Page i
Prince George Operations Canadian Forest Products Ltd. TREE FARM LICENCE 30 2004/05 Annual Report
SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Page ii
:
Strategic Planning Forester for June 6, 2005 Prepared by CSA – SFM MANAGEMENT PLAN SUSTAINABLE FOREST Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Prince George Operations – TFL 30 DFA Kerry Deschamps R.P.F.,
Page iii ...... 14 ...... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 2 ...... 9 ...... 15 ...... 14 ...... 15 ...... 10 ...... 2 ...... 5 ...... 13 ...... 8 ...... 6 ...... 7 ...... 5 ...... 8
nt ...... 3 ...... 12 ...... 9 ...... 14 ...... 7 ...... v ...... 7 ...... 4 ...... 1 ...... 11 ...... 10 ...... v ...... 11 ...... 13 ...... 6 ...... 2 ...... 8 ...... ii CSA – SFM 2.1 Late Seral Stage Distribution Seral Stage 2.1 Late 2.2 Forest Patches condition interior 2.3 Forest reserves 2.4 Biodiversity Marten Habitat 2.5 Amercian Plant species diversity 2.6 Native habitat 2.7 Caribou 2.8 Riparian management areas crossings 2.9 Fish stream 2.10 Species-related verifiers Deciduous 2.11 tree species harvest index Sanitation 2.12 fires industrial 2.13 Accidental 2.14 Site index / land conversion access structures 2.15 Permanent communities 2.16 Rare plant 2.17 Stream crossing quality index 2.18 Terrain stability 2.19 Soil conservation index Peak flow 2.20 Seral stage distribution 2.21 of timber harvested Volume 2.22 residue Waste 2.23 dates growing 2.24 Areas meeting free species suitable 2.25 Areas reforested with ec ologically Mean annual increment 2.26 harvest sustainable Long-term 2.27 use and non-commercial Commercial 2.28
CSA Sustainable Forest Manageme TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 SFM INDICATORS AND OBJECTIVES 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04
16 19 21 21 18 19 18 17 16 20 20 20 Page iv ...... p u gro ...... s y
ties li ...... advisor ...... e gs cence 30 r iginal people n ...... ocessing faci the public nce for public advisory group
nt input ...... blic ion on s ...... local pr p questionnai t refere u n r Tree Farm Li o ou to advisory meeti r p to public concerns ic o l mber i visory gr al and treaty rights al participa ntract value and unique needs of abor d response n n of t
unities f ed public pla ed terms of i i g g y l co ic a l mber of pub Annual Report f Forest management satisfaction score Loca Suppl Pub Nu Abori Abori Opport Special Canfor 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 Approv 2.39 Approv 2.40
CSA Sustainable Forest Manageme 2003/04
6 4 6 5 3 3 2 5 15
.10
..13 … 23 ….9 … Page Page ..12
… ……8 … ……14 …..16 …… 18 …… …… … …… …… 29 ……… …… …… ……. 17 …… …… ….. 23 …… …… …… …… …..… ….… 27 Page v …….. 18 ….…… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ….…… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …….. ……… ………. …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……… ……………………… 11 …… ……… …… .……… ….…… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……………………… 11 ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… … …… ……… … …… …… ……… …… …… …… ……… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……… ……… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……… ..………… …… ……… ………..… …… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… … ……… ……… ……… … ……… … …… ……… …… …… …… ……… …… …… …… ……… …… …… …… …… ……… …… ……… …… …… …… …… …… …… ………………………………… …… …… …… ………………………..…… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ….…… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ………..… ……… ………..… . ………… ……… …… ……… …… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… …… …… …… ……… … …… …… …… …… … ……… …… …… …… ……… …… …… …… ……… …… ……… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……… ……… …………………………………… ……… ……… ……… …… ……… …………………………………… …… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… … ……… ……… ……… … ……… ……… e Unit ……… …… …… ……… …… …… …… … ……… …… …… ……… …… …… …… … …… ……… a ……… …… … … …… …… ……
…… …… …… …… …… …… …… S …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… mbi …… …… …… n…… …… S …… …… …… …… …… o …… …… …… …… ……… …..……… ……… Landscape Unit .……… ati ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… y ……… ……… ……… …… ……… ……… ……… …… …… …… ties…… … t by Landscap …… …… …… …… … …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… rs and Targets… ……… .……… Site Associ e Targets o …… 30……..………………………………… ……… ……… … Category b g e Unit and Year…… LIST OF TABLES ……… ……… d ……… LIST OF FIGURE … ing Results … a ……… ……… L 30………………………………………… by Harvest Season essing Facili and Targets …… ped … …… LIST OF APPENDICE …… …… ……… … …… ne…… …… …… d Targets by BEC Subzone … ou … cast …… r …… …… Proc …… …… ……… …… …… …… onents …… …… p Seral St d Targets by Varian BEC Zo 30…… d Targets… lts for TFL Targets by lts for TF e n ……… by Landscap aph… ……… t in TFL 30 ………… ……… r and Residue ……… rviced by Northern British Colu ……… …
G e … …… …… …… … on and … tion an e S …… …… u ti ndition a Waste …… ribu …… eas within TFL30… Val cence 30 ersity Reserves an oosing Resu ossing Resu t and Connectivity Corri tor and La ribu ies…… en Habitat og v en Habitat r r t i t versity Index by G t sults …… ble Cut with i Supplied to Local Harvest Levels Fore ……… s ct e i r Dis a ta ……… …… lue age unity Ar …… nt Va t …… mm Quality C Quality C e of Indica us of Biod duous Tree Species Com Index and Targets by o t Stand D i t t erican Mart m m oidable Sawl r Tree Farm Li rac v t o rea rea t t Area of Am Current Sta Current Seral St Current Caribou Habi Rare Plant C Current Sta Current Plan 2003 S Current Patch Size D 2002 S Current Site Current Dec Current Forest Interior Co Current Peak Flow Index within TFL Area of American Mart
Annual Report f Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9 Table 10. Table 11. Figure 1. Figure 2. Percentage of Timbe Figure 3. Percentage of Contra Appendix 1. Maps …………… Appendix 2. Peak Flow Index 4-Year Trend Appendix 3. PAG Questionnaire R 2003/04 Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15 Current Annual Allow Table 16. Current A CSA Sustainable Forest Manageme Table 17. Long Run Sustainable Table 18. Local Con Table 19. Public Input Opportuni X X X X Not Met Objective Objective
Page 1
X X X X Pending Pending Objective Objective
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Met Objective Objective Quality Index Indicator 2.1 Late Seral Stage 2.2 Forest Patches 2.3 Forest Interior Condition 2.4 Biodiversity Reserves 2.5 American Marten Habitat 2.6 Native plant Species Diversity 2.7 Caribou Habitat 2.8 Riparian Management Areas 2.9 Fish Stream Crossings 2.10 Species-related Verifiers 2.11 DeciduousTree Species 2.12 Sanitation Harvest Index 2.13 Accidental Industrial Fires 2.14 Site Index 2.15 Permanent Access Structures 2.16 Rare Plant Communities 2.17 Stream Crossing 2.18 Terrain stability 2.19 Soil Conservation 2.20 Peak Flow Index 2.21 Seral Stage Distribution 2.22 Volume ofTimber Harvested 2.23 Waste Residue 2.24 Areas Meeting Free Growing Dates 2.25 Areas Regenerated Ecologically with Suitable Species 2.26 Mean Annual Increment 2.27 Long Term Sustainable Harvest 2.28 Commercial & Non-commercial Use 2.29 Supply to Local Processing Facilities 2.30 Local Contract Value 2.31 Forest Management Satisfaction Score 2.32 Canfor Response to Public Concerns 2.33 Number of Public Advisory Meetings 2.34 Public Advisory Group Questionnaire 2.35 Aboriginal and Treaty Rights 2.36 Aboriginal Participation on the PAG 2.37 Special & Unique Needs of Aboriginal Peoples 2.38 Approved Terms of Reference 2.39 Approved Public Plans 2.40 Opportunities for Public Input s the status of each of those status of each s the any Objectives such as Stream as such any Objectives ed CSA SFM. This report provides a provides ed CSA SFM. This report owing forests have resulted in some have resulted forests owing CSA Z809-96 Sustainable Forest Forest Sustainable CSA Z809-96 t, or results are expected in the long- expected are t, or results has changed little since they were first since they little changed has tices involved, the reader should refer refer should involved, the reader tices rther reference to the intent of to reference rther annual assessment to confirm Canfor's to confirm assessment annual or) achieved registration under the under registration achieved or) eport, each Indicator is re-iterated, and a is re-iterated, each Indicator eport, methodology for Commercial & Non for Commercial methodology 1.0 INTRODUCTION
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management Ltd. (Canf Products Forest Canadian CAN/ Association Standards Canadian in July 2001. A public 30 Licence Standards for Tree Farm Management in September formed was (PAG) Advisory Group Public - The TFL30 group Objectives and indicators local-level quantifiable identify Canfor 2000 to help The 40 Indicators and Objectives Management. Forest of Sustainable forest with associated were detailed identified by the TFL 30 PAG Forest a Sustainable in objectives those to achieve practices management and June 2001 SFMP, 30 (Canfor Farm Licence Plan for Tree Management This report summarize May 2003). updated indicators. part of the as prepared is This report of the register implementation continued 2005, of the 40 Indicators and to March 31, or status, to the end of 2004 In this r of the SFM plan. Objectives For fu is provided. update brief status or the prac Objectives, and Indicators 30 Licence Plan for Tree Farm Management Forest to Canfor's Sustainable May 2003). SFMP, (Canfor Indicators the status of Generally, nature of forest plan. Given the long-term SFM 2001 June's in reported are not small changes practices, these management and forest management gr and harvesting Continued surprising. but generally, representation, and old growth to the seral stage changes being me still are either the Objectives term. m on made been has Progress in 2004/05 Alpha Wildlife’s assessed, Index with 7 new watersheds Quality Crossing Verifiers, and Related Species under Species and Endangered Rare work on of the survey reworking continued the and of this document Diversity Index . The remainder Commercial below. provided are of each indicator status detailed of 40) the indicator objectives table 90% (36 following in the As shown objectives (4 of 40) the indicator 10% and met or are pending have been were not met. 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 By 2055 2081 2055 2055 2055 2055 2055 Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually
Achieved Page 2 > 9% > 9% > 9% > 9% > 19% > 19% > 19% > 19% > 19% > 19% > 13% > 11% > 11% > 11% > 11% > 13% > 11% > 11% > 13% > 11% > 11% > 17% > 19% > 15% > 15% > 17% > 19% > 15% > 17% > 19% Target % Long-term 2005 as of 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 1.3 % 1.3 % 1.8 % 1.8 % 1.8 % 1.8 % 2.0 % 7.4 % 7.4 % Status 26.5 % 26.5 % 14.6 % 53.9 % 53.9 % 15.8 % 17.5 % 17.5 % 17.8 % 60.9 % 45.7 % 45.7 % 29.5 % 49.2 % 37.0 % 50.0 % 66.2 % Current March 31, (years) Old > 250 Seral Stage Old>250 Old > 250 Old>140 Old>250 Old > 250 Old > 140 Old > 250 Old > 250 Old > 250 Mature>100 Mature>100 Mature>120 Mature > 100 Mature > 100 Mature > 100 Mature > 120 Mature > 100 Mature > 100 Mature > 120 BEC Subzones wc3
mk1 wc3 ICHvk2 ICHvk2 ESSFwk2, ESSFwk2, ESSFwk2* ICHvk2* SBSwk1, SBSwk1 SBSvk SBSvk
1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 T N D
Unit Averil Land- scape Woodall Seebach Stage Targets. Late Seral Indicator and State of Table 1. Current
is above the targets. is above the targets.
