Jump to content

David Broadland

Administrators
  • Posts

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Events

Journalism: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of forest-related employment

Journalism: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Journalism: Loss of primary forest

Journalism: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Other notable forest-related writing and reports

Noteworthy writing and reports from the forest-industrial complex

Forest News

Library: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Loss of primary forest

Library: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Make conservation of the hydrological function of forests a higher priority than timber extraction

Library: Loss of forest-related employment

Library: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Transition from clearcut logging to selection logging

Library: Increase in forest fire hazard

Journalism: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Journalism: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Library: Creating a new vision for BC forests

Forest industry public subsidy calculator

Manufacturing and processing facilities

Forest Trends

Investigations

Community Forest Mapping Projects

Area-based calculations of carbon released from clearcut logging

Journalism: The increase in forest carbon emissions

Library: Increase in forest carbon emissions

To protect biodiversity, transition away from clearcut logging

Peachland Watershed Protection Alliance

Library: Loss of future employment resulting from exporting raw logs

Mapping old forest on Vancouver Island

Mapping old forest in Omineca Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Skeena Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Northeastern Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Cariboo Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in South Coast Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Thompson-Okanagan Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Kootenay-Boundary Natural Resource Region

Forest Conservation Organizations

Mapping old forest on Haida Gwaii

Mapping old forest on the central coast

Library: Ecologically damaging practices

Journalism: Ecologically damaging practices

Critical Issues

Analysis

Comment

Listed species: Cascades Natural Resource District

Listed species: 100 Mile House Natural Resource District

Listed species: Campbell River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Cariboo-Chilcotin Natural Resource District

Listed species: Chilliwack River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Fort Nelson Natural Resource District

Listed species: Haida Gwaii Natural Resource District

Listed species: Mackenzie Natural Resource District

Listed species: Nadina Natural Resource District

Listed species: North Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Peace Natural Resource District

Listed species: Prince George Natural Resource District

Listed species: Quesnel Natural Resource District

Listed species: Rocky Mountain Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sea-to-Sky Natural Resource District

Listed species: Selkirk Natural Resource District

Listed species: Skeena Natural Resource District

Listed species: South Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Stuart-Nechako Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sunshine Coast Natural Resource District

Listed species: Thompson Rivers Natural Resource District

Listed species: Coast Mountains Natural Resource District

Action Group: Divestment from forest-removal companies

Fact-checking mindustry myths

First Nations Agreements

Monitor: BC Timber Sales Auctions

BC Timber Sales auction of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island

Monitoring of forest fires in clearcuts and plantations: 2021

Library: End public subsidization of forest industry

Examples of engaging the mindustry:

Portal: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Portal: The need to expedite treaties with First Nations

Portal: The need to get more organized, informed and inspired for change

Portal: Develop a new relationship with forests

Portal: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Portal: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Portal: Increase in forest fire hazard

Portal: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Portal: Increase in forest carbon emissions

Portal: Ecologically damaging forestry practices

Portal: Loss of forest-related employment

Portal: Loss of future employment resulting from raw log exports

Portal: Costs of floods, fires and clearcutting of watersheds

Portal: The economic impact on communities of boom and bust cycles

Portal: Loss of economic development by other forest-based sectors

Portal: The true cost of subsidies provided to the logging industry

Help

Loss of trust in institutions

Portal: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Portal: The psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Portal: Loss of trust in institutions caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Journalism: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Journalism: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Journalism: Loss in trust of institutions as a result of over-exploitation of BC forests

Journalism: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Library: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Library: Loss of trust in institutions as a result of over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Resources: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Resources: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Resources: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Journalism: Cost of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

Journalism: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Journalism: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Library: Cost of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

Library: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Library: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Portal: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Portal: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Journalism: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Library: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Journalism: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Library: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Resources: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Resources: Ecologically damaging forestry practices

Resources: Conversion of forests to permanent logging roads

Library: Getting organized

Journalism: Getting organized

Forest politics

Forest Stewards

Portal: Plantation failure

Library: Plantation failure

Journalism: Plantation failure

Library: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Portal: Soil loss and damage

Journalism: Soil loss and damage

Library: Soil loss and damage

Resources: Soil loss and damage

Journalism: Loss of employment resulting from export of raw logs

Journalism: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Journalism: Increase in forest fire hazard

Action Group: Sunlighting professional reliance

Making the case for much greater conservation of BC forests

Science Alliance for Forestry Transformation

Bearing witness:

Economic State of the BC Forest Sector

Big tree mapping and monitoring

Reported Elsewhere

Protect more

Start a forest conservation project

Get involved

Article reference pages

Physical impacts created by logging industry

Nature Directed Stewardship at Glade and Laird watersheds

References for: How did 22 TFLs in BC evade legal old-growth management areas?

