November 30th, 2009
Background:
· Plutonic received government approval to build run-of-river projects and attending rights-of-way from Saltery Bay to Toba Valley. The pole lines were located through the Powell River backcountry and used existing roads and infrastructure. Now after two years of intense building activities the projects are nearing completion by 2010, and roads and bridges that are no longer needed by Plutonic are being deactivated. This means the public that had used them for decades will no longer be able to use them, losing access to their favourite playgrounds.
· Since Friday, November 27, upon learning of Plutonic’s untenable deactivation plans in a newspaper ad, a large number of community members have made phone calls and sent emails to Plutonic expressing their concerns.
· True consultations have not taken place. In early November 2009 Plutonic had gathered information from a variety of parties and user groups that they met with, but did not go beyond this initial step to engage in a give-and-take conversation with the stakeholders.
· According to Western Forest Products, Plutonic did not invite Western to meet with them during these stakeholder meetings that Plutonic had hosted.
· The appearance is that Plutonic was only interested in giving folks an opportunity to talk/vent during the group meetings early in November, and then they proceeded with their agenda as it stood without any further engagement.
· When Plutonic held a public meeting at the Town Centre Hotel nearly four yeas ago (January 16, 2006) Plutonic made the promise that access would remain into the alpine areas after they had completed the power lines.
· Elisha McCallum, Plutonic’s public relations officer, reaffirmed this promise during a phone call with Eagle Walz on Saturday, November 27, 2009. She said Plutonic will ensure that there will be access where access had existed before.
Squirrel Creek Bridge Removal:
· A notification of a Plutonic deactivation ad to be published in the Peak on Friday, November 27, 2009 was emailed out to the interview participants only the previous afternoon.
· This ad stated Plutonic/Kiewit was taking out Squirrel Creek Bridge on the Monday immediately after the weekend, providing little opportunity, not even one full working day, for any dialogue before the bridge deactivation was slated to begin.
· On the Friday the Plutonic ad appeared in the Peak newspaper, the Plutonic office was shut down with blinds drawn, and phone calls were not returned during this time of the rising crisis.
· Plutonic initially had stated they were taking the bridge out because Western was telling them they had to, as did the regulations.
· Western said Goat Main beyond Squirrel is not under their road permit, they never had a road permit, and it was just an old road in no man’s land, built at a time by previous tree farm license holders when there were no legal obligations to deactivate. They said they would be using this road beyond the bridge to access harvesting opportunities or silvi-culture prescriptions at some time in the future.
· On Saturday 28th Ms McCallum stated that the Squirrel Bridge was always going to be removed and re-used at Toba (near Power House). She said she only heard from Kiewit Wednesday 25th last week that they needed the bridge on Monday and that she thought it would be best to place an ad in the paper so people wouldn’t be riding up there and finding that the bridge was gone.
· This situation is either the result of very poor planning, or a disregard for the people of Powell River.
· Ms McCallum stated that when Plutonic/Kiewit put this bridge there at the time of building the transmission line there had been no bridge there. Therefore they did not feel obligated to retain this access post-pullout. (Note: There had been temporary bridges there over the years when licensees harvested the far reaches of Goat Main.)
· Ms McCallum also said that where there had been recreation/tourism access before they will provide access again after they are finished using the area. We would like to see a significant performance bond attached to a legally binding commitment to keep access open to Powell River’s Alpine Backcountry.
· ATV riders have apparently used this section of Goat Main beyond Squirrel frequently. They now feel betrayed by the impending bridge and access removal. Observations from other users of the area on their experiences relative to deactivations have yet to be documented and included.
· Last week Plutonic did finally meet with Western. WFP stated they’d rather have the Squirrel Creek Bridge stay intact.
· We think it's wasteful to take out this bridge that would again be used by Western FP to log on far side of bridge.
· How is Plutonic planning to do maintenance and brushing in the future if you remove access? (Plutonic has committed it would not spray!)
· Wasteful to deactivate the road beyond the removed Squirrel bridge and any others beyond it, if Western will go in the coming years to do more harvesting.
· Wouldn’t it be preferable not to have a repeat of the logging fiasco of a couple of years ago with timber left to rot after the inevitable ambrosia beetle arrival, and it was only dealt with after much of the value was gone out of the wood and it became a huge issue of waste.
Meeting Required:
· Need to sit down together to work this out in the presence of other stakeholders as well. We need to all get on the same page. MOF needs to be there to dispel regulatory misinformation and to help find a way that will work for all. There maybe a need for a facilitator.
· On Saturday 28th, during the previously mentioned phone call with E. Walz, Ms. McCallum indicated she would be willing to attend a meeting with the Outdoor Recreation User Groups and other interested parties during the week of December 14th.
· The ORUG Access Committee is holding a first meeting Monday night, November 30th. We are hoping this access committee group will make things easier for Plutonic because we expect to be involved at the front end in decisions being made regarding our access.
Top Powell River Tourism and Recreation Resource
· The Powell River backcountry and alpine areas are an important recreational resource for Powell River folks. For many it’s their Palm Springs, their weekend getaway, and their escape they can afford.
· The huge tourism potential for the Powell Divide (from Mount Alfred Glacier, to Centre Lakes, Emma Lake, Triple Peaks, and Skwim Mountain) has not been taken into account. Alfred Glacier for instance has five satellite peaks which can be reached and bagged in five day trips made from base camp at the end of D-Branch.
· The Powell Divide allows for weeklong ridge treks where you never have to go below 4000 feet. Whistler would be salivating at alpine recreational opportunities like this.
· We must safeguard Powell River’s ability to recreate and to develop this nascent tourism resource to further diversify our economy.
· Apparently S-Branch behind Freda Lake was already deactivated last week. Ms. McCallum said Plutonic gave the order to deactivate it seasonally but also to leave in the bridges. Need to ascertain whether this happened in the field. Member of the public (Mark Forsyth) was up in his emergency shelter at the end of S-Branch, when a crew showed up with equipment and told him to move out as they were going to deactivate the road. There had been no ad in the paper that this deactivation was going to occur.
· These deactivation actions, proposed or actual, are Plutonic’s statement to our community. S-Branch is virtually inaccessible, even to ATVs. Squirrel Bridge is about to be dismantled, and Goat Lake Main north of it pulled back. This process will be essentially finished by December 2 to 4. Access to Alfred Glacier and Centre Lakes is on the chopping block as advertised. Goat 2 to Triple Peaks will be next.
· Ms McCallum promises to hold meaningful consultations when she comes up to Powell River during the week of December 14th.