by natural disturbance type type disturbance natural by In late seral stages areas below the below areas stages In late seral ce Unit (NDU) methodology. This methodology. Unit (NDU) ce rest protection activities (beetles, activities (beetles, protection rest older, the seral stage status will start will stage status the seral older, tation and targets associated with each with associated and targets tation cator and portrays the percentage of the of percentage portrays the cator and Maintain “old” and “mature & old” rmally occur until the status Z809-02 standard is created. standard Z809-02 Late seral stage distribution 2.0 SFM INDICATORS AND OBJECTIVES Management Objective: forests consistent with the targets (0% variance) in Table 1. Indicator: by BEC zone by landscape unit within the DFA. 2.1 LATE SERAL STAGE DISTRIBUTION indi of the forest” a “state This is the Table 1 identifies by the olderclasses. age is represented that landscape status of late seral represen current 1 for a map that on TFL 30. See Appendix ecosystem and landscape TFL30. across distribution stage seral the late spatially shows of the mature and as 100% been met in 2004/05 objective has The late seral were accomplished. that were to be achieved annually targets stage old seral past fire) and as (such to natural disturbances of cases due In a number the below is category old seral stage mature and the status of harvesting, As the forest grows target required. it will take several In these circumstances, the targets. toward trending are achieved. the targets before decades target, harvesting will not no and methodology indicator that this late seral distribution It is recommended in the as identified indicator newer old forest with the be replaced targets This Order. Biodiversity Area – Landscape Timber Supply Prince George Disturban Natural using include would new of 2005 as a PAG discussion in the fall occur during should change indicator matrix for the 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management to this may be made for fo Exceptions windthrow).
y ion 2100 2090 2066 2074 2100 2070 unit t effects ology and Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually or t ri Supply Achieved By r dge ape Variant b e thod c
bita b e Page 3 y
. % % % % % % % % % % % ere e 3.0 3.0 4.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3.7 3.6 4.3 3.6 4.3 Target > > > > > > > > > > > it to provide a ble 3 cator m n a by lands orge Tim nerally ha sts wh T Targets b pe u
n indi ce Ge forest interior condi ets in 1 % 1 % 0 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 5 % 2008 56 % 35 % 26 % 13 % Status as Projected of Dec. 31, the in old fore by variant t status of the forest inte . landsca stributio a n itions (i.e. ge e e targ r di
h dall of a rget rre r.
in the Prin
ze
Condition and d % th t % e s 1 % 1 % 0 % 1 % 1 % 1 % ed ta 5 2005 23 % 19 % 13 % 54 r Maintain wi Current to the t March 31, e: Status as n or condition mental cond ose u n tifies the cu t Interior
iste n 2 2 s ks to the Woo s k k e c n w w
F F S S ) co S S BEC e Biodiversity Orde ndition refers cape Unit. ce enviro SBSvk ICHvk2 ICHvk2 SBSwk1 ICHvk2 E E & wc3 & wc3 SBSwk1 ESSFwk2 SBSmk1 SBSvk e nt For o c Forest interi d toward the desi dium blo
nded that this patch si uen DFA. : placed with th scap e rian e m ). Table 3 ide Curre Lands nd a tor s v a be re ng me er infl interior c c t i ition Unit 1% d - Landscape Ind within th Management Objectiv ( Averil Seebach Woodall on addi favorable tren It is recom targets Area – La 2.3 FOREST INTERIOR CONDITION Fores no long con condition. Table 3. s.
ze
y pe By 2020 2018 2080 2015 2020 2020 2080 2060 2060 2080 b tation Annually Annually Achieved ry by tch si n patches o a tion. be placed ndsca st ry is
bu e teg o % % % % % % % % % .
d targets prese s that were to
% % % s will for 0 0 0 Category si and la Target y 0 of 12), due to 10-20 30-40 30-40 10-20 30-40 30-40 60-80 20-50 20-50 categ of s size ca in the Woodall Table 2 s (1 on s h
L 30. See Appendix 1
c
size the target n
% % % % ystem % % rgets b che s stribution an TF buti s, empha 8 8 a o 2008 8 12 38 % 25 % 18 % as 46 % 32 46 36 % 24 % n garding the re Status to Dec. c 4 ce) i Projected ze di ng toward the target p h cence 30 e distri
hes by pat h ystem o varian TFL30 patch size distri % % % of the patch c % % % tch si t s t dship Plan s a n o r rmation re e t 7 5 5 a ed. In most case u 46 % 17 % 20 % 33 % 14 49 46 29 % 29 % s across e um sized pat c e trendi Status p Current 31,2005 r bution and T rre ev sh ze of p 10% as of Marc info - st
cu s medi nt e s si
en met in 2003/0 ) Achi e and st Stewa e: s the (ha Size r Tree Farm Li t status er most a
Range w o v n current stat variou provide scap < 40 < 40 < 40 40–249 40–79 40–79 > 1000 > 250 > 250 250–1000 80–250 80–250 n is the ge of for rre h Size Distri nd es in s, the tive has be e targets (+/ cator c ally were accompli cape Unit. nt Patc th i Category spatially sho Percenta th each la t tch indi st patch unit within the DFA. annu ng trend : tifies the cu ze obje Very Large Very Large Very Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large wi n Curre Lands e Unit. In future Fore Annual Report f tor st pa ch si a
rvesti of the target, howe tion. One exceptio ) c e u
i ) ) scap ciated Unit Management Objectiv consistent w Ind landscape Landscape
CSA Sustainable Forest Manageme 2.2 FOREST PATCHES The fore of young fore Table 2 ide asso for a map tha Table 2. Averil (grouped into NDT 3 Seebach (grouped into NDT 2 Woodall (grouped into NDT 1/2 The pat be achieved past ha outsid distrib Land 2003/04 by by Achieved Achieved Each 5- year re- inventory period proportiona l to the total productive forested area of the TFL. Annually except for & Seebach Woodall ESSFwk2 and (2010) ICHvk2 (2020) Page 4
> 7 > 8 > 8 > 6 > 9 > 8 > 6 > 2 > > 11 > > 10 > 10 Target > 4.5 % 4.5 % > > 2.0 % > 2.0 % (% area > 0.05 % > 0.05 % > 6.55 % > 6.55 % after 1996)
2005 1.6 % 1.6 % As of 4.8 % 4.8 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 9.5 % 9.5 % 5.8 % 5.8 % 2.1 %
Status 7.2 % 7.2 % 10.4 % 10.4 % 12.1 % 12.1 % 12.3 % 12.3 % 11.9 % 11.9 % 7.06 % 7.06 % 0.17 % 0.17 % Current 15.2 % 15.2 % 10.4 % 10.4 % March 31, sity Reserves and Targets by BEC by sity Reserves and Targets BEC Subzone BEC Subzone Averil SBS mk1 Averil SBS wk1 Averil ICH vk2 Averil ESSF wk2 Seebach SBS vk Seebach SBS wk1 Seebach ICH vk2 Seebach ESSF wk2 Woodall SBS vk Woodall ICH vk2 SBS ICH ESSF Woodall ESSF wk2 Total Subzone Type Wildlife Tree Patches Riparian Reserve Zones Giscome Portage Trail (Class A Provincial Park) Horseshoe Recreation Area High Value Caribou Habitat McGregor River Management Zone Seebach Riparian Management Zone Tri Lakes Recreation Area Woodall Recreation Area Biodiversity Reserve Reserve Biodiversity Small Scale Reserves: Large Scale Reserves:
Table 4. Current Status of Biodiver Status Table 4. Current re practice will be ment for forest interior condition condition ment for forest interior st interior condition is less than the is less condition st interior planning for recruitment of the interior for recruitment of the interior planning eas. This indicator displays the displays This indicator eas. escribed as part of the Silviculture as part escribed eas, current and futu
that currently there is very little or no there is that currently ets (-1% variance) in Table 4. us of the forest interior condition Maintain the proportion of biodiversity Proportion of biodiversity reserves by BEC zone within of biodiversity reserves by BEC zone Proportion Management Objective: reserves consistent with the targ the DFA. Indicator: target, or zero. This is due to the fact and habitat indicator methodology that this interior forest It is recommended Supply Timber George in the Prince used with those be replaced targets Biodiversity Order. Area – Landscape forest in these ecosystems that is classified as old seral age class - having age class seral as old that is classified ecosystems forest in these years old (a require than 250 an age greater will be to cases in these practice Current and future in these ecosystems). forest while of any old avoid harvesting stands. from mature condition forest to continue to harvest while monitoringto continue harvest the availability forest interior In the maintained. limits are threshold the minimum to ensure condition the fore however, ecosystems remaining CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management Table 3, the current stat in As shown to be 100% of the ecosystems in required minimum levels the exceeds annually (5 of 5). In these ar achieved 2.4 BIODIVERSITY RESERVES from the timber deducted area of any forest consist Biodiversity reserves riparian wildlife tree patches, mapped including; landbase harvesting reserve ar all other large and reserves, for each reserve” to be a “biological is considered of TFL30, which proportion of the BEC zones. to the type according subdivided is further Table 4, this indicator in As shown are Small reserves reserves). and large (small reserve of biological to be any reserve that is pr considered as areas geographical are large Plan. Large reserves Prescription/Site plan. the management in established 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04
). to nity s n n e i s i c e t eci Page 5 n l 1 3 7 1 8 17 (SFM pla s diversity in a by pla mber of spe oodal n about commu 57. 53. 48. 47. 47. e e i W c dex e Tabl itat by Landscape Unit and ce of different sp t i th n plant species diversity rsity in n U h dan ure of spe e i s ss (i.e., the nu 7 9 9 7 5 v pe a e a e c 54. 51. 47. 44. 44. fied eebac e more informatio S chn nds
La s ri Maintain identi e: s species di s provid relative abun ecie t ematical m a n SPECIES DIVERSITY l i ets 1 0 3 2 8 ly sp er g pla p v 41. 36. 31. 29. 28. e A th tar within the DFA. i Nativ
: E PLANT w Year. Area of American Marten Hab ns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n than sim
o nt
0. tor 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 e 60. 50. 40. 30. 20. 10. a ); they also take the
