Mr. Gaby Fortin, Director
General, Parks Canada's western region, chaired the meeting
which was intended as an information meeting with the primary
focus being on the science issues related to the spruce
budworm. Attendees included members of the Community Council,
two representatives each of the permanent residents and
SOS, and several local Parks Canada staff, headed by Superintendent
Morin. Senator Herb Sparrow from North Battleford also attended
on his own initiative.
Speakers included Joe Meating,
Bio-Forest; Jan Volney, Canadian Forest Service; Rory McIntosh
and Al Willcocks, SERM; and Jeff Weir, local Parks Canada
warden.
Mr. Fortin opened the meeting
to assure all present that all options would be considered
and stated that several basic principles were important.
In particular, the legitimate presence of communities within
national parks is recognized within limits established in
the 1990s and ecological integrity is a national parks goal,
not always attainable in communities. He stated the process
used to arrive at a decision should leave everyone satisfied
and that open access to information should be the order
of the day.
The presentations, made over 21/2 hours
included the following:
-
Forests devastated by
the budworm have hot, highly explosive, and fast traveling
fires
-
PANP forest is highly
infected as measured by test plots; the townsite is in
better shape but deteriorating
-
Trees are starting to
die and mortality will increase. Some trees already dead
in the townsite; others are top dead, i.e. the top leads
and branches have died
-
Meating: Four options
- Do nothing; pre-harvest trees (expensive and destructive);
pressure washing trees - indiscrimate - knocks everything
off the trees; aerial spraying and long term management
- the only real option to save the trees. Does not
agree with Parks Canada position
-
Meating: Parks Canada
can choose to manage the budworm or enter into crisis
management and have the budworm manage the forest over
the next 10 years. The budworm has its own vegetation
management plan.
-
BtK is safe, environmentally
acceptable; widely used; approved for drinking water systems;
biodegradable; and does not require buffers around water
bodies.
-
BtK applications used
in Vancouver, Victoria, Auckland, NZ and many other communities
without negative impacts and no health problems
-
Meating: - Need to assess
tree condition; count Spruce budworm populations; specify
treatments; monitor forest health; and develop long term
management plan
-
Volney - introduced BtK
to Saskatchewan in 1993; considerable experience in budworm
-
Volney- introduced highly
technical data dealing with forestation in natural settings;
forests are dynamic systems; trees are not permanent
-
Volney- low temperatures
do not affect SBW populations; lay 200 eggs per season
- only need one male and one female to survive to maintain
population
-
Volney - SBW cause more
damage than consume - 65% defoliage is typical; about
a 35 year cycle; predicting mortality is a big problem
- can be very high or moderate
-
Volney - spraying has
to be precise - done at the right time - or will not be
effective. New Green Growth is much better in sprayed
trees
-
Volney - one other option
to spraying is to change the structure of the forest through
selective cutting and changing tree mix.
-
McIntosh - very severe
outbreak- PANP at the epicenter - biggest outbreak in
the country; Large expense to control - over 800,000 hectares
in Saskatchewan forest; treat provincial parks (Duck Mountain
and Greenwater) and help communities with programs
-
McIntosh -Bt spraying
reduces defoliation by 50%; gives protection to trees;
and reduces collateral damage due to drought or other
causes
-
McIntosh - Bt is a benign
product and requires no Environmental Assessment in the
provincial program
-
McIntosh - deep concern
that PANP is the source of the SBW dispersing into Saskatchewan
forests; very deeply concerned about fire hazards.
-
Willcocks - province
is very deeply concerned about the PANP forest management;
province has spent $80 million fighting forest fires this
year and is concerned about the tinder box being created
in PANP; bigger issue that just Waskesiu but part of same
problem
-
Willcocks - issue is
way beyond aesthetics - very concerned about the PANP
forest. Fortin said he shared the same concern.
-
Willcocks - specifically
stated that SERM does not support the Parks Canada no-spraying
position
-
Weir - the last major
Waskesiu forest fire was in 1919 with vegetation established
after that
-
Weir - assumed a 20 year
mortality time table and projected forest composition
in 2002. (Was challenged by several others on this assumption
but time did not permit a full discussion. For example,
Meating stated that one-third of the trees would likely
die in 5-6 years; and one-third would be top dead by that
time. McIntosh also objected to 20 year assumption as
did Al Ross)
-
Weir - argued for a vegetation
management plan but does not advocate spraying
Mr. Fortin closed the meeting
at 4:40 by referring to the mandate under the National Parks
Act, concept of ecological integrity and stating that the
current policy applies to all national parks. He indicated
that Parks Canada did not want to manipulate ecosystems and
their goal was not to use pesticides. He indicated that it
was not useful to dialogue in the media as it was not the
best way to resolve the issue. (Note: The writer advised Mr.
Fortin that we were driven there as a last resort because
no one in Parks Canada was listening). He indicated more ongoing
dialogue was necessary but that a decision on the spraying
would not be made until November.
Mr. Fortin fielded several questions about budgets to deal
with the problem; perceived biases in PANP information; and
timetables to be met before proceeding with a spraying program.
He offered no information about those questions, except to
take them under advisement.
Observations - The writer
tired to capture the essence of the meeting. Some technical
information was beyond the writer's understanding. Undoubtedly,
many other points could have been included. As a caution,
readers should know that the writer is not unbiased in this
debate; he is the co-coordinator of the SOS Committee.
The writer is certain about
the following: If the goal is to save the spruce trees in
the Waskesiu townsite, approximating 1% of the total Park
area, the only viable option identified in this meeting is
to conduct an aerial spraying program to reduce, not eliminate,
the spruce budworm, to be followed by a vegetation management
plan that has community buy-in. Bio-Forest and SERM are in
full agreement on this issue.
The information presented on
BtK was unchallenged. It is an environmentally acceptable
and effective product that gives the trees a chance to survive
a severe infestation. It has been used in urban centers as
well as natural forests without negative impacts. There was
no science presented that contradicted the use of BtK .
The writer was disappointed
with the outcome of the meeting. The information presented
supported the SOS position, except for the Weir presentation
challenged by the experts there. I had hoped that we could
have moved forward from considering if spraying budworm would
be done to addressing the development of a plan to deal with
this crisis successfully. We are not there yet - regrettably.
The evidence is overwhelming but Parks Canada still refuses
to acknowledge it in a serious way. What will it take?
The delay in the timing of
a decision to November from an earlier date projected by Mr.
Fortin to be mid-September unnecessarily prolongs the debate
and is cause for concern.
Prepared by: Herve
Langlois
August 30, 2002
|