References for: BC's triangle of fire: More than just climate change

References for: Teal Cedar goes after Fairy Creek leaders

References for: Is the draft framework on biodiversity and ecosystem health something new? Or just more talk and log?

IWTF events, articles and videos

Store

Downloads

Everything posted by David Broadland

  1. Hi Yudel, All great points. Thanks for making them. Many countries count the carbon emissions from forest loss as part of their national inventory of emissions. As you probably know, Canada opted out of doing this when it signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. But the international convention is to calculate all forest carbon emissions as though they occurred on the date a tree was cut. If that wasn’t done, then there would be no accountability for the eventual emissions from the parts of forest biomass that are slower to decay, like roots. The stumps and roots of trees cut on Vancouver Island in the 1900s are still decaying, but no one is counting those emissions. There are a whole lot of forest carbon emissions from old logging in BC that will never be counted, including in my own calculation of a carbon subsidy. Climate and forest scientists have discounted the idea that manufactured wood products store large quantities of carbon for long periods of time. The BC ministry of forests' own research shows that manufactured wood products—from wood pellets for burning, to paper and even more durable building materials—have a relatively short life span and storage capacity compared with the life span and storage capacity of the forests those products came from. The ministry’s graph below shows the short-term nature of those products: Why is “woody debris” counted? In the photograph below, taken by TJ Watt in the Klanawa Valley area of Vancouver Island, a lot of the material piled for burning is “woody debris”. A much more rapid release of emissions is produced by burning such dead structural elements than would have occurred by slow decomposition in a natural forest. In a natural forest, those elements would also have retained large quantities of water over many years, making those forests more resistant to intense burning by forest fires. Removing them effectively insures the plantation that follows will have a greater risk of being burned by a forest fire. I think your perception that logging slash is not piled and burned anymore may be coming via the forest-industrial complex. This perception is not based on reality, and as more and more second-growth forests are logged, and rotation periods shorten, a higher percentage of the logged biomass will be un-utilizable and will be burned in a slash pile. For almost all logging in BC, logging companies are required by forest regulations to mitigate fire hazard by piling and burning the immense quantities of above-ground slash they create. If they didn’t do this, forest fires in BC would be an even larger problem than they are. The photo below shows a second-growth slash pile on Quadra Island, piled in 2021 by TimberWest. It, and the other 11 piles in a 5-hectare clearcut, has been piled to be burned, most likely this fall. There are currently attempts to create a new business that removes “logging residuals” and turns them into pellets for thermal energy. But right now only a small percentage of logging slash is removed for such purposes. The incipient pellet industry appears to need to grind up whole trees, including primary forest—and to receive public subsidies for doing that—to be economically viable. The energy produced from wood pellets is even dirtier than burning coal, according to scientists.
  2. Hi Yudel, All great points. Thanks for making them. Many countries count the carbon emissions from forest loss as part of their national inventory of emissions. As you probably know, Canada opted out of doing this when it signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. But the international convention is to calculate all forest carbon emissions as though they occurred on the date a tree was cut. If that wasn’t done, then there would be no accountability for the eventual emissions from the parts of forest biomass that are slower to decay, like roots. The stumps and roots of trees cut on Vancouver Island in the 1900s are still decaying, but no one is counting those emissions. There are a whole lot of forest carbon emissions from old logging in BC that will never be counted, including in my own calculation of a carbon subsidy. Climate and forest scientists have discounted the idea that manufactured wood products store large quantities of carbon for long periods of time. The BC ministry of forests' own research shows that manufactured wood products—from wood pellets for burning, to paper and even more durable building materials—have a relatively short life span and storage capacity compared with the life span and storage capacity of the forests those products came from. The ministry’s graph below shows the short-term nature of those products: Why is “woody debris” counted? In the photograph below, taken by TJ Watt in the Klanawa Valley area of Vancouver Island, a lot of the material piled for burning is “woody debris”. A much more rapid release of emissions is produced by burning such dead structural elements than would have occurred by slow decomposition in a natural forest. In a natural forest, those elements would also have retained large quantities of water over many years, making those forests