Higher Level Planning and Actions Required
· In the absence of a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Plutonic must do more to engage this community and take its needs into consideration. It did not gauge its aspirations accurately.
· Had an LRMP, or some other higher-level strategic plan been in place we would not now be at the eleventh hour with this issue. It would have been resolved long before it became an issue.
· Land and Resource Management Plans cover most of the province. Why was the LRMP process terminated for our region?
· Stakeholder talks need to occur. Establish a round table that includes the major stakeholders, local and provincial governments, industries and community groups.
· Trust must be rebuilt.
· Let’s start thinking outside the box and see where and how legislation might allow us to come up with a creative solution.
· There may be an opportunity to set up a trust fund that would pay for the additional liability and maintenance costs incurred for keeping the alpine access open. Plutonic realized significant savings by using existing roads and infrastructures. Many of these had been made usable and were maintained by volunteers that travel through these valleys and mountains.
· Ms McCallum mentioned she heard from a BCFS employee that the regional district of the lower Sunshine Coast did find a way to expand their liability insurance to include coverage for some of their recreational access and infrastructure. She said she would contact Sechelt on Monday, November 30th, and learn how they accomplished this, and then broach the concept with the Powell River Regional District.
· Other ideas will appear as we sit down and have a conversation around the table looking for a win/win resolution.
Eagle Walz
President
Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (1992)
November 30, 2009
NOTE: As more information becomes available the above summary will be adjusted.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NOTE: The links below lead to two Peak article by Paul Galinski. One includes a map of the Squirrel Creek Bridge and Goat Lake Main, as well as comments by the public and by Elisha McCallum, Plutonic director of communications. Click on to the links for further information:
www.prpeak.com/articles/2009/12/02/news/doc4b15cf5ee4660019400260.txt
www.prpeak.com/articles/2009/11/18/news/doc4b0356531ea6a595451350.txt
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Alpine Access Post-Plutonic Activities
Below is an article that appeared in the Peak, followed underneath the asterisks by a reader's response to the subject.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Woodland access under discussion
TICKET TO WONDERLAND: Access to alpine areas is a topic of discussion among Plutonic Power Corporation, recreation users and road permit holders.
Recreational users have concerns about backcountry corridors
by Paul Galinski | reporter@prpeak.com
Published: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:27 AM CST
Backcountry and alpine recreational users are concerned deactivation of roads and infrastructure will restrict wilderness access.
Plutonic Power Corporation is in the process of decommissioning some of the transportation infrastructure it has used to construct power line corridors in Powell River’s backcountry. A series of meetings between Plutonic and various user groups is ongoing to see if a compromise can be reached.
Elisha McCallum, Plutonic director of communications, said Plutonic wants people to know the company doesn’t want to get in the way of access or tourism opportunities. She said the company has certain obligations and needed to have conversations with the road permit holders to ensure it was following the right protocols.
“We are going to be here for the long term,” McCallum said. “We don’t want to get into a situation where we are causing any upset but we also have to meet any obligations we have from a legal and liability perspective.”
McCallum said Plutonic plans on continuing meetings with the road permit holders, such as Western Forest Products (WFP) and the BC Forest Service. “We are going to make a commitment to get back to folks when we have an idea what the next steps are going to be. We did let folks know we weren’t in a position to make decisions...right now.”
Eagle Walz, president of Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (PRPAWS), said what recreational users want is improved access, not terminated access. “It’s basically a matter of money,” he said.
Walz added he understands it’s between WFP and Plutonic to work out matters such as maintenance costs and liability. “It would be an excellent opportunity for both companies to come out looking like they support the development of tourism in this community that has suffered a major downturn as a result of the forest industry,” he said.
“My understanding is the first discussions last week were positive and they are meeting again this week. Elisha said they are hopeful they can reach some kind of an accommodation.”
Walz said PRPAWS is supportive of the efforts to reach accommodations that will benefit the community and create more jobs rather than fewer.
Randy Mitchell, from the Knuckleheads winter recreation group, said Plutonic tells recreational users they have to take on the liability of the bridge, or someone has to, and this is the contention being worked out right now. “The thing that bothers me is they came in and created the problem,” he said. “If they weren’t here, we wouldn’t have the problem. They just came in and started a hornet’s nest.
“We are all hoping that maybe they would help us get more access and there would be some benefit,” he said. “When people use Crown lands to generate wealth, there should be some spinoff, not just to the provincial government.
“They are basically dismantling the public’s access out there. It’s been slowly going on for years. The public doesn’t have any rights or say.”
Mitchell said as long as those power lines are out there “messing things up,” Plutonic should be taking care of things and allowing some good corporate citizenship.
Dave Hodgins, president of the Powell River ATV Club, said his group has been involved in numerous issues with access. “It does not just involve Plutonic,” he said. “It has involved the Powell River Community Forest, BC Timber Sales/BC Forest Service.
“There are solutions,” he said. “We as a community of recreational users have to come up with compromises. We might not like them. Are we as a community, willing to accept a portion of the liability to maintain access?”
*********************************************************************************
Reader Comments
The following are comments from online readers. In no way do they represent the views of Peak Publishing Ltd. To suggest removal of comments that violate the terms of use, please e-mail webmaster@prpeak.com.
rvalentine wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:27 PM:
" I absolutely believe that the companies that use our back country road system for profits should be required to leave road access in place. As a kid we used to go up to the lakes and the roads were in great shape. We loved camping and swimming at the many different lakes in the area, it is one of the great things about this area. As years went on and the size of the logging operations decreased, the roads were in a terrible state of barely being maintained. Lots of branch roads deactivated (ditched, blocked, washed out). A lot of lakes access required use of a modified four wheel drive to get to. So I feel it should be these companies, as well as the various levels of government to keep these roads open so everyone can enjoy the things we have right on our doorstep. The recent road upgrades to freda lake main are amazing. I was able recently to take my 83 year grandfather up to freda lake, and to the k branch lookout and he had never been there before, born and raised here. The state of the road before I would not have been able to take him along as it was a terribly rough road. It was hard on the body and took hours to get there. And I shouldn't have to chew the crap out of a road to take my son to a fishing spot. We have many untapped resources here still, opportunities for people here and for tourism expansion. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Woodland access under discussion
TICKET TO WONDERLAND: Access to alpine areas is a topic of discussion among Plutonic Power Corporation, recreation users and road permit holders.
Recreational users have concerns about backcountry corridors
by Paul Galinski | reporter@prpeak.com
Published: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:27 AM CST
Backcountry and alpine recreational users are concerned deactivation of roads and infrastructure will restrict wilderness access.
