COMMENTS ON
IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (Volume 1)
Species at Risk and the Forest Practices Code

BC Endangered Species Coalition
January, 1998

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

RESPONSE FORMAT - HOW TO USE THIS REPORT

ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE IWMS (Vol. 1) ON PROVINCIAL TIMBER SUPPLY

VOLUME 1 LIST OF IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE

SPECIES AND PLANT COMMUNITY ACCOUNTS FOR IDENTIFIED
WILDLIFE (Vol. 1)

PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS

GENERAL WILDLIFE MEASURES

MARBLED MURRELET

GRIZZLY BEARS

OTHER MATTERS

APPENDIX 1 - VOLUME 1 LIST OF IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The environmental community has been waiting over two years for implementation of the Forest Practices Code provisions to protect biodiversity and wildlife. To date, the BC government has failed to implement any of these key measures. There are zero landscape units, zero old growth management areas, zero identified wildlife species, zero wildlife habitat areas and zero sensitive areas. The Identified Wildlife Management Strategy ("IWMS") is, therefore, long overdue.

Volume 1 of the IWMS applies to 34 wildlife species and four plant communities. Volume 2 species have still to be identified. "Identified wildlife" are forest and range dependent species at risk which have been designated by the deputy minister of environment, lands and parks or authorized delegate, and the chief forester, as requiring special management attention.

Key Concerns

The fundamental flaw with the IWMS is the 1% cap on protection. The BC government has directed that impacts resulting from application of the IWMS cannot exceed a maximum of 1% impact on the 1995 annual allowable cut for both Volume 1 and Volume 2 species. We believe that this restriction seriously compromises the ability of the IWMS to provide any meaningful protection for identified wildlife.

The 1% cap was set in 1993 and was premised on the assumption that the Biodiversity Guidebook and the Riparian Management Areas Guidebook under the Code would be implemented in full. The government's August 25, 1997 Biodiversity Letter has made it quiet clear this is not the case. At the time the cap was set, the IWMS was intended primarily as a supplement to the species protection offered under the two guidebooks. It was not intended to incorporate the needs of species like marbled murrelets, grizzly bear, mountain caribou, fisher and northern goshawk. As it is now apparent that these two guidebooks will not provide the level of protection originally envisaged, the 1% cap allotted to identified wildlife should be removed or at a minimum, substantially increased.

Based on our detailed review of the IWMS, we are unable to support the strategy in its current form. Not only is the strategy seriously compromised by the 1% cap, but timber supply considerations continue to dominate even below the 1% cap. Wildlife considerations come a poor second to timber harvesting and road construction throughout the strategy. In reality, the IWMS is not a wildlife management strategy, it is a timber supply management strategy, with wildlife considerations.

The IWMS relies on the establishment of "wildlife habitat areas" ("WHAs") as the main mechanism to protect identified wildlife. However, on a consistent basis throughout the strategy, WHAs are compromised by timber supply considerations.

Under the Procedures for Establishing Wildlife Habitat Areas, the primary concern is the introduction of three planning "thresholds" or ceilings on the number of wildlife habitat areas that can be established. Regional, district and species thresholds have been set to minimize the impact on timber supply. This is in direct contradiction to the government's previous commitment that the 1% cap would be a provincial threshold and that "there is no plan to establish regionally specific limits". We strongly object to this approach. Species at risk are not conveniently found in even numbers across forest regions and therefore should not be managed to a uniform threshold in this manner.

We are also concerned that the time period to establish wildlife habitat areas will be lengthy - at least four to five months. Yet wildlife habitat areas ("WHAs") can be modified, de-listed or removed with little or no public notification and comment. This is totally unacceptable.

The General Wildlife Measures (which specify what activities can be permitted within WHAs) are also dominated by timber harvesting considerations. Of the thirty-four species covered by the General Wildlife Measures, outright protection from logging is only provided to four species (ancient murrelet, cassin's auklet, marbled murrelet, and Lewis' woodpecker). Similarly, outright protection from road construction is only provided to four species (Vancouver Island marmot, mountain beaver, cassin's auklet and ancient murrelet). This is an appallingly low level of protection.

In addition, through use of a variance procedure, the General Wildlife Measures permit timber harvesting in WHAs for at least 14 species. Road construction can be authorized by variance for over 25 wildlife species and all four plant communities. Permitting such high levels of timber harvesting and road construction inside WHAs will jeopardize the meager habitat protection WHAs will provide. There should be no logging or road construction whatsoever inside WHAs.

The government's use of the Estimated Impact of the IWMS on Provincial Timber Supply is a further concern. The purpose of the Impact Assessment is to ensure that the IWMS does not exceed the 1% cap on timber supply impact. Yet although designed as a modeling tool and openly based on "guesstimates" and assumptions, this document is being used to set the number and in many cases the size of WHAs, and the planning thresholds. This is a total misuse of the Impact Assessment. The limitations of the Impact Assessment are clearly stated in the document. The Impact Assessment should not be used to set limits on the number and size of WHAs which can be established.

Relationship of the IWMS to Federal Endangered Species Legislation and Provincial Obligations to Protect Species at Risk

We are astounded at the government's attempt to present the IWMS as even a partial answer to BC's commitments under the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. Not only is the entire strategy (including volume 2) subject to a 1% cap on protection, but the strategy fails on other grounds as well. For example:

• the IWMS only applies to crown forest land and crown range land and some forest and range dependent species. Yet the number one threat to species at risk, as identified by the BC Ministry of Environment, is urban and agricultural development i.e. the primary threat to species at risk in BC has still not been addressed and the requirement in the National Accord to protect all non-domestic species has clearly not been met;
• habitat protection under the IWMS is minimal, optional and subject to forest practices. Most WHAs are restricted to nest and breeding areas only and do not cover the broader habitat essential to the survival and recovery of the species. There is no legal requirement whatsoever to establish WHAs - it is entirely "hit and miss" as to which species will receive WHAs. Permanent habitat protection is not guaranteed because if the 1% cap is exceeded, there is a procedure in place to de-list or remove existing WHAs. Absolute protection of WHAs is only provided for six out of thirty-four species - most other WHAs are subject to some form of logging and/or road construction;
• there is no independent scientific process to list species at risk - the decision to designate species as "identified wildlife" is a political decision - hence the failure to include key species like the spotted owl, woodland caribou, and the failure to provide stand level protection for the marbled murrelet (deferred to protection under the Biodiversity Guidebook);
• there is no legal protection whatsoever for identified wildlife;
• there is no process in place to develop recovery plans for identified wildlife and no requirement to implement recovery plans in a timely fashion;
• there is no requirement to include consideration of identified wildlife or any species at risk in BC's environmental assessment process; and
• there is no requirement for effective enforcement.
  

The IWMS comes nowhere near meeting BC's commitments for endangered species protection under the National Accord. It is nowhere near "equivalent" to the proposed federal legislation, especially for protection of international transboundary species like woodland caribou and grizzly bear. To provide "effective protection" for species at risk as required by the National Accord and to address the specific obligations listed in the Accord, BC needs to introduce comprehensive, stand-alone endangered species legislation. All the provinces, with the exception of BC and Alberta, have endangered species legislation in place, have introduced draft legislation or committed to do so. It is now time for BC to follow suit.

The Importance of Ongoing and Independent Inventory and Research- A Key Omission from the IWMS

In our discussions with ministry staff and other biologists about the IWMS, one point was made repeatedly - the need for ongoing and independent inventory and research on identified wildlife. Grave concern was expressed at the shift in FRBC funding from government biologists to forest companies for inventory work. There is a clear conflict of interest in forest companies undertaking inventory for species at risk, particularly if the findings could limit timber harvesting or road construction. Independent inventory and research should be included as a key component of the IWMS and an independent scientific review of the effectiveness of the IWMS should be conducted on a regular basis.

RESPONSE FORMAT - HOW TO USE THIS REPORT

The Identified Wildlife Management Strategy is comprised of the following key components:

• the Estimated Impact of the IWMS (Volume 1) on Provincial Timber Supply (a modeling tool designed to ensure that the overall impact of the IWMS will not exceed a 1% maximum impact on provincial timber supply);
  
• the Volume 1 List of Identified Wildlife (the list of 37 species and four plant communities covered under the IWMS);
• the Species Accounts (summary of the status, ecology, distribution and some key habitat requirements for each identified wildlife);
  
• the Procedures for Establishing Wildlife Habitat Areas (describes the process to establish WHAs, provides the WHA description for each identified wildlife, and includes interim measures and planning thresholds); and
  
• the General Wildlife Measures (describes what activities are allowed in WHAs, including levels of logging and road construction).

Each of these components is reviewed in this report. An overview is provided outlining the role and function of each component, together with a "general comments" section, listing our key concerns regarding each component. If you want a broad overview of the IWMS, read the Executive Summary and the overview and general comments section for each of the five components of the strategy. Key sections of each of the five components are also reviewed and overview and general comments provided.