more resistant to intense burning by forest fires. Removing them effectively insures the plantation that follows will have a greater risk of being burned by a forest fire. I think your perception that logging slash is not piled and burned anymore may be coming via the forest-industrial complex. This perception is not based on reality, and as more and more second-growth forests are logged, and rotation periods shorten, a higher percentage of the logged biomass will be un-utilizable and will be burned in a slash pile. For almost all logging in BC, logging companies are required by forest regulations to mitigate fire hazard by piling and burning the immense quantities of above-ground slash they create. If they didn’t do this, forest fires in BC would be an even larger problem than they are. The photo below shows a second-growth slash pile on Quadra Island, piled in 2021 by TimberWest. It, and the other 11 piles in a 5-hectare clearcut, has been piled to be burned, most likely this fall. There are currently attempts to create a new business that removes “logging residuals” and turns them into pellets for thermal energy. But right now only a small percentage of logging slash is removed for such purposes. The incipient pellet industry appears to need to grind up whole trees, including primary forest—and to receive public subsidies for doing that—to be economically viable. The energy produced from wood pellets is even dirtier than burning coal, according to scientists.
  3. Hi Yudel, All great points. Thanks for making them. Many countries count the carbon emissions from forest loss as part of their national inventory of emissions. As you probably know, Canada opted out of doing this when it signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. But the international convention is to calculate all forest carbon emissions as though they occurred on the date a tree was cut. If that wasn’t done, then there would be no accountability for the eventual emissions from the parts of forest biomass that are slower to decay, like roots. The stumps and roots of trees cut on Vancouver Island in the 1900s are still decaying, but no one is counting those emissions. There are a whole lot of forest carbon emissions from old logging in BC that will never be counted, including in my own calculation of a carbon subsidy. Climate and forest scientists have discounted the idea that manufactured wood products store large quantities of carbon for long periods of time. The BC ministry of forests' own research shows that manufactured wood products—from wood pellets for burning, to paper and even more durable building materials—have a relatively short life span and storage capacity compared with the life span and storage capacity of the forests those products came from. The ministry’s graph below shows the short-term nature of those products: Why is “woody debris” counted? In the photograph below, taken by TJ Watt in the Klanawa Valley area of Vancouver Island, a lot of the material piled for burning is “woody debris”. A much more rapid release of emissions is produced by burning such dead structural elements than would have occurred by slow decomposition in a natural forest. In a natural forest, those elements would also have retained large quantities of water over many years, making those forests more resistant to intense burning by forest fires. Removing them effectively insures the plantation that follows will have a greater risk of being burned by a forest fire. I think your perception that logging slash is not piled and burned anymore may be coming via the forest-industrial complex. This perception is not based on reality, and as more and more second-growth forests are logged, and rotation periods shorten, a higher percentage of the logged biomass will be un-utilizable and will be burned in a slash pile. For almost all logging in BC, logging companies are required by forest regulations to mitigate fire hazard by piling and burning the immense quantities of above-ground slash they create. If they didn’t do this, forest fires in BC would be an even larger problem than they are. The photo below shows a second-growth slash pile on Quadra Island, piled in 2021 by TimberWest. It, and the other 11 piles in a 5-hectare clearcut, has been piled to be burned, most likely this fall. There are currently attempts to create a new business that removes “logging residuals” and turns them into pellets for thermal energy. But right now only a small percentage of logging slash is removed for such purposes. The incipient pellet industry appears to need to grind up whole trees, including primary forest—and to receive public subsidies for doing that—to be economically viable. The energy produced from wood pellets is even dirtier than burning coal, according to scientists.