Plutonic Power Corporation is in the process of decommissioning some of the transportation infrastructure it has used to construct power line corridors in Powell River’s backcountry. A series of meetings between Plutonic and various user groups is ongoing to see if a compromise can be reached.
Elisha McCallum, Plutonic director of communications, said Plutonic wants people to know the company doesn’t want to get in the way of access or tourism opportunities. She said the company has certain obligations and needed to have conversations with the road permit holders to ensure it was following the right protocols.
“We are going to be here for the long term,” McCallum said. “We don’t want to get into a situation where we are causing any upset but we also have to meet any obligations we have from a legal and liability perspective.”
McCallum said Plutonic plans on continuing meetings with the road permit holders, such as Western Forest Products (WFP) and the BC Forest Service. “We are going to make a commitment to get back to folks when we have an idea what the next steps are going to be. We did let folks know we weren’t in a position to make decisions...right now.”
Eagle Walz, president of Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (PRPAWS), said what recreational users want is improved access, not terminated access. “It’s basically a matter of money,” he said.
Walz added he understands it’s between WFP and Plutonic to work out matters such as maintenance costs and liability. “It would be an excellent opportunity for both companies to come out looking like they support the development of tourism in this community that has suffered a major downturn as a result of the forest industry,” he said.
“My understanding is the first discussions last week were positive and they are meeting again this week. Elisha said they are hopeful they can reach some kind of an accommodation.”
Walz said PRPAWS is supportive of the efforts to reach accommodations that will benefit the community and create more jobs rather than fewer.
Randy Mitchell, from the Knuckleheads winter recreation group, said Plutonic tells recreational users they have to take on the liability of the bridge, or someone has to, and this is the contention being worked out right now. “The thing that bothers me is they came in and created the problem,” he said. “If they weren’t here, we wouldn’t have the problem. They just came in and started a hornet’s nest.
“We are all hoping that maybe they would help us get more access and there would be some benefit,” he said. “When people use Crown lands to generate wealth, there should be some spinoff, not just to the provincial government.
“They are basically dismantling the public’s access out there. It’s been slowly going on for years. The public doesn’t have any rights or say.”
Mitchell said as long as those power lines are out there “messing things up,” Plutonic should be taking care of things and allowing some good corporate citizenship.
Dave Hodgins, president of the Powell River ATV Club, said his group has been involved in numerous issues with access. “It does not just involve Plutonic,” he said. “It has involved the Powell River Community Forest, BC Timber Sales/BC Forest Service.
“There are solutions,” he said. “We as a community of recreational users have to come up with compromises. We might not like them. Are we as a community, willing to accept a portion of the liability to maintain access?”
*********************************************************************************
Reader Comments
The following are comments from online readers. In no way do they represent the views of Peak Publishing Ltd. To suggest removal of comments that violate the terms of use, please e-mail webmaster@prpeak.com.
rvalentine wrote on Nov 18, 2009 12:27 PM:
" I absolutely believe that the companies that use our back country road system for profits should be required to leave road access in place. As a kid we used to go up to the lakes and the roads were in great shape. We loved camping and swimming at the many different lakes in the area, it is one of the great things about this area. As years went on and the size of the logging operations decreased, the roads were in a terrible state of barely being maintained. Lots of branch roads deactivated (ditched, blocked, washed out). A lot of lakes access required use of a modified four wheel drive to get to. So I feel it should be these companies, as well as the various levels of government to keep these roads open so everyone can enjoy the things we have right on our doorstep. The recent road upgrades to freda lake main are amazing. I was able recently to take my 83 year grandfather up to freda lake, and to the k branch lookout and he had never been there before, born and raised here. The state of the road before I would not have been able to take him along as it was a terribly rough road. It was hard on the body and took hours to get there. And I shouldn't have to chew the crap out of a road to take my son to a fishing spot. We have many untapped resources here still, opportunities for people here and for tourism expansion. "
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Green Power? Spiderfication!
After Plutonic, we now have Hawkeye applying for permits to put run-of-river projects all over our immediate backyard. Together these projects, if apporoved, could total in the neighbourhood of 40 sites.
See Peak article Hawkeye gears up for green power call a "green power" application for 12 new run-of-river power generating stations and a second power line right-of-way to run through our region. Subsequent phases could boost this to 34 projects. This is in addition to the handful of Plutonic Power projects already being built and more being planned.
The questions we are asking ourselves are: How many treeless rights-of-way do we want to have crisscrossing our pristine backcountry? This impacts heavily on the logging industry too. Not only does that industry lose the alienated timber harvesting land base that will never again be allowed to grow another tree on the rights-of-way, but also helicopter logging will be prohibited beyond the power lines. How many more creeks will not have their same natural volume of flow ever again? What is an acceptable limit? Is it true this power is really only going to be exported to the states? What is General Electric's involvement with Plutonic? Who is "Upper Toba Hydro Inc." Attend their Open House on Tuesday, October 21, from 4 to 8 pm at the Town Centre Hotel.
What is happening elsewhere in the province with green power projects? Click onto the link below to read the Vancouver Sun article on the Ashlu River facility being built north of Squamish: Streams go to work for green power sector
Should there not be a public discussion on this issue of proliferation of green power projects? Shouldn't we have an opportunity to provide input to government as to how we wish to see the region we live and work in develop in the future?
Over the last two years PR PAWS, other community groups and local governments have called for the provincial government to initiate a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) on the Sunshine Coast because of growing unregulated development in our region. LNG tankers, power projects, transportation corridors, etc. There should be a moratorium on any further power developments until the public has had an opportunity to educate itself, and to provide input to government through an LRMP. Government refused an LRMP, then initiated a watered-down land use process that included consultations with first nations and the logging industry, but not local governments or local interest groups. We need a government process, an LRMP with teeth, that involves the public, various interest groups, as well as our elected representatives in the Regional District, First Nations and the City.
PR PAWS is now working to find answers to the questions above and to others related to this issue before we take a position. We will keep you informed on these developments. If you have any thoughts or information that can help in our deliberations please contact us.
See Peak article Hawkeye gears up for green power call a "green power" application for 12 new run-of-river power generating stations and a second power line right-of-way to run through our region. Subsequent phases could boost this to 34 projects. This is in addition to the handful of Plutonic Power projects already being built and more being planned.
The questions we are asking ourselves are: How many treeless rights-of-way do we want to have crisscrossing our pristine backcountry? This impacts heavily on the logging industry too. Not only does that industry lose the alienated timber harvesting land base that will never again be allowed to grow another tree on the rights-of-way, but also helicopter logging will be prohibited beyond the power lines. How many more creeks will not have their same natural volume of flow ever again? What is an acceptable limit? Is it true this power is really only going to be exported to the states? What is General Electric's involvement with Plutonic? Who is "Upper Toba Hydro Inc." Attend their Open House on Tuesday, October 21, from 4 to 8 pm at the Town Centre Hotel.