Our report was structured in this way to assist other interested groups learn about the IWMS and its key deficiencies, as well as provide our comments to government on the strategy. If you have any additional concerns about the IWMS, we would be interested in hearing them. Contact Kate Smallwood, the Coalition's Campaign Coordinator at:

BC Endangered Species Coalition
C/West Coast Environmental Law
1001-207 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C., V5Y 3G2

Ph. 604-601-2507 or toll free 1-800-330-9235
Fax. 604-684-1312
Email - ksmallwood@wcel.org

ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE IWMS (Vol. 1) ON PROVINCIAL TIMBER SUPPLY

Overview

The Impact Assessment is the key to the IWMS and therefore warrants very careful consideration. The purpose of the Impact Assessment is to ensure that the IWMS does not exceed the 1% cap on provincial timber supply. The analysis/modeling undertaken in the Assessment basically sets the number and size of wildlife habitat areas to be established under the IWMS and the planning thresholds set under the Procedures to Establish Wildlife Habitat Areas.

General Comments

The big concern with the Impact Assessment is that a modeling document based on ""guesstimates"" and assumptions is being used to set size and numbers of WHAs and the planning thresholds (for an explanation of the planning thresholds, see discussion below in the section on the Procedures to Establish Wildlife Habitat Areas). Even worse, the size and numbers listed in the Impact Assessment are likely to become absolute or ceilings. What was designed as a modeling tool to estimate impact on timber supply is in fact being used as the key determinant for size and numbers of WHAs.

As a modeling exercise, the Impact Assessment has some significant limitations. The report specifically acknowledges that:

• information about range and population sizes is far from complete for the species and plant communities listed in Volume 1;
• the assessment has been conducted based on the interpretation of measures that have yet to be applied, and empirical evidence will likely lead to different interpretations;
• Volume 1 only includes about a third of the vertebrate species, 4 plant communities and no plant species; and
• overlap of WHAs with other management areas/protected areas is an important factor when evaluating impact on timber supply, but is very difficult to assess.

The limitations of the modeling assumptions are, however, most obvious in the timber supply assessments for each species account (Appendix 2). For example, the assumptions used to determine the area of timber harvesting land base impacted per WHA for the Lewis' woodpecker is as follows:

"If the WHA is a 5-sided figure (pentangle) with vertices 250 m apart and a buffer 100 m wide around the perimeter, the total area is: Pentangle area = 12.3 ha, Buffer area = 14.6, Total WHA area = 26.9 ha.

If the trees are grouped close together, the WHA could be less than 1 ha. If the nests are arranged in a line, say one tree-length apart, the WHA will be about 6.4 ha. For this estimate, something in the middle was used: 10 ha."

Based on these assumptions and estimates, the total area impact on the timber harvesting land base was estimated at 10 hectares.

These types of assumptions become particularly problematic if the estimated area of timber harvest then becomes a fixed number for "area assumptions" for species thresholds. The area impacted is generally a "guesstimate" and should be recognized as such, not adopted as the determinative figure in setting size and number of WHAs.

Other Comments

We also have concerns regarding the assumption that protection of marbled murrelets can be adequately addressed through implementation of the Biodiversity Guidebook, and that protection of the bighorn sheep and mountain goat can be accommodated within the requirements of the Biodiversity Guidebook and the Riparian Management Area Guidebook. The ability of the Biodiversity Guidebook has been severely compromised by government restrictions on its application, as outlined in both the August 25th Biodiversity letter signed by Deputy Minister of Forests, John Allan and Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands & Parks, Cassie Doyle and the related Cabinet submission. Pursuant to this letter, the application of the Biodiversity Guidebook was severely restricted. The purpose of the letter was quite clear - to "avoid timber supply impacts" through "an appropriate level of relaxation" of the Biodiversity Guidebook requirements.

We do not have sufficient scientific information (or time to obtain it) to comment on the assumptions that:

• no timber supply impact is envisaged for the ancient murrelet and Cassin's auklet because "the entire known habitat is already protected";
• no timber supply impact is expected for the turkey vulture, because the roosting areas that could be in forest are not on Crown land or provincial forest.

Table 1 - Summary of Timber Supply Impacts - Accounts for which the Number of Occurrences is expected to Increase over the next 10 Years

Overview

This table is a key part of the Impact Assessment because it lists the occurrence assumptions used to set "species thresholds" or limits on the total number of WHAs which can be established per species for 9 Identified Wildlife species. The species threshold is based on the 10 year occurrence projections listed in the table (e.g.. the 10 year occurrence projection for Lewis woodpecker is 6 occurrences, which translates to a species threshold of 6 WHAs total for Lewis woodpeckers throughout the province). Given that current occurrence data is limited, the 10 year projections are questionable i.e. a current "guesstimate" is being used to project a 10 year "guesstimate".

Comments

• We are concerned that these occurrence based "species thresholds" will operate as absolute ceilings on the number of WHAs which can be established per species. Current inventory data is generally fairly limited for most if not all of the Identified Wildlife. Accordingly, the 10 year occurrence projections should serve as estimates only, not thresholds and be revised as necessary in light of further inventory work.
  
• The deficiency in current occurrence data reinforces the importance of and need for further inventory work. Inventory data is critical to management of Identified Wildlife and should be a key part of the IWMS. As noted in the Executive Summary above, this inventory should be conducted by government or independent biologists, not by forest companies who face a clear conflict of interest.
  
• While we have not had sufficient time to obtain comprehensive scientific input, we have been advised that the 10 year occurrence projections for the Keen's long-eared myotis and the Pacific water shrew are both fairly low. The 10 year projection for the water shrew should be increased to at least 20. We request that you obtain further scientific input here as to the appropriate 10 year occurrence projections for all species in this Table, but particularly the Keen's long-eared myotis and the Pacific water shrew.

Appendix 2 - Species and Plant Community Impact Calculations

Overview

This Appendix provides key data for each species, including the area of the timber harvesting land base affected per WHA (in hectares), the regions affected based on the species' known range, the overall % impact on provincial timber supply, and the assumptions used to develop this data. Appendix 2 is also key because it provides the area assumption species thresholds for all those species not listed in Table 2 above i.e. the species threshold for each Identified Wildlife will either be occurrence based (see Table 2) or area based (Appendix 2).

General Comments

The main concern we have regarding Appendix 2 is that a modeling exercise, with obvious "guesstimates" and broad assumptions, is being used to set the size and number of WHAs, as well as species thresholds (both occurrence and area based). We believe this is completely inappropriate. However, we do not intend to critique the assumptions made for each species account in Appendix 2. Not only do we have insufficient time and resources to do so, but the critique would ignore the role of the document - to model impacts based on a set of assumptions. This document should be recognized for what it is - a modeling tool - and used accordingly, not as the basis for WHA thresholds or limits.

We would also like to emphasize that we found the Impact Assessment difficult to interpret, particularly Appendix 2. Given the importance of Appendix 2 to the entire IWMS, it would have been useful to have had a guided explanation for each of the columns i.e. what the information shows and how it was calculated/where it was obtained.

VOLUME 1 LIST OF IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE

Overview

The IWMS does not apply to all forest and range dependent species at risk. Rather, the Strategy applies to "identified wildlife", namely "those species at risk that the deputy minister of Environment. Lands and Parks or person authorized by the deputy minister, and the chief forester agree require special management attention". Identified wildlife are selected from the provincial red and blue lists of species at risk, as well as from "regionally important wildlife" and red listed plant or plant communities. Regionally important wildlife are species that have been ranked by the BC Conservation Data Centre as species with a potential conservation concern.

The IWMS contains the first of two volumes of identified wildlife and plant communities. Volume 1 covers 37 wildlife species at risk and four plant communities. The government has indicated that other species are currently being assessed for inclusion in Volume 2, which is expected to be completed by the end of 1998. The 1% ceiling will not however be increased for Volume 2 species - both volumes must be implemented under the 1% cap on species protection.

For the complete list of Volume 1 identified wildlife, see Appendix 1 to this document.

General Comments

The Volume 1 list of Identified Wildlife is a somewhat curious list. There are some noticeable omissions, especially woodland caribou and spotted owl (see discussion below). A significant number of species are unlikely to have any impact on timber supply - the Impact Assessment determined that out of a total of 37 species and four plant communities only 25 species would affect timber supply. The marbled murrelet, a species known to have key old growth requirements, has been "included" but deferred to management under the Biodiversity Guidebook.

We are particularly concerned that these three species which require both stand level and comprehensive landscape level protection are left to the political whims of the higher level planning process through Land and Resource Management Plans ("LRMPs"). This poses problems for a variety of reasons. Many of the LRMP planning processes are now complete or virtually complete, and yet have not addressed protection for these species. For those LRMPs still underway, the participants are not aware of that they should be incorporating management of these species into their plans. This concern also applies to grizzly bear and northern goshawk (both sub species). We know these species require comprehensive management, and yet we are doing the least to protect them. This is inexcusable.

