IT’S CALLED the Kalum South Community Resources Board and its 16. members represent a cross-section: of. -people living in the forest district, Their task is to come up with a consensus on land and resource management in the -area. In doing so, they have to take into account a wide va- riety of land uses and values — forestry, fishing, recrea- tion, spiritual and cultural values. Meanwhile, the provincial government declaration that The Terrace Standard, Wednesday, December 14, 1994 - A5 the Kitlope would be forever off-limits to logging pushed the percentage of protected land in the northwest over the 12 per cent target set by Victoria (see story in Sept. 28, 1994 edition of the Standard). We offered the board an opportunity to comment on that development through our FORUM feature. Below, their response and an outline of some of the areas in the district a sub-committee feels are worth some form of protection, Board feels boxed in by Victor! THE SOUTH Kalum Community Resources Board, through our work on the Land and Resource Man- agement Plan (LRMP) for Kalum South, recognizes the need io maintain a network of ecosystems which arc well distributed, diverse and a viable spectrum of small protected or conserved units of the landscape which can be linked within and be- tween watersheds. Of equal imporlance to our focal communities are small land and waterway siles for recreational, cul- tural, historical and spiritually defining features of our region. Developing a matrix of small interspersed pro- lected arcas is a challenge in the face of our coastal transition zone sharing many eco-section parallel uaits with the Norfh Coast, Central Coast, Fiordlands, the Hazeltons, the Babines and Cassiar Ranges. The designing of functional connective corridors is still a pioneer science. Compounding this dilemma has been certain provincial proclamations driven by political agendas which have seen the recent declaration of several immense protected areas —_ the . Tatsenshini-Alsek, the South Moresby, the Kidope — coupled to other large parks already present — Spatsizi Plateau and Tweedsmuir — while still others are under study - the Babines, the lower _ Stikine and marine parks for Douglas Channel, the ‘ Insidé Passage and the outer coast. In this regard there’s a policy vacuum of accountability by our publicly clected officials. This preponderance of over-weighted representa- tion of large alienated areas in the Prince Rupert Forest Region and broad scale redundancics have made for a hyper-baric atmosphere. In fact it has put a stranglehold upon our locally knowledgeable people's and competent regional resource planners’ abilities to fill the gaps and approve for further study some very valid smaller sites of special fea- tures for protection. So how do we find our way out of this ‘box can- yon’ we’ve been corralled into by these gross enactments of large peripheral, and in many in- stances acutely remote areas to the appreciation by our local communities? We in the northwest are not here to establish huge ‘comfort zones’ for the big urban centres. The public has a right ta know when large parks are created by government, how strongly they cor- relate to Native Treaty Negotiations and succumb- ing to lobby pressures from national and multi- national preservationist foundations, We in the northwest, reliant as we are on the natu- ral resources for our well being, are not here to es- tablish huge ‘comfort zones’ for the big urban centres in the South, States-side and Europe who, through unchecked growth, have forgone any op- tions or flexibility in theirland planning. Cabinet needs to come clean on these massive pre-emptions and the whole process, from the top- down, urgently requires immediate public input and much greater transparency in provincial directives and motives. We are told that the boundaries for these vast areus of protection cannot be re-drawn, down-sized, altered or renegoliated in any way, so how pray tell do we circumvent this impasse to get small sites acknowledged and meaningfully conserved for the values at stake where we exceed the overall target of 12 per cent? . With next to nil manouevreability afforded us, your Community Resources Board is identifying a sampling of small areas (by no means all-inclusive) which through the Forest Practices Code, our forest district manager and our Resource Management Zone mapping could offer rigorous guidelines to resource developers while still facilitating near to full conservation of other site specific fcatures, values and settings, Contrary to the outright alienation of lands and resources, these sensitive areas would be designated for special management practices, likely of a lower developmental intensity, in and around ‘pocket’- sized wild or natural attributes to be conserved. Highly innovative, state-of-the-art technologies with skilled, ecologically sound worker initiatives would be encouraged and promoted as compatible activities in these zones. Critical to the integrity of these small sites are their linkage to other parks, conservancies, cor- ridors, old