  4. A flawed Forest Practices Board investigation of logging of “old trees” at Hummingbird Lake on Quadra Island highlights the failure of 20-year-old land use planning that was supposed to resolve ongoing conflict between logging and conservation. IN JUNE 2022, the Forest Practices Board released an investigation report into a complaint about old trees being logged on a Quadra Island Woodlot Licence Program tenure. The investigation found that the tenure holder, Okisollo Resources, had complied with the legal requirements of its approved logging plan. The Board praised the logging company for “setting aside all of the existing old-growth stands by designating them as wildlife tree retention areas.” However, the investigation report contains serious factual errors, partly the result of the Board’s failure to ground-truth the descriptions of the forest and logging that were at issue. No investigators visited Quadra Island. Not the least among the errors was the Board’s assessment that Okisollo Resources had set aside “all of the existing old growth stands…” The report’s failings unintentionally highlight how thoroughly the landmark 2001 Vancouver Island Land Use Plan—which took nearly a decade to complete—has been circumvented by the Ministry of Forests. I contacted the Board and Okisollo Resources after the investigation report had been released. Because of the factual errors included in the report it’s difficult to make sense of the Board’s justification of its findings. So let’s begin with some facts I gathered even before a complaint was filed. Then we will compare that with what the Board says are the reasons for its findings. It just so happened that I had visited Hummingbird Lake with a drone in July 2018, one year before the logging took place. I returned again in July 2019 while the logging was taking place and a third time in June of 2020, after logging had been completed. Hummingbird Lake and surrounding forest in July 2018, as seen from a drone. On each visit, I photographed the area, both on the ground and using a drone for aerial views of the forest and lake. Over the past five years, as part of the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project, I have been surveying forests at dozens of locations on Quadra Island where it seems possible or likely that old-growth forest could be logged before it has been properly identified. Old forest at the peninsula on Hummingbird Lake. Okisollo Resources have reserved the right to log the old forest on the peninsula, yet claim to have reserved all existing old forest. On my 2018 visit, I could find no stumps or other evidence that would indicate the forest on the north side of Hummingbird Lake had ever been logged. The BC government’s record of road building in the province shows the north side of Hummingbird Lake had never been roaded before Okisollo Resources began logging in 2014. A forest fire in 1925 had lightly burned through the area, leaving the old trees intact. About 5 years after that fire, hemlock and fir began to grow back—naturally—between the big trees. All the evidence suggested that the north side of Hummingbird Lake was rare primary forest with big, old trees growing at a density that was at least equal to any other old forest I have surveyed on Quadra Island. The centre of the cutblock on the north side of Hummingbird Lake lies within half a kilometre of the boundaries of both Small Inlet Provincial Park and Octopus Islands Provincial Park. In other areas of the woodlot, Okisollo Resources has clear cut right to the edge of the parks. When I visited the logging operation in July 2019, roads had been built. There was a completed cutblock near the southwest corner of the lake where four old-growth Douglas firs still stood. Ten full-length tree trunks were lying beside the road into the second cutblock—all old-growth Douglas firs that had been removed to make way for the road. The new logging road built along the north side of Hummingbird Lake in July 2019. In a second cutblock on the north side of the lake, smaller-diameter hemlock and fir were in the process of being machine-felled (photo below). There were numerous large, old-growth Douglas firs and a few old cedars standing amongst the younger trees. It was unclear whether the dozens of old firs would be left standing or be felled. Every other tenure on Quadra Island leaves these big trees standing. I had never seen so many big trees in the middle of a Quadra Island logging operation. Okisollo Resources’ logging of old forest on the north side of Hummingbird Lake in July 2019. This photo, taken in 2020, shows the same area as in the photo above. I revisited the area in June 2020. Logging had been completed in the cutblock on the north side of Hummingbird Lake. Most of the old trees had been felled in both cutblocks. Along an edge of the northern cutblock, about 15 old vets still stood, testimony to the density of the grove that had just been cut. A line of old-growth Douglas fir vets was left along the edge of Okisollo Resource’s clearcut on the north side of Hummingbird Lake. I photographed the northern block where several large-diameter logs had been left beside the road. The growth rings of a recently live tree showed it had been 370 years old when it was cut. Several dead snags had also been cut and were stacked or scattered across the cutblock. This Douglas fir had 370 annual growth rings. To determine how many old firs had been logged in the northern cutblock, I searched for satellite images taken in mid-August 2019. The image below shows logging in progress in the second cutblock on August 15, 2019. At least 50 old-growth trees remained standing on this day. The smaller-diameter hemlock had all been cut, stacked and were being removed. The satellite image below was taken a few weeks later. Of the 50 old-growth trees that had been standing (see photo above), only 15 remained. In the cutblock at the southwest end of the lake, at least four old-growth firs that had been standing in the otherwise bare clearcut in July 2019 had been felled by mid-August. My photographs and notes, when combined with the satellite images, show that of approximately 64 old