|
Introduction
The Harrop-Proctor ecosystem-based analysis and forest-use plan
was completed in 1998 for the Harrop-Procter Watershed Protection
Society (HPWPS). In 1999 the HPWPS was awarded a Community Forest
Pilot Agreement for community management of their forests.
The stated
watershed management objectives of the HPWPS include:
* To achieve
ecosystem-based forest management in the Harrop-Procter area which
will benefit the community in perpetuity.
*To ensure that forest use activities, particularly timber management,
protect water quality, quantity, and timing of flow in both the
short and long terms.
*To promote a sustainable, community-based economy through ecosystem-based
forestry planning, ecologically responsible timber management
activities, the enhancement of local processing facilities, and
the development of value-added wood manufacturing.
*To develop appropriate non-timber forest uses of the Harrop-Procter
watersheds. Non-timber forest uses under consideration include,
but are not limited to: wildcrafting, nature interpretation, wildlife
viewing, tourism, and existing trap lines.
*To establish a water monitoring program in the Harrop-Procter
watersheds in order to evaluate the results of ecosystem-based
forestry, and to ensure that timber management does not degrade
water supplies.
The purpose of our ecosystem-based analysis was to assist land
use planning and estimating ecologically sustainable timber flows,
not operational planning. Future work will add to and enhance
this initial assessment. The current work is a starting place
from which the community can move forward towards sound ecosystem-based
forest management.
The study area is the series of small watersheds on the south
shore of the west arm of Kootenay Lake above the communities of
Harrop and Procter. The communities of Harrop and Proctor have
a year-round population of 800 people living on the west arm of
Kootenay Lake.
Location of the Harrop Procter study area within
southern British Columbia.
Cultural
Areas
Map
The HPWPS contacted the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council and the
Sinixt First Nation to request information on past First Nations
use and activities in the Harrop-Procter watersheds. Material
from the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Tribal Council was not available in
time to be included in this report.
The Sinixt
delivered the information used to prepare the map. They identified
a set of archeological sites along the shore of Kootenay Lake,
and important use sites along the open alpine ridge crests and
the flat lower Kootenay Lake valley slopes.
There
is little conflict between the forest management proposals in
this Ecosystem-based Plan and the First Nations Uses shown. However,
there is overlap between the Sinixt high use zone along the lower
slopes beside the West Arm and current settlement patterns. While
settlement and land claim issues are outside of the scope of this
plan, they need to be addressed by the communities involved.
Current Land Use
Map
Current
land uses in the study area were identified during a series of
meetings with the HPWPS. Human settlement occupies the lower elevation
portions of the study area, while in the upper, backcountry portions
of the Harrop-Procter watersheds primarily crown land is used
for water production. ¾ the community relies on surface
water from the area for domestic and agricultural water supplies.
Other use areas included wildcrafting, camping, hiking, fishing
and grizzly bear viewing.
Human access to most of the watersheds is very limited at this
time. Vehicle access is restricted to the lower slopes of the
main Kootenay Valley; no roads penetrate into the side valleys.
A rail grade runs along the lakeshore throughout the study area.
Old mining trails and recreational trails provide foot, bicycle,
horse and llama access to the Harrop Creek drainage, a part of
Procter Creek Drainage, and along the ridge crest east of Mill
Lake.
The Harrop-Procter
watersheds also form an important viewscape from the Kootenay
Lake ferry, the Nelson-Kaslo highway, and the prosperous North
Shore. The areas south and west of the Harrop-Procter watersheds
is part of the West Arm Provincial Park. This "Class A"
park fulfills the need for large protected areas within a larger
landscape unit.
Timber management
currently occurs only on private land. Timber management will
lead to an increase in road access, with attendant benefits and
costs. It will increase recreational access and activity as well
as the potential for wildcrafting, however it will also increase
the potential for undesirable impacts. When community forestry
becomes implemented, the community will need to address the difficult
issues and legalities of access control to crown land.