c unity. Diversity indice Percentage i ositio unt. ent o s Management Objectiv consist Ind associati Figure 1. 2.6 NATIV A diversity index is a math comm comp pre acc ets
y y y l l ll l l e a u nua nua
ap ch and fe c rten nitoring the t of the s An An Ann n d e 5. Achieved By d limits are wildli rce ease over time r e lan y shol retention, therefore re red p target. The small st while mo s in Tabl a %) h in the Seeba tat b d
Appendix 1. The targ e
s n r et % % % bi u a 0 5 rg a >3 >25 >2 en Habitat the Seebach and Woodall ove the ontinue to inc e t Mart Target ( cence 30 inue to harve s. htly below) i t Marten ha are ab th ed to c 010. One h Habitat. measured by American Ma ct
es wi an (slig s t c ure the minimum t rv 03 of atially on a map in
s se nt tat as , 20 % % % Maintain the proportion of
8 5 8 . . . %) a usually planned for 8-12% e: 7 4 8 /05. h 31 r Tree Farm Li ent Statu ks are harvested in 4 4 2 ove the target an Marten 4 will be to con e habi o and sp tat to ens ea rc c 0 scale re consisten (ar e 5 Curr tice Ma e ab c r ce) a r a ortion of Ameri s n in Tabl Prop varian
serve not meeting the target w sted to meet the target in 2 : n the DFA. reserve areas are rve Area of Ameri Annual Report f n achieved in 20
tor
l t (0% se l a ch t and future p rrent status of wildlif a c
l n scale re i od eba Landscape Unit Management Objectiv habita Ind unit withi Averi Se Wo
the overall small scale reserve is expe and is foreca large CSA Sustainable Forest Manageme Eight of the eleven small scale re Woodall ESSFwk2. As bloc ESSFwk2 2.5 AMERCIAN MARTEN HABITAT The cu habitat is sho have bee Curre availability the wildlife habi maintained. Table 5. 2003/04 By Annually Annually Annually
Achieved Page 6
- 1 None None corridor Variance Allowable connectivity
are key for the survival of flora and are key for the survival Target Reserve 100% of valuethe high Caribou habitat (7171ha) from harvesting. Maintain 7 functional caribou connectivity corridors. is (functional defined as at least 200 m in width and mature70% forest.) tent with the silviculture Retain at least 67% of the pre-harvest basalwithin area each cutblock. Re- entry into the 81 after is cutblock years. n management areas contribute to contribute areas n management 100% (-10% variance) of all riparian Current status is 100% 100% is status Current reserved from harvest. (7171 ha in reserve) No harvesting was done in 2004/05 in medium Caribou habitat There are 7 corridor units (5459 ha) with a total of 20 BEC/NDT combinations for tracking. On average currently units all across the of forested76% mature.area is Current Status Current Status Percent of riparian management areas consistent with Areas Caribou Caribou prescription/site plan after harvesting. Management Objective: management areas will be consis Indicator: the silviculture prescription after harvesting within the DFA. Management Management High Value Caribou Habitat Medium Value Caribou Habitat Caribou Connectivity Corridors 2.8 RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT AREAS and wetlands lakes and streams, of next to the banks occur areas Riparian and the content moisture high by continuous covered area both the include Riparia vegetation. upland adjacent of conservation the of TFL 30 through management forest sustainable which environments, aquatic and riparian
Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Achieved By By Achieved Target Target >2.029 >2.041 >1.415 >2.216 >2.041 Wiener tat and connectivity corridors tat and connectivity
sustain the productive capacity of capacity sustain the productive Shannon- activities), is to retain necessary it resilience is strengthened if a natural is strengthened resilience he TFL 30 is being maintained as caribou as caribou maintained 30 is being he TFL are fundamental to ecosystem recovery. recovery. to ecosystem are fundamental nction effectively and be able to recover effectively and be able nction basic requirements and fundamental and fundamental requirements basic
Maintain the availabilityof caribou 2005 3.045 3.052 3.297 2.753 2.911 Current Status Status Current as of March 31, as of March
Availability of caribou habi caribou Availability of Targets. Grouped Grouped Bl – Oak fern
Sxw – Oak fern Sxw Sxw – HorsetailSxw Sxw – Devil’sSxw club Sxw – HuckleberrySxw Site Association Management Objective: habitat (0% variance) and connectivity corridors (-1 variance) consistent with the targets in Table 7. within the DFA. Indicator:
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management to fu ecosystems for entire In order (e.g. forest harvesting from disturbances that of elements a natural diversity the provide plant species Largely, and of nutrients to the recycling contribute and species habitat for faunal to necessary elements other life sustaining As a result, ecosystem the ecosystem. TFL30. throughout maintained diversity of plant life can be have met the plant diversity index ation site associ Table 6 all 5 in As shown stands. within managed site association index Grouped Table 6. Plantby stand diversity 2.7 CARIBOU HABITAT This indicator tellsmuch us how of t 7 and the targets in Table shown is status of this indicator habitat. Current high, place in Caribou took activities No harvest met in 2004/05. have been corridors. the 7 connectivity or within medium Caribou Table 7. Corridors and and Connectivity Habitat Caribou Current 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04
Achieved by Every 5 year re- inventory period Page 7 ent composition of 0 >1% >1% >5% >5% >2% >2% >6% >6% Stands basal area) (% deciduous Target Managed Target Managed species based on species based ported in the VRI the attribute file by bzone consistent with the targets with the bzone consistent rategies dealing with site specific with site specific dealing rategies multiplying the perc 4% 4% 8% 8% 0% 15% 15% 14% 14% Achieve the proportion of deciduous Stands Current Status * Managed Managed
2 2 7 0 11 Stands Natural Current Status * Proportion of deciduous tree species basal area by BEC BEC subzone subzone Management Objective: tree species basal area by BEC su (-1% variance) in Table 8. Indicator: subzone within the DFA. SBS mk1 SBS wk1 ICH vk2 ESSF (all subzones) SBS vk There were no species at risk encountered for 2004 therefore a Registered Registered a therefore for 2004 at risk encountered species no There were st Biologist review of our Professional have been strategies management at Risk possible. Species not was issues on project related the only species 2004 During may 2005. in early updated of the 100% habitat and therefore of fisher the field verification was TFL30 on the produced was A report in March 2005 implemented. were projects in TFL 30. of Fisher distribution predicted verification of deciduous in each stand BECby subzone re 2.11 DECIDUOUS TREE SPECIES the from unchanged remains 8) (Table of this indicator status Current for TFL30 Plan Management Forest Sustainable in the presented information after the next re- to change is expected This indicator 27, 2001. – June for early 2007. scheduled inventory period Targets. Component and Deciduous Tree Species Table 8. Current obtained* the current status % by were forested area thewithin stand then dividing the total forest area in eachby BEC subzone variant (see table 51 and 52 in the MP 9 data information package for more details).
of fish species, fish stream crossings crossings stream fish species, fish of management strategies are being
On an annual basis, ensure that 100% 100% (0% variance) of new fish-stream TED VERIFIERS Barriers to fish migration within the DFA. management with risk at species of percent The Management Objective: (0% variance) of species at risk implemented as scheduled. On an annual basis, ensure that 100% (-20% variance) of species related projects are being implemented. crossings will provide for fish passage. strategies being implemented. Indicator: Management Objective: Indicator:
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management habitats, for critical also provide areas management Riparian fauna species. for wildlife. and travel corridors home ranges, a 2005), from to March 31, 1, 2004 (April year harvesting Over the last and EMS final harvest inspection System Tracking Incident review of our the site with were consistent areas management of all riparian forms, 100% after harvesting. plans 2.9 FISH STREAM CROSSINGS In order to maintain the natural diversity an As fish are also of fish species. migration to the be a barrier cannot stream of these the success sp ecies, faunal for other food source important of to the maintenance contributes to provide for fish migration) (i.e. crossings to the contributes DFA. This indicator the on species other faunal of ecosystem maintenance diversity and the of species maintenance fauna. of the natural diversity flora and by maintaining productivity a 2005), from to March 31, 1, 2004 (April year harvesting Over the last 100% completed, forms EMS final inspection company review of the were non-conformances as no was maintained fish passage indicated that ITS. into reported 2.10 SPECIES-RELA 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04
Page 8
he productivity capacity of the forest capacity of the forest he productivity is a fire that is initiated because of is initiated because is a fire that in a stand at a specified point in time, point a specified in a stand at objective has been meet in 2004/05. meet in 2004/05. been has objective st site quality. It is a measure of the st site quality. It is a measure 50 years (after trees reach 1.3 m in reach years (after trees 50 is indicator (Table 9) in bold shows that 9) in bold (Table is indicator Tracking System and cross referencing cross referencing System and Tracking here was 0 hectares of accidental of accidental 0 hectares here was uded pre 1987 silviculture surveys and surveys silviculture pre 1987 uded No more than 10 hectares (0% Maintain the site index consistent with
Area of accidental industrial caused fires within the Site index by BEC subzone within the DFA.