trees in the two cutblocks and the road, at least 50 were cut. The 3-hectare cutblock north of the lake had contained at least 55 live, old-growth trees and an unknown number of standing snags. The Ministry of Forests’ Harvest Billing System, which records the volume logged and the stumpage paid for trees cut on public land, shows that Okisollo Resources paid at most $3800 in stumpage for the 50-plus old-growth Douglas fir trees it felled in July and August of 2019. That’s roughly $76 per tree. That’s what actually happened at Hummingbird Lake in July and August of 2019. Now let’s return to the Forest Practices Board’s investigation report. The report gives the following chronological account of who did what and when they did it. The “complainant” was long-time Quadra Island resident Rod Burns: “In the spring of 2020, a Quadra Island resident (the complainant) noticed that old trees had been harvested in woodlot licence W2031. The complainant believed that the woodlot licensee was not permitted to harvest old trees, therefore filed a complaint with the Compliance and Enforcement Branch (CEB) of the Ministry of Forests in the spring of 2021. CEB looked into the matter and found that the licensee had harvested the old trees legally. When the complainant learned this, he filed a complaint with the Forest Practices Board on February 14, 2022, asserting that government enforcement was inappropriate.” Neither the Compliance and Enforcement Branch or the Forest Practices Board sent investigators to Quadra Island. Nevertheless, the Board released its investigation report in June 2022. From a drone, the areas of old forest on Hummingbird Mountain are easily visible. Since this photo was taken in 2020, additional logging has occurred. Hidden in plain sight: old-growth forest The Forest Practices Board found that 10 old trees had been cut and “the old trees were not set aside from logging. The licensee removed the trees to build a road and for safety reasons.” This was at odds with what I had seen. I asked Chris Oman, the Board’s director of investigations, how investigators had determined that old trees had only been cut “to build a road and for safety reasons.” After all, by the Board’s own admission, no investigator from either the Compliance and Enforcement Branch or the Forest Practices Board had even set foot on Quadra Island. As far as the Board knew, only 10 trees had been cut. How did the Board conclude that those 10 trees were cut “to build a road and for safety reasons”? Oman did not answer that question. But it would appear that investigators simply accepted Okisollo Resources’ assurance that this was the case. In response to questions I put to Chantal Blumel, a registered professional forester and a principal of Okisollo Resources, Ms Blumel stated: “We removed some of the old trees during the harvest of the second growth stands, for safety and access purposes.” There is no dispute that some old trees were removed for building the roads. Above, I estimated that at least 10 had been removed because they were in the way of the road. But was safety really an issue? The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation of BC’s Workers Compensation Act states: “If work in a forestry operation will expose a worker to a dangerous tree, the tree must be removed.” At the Hummingbird Lake cutblock, all of the smaller-diameter trees had already been removed several days before approximately 35 larger old-growth Douglas firs were felled. That can be seen in the satellite images. Those old trees did not have to be logged for either “safety” or “access” purposes. This apparent willingness of Forest Practices Board investigators to parrot the logging company’s position when it had no evidence to do so raises questions about the independent nature of the Board’s other findings. For example, consider the question of whether the 50 old trees that Okisollo Resources logged at Hummingbird Lake were under any existing protection from logging as a result of the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan, as Burns had believed. This is a difficult and complex question, one that the Forest Practices Board addressed superficially, but, at the same time, with remarkable creativity. The Board’s report dismissed the role the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan has played in guiding protection of old-growth trees and forest on Quadra Island by referencing a speech a forests minister had once made about woodlots. Instead of providing factual information, the Board invented a “Quadra landscape unit” to explain how old growth is managed. I asked the Board to send me any written documentation it had that explained what the “Quadra landscape unit” is. The Board did not acknowledge the request. There is no such thing as the “Quadra landscape unit.” It has long been promised, but has never materialized. A more useful consideration of whether the old trees at Hummingbird Lake had any protection would have required a detailed investigation into what Okisollo Resources had committed to in its official, approved Woodlot Plan, and why. What had it committed to do? The Forest Practices Board’s reading of Okisollo’s plan led investigators to conclude: “In their [Woodlot Plan], they committed to setting aside all of the existing old-growth stands by designating them as wildlife tree retention areas.” Why would Okisollo have done that? A little history is needed. A Woodlot Licence Program tenure was awarded to