Ecological
Sensitivity to Disturbance
Map Chart
Silva uses an Ecosystem Sensitivity To Disturbance (ESD) rating
system to estimate the sensitivity of parts of the landscape to
human uses. Map and air photo interpretation, coupled with field
assessments, are used to determine the characteristics of the
landscape through this rating system, which has been developed
and refined by SFF over the past 15 years.
The ESD data
layer was derived through a combination of air photo interpretation,
field reconnaissance, existing information, and GIS modeling.
We used stereo
pairs of 1:70,000 black and white air photos and 1:20,000 topographic
maps to initially delineate sensitive areas. We used digital TRIM
mapping for the area to create a digital elevation model (DEM)
of the study area. The DEM was used to create a simple map showing
a raster coverage of all slopes over 60%. The riparian ecosystems
were modeled by creating a variable width buffer around water
features in the GIS, which was then added to the digitized ESD
layer. Larger scale 1:20,000 black and white aerial photographs
were used for a final check of all areas that had been identified
as part of the potential Timber Management Landbase. Finally a
reconnaissance level field check of the photo-interpreted terrain
sensitivity was carried out.
Landbase
Unsuitable for Development
Map Chart
Areas in the
Harrop-Procter watersheds that are judged unsuitable for timber
management consist of:
* non-forested
areas (per MoF);
* non-productive and non-merchantable forested areas (per MoF);
* environmentally sensitive areas (per MoF); and
* ecologically sensitive areas (per Silva).
These areas are identified and delineated using MoF forest cover
maps, air photo interpretation, field assessment, and GIS analysis.
Netdowns are
areas that are removed from the harvestable timber management
area for either ecological sensitivity or economic consideration.
The following classes were identified and removed from the timber
management landbase using the MoF forest cover data and the 1993
Kootenay Lake Timber Supply Analysis (TSA):
* Low Site
Quality: Areas identified as having low growth potential by the
MoF.
* ESA 1: Areas identified as environmentally sensitive by the
MoF. Typically, these are areas with steep terrain and sensitive
soils.
* Deciduous Stands: Deciduous stands are forest stands dominated
by aspen, birch, or cottonwood. These tree species are marginally
merchantable, and are not generally included in estimates of commercial
timber productivity.
* Low Volume Stands: The TSA report identifies a matrix of stands,
by species and site class, which are excluded from the landbase
because their reported volume at maturity is too low to enable
harvesting.
* Inoperable area: These areas are considered uneconomic to harvest
due to poor accessibility, high elevation, low stand volume, and/or
poor timber quality.
* NSR: Areas which have been logged or disturbed, and which are
currently not growing commercial tree species, but which are expected
to be restocked in the future.
In the SFF Ecologically Sensitive Netdowns, two summary classes
were used:
* Riparian ecosystems
* Steep and/or complex terrain
These codes are only applied to areas which were not netted out
by the MoF netdowns.
The areas in these classes highlight the extent and nature of
the disagreement about the net timber potential of the Harrop-Procter
watersheds between conventional timber management and ecologically
responsible forest management.
Old Growth Forests
Map Chart
Old forests
are not uncommon in the study area. Just less than 25% of the
study area is occupied by old growth forests, using strictly an
age-based definition and considering all forested areas above
the cutoff age as "old growth forests". However, because
different types of old forests have different characteristics,
and perform different functions, this general approach is flawed.
The degree of representation of old forests should be further
assessed to determine the extent of structural components and
functioning old growth forests.
The
map shows the distribution of old forests in the study area by
species group and by ecological sensitivity. The chart illustrates
the distribution of old forest types within the 25% of the landbase
which is currently occupied by old forests. It shows that the
remaining area of old forests is not evenly distributed among
species groups. Some groups are over-represented, while very little
old forests remain in others. Unnaturally low amounts of low elevation
old growth forests currently exist within this landscape. Restoration
of low elevation old growth forests is the urgent management need
in this landscape. No one can go out and build an old growth forest—we
lack sufficient understanding of the intricacies of soil, forest
and wildlife ecology to accomplish such a feat. Thus, restoration
of old growth translates into "identify and leave alone".
The extensive
areas included in the protected landscape network will become
old growth forests over time, barring natural disturbance. Because
much of the landscape in the study area is occupied by 90 to 100
year old stands, with responsible management the transition to
abundant old growth forests will likely occur in the next century.