What is happening elsewhere in the province with green power projects? Click onto the link below to read the Vancouver Sun article on the Ashlu River facility being built north of Squamish: Streams go to work for green power sector
Should there not be a public discussion on this issue of proliferation of green power projects? Shouldn't we have an opportunity to provide input to government as to how we wish to see the region we live and work in develop in the future?
Over the last two years PR PAWS, other community groups and local governments have called for the provincial government to initiate a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) on the Sunshine Coast because of growing unregulated development in our region. LNG tankers, power projects, transportation corridors, etc. There should be a moratorium on any further power developments until the public has had an opportunity to educate itself, and to provide input to government through an LRMP. Government refused an LRMP, then initiated a watered-down land use process that included consultations with first nations and the logging industry, but not local governments or local interest groups. We need a government process, an LRMP with teeth, that involves the public, various interest groups, as well as our elected representatives in the Regional District, First Nations and the City.
PR PAWS is now working to find answers to the questions above and to others related to this issue before we take a position. We will keep you informed on these developments. If you have any thoughts or information that can help in our deliberations please contact us.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Talks with Island Timberlands
Notes arising from meeting with Island Timberlands
Friday, February 29th, 2008
Attending: Darshan Sihota, Bill Waugh, Wes Bingham, Eagle Walz
Introduction: Appreciation for meeting
• Regrets from Glenn Parkinson that he couldn’t make it.
• Wes Bingham hand delivered Glenn’s letter – Island responded that we don’t always get a chance to respond to every letter that comes in to us
Many groups involved with and concerned about future of Lois River (not mentioned at meeting)
• Sechelt & Sliammon First Nations
• Sunshine Coast Conservation Association
• Western Canada Wilderness Committee
• Sierra Club, Malaspina Group
• Friends of Eagle River
• Council of Canadians
• PRPAWS
Positive Actions of Island Timberlands (based on negotiations of IT with PRPAWS)
• Retention and wind firming of trees in Lois River "sliver" will prevent or minimize blowdown, slide, siltation of salmon river, road collapse.
• Island indicated that the windfirming practices do not guarantee that the trees will not blow down but they have been successful in some areas
• 30m buffer on Manzanita bluffs section of SCT (Okeover Inlet)
• Agreement to leave buffer along Myrtle Creek and protect ephemeral creek running through cutblock there. Also we will look into what the buffers are left by other property holders along Myrtle Creek. More development is being readied by another subdivision. Myrtle Creek is the only creek on the whole coast north of Vancouver, which is being monitored by DFO. It is an important indicator of the state of the wild salmon.
• Island is not a large landowner in this area.
• Eagle and Wes indicated that the biggest issue is the proposed development in the area.
• 10 m buffer along SCT near Fiddlehead farm section.
• PRPAWS appreciates these considerations by Island Timberlands very much. They help maintain biodiversity and ensure the Sunshine Coast Trail continues to grow as an increasingly important economic driver in Powell River.
What We Are Asking of Island Timberlands Horseshoe River
• Reforest the canoe route portage, clean up. Comments: Darshan: Who pays for clean up? Eagle: FIA funding. BOMB Squad volunteers do work on the Canoe Route. Bill: Island Timberlands hired a crew. It is all cleared up now. Discussion of cause: While it was an act of nature that caused trees to fall from all directions, the lack of buffer between falling corners 10 and 11 gave the wind an opportunity to enter the river channel and add to the blowdown from that direction. A buffer like elsewhere along the river would likely have resulted in a buffer remaining, likely also impacted, but nevertheless remaining. We seek not to lay blame, but to avoid future mishaps through these discussions.
• Bill pointed out that the same storm decimated Stanley Park and other parts of the coast causing widespread damage and power outages
• Bill stated that Island provided a buffer on the Horseshoe River far in excess of the legal requirements and carried out “best practices” (pruning) on the buffer to lessen the potential for blowdown
• There was general disagreement on the direction of the most damaging winds and the influences of the manmade lake vs the adjacent cutblock
• Darshan stated that Island doesn’t object to the public using our lands in this area for the canoe route.
• All agreed that we need to get past the blame game and develop a respectful relationship
• It was agreed that Bill would arrange to visit the site with Eagle and Wes to understand the remediation issues
• the trail has been cleared since the blowdown event and is fully accessible.
• The adjacent cutblock was planted last year and some planting will occur along the canoe route this spring or fall
• Leave a 50m buffer along Horseshoe River, including the south side of the road when doing remaining cut, and ensure that cutblock edges are made wind firm.
• Bill will contact us and set up a walkabout of the area in the near future.
Lois(Eagle) River
• Retain intact forest ecosystem between the roads east and west of Lois River from dam to sea.
• Inherent value of intact wildlife greenway from sea to dam: ecological, social, recreational & tourism value
• Public relations value to IT.
• Valuable spawning river especially if new or upgraded dam with fish ladders built. This would be a showcase IPP project, illustrating ecologically sensitive private power production.
• Retention of this forested area would enhance value of nearby lands with development potential.
• Retention could be made possible through a buy back by provincial government to protect this ecologically sensitive area. Sierra Club and PRPAWS will investigate the feasibility of such a buy back program and suggest monies to come from a small surcharge on crown land volume (e.g. $0.05/m3) to go to a Parkland Acquisition Fund. (This might have to be a coastal initiative and at a lower rate, e.g. $0.01/m3.)
• Darshan noted that we would expect that this would be the whole corridor – not just that portion owned by Island Timberlands.
• Eagle indicated that they would keep us updated on their progress toward their buy back goal
• Malaspina Group of the Sierra Club BC will begin talks with the BC chapter of the Sierra Club, asking them to approach the government with this request of a “parkland acquisition fund”.
• Eagle requested that we retain buffer of approximately 50 m along shoreline from archaeological site at mouth of Lois (Eagle) River to log sort. Ensure wind firming of edges upon logging the rest of the Sort Block below the haul road and above the riparian buffer, and between the two patches already logged in that location. Replant.
• Eagle asked if the record could show that Island Timberlands has no plans to log the Lois (Eagle) River corridor
• Bill indicated that Island has no plans to harvest adjacent to Lois(Eagle) River at this time.
• Bill indicated it is planning to complete the block by the DLS. This includes the area below the road near the ocean – we will be maintaining the existing trail and buffering the shoreline as required.
