Interfor's Amendment to Plan

Feb 2000

 

This is from a letter sent to Interfor during the public submissions period for comments on their amended FDP--- presumably these Princess Royal Cutblocks were those "rescinded" by the Forest Practices Board in June 99. Note the comments on helicopter logging-- is this really "better" for the environment or just another way to get tax write offs?

SUMMARY of Concerns

Overall--- Sockeye potential--- High grading? -- Large areas operable left behind; --Needless sprawl; Helicopter vs Cable trade-offs

Slopes Geotech studies needed Class 4 &5 --- if only at aerial photo level- roads and streams (see below)

Streams --- Question if Salmon streams correct or accurate (see below)

Roads --- No double roading valleys.

 

Preliminary Note:--- Interfor should be complimented on timely and good quality maps and written material made accessible to public

THE BIG PICTURE

OVERVIEW—

1) Surf Inlet and accompanying lakes have unquantified but large enhancement possibilities for Sockeye salmon etc. IFP should not be allowed to harm ecosystems potential (See Note).

2) Plan makes good use of Heli- logging but potentially trashes the upper Cedar watershed by using cable instead of Heli-(see below).

3) Leaves large areas operable behind while taking out best (see below)

 

 

SURF INLET Concerns

Overall--- good full potential use heli-logging

BUT—

1)     High-grading?—by taking out large areas of higher value cedar this leaves too much that will no longer be economic--- see the area on original where word “operable” is on this copy as example

2)     Private lots are potentially trashed and need signed consent to avoid lawsuits.

 

Heli Logging at best (and worst?)

BEST North east side

All those small cutblocks of presumably good cedar – and no roads

BUT H6106

Class 4 &5 terrain--

 

What about those streams on SE side Surf? Needs geotech opinion

 

LOG Sort

The two streams look like they should have fish. The upper one leads to a lake  which has potential sockeye salmon value.

The streams need biologist and the lake which is in steep terrain and is to be logged along its full length needs some 3rd party assurance that no future fish potential being compromised.

 

DAM CREEK concerns

 

ROADS---

Why is this road being built? That is a lot of expensive road and not much timber.

Especially if not allowed to double road the creek valley. Rethink this and justify.

 

CEDAR CREEK concerns

 

Cedar Creek SPRAWLS

Why is this whole watershed being attacked at one time?

The upper reaches would be better heli logged. Why not finish the western section first?

 

 

Needless Roading?

 

These roads are being built thru class 4 terrain. Hard to tell without aerial photos but this looks like need geo-tech OK.

The stream classification looks suspect – the S5 does not look real.

Why is Class 5 being Cable logged? Need Geo-tech study. Trashing the stream is not OK

 

Trashing the Streams?

 

Why are these cutblocks being cable logged?

Leave them.

The road should have Geo-tech OK Why go through the Class IV terrain when it can be avoided?

The Streams are unbelievable!!

Looks like S2 should go farther into 6435 and 6445.

 

Note: Selection of Best-suited Project Sites and Donor Stocks for New Fishery Development Projects – AY Federenko 1987 DFO

Tuesday, February 15, 2000