1 / 13

Indicator 6.5.B

Indicator 6.5.B. Herbicide Use on DFA. Indicator 6.5.B - Workshop Discussion. Indicator Review & Forecast Why do we perform brushing treatments? Review of current Pest Management Plan Preventative Measures Herbicide decision process Where does WFP stand on herbicide use? Next steps….

demi
Télécharger la présentation

Indicator 6.5.B

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Indicator 6.5.B Herbicide Use on DFA

  2. Indicator 6.5.B - Workshop Discussion • Indicator Review & Forecast • Why do we perform brushing treatments? • Review of current Pest Management Plan • Preventative Measures • Herbicide decision process • Where does WFP stand on herbicide use? • Next steps…

  3. Indicator 6.5.B - Target & Justification History This indicator and target are carried forward from the 2009 SFM Plan (Indicator 36). Justification This indicator tracks the amount of brushing that is done on the DFA in order to meet our free growing obligations. WFP’s intention is to minimize the use of herbicides. This indicator will track both herbicide and manual brush treatments to measure what proportion of the brushing program utilizes herbicides.

  4. Indicator 6.5.B – Current Status & Forecast • Minimal ground foliar herbicide use • 3 fold increase in total ha’s brushed last 4 years due to change in harvest profile from OG to second growth • Indicator target based on previous 5-year average that is not representative of current harvest profile

  5. MIFO Recent Harvest Profile • Since 2008, increase of second growth harvest on most productive sites • 2005 and earlier, second growth less than 10% of harvest area • Forecast brushing treatments going forward equal to 300-400 ha per year

  6. Why do we brush? • To reduce forest vegetation in competition with young trees (crop trees) for light, water, nutrients, and growing space • Maximize crop yields to maintain AAC • Species crop selection for value • Meet legal regeneration requirements

  7. Pest Management Plan • A Pest Management Plan (PMP) is a program for managing pests or reducing the damage caused by pests, and the methods involved in handling and using pesticides • PMP contains: • Area, Operating Zones, parties responsible for plan • Description of the Integrated Pest Management Elements • Info on Operational considerations • The Environmental Protection Considerations • List of Pesticides and other chemicals that may be used in the plan area • There is a review and comment period for the PMP; all comments received will be reviewed and considered during approval process

  8. Pest Management Plan • Plan expires end 2014 - currently in process of creating new 5-year PMP • Currently 4 Operating Zones • Environmental Protection – minimum 10m Pesticide Free Zone (PFZ) adjacent to any stream, lake, wetland, ditches connected to fish • Guiding principle in PMP is Integrated Pest Management - using both preventative and direct methods of pest control

  9. Preventative Methods Used • Identify potential high competing brush sites at Site Plan stage prior to harvest • Plant brush sites as soon as possible post harvest • Use large plant stock for high brush sites • Use fertilizer at time of plant for high brush sites • Use browse resistant species where possible to help prevent crop failures and the need to complete re-plants, and help minimizing regen delay • Manage for Alder where high brush hazard and ecologically suitable • Initial plant Alder • Convert failed plantations to alder where it is appropriate • Continual monitoring of brush sites through surveys and walk-throughs • Retaining cottonwood as individual leave trees rather than cutting down and leaving wherever safe to do so • Tree protection with cones – helps prevent crop failures and acts as green house for seedlings

  10. Herbicide Decision Process • At monitoring stage; key decision whether area requires brushing or not • Will the brush out compete the desired crop trees? • Identify area, timing, competition species • Should or can area be converted from conifer to alder management? • Brushing required – what are treatment options… • Manual • Herbicide – basal or foliar • ChontrolPeate Paste (not yet commercially used on coast; trial on DFA from 2011)

  11. Herbicide Decision Process • Brushing treatment considerations • Worker safety • Environmental impacts • Operating Zone • Treatment costs • Treatment efficacy • Public comments • Vegetation & conifer characteristics – species, size, density

  12. Where does WFP stand on herbicide use? • Necessary management tool needed as part of Integrated Resource Management • Recognizes sensitivities towards the use of herbicides by certain individuals and stakeholder groups • Depends on Resource Professionals to monitor and make prescriptions based on site specific findings and results

  13. Next steps… • Field trip with MIFLAG looking at different brushing treatments • Get involved at public review process of PMP • Further discussion at next meeting - how we move forward with Indicator 6.5.B? • Revise target • Add variance • Revise indicator • Leave as is, and wait until 2015 to review

More Related