Okisollo Resources in 2011. But 10 years before that, all of the old forest at Hummingbird Lake had been protected under the provisions of Special Management Zone 19, which had been created by the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan. Over 12,000 hectares of public land on Quadra Island had been given that special status. Why had that protection been granted? In 2001, it was well known that the area of old-growth forest in the “Coastal Western Hemlock very dry maritime” biogeoclimatic zone (which includes most of the area of the Discovery Islands) had fallen to about 9 percent of the zone’s total area. Forest biologists and ecologists had determined that if the area of old forest fell below 10 percent of the total area of the zone, the risk of biodiversity loss in that biogeoclimatic zone would be high. To conserve the remaining biodiversity associated with the Coastal Western Hemlock zone, and to map a course toward restoration of old forest to a higher percentage, the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan recommended a specific strategy for Quadra Island. (Quadra was one of only two of the 19 forest-based special management zones where a strategy for biodiversity conservation was detailed.) In practice, that meant protecting all of the remaining “old” forest (defined as greater than 250 years old) since that had fallen below 10 percent, and managing future logging so that there would always be at least 25 percent of the forested area covered with “mature” forest (defined as greater than 80 years old). The most critical recommendation in that strategy is captured in a single sentence: “maintain existing old forest in the zone, as well as second growth with [a] high portion of veteran trees...” The old trees and old forest that were logged at Hummingbird Lake met both of those descriptions. So as of 2001, the old trees and old forest at Hummingbird Lake had been protected. Beginning in 2005, however, the Campbell River district office of the Ministry of Forests began to locate Woodlot Licence Program tenures in Special Management Zone 19. Under forest legislation passed in 2002, woodlots did not need to meet certain objectives established by government. That exemption included objectives like conservation of Quadra’s old forest and second-growth forest that had a high portion of old trees. So establishing woodlots in SMZ 19 would have made it legal to go backward in the effort to conserve old forest and old trees at places like Hummingbird Lake. By the way, the 11 Woodlot Licence tenures that were created or expanded in Special Management Zone 19 on Quadra Island, from 2005 onward, were the only woodlots created in any of Vancouver Island’s 19 forest-based special management zones. Almost all of the new Quadra Island woodlots choose to honour most of the previous obligations to protect old forest and old trees that had existed before woodlots were dropped on SMZ 19. For example, the official plan for Woodlot 2032, established at the same time as Okisollo Resources’ Woodlot 2031 at Hummingbird Lake, stated that it would avoid logging all old-growth trees and old forest. Did Okisollo Resources make that commitment? In its Woodlot Licence Plan, its strategy for conserving biodiversity included these words: “Retaining the existing old growth forests is key to maintaining the biodiversity values of forests in the CWHxm biogeoclimatic subzone.” That sounds like a commitment to retain existing old growth forests. Indeed, the Forest Practices Board noted—four times—in its investigation report, that “In their WLP, they committed to setting aside all of the existing old-growth stands by designating them as wildlife tree retention areas.” The words that a would-be woodlot tenure holder uses in their Woodlot Licence Plan have legal consequences. Section 21(1) of the Forest and Ranges Practices Act states: “The holder of a forest stewardship plan or a woodlot licence plan must ensure that the intended results specified in the plan are achieved and the strategies described in the plan are carried out.” But here’s the problem: Okisollo Resources said it would retain all existing old forest, but its map of where old forest exists doesn’t match where old forest actually exists. Like at Hummingbird Lake. Okisollo Resources logging in old-growth forest at Hummingbird Lake in 2019. A map in Okisollo Resources’ approved Woodlot Plan referenced three small areas that a forester had identified as containing old forest in 2007 using the Ministry of Forests’ notoriously inaccurate Vegetation Resource Inventory. It is notorious because it fails miserably at identifying old-growth forest, and that has been an ongoing problem in BC. Okisollo’s map shows only three tiny areas of old forest. The total area of that old forest is a mere 15.1 hectares—only 2 percent of the woodlot’s 715 hectares. If that was an accurate assessment, the amount of old forest left would be at an even lower level than the high-risk 9 percent estimated by forest ecologists for this biogeoclimatic zone in 2001. If Okisollo’s map was accurate, the need to “maintain existing old forest in the zone, as well as second growth with [a] high portion of veteran trees...” would be even more urgent. In any case, there appears to be nothing in the legislation governing woodlots that would allow a map that fails to indicate accurately where old forest is located to overide a strategy that states existing old forest will be retained. Yet the