Thank you IWTF members and Evergreen Alliance. This is a great start for IWTF.

Our watersheds are unprotected and over 35,000 people are dependent on clean, accessible drinking water - not to mention our crops and tourism. The South Okanagan-Similkameen has experienced the worst of floods and droughts created by the atmospheric river and heat dome. We don't hear from RDOS what is happening in our watersheds. Peachland has already experienced a watershed disaster, only Penticton has free clean drinking water (for the moment), and all other small towns are on water advisories. Who is the contact person for our area?

Following the May 11 decision by Justice E.M. Myers of BC Supreme Court, the Nuchatlaht First Nation released the following statement: Nuchatlaht celebrate finding of Aboriginal Title, will return to court to argue exact location May 12, 2023 The Nuchatlaht First Nation are celebrating a landmark finding of Aboriginal Title within their territory, but are left disappointed with the Court’s request to return to identify where exactly that Aboriginal Title is. Delivered May 11, 2023, this is the first trial court decision finding Aboriginal Title in British Columbia, and the first decision to apply the 2014 Supreme Court Tsilhqot’in ruling. This was also the first decision heard since British Columbia adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) in 2019. Justice Myers found that the Nuchatlaht have Aboriginal Title within their traditional territory, but declined to grant the entire Nuchatlaht claim area. Instead, the Court requested the parties return to argue over exact locations. Nuchatlaht were victorious on nearly every point at issue in the trial, pushing the state of the law forward. “With this victory Nuchatlaht hope to clear a path for others to follow” said the Nuchatlaht Tyee Hawiilth (Chief) Jordan Michael. In this case the court found that Nuchatlaht concepts of ownership exceeded the common law. “We need to take this victory and continue fighting for recognition of our rights” stated Nuchatlaht Councillor Mellissa Jack. Nuchatlaht plan to return before Justice Myers to identify the exact locations of Aboriginal Title. They will also apply to the B.C. Court of Appeal over the decision to decline awarding the entire claim area. We’re not going anywhere, we know what’s ours” said Nuchatlaht Councillor Erick Michael. “This isn’t just about Nuchatlaht, but about every First Nation.” “I would like to thank all the supporters who got us this far” said Nuchatlaht Councillor Archie Little. We couldn’t have won this victory without you, but we’re not finished fighting.” Read Justice Myers’ judgement: BC Suprem Court Decision 2023BCSC0804-Nuchalaht.pdf

Skene and Polanyi are right to warn Canadians about the logging industry's impact on climate stability. As their report notes, however, they too use "government's own underlying data". In BC, biogenic carbon emissions prematurely emitted to the atmosphere by logging don't even count in the government's assessment of provincial GHG emissions. Some of those biogenic emissions are recorded in the inventory, but they are not counted in the public reporting of provincial emissions. Worse, only about half of logging-related biogenic emissions are even recorded—those related to decomposition of forest products, as well as an estimate of emissions from slash pile burning. But much of the organic material killed by logging does not make it into the government's calculations. The Evergreen Alliance has developed a methodology for estimating all forest carbon emissions that are prematurely released to the atmosphere as a result of logging. As well, the liquidation of primary forests and the attempted replacement of those natural forests with managed forests will result in a significant decline in forest carbon sequestration capacity in BC. The impact of that loss of the ability of BC forests to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is slightly larger than the impact of BC's carbon emissions from fossil fuels. This report does not include that loss in its considerations. The upshot is that the impact on GHG emissions from BC's biogenic emissions plus the loss of carbon sequestration capacity alone are larger than the emissions from Canada's oil sands projects. This report is far too conservative in its estimation of the problem.

Thanks for that Martin!

You can keep track of timber supply reviews (TSR) and AAC determinations from this webpage: Timber Supply Review and Allowable Annual Cut - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca) - for ones that may be in progress, just click on TSA or TFL and look for ones that are 10 years old. There is also a link to past TSR and AAC determinations. Documents for the Sunshine Coast TSR are here: Sunshine Coast Timber Supply Area - Province of British Columbia (gov.bc.ca) The public discussion paper will have a contact to submit public comments to. The data package will describe the assumptions being made.