Furthermore, the breakdown of red, blue listed and regionally important species in the list deserves comment. Of the 37 identified wildlife, just less than half (16) are red listed (i.e. extirpated, endangered or threatened). Nineteen species are blue listed (vulnerable) and two are regionally important. Yet there are other red listed forest dwelling vertebrates that are not included. Red listed species closely associated with older forest include: Pacific giant salamander, the Vancouver Island water shrew, the northern long eared myotis, the Cour d'Alene salamander, and the Williamson's sapsucker (nataliae).

The overriding priority in developing the Volume 1 list should have been endangered and threatened species that are most at risk from forestry and range practices, especially old-growth dependent species. Instead, the Volume 1 list appears to have been developed with timber supply impacts in mind i.e. a "safe mix" of some species that will have a low impact on timber supply with those that will have a high impact. The fact that some key species have been left off the list is a particular concern because the Volume 2 list will not be developed for another year.

We strongly recommend that these and other forest and range dependent species at risk be designated now as identified wildlife. The volume 2 list should be finalized (with public input) and released as soon as possible. It should not be deferred until completion of species accounts, WHA descriptions and General Wildlife Measures. There are still benefits in designating species as identified wildlife, even if stand level protective measures have still to be developed. The main benefit is the requirement in operational plans to acknowledge identified wildlife and develop a management strategy.

We are also concerned that because the Volume 1 list of Identified Wildlife was developed with little or no public consultation, Volume 2 could be developed in the same manner. We urge the government to consult stakeholders on the development of the Volume 2 list and to introduce this list as soon as possible, as indicated above.

Criteria and Process for Determining Identified Wildlife Candidates

The overall process for selecting Identified Wildlife is described in the Overview section above. Figure 1 of the Procedures outlines in graphic form, the process for determining identified wildlife candidates. We are most concerned at the screening proviso that limits identified wildlife selection where there is insufficient information on the species to recommend a management strategy.

Scientific uncertainty should not be a grounds for denying species protection. In the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, which BC has signed, it is specifically recognized that:

lack of scientific uncertainty must not be used as a reason to delay measures to avoid or minimize threats to species at risk.

A similar commitment is made in the IWMS itself. Accordingly, species which would otherwise qualify for designation as "identified wildlife" should be protected regardless of scientific certainty as to preferred management options.

Woodland Caribou and Spotted Owl

These two species are key omissions from the list of Identified Wildlife. Ask any biologist with forest experience to list the top ten forest dependent species at risk and these species will both be on the list.

The IWMS Questions and Answers (Point 3) indicates that these two species were excluded because "committees had been established to oversee management of these species and at that time decisions regarding management had not been made". We regard this as a pretty lame excuse. Deferring consideration of these species to Volume 2 for higher level plan direction is of great concern and a potential ticket to extinction.

The spotted owl is red listed in BC (endangered category S1) and listed as endangered by COSEWIC. The woodland caribou is classified provincially and nationally as vulnerable. However there are several caribou populations in BC which are at serious risk, such as the Itcha-Ilgachuz population. Both these species should have been included in the Volume 1 list of Identified Wildlife, to ensure some measure of stand level protection. As with grizzly bears, effective protection of woodland caribou and spotted owl requires both stand level and landscape unit level protection.

We strongly recommend that woodland caribou and spotted owls be added to the Volume 1 list of Identified Wildlife.

Marbled Murrelets

We are deeply concerned at the failure to provide stand level protection under the IWMS for marbled murrelets. Although included in the Volume 1 list of identified wildlife, establishment of WHAs for marbled murrelets is deferred to measures to be implemented under the Biodiversity Guidebook. WHAs are to be established using the old seral retention requirements of the Biodiversity Guidebook. For the reasons outlined later in this document (see section at end headed "Marbled Murrelets"), these measures are totally inadequate to protect marbled murrelets - an endangered species dependent on old growth forests.

As with species like grizzly bear, spotted owl and woodland caribou, protection should be provided both at stand level (under the IWMS) and at landscape level. The marbled murrelet should be included in stand level protection under the IWMS.

SPECIES AND PLANT COMMUNITY ACCOUNTS FOR IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE (Vol. 1)

Overview

This document provides a summary of the status, ecology, distribution and some key habitat requirements for each identified species and plant community in Volume 1. The document is designed as a resource document and provides the background material for the WHA Procedures and the General Wildlife Measures.

General Comments

As a general comment, this document has been well prepared and has a high level of comfort with the various biologists we spoke with, subject to one major proviso. Although each species account has a section addressing "critical habitats and habitat features", the primary focus is on nest and breeding habitat only i.e. areas of key habitat rather than critical habitat per se (the grizzly bear account is one exception to this). MOE staff responsible for preparing the Species Accounts have confirmed that the document focuses more on "limiting habitat" rather than critical habitat per se. Critical habitat can be simply defined as the habitat essential to the survival and recovery of a species.

This focus on limiting habitat becomes problematic if the IWMS is then developed around the species accounts (which it has been), and is presented as a tool for the protection of critical habitat. It isn't. The IWMS at best protects areas of key habitat such as nest areas. Other broader areas of critical habitat are not protected. This deficiency needs to be highlighted because the BC government's responsibilities under the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk include the obligation to provide habitat protection for species at risk. Furthermore, BC's implementation agreement in relation to the federal bill will need to address the issue of critical habitat protection. The IWMS clearly doesn't meet these commitments.

PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS

Overview

The Procedures contain a description of the process for establishing "wildlife habitat areas" (WHAs), the WHA description for each of the identified species, interim measures while WHAs are being considered and, the higher level plan recommendations for those Identified Wildlife that have been determined to require landscape level planning and special consideration within higher level plans (such as grizzly bear and bull trout). The Procedures also contain planning thresholds for WHAs - a new and troublesome amendment.

General Comments

We have four major concerns about the Procedures, as well as a series of other issues, all of which are addressed in greater detail below. The four major concerns are:

(i) the introduction of planning thresholds, and the repeated consideration of timber supply impacts during the procedure to establish a WHA;


(ii) the rule that approved WHAs will not apply until four months after approval, and that this time period does not commence to run until after the WHA has been mapped, and the government has notified the relevant licensee;


(iii) the ability to modify, remove or de-list a WHA with little or no public notification and comment; and


(iv) the fact that key species with landscape level requirements (like woodland caribou, spotted owl and grizzly bear) are left entirely or mainly to the political vagaries of higher level plans.

Each of these concerns is addressed below:

Planning Thresholds and Timber Supply Considerations

Although the process to establish WHAs has been amplified somewhat, little has changed to improve this document since the last draft. In fact, it has got substantially worse. Of particular concern is the introduction of planning thresholds and the fact that a timber supply analysis will now be done for each proposed WHA. We were previously informed that the 1% threshold for the IWMS would be a provincial threshold. Item 6 of the Response to Stakeholders (for the first draft of the Procedures) stated:

Regional impacts may vary to reflect the distribution and habitat needs of Identified Wildlife. There is no plan to establish regionally specific limits.

Contrary to this commitment, the government has now introduced regional, district and species thresholds This is totally unacceptable. (See more detailed comments below regarding Planning Thresholds).

We are also disturbed at the repeated requirement to consider timber supply impacts throughout the procedure to establish a WHA. Timber supply impacts are considered 3 to 4 times during the procedure. This is further evidence that the entire process is driven by timber supply considerations, not wildlife considerations.

Four Month Delay in Application of WHAs - the "Known" Information Requirement

Under the Operational Planning Regulations, timber harvesters are not required to identify and describe WHAs until the information is "known" i.e. is contained in a higher level plan, or is "otherwise made available by the government at least 4 months before the operational plan is submitted".

As a result of this requirement, timber harvesters do not have to account for WHAs in operational plans until four months after the WHA has been approved. This is unacceptable. At a minimum, timber harvesters should be required to incorporate all information available to them before an operational plan is approved. If wildlife habitat features, interim zones or WHAs are identified by the public or resource agencies during the review period, or at any other time before the operational plan is approved, timber harvesters should be required to identify those features (including WHAs), incorporate them into their plans and comply with the GWMs.

In the Questions and Answers (Item 39), the government has sought to respond to this problem by referring to "interim measures" (i.e. wildlife habitat features and interim zones). However, while it is possible that interim measures may be established for proposed WHAs, there is no mandatory requirement to do so and for some species, there is a "threshold" on the number of interim measures that can be established. The application of GWMs to interim zones is optional, not mandatory. Finally, even if interim measures are established, there is no outright prohibition against timber harvesting, at least for interim zones.

