Conservation and Sustainable Forestry Plan TFL 54 June 2005
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Conservation and Sustainable Forestry Plan TFL 54 June 2005 CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY PLAN DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN No.4 TREE FARM LICENSE 54 Effective January 1 2005 to December 31, 2009. Submitted ____________________, 2005. International Forest Products Ltd. Authors Gordon Butt, Madrone Environmental Services J. Dan Lousier, Whiskeyjack Science Don McMillan, Interfor Warren Warttig, Interfor DRAFT Interfor Madrone Conservation and Sustainable Forestry Plan TFL 54 June 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Like ordinary TFL Management Plans, this Conservation and Sustainable Forestry Plan will show how Interfor will manage TFL 54 in Clayoquot Sound over the coming five-year period (2005 to 2009). However, Clayoquot Sound is not an ordinary place and this is not an ordinary Management Plan. This Plan describes the special context and history of the Sound, it explains how Interfor has met the challenges of the last decade, and will show how Interfor will continue to sustainably manage the TFL in the future. The 1995 Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel recommendations resulted in fundamental and dramatic changes and marked a clear departure from earlier, conflict-inspiring industrial forest management focusing on timber production. The preparation of this plan marks the 10th anniversary since Interfor began the implementation of the Scientific Panel’s recommendations. In fully embracing these changes, Interfor has been on the forefront of ecosystem-based management in BC. It now has 10 years experience working with the new way of doing business. Interfor has adjusted to a new philosophy that emphasizes the trees left behind, rather than the trees harvested. Interfor can claim numerous successes. It has: 1. Pioneered expertise in Variable Retention harvesting, meeting Science Panel rules, while at the same time running an efficient and safe operation; 2. Developed an innovative approach to soliciting public input into recreation and scenic resource management; 3. Developed effective and efficient methods of planning, engineering and harvesting under Scientific Panel rules; 4. Initiated, planned, implemented and monitored watershed restoration projects, resulting in channel recovery and significant increases in fish production; and 5. Developed a comprehensive and inventive area-based AAC analysis. Not everything envisaged by the Scientific Panel has been accomplished in Clayoquot Sound, although Interfor cannot take sole responsibility for these inadequacies. There has been no systematic, coordinated or logical strategy for research and monitoring, following the Scientific Panel’s recommendations. Part of the responsibility for this lies in inconsistent government funding and lack of coordination between stakeholders – particularly after the disappointing performance of the Long Beach Model Forest. A more coordinated effort is necessary. DRAFT Interfor Madrone i Conservation and Sustainable Forestry Plan TFL 54 June 2005 There has been no significant effort to understand the costs and benefits of the Clayoquot Experiment. After 10 years, there is still no real understanding of the impacts of the Scientific Panel’s recommendations. The investment in this experiment warrants a comprehensive assessment. Interfor believes that the Provincial Government should take the lead in conducting an independent and unbiased assessment of the true costs and benefits. Interfor has identified certain Scientific Panel recommendations that it feels can be modified without a concomitant increase in adverse ecological impact. Specific changes are presented in this plan (Section 4.4). The most significant changes involve rate of cut, hydroriparian reserve management and opening size in VR harvest units: 1. For watersheds greater than 500 ha, Interfor suggests abiding by the 1% per year rule. However, for watersheds with low vulnerability to peak flow changes we suggest this rate of cut be averaged over 10, rather than 5 years. For these watersheds, Interfor would cap the Equivalent Clearcut Area at 30%. 2. For watersheds less than 500 m, Interfor would follow the 1% per year, but averaged over 20 years. The ECA cap for larger watersheds would apply. 3. Interfor proposes that for non-alluvial streams with channel gradients greater than 8 %1 within proposed harvest areas, hydroriparian reserves be increased in width, but for only one half of the length of the stream in the setting. In addition, Interfor will ensure that at least 60% of the total length of non- alluvial streams in a watershed remains under natural forest cover. 4. For alluvial streams less than 3 m wide and less than 8% in gradient, Interfor would adopt an average 30 m buffer. 