Management Objective: variance) of accidentalindustrial causedannually.fires Management Objective: the targets (-5% variance) in Table 9. Indicator: DFA. Indicator: The objective has been met in 2004/05. met has been The objective height) by a particular tree species on a given site. Since site index is a site index given site. Since on a species tree height) by a particular of the growth trees measure physical 2.13 ACCIDENTAL INDUSTRIAL FIRES industrial due accidental losses of forest an indication provides This indicator fire caused industrial fires. An accidental Incident the Canfor After reviewing 1, 2004 to period April for the Center information Fire Forests the Ministry of t it was confirmed March 31, 2005, 30. The on TFL fires caused industrial 2.14 SITE INDEX of fore Site index is a relative measure in that can be expected height growth to evaluate if t good method it provides a maintained. is being for the site index by BEC subzone collated was Data in 1999-2004 incl The data mainly calculation. intercept assessment for growth allowed which surveys, recent free growing status of th of site index. The current the from unchanged the others remains while updated it has been industrial activity on the defined forest area. on the defined forest activity industrial h pine, spruce,
ems per hectare and 100% of the and 100% per hectare ems SHI-143- LOW and East TFL (IBS) and LOW SHI-143- tation harvest index was calculated calculated was index harvest tation areas infected wit in controlling potentially catastrophic potentially catastrophic in controlling ruce bark beetle) have historically have historically beetle) bark ruce ve success of the beetle management of the beetle management ve success he use of a variety treatment he use
Maintain Sanitation Harvest Index Sanitation Harvest Index for bark beetle infected area stems were “host species.” The sani “host species.” were stems three taken for were averages the following site and for each identified , South TFL Ranking 27-LOW TFL (IBM) SHI= TFL: North of the areas (IBM) East TFL (IBM) SHI=28-LOW, SHI-30 LOW. Aerial overview mapping (Heli-GPS) was conducted in the summer of the summer in conducted (Heli-GPS) was mapping Aerial overview populations to assess beetle of TFL 30 portions the western 2004 on “grown” sites the 2003 beetle having area of the TFL with the remainder in 2004. collected was base. No ground data data utilizing the FORHEAL following with the calculated was Index Harvest The Sanitation the area of a) epicenters: place for individual in assumptions point a about radius 100 metre a based upon hectares 3.14 epicenter is set a 350 st was density stand and b) SHI) (<1000 with the target indicator consistent the SHI are In summary, within the activities beetle management of the active in consideration 0-599=low follows: interpreted as of SHI is generally DFA. The range priority. = high > 1000 priority, and 600-999=moderate priority, Management Objective: below 1000 (+100 variance) for all or Douglas- fir bark beetle. (pine, spruce, Douglas-fir) within the DFA. Indicator:
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management 2.12 SANITATION HARVEST INDEX sp (especially populations Bark beetle a forest it is to TFL 30. To effectively manage damage significant caused approach to take a proactive necessary t through of bark beetles outbreaks method to prioritize (SHI) is a index harvest The sanitation techniques. the measure relati and treatments forest trends in the index will help to identify the long term, Over program. and resilience. productivity includes: season the 2004/05 Progress during • • • 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04
Page 9
160 1013 1188 1181 Area (ha) Area (ha) Rare Plant Community stered Professional biologist was biologist stered Professional . It relating to provides structure ed for operational staff. On an annual basis, ensure that 100% 81946 81946 10399 10399 Area (ha) Area (ha) BEC Subzone BEC Subzone
BEC SBSvk Subzone Subzone ICHvk2 ICHvk2 SBSvk Rare plant Rare communitymanagement strategies
BS DT HC DO
Black Spruce / Lodgepole Pine / Bog Laurel / Spagnum (BS) Pine / Bog Laurel Spagnum / Lodgepole Black Spruce (DO) Fern / Ostrich Club / Devil’s Cedar Red Western (DT) / Thimbleberry Fir / Douglas Spruce White Hybird (HC) / Cladonia Cedar Red / Western Hemlock Western Rare Plant Community Community Management Objective: (0% variance) of rare plant community management strategies are being implemented. Indicator: 2.16 RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES the extent that managed TFL 30 is being tells us about This indicator of rare plant communities respective leading to on these communities, and reporting management, recognition, the indicator. positively impacts that practices management the following: TFL 30 include on Rare plant communities in the following is shown communities plant rare of each these The amount table. 30. Plant Community Areas on TFL Table 10. Rare for these plant strategies management/protection developed has Canfor plant rare plants and training including at risk Species communities. complet has been communities communities identified rare plant no activities on the ground For 2004/2005, within the communities plant rare that contained no site plans and there were by a Regi no reviews DFA, therefore May 2005 in updated were strategies management at Risk Species needed. communities. for rare plant strategies and include By rolling A 5-year average. Achieved
>5.7 >11.5 >13.7 >19.6 >20.8 >20.2 Target Site Index (m)) (m)) Site Index (Average Spruce (Average Spruce
a total of 2.02% of the productive a total of 2.02% the productive to permanent access structures. structures. access to permanent cture, that provides access for timber for access that provides cture, ructure, including a road, bridge, a road, bridge, including ructure, 6.0 23.5 12.1 15.0 23.3 22.4 and Targets by BEC Subzone. BEC Subzone. and Targets by Site Index (m)) (m)) Site Index Current Status Current Status Maintain reductions to the forest (Average Spruce (Average Spruce
Elevation > 1000m > 1000m > > 1000m 1000m > > > 1000m > < 1000m Proportion of the DFA converted to permanent access
BEC Subzone BEC Subzone Management Objective: landbase due to permanent access structures or conversion to other uses to a maximum of 4 % (+/- 2 % variance). structures or conversionto other uses. structures or SBSmk1, SBSvk, SBSwk1 SBSvk, SBSwk1 ESSFwc3 ESSFwk2 ESSFwcp3 ICHvk2 Indicator: for TFL30 Plan Management Forest Sustainable in the presented information data). or zero sample not enough there was (as 27, 2001 – June 2.15 PERMANENT ACCESS STRUCTURES / LAND CONVERSION st is a structure access A permanent stru similar pit or other gravel landing, are on the area activities timber harvesting after remains and harvesting of area of the amount simply a measure is indicator This complete. as a forest from the productive basis annual removed on an permanently area. to the defined forest result of development, in relation in 2004/05 as met has been The objective converted have been forest landbase 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management Site Index Table 9. Current
% 5.0 5.19 2.27 7.29 1.67 8.33 14.58 14.89 10.04 13.64 22.58 quality quality concern concern high H20 crossings crossings Page 10 4.48 10.84
13.38 Low Low High High SCQI Rating Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Crossing Crossing Very High Very High Very High Sum of ind. scores/sq. km scores/sq.