Limited or No Public Input re Modification and Removal of WHAs

The Procedures are remarkably silent about the process and criteria to modify a WHA boundary or remove or de-list a WHA. In two instances ("minor boundary modifications" and "habitat is no longer occupied"), a WHA can be altered or removed with no formal public consultation. In the third instance ("new information", whatever that is), a WHA can be removed or modified with limited public consultation.

This is totally unacceptable. There should be absolutely no modification, removal or de-listing of a WHA without public notification and input. There should also be an appeal process in place against any decision to modify, remove or de-list a WHA. WHAs will take a great deal of effort and time to create and will be few in number. Once obtained, they should only be modified or reviewed in full public view. (See more detailed discussion below).

Deferral of Key Species to Higher Level Plans

As indicated earlier, we are concerned that protection of key species like woodland caribou, spotted owl, marbled murrelet and to a large extent grizzly bears, is being deferred to the vagaries of the higher level planning process through LRMPs. Fisher and to some extent bull trout are also meant to be addressed through LRMPs.

Reliance on LRMPs to protect these species is a HUGE problem because:

(i) in many instances the LRMP process has been or is nearly, completed;


(ii) for those LRMP processes still underway, the participants are not aware of their ability and responsibility to address protective measures for these species; and


(iii) even assuming LRMP objectives are established, the specific objectives are subject to approval by three government ministers.

In essence, higher level plan protection amounts to little or no protection for key BC species most at risk from forest practices. This is totally unacceptable. These species are already at risk - failure to provide adequate landscape level protection for these species (and also both sub-species of northern goshawk) is a potential ticket to extinction.

Procedure for Establishing a Wildlife Habitat Area

General Comments

The procedure for establishing a WHA has been amplified since the last draft and recommended timelines included. While the extra detail is an improvement, we do have two main concerns regarding the process - the failure to prescribe time periods in the process to establish a WHA and the failure to provide any form of administrative review and appeal. These concerns are provided below, together with our specific concerns in relation to each step in the process to establish a WHA.

Time Periods

Recommended time periods have now been provided for various stages in the process. We are concerned however, that the time periods provided are "recommended" only, and that key aspects of the process (i.e. initial review, decision and distribution of decision) have no prescribed time periods whatsoever. Establishing wildlife habitat areas for species at risk should be a priority, and warrant a response within a prescribed time period. Accordingly, all the time periods in the procedure for establishing a WHA should be prescribed not recommended.

The lack of a specified time period for initial review (Step 2) is of particular concern. With no prescribed time period for response, applications for key wildlife habitat areas in the province could be stalled off indefinitely, especially if the area in question has significant timber values. Without a prescribed response time, there is also potential for abuse through the current requirement that information regarding WHAs be "known" i.e. four month notification period. As indicated above, we strongly object to this requirement.

Prescribed time periods should also be included for Step 6. Once the WHAs proposal has been brought forward to the chief forester and the deputy minister of environment, a decision should be made within a prescribed time period i.e. 30 days maximum. Distribution and notification of the decision (Step 7) should occur immediately after the decision has been made. This should be specified in Step 7. Immediate notification is especially critical, given the current requirement that the information be "known" i.e. four month time period.

Failure to Provide an Administrative Review and Appeals Process

The failure to provide and administrative review and appeals process is a key omission from the process to establish a WHA. There should be a right of review and a right of appeal from:

• any determination of the regional rare and endangered species specialist ("RES"), the Regional WHA Committee or the WHA Technical Committee to reject or modify a WHA proposal under Step 2 or 3;
• any determination of the WHA Technical Committee under Step 5;
• any decision of the deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks (or designate) and the Chief Forester under Step 6; and
• any decision under the Procedures to modify, de-list or remove a WHA.

The inclusion of this right of review and appeal will require corresponding amendments to Division 4 of the Forest Practices Code. Consequential amendments will include:

• specific reference to these decisions in section 127 as decisions warranting a right of review;
• specific clarification that a "person" as defined in section 127 includes a member of the public for review of these decisions;
• amendment to section 128 to allow the Forest Practices Board to review these decisions; and
• amendment of section 131 to allow a right of appeal to the Forest Appeals Commission.

Step 1 - Site is Proposed

This step should specify in greater detail what information (especially technical information) needs to be submitted in the proposal. For example, as with Appendix 3, this could include whether or not site data had been obtained by the BC Conservation Data Centre, element occurrence information etc. In addition, a map or details of the proposed location and size of the WHA should be provided.

Step 2 - Initial Review

The attempt in this draft to include some criteria for review is noted, but the criteria is still too vague. For example, rather than a general reference to the criteria in Part 2 (the complete WHA descriptions for each species), it should be specified that the proposed WHA must be consistent with the planning objective and WHA description in Part 2, and then be approved by either the Regional WHA Committee or the WHA Technical Committee.

The total lack of criteria for review by the WHA Technical Committee is of particular concern. While it is now clear that the WHA Technical Committee will review all proposals involving species whose range crosses regional boundaries, no information is provided as to the basis on which this review will be conducted. This must be rectified, and detailed criteria provided. The terms of reference for the WHA Technical Committee (Appendix 2) is equally vague. Both Item 2 (comments on proposals within the "provincial context") and Item 3 (evaluation of proposals and provision of information to the chief forester and deputy minister of environment) should provide criteria for comment and evaluation. The requirement in Item 4 to consult with technical experts familiar with the biology of the species to determine the appropriateness of "some proposed WHAs" should be amended to require this information for ALL WHAs. We also have concerns regarding the representation of this committee - at a minimum, there should be equal representation from Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests.

Likewise, the WHA descriptions in Part 2 aren't really criteria per se. Step 2 should be amended to provide that the proposal must be consistent with the planning objective, WHA description and any management objectives for the species as listed in Part 2.

The reference to "occupancy" by the species is somewhat vague. "Occurrence" would likely be a more appropriate term, and has a recognized scientific meaning. Input should be sought from the Conservation Data Centre staff on this requirement.

The new requirement to consider occurrence thresholds for WHAs at this early stage in the process is of great concern. It serves to emphasize that the "thresholds" are in fact ceilings, and will be used to stop the creation of WHAs. This requirement should be deleted.

We are pleased to see the inclusion of a review by a Registered Professional Biologist of all rejected proposals. However, the process as currently drafted, is somewhat odd. It is simply assumed that the biologist will support the rejection and provide reasons for the rejection! Under the Procedures as currently drafted, it is entirely feasible that a WHA proposal will be rejected solely on timber supply grounds, despite excellent biological reasons why the proposal should be accepted.

The appropriate procedure would be for the RES (regional species) or the WHA Technical Committee (species that range across regional boundaries) to give reasons for their rejection of all proposals. These written reasons would then be reviewed by the Registered Professional Biologist. Step 2 should also be amended to include a right of review and appeal for the proponent against the rejection.

What is meant by "qualified individual"? A registered professional biologist is the appropriate person to review a rejected WHA proposal.

We are pleased to see that proponents will be notified of the decision. However, Step 2 should be amended to specify that the notification should be in writing. In addition, Step 2 should specify that if the proposal has been rejected, the written reasons for rejection and the biologist's written review of those reasons should also be provided to the proponent. In addition, all this information should be available on public record.

Step 3 - Mapping Draft Boundaries

We are surprised that the criteria for site selection and boundary design are not considered until after the WHA proposal has been approved at Initial Review. One of the pre-requisites to approval at Initial Review is that the proposal is consistent with Part 2 requirements, which include WHA size. In addition, we would assume that all WHA proposals would incorporate information regarding proposed site selection and WHA boundaries.

As currently drafted, the procedure allows initial approval of a WHA proposal, notification to the proponent and then alteration of that proposal with no requirement to notify the proponent of the changes. This is unacceptable.

If the government wishes to defer detailed review of site selection and WHA boundaries until after Initial Review, the proponent should be involved in this process, together with any other interested parties. If RES/Regional WHA Committee determines that the site and or boundaries should be altered, reasons should be given for the amendment/s, and the proponent should be given a right of appeal against the decision.

The direction to minimize timber supply impacts when designing WHAs was included in the last draft of the Procedures. As we commented last time, this approach is fundamentally flawed. The driving consideration in developing WHAs should be species needs, not timber supply. In effect, the 1% provincial threshold creates a vicious circle where timber supply rules - you can't have impacts related to wildlife over 1%, and therefore you should minimize Identified Wildlife initiatives wherever possible in case the 1% threshold is reached or passed. The recommendation that WHAs be placed as often as possible within an existing park or preserved area is based on spurious logic. These species are already at risk despite the existence of protected areas. Having the same habitat preserved twice - once as a park and once as a WHA will do absolutely nothing for species at risk.

The requirement to conduct a regional timber supply impact analysis reinforces this concern. Timber supply considerations arise at Step 2 - Initial Review, Step 3 - Mapping, Step 5 - Review by WHA Technical Committee and presumably also at Step 6 - Decision by Deputy Minister of Environment and Chief Forester. This is just ridiculous. We trust that wildlife considerations will play some part in the decision to establish WHAs. We are however, pleased to see that WHAs which exceed regional and district thresholds will still be permitted to proceed through the approval process. However the process by which this will be achieved, and the requirements of the strategy to deal with impact should be clarified.