5. Interfor proposes that in special circumstances where blowdown is likely to compromise retention targets, opening widths can be increased from 2 to 6 tree lengths, while still meeting the set retention targets on the gross harvesting area. Increased flexibility would allow Interfor to better manage blowdown hazards. Interfor has achieved a great deal in Clayoquot Sound in the decade following the implementation of the Scientific Panel report. Yet it faces continued challenges on the economic front. Since Interfor acquired TFL 54 in 1991, the AAC has dropped from 180 000 m3 to 75 750 m3 – a reduction of 58%. To remain in business, Interfor must continue to strive to improve efficiency and achieve cost reductions. By adopting the Scientific Panel’s recommendations, Interfor participated in changes that dramatically raised standards for ecosystem-based management. While 1 These correspond to B(2)(a), B(2)(b) and B(3) streams, according to the CSSP Hydroriparian Classification DRAFT Interfor Madrone ii Conservation and Sustainable Forestry Plan TFL 54 June 2005 sustainable in the ecological sense, these changes were not sustainable from the perspective of social and economic factors. Interfor is hopeful that the next 10 years of the Clayoquot Experiment will meet sustainability objectives in a more balanced and equitable way. DRAFT Interfor Madrone iii Conservation and Sustainable Forestry Plan TFL 54 June 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………...i 1.0 Introduction…………………….…………………………………………………….1 1.1 Objectives…………………………………………………………………………….1 1.1.1 The Clayoquot Experiment……………………………………………..1 1.1.2 Clayoquot Context……………………………………………………...2 1.2 Relationship to Other Plans ........................................................................................4 1.3 Sustainable Forest Management ................................................................................6 2.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT.............................................................................................. 8 2.1 The Landscape..............................................................................................................8 2.2 First Peoples & Resource Use....................................................................................9 2.2.1 Pre-historic to Western Contact to 1972…………………………………9 2.2.2 Western Contact-The First 100+Years (1772-1875)…………………...10 2.2.3 Western Contact-The Second 100+Years (1875-1995)………………...12 2.2.4 1995-2005-Ten Years of Change…………………………………………14 2.3 Settlement History....................................................................................................15 2.3.1 Homesteader (1800-1900)………………………………………………..15 2.3.2 Community Establishment……………………………………………….16 2.3.3 Infrastructure Development-Transportation……………………………18 2.3.4 Community and Regional Economic Development and Diversification………………………………………………………………..…20 2.4 The Evolution of Forest Tenures in British Columbia........................................28 2.5 The Clayoquot Dispute ............................................................................................34 2.5.1 The larger context: Forest Conservation………………………………...34 2.5.2 People and Parks…………………………………………………………..35 2.5.3 Clayoquot Sound……………………………………………………….…36 2.5.4 Recommendations of the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel…………...38 2.6 Current and Emerging Social, Economic, and Environmental Issues...............38 3.0 Present Context ……………………………………………………………………41 3.1 Interfor in Clayoquot Sound.....................................................................................41 3.2 Working with Partners..............................................................................................43 3.3 Planning in Clayoquot Sound ...................................................................................49 Conservation and Sustainable Forestry Plan TFL 54 June 2005 3.3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………….…49 3.3.2 Planning Framework……………………………………………………...50 3.3.3 Scientific Panel Planning Recommendations……………………………51 3.3.4 Planning Process………………………………………………………….55 3.3.5 Management and Other Plans……………………………………………61 3.4 Planning for Non-Timber Values .............................................................................62 3.4.1 Introduction...……………………………………………………………..62 3.4.2 Visual Quality…….……………………………………………………….63 3.4.3 Biological Diversity……...………………………………………………..65 3.4.4 Wildlife Habitat.…………………………………………………………..66 3.4.5 Fish and Water Resources………………………………………………...69 3.4.6 Soils and Terrain…………………………………………………………..70 3.4.7 Recreation Resources……………………………………………………..71 3.4.8 Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources……………………….72 3.4.9 Parks……………………………………………………………………….73 3.5 Planning for Timber Resources................................................................................73 3.5.1 Intrduction……………...…………………………………………………73