0.29 0.30 0.29 0.55 0.29 0.19 0.57 0.61 0.34 0.12 0.30 0.81 0.39 0.62 31, 2004) 31, 2004) SCQI Current Status (March (March Status for specific sites will be ddition, restoration plans for specific
48 67 48 96 44 22 60 62 83 154 157 270 100 300 crossing surveyed surveyed Number of of Number
Sub-Basin for Quality Index within TFL30 Table 12. Current Stream Crossing 2003. in the crossings stream to assess further in 2004 will continue Work In a sub basins. remaining developed. Herring Lower Olsson D Residual Seebach Upper Basin 4 Woodall Herring Seebach Upper East Seebach Averil Limestone 20 Watershed Basin A 25 Watershed % 5.13 5.71 quality quality concern concern high H20 crossings High SCQI Rating Rating Moderate Moderate Crossing Crossing Sum of ind. scores/sq. km scores/sq. ndex indicates a high potential for the a high potential ndex indicates 0.54 0.39 acent stream whereas a low index a low whereas stream acent ad stream crossings) to deliver to deliver crossings) ad stream 31, 2003) 31, 2003) SCQI Current Status (March (March Status Maintain SCQI consistent (-10%
70 39 crossing surveyed surveyed Number of of Number Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI) for each A stream crossing quality index scoring methodology has been has been methodology index scoring quality crossing A stream for Canfor. P. Beaudry & Associates by developed and for TFL30 produced been has crossing An inventory map of stream in Appendix 1. is included has been crossing information stream of database An associated developed. TFL30 during in sub basins 8 covering Sampling of stream crossing 2002. with the completion of of 2004 summer in the continued Sampling watersheds. 7 new and Seebach Upper Sub-Basin watershed within the DFA. watershed within variance) with Table 18. Indicator: Management Objective:
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management 2.17 STREAM CROSSING QUALITY INDEX index is a potential quality measure, which indicates the crossing The stream ro crossing (permanent of a stream A high i into the stream. sedimentation to the adj to add sediment crossings possibility the to reduce well managed are being the crossings indicates that crossing. stream from the entering the of sediment 2001: June since this indicator on been made has progress The following 2003 are in 2002 and sampled of TFL30 sub basins The SCQI current status tables: following in the shown for Quality Index within TFL30 Table 11. Current Stream Crossing 2002. 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 Barney Creek Barney Creek East Olsson Page 11 Annualy Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Achieved by
< 80 < 65 < 80 < 80 < 65 < 37 < 37 < 37 < 65 r each watershed within the Target onservation of soils sustains the long- soils sustains onservation of curs within a specified period of time, period specified curs within a the baseline target will have a watersheds are below the targets. the targets. below are watersheds to the 27 independent watersheds is is watersheds to the 27 independent Each year, 100% (- 10% variance) of 43 39 44 45 34 44 32 27 45 PFI as of March 31, 2005
Peak flow index (PFI) fo
Averil Barney Creek Basin 20 Basin 25 Basin 27 Basin 7 East Olsson Herring Horn Watershed name Watershed name DFA. watershed review completed wherever new harvesting is planned (0% variance). Management Objective: the watersheds will be below the baseline target in Table 13. Each year, all watersheds that exceed Indicator:
silviculture conserves soil. These impacts include soil compaction, compaction, soil include soil. These impacts conserves silviculture to standards plan provides site and mass wasting. The displacement minimize impacts on soil productivity. C of the ecosystem. term productivity 2.20 PEAK FLOW INDEX of the potential effect measure, which indicates index is a flow The peak Most hydrologic watershed. in a particular water flow on areas harvested Peak stream flow in a watershed. of the peak periods during occur impacts flow is the maximum flow rate that oc peak of British Columbia, In the interior event basis. annual or on an usually spring. in the melts the snowpack as flows occur flow index in of peak status Current in shown graph is index trend table. A peak flow following in the shown 100% of the Appendix 2. Currently, on the DFA. Index Table 13. Current Peak Flow
the silviculture
tent with soil conservation ets identified in
site plan. targets in soil conservation dentally with the coinci dentally lly completed prior to the development project (pre- project to the development prior road layout and design and carried-out in carried-out and and design road layout 100 % (0% variance) of silviculture 100% (0% variance) of cutblocks are he recommendations are carried through, carried are he recommendations
Percent of silviculture prescriptionsof Percent androad designs Numberof cutblocks consis Management Objective: Management Objective: prescriptions and road designs are consistent with the terrain stability field assessments annually. consistent with soil conservation targ prescription. consistent with terrain stability field assessments within the DFA. targets in silviculture prescriptions within the DFA. Indicator: Indicator:
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management 2.18 TERRAIN STABILITY harvest or on any completed are (T SFA) stability field assessments A terrain or unstable as either area identified an that lies within proposal road building is usua The TSFA potentially unstable. are of the TSFA The recommendations design. layout and road site plan or plan or into the site then integrated t To ensure forest operations. checks for internal provides Canfor inspection). (final and after completion of the project work meeting), Management Environmental our through are reported Inconsistencies System. plans a review of site 2005, from to March 31, April 1, 2004 Over the period needed. were stability field assessments no terrain designs, and road 2.19 SOIL CONSERVATION a review of silviculture 2005, from to March 31, April 1, 2004 Over the period activity having 100% of cutblocks EMS forms, and completed prescriptions with them were consistent on conducted soil of protection to ensure are reviewed for harvest proposed All areas by impact caused limits. Minimizing the negative acceptable within resource building, and road activities such as harvesting, forest management 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 2055 2055 2081 2055 2055 2010 2055 Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades 12 decades Page 12 > 9 > 9 > 19 > 19 > 13 > 11 > 17 > 19 > 15 > 17 > 19 > 11 > 13 > 11 > 17 > 15 > 19 > 13 > 19 > 11 26-36 34-44 30-40 33-43 34-44 30-40 33-43 26-36 30-40 26-36 26-36 34-44 26-36 33-43 34-44 30-40 26-36 33-43 30-40 30-40 9 % 9 % 5 % 9 % 5 % 5 % 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 7 % 7 % 18 % 18 % 14 % 14 % 40 % 11 % 27 % 23 % 27 % 17 % 17 % 18 % 46 % 42 % 42 % 30 % 42 % 34 % 46 % 22 % 46 % 25 % 15 % 15 % 30 % 30 % 49 % 37 % 50 % 66 % 61 % 61 % 26 % 26 % 54 % 16 % 27 % 27 % 0.3 % 0.3 % Old > 250 yrs Old > 250 yrs Old > 250 yrs Old > 140 yrs Old > 250 yrs Old > 250 yrs Old > 140 yrs Old > 250 yrs Old > 250 yrs Old > 250 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 100 yrs Mature > 100 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 100 yrs Mature > 100 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 120 yrs Mature > 120 Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 100 yrs Mature > 100 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 100 yrs Mature > 100 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 100 yrs Mature > 100 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 120 yrs Mature > 120 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 80 yrs Mature > 100 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 100 yrs Mature > 100 yrs Early < 40 yrs Mid 40 – 120 yrs Mature > 120 yrs ESSFwk ESSFwk k2, wc3 2, wc3 ICHvk2 ICHvk2 2, wc3 *ESSFw *ICHvk2 SBSwk1, SBSwk1 SBSvk SBSvk
1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 Averil Woodall Seebach
Table Achieved By % Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Target Status Current
< 80 < 65 < 65 < 90 < 80 < 65 < 37 < 37 < 65 < 65 < 37 < 80 < 65 < 80 < 37 < 65 < 80 < 80 seral stage distribution as of March as distribution seral stage Seral Stage To achieve seral stage representative 33 32 77 27 28 45 41 23 21 33 43 30 61 35 16 41 29 31 s BEC
Subzone Seral stage distribution by landscape units by BEC zone
NDT
Hubble Limestone Lower Olsson Mokus Residual A Residual B Residual C Residual D Residual E Residual F East Seebach Lower Seebach Upper Seebach Tay Creek Upper Olsson Basin 4 Woodall West Torpy Land- Management Objective: distribution (+/- 10% variance) consistent with the targets in within the DFA. Indicator: 14. scape Unit
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management 2.21 SERAL STAGE DISTRIBUTION status of the current Table 14 identifies A on TFL 30. and ecosystem landscape with each 31, 2005 associated status current 1 displays the in Appendix Map Distribution Seral Stage spatially. Seral Stage DistributionTargets. Table 14. Current and 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04
/ha /ha 3 Page 13 /ha (+2.0 m 3 rrent status of avoidable sawlog sawlog status of avoidable rrent er harvested seasonally will be 3.2 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.2 2.7 1.6 the volume of timber left on to the total timber rity) compared 8.13 1.98 6.44 3.25 2.63 5.82 6.32 g waste from MOF waste billings.* tting authorities, must conduct waste and waste and conduct must tting authorities, s who may bill the company for avoidable may bill the company for avoidable s who No more than 4 m Avoidable Sawlog Waste (m3/ha) Waste Sawlog Avoidable Proportion of avoidable sawlog waste within the DFA. Winter 1998 Winter 1999 Winter 2000 Winter 2001 Winter 2002 Winter 2003 Winter 2004 2004 Winter Summer 1998 Summer 1999 Summer 2000 Summer 2001 Summer 2002 Summer 2003 Summer 2004 Summer 2004 Harvest Season Season Harvest variance for W 2003/04) of the timb variance for2003/04) of the W attributable to avoidable sawlo Management Objective: Indicator: Change of variance from 0.5 m3/ha to 2.0 m3/ha accepted at Oct. 30, 2003 PAG meeting.
2.23 WASTE RESIDUE * is waste sawlog of avoidable Proportion the with accordance removed (in have been that should areas harvested cutting autho in the standards utilization volume of timber that the include It does not basis. an annual on harvested safety impediments, of physical not be removed because could of the licensee. the control beyond reasons or other considerations, of our cu Canfor, as part Currently and then compiled are surveys These harvest. following surveys residue of Forest to the Ministry forwarded cu 2003 Winter and 2003 Summer waste. below: is shown waste Season. Harvest by Waste Table 16. Current Avoidable Sawlog
81.2% 81.2% Cut Control % Cut Control % Rolling 5 Year
/year) within the /year) within 3 56.5 86.7% 50.3% 91.9% 114.2% Cut of AAC % Recorded % ) 3 ples of landscape biodiversity at the biodiversity of landscape ples heavily skewed to the old/ mature and skewed heavily forest by age classes. Forest stands Forest forest by age classes. ic, ecological and natural disturbance natural disturbance and ic, ecological ted from the numbers shown in the shown ted from the numbers 328,688 328,688 328,688 328,688 328,688 Allowable Annual Cut (m The volume harvested will not exceed seral stage representations. representations. stage seral ) 3 301940 135220 285,016 165,183 375,231 Cut (m Actual Recorded Annual volume of timber harvested (m
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 100% (+10% variance) of the total AAC for the five year cut control period. DFA. Management Objective: Indicator:
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management * New ecosystems resulting from TEM of the is a representation Seral stage climat soils, different that exist under have different will conditions the princi implementing been has Canfor included have principles These 1999. since Plan level Development Forest ecosystems. and landscapes across stages of seral a range for managing is distribution seral stage The current is no Very little change young ages. report. annual 2003/04 2.22 VOLUME OF TIMBER HARVESTED of timber harvested the volume summary is a simple annual This indicator is and scale billings from timber are determined These values form the DFA. revenue. stumpage to determine by the crown used the same data table. in the following is shown status of volume cut in 2004 The current varied year has volume cut for any single 2000, the actual Since the year of the AAC to 114% (2002). from 50% (2001) DFA. Annual Cut on the Allowable Table 15. Current 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04
Page 14
ologically suitable species. the Silviculture Prescription. Prescription. Silviculture the the in stand. MAI is generally highest of the forest landbase, reforestation reforestation landbase, of the forest Table 16 (Sustainable Forest /ha/year) is the average annual (year) (year) annual /ha/year) is the average 3 100% (0% variance) of harvested areas Maintain the MAI (-10% variance) ) for a given area of forest (ha). The mean annual The mean annual (ha). ) for a given area of forest 3 Percent of harvested areas adequately reforested with with reforested areas adequately harvested of Percent Mean Annual Increment by BEC subzone within the DFA Management Plan – June 27, 2001). Management Objective: will be adequately reforested with ec Management Objective: consistent with the targets in Indicator: ecologically suitable species within the DFA. Indicator: met the TFL30 have within areas of harvested present, 100% to From 1987 outlined in as late free growing dates volume growth (m volume growth to be approved at the Forest Development Plan stage that will be Plan stage Development at the Forest to be approved the Site Plan. in referenced subsequently the mid-seral stages and then declines as trees get older. get older. trees as then declines and the mid-seral stages increment will change with the life of with change will increment 2.25 AREAS REFORESTED WITH ECOLOGICALLY SUITABLE SPECIES condition the existing In maintaining tree with areas the harvested regenerating at be directed efforts should the site and with the harvested compat ible that are ecologically species those are suitable tree species Ecologically ecosystem. forest surrounding site’s are naturally adapted to a that species tree deciduous or coniferous that may conditions the variability in these including condition, environmental occur over time. April 1, 2004 to from TFL30 within planted 100% of the areas Currently, tree species. suitable with ecological planted were March 31, 2005 2.26 MEAN ANNUAL INCREMENT (m increment annual The mean
ratums meeting free growing vested areas require a Silviculture require areas vested tail the steps required to establish a required tail the steps tes as outlined in approved standard (10 m3/ha) but the trend is m3/ha) but standard (10 be harvested and reforested at some reforested and harvested be The SP provides the Crown with a The SP provides y exception being, if the area is very if the area is being, y exception ture Prescriptions are completed by a completed are ture Prescriptions inally proposed as a CSA indicator as a CSA indicator proposed inally ablish a new stand on a harvested area on a harvested stand a new ablish legal contract between the Provincial the Provincial between contract legal acts and regulations, silviculture and regulations, acts may approve an exemption. Exemption approve an exemption. may 100% (-5% variance) of cutblock /ha was presented and accepted by the PAG. accepted and presented /ha was 3
rests. However, licencees will be held to similar will be held to similar However, licencees rests. Percentage of cutblockst Management Objective: stratums will meet free growing da silviculture prescriptions or exemptions. Indicator: dates within the DFA. With the adjusted variance, the number has still been exceeded with the exceeded still been has the number variance, With the adjusted improvements include Recommended data. winter 2004 and summer with the PAG to move Z809- start discussion the target as revaluating being are also policies of Forests New Ministry 2006. for June 02 standard in to be complete and are expected and residual waste regarding reviewing mid 2006.