We are also concerned at the description "actual timber supply impact". The level of harvesting and road building in a WHA will vary according to the specific application of the General Wildlife Measures to each WHA. It is therefore not possible to determine in advance the actual timber supply impact per WHA. We are concerned that for analysis purposes it will be assumed that the whole area of the WHA will be exempt from harvesting. This will artificially inflate the timber supply impacts.

Step 4 - Preparation of map and documentation

While we support the involvement of a registered professional biologist in reviewing in the draft WHA map and related documentation, as with Step 2 we are surprised at the assumption that the biologist will "endorse" this material. Presumably, the role of the biologist is to review the material and comment on it, not simply "endorse" it. The biologist's comments should form part of the material to be forwarded to the WHA Technical Committee.

As with Step 2, a registered professional biologist is the appropriate person to review this material. Who else is envisaged as a "qualified individual"?

Step 5 - Review by WHA Technical Committee

The role of the WHA Technical Committee in this stage of the process is somewhat unclear. Although the material presented to the Committee from Step 4 will include options for action if the Regional Committee cannot reach agreement, there is no mention of the role if any the Technical Committee will play in deciding the preferred option. It is also unclear whether the Technical Committee will be making any recommendations to the deputy minister and chief forester, in addition to providing them with technical information. This should be clarified. We are also presuming that the Technical Committee does not have the ability at this stage in the process to reject a proposal. This should be clarified as well.

Step 6 - Decision (Deputy Minister of Environment, Chief Forester)

The criteria for the deputy minister and chief forester should be specified. As currently drafted there is absolutely no indication whatsoever as to what factors should be taken into account in reaching a decision.

Step 7 - Distribution of Decisions and Impact Tracking

As with Step 2, the proponent and other interested parties should be notified promptly in writing of the decision. If the proposal is rejected, written reasons should be given and there should be a right of appeal from the decision.

Notification is particularly important for timber harvesters in the area of the WHA to ensure that the information is then "known".

As mentioned in Step 3 above, the initial timber supply impact will be an estimate only. If this calculation is to be added to the cumulative total in the region and provincial databases, what process is in place to update this information? E.g. the WHA is de-listed; harvesting is conducted in the WHA etc. Impact tracking should include follow up to accommodate subsequent harvesting and/or de-listing.

Step 9 - Add boundaries to district maps

Consideration of WHAs in operational plans should occur immediately upon notification of the decision to establish the WHA. Time should start to run after the decision NOT after the map has been created. Digitizing is a laborious and slow process and should not operate as a delay to notification to timber harvesters.

Modifying a Boundary or Removing a WHA

We totally oppose the modification, de-listing removal of any WHA without adequate public notification and comment. The number of WHAs which can be established under the IWMS is extremely limited because of the 1% cap. There will also be a great deal of work required to establish one. Accordingly, once gained, any modification or removal to a WHA should only be conducted in full public view. The public, especially the original proponent, should have the chance to comment on any proposed changes to a WHA and have the right to appeal any decision to modify or remove a WHA. The fewer the WHAs you allow, the higher the level of scrutiny on modification or removal.

1. Minor Boundary Modification

We are deeply suspicious of this provision. What constitutes a "minor boundary modification"? Under this procedure, the integrity of WHAs - already small, and generally subject to logging - could be further compromised by a "creep and destroy" approach or by one strategic hit. We believe this provision will be subject to frequent abuse and suspect that most modifications to WHAs will be classified as "minor".

2. Removal Because Habitat No Longer Occupied

What is the urgency here? Why is public notification and comment inappropriate? If the RES believes that the WHA is no longer occupied or used by the species for which it was established, appropriate inventory/research should be conducted by a registered professional biologist to confirm this and ascertain whether the WHA is of benefit to other species. Only once this has been conducted, and public input considered should the RES be permitted to recommend to the WHA Technical Committee that the WHA be de-listed. There should be no removal of any WHA without adequate scientific research and inventory to confirm the validity of the stated grounds for removal.

3. Removal Due to "New Information

As with minor boundary modifications, we are deeply suspicious of this provision as well. What is "new information"? Major changes to a WHA by the Regional Committee is listed as one example. But the Procedures is silent as to de-designation of a WHA by the WHA Technical Committee (one of 3 options available when evaluating planning thresholds). Does this constitute "new information"? Similarly, Item 37 of the Questions and Answers also mentions de-designation where "an area is proposed that better fulfills the conservation needs of the species, or the species is de-listed and is no longer considered Identified Wildlife". Do these also constitute "new information"? If not, what process is followed for de-designation in these circumstances? Significant clarification is required here.

We are pleased to see some level of public consultation in this category of WHA removal. However, merely indicating that Steps 3 to 9 of the WHA process will be followed is insufficient. Significantly more detail should be included. For example:

• there should be a minimum period for public notification prior to decision to remove;
• the notification should be in writing and should include the grounds for the proposed removal;
• the original proponent/s of the WHA should be notified, together with any other interested people involved in establishing the WHA;
• the WHA Technical Committee should be required to respond in writing to public comments in relation to the proposed WHA removal;
• there should be a right of appeal against any decision to de-list, modify or remove a WHA (see the review section above - Failure to Provide An Administrative Review and Appeals Process).

This process should be mandatory for any modification, removal or de-designation of a WHA.

Impact Tracking

There should be a process in place to ensure that any boundary reductions or removals of WHAs lead to a corresponding reduction in the cumulative timber supply impact databases at regional and provincial levels.

Interim Measures

Overview

Interim measures are supposedly designed to protect critical habitat attributes and mitigate the effects of forest practices on Identified Wildlife until a decision is made on whether or not to establish a WHA. Interim measures cover both "wildlife habitat features" (nests, dens, colonies, natal streams) and "interim zones" (designated areas around wildlife habitat features, which vary in size from a 50 metre radius to a 600 metre radius). Once designated, each wildlife habitat feature will be evaluated for designation as a WHA. The Procedures recommends that Interim Zones be established around wildlife habitat features during this evaluation period. A key limitation of this procedure is that interim zones can not be established unless a wildlife habitat feature has been designated.

General Comments

Very little has changed with this section of the Procedures from the last draft. We therefore repeat our concerns about the adequacy of wildlife habitat features and interim zones to protect critical habitat and refer you to our previous submission dated August 8, 1997. For this draft, we have focused our concerns on the role of interim zones generally, and improving the definition of "wildlife habitat feature", consistent with its function in the IWMS.

Interim Zones

We support the idea of interim zones to protect key habitat attributes of Identified Wildlife until a decision is made on whether a WHA should be established in the area. However, for this procedure to work effectively, we believe that the following issues should be addressed:

• The creation of interim zones should not be predicated solely upon the existence of a designated wildlife habitat feature. Provision should be made for the ability to promptly establish Interim Zones around key habitat for Identified Wildlife regardless of whether the area contains a designated wildlife habitat feature. This is particularly important given that the time period to establish a WHA will be quite lengthy - an estimated 90 days for steps 3 to 5, plus additional time for initial review and decision by the deputy minister and chief forester (at least another 60 days). It could therefore take up to five months or longer to establish a WHA!
  
• Interim zones should be given legal status and accompanied by an outright prohibition against any timber harvesting, road building or other development until the WHA proposal has been reviewed.
  
• In the alternative, if forest practices are to be permitted or considered in interim zones, we support the application of General Wildlife Measures to interim zones while the area is evaluated for WHA designation.
  
• The area of the interim zone should be broadened at least to the size of the applicable WHA for the species concerned. If the purpose of interim zones is to protect an area during its evaluation for WHA designation, the interim zone should match the size of the prospective WHA. The current size of interim zones (as specified in Table 1) is way too small to provide effective interim habitat protection. The preferable approach for interim zones would be to ensure protection not just for dens and nests, but also for interim habitat frequented during critical parts of the species' life cycle, such as breeding, rearing and wintering sites.

Wildlife Habitat Features

The stated purpose of "wildlife habitat features" is to ensure that "significant and identifiable attributes" for Identified Wildlife are designated, thereby receiving immediate protection. Designation of wildlife habitat features is also important as a trigger for implementation of interim measures and consideration of designation of the area surrounding the feature as a wildlife habitat area.

Given this function, the current definition of "wildlife habitat area" in the Operational Planning Regulation is clearly too narrow and does not reflect the role of wildlife habitat features in the broader Identified Wildlife Management Strategy. None of the three species listed in paragraph (b) are even on the Volume 1 list of Identified Wildlife. Furthermore, the focus of the current definition is on nests, mineral licks or wallows. Yet the Procedures (see section on Interim Measures) specifically references the establishment of a variety of wildlife features (natal streams, dens and colonies) for a broad range of species e.g. tailed frog, northern goshawk, Vancouver Island Marmot. This approach is not reflected in the current definition.

