwood management. The Chief Forester has recognized the value of hardwood species in a letter dated August 22, The Chief Forester has set out some guidelines with regards to the acceptability of broadleaf species in the stocking standards both in pure broadleaf and mixed broadleaf/conifer stands. 16

17 Reduced Stocking Standards (1a) A large impediment to reforestation can be Elk. Elk have become well established along Lang creek, and Haslam Lake. In these locations the introduced elk are using cut blocks with newly established trees as feeding and security areas and in doing so causing damage to the trees. Due to the physical size of these animals it is impractical to protect trees throughout the establishment phase. Even using 4 tall wire cages does not guarantee Free Growing trees as browsing up to 7 above the ground has been recorded. The Licensee is proposing two strategies to deal with this elk issue. Strategy 1- lower stocking level: The first is to use a lower stocking level for the areas where elk congregate, which tends to be sheltered, low elevation sites that are moist with rich vegetation (which equates closely with deciduous leading stands). These are the locations where stocking is hardest and most expensive to achieve, but tend to be discrete areas. The proposed standards are clearly measurable and verifiable, and also appropriate to manage the resource. The Government of BC has decided to manage areas of the Sunshine Coast for elk and they will need the habitat which supports them. This includes a proportion of open ground. The proposed standard of 250 sph is not unreasonable and is in line with standards approved for the management of other large mammals such as grizzly bear. Strategy 2- Acceptance of Deciduous Crop Trees: The second strategy involves the acceptance of deciduous species as crop trees to help increase stocking levels and reduce the amount of rubbing and fraying damage in Douglas fir stands. There is evidence that denser stands are less favoured for rubbing purposes by bull elk, and conversely that open stands (especially just after brushing) are targeted. Allowing the use of deciduous trees to be part of the stand at Free Growing provides both a level of protection from rubbing damage and also an insurance that there will be more chance that some trees capable of producing a timber crop will survive through the vulnerable phase. The standard also proposes a measure to ensure that preferred conifer species are not impeded by deciduous at the Free Growing declaration. The result of this strategy is to provide the Crown with management options into the future rather than gappy, poorly stocked stands that have very little potential for improvement. For the purpose of measuring and verifying for stratification, the following will be used as a guide for heavy damage or the likelihood that damage will continue to reduce the value of the stand post free growing: If while conducting silviculture surveys the number of locations where groups of more than 4 neighbouring or near neighbouring trees are damaged such that they will not meet the free growing standards is; a) at least once per hectare averaged across the Standard Unit or b) at least once per standard unit where the number of trees damaged is 10 or more with evidence the damage is chronic and ongoing then, the new stocking standard will apply either to the whole standard unit or a new standard unit will be created. Definition of a Free Growing stand (2) The definitions used in the Stocking Standard Strategy are primarily based on biological thresholds which will determine when crop trees will be able to grow unimpeded from brush competition. When taken in conjunction with Free Growing heights of 3-4m for Douglas fir and 17

18 2m for cedar on these rich sites plus 4m heights on alder the definitions are clearly based on biological rationale. Introducing the concept of free growing based on leader height performance when compared to trees without deciduous species in proximity has been used by other Licensees in the Province for a number of years for Free Growing assessments and is based purely on biological principles. The growth form of birch, bitter cherry and willow is generally columnar without wide spreading branches and Douglas fir and cedar generally grow with little sign of competition even when in close proximity. 4m tall Douglas fir with leader heights of cm are extremely unlikely to slow down due to these species and if leader heights are visibly slowing then intervention before Free Growing will be necessary. The crop tree to brush height ratio of 150% has been reduced for the following competing species: Bracken and Lady Fern (125%), Birch, Cherry, and Willow (100%) Salmonberry, Thimbleberry, Elderberry, Fireweed, and Sword Fern (100%) These crop tree to brush height ratios have been used by other licensees in the district and allow stands to be declared freegrowing based on biological principles, not just a set rule of 150%. Maple Coppice (3) The most effective way to manage maple coppice is with herbicide, and in situations where this is either not legal or has been objected to by the public then alternative methods to manage it are proposed. Through the reduction of coppice sprouts to a few at the centre of the stool the area taken up by the tree can be reduced and similarly the impact on conifers reduced. As maple provides an attractive timber which is used extensively for furniture and is a very valuable component of biodiversity within managed forests this is a positive management option. In summary maple coppice will be managed as a crop tree or a component of biodiversity. Forest Health (4) The inclusion of alder into the stocking standards for root rot sites, or its acceptance as a preferred option when conifers have died, is based on ecological principles for managing Phellinus weirii or Armillaria sp. By limiting the use of alder to site series described in the stocking standards it will ensure the suitability of the species to provide a productive replacement to the failed conifers. Mixedwood Management (5) See the Coast Hardwood Management Strategy for guidance on this topic: %20Coast%20Forest%20Region%20(final%20July11V2).pdf Deciduous Management (6) 18

19 In many areas where alder is ecologically suitable there may be natural regeneration of maple. This stocking standard will allow maple to be an acceptable species when regenerating naturally in an alder plantation. Prepared By: Laurie J. Hirtle, RPF# 4737 Results Based Forest Management Ltd. 19