On June 11, 2013 Spray Lake Sawmills hosted a worshop.  The two primary objectives of the workshop were to discuss strategies for planning in a multiple use zoned area and secondly to hear some feedback on the harvest plans that have been underway in the area west of the community of Bragg Creek.  Spray Lake Sawmills would like to thank everyone who came out and graciously volunteered their time to work with us on these important issues.  The minutes from these proceedings are attached below.

SLS Mixed Use Forest Management Workshop

Forest Harvest Plan – West Bragg Creek

June 11, 2013

Draft Summary

Opening Remarks – Gord Lehn

Introduction – why we are here…focus on how to manage in a mixed use and multiple use management manner.

Will review the plans for the upcoming year.

Holistic approach to forest management.

Regional plan will provide some higher level zoning.

We want feedback.

This year west containment line

A few givens…zoning is given to SLS. SLS has a mandate under the FMA to manage the landbase

Bragg Creek has a high wildfire risk….Fire SMART

Historically separate plans….now interested eliminating the number of silos

Multiple use means a balancing act

A facilitated process tonight

Previous feedback…some liked open houses…some wanted the session in Bragg Creek and/or Calgary

SLS Staff here to listen…answer questions.

Meeting Expectations

List of Attendees – Organization/Affiliation (Meeting Expectations):

● Dwight Wolfe – Tesera Systems Inc (Process Facilitator)

● Bruce MacArthur – Tesera Systems Inc (Scribe)

● Rob Mueller – Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (Observer)

● Greg Potter – West Bragg Creek Resident (Interest in what others in other regions are doing and what could be used here…in terms of engagement processes and management approaches. Wants to see management practices that are compatible with recreation).

● Katie Morrison – CPAWS (interested in how this process moves forward, and how ecological and social objectives are incorporated into the Management Plan,)

● Hillary Young – CPAWS (contractor to CPAWS…also interested in how this process moves forward)


● Gaynor Hoyne – Bragg Creek Resident (interested in logging plans…understand area is larger than previously…how will impact of what has been said is incorporated into the plan…how are peoples’ concerns incorporated into the logging plan)

● Mary Young – Rancher (concerned about grazing leases and effects of logging…family lived in the area since 1940 horse riding)

● Margaret Roberts – Calgary Running Club (recreation concerns…impacts accuracy of existing orienteering maps – need to be update.)

● Corbin Munroe – Rancher (concerns about impacts on grazing lease)

● Maureen Munroe – Rancher (concerns if the natural grazing barriers will be logged, use of fencing)

● Norma Posada, P Eng. – City of Calgary (interested in watershed values)

● Tony Daffern – Kananaskis Trails (interested in recreational trails)

● Gillean Daffern – Kananaskis Trails (interest in how logging affects official trails or unofficial (local trails)).

● Clint Docken – Bragg Creek Resident (representative on Bragg Creek Fire Smart Committee…concerned about ongoing logging and rationale of fire smart justification)

● Ralph Carter – Bragg Creek Environmental Coalition (wants to see how the ideas and concerns are being incorporated into the logging plans – interested in a public vetting of the science – wants to see this type of forum held in Bragg Creek explaining to residents what SLS plans on doing)

● Jessica Peter – Bragg Creek Resident (interested in where the logging is going to happen)

● Shaun Peter – Bragg Creek Resident (concerned that the public responses have not been incorporated in the logging plans…want to see application of lessons learned in other areas)

● Dave Taylor – Bragg Creek Resident (skeptical of these types of public processes)

● Dave Sparks – Bragg Creek Resident (hiker and horseback rider…concerned about the level of logging in the last decade – seen horse trails ruined…wants to see a balanced approach)

● Dave Clarke – ? (recreation interests)

● Mark Bennett – Bow River Basin Council

● Peter Faloon – Bragg Creek Resident

● Greg Neale – Sundre Forest Products (interested in learning more about SLS logging plan)