Board’s findings depended entirely on the faulty map. I requested a copy of the inventory used to identify areas of old forest in the woodlot, which Okisollo Resources says had been created for the Ministry of Forests in 2007. Okisollo declined to make the inventory available. Ms Blumel stated that the primary forest her company logged at Hummingbird Lake is not old forest but “scattered old trees” in “second-growth stands.” “Second-growth stands” implies an area that has been previously logged. In an old, primary forest on Quadra Island, regrowth of younger trees below the old-growth canopy after a fire is a natural process, no matter how dense or commercially attractive that regrowth appears to be. The regrowth’s presence does not cancel out the biological values of the old forest it’s growing in. Blumel did not respond to questions about whether or not, during road building and logging at Hummingbird Lake, the company had encountered any sign—like old stumps and roads—of previous logging. So, what is the true nature of the forest that was logged at Hummingbird Lake? Was it old forest? Helpfully, the Board’s investigation report included the definition it uses. The report stated: “When we refer to old-growth forests in this report, we mean stands in BC’s coastal forests that are older than 250 years, structurally complex with large old living trees, and that have large dead snags, fallen dead trees and multi-layered canopies.” The image below shows what the forest on the north side of Hummingbird Lake looked like in 2018 from above the lake, before logging took place. The forest that is about to be cut is on the right side of the photograph. You can see many living Douglas firs with dead tops, a good indication of great age, a fact confirmed on the ground by growth ring counts of trees cut by Okisollo Resources. There are also standing dead snags visible and a multi-layered canopy with younger hemlock and fir far below the tops of the old-growth. You can’t see them, but on the forest floor are numerous fallen dead trees. On each of my visits I found plants and animals associated with old forest, including Northern Red-legged Frog, Wandering Salamander, Osprey, and One-flowered Wintergreen. This is as “structurally complex” a stand of old-growth forest as I have seen on Quadra Island. The west end of Hummingbird Lake in 2018. There’s much more of this old forest in Woodlot 2031, none of it identified in Okisollo Resources’ official map. Below is a photograph of Hummingbird Lake looking toward the east end of the lake from just above where Okisollo Resource’s 2019 cutblock ends. Most of the forest visible around the lake is primary forest, including old-growth Douglas fir. None of it has been mapped as old forest. The view of Hummingbird Lake and surrounding old forest looking east from approximately where Okisollo Resources’ logging reached in 2019. It is also revealing to compare the biological productivity of the extensive existing old forest around Hummingbird Lake with the three small areas Okisollo Resources has mapped as “biodiversity reserves.” The photograph below shows one of those three reserves, this one at the top and on the steep slopes of Wolf Mountain. The forest at the top can’t be logged because it is in a protected viewscape. When the Forest Practices Board praised Okisollo for reserving this forest “even though it didn’t have to,” the Board was wrong. Okisollo had to. But as a biodiversity reserve, how does it compare with the old forest removed by the cutblock at Hummingbird Lake? The 5.5-hectare reserve on top of Wolf Mountain is shown in the 2007 inventory as having a site index of 11. That means that because of conditions on the top of that hill, trees would be expected to grow to a height of 11 metres over a 50-year period. On Quadra Island, this is a low productivity site. Such forests support a lower level of biodiversity than more productive forests. Wolf Mountain. A portion of the top of the hill and the cliff has been reserved from logging by Okisollo Resources. On the other hand, the 2007 inventory estimated that the site index at the Hummingbird Lake cutblock is 24. Site index doesn’t get a lot higher than that on Quadra Island. Such sites are capable of growing big, old trees and they support a higher level of biodiversity. Moreover, big old trees beside a lake support an even higher level of biodiversity, much higher than the small old trees at the top of Wolf Mountain. The Forest Practices Board investigation failed to even show up on Quadra Island, let alone carefully consider all the evidence and follow it wherever it might lead. But the deeper failure in this case traces back to the Ministry of Forests’ decision in 2005 to introduce Woodlot Licence tenures into a special management zone. That didn’t happen in any other special management zone created by the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan. It was only by the voluntary compliance of woodlot tenure holders that progress could be made toward meeting the plan’s old forest objectives. Now, at least one of those tenure holders—Okisollo Resources—has decided not to comply. If it is successful at going backward, other tenure holders could follow. In a recent Forest Practices Board investigation of a complaint about logging in Special Management Zone 13 in the Nahmint Valley, the Board criticized BC Timber Sales for failing to meet the obligations imposed by the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan. In that case, the Board stated: “The public needs to be confident that objectives established in land use plans will actually be carried through and implemented in forestry operations.” At least the Board got that right. Related information: Forest Practices Board investigation report Information about Woodlot 2031 Vancouver Island Land Use Plan documents