met for the past four not been has waste sawlog for avoidable The target numbers waste and for. The residue is available which data in seasons government are less than the currently orig 4 m3 per hectare away from the to change meeting, a Advisory Group 2003 Public target. At the 30, October the varianceof +0.5 to +2m 2.24 AREAS MEETING FREE GROWING DATES (SP) is a A Silviculture Prescription Licensee. and a Forest Government commitment from the licensee to est Silvicul timeframe. within a specified de and Forester Professional Registered area. All har a harvested stand over new The onl to harvest. prior Prescription of purposes for the removed are being and the trees small (< 1 ha) the Ministry of Forests sanitation, in the life of a stand. measure are a temporary harvesting sanitation sites for will that the entire stand It is expected of fraction of a percent less than a point the future. Exemption sites make-up year. each harvested the total area forest in changes Given the recent approval will not require and by site plans replaced are being prescriptions of Fo from the Ministry 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management standards for stocking a requirement there will be in the past as as standards
0 % 0 % 23 % 23 % 29 % 29 % 36 % 36 % 18 % 18 % 15 % 15 % 31 % 31 % 53 % 53 % 50 % 50 % 18 % 18 % 12 % 12 % 37 % 37 % Page 15 Harvest Level Difference over MP 8 Status Quo Long Term /year) /year) 3 457,519 429,998 479,998 439,998 489,997 373,360 419,995 508,759 569,998 439,998 559,999 512,399 Long-term result of information regarding: 1) result of information regarding: Level (m Sustainable Harvest to evaluate the change in diversity of in diversity to evaluate the change As these data are collected through collected As these data are NON-COMMERCIAL USE Results of annual survey of commercial and non- A commercial and non-commercial use survey was developed and sent and developed survey was use and non-commercial A commercial review (PAG) for to the Public Advisory Group for commercial index was 0.98 of the diversity calculation In 2001/02 the use commercial 3.00 for non us and Scenario Planning Option MP 8 Status Quo MP 8 Base Case MP 8 Intensive Management MP 8 Biodiversity/Wildlife MP 8 Watershed/Fish MP 8 Scenic Area/Recreation MP 8 Biodiversity Guidebook MP 8 Priority Biodiversity Planning MP 9 Base Case decline 15% MP 9 short term MP 9 Increase yield 10% MP 9 Decrease yield 10% Indicator: commercial uses for the DFA. di versity index withinand non-market use Market the DFA. annual public surveys, it is possible it is possible surveys, public annual time. over uses/values the DFA, and 2) the intensity (number (number 2) the intensity on the DFA, and different uses/values of the number use/value. for each of participants) 2.28 COMMERCIAL AND of diversity within a community. measure A diversity index is a mathematical composition about community more information provide Diversity indices A commercial/non-commercial present. uses of than simply the number index is a diversity (market/non-market) includes: indicator Progress on this • •
. 3 is a level of harvest that can be can be is a level of harvest that stainable harvest level occurred in the level occurred harvest stainable hange after the next re-inventory period period re-inventory after the next hange he best available information and and information available he best eld permanent sample plots (PSPs) eld permanent sample plots for the next 250 years while considering considering while for the next 250 years Do not negatively impact (-10% STAINABLE HARVEST Long-term sustainable harvest level
Results. Management Objective: variance) thelong-term level. sustainable harvest Indicator: and yi of growth There is a network data however stands, and managed within natural 30 TFL across distributed in changes over time to monitor and analyzed to be re-measured needs status. from the information unchanged remains of this indicator status Current June 27, – Plan for TFL30 Management Forest in the Sustainable presented to c is expected indicator 2001. This for early 2007. scheduled 2.27 LONG-TERM SU level harvest sustainable The long-term The regime. forest management given a particular indefinitely maintained su of the long-term first determination The analysis that (1992-1996). supply review of the first timber first round on t the TSR is based accompanies forecast supply a timber provides issues ecological and socio-economic various Review occurs Supply every five years,Since the Timber incorporates and to the opportunity this provides values, social changing and new information time. Therefore levels throughout harvest long-term and fine tune short-term the long-term while still considering conditions to changing being responsive sustainability of the forest ecosystem. Management Forest Sustainable 2001, June tables from the The following harvest sustainable long-term to include updated been 30 has Plan for TFL sustainable 9). The long-term Plan 9 (MP from Management information m is 508,759 level from MP 9 basecase harvest 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management Table 17. Sustainable Harvest Levels Forecasting Long Term
ould
s sh e BC. 04 to of the
s r local mic d wa sse s fo e 20 ment n 6 Page 16 04 central 9. sine 9 20 rveste ance) of th cio-econo i ed bu year (Jun manage efits to the areas er ha 3 8 . al so 0 9 c mic conditio 0 9 2
criti ical ben cilities e in dollars within the DFA g % (0% var r 2 fa 8 a . ed within north 0 0 l c 9 0 cio-econo Ye 9 2 , over the last rvi ecolo loca so D e ide many is required in the ast 9 s e e 4 abl 01 8. At l
9 20 e: will be OGSPRO th TFL 30, local forest relat multitude of ral British Columbia. 0 wi George TSA facilities. dicate that 99.6% of the timb 00 0. ce 20 cent 10 n dollars timber supplied to
f ciated 0 0 ge e in 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 a Percentage of contract valu u t
10 ) . Querying L volumes in nefit from the work that : asso D s en t only provide a c r 05) o ng them, but they also prov Percent o tor
e . a P c unitie i SPRO undi
sts n re 2
G Percentage u serviced by north contract val Ind Management Objectiv (LO March 20 delivered to local Pri Fig 2.30 LOCAL CONTRACT VALUE Fore surro benefits. In order to have sustain comm be able to
s nt e lar d u ed rre
c rcial logy y clu mping, u and e lied to survey). n ch. g
p rt but due sing st from od ed to the odo s r e i r p within the e e. Pop s a po st scale site. s of th ppin su re p A ) harv F proces 3 we D rcial u
hunting, ca nual re ercial u ns that the cu s , new meth this on the 04 meeting. It was g, fishing, are tra n p e rvey approa rt. 2005 to surve m d s riance) a h n Module local e atio ties located ed 20 i stry of Fore s me (m timber mark i
s 0. 76 for comme e (TSA), comp va skiing w su e m -05 a cil ctio s end , huntin Mini g are d one note s d from t ercial u non-comme develop f o ly area e sing fa e e 2004 the Jun rcial u this ne comm p m s others. Com annual repo s p hikin % (-5% cence 30 g n u u
6
5 o act r ity index wa rin gh n ogs Produ pprove d. diversity index. It is believed that oce sup e. u rding the volu ill’s scale, the mme ing, r able o s be supplied to p s-L g and
uded i ast 9 s d ercial ecte r er p e d with UNBC in June er extr nt at an a re vari timber ailable for th non-co d o ry (althou e v At l s coll ating the de cam ishe d eting led to re g, skiin r the 2005/0 l System mercial u timb n a u bl e: n-comm s e c r Tree Farm Li clu u or’s timb eorg rmation rega will be incl n of the divers o of e wa n scale ested from the DFA. ghed at the m in cal s rvey, the main com -com e s s rv e all PAG working g n esta su a info wei s ulatio ’s G s c r ortion facilities. - sm -03 available fo berry pickin ng and forest ta would b lays non i 003 PAG me for non , dology be re-visited 4 2 cal s bee ed to PAG membe e 30 for re o 0 0 rcial use oad i L
0 sing ent . By far there is m Canfo d of wood i the Prince G Prop goes to Canf s ckl : r provide 0 ct ha biling 2/03 , guid will b r 30, 2 mme g king. e s of ry and the main no nd 1.27 kloa Annual Report f mo tor d that da apportioned to Canfor will s. e s of TF c cato r w a e sults c the tru i dari n Octob survey meth February 20 to be pre hope to contract de A contra use several more sampl Re From the 2 forest and hi In 2001/02, commercial a for TFL3 non-co sno trappin The 200 use a Management Objectiv timber faciliti Ind local proces
• • • • • • 2.29 SUPPLY OF TIMBER TO LOCAL PROCESSING FACILITIES This indi 2003/04 CSA Sustainable Forest Manageme TFL 30 which boun total volume of wood h Each tru Whe recorded into
. n l a e
intain ey) action
a 3 f v rket prove ed
t lev a +
s ngly m ( d a d m en ro -b d i ar satis al sur : Increase the pproved to e nnual Page 17 ry g of (based on curr non-m nd st st s a e y ry base e r re annu level ance) an n fo ree a time e th ance) an t g on an a for small forestry- a n- hin on o en s. rket and r vari ed rmin a based businesses): over ACTION SCORE ll n e e esse ry, non-forest on wit g climate by northern B.C. (based on r sma creas months vari s) Det acti d months tive with the followin me (bas o e the cur busin e% (sum of a f c in forest
tisf e (+3 Meeting, the membe all time at erag ry (+ 3 t obje over ti service operatin n of sa ue (small forestry intain or ) of sm e: vel ) Determin a d businesse val opportunities for m e year Adviso t ce e
e d non-market c rolling av c et m one year ageme n a on n d for
an tisfaction over operating clim contr mark current l rvices. tion 3 year non ties within of sa e Level of positive ance) ey). c
ent of d nd market an : v % (-5% varia indicator ma d s level of satisfaction vel s e Perc tor ses a a satisfa s tisfaction within c e thi ) by 10 i high e c e opportuni n Determine the months vari annual sur (small non-forestry bas of sa to a survey). (market an of a high l Management Objectiv Ind based businesses. Level of positive businesses. Level of satisfaction goods an Figure 3. 2.31 FOREST MANAGEMENT SATISF At the April 14, 2003 Publi repla survey agre busi e s 30.