growth reserves, riparian leave-strips, and environmentally sensitive or inoperable areas, especially for key aspects of biodiversity, wildlife habitat and a range of recreational/visual experi- ences. ; For consideration of any moderately larger land bases in the South Kalum and Nass (North Kalum ) TSAs which have high composiles of non-timber values that need safeguarding, a window of op- portunity may exist by treating them as defacto ‘wilderncss conservancies’ as our community board maps and defines the strategic directions for their resource management zone designations. The Swan/Bear Lakes area in the northem perimeter of the Kispiox TSA is an excellent exam- ple how this kind of management regime can be a workable answer, as was first brought to our atten- tion at one of the Board’s Forestry Awareness Scminars — the spring of '94 by Rod J. Arnold. Here, a tolal resource/all values planning and in- ventory approach has becn taken for these water- Sheds. Cut-block layouts, hydrological, habitat and access concerns have been carefully assessed and engineered, while still conserving the natural beau- ly, recreation potentials and ecological functions of the forest, lakes, streams and wetlands. Similarly, important cultural, historical, ar- chacological and spiritual places resident to this area are maintained intact. This is the multiple accounts analysis that resource managers need to instill in all plans. Wilderness conservancies might be appropriate designations for the upper Exchamsiks, the Kitsum- kalum, headwaters of the Big and Little Wedeenes, the Cedar-Kitcen saddle, Through extra stringent stewardship for all Tesources on an equal footing and advances in adaplive management, we could ensure the best of both worlds — that of healthy and sustainable economies and ecosystems. Group outlines its protection guidelines LATE IN THE fall of last year, a sub-committee of the South Kalum Community Resources Board — Doug Webb, Norma Kerby, Jim Culp, Fred Philpot and Gerry Bloomer — met to come up with protected areas strategy goals within the Kaium Forest District for our Land and Resources Management Plan. Below, the interpretations that group came up with: 1. To protect an array of small undisturbed plant and animal ecosystems within the Fiordland, Hectate Lowlands, Kitimat and Nass Range ecosections for our region through local decision making and planning. 2, Create reserves of sufficient size, quality, and variant bio-geo- climatic location to ensure the survival and perpetuation of endangered or threatened or uncommon species within our region. 3, Set aside some exceptional and outstanding land and water bodies which encompass multiple wilderness recreation opportunities, special heritage and cultural siles endeared by our communities, stand-out geomorphologic features, micro-climate niches, places of superb wild- life viewing vantage points, acsthetically high valued viewscapes, or ideally places that can combine several values of the above. 4. These prospective designations would have some logical design _ continuity within the mosaic of other protected spaces eg. parks and recreational areas in the vicinity, ecological reserves, special manage- ment arcas, and be justifiable within the context of integrated resources management and working forest make-up of the Timber Supply Area, - §. Have the least withdrawal impacts, where possible, for other com- mercial resource values more intensely managed (ie. timber, fish, mincrals, farmlands, ulililies, transport, tourism, guiding, general recreation, access and thoughtfully planned manufacturing, industrial and settlement areas), -6. Engincered so as to inter-connect other critical wildlife and fish ‘habitat, riparian allowances, stream and lake-side leave strips, buffers for wind firmness and protective cover, old growth stands; so as to pro- vide 3D spatial movement and migration corridors for flight, land and water-bome mediums. 7. Offer fertile grounds for invaluable research and educational projects, recognizing our incomplete present understanding of the com- plex inter-woven relationships of life forms, nutrient cycles and gene pools. 8, Lend credence to and be consistent with Native values and con- cers respecting their belicfs in land and water features, natural ele- ments, life forms and spiritual properties. Where positive overlap can be: achieved between both general public and Native converns, the board to consider mutual reinforcement of above. 9, Contribute to regional biodiversity targets, natural succession slages, and viable specics’ populations for our large and small verte- brates, invertebrates, plants, microrganisms + both terrestrial & aquatic. 10, Facilitaie new employment initiatives in eco-tourism, wilderness skills, extended backcountry expeditionecring, life sciences education, and possibly low levels of agroforestry (controfled mushroom picking and wildcrafting) or strict quota selective fisheries. 