The definition of "wildlife habitat feature" should be amended consistent with the role of wildlife habitat features in the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy. Protection should be automatically afforded to the den, nests, colony, burrow or specific dwelling place for all Identified Wildlife (see amendments below). Natal streams are specifically identified in the Procedures as wildlife habitat features for tailed frogs and so this should also be reflected in the definition.

The ability to designate other features should rest solely with the designated environmental official - this should not be a joint decision with the district manager. Item 45 of the Questions and Answers specifically acknowledges that the "district manager is not the appropriate person to determine how best to manage species at risk". The district manager does NOT have the technical ability to identify appropriate features and is under considerable pressure to ensure maintenance of timber supply, which may significantly inhibit the district manager's ability to designate wildlife habitat features.

We therefore recommend that the definition of "wildlife habitat feature" in the Operational Planning Regulation be amended to mean:

(a) a significant mineral lick or wallow,

(b) an active nest of a bald eagle, osprey or great blue heron,

(c) a den, nest, colony, burrow or specific dwelling place of an identified wildlife species,

(d) a natal stream of a tailed frog, or

(e) any other feature agreed to by [] a designated environmental official.

Managing Impacts Through Planning Thresholds

Overview

Three planning thresholds have been introduced in this draft of the Procedures: regional thresholds, district thresholds (comprising an Interim threshold and WHA threshold) and species thresholds. The thresholds have been introduced for the express purpose of "managing" timber supply impacts, and ensuring that the 1% ceiling is not exceeded. The WHA Technical Committee is responsible for assessment and review of planning thresholds.

General Comments

The introduction of planning thresholds for WHAs is a complete reversal in government policy. The government has reneged on its commitment to the 1% cap as a provincial limit, and is now initiating timber supply considerations at regional, district and species levels. (This is in addition to the timber supply considerations throughout the process for establishing a WHA). Consideration of the needs of species at risk and their critical habitat are totally sidelined to the goal of ensuring uniform impact throughout the province. This approach has absolutely no basis in scientific reality.

We are also deeply concerned that these "thresholds" will operate as ceilings, rather than thresholds, further compromising the ability of the IWMS to provide any meaningful protection to species at risk.

Regional Thresholds

While the government has acknowledged that regional impacts will vary because species at risk are not uniformly found throughout the province, it is obvious that a regional cap will be in effect. It is stated in the Procedures (page 12) that:

Regional impacts will be managed to 1% (by MOF region) until a more accurate review is completed that will determine true regional impacts. This review will be completed by the year 2000.

This is a clear indication that a regional 1% cap will be instituted until at least the year 2000. We strongly object to this approach. Species at risk are not conveniently found in even numbers across forest regions and therefore should not be managed to a uniform threshold across regions. There should be no regional threshold whatsoever. If the government persists with this approach, the regional 1% level should be a threshold only, not a cap.

District Thresholds

The introduction of district thresholds for certain species is also a concern. Thresholds have been introduced for both interim measures and WHAs based on the volume of operable timber removed from harvesting. By instituting low district thresholds and assigning them evenly to districts within the species' range without any consideration of habitat suitability or district size, the ability to provide any real form of protection through interim zones is severely compromised. This deficiency is specifically acknowledged in both Appendix 4 and 5:

Thresholds have been evenly assigned to districts and do not reflect variability in habitat suitability or size of districts.

The district thresholds have been developed based directly on the assumptions used in the Impact Assessment. This is further evidence that timber supply considerations are controlling the number and size of WHAs, not concerns for protecting species at risk.

Interim Measures

District thresholds for interim measures have been set for northern goshawk, Queen Charlotte goshawk, tailed frog and marbled murrelet. It is stated that the thresholds for interim measures have been developed using the assumptions in the Impact Assessment. This is somewhat surprising, given that the Impact Assessment does not consider interim measures at all, only WHAs.

As with district thresholds for WHAs, the thresholds have been assigned evenly throughout the districts in the species' known range. The limitations with this approach are particularly evident with the northern goshawk (sub-species accipiter gentilis atricapillus). This species has been assigned an interim threshold in most districts in the province. Accordingly, because it is listed for most districts, the threshold is especially low - a mere 30 hectares. As the recommended interim zone radius is 200 metres, this allows approximately 3 interim zones before the district threshold is reached.

The district threshold for the marbled murrelet is also very low. The threshold has been set at the old growth retention objectives for the lower biodiversity option. This is the most intensively harvested portion of the forest and will not provide adequate protection for these birds. Furthermore, it offers no additional protection for marbled murrelets - low biodiversity emphasis must be met in landscape units regardless.

WHA Threshold

District thresholds for WHAs have been set for grizzly bear, northern goshawk, Queen Charlotte goshawk and tailed frog because "these species have potential to have high impacts on a local area if impacts are not managed" (page 12). These thresholds are ridiculously low, especially for northern goshawk and grizzly bear.

With northern goshawks, for example, the Impact Assessment calculates the area of operable timber impacted per WHA will be 91.2 hectares. The WHA district threshold is 110 hectares i.e. 1.2 northern goshawk WHAs per district.

Species Thresholds

Species thresholds have been set in two ways (i) occurrence based, and (ii) area based. As with the other thresholds, we fear that these "thresholds" will in fact operate as ceilings. This is particularly problematic given that the Impact Assessment presents the occurrence and area data as estimates only. To then use this information as hard and fast numbers for species thresholds is totally inappropriate and a misuse of the Impact Assessment.

Occurrence Thresholds

Occurrence based thresholds have been set for nine species, including the northern goshawk, Queen Charlotte goshawk, Lewis' woodpecker and the white headed woodpecker. The occurrence thresholds have been developed using the occurrence assumptions listed in the Impact Assessment. These occurrence assumptions are based on very limited data i.e. a "guesstimate" of current inventory, and then a further 10 year projection, based on that "guesstimate". These estimates should not be used as thresholds, particularly as the numbers will change with further inventory and research.

As with the WHA district thresholds, the occurrence thresholds are quite low. For example, the threshold for Queen Charlotte goshawks is 30 WHAs in total. Other thresholds include: Lewis' woodpecker (6); White headed woodpecker (10), northern goshawk (atricapillus) 50; and tailed frog (100). We re-iterate our earlier comment that further scientific input be obtained as to the likely validity of these thresholds, and that the thresholds be updated on a regular basis in light of additional inventory and research.

Area Based Thresholds

The Procedures indicates that species not covered by the occurrence based thresholds will be managed to the area assumptions used in the Impact Assessment. We are not clear what this means - the IWMS is totally silent on this. Area assumptions are listed in the Impact Assessment showing estimated area of timber harvesting land base affected per WHA. Does this mean that other species will be limited to one WHA? More than one? Substantial clarification is required here, especially if area assumptions are to function as species thresholds.

Our preference would be for no area based thresholds whatsoever, given the numerous assumptions used to develop the area of impact for each WHA. If the government has a contrary view and intends to use area based thresholds, considerable clarification is required as to what these are and how they will be used.

Evaluation of Planning Thresholds

Evaluation of planning thresholds will occur (i) when a threshold is reached and (ii) annually. There is no public notification or input in this process at either stage.

Annual Review

An annual review will be conducted by the WHA Technical Committee to evaluate the planning thresholds and determine if they are "appropriate". What does this mean? Criteria should be provided for this determination. In addition, there should be public notification and involvement in this critical annual evaluation.

Planning Threshold Reached

When a planning threshold is reached, the WHA Technical Committee is required to consult with species experts OR regional and district staff to develop options to present to the Chief Forester and the Deputy Minister of Environment. The WHA Technical Committee may recommend:

• re-allocation of the planning threshold;
• re-evaluation of management measures that may result in changes to WHA parameters or GWM requirements;
• de-designation of another WHA in order to establish a WHA that provides a better distribution of sites or more suitable habitat.

We have several concerns regarding this process. First, consultation with species experts should be mandatory i.e. in addition to consultation with regional and district staff, not as an alternative. Regional and district staff will be largely driven by timber supply considerations. Species experts should be consulted to present input on species considerations.

While we are pleased to see that reaching thresholds will supposedly not operate as a ceiling, we are concerned at the options presented for the WHA Technical Committee. We are also concerned that recommendations will be developed by the Committee with no public input whatsoever. This is particularly troubling given the options presented. Re-allocation of planning thresholds in one area/manner will impact planning thresholds elsewhere. Re-evaluation of management measures is basically an invitation to reduce WHA size or alter the GWM requirements to allow more logging. De-designation is self-explanatory.

None of these options should be considered without adequate public notification and comment. The WHA Technical Committee should not be developing recommendations like these (which potentially have significant impacts for WHAs throughout the province) in secret. As mentioned above, there should be no removal or alteration of a WHA without public input.