● Tom Daniels – Sundre Forest Products

● Rick ? – The County News

● Enrique Massot – The County News

● Alvise Doglioni – Folk Tree Lodge

● Ed Kulscar – Spray Lake Sawmills

● Gord Lehn – Spray Lake Sawmills

● Rob Berndt – Spray Lake Sawmills

● Jordan Dyck – Spray Lake Sawmills

● Murray Smith – Spray Lake Sawmills

● Jason Mogilefsky – Spray Lake Sawmills


● Bryan Hennessey – Spray Lake Sawmills

Recap of Bragg Creek activities that took place last winter

Murray Smith 7:20pm – Operations Supervisor…Presentation on Logging Plan and Forest Practices

– tasked with implementing the logging plan

– #1 issue is safety – solicited feedback throughout the harvesting activities from the Greater Bragg Creek Trail Association (Bruce Barker for ski trails and Troy Delfs for summer trails) recreational uses…cross county skiing…trying to minimize risks to public users during active logging…had spotters looking out. Trail junction signs to advise of active logging. Maps and photographs of the harvesting activities were on display.

– Overview of environmental practices: leaving snags, buffers, 5m stubs, watercourse buffers and crossing…erosion control measures and actively cleaned culverts

– SLS Video 7:30pm

Next Plan for the West Containment Line in Bragg Creek

Jordan Dyck – provided a brief overview of last year’s logging plan and this year’s logging plan. Spatial harvest sequence maps were displayed…part of detailed forest management plan…areas identified as part of the spatial timber supply analysis.

West containment area West Bragg Creek (question on the logging plan – come back after presentation). Fire model scenarios blocks to reduce risk of fire threat. Since last year…looking at the operational aspects of the blocks…trying to avoid steep areas…added other areas to remove fuel source where possible…one of things SLS heard was to avoid logging trucks going through the Hamlet of Bragg Creek….Use of the Road network included a few additional blocks in the spatial harvest sequence.

265 ha AESRD

276 ha SLS Logging area

230 ha SLS additional area

– try to avoid logging until later in the year

– avoid weekend hauling

– 12 hour shifts

– 50 m buffers on recreation trails

7:55 pm end of Jordan’s presentation


Q. Shaun Peter: Where were the blocks that were dropped?

A. Jordan Dyck: (1) a flooded creek (2) others? ice flow

Q. Shaun Peter: Concern that the logging plan does not have much protection from winds from the SW.


Q. Ralph Cartar: wants to post the logic/rationale about why areas are an effective fire containment on the website…if statements

Q. Clint Docken: where are the historical cut blocks…add previous cut blocks on the maps?

Q. Dave Taylor: How much was removed in the past month…brown area 250 ha logged (east containment line) …do you plan to come back next year to the west containment area? – no – sept/oct prior to logging. Concern that there is only 3 months prior to the fall logging.

Q. Gaynor Hoyne – noted some positive aspects of the plan. Some other Bragg Creek Trail Committee have asked for 100m and yet SLS is proposing 50 m buffers

A. Jordan Dyck – 50 m buffers have been proposed but that is why SLS is here asking for input.

8:10 Breakout Groups (4 Break out groups) Question: What does mixed-use forest management mean to you and what should it look like on the ground?

Breakout Session

Breakout Group #1 (Jason)

● Questions about how Decision Making is done

● Regulations – Are they any good?

● Definition of Success?

● Selective logging, ski track logging breaks up sightlines. smaller cutblocks.

● Ground Rules

○ No buffers on ephemeral draws

○ Do we review water management plans prepared for watershed protection? Should there be a process in place to consider the recommendations of these plans in the Ground Rules.

○ How do we improve ground rules? Is there a process to review these rules with the provincial government?

○ Better buffers are needed on ephemeral draws and Intermittent streams.

○ What about Cumulative Effects? A cumulative impact assessment approach is needed to consider past logging activities and other land uses.

○ What about water quality monitoring? There are no water quality monitoring requirements as part of the Ground Rules. Is there an opportunity to include this requirement?

● Would like to see historic blocks on maps.

● Grazing was not mentioned at all during the presentation.

● Forestry takes away grass.

● Fences need to be built and we have to build them.