• Eagle said that he did not see any issues with us completing this block as it is not adjacent to Eagle River, and would be prepared to support us (on behalf of PRPAWS) in public on this issue.
• Darshan indicated that it retains the right to harvest all of the trees on its lands over time subject to riparian management issues.
• Bill stated that the sort block will be replanted this spring
Stillwater Bluffs
• Eagle raised the prospect that we were planning to sell or develop the Stillwater Bluffs property as communicated by Stephen Henderson.
• Darshan indicated that none of Island Timberlands’ properties can be sold or developed without his knowledge and that the only property issue he was aware of in this area was the site separation process between our land and the WFP DLS. Darshan clarified for Wes that the Approving Officer has the discretion to waive the water access requirement on subdivision, but has chosen not to, which has caused us to investigate options to achieve access on the lot to be subdivided.
Sunshine Coast Trail
• PRPAWS requested a 30 m buffer along most sections of the trail wherever possible, and depending on variation of terrain.
• Bill questioned why the 30 meter buffer on our lands when Crown land tenure holders are only required to leave a 10 m buffer
• Eagle responded that PRPAWS will be asking WFP to commit to a 30m buffer as well
• Darshan reiterated our point about all of the trees eventually being harvested, which may require that any trail be relocated over time. This is the model that works very well on the Trans Canada Trail on southern Vancouver Island
PRPAWS is interested in ensuring that the SCT is retained through Islands Mowat Bay property.
• PRPAWS requests a 30 m easement from Powell River Bridge to Mowat Bay to keep trail intact when this area is developed or sold. This would ensure the future viability of the Sunshine Coast Trail there and through the other stretches where the SCT traverses IT land. We would very much like to keep the trail going along from the bridge toward the loadout on the historic railroad grade, which has been hewn out of the steep sidehill. From the vicinity of the loadout across the hump down into Mowat Bay the trail might be moved this way or that in the eventuality that the area becomes residential in the future.
• Darshan stated that Island prefers not do easements.
• Eagle indicated that Dave Formosa had dedicated the SCT across his property.
• Darshan asked if this was in connection with getting entitlement for his development.
• Darshan asked if they thought that our property had any potential future residential value, or was it long term forestry land? Eagle did not offer a preference
• Eagle indicated that they were open to options of the trail going along the lake or inland, as long as we can retain a route for it.
SCT – Fiddlehead Farm
• Bill would like to explore the possibility of relocating the SCT near the Fiddlehead Farm area onto Crown Land
• PRPAWS is open to work together with IT to relocate the SCT around the Fiddlehead property onto crown land.
• In correspondence after the meeting Eagle broached the topic of School District 47, PRPAWS, BOMB Squad, and Model Communities applying jointly for a $1.5 million grant through ICET to put cabins and chalets on the SCT to develop Powell River’s tourism infrastructure. They have widespread and documented support in the community for this initiative and would like the opportunity to speak with Island about this proposal, perhaps during our walk-about.
Bill: I know you know this, but we are not in the position to authorize construction of such buildings on our lands, but do not object to this on Crown Land.
Island Timberlands Concerns
• Misinformation is spread through the community and Island Timberlands public image takes a beating. IT would appreciate having all sides of the story told. Eagle can through his PRPAWS position set record straight if inaccuracies are mentioned at public meetings, and to list positive actions of IT.
• Island would like the record to show that PRPAWS and the Sierra Club, Malaspina Group have no concerns with the harvest of the remainder of the Sort Block as it is not adjacent to Lois River, provided the oceanfront riparian buffer is maintained
• Darshan reiterated our Good Neighbor policy and our expectation of our neighbors returning the favour.
• We are a small company with limited resources.
• Our people work hard to find compromise with our neighbours. They are proud of the work they do and of our environmental stewardship. They are offended by attacks on the company, which are also attacks on their integrity.
Respectfully submitted by Eagle Walz and Bill Waugh March 6, 2008
Friday, February 29th, 2008
Attending: Darshan Sihota, Bill Waugh, Wes Bingham, Eagle Walz
Introduction: Appreciation for meeting
• Regrets from Glenn Parkinson that he couldn’t make it.
• Wes Bingham hand delivered Glenn’s letter – Island responded that we don’t always get a chance to respond to every letter that comes in to us
Many groups involved with and concerned about future of Lois River (not mentioned at meeting)
• Sechelt & Sliammon First Nations
• Sunshine Coast Conservation Association
• Western Canada Wilderness Committee
• Sierra Club, Malaspina Group
• Friends of Eagle River
• Council of Canadians
• PRPAWS
Positive Actions of Island Timberlands (based on negotiations of IT with PRPAWS)
• Retention and wind firming of trees in Lois River "sliver" will prevent or minimize blowdown, slide, siltation of salmon river, road collapse.
• Island indicated that the windfirming practices do not guarantee that the trees will not blow down but they have been successful in some areas
• 30m buffer on Manzanita bluffs section of SCT (Okeover Inlet)
• Agreement to leave buffer along Myrtle Creek and protect ephemeral creek running through cutblock there. Also we will look into what the buffers are left by other property holders along Myrtle Creek. More development is being readied by another subdivision. Myrtle Creek is the only creek on the whole coast north of Vancouver, which is being monitored by DFO. It is an important indicator of the state of the wild salmon.
• Island is not a large landowner in this area.
• Eagle and Wes indicated that the biggest issue is the proposed development in the area.
• 10 m buffer along SCT near Fiddlehead farm section.
• PRPAWS appreciates these considerations by Island Timberlands very much. They help maintain biodiversity and ensure the Sunshine Coast Trail continues to grow as an increasingly important economic driver in Powell River.
What We Are Asking of Island Timberlands Horseshoe River
• Reforest the canoe route portage, clean up. Comments: Darshan: Who pays for clean up? Eagle: FIA funding. BOMB Squad volunteers do work on the Canoe Route. Bill: Island Timberlands hired a crew. It is all cleared up now. Discussion of cause: While it was an act of nature that caused trees to fall from all directions, the lack of buffer between falling corners 10 and 11 gave the wind an opportunity to enter the river channel and add to the blowdown from that direction. A buffer like elsewhere along the river would likely have resulted in a buffer remaining, likely also impacted, but nevertheless remaining. We seek not to lay blame, but to avoid future mishaps through these discussions.
• Bill pointed out that the same storm decimated Stanley Park and other parts of the coast causing widespread damage and power outages
• Bill stated that Island provided a buffer on the Horseshoe River far in excess of the legal requirements and carried out “best practices” (pruning) on the buffer to lessen the potential for blowdown
• There was general disagreement on the direction of the most damaging winds and the influences of the manmade lake vs the adjacent cutblock
• Darshan stated that Island doesn’t object to the public using our lands in this area for the canoe route.