Mapping Protocol

We are please to provide the following comments on the Mapping Protocol from the BC Conservation Mapping Consortium:

Public participation

Increasingly, private individuals and organizations are collecting and analyzing information on forests and their wildlife populations. With agency staff increasingly confined to office duties, it is the concerned citizen who will collect baseline information on species and monitor population trends. In addition, GIS and GPS technologies are becoming the de facto standard for data collection, management, analysis and distribution. This applies equally to governments, corporations, academic institutions, First Nations, and, indeed, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the general public.

For this reason, it is imperative that MoELP and MOF facilitate public participation by providing digital basemap information (TRIM) and other required datasets for IWMS mapping at little or no cost to participating groups and individuals. Furthermore, collected data on WHAs should be made available to the public through free internet access.

Data Analysis

The IWMS mapping methodology ignores recent developments in mapping technology and data gathering procedures. GIS systems provide powerful analytical tools to address timber supply analysis, habitat buffering requirements, and species population trends. For this reason, digitizing of WHA proposals (step 8) which pass some basic validity and "quality" checks should occur prior to steps 5-7 to facilitate the required analysis of the WHA proposals themselves. How, in fact, does the WHA Technical Committee plan on conducting timber supply impacts, at different scales, without using GIS? It seems doubtful that WHA proposals could be assessed fairly and objectively without measuring impacts using a GIS system. Once the WHA proposal has been digitized, it can also be analyzed for other purposes, such as assessment of adequate WHA size for the species in question, its spatial relationship to other WHAs, etc.

Finally, there is every reason to believe that many WHA proposals could be received in digital format along with paper hard-copy due to increased use of mapping technology mentioned above.

Cost Efficiency

Encouraging and facilitating public submissions in both paper and digital format will reduce costs for the IWMS program. By providing digital TRIM basemap information to participating groups and individuals, the ability of these groups to supply WHA proposals in digital format will be greatly increased. In essence, the costs of digitizing WHA proposals would be borne by the participants themselves, saving the IWMS program significant digitizing costs. Digital standards can be as rigorous as those for paper copies, so there would be no loss in data validity.

Timelines

The timelines proposed seem overly bureaucratic and unnecessary. By digitizing and analyzing WHA proposals early in the mapping methodology, required analysis and data integration could be conducted in far less time. Maps, charts, and underlying data could also be quickly distributed within MOF and MoELP offices using their existing digital networks.

Public Training Courses

The IWMS program would also benefit by conducting regional training workshops on mapping methodology for public groups and citizens who maintain wildlife monitoring activities.

Part 2 - Wildlife Habitat Area Descriptions

Overview

This part of the Procedures contains the WHA description for each species. A planning objective is included, together with management considerations, and optional landscape unit planning considerations and resource management zone considerations where applicable.

General Comments

The main changes to this part of the Procedures relate to planning considerations outside WHAs, management considerations and landscape unit planning. Otherwise, the WHA descriptions remain much the same. We therefore refer to our previous submission on the Procedures and re-iterate our concerns that WHAs do NOT equate with critical habitat, and are frequently too small in size to provide adequate species protection.

These changes relating to planning considerations outside WHAs represent a further restriction on the scope of the Procedures. Planning considerations outside WHAs are now deleted as a separate topic for consideration. The information previously included in this section is now captured under two new sections: "management considerations" and "landscape unit planning". It is specifically stated that landscape unit planning and higher level plan considerations are NOT binding on the Chief Forester and do not constitute Chief Forester direction.

We disagree with this move to further restrict the scope of the Procedures. The 1% cap will severely restrict the number of WHAs which can be established. The planning thresholds will limit the ability of the IWMS to provide protection for species and their habitats where needed. The time to establish a WHA will be lengthy - at least five months. Accordingly, every effort should be made to ensure that key planning considerations apply to areas outside WHAs. While this may be addressed eventually through General Wildlife Measures, at least in the interim, the Procedures should serve to direct harvesting activities outside WHAs.

The landscape unit planning considerations and the higher level plan considerations SHOULD constitute Chief Forester direction. This information is critical to establishing landscape unit biodiversity objectives in particular.

GENERAL WILDLIFE MEASURES

Overview

The GWMs contain specific management practices for approved WHAs for all of the Identified wildlife and plant communities in volume 1 except fisher. The GWM requirements are mandatory and must be considered in the development of operational plans under the Forest Practices Code.

General Comments

We are pleased that the GWMs will be mandatory inside WHAs. We are also pleased that the government is considering developing GWMs for areas outside WHAs. We support this approach and recommend the new procedures be developed as soon as possible. In the meantime, the management considerations and landscape unit planning objectives in the Procedures should serve as direction for forest practices outside WHAs. While our preference would be for no logging or road construction in interim zones, failing this, current GWMs should apply to interim zones.

These comments aside, we believe that the GWMs as currently drafted are a great disappointment and will seriously compromise the ability of WHAs to provide any effective form of protection. We are particularly concerned at the extensive ability to harvest timber and build roads inside approved WHAs. Outright protection from logging and road building in WHAs is only provided for six out of thirty-four wildlife species. This is pathetically low. There should be no logging or road construction in WHAs whatsoever, particularly core WHAs.

The ability to circumvent restrictions on logging and road construction in WHAs by "variance" approved by the district manager and designated environmental official is also extremely troubling. The inclusion of variances is basically an open door to forest practices in WHAs. Our concerns regarding variances, logging and road construction are set out below, together with comments regarding enforcement.

Variances

The GWMs are riddled with variances. The GWMs contain 14 variances for logging and 27 variances for road construction. That's a total of 41 variances. Given that the GWMs only cover 34 wildlife species and four plant communities, this total is way too high.

Variances allow avoidance of a prohibition on harvesting or road construction in a WHA where there is "no other practicable option" and the variance is approved by the district manager and designated environmental official. The term "practicable option" is not defined in the GWMs, although an explanation is provided in the Questions and Answers.

Item 48 of the Questions and Answers seeks to explain what circumstances constitute "no other practicable option". The explanation given is as follows:

When there will be greater damage to the environment by following a measure than by carrying out its alternative or when no other option is available, there is said to be "no other practicable option".

If this is what is meant by "no other practicable option", this definition should be included in the GWMs. However, the words "no other option is available" should be deleted. The GWMs should also specify what information is required to support the assertion that there is "no other practicable option". On what basis is damage to the environment assessed?

We anticipate that variances will be the exception rather than the rule under the GWMs. It will be all too simple to argue that there was "no other option available". Furthermore, the power of the district manager to control this decision should not be underestimated. In effect, there is no equivalent staff position at district level in the Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks. The GWMs are silent as to who will be appointed as a "designated environmental official".

To ensure greater accountability and lessen the frequency of variances, we also recommend that the district manager and the designated environmental official be required to provide written reasons for the variance. These reasons should be placed on public record, with other information relating to the WHA, and be subject to review and appeal under Division 4 of the Forest Practices Code.

Logging in WHAs

Of the 34 wildlife species covered by the GWM, logging is only excluded outright in the WHAs for four species (ancient murrelet, cassin's auklet, marbled murrelet and Lewis' woodpecker). This is an appallingly low level of protection. (While logging is prohibited in grizzly bear protection WHAs, it is permitted in mitigation WHAs).

The record is significantly better in the four identified plant communities, with an outright prohibition against forest practices in three communities (water birch - red osier dogwood; ponderosa pine - black cottonwood, nootka rose, poison ivy; ponderosa pine - black cottonwood, snowberry), and a prohibition against forest practices other than silviculture treatments and prescribed fire activities in the fourth plant community - Douglas fir/Garry oak - oniongrass.

Limited core/nest WHA protection is provided for 11 other species. Logging is prohibited in the core areas of WHAs for 8 species, and in the nest areas of 2 other species (northern goshawk and Queen Charlotte goshawk). However, harvesting is permitted, subject to variance in another 2 WHAs (long-billed curlew and Keen's long eared myotis). Harvesting is also permitted during key periods, subject to variance, for another 12 species (American white pelican, American bittern, Sandhill crane, great Western grebe, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, turkey vulture, Keen's long eared myotis, gopher snake, night snake, rubber boa and yellow bellied racer)

In summary, outright WHA protection from logging is provided to 4 wildlife species only. Limited core/nest WHA protection is provided to 11 species (including grizzly bear). "Protection", subject to variance, is provided for 14 species. That leaves no outright protection from timber harvesting in WHAs for 10 species i.e. logging of some sort is permitted in the WHAs for just under a third of the Identified Wildlife species. This is totally unacceptable, especially when combined with the variance exemption for 14 species. Given the serious constraints of the IWMS (e.g. 1% cap, limited size and number of WHAs, planning thresholds), the ability of WHAs to protect identified wildlife is already questionable. Allowing timber harvesting in most of the few WHAs which will be established makes a mockery of the whole strategy.

