Merritt Sustainable Resource Management Plan

Landscape Unit Workshop - "Planning to meet Old Growth Forest Objectives in the Merritt Timber Supply Area"

Discussion Group Feedback Results

Feedback was gathered from the individual participant questionnaires, as well as from the discussion group sessions. The feedback on the participant’s support, concerns, priority of resource values, and other comments has been summarized in the following table for incorporation into the proposed landscape unit planning approach to meet OGMA objectives in the Merritt TSA.

Topics	Discussion Group Feedback/Questionaires/Comments
What elements of the Landscape Unit process do you support?	Although involving the public is slow, it is inclusive Proactive start before LRMP completion, but need to incorporate feedback between Landscape units and LRMP processes The local Roundtable group can help facilitate the process Open small community and local involvement of all interest groups Need First Nations and public involvement in the implementation of landscape unit plans. Good to protect old growth before it is all gone Good information dissemination/swapping OGMA designation is a positive step forward Smaller group reviews reduces intimidation from large gatherings Good to use broad-based "coarse filter" approach across landscape Helps to address operational issues Mule deer values Value community input, but what value is assigned to the information? Small patches are supported Support old growth strategy because many of the species at risk that are dependent on Old growth Good starting point Need to build in recruitment and periodic reviews Good to choose stands with "highest value" to begin OGMA ID, but age is not enough Good to get public input not only from "experts", as it reveals new information/ideas Efficient use of technology and data
What elements of the Landscape Unit process cause you concern?	A mechanism for change must be built into the process for a "living plan", or a holistic approach. Need interim plans and starting points to evaluate and improve upon over time. Need to meet with First Nations people in their local communities The government sets standards and policies (i.e. biodiversity zones). These are politically motivated and may be too inflexible The process needs to be iterative (i.e. feedback loop) Need to record all assumptions and use the best information we have, not spend more money on new inventories that we may not need. Industry focus may be biased, including terminology biased (e.g. "non-contributing") should be more inclusive and positive Old growth is age driven by timber, not species driven Good to consider seral stage distribution Forested vs what was before non-forested (grassland-forest conversion) Artificial inventory attributes Single species' values is not a good approach Harvesting of old trees in IDF (selection) Should look at biodiversity as first priority in planning processes Need to use "undesirable" areas first before using high value areas as management areas Information provided to public should be easy to understand so they don’t get overwhelmed and lose motivation to attend meetings Are there any red/blue listed species of plant, animal, abiotic, biotic missed in initial gathering of data? Can the process be altered for any new red/blue listed species? Starting with IFPA derived dataset (PEM mapping) vs MoF guidebook dataset More research on the linkages between species and ecosystems is required Education is vital Need to incorporate ranching and mining interests Lack of land management plans, impact statement and understanding values and acceptable risks New issues coming in after plan is made Limitations of information collected (e.g. FN values concentrated along rivers and lakes in winter = no surveys) Okanagan model flawed due to lack of First Nations participation How values are ranked How will OGMAs be managed from other disturbances? There are no truly natural landscapes due to First Narions' influence for thousands of years, so no clear baseline of natural landscapes "Biodiversity planning" alludes to ecological factors that may forget to include other social, economic or cultural factors OGMA's should be called "biodiversity MA"; is OG really such a high value for biodiversity across the landscape? Need to consider stands with future OG value not just current OG values Values need to include ecological, economic, social and cultural priorities Definition of OG missing the deciduous component Opportunity for meaningful input and capacity building 2 hectare patches are too small; some small patches okay but would like bigger OGMAs that are not prone to exotic species invasion/windthrow, lack of genetic variability / "islands" and subject to more extreme changes (edge effects/sunlight/climate) in small patches Lack of good growth and yield data, especially in long term Challenge: many First Nations people do not attend public functions so need to go to individual communities to get input, understanding and support
What information should be included to assist in the process?	The needs of the community Ranching values Water cycle history, water quality and quantity The process of communication Fire management planning; hazard assessments (fuels) Weather and fire behaviour data; fire history, values data Need to buy-in to process before agreeing to provide information Verify data accuracy and provide comments NSIFS database of First Nations resource values Local knowledge from operational staff, public, ranchers, foresters, fisheries, recreation groups, individual FN bands It is the timing of the information collection that is crucial (at the start of the process), more so than the quantity Model draft OGMAs over time as a spatial model Need to look back in time (old photos) to see what OG used to look like