• All agreed that we need to get past the blame game and develop a respectful relationship
• It was agreed that Bill would arrange to visit the site with Eagle and Wes to understand the remediation issues
• the trail has been cleared since the blowdown event and is fully accessible.
• The adjacent cutblock was planted last year and some planting will occur along the canoe route this spring or fall
• Leave a 50m buffer along Horseshoe River, including the south side of the road when doing remaining cut, and ensure that cutblock edges are made wind firm.
• Bill will contact us and set up a walkabout of the area in the near future.
Lois(Eagle) River
• Retain intact forest ecosystem between the roads east and west of Lois River from dam to sea.
• Inherent value of intact wildlife greenway from sea to dam: ecological, social, recreational & tourism value
• Public relations value to IT.
• Valuable spawning river especially if new or upgraded dam with fish ladders built. This would be a showcase IPP project, illustrating ecologically sensitive private power production.
• Retention of this forested area would enhance value of nearby lands with development potential.
• Retention could be made possible through a buy back by provincial government to protect this ecologically sensitive area. Sierra Club and PRPAWS will investigate the feasibility of such a buy back program and suggest monies to come from a small surcharge on crown land volume (e.g. $0.05/m3) to go to a Parkland Acquisition Fund. (This might have to be a coastal initiative and at a lower rate, e.g. $0.01/m3.)
• Darshan noted that we would expect that this would be the whole corridor – not just that portion owned by Island Timberlands.
• Eagle indicated that they would keep us updated on their progress toward their buy back goal
• Malaspina Group of the Sierra Club BC will begin talks with the BC chapter of the Sierra Club, asking them to approach the government with this request of a “parkland acquisition fund”.
• Eagle requested that we retain buffer of approximately 50 m along shoreline from archaeological site at mouth of Lois (Eagle) River to log sort. Ensure wind firming of edges upon logging the rest of the Sort Block below the haul road and above the riparian buffer, and between the two patches already logged in that location. Replant.
• Eagle asked if the record could show that Island Timberlands has no plans to log the Lois (Eagle) River corridor
• Bill indicated that Island has no plans to harvest adjacent to Lois(Eagle) River at this time.
• Bill indicated it is planning to complete the block by the DLS. This includes the area below the road near the ocean – we will be maintaining the existing trail and buffering the shoreline as required.
• Eagle said that he did not see any issues with us completing this block as it is not adjacent to Eagle River, and would be prepared to support us (on behalf of PRPAWS) in public on this issue.
• Darshan indicated that it retains the right to harvest all of the trees on its lands over time subject to riparian management issues.
• Bill stated that the sort block will be replanted this spring
Stillwater Bluffs
• Eagle raised the prospect that we were planning to sell or develop the Stillwater Bluffs property as communicated by Stephen Henderson.
• Darshan indicated that none of Island Timberlands’ properties can be sold or developed without his knowledge and that the only property issue he was aware of in this area was the site separation process between our land and the WFP DLS. Darshan clarified for Wes that the Approving Officer has the discretion to waive the water access requirement on subdivision, but has chosen not to, which has caused us to investigate options to achieve access on the lot to be subdivided.
Sunshine Coast Trail
• PRPAWS requested a 30 m buffer along most sections of the trail wherever possible, and depending on variation of terrain.
• Bill questioned why the 30 meter buffer on our lands when Crown land tenure holders are only required to leave a 10 m buffer
• Eagle responded that PRPAWS will be asking WFP to commit to a 30m buffer as well
• Darshan reiterated our point about all of the trees eventually being harvested, which may require that any trail be relocated over time. This is the model that works very well on the Trans Canada Trail on southern Vancouver Island
PRPAWS is interested in ensuring that the SCT is retained through Islands Mowat Bay property.
• PRPAWS requests a 30 m easement from Powell River Bridge to Mowat Bay to keep trail intact when this area is developed or sold. This would ensure the future viability of the Sunshine Coast Trail there and through the other stretches where the SCT traverses IT land. We would very much like to keep the trail going along from the bridge toward the loadout on the historic railroad grade, which has been hewn out of the steep sidehill. From the vicinity of the loadout across the hump down into Mowat Bay the trail might be moved this way or that in the eventuality that the area becomes residential in the future.
• Darshan stated that Island prefers not do easements.
• Eagle indicated that Dave Formosa had dedicated the SCT across his property.
• Darshan asked if this was in connection with getting entitlement for his development.
• Darshan asked if they thought that our property had any potential future residential value, or was it long term forestry land? Eagle did not offer a preference
• Eagle indicated that they were open to options of the trail going along the lake or inland, as long as we can retain a route for it.
SCT – Fiddlehead Farm
• Bill would like to explore the possibility of relocating the SCT near the Fiddlehead Farm area onto Crown Land
• PRPAWS is open to work together with IT to relocate the SCT around the Fiddlehead property onto crown land.
• In correspondence after the meeting Eagle broached the topic of School District 47, PRPAWS, BOMB Squad, and Model Communities applying jointly for a $1.5 million grant through ICET to put cabins and chalets on the SCT to develop Powell River’s tourism infrastructure. They have widespread and documented support in the community for this initiative and would like the opportunity to speak with Island about this proposal, perhaps during our walk-about.
Bill: I know you know this, but we are not in the position to authorize construction of such buildings on our lands, but do not object to this on Crown Land.
Island Timberlands Concerns
• Misinformation is spread through the community and Island Timberlands public image takes a beating. IT would appreciate having all sides of the story told. Eagle can through his PRPAWS position set record straight if inaccuracies are mentioned at public meetings, and to list positive actions of IT.
• Island would like the record to show that PRPAWS and the Sierra Club, Malaspina Group have no concerns with the harvest of the remainder of the Sort Block as it is not adjacent to Lois River, provided the oceanfront riparian buffer is maintained
• Darshan reiterated our Good Neighbor policy and our expectation of our neighbors returning the favour.
• We are a small company with limited resources.
• Our people work hard to find compromise with our neighbours. They are proud of the work they do and of our environmental stewardship. They are offended by attacks on the company, which are also attacks on their integrity.
Respectfully submitted by Eagle Walz and Bill Waugh March 6, 2008
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Eagle River Sliver logging deferred
PAWS NEWSBULLETIN
December 19, 2007
Hello Everybody,
Good news on the Eagle River Sliver at Lois Main, Mile 1. This afternoon we were informed by Island Timberlands by phone that the company has decided it will not log the half-acre adjacent and below the main line at Mile 1, which lies inside their private lands along the Eagle River. (Note: The Sliver is not the same area as that on the highway, or that on the mouth of the river, which has also been deferred.)