11, Recognise our inherent public appreciation of the awe inspiring majesty and intrinsic mysteries of wild species set amongst pristine backdrops for their own right to exist as entities unto themselves, and within our communities’ collective consciousness. 12, Afford some longterm Bexibility for future management of the Kalum South L.R.M.P. and revisals thereof; while we work to develop clear, measureable sustainability indicators for our economies and the environment that would monitor our landscape goals; these reserves would provide benchmarks for gauging our progress to this end, SMALL IS just as valuable. So says a sub-committee of the Kalum South Community Resources Board. Preserving the Kit- lope (above) grabbed the headlines both here and abroad. But it also pushed the amount of protected land in this region above the provincial government's 12 per cent target. The board now wonders what effect that will have on its work. FROM A Protected Areas sub-commitee of South Kalum Community Resources Board, the following 39 short-listed interest sites were identified and briefly described to assist in the development of our land use plan . This sub-committee seeks readers’ input and responses to the following: X Foch/Miskatla/Giltoyees inlets, Fiord marine park on Douglas Channel (a Protected Areas Stategy study area); X Cedar River-Kiteen River headwaters, saddle and plateau at height of the land divide; X Red Canyon area in Upper Copper River (Northwest Steelhead Society of BC Class I steelhead angling conservatory); X Upper Beaver River (Kitsumkalum) SW-facing slopes, ridges and riparian bottomlands; a Lakelse River (1km wide corridor from the Lake to Skeena River, as per T.R.A.C. findings) a = South end Lakelse Lake riparian zone and near shore (B.C.Environment Section 12 and 13° eco-reserve proposal); a Kitimat River cast channel delta, estuary, intertidal eco- reserve and Haisla archacolugival sites; X Amoth Lake and Amoth Creek bowl! in the upper Ishkheenich drainage (consult with Nisga’a); a Sleeping Beauty, Mt, Paces, top-end Molyebdenum Creek (nature interpretive area); w Sockeye Creck flats/Cold Springs meadows, marshlands and riparian areas; _ a ‘Silver Basin’ SW-facing slopes sub-alpine bowl, near Mt.O’Brien in Legate Creek drainage; « Kieanza Lake to height of land, Treasure Mt. peak and drainage divide with Nogold Creck; X Kwinamuck Lake, bowl and feeder crecks on the north side of Lower Nass Valley (traditional use by Nisga’a); u Sand Lake marsh off Nass Hwy. and bogs, marshlands around Cedar Creek to Sterling Mountain; , = Kitselas Canyon/Peak (Class ‘A’ park proposal awaits decision from Parks Canada and Kitselas Band); a Maroon and Wesach Mis. SW-facing slopes, Maroon alpine bowl, tams, ridges and meadows; ; ee m Litle Oliver Creek north fork high alpine lakes and backcountry near Mt, Sir Robert; Hatchery (Granite) Creck above Hwy37 to height of land °- Gunsight Peak and Ridge; eae a Ml. Knauss. peak, integration into Fiddler Range (Seven Sisters Ventures & Gitksan enterprise); a Kasiks/Exchamsiks/Exstew confluences with Skeena and Skeena Island sites (consult Tsimshian) a Exchamsiks River upper valley to divide with Khutzeymatcen reserve (PAS study area); X Upper Kitimat River headwaters, tributary headwaters of Chist - Mt.Clore, Hunter and Davies Crecks; nw Kalum River Corridor small old growth forest reserves and sclect Kalum Canyon site boat launches . « Kitsumkalum (Beaver) River delta fan, riparian swamp and marshes at north end Kalum Lake; ; m Deep Creek (Terrace) community watershed reserve, interpretive centre and trails; ; a Seaskinnish Creek flais and bench cottonwoods, white spruce forests in Nass (consult Nisga’a); w Wilshom Island and Skeena River flats just downstream from Kitselas Canyon (recreation corridor); = Lower Williams Creek riparian corridor (Old Lakelse Rd, to Gauchy Beach recreation reserve); m Nass Islands sites (Canyon City to Greenville), Lower Nass River (consult Nisga'a); . w Upper Williams Creck headwaters above ecological reserve to height of land with Trapline Mtn. % Recreation pool campsite at Km 27 (bclow Clore junction) of Copper River - south-side access road; ; ; m Colo Flats recreation/interpretive trails, Lower Kitimat River's east bank climax forested flood plain; , X Big Weedeene and Little Weedene Rivers headwaters, sub-alpine to alpine abridgcs Gitnadoix Reserve; : = West Skeena Slopes, Steinhel and Carpenter Creeks selcct sites for special wildlife habital and wintering; uw Thunderbird Zone (Old Remo), Limestone Hills and Hellsgate Slough (as per TRAC findings); # Cecil Creek downstream of Hwy37 bridge west-side of Lower _ Kitimat (mall old growth forest reserve); . X Whatl Creck and Kitelse Lake community watershed reserve for Haisla of Kitamaat Village; ; ; a Jesse Lake/Creck/Falls.and estuary, on Kitimat Arm of Douglas Channel; : X Small marine foreshore and anchorage refuges of Kitsaway, Sue Chanicl, Gobcil Bay, Eagle Bay, Weewannee hot _ springs, Coste Rocks, Emsley Cove (Douglas Channnel and entrance to Gardiner Canal) X =a site outside, of overlaps with South Kalum T.S.A. in elther TFL # Lor TFL #41, nila tara em