Forest Minister

[David Broadland]

Being Forest Minister is one of BC’s most difficult jobs. How is the current minister doing?

[Guest Taryn Skalbania]

Interesting exchange between Minister of Forests Bruce Ralston and MLA Mike Morris on BC watersheds, ECAs, reports from FPB. loss of life, billions in infrastructure damage, and forest habitat loss.

 According to extension #0118 ECAs should only be 20-30% whether a community drinking watershed, fishery sensitive watershed or standard watershed yet watersheds Morris has studied have ECAs of 80%, and so far NONE of these forests have recovered hydrologically due to loss of canopy increasing floods, wildfires.

Morris asks Ralston if the Chief Forester is taking into account the new hydrology and old ECA calculations.... RALSTON CLAIMS 80% ECA IS THE NORMAL TARGET RATE, BUT IF THERE IS MPB INFESTATION, INDUSTRY IS ALLOWED AND NEEDS TO GO BEYOND AN 80% ECA!  GOVT & INDUSTRY CAN THEN JUST ADDRESS ANY NEGATIVE HYDROLOGICAL ISSUES.  Ralston then back paddles, he is inept, more so than EVEN Katrine Conroy, and does not deserve to earn a wage as Minister of Forests.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFCzHPzw2FWBE7mvFpfYKDXfehYWmzAX/view

[Guest Martin Watts]

Ralston did not seem to understand what he was talking about. I think he got confused and his “80% ECA” was supposed to be 80% retention.

 I seriously doubt the Ministry would allow an ECA of 80% as a target. The frustrating part is that the Forest Practices Code watershed assessment guidebook states that ECA on its own is meaningless and ECA should not be used as a management target.

 See page 25 (note that the hydrological recovery values have changed since this document was produced): Coastal watershed assessment procedure guidebook

[Guest Len Vanderstar]

Gov’t methodology has/should be using three key indicators when assessing watershed hydrological integrity: 

1. Peak Flow Sensitivity (PFS)…of which also generally equates to low flow sensitivity;

2. Riparian Functionality;

3. Sediment Transfer.

In practice, if one manages PFS at a low risk, then riparian functionality and sediment transfer are not an issue if best management practices are being applied with respect to road construction and maintenance, and riparian management practices. What I have found, is that most "forest developed” watersheds are now in moderate to high to very high risk categories of Peak Flow Sensitivity Risk based on individual watershed assessments that thoroughly consider their geomorphology and geography, among other factors. I use ECAs as “triggers" for defining a given PFS risk category, and each watershed has its own unique triggers since they are all individually different. 

Also, when indicators are applied properly, I have found that when a watershed approaches 20 to 30 % ECA, red flags go up, and in most cases, the watershed has entered a moderate to high risk PFS. This is in major contrast to what the government is generally stating. Case in point, check out the work that Ron Saimoto and I did on the Skeena Maps Portal for examples (I can walk anyone through this if you desire):

https://maps.skeenasalmon.info/maps/702

https://maps.skeenasalmon.info/maps/672

….oh yes, let’s not forget about the wild salmon indicators as well such as the number of road crossings and road density

[Guest Taryn Skalbania]

If the left hand does not even know what the right hand is doing or can even understand it, how can they even wipe their own butts? Embarrassing beyond belief, agree this needs to be a focus and mentioned at every opportunity: ''The frustrating part is that the FPC watershed assessment guidebook states that ECA on its own is meaningless and ECA should not be used as a management target.''

[Deane Rimerman]

42 minutes ago, Guest Taryn Skalbania said:

If the left hand does not even know what the right hand is doing or can even understand it, how can they even wipe their own butts? Embarrassing beyond belief, agree this needs to be a focus and mentioned at every opportunity: ''The frustrating part is that the FPC watershed assessment guidebook states that ECA on its own is meaningless and ECA should not be used as a management target.''

Totally agree Taryn... It's hard to get much detail about how MOF works on the daily from down here south of the border, but how could this job as minister be difficult when the only thing it does is delay and obstruct environmental issues in order to put almost zero limits on the loggers who have the licenses already in hand for years to come? 

As a viewer from far away it seems like the same thing that the ministry of fisheries was doing to prevent the end of net pen farming by deliberately lying and obstructing the environmental claims until Alexandra Morton and others finally wore them down and exposed so many of their false claims that they finally made progress in getting these salmon parasite production facilities shut down. 

As in, I don't see why these are difficult jobs? Listening to both sides and honestly addressing the concerns and needs of everyone with a legally valid process is definitely a difficult job, but blindly ignoring one side and parroting the industry's bullet points on the other... That's hardly even a job, that's just being a bully who's past hasn't caught up to them yet. 

[David Broadland]

Here's the first 10 minutes or so of the video Taryn linked to. Morris is always interesting to listen to.