This is not a permanent moratorium on the area, however, the company has taken it out of their logging plans. There may still be some pruning activity in the area to protect the remaining timber from blowdown. Island Timberlands will still be exposing the timber on the low side of the road with their logging on the high side of the road, and they want to do their dilligence to protect it from blowdown as best they can. The company will come out with a written statement re this matter in the coming days.
The Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (PRPAWS) applauds Island Timberlands protecting fish, biological diversity and recreation/tourism, and we thank them for this gesture of good will.
For further information contact Makenzie Leine at Island Timberlands: mleine@islandtimberlands.com.
Cheers,
Eagle
December 19, 2007
Hello Everybody,
Good news on the Eagle River Sliver at Lois Main, Mile 1. This afternoon we were informed by Island Timberlands by phone that the company has decided it will not log the half-acre adjacent and below the main line at Mile 1, which lies inside their private lands along the Eagle River. (Note: The Sliver is not the same area as that on the highway, or that on the mouth of the river, which has also been deferred.)
This is not a permanent moratorium on the area, however, the company has taken it out of their logging plans. There may still be some pruning activity in the area to protect the remaining timber from blowdown. Island Timberlands will still be exposing the timber on the low side of the road with their logging on the high side of the road, and they want to do their dilligence to protect it from blowdown as best they can. The company will come out with a written statement re this matter in the coming days.
The Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (PRPAWS) applauds Island Timberlands protecting fish, biological diversity and recreation/tourism, and we thank them for this gesture of good will.
For further information contact Makenzie Leine at Island Timberlands: mleine@islandtimberlands.com.
Cheers,
Eagle
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
Suggestions for a modified LRMP
SUGGESTIONS FOR A MODIFIED LAND AND RESOUCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (LRMP) Dec. 1, 2007
To Round-table participants and the public:
Please add your thoughts about what a modified LRMP should contain and look like, so we can jointly come up with a written comprehensive plan that we can present to the Integrated Land Management Bureau. This is your chance to express your vision on paper and give specific situations you would like to see on the ground. Do not worry if your draft is organized, just put down your thoughts on paper. We will put it all together in a comprehensive format once we have input from everybody. You can write down your immediate thoughts and add more at a later date.
It might be interesting to start with lower level plans first focusing on exactly what we want to achieve on the ground. In other words, what do we want as an end result and what is already in place at lower level plans, like the Bunster Plan. To do this we need to integrate all the competing interests such as logging and all community values. How can these co-exist, and what should the landscape look like now, and over time. Achievable results will entail compromises from all sides. Not only do we need to examine the environment but we need to look at the economics of logging in this forest district. What would a real sustainable logging industry and job situation look like down the road? How much money will logging make for government? What are the problems for the forest industry now and in the future? What is an appropriate annual cut so all the community values can be accommodated? All of this has a large impact on the final outcome. What type of real-estate development do we want and what do we want the landscape to look like when it happens. Granted, the real-estate development will occur on private land and a better land use plan should be set up by the regional district. So many private Island Timberlands Limited Partnership (ITLP) parcels are surrounded by crown land and need to be part of the planning process. All of this will affect the forest and if we do not think about this somebody else will. Once these specific issues are looked at and dealt with then one can move up the ladder and talk about a higher level zoning land use plan.
Modified LRMP criteria.
This includes both a higher level plan giving guidance to lower level plans that will be implemented on the ground. A higher level plan might be a zoning plan with boundaries drawn on a map. The Stillwater Pilot Plan is a good example. Another example of a higher level plan would be a descriptive set of circumstances which would raise a red flag. For example, any time logging was proposed within 200 to 300 meters of a hiking trail, a red flag would pop up. That would activate lower level logging and recreation and tourism plan would kick in.
All plans should have these characteristics:
1. Easy to read and understand.
2. Flexibility built in.
3. Easy to implement.
4. Make plan as simple as possible.
5. Focus on results on the ground, what should the end result be or look like.
6. Transparency.
7. Results should be descriptive enough to prevent different interpretations.
8. Continually try to improve communication between the public and the forest company.
9. Make sure that all community groups have equal access when it comes to communicating with the forest company. All community groups should have easy access to information from the logging companies.
10. Set up a resolution dispute structure that can mediate a resolution among all parties.
11. Every three years the large logging companies on the Sunshine Coast should be required to produce a satellite map of the Sunshine Coast forest district. They can all share in the expense of this. This will give the public an oversight view of what kind of logging has taken place in the backcountry and it will show how Greenup is coming along. This is needed for proper and easy oversight by the public.
Other things that should be part of the plan:
First we need to examine the Stillwater Pilot Project plus all the other landscape level plans that exist in the Sunshine Forest District thoroughly so we do not have to re-invent the wheel.
1. Long term plan. Because the government is permitting 40 to 50 year rotation forests, we need at least a 160 year plan and 200 years is better. A report on how fast the planted trees are growing every ten years would indicate how good the soil condition is.
2. The Alder tree is a nitrogen fixer, meaning it puts nitrogen back into the soil unlike most plants. Small bumps, called nodules on the roots house an organism that converts the nitrogen in the soil into a form plants can absorb. The dead leaves also produce nitrogen indirectly. Clumps of alder should be left in logged areas to regenerate the soil. Is this happening?
3. Should 80 and 120 year plantations be considered since we do not know what the demand for trees will be in the future.
4. No more logging of old growth on the Sunshine Coast until a modified LRMP is in place. We, have very little old growth left, so until we can sort things out we do not want to eliminate our options.
5. Any old growth trees at lower elevations that are single should have 30 to 40 meters of second growth buffer left around them for their survival. A wild life tree patch would work. If there are few more giants close together a small grove should be created with a buffer around them.
6. Sustainable second growth logging plan.
7. Keep the Old Growth forest of hemlocks on Mount Troubridge intact.
8. Black bear and Grizzly habitat at the estuary of a river must be protected, so the spawning salmon can thrive and the bears can drag the fish up the banks to eat and be protected by the big trees. No logging should take place in the spawning season around these areas so the fish, bears, eagles, and other birds and animals are not disturbed at that crucial time.
9. Buffers of second growth should be kept around lakes and inlets. These should be large enough to protect against erosion and runoff. In the interface areas these buffers are a visual feature for recreation and should be more extensive.
10. Wildlife tree patches must be representative of the cut block not just stick poles or scrub brush.
11. Cut blocks can be larger in size if they have large inclusions of second growth. This inclusion into the cut block must be large enough to be able to withstand blow-downs around the edges. Any variable retention island must be large enough to withstand blow downs around the edges. The idea is to create the illusion of smaller clear cuts from different view points.