The ecosystem-based timber management planned for the Harrop-Procter
watersheds will also retain existing old growth structures, and
create more large-diameter stems within timber management areas.
SFF recommends
that a thorough inventory of existing old growth patches and structures
be carried out within the lower elevations of the Harrop-Procter
watersheds. Knowing the extent and location of these old forest
remnants, will help future ecosystem management planning processes.
Protected
Landscape Network
Map Chart
The Protected Landscape Network (PLN) combines the biophysical
features and assessments shown on the Ecological Sensitivity to
Disturbance map with proposed land management decisions to form
a network of protected areas which extends across the Harrop-Procter
watersheds. The purposes of the PLN are:
1. To protect
ecologically sensitive sites,
2. To protect important "biodiversity hotspots" such
as wetlands, riparian ecosystems and old forests,
3. To protect unique habitat areas,
4. To maintain undisturbed, representative natural areas within
common habitat types,
5. To develop additional old forest habitat throughout the landscape,
and
6. To maintain connections across the island at the landscape
level.
The
linkages delineated in the Harrop-Procter watersheds are generally
150 to 300 m wide. In some special locations, the corridors swell
to over 800 m in order to encompass and protect an ecological
feature such as a wetland complex, or to provide a protected node
on unoccupied crown land. Corridors take in a mix of stable and
ecologically sensitive terrain.
Forest Use Zoning
Map Chart
Previous
steps identified ecological framework required to protect ecosystem
functioning at the landscape level, and areas which are too sensitive
for aggressive human uses such as timber extraction. The end result
of this process was a set of areas of stable and moderately stable
land which are potentially suitable for timber management. These
areas are the white patches on the Protected Landscape Network
map.
The potential
conflicts between timber management and maintenance of water quality,
quantity and timing of flow have been the source of an energetic
debate in the Kootenays, and other portions of the western cordillera
for generations. Based on our analysis, discussions with the HPWPS,
and review of the Harrop-Narrows-Procter Creeks Terrain Interpretation
(Wallace et al 1998), we identified the following likely impacts
to water resources from timber harvesting in upper portions of
the watersheds in the study area:
*Alteration
of snowmelt patterns and spring peak flows from forest canopy
alteration in the broad cirque basins in the upper reaches of
Harrop Creek.
* Risk of
road-induced landslides into Harrop Creek if access roads are
constructed through steep, sensitive terrain to reach the upper
portions of watersheds.
* Risk of sedimentation from surface erosion of exposed soil surfaces
following road and trail construction.
* Risk of slope failure due to alteration and concentration of
drainage patterns by roads and trails.
This forest use zoning is an initial exercise. Zoning changes
may occur as additional field assessments are carried out, such
as the identification of terrain stability and impacts of changes
in public access.
In
conclusion, the long term sustainable annual cutting rate in the
Harrop-Procter watersheds is 2,603 cubic meters of timber per
year, on a landbase of 1,301 hectares. This
is a relatively small cutting rate for a landscape unit of 12,967
hectares. The two main reasons for this are:
1. The pattern
of ownership which places 2,271 hectares growing 3,309 m3 of timber
per year in private hands.
2. The steep, rocky, and sensitive terrain in the Crown portion
of the study area.
The
Crown portion Harrop-Procter watersheds are almost entirely un-logged
and un-accessed in 1999, after close to a century of timber cutting
in southern B.C. They certainly have not been bypassed for so
long because they are good places to go logging, by any standard.
The cutting level we have determined in this process strikes a
reasonable balance between:
* The inherent
difficulties of logging in rugged terrain
* The need to protect water and other forest uses
* The need to protect and maintain forest ecosystems
* Community aspirations to utilize crown timber resources in a
diverse local economy
This harvest level is an initial estimate, based on reconnaissance
level information. Much of the terrain classification work behind
this estimate is based solely on air photo interpretation, and
additional field assessments are required to verify or improve
interpretations.
Funding
for this project was provided by the W. Alton Jones Foundation.
|