● If forestry is done they should burn all the debris, clean everything up and don’t leave a mess.

● Grass seed all the roads.

● There’s a huge impact on grazing. It’s disgusting.

● Two people didn’t get the email invite to the meeting.

● Prefers no logging, it’s ugly.

● SLS needs a landscape planner.

● What is success? What do we want? The rest will flow. Have third party decision maker (arms-length) make decisions (Finland example).

● A good collaborative process exists in Revelstoke, BC. Why does SLS want to butt heads with recreation users.

Summary – If you were going to practice mixed use what would it look like on the ground? Suggestion: try to find other areas that are doing selective logging well and try to apply it in Bragg Creek.

Breakout Group #2 (Rob):

● All uses on same piece of land at the same time cannot work, Need zoning and priority setting.

● Logging our forests for local use is ok, however, having products leave the local area is unacceptable. Local means Alberta.

● Forest management = Forest Renewal

○ Must elevate the uses of the land over a longer timeframe not just “point in time”. Mixed use can work over a longer period of time.

● Getting not only Stakeholder Groups meeting and consulting but also senior government officials and government agencies consulting.

● Mixed use management means that more than just industry wins.

● Required to test that the ground rules are meeting the objectives for the entire East Slopes and that practices are meeting environmental and social outcomes.

Summary – All uses on the same point won’t work…therefore need for zoning…forest management and forest renewal needs to be looked at over the longer term. Logging products used locally…Alberta. Are ground rules meeting higher level objectives.

Breakout Group # 3 (Jordan)

● A special designation for areas with high density of trails – require special consideration.

● Consider planned logging roads to be turned into trails.

● Consider aesthetics from the point of view of the trail users (hikers).

● Consider Allotment Boundaries

● Consider Cumulative Effects (Oil & Gas / Forestry)

● More transparent forest modelling.


Summary – More consideration for areas with higher density of trails…more consideration for placement of boundaries. Cumulative effects…

Breakout Group # 4 (Bryan):

● Look back at past experiences (Twenty-five years ago Bragg Creek had a collaborative approach that was effective from start to finish)

● Recreation and logging are the big issues, squeezing others out. Keep the focus on all values and uses.

● Evolve as things change.

● How many passes for each area? (2,3?)

● Forest Management

○ recognizing other values and how much use like recreation management around these values

○ Government management on public lands. More government involvement in public consultation.

● More communication between users.

● Provide draft maps for review through the process.

● More historical information.

● Look at other areas that have similar situations, where collaboration is working better.

● Results: ask, don’t tell.

Summary – Communication…looking at other areas and bringing best ideas back and incorporating into the logging plan. more listening and less telling public


Suggestion for window to provide additional comments – by end of next week by June 21st. Review draft and provide comments.

SLS…to recognize social licence which will make it easier


How values are being addressed in the plan?


Review of meeting expectations. Were they met.


– good first step

– good start….more questions

– happy to see what is planned…reserve judgement to see what impact comments have had


– opportunity for a collaborative participatory approach

– a lot of good ideas but a short amount of time to incorporate opportunities

– some want to go through more detail…Jordon offered to make an appointment at SLS and come in

– a good start but may be too late

– want to hear more from AESRD

– thank you for the meeting…but wanted to go away from the meeting with some maps – to out on the area ….quick links….will bring up the more detail

– want to see clearer maps for the lay person

– want another meeting in Bragg Creek…

– Gord Lehn…want to move the Company towards a more collaborative approach but it is slow moving.

– a good start but more input at the planning stage would be better

– feedback tonight was good

– applaud the approach but the overall process is flailing around…a good start and yet twelve months down the road not optimistic about progress – but again a good start.

– a multi-valued forest but hard to do at the end of the day.




SLS to circulate draft meeting summary to participants by email (Due: June 14)



Participants to review draft and provide comments by email (Due: June 21)



SLS to provide meeting evaluation along with the meeting summary and request that participants complete the evaluation (Due: June 21)

Closing Remarks – Gord Lehn

● Open to criticisms…healthy to hear from what others think.

● Want to close the loop and keep communication processes moving forward