12. Start using selective logging close to trails and lake shores.
13. Smaller cut blocks close to hiking trails.
14. Water in rivers must not be restricted as that impairs salmon from swimming up the river and spawning. In salmon streams and rivers a continuous flow of water must be maintained all year around. Establish strict water flow tables. Question: is the Plutonic Run of the river projects letting enough water run down the river at all times?
15. Take second look at existing OGMAS to be sure they consist of the best old growth trees and make revisions to accomplish this. Some OGMAS have no old growth in them at all. Lower elevation old growth trees should have their own small OGMAS.
16. Plant native berry bushes along logging roads for bears and other wildlife after logging is complete. No blackberries. Give a little back.
17. Create an integrated logging and recreation, tourism lower level plan that accommodates both logging and hiking trails and recreational inventory.
Lars
To Round-table participants and the public:
Please add your thoughts about what a modified LRMP should contain and look like, so we can jointly come up with a written comprehensive plan that we can present to the Integrated Land Management Bureau. This is your chance to express your vision on paper and give specific situations you would like to see on the ground. Do not worry if your draft is organized, just put down your thoughts on paper. We will put it all together in a comprehensive format once we have input from everybody. You can write down your immediate thoughts and add more at a later date.
It might be interesting to start with lower level plans first focusing on exactly what we want to achieve on the ground. In other words, what do we want as an end result and what is already in place at lower level plans, like the Bunster Plan. To do this we need to integrate all the competing interests such as logging and all community values. How can these co-exist, and what should the landscape look like now, and over time. Achievable results will entail compromises from all sides. Not only do we need to examine the environment but we need to look at the economics of logging in this forest district. What would a real sustainable logging industry and job situation look like down the road? How much money will logging make for government? What are the problems for the forest industry now and in the future? What is an appropriate annual cut so all the community values can be accommodated? All of this has a large impact on the final outcome. What type of real-estate development do we want and what do we want the landscape to look like when it happens. Granted, the real-estate development will occur on private land and a better land use plan should be set up by the regional district. So many private Island Timberlands Limited Partnership (ITLP) parcels are surrounded by crown land and need to be part of the planning process. All of this will affect the forest and if we do not think about this somebody else will. Once these specific issues are looked at and dealt with then one can move up the ladder and talk about a higher level zoning land use plan.
Modified LRMP criteria.
This includes both a higher level plan giving guidance to lower level plans that will be implemented on the ground. A higher level plan might be a zoning plan with boundaries drawn on a map. The Stillwater Pilot Plan is a good example. Another example of a higher level plan would be a descriptive set of circumstances which would raise a red flag. For example, any time logging was proposed within 200 to 300 meters of a hiking trail, a red flag would pop up. That would activate lower level logging and recreation and tourism plan would kick in.
All plans should have these characteristics:
1. Easy to read and understand.
2. Flexibility built in.
3. Easy to implement.
4. Make plan as simple as possible.
5. Focus on results on the ground, what should the end result be or look like.
6. Transparency.
7. Results should be descriptive enough to prevent different interpretations.
8. Continually try to improve communication between the public and the forest company.
9. Make sure that all community groups have equal access when it comes to communicating with the forest company. All community groups should have easy access to information from the logging companies.
10. Set up a resolution dispute structure that can mediate a resolution among all parties.
11. Every three years the large logging companies on the Sunshine Coast should be required to produce a satellite map of the Sunshine Coast forest district. They can all share in the expense of this. This will give the public an oversight view of what kind of logging has taken place in the backcountry and it will show how Greenup is coming along. This is needed for proper and easy oversight by the public.
Other things that should be part of the plan:
First we need to examine the Stillwater Pilot Project plus all the other landscape level plans that exist in the Sunshine Forest District thoroughly so we do not have to re-invent the wheel.
1. Long term plan. Because the government is permitting 40 to 50 year rotation forests, we need at least a 160 year plan and 200 years is better. A report on how fast the planted trees are growing every ten years would indicate how good the soil condition is.
2. The Alder tree is a nitrogen fixer, meaning it puts nitrogen back into the soil unlike most plants. Small bumps, called nodules on the roots house an organism that converts the nitrogen in the soil into a form plants can absorb. The dead leaves also produce nitrogen indirectly. Clumps of alder should be left in logged areas to regenerate the soil. Is this happening?
3. Should 80 and 120 year plantations be considered since we do not know what the demand for trees will be in the future.
4. No more logging of old growth on the Sunshine Coast until a modified LRMP is in place. We, have very little old growth left, so until we can sort things out we do not want to eliminate our options.
5. Any old growth trees at lower elevations that are single should have 30 to 40 meters of second growth buffer left around them for their survival. A wild life tree patch would work. If there are few more giants close together a small grove should be created with a buffer around them.
6. Sustainable second growth logging plan.
7. Keep the Old Growth forest of hemlocks on Mount Troubridge intact.
8. Black bear and Grizzly habitat at the estuary of a river must be protected, so the spawning salmon can thrive and the bears can drag the fish up the banks to eat and be protected by the big trees. No logging should take place in the spawning season around these areas so the fish, bears, eagles, and other birds and animals are not disturbed at that crucial time.
9. Buffers of second growth should be kept around lakes and inlets. These should be large enough to protect against erosion and runoff. In the interface areas these buffers are a visual feature for recreation and should be more extensive.
10. Wildlife tree patches must be representative of the cut block not just stick poles or scrub brush.
11. Cut blocks can be larger in size if they have large inclusions of second growth. This inclusion into the cut block must be large enough to be able to withstand blow-downs around the edges. Any variable retention island must be large enough to withstand blow downs around the edges. The idea is to create the illusion of smaller clear cuts from different view points.
12. Start using selective logging close to trails and lake shores.
13. Smaller cut blocks close to hiking trails.
14. Water in rivers must not be restricted as that impairs salmon from swimming up the river and spawning. In salmon streams and rivers a continuous flow of water must be maintained all year around. Establish strict water flow tables. Question: is the Plutonic Run of the river projects letting enough water run down the river at all times?
15. Take second look at existing OGMAS to be sure they consist of the best old growth trees and make revisions to accomplish this. Some OGMAS have no old growth in them at all. Lower elevation old growth trees should have their own small OGMAS.
16. Plant native berry bushes along logging roads for bears and other wildlife after logging is complete. No blackberries. Give a little back.
17. Create an integrated logging and recreation, tourism lower level plan that accommodates both logging and hiking trails and recreational inventory.
Lars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