Road Construction in WHAs

The ability to construct roads in WHAs is also of serious concern. Outright prohibition against road building in a WHA is only provided for four species (ancient murrelet, cassin's auklet, mountain beaver and Vancouver Island marmot). Core WHA protection from road building is limited to four species (trumpeter swan, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon and turkey vulture). There is a direction for the American white pelican, American bittern, Sandhill crane and Western grebe that no new permanent roads are to be constructed, however, "temporary" roads are still permissible. It is therefore easy to avoid this limitation by simply classifying the road as short-term only.

For 23 wildlife species and all four plant communities, road building is prohibited, subject to variance. As with timber harvesting, we predict this variance will be the general rule rather than the exception, further compromising the integrity of WHAs.

Enforcement

The IWMS and the regulations under the Code are silent as to the consequences of failure to comply with GWMs. Item 12 of the Questions and Answers states that the penalties for non-compliance with Identified Wildlife provisions have yet to be determined. This is a key deficiency in the IWMS and should be addressed as soon as possible. Non-compliance should be heavily penalized - habitat destruction in particular could have disastrous consequences for identified wildlife and other species at risk.

MARBLED MURRELET

Overview

The marbled murrelet is Red listed in BC (S2 threatened) and designated as threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The species is considered an old growth dependent species.

Although included on the Volume 1 list of identified wildlife, the marbled murrelet is not eligible for stand level protection under the IWMS. Protection of the marbled murrelet has been deferred to measures using the old seral retention requirements under the Biodiversity Guidebook. It is recommended, but not required, that every landscape unit with "suitable" or "original suitable marbled murrelet habitat" (considered below) should have between 10-12% of the suitable or original suitable marbled murrelet habitat set aside in WHAs.

General Comments

We have several serious concerns about the failure of the IWMS to provide any form of stand level protection for the murrelet, and the type and limitations on protection for the marbled murrelet under the Biodiversity Guidebook. Each of these concerns is considered below:

Habitat Protection under the Biodiversity Guidebook is Insufficient

We are appalled that no stand level protection has been provided for the marbled murrelet under the IWMS. We are also deeply concerned at the restrictions that have been placed on marbled murrelet protection under the Biodiversity Guidebook. This combination of no stand level protection and limited landscape unit protection will likely lead to the loss of viable populations of the marbled murrelet in several places in the province.

The WHA description in the Procedures recommends that 10-12% of suitable or original suitable marbled murrelet habitat be set aside in landscape units. However, the 10-12% of suitable habitat can not be met in low biodiversity emphasis or intermediate biodiversity emphasis for landscape units under the Biodiversity Guidebook. The old seral requirements of the Biodiversity Guidebook are simply not large enough to encompass the recommended habitat. Low and intermediate biodiversity emphasis will make up 90% of all landscape units. Low biodiversity emphasis only have to have 3% old-growth immediately - the remainder can be achieved over three rotations. Even in an intermediate biodiversity emphasis area with 13% old growth, the 10-12% protection for marbled murrelets is unlikely to be met because that 13% old growth will also have to encompass all wildlife tree patches, riparian reserves etc. Furthermore, the interim measures threshold set for marbled murrelets (lower biodiversity emphasis) are contrary to what the marbled murrelet recovery team recommended and will lead to significant population reductions.

Of further concern is this concept of "original suitable habitat". As defined in the WHA description, this means "areas that were suitable prior to harvest (i.e. have been cut within 200 years)". Although a preference is expressed for advanced second growth, because of the breadth of the definition, original suitable habitat could include clearcuts!

Even assuming 10-12% of suitable habitat could be set aside, (which is unlikely for the reasons just outlined), it is questionable whether 10-12% of suitable habitat would be sufficient to maintain and recover marbled murrelet populations. The marbled murrelet recovery team was unable to reach consensus on whether this amount of habitat protection would be sufficient.

Road Construction in Marbled Murrelet WHAs

The ability to construct roads in marbled murrelet WHAs is a grave concern. It has been shown that murrelets nesting close to forest edges created by roads or clearcuts are more likely to suffer nest predation. Nest predation is the largest known cause of nest failure for the marbled murrelet. Permitting roads in and around marbled murrelet WHAs will significantly diminish the ability of these WHAs to protect and maintain marbled murrelets.

No Requirement for Inventory

There is no requirement in the IWMS to conduct inventory prior to logging. This is of particular concern for the marbled murrelet given the limited data currently available. Large tracts of optimal marbled murrelet habitat could be logged under the IWMS because marbled murrelet inventory will not be required.

GRIZZLY BEARS

Overview

The grizzly bear is blue listed (vulnerable) in BC, but considered threatened in BC's southern interior ecoprovince. Although limited stand level measures are provided for grizzly bears under the IWMS, the grizzly bear is specifically identified in the IWMS as a species requiring higher level plan protection. Of all the species listed in Volume 1, the grizzly is clearly the prime candidate for broad landscape unit protection measures, having ranges varying from as little as 350 km on the coast to 2,5000 km in the northern interior.

General Comments

The failures of the higher level plan process (considered above in relation to the Procedures for Establishing Wildlife Habitat Areas) pose a huge threat to the long term viability of grizzly bear populations in this province. Quite simply - stand level protection for this species is just not enough. Although the government's Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy has been in place for two years now, we have yet to see any habitat protected. To date, there have been no grizzly bear management areas established under the Strategy. Yet the government's background report Conservation of Grizzly Bears in British Columbia identifies habitat loss as the primary cause of grizzly bear decline in BC. The IWMS measures for grizzly bears will, therefore, do little to maintain viable populations of this species unless broader level habitat protection is provided.

WHA Description

Due to time constraints, we are unable to provide detailed comments on this document. Concerns have already been expressed at the ridiculously low WHA district threshold for grizzly bears. While the majority of protection WHAs may be under 10 hectares, other critical habitat like estuaries and subalpine parkland meadows will obviously be much larger. A combined threshold of 240 hectares for both protection and mitigation WHAs is simply ludicrous.

Our additional brief comments are as follows:

• the buffer of 50 metres around Protection WHAs seems dangerously small;
• we are pleased to see the inclusion of the six step process for the establishment of Mitigation WHAs and would like to see this as a mandatory process;
• we wholeheartedly endorse the inclusion of a cumulative effects analysis, especially given our concerns above regarding deficiencies in landscape unit protection; and
• the landscape unit planning considerations should be mandatory.

General Wildlife Measures

We have the following comments on the general wildlife measures for grizzly bears:

road construction in grizzly bear WHAs is hugely problematic. Independent studies have shown that roads adversely affect grizzlies in a variety of ways, from fragmentation of habitat, to displacement of habitat, increased access by hunters and poachers; and increased human/bear conflict.

both management practices listed for access for Mitigation WHAs should apply - they should not be listed as alternatives; and

the general listing of silviculture practices for Mitigation WHAs is too vague, and allows the selection of one minor option to the exclusion of other options. We anticipate that in most instances, several of these options should apply.

OTHER MATTERS

Amendments to Operational Planning Regulations

We understand from ministry staff that the government may be considering deleting section 24 of the Operational Planning Regulations and inserting this section (in amended form) in the Timber Harvesting Practices Regulation. Pursuant to section 24, companies are prohibited from clearcut logging in an area "that contains wildlife habitat where canopy retention is essential for the maintenance of identified wildlife". We understand that in revised form, as proposed, this key habitat protection will be substantially reduced. Clearcutting will only be prohibited where the canopy retention is critical to the maintenance of "known" ungulate winter range. (See earlier criticism about the "known" information requirement under general comments for the Procedures to Establish Wildlife Habitat Areas").

This proposed amendment is totally unacceptable. Given the serious constraints we have identified on habitat protection under the IWMS, the additional protection for wildlife habitat under section 24 should be maintained.

* * * *

APPENDIX 1
- VOLUME 1 LIST OF IDENTIFIED WILDLIFE

Note: Red listed species includes any indigenous species or subspecies determined by the BC Ministry of Environment to be extirpated, endangered or threatened in BC. Blue listed species are any species considered to be vulnerable in BC. Regionally important wildlife are species for which there is a potential conservation concern.

Vertebrates

Plant Communities

Ponderos pine/black cottonwood - snowberry

Water Birch - red-osier dogwood

Ponderosa pine - black cottonwood - Nootka rose - poison ivy

Douglas fir/Garry oak-oniongrass

Note: Complete List of BC Species at Risk and List of Species by Forest District

The BC Conservation Data Centre ("CDC") maintains a complete list of known BC species at risk for vertebrate animals, vascular plants and plant communities. In addition, the CDC has prepared lists of vertebrate animals and vascular plants at risk BY FOREST DISTRICT. This information is available on the CDC's home page at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/cdc

Or call the CDC's information desk at ph. 250-356-0928.