the Hou allows n of which e m Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually d Terrace in 31. Achieve By: c. 2 withi syste e within TFL 98.6 2004 to be those value 1 to D ed by 100 Mil .
d
et e counting r nd c t during 200 a t in the east an 99.1 ide 2003 n s Targ n > 90 % > 90 % > 90 % > 90 % > 90 % s bou a spe cence 30 r
2 a c are lars Canfor’ 95. Valemou Ye 2002 s are con , phi he local contract ctors. calendar year Jan gra ra within ual dol nt 0 Year 2002 2003 2004 2000 2001 contract 93. 2001 ) d on a r Tree Farm Li C e stored o in the north d in the geo l data ntral B 92.4 a 2000 Value t r 0 w 95.2% of the ann orth ce is locate 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 status is bas t status and tracking of o r l Fort St. John 100 e entage t Status of c Annual Report f rren the financi n r s to north central BC cont 92.4% 93.0% 95.2% 99.1% 98.6% n b
racto e g t. Indicato
P w Curre Percentage DFA. Local (n the cont in the south, the wes Queryin for the cu As sho DFA goe Table 18. Contrac the current 2003/04 CSA Sustainable Forest Manageme
r cator A. /04 F
3 . me ng sponse Canfo . 0 e DFA. This nded to e s 0 r
so o goi the D tified, it is of DFA st defines cie
sp a minimum n p od a Page 18 on e ude en s re h r on the ern. This indi s c rding a on t nually. meets ge as the 2 ew ag receives. mbershi uld incl A regarding tegory be ment of the DFA. It is r
con portion of “strongly view peri . s were ide …). r reg ), Canfo ces , or use DF to letters regarding age ti s ar st wo c rcenta e yea Canfo with revi ness d also receive i variance) written r plan re c value onses concern an h pra % e interest per a PAG that per y s an sion
tify which ca s and man sp n amount of letters to which s n ss intere sts, l tten letters of e s ry Bus publi e r t rch 31, 2004 re of a diverse me ne pla r of letters p ncerns on the ance) ed c tice or Ma z c tters of erns wit nf co e c l c a i 100% (-5 Maintain st. In 2003/04 the pro C g vari G meeting con e: e: table discu to n A made u its pra d , Non-fores . This is the same pe s tere asked to id of restry Busi r all publi aring the tota s within thirty days. n defined inte the 0 market u ONSE TO PUBLIC CONCERNS n ral a formali spond to all wri w nfor ge g e ce of P a il 1, 2003 to rding n ness r i rin a e s 61% sho ack fo to re enta r nts were ” wa ry bus ck reg t and g (-one meeti ys by C Number feedb ee 1) of written publ ents du after the rou a Perc OR RESP visory group i at the Non-fo f results onde r ded by the total numbe es that have s : : b t and practi da g m n s with market i st year (Ap sp cit ad c tor tor times out o com a a
ded to dent ds divi eme soli . ated th entativ c c r and a i i s ral feed ul e ey two e c r Management Objectiv within 30 Management Objectiv of Ind public plans Ind above. Re them (i.e. fores Although the spe respon agre surv 2.32 CANF Canfo gene the intent of Canfo will be calculated by comp respon Over the la 100% (1 manag Written respon 2.33 NUMBER OF PUBLIC ADVISORY MEETINGS The publi rep . 3 d ng se only n
2002/0 gardi ned o i 01. n dated an re tion of spo se i ac sts f ve an the level of in 20 r a ba tis w a s determ and/o wa who h r y distributed t hown in the table n r revie with one re
ific intere y c L 30 land widel Canfo s are cence 30 h was to individuals c use the TF ng with spe ns with survey
the PAG and survey up r ting to the level of s d to the surve nt to the PAG fo ctio the and de level of satisfactio r
nt from d se d r Tree Farm Li have in deali ) respon at worked o al survey, whi ess intera rmation rela o e DFA. ped an n % o nu e results of with Canfo info s the DFA. The were receive n e of an ents was devel at individuals at interact individuals th at have busi e/value on th s ues o y out of 81 (19 r provide mments. Th m s th s Annual Report f cato ses th tion th sed u s c s com h the u s anie e lying co n p
CSA Sustainable Forest Manageme A draft surve Variou sent out to 60 This indi comp satisfa their uses/val throug busi expre A total of 15 sup 2003/04 Page 19 the nature and extent of the nature and
e with duly established regarding aboriginal rights on the rights regarding aboriginal ility of Canfor to abide by the terms. ility ement lands are in TFL30.The Lheidli Lheidli are in TFL30.The ement lands original and treaty rights are legally original and treaty y rights are those rights that are y rights are those that the PAG seems satisfied with the with satisfied the PAG seems Included in Appendix 3 is a trend graph graph 3 is a trend in Appendix Included
100% (0% variance) recognition and rnment that will clarify Level of legal complianc Management Objective: respect of Aboriginal and treaty rights. Indicator: Aboriginal and treaty rights within the DFA. aboriginal rights on the DFA. on the DFA. rights aboriginal rights or treaty describing been informed of any agreement not has Canfor of treaty negotiations. because on TFL 30 rights aboriginal been raised have To date, no concerns Canfor is that made been has an assumption area. Therefore, defined forest Aboriginal established with all duly complying with legally 100% compliance on TFL30. and treaty rights
review of the results and comments, results and review of the facilitator, and logistics. meetings, showing this meeting in comparison to previous results obtained. obtained. results to previous meeting in comparison this showing Duly established Aboriginal and treat Aboriginal Duly established 2.35 ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS from forest derived value is a key social people of aboriginal Cultural heritage Once ab Canada. across ecosystems affirmed on the DFA, it is responsib in When discussed Constitution. the Canadian affirmed in and recognized relate to hunting, generally rights these resources, relation to renewable (source: CSA Z808-96 p. 31 s, gathering case and, in some fishing, trapping, Section 2.6.1). the interests in TFL30, asserted aboriginal have Nation Bands Two First Band Lake McLeod Band. The Lheidli T’enneh Band and the Lake McLeod Provincial and with the Federal 8 settlement agreement a Treaty signed of the settl in 2000. None governments a treaty with the on developing working currently First Nation is T’enneh gove Federal and Provincial
initial development of values, goals, of values, goals, initial development l of satisfaction. The results of the The results l of satisfaction. d evaluation of this process. This this process. d evaluation of one of the key elements of public of public of the key elements one ation and subsequent evaluation of the evaluation and subsequent ation SA-SFM certification process, and will process, certification SA-SFM Determine the level of satisfaction of
Results of PAG questionnaire regarding the DFA. Indicator: Management Objective: the PAG members with the communication process annually (+ 2 months variance). input on the provided valuable has group C for this objectives indicators and input an to provide guidance, continue for the provides Canfor how often regarding information indicator provides for the PAG to meet annually. opportunity was group advisory the public certification for CSA-SFM In preparation 2001, the April and 2000 September Between 2000. formed in September Indicators Goal, the Values, met 13 times to develop Group Public Advisory the PAG has 2001, 30. Since April plan for TFL for CSA-SFM and Objectives next The 2003. October and May 2002, April 2003 2001, met in October 2004. of June week second for the scheduled meeting is in a field tour of for the PAG to participate were provided Opportunities In members in June 2002. George LRMP with the Prince TFL30 jointly at / species were invited to a ecosystem addition, interested PAG members 2002. in November risk workshop of great benefit for the with the PAG is considered interaction Continual certific of CSA efficient progression audits. performance th rough certification process 2.34 PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE group (PAG) is advisory The public input guidance, The PAG provides process. involvement in the CSA-SFM with regards process in the is instrumental and of the process and evaluation DFA. As on the uses values and local current with linkages to maintaining with the PAG and relationship a positive working to have it is important such, that may arise from concerns to issues and be able to respond should Canfor the PAG. 2004 and October 2004 provided to the PAG at June A survey was to determine their leve in order meetings 3. From the in Appendix included are with PAG comments along surveys 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management
Page 20
of information from the interested from the interested of information maintain elements on the landscape landscape on the maintain elements g, firewood gathering. One of the One gathering. g, firewood s with an interest in the DFA to Aboriginal peoples to identify, define to identify, peoples Aboriginal Group. Current uses of the DFA by uses Group. Current A for the maintenance of traditional A for the maintenance grity for the DFA (+2 month DFA (+2 grity for the Lheidli T’enneh) remain members on the members remain T’enneh) Lheidli consensus-basedinvolvement
Identify special and unique mutually Maintain and review annually CSA PAG
Approved Terms of Refe rence for the CSA Public
provide comment duringpreparation of publicplans. process with credibility and inte Management Objective: agreed upon needs within one year (+6 month variance) and create opportunities for Aboriginal people Management Objective: Terms of Reference to ensure variance). public plans for the DFA. plans for the public Indicator: Advisory Group forthe DFA. a key is planning in forest needs peoples The incorporation of Aboriginal contributes As such, this indicator forest management. to sustainable aspect who of people needs and spiritual heritage cultural, the social, to respecting use the DF currently traditionally and with of their lifestyle. Working aspects is needs and unique special these for strategies management and develop to of being able component an important (including parties for interested opportunities in creating is involved Canfor the gathering through Peoples) Aboriginal plans. of public in the development information this and incorporating parties with two of the local First Nations; relationships has working presently Canfor First Nation. T’enneh and the Lheidli Band Indian Lake the McLeod ( One of these First Nation groups Advisory Public CSA-SFM certification to, berry picking and but are not limited include, people the Lheidli T’enneh huntin fishing, gathering, herb medicinal relationship, cultivating a long-term working on in remains challenges larger interests. and needs of each others to a better understanding will lead which 2.38 APPROVED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP for the maintenance of traditional lifestyle values of Aboriginal peoples. peoples. values of Aboriginal lifestyle of traditional for the maintenance les in p eo p inal g to fill in the CSA matrix was 88%. and provide an opportunity to meet opportunity and provide an process. Their attendance at the 13 at attendance process. Their tions representatives. As such, the representatives. tions more easily be incorporated into forest into easily be incorporated more on needs of Abori p