How would you assign priorities for resource values already identified for Merritt?	Too much variability to assign priorities at this time Water quality and water cycle is a very high priority High value on a living plan (not static) Priorities depend on local input if any at all Priorities not valid without more information about the resources – should be done by experts Preservation of land, including all abiotic and biotic ecosystems is high priority Values can be very different and should be properly discussed and recorded before setting a priority All existing values are dependent on their special needs, attributes, values and dependency on old forests All values are important or they would not be values The more values that are incorporated the better, not what priority it has Priorities should be assigned for each unique landscape unit High = pileated woodpecker, flammulated owl, mtn beaver, mtn goat, C.bighorn sheep; Medium = grizzly bear; Low = mule deer, barrow’s goldeneye Rank all equal, tie to OG area and then rate for the highest effect based on number of resources in area, but don’t write any values off Must be compatible with legally designated management (archaeology, First Nations) Priority seems implicit for very rare elements, and extremely important resources get special consideration
What additional resource values should be considered?	Other commercial users (mining, commercial recreation, recreation, grazing) Water quality – well functioning water cycle Community watersheds (water licensees) Soil surface management for erosion control Lichen, moss Butterflies, insects, moths Lakes classification process (fishing /camping) Scenic values – as secondary consideration Connectivity between OGMA areas Identify areas of richer soils, not only the lower productivity types Mineral values (high potential development sites), need to get mines involved Size of blocks Re-establishment of more prescribed fires where they naturally occur Deciduous old growth (cottonwood in riparian areas) Traditional use studies Recreation Life and property First Nations' has a very long list of values There are opportunities for extension, benchmark sites for attributes Consider replaceable values different from non-renewable First Nations' and unmarked trails Cultural and heritage values Pest management control/infestation sites Bull trout, brown trout Deciduous, cottonwood stands/OG deciduous stands Burned areas should be included as a rare ecosystem Culturally modified trees (CMT) – also CMT within OG Py Location of OGMA in relation to communities (access to OGMA) Non-timber values (botanical products) Red-backed voles Cold water, small streams Rare and endangered species of fish, insects, wildlife, plants Legacy value/spiritual value of "OG" Locally significant species
How should sensitive information be handled in the process?	Keep it confidential Need to share information in some manner in order to protect the resource Do not rank any values in the process High priority on the list of values Necessary to include because knowledge of general sensitive zones allow for better planning Information shared in an open and trusting climate (round table) Concern: Open information can lead to overuse/risk of exploitation Examples: bat rookeries, lichen harvesting areas, archaeology, TUS values Traditional knowledge is intellectual property Use the available information collected in the NSIFS database Use loose classification with generic ID, portray different information at strategic vs operational levels Possible map-based ranking process of "blind map" value information, ie. don't indicate what the value is just that its there. First Nations cultural/traditional information is very important Certain information should be shared in a specific database, but don’t specifically identify
How should we manage OGMAs for the long-term stability?	Recruitment of new OGMA's to replace old areas Managing to keep OGMAs static is very difficult Critical to amalgamate small OGMA patches into larger areas in future Adjacent buffer areas to be managed as future OGMAs Natural changes to forest make OGMA management difficult CMT/pine stands – leave, stub, cookies, create CMT opportunities Manage on long rotation with trading at end of the period, not a park Leave in natural state Preference for continued uses within OGMA Mix of natural and managed to meet objectives of OG Fire exclusion – consider a range of options for fire management (prescribed burn, let go, minimal control) Talk to First Nations about how to manage Is it even possible to let nature take its course 100%? Use coarse filter approach for management Consider mtn pine beetle management zones, risk etc. Move over time? Need to periodically review Research information needed on what can be done in B.C. interior forest OGMA's versus coastal – look at other jurisdictions (e.g. Oregon) Do long-term modelling for LUs Need an OGMA monitoring program Don’t allow soils over time
Other comments	Regarding the quality of input: At some point make a stab at finalizing the plan. But all plans are only road maps and although detours may occur, if we have a common vision, we can continue to make positive progress Plan – Monitor – Control – Replan How will new issues be addressed after LUP put in place? Values should be understood by all people involved in the process Leave Pl out of OGMA because there is no danger of Pl disappearing. It is not a unique species. Cattle should not be allowed in the OGMA as they are detrimental to the ecosystem Need to draw the line on use of data: can always get more but may not improve the product There needs to be link between LRMP table and the landscape unit process (both processes need to be flexible to the other)