I have viewed this video and have found the following: 1. The new planning process is stated to be ~ 8+ years long. It is a very complex, convoluted, confusing and lengthy process. How can it be reviewed every 5 years when the first one won't be completed for 8-10 years? 2. What geographic areas will a FLP cover relative to current TSA boundaries? 3. How will the new FLPs relate to the current LUPs across BC, especially as these plans need mega updating and revisions? 4. How will a FLP address or consider other developments proposed or happening on the landscape (I.e. in the Boundary TSA the doubling of Big White Mtn ski area which will include 3 golf courses and the different but associated Powder Renegade Lodge and associated ski operation)? 5. Ditto other developments i.e. pipelines, mines, dams across BC etc. 6. The new Protected Area program with the goal of formally protecting 30% of BC by 2030 and 50% by 3050 must be appropriately considered in any Landscape level plans BEFORE they are developed especially before the TSR process happens. 7. The TSR AAC process must be revised to remove it's deficiencies and defects so that it appropriately and correctly accommodates the amalgamation of TFLs and TSAs or whatever area the new LUPs will cover. If the area covered by the TSR process also includes areas designated or likely to be designated as formally Protected Areas, appropriate deductions must be made for these areas. They cannot be ignored in this process as they currently are. How will the new AAC for the Landscape area be distributed among the TFL holders and the volume-based holders? 8. While small Community Forests, Woodlots and Woodland Licences will be excluded from LUPs will they also have to comply with the other planning processes (FOM, FOPs, Site Plans etc.)? What is a "small" Community Forest? I fail to see how such a planning regime can and/or will result in improved management for all of BC's natural resources.

Bill 23, passed by the BC Legislative Assembly on November 23, 2021, introduced Forest Landscape Planning to various forest-related legislation. It is still unclear what this new process entails or what it means for the interested public. Yves Mayrand has written a critical overview of what the new legislation contains. But how "forest landscape plans" and "forest operations plans" will be created and how the public will be able to interact with the process is still vague, if not confusing. The BC Ministry of Forests held an online seminar about the process in June 2022 called "Transitioning to Forest Landscape Planning and Alignment with DRIPA". The seminar was aimed at forest professionals, but for anyone wondering what this new direction means for public interaction with forest planning in BC, the video below contains some hints. For one thing, the new planning process will require licensees to post their plans on a government website, and the public will have access to the information as soon as it is posted. Please let us know what you think of this new direction by the ministry.

The Forest Practices Board responded to this complaint—sent by email on April 4—on April 13 with the letter below, sent to the logging companies named in the complaint and copied to me. I will update this page as the Forest Practices Board proceeds. From the Forest Practices Board: File: 97250-20 / 23021 April 13, 2023 VIA EMAIL Aaron Racher, General Manager Operations TimberWest Forest Corp. David Younger, Younger Brothers Holdings Woodlot 2032 Chantal Blumel, Okisollo Resources Ltd. Leslie Fettes, District Manager Campbell River Natural Resource District Re: Notification of Complaint – Logging of old forest on Quadra Island Dear Participants: On April 5, 2023, the Forest Practices Board (the Board) received a complaint from David Broadland on behalf of the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project (the complainant). TimberWest (Tree Farm License 47), Okisollo Resources Ltd. (Woodlot 2031), and Younger Brothers Holdings (Woodlot 2032) are named in the complaint. On Quadra Island, the complainant has identified approximately 655 hectares of old forest which it estimates to be 4 percent of the Crown forested land base. The complainant believes that the failure to complete landscape-level planning and to spatially designate old growth management areas, combined with government’s decision to establish or expand 11 woodlots in Special Management Zone 19, has put the remaining old forest at risk of being logged or degraded. The complainant believes that the three licensees named above continue to log old forest on the island. A summary of the complaint relevant to each licensee appears below. The complete complaint is attached for reference. TimberWest • TimberWest is degrading small patches of old forest in TFL 47. • TimberWest has no effective strategy to meet the old seral stage targets implied by the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan Higher Level Plan Order. • TimberWest is not abiding by the strategies recommended by the Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan for managing concentrations of veteran trees. • TimberWest’s strategy for sustaining forest ecosystem structure and function within cutblocks is ineffective because it doesn’t retain forest within cutblocks. Okisollo Resources Ltd. • Okisollo Resources Ltd. is logging old forest despite stating in its woodlot licence plan (WLP) that it would retain existing old forest, even “scattered small patches of old forest.” Younger Brothers Holdings • Younger Brothers Holdings is logging old forest for roads and degrading old forest by removing trees 250 years old and younger. • Younger Brothers Holdings made substantive changes to its woodlot licence plan in 2019 concerning old forest reserves without any written communication with the ministry about a major amendment to the plan. The complainant believes that urgent action is required to conserve all remaining old forest to protect biodiversity and other values. For relief, the complainant requests that the Forest Practices Board determine the most effective approach to conserving the remaining old forest on Quadra Island. The Board must deal with public complaints about a party’s compliance with Parts 2-5 and 11 of the Forest and Range Practices Act. The Board does not represent the complainant, rather it acts as an independent third party. It is possible that after initial investigation, certain aspects of this complaint fall outside the jurisdiction of the Board. More information on the Board’s complaint investigation process is available here. I would like to emphasize that the Board is interested in resolving complaints wherever possible, and I would appreciate any suggestions you might have to that end. I will be contacting you soon to begin investigating this complaint. If you have any immediate questions or concerns please contact me at (contact information removed). Yours sincerely, Tracy Andrews, RPF Manager of Audits and Investigations CC: David Broadland, Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project Attachment