of attendance 10% variance) 90% (+/- reed u g a y Annual percentage Annual attendanceAboriginal by Group Documented opportunities and incorporation of special
ue mutuall q Management Objective: Aboriginal Groups with an interest in the DFA at PAG meetings annually. members at PAG meetings. members at PAG and uni Indicator: Indicator:
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management PUBLIC 2.36 ABORIGINAL PARTICIPATION ON THE ADVISORY GROUP to approved Meeting, the members Advisory At the April 14, 2003 Public Ensure that with the following: objective indicator management this replace about the PAG are informed and invited on involved Groups Aboriginal in advance one month meeting at least month after to debrief. within one spiritual which have cultural and values, social to maintain those In order input it is important to be able incorporate to First Nations, importance from representatives of local First Na can Nations local First values of the choices. management and practices forest planning, management and the Lheidli Indian Band McLeod Lake groups, The two Aboriginal members involved in the PAG and were active First Nation, were T’enneh of the PAG the Development throught to April 2001) (Sept.2000 PAG meetings at the Octoberto 0% to 50% PAG meeting and 2002 Attendance dropped the Bands to encourage made were attempts meeting.Several the April 2003 meeting but were not successful. to attend the fall 2003 PAG to be active at encouraging First Nations to work will continue Canfor quite been has success although Group Public Advisory in the members few years. limited over the past 2.37 SPECIAL AND UNIQUE NEEDS OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 Page 21 addressed identified addressed
ic plans, which leads to participation leads which plans, ic local newspaper. The Public input The Public local newspaper. ementing it’s “Creating opportunities opportunities it’s “Creating ementing er the last year, 100% of the public 100% of the public last year, er the tters requesting input from all known input tters requesting ans considers the feedback from from the feedback considers ans all public plans approved by statutory by statutory approved all public plans
Increase % public participation in forest planning planning in forest participation % public Increase % public participation and number of public input by maintaining at least one (0% variance) public involvement opportunity involvement opportunity public (0% variance) at least one by maintaining plans. to drafting of public prior Indicator: opportunities provided within the DFA. Objective: Management for Interested Parties Document”. Ov Parties Document”. for Interested approval have for Agencies to Ministry submitted plans review and for public available were made all plans Currently, public pl The approval of public feedback. review and were submitted for public All public plans parties. interested follows: as recorded were of public plans the approval and feedback, April 20, 2002 until June Plan – Approved on Development TFL 30 Forest 2005. to April, 2007. on April, 2002 – Approved Plan 9 for TFL30 Management a two-way communication maintaining towards to work will continue Canfor by impl parties with interested process public review process. in the LRMP and concerns intent of Canfor to have 100% of to have 100% intent of Canfor plans of public will report the percentage this indicator makers and decision approved. 2.40 OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT values, and issues reflect societal properly are developed that Public plans our practices impact values and issues of those and consideration to opportunity has The public forest management. sustainable to contributing to the drafting of publ prior provide input improvement. and continual le sends notification currently Canfor Plan, Forest in the Management phases key during parties interested to in addition Plan processes Management Plan and Pest Development in the published having advertisements the table below. in summarized is 2002 since opportunity
to ensure that sustainable forest forest sustainable to ensure that be reviewed. Canfor will continue to continue reviewed. Canfor will be public review during which public can public which review during public nsidered in the development of public in the development nsidered he Terms of Reference document will be document of Reference he Terms
concerns/values for the DFA. 100% (0% variance) of all public plans Percentage of public plans that address identified public Management Objective: will address identified public concerns/values for the DFA. Indicator:
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management is necessary Advisory Group The Pubic informed, of as a result that are made “…decisions occurs with management directly affected by, are who people with local fair consultation and inclusive The PAG represents management. forest in, sustainable or have an interest on member the DFA. As such, each on specific of interest a diverse range and the PAG must be able to have effective and fair interaction all values to ensure Canfor, including another, with one communication of Reference The Terms and fair consideration. receive meaningful protocol to and to provide the ne cessary framework document is intended input from PAG representatives. ensure the effective by the PAG and was developed document The initial Terms of Reference of Reference 2000. The Terms 30, October on acceptance approved for April 2001, May 2002, at the October approved and reviewed document was PAG meetings. 2004 October 2003 and 2003, October when notice adequate will be given that PAG members will ensure Canfor will document of Reference the Terms such that any revisions documents, of Reference Terms maintain the of t the annual review resulting from PAG members. distributed to the made and 2.39 APPROVED PUBLIC PLANS Development Forest Plans, of Management consist plans public Canfor’s Management Forest Sustainable the Plans and Management Plans, Pest to Plan. All of are subject these plans is not George LRMP The Prince the plans. on feedback provide review and but is co a higher level plan currently and the plans, these public approve Statutory decision-makers plans. plans has the regarding feedback public in part, as to how approval is based, It is the (e.g. LRMP). with other plans consistency and the been incorporated 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04 Page 22
3 3 1 0 0 Other
0 letters 31 letters 22 letters 149 letters 111 letters Public Input Opportunity Notification Letter
1 ad 2 ads 4 ads 0 ads 2 ads Newspaper Ad DFA Public Plan
CSA Sustainable Forest Management CSA Sustainable Forest Management Table 19. Public Input Opportunities Plan 2002 Forest Development 2002 Pest Management Plan* Management Plan 9 ** Sustainable Management Plan #28 2003 FDP Amendment 2003 PMP * includes notification to treat ** MP9 – all public input occurred in 2001/02 therefore zero for this year as MP9 is a five year plan 30 Tree Farm Licence Annual Report for 2003/04
APPENDIX 1 – MAPS
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 23
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 24
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 25
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 26
APPENDIX 2 – PFI 5-Year Trend Graph
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 27
Figure: Five-Year Peak Flow Index Trends on TFL30.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Peak Flow Index 20 10
0 Bar East Lim Low Resi Resi Resi Resi Resi Resi East Low Upp Tay Upp Wo We Ave Basi Basi Basi Basi Herr Hor Hub Mok Basi ney Olss esto er dual dual dual dual dual dual See er er Cre er odal st ril n 20 n 25 n 27 n 7 ing n ble us n 4 Cre on ne Olss A B C D E F bac See See ek Olss l Tor 2000 50 35 29 50 40 56 42 45 30 34 38 44 77 30 33 55 30 36 52 25 67 31 42 28 35 35 24 2001 58 33 36 46 39 70 43 46 35 36 43 48 84 30 29 59 29 38 63 25 78 32 39 34 31 34 23 2002 48 32 34 43 46 46 36 44 29 32 47 41 79 23 34 45 25 28 45 33 64 31 32 28 35 27 16 2003 48 33 37 45 44 44 35 46 28 32 47 41 78 23 33 43 25 27 43 33 63 35 33 29 34 28 16 2004 44 32 39 44 45 43 34 45 27 30 45 41 77 21 33 41 23 27 43 32 61 33 31 29 33 28 16 Sub-Basin
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 28
APPENDIX 3 – PAG Questionnaire Results
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 29
Figure: 2004 Public Advisory Group (PAG) questionnaire responses
Meeting Comments: TFL30 PAG 2004 Meeting Evaluation Summary June 10, 2004:
5.0
Oct 28, 2004 4.0
3.0
2.0 Score (out of 5) 1.0
0.0 MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ PQ PQ PQ PQ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4
10-Jun-04 4.8 3.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 3.7 4.0 4.5 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.9 28-Oct-04 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.3 4.7 4.7 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 Question
Comments
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 30
Figure: Four-Year tend of Public Advisory Group (PAG) questionnaire responses
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0 Score (out of 5) Score (out of 1.0
0.0 MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ MQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ FQ PQ PQ PQ PQ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 2001 4.5 3.9 4.4 4.8 4.5 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2002 4.4 3.9 4.8 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.6 4.4 2003 4.5 3.9 4.4 4.8 4.5 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2004 4.8 3.9 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.2 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.9 Question
2004/05 Annual Report for Tree Farm Licence 030 Page 33