  5. Favourable biogeoclimatic conditions on the Discovery Islands make this area well-suited for sequestration of atmospheric carbon and long-term safe storage of forest carbon, an important strategy in mitigating climate change. Douglas fir veterans on the peninsula at Hummingbird Lake, Quadra Island THERE ARE TWO MAIN WAYS in which clearcut logging on the Discovery Islands is resulting in increased concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, thereby contributing to climate change. First, when a forest stand is converted to a clearcut, the process of carbon sequestration—the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the subsequent long-term storage of carbon in the forest—is brought to a sudden halt. Modern agroforestry, which liquidates natural forests and turns them into short-rotation plantations, results in a profound decline in the level of carbon sequestration capacity, the magnitude of which is described below. Secondly, logging a forest initiates a premature return to the atmosphere of most of the carbon sequestered by that forest. This occurs both rapidly (intentional slash pile burning and combustion of the residual biomass by forest fires) and more gradually (decomposition of the dead biomass left in the clearcut). It also occurs through decomposition of manufactured wood products over time, which BC’s forests ministry has shown occurs much more rapidly than if the forest had been left to store the carbon. To understand why we need to conserve more forests just to reduce logging’s considerable impact on climate change, we need to understand why modern forestry practices cause such a large loss of carbon sequestration capacity. We also need to comprehend the vast quantity of carbon that’s being prematurely returned to the atmosphere as a consequence of logging. Let’s start with modern forestry’s plan to limit the maximum age of forests to around 60 years and the impact that has on carbon sequestration capacity. Through photosynthesis, trees remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in their trunk, branches, roots and foliage. On the Discovery Islands, forests are able to continue this process of sequestering and storing carbon for hundreds of years. The widespread presence of large stumps on these islands—and a few remaining primary forests with large trees in them (we have found trees greater than 500 years of age on Quadra)—are proof that the islands’ forests have great potential for safe, long-term carbon sequestration and storage. When the idea of managing BC’s forests on the basis of “sustained yield” was first promoted in the middle of the 20th century, forest managers were promising that the period of time between consecutive cuts would be 100 to 120 years. Now, though, it is not uncommon in BC for plantations of only 45 to 60 years of age to be logged. That rotation period will result in a much lower level of carbon sequestration than would have occurred naturally. How much lower? This project’s analysis of ministry of forests’ growth and yield data shows that allowing forests to grow to 300 years of age would result in approximately 3.7 times as much tonne-years of carbon storage as would be the case if those forests were cut every 60 years over that 300-year period. It’s necessary to understand that the dimension of time—how many years a tonne of carbon is kept out of the atmosphere—must be taken into consideration when comparing the long-term climate impact of a tonne of sequestered carbon. If it is kept out of the atmosphere for 10 years, the impact will be 10 times greater than if it is only sequestered for 1 year. The four graphs below are based on ministry of forests’ yield curves for Douglas fir stands of various growing conditions (site index). The first illustration shows a typical yield curve used by the ministry to project expected growth in cubic metres per hectare. The exact numbers and units don’t really matter in this exercise; we are simply going to give you a sense of how the impact of carbon sequestered by forests that will be logged every 60 years compares with the impact of carbon sequestered in a forest that is left to grow for at least 300 years. So we start with a typical yield curve: The solid green area in the graph below illustrates the tonne-years that would be sequestered on a hectare of forest over 300 years where the site index is 30. This is what would happen if a hectare of newly planted Douglas fir was left to grow. It’s also a rough approximation of what happens naturally in areas that have low levels of natural disturbance, such as forest fires. The graph below illustrates the tonne-years of carbon that would be sequestered on that same hectare, but logged 5 times over those 300 years, with each cut 60 years apart. The graph below compares the tonne-years of carbon sequestered over 300 years without logging and the tonne-years of carbon sequestered over 300 years with logging every 60 years. As mentioned above, logging every 60 years results in only about one-quarter of the tonne-years of carbon that would be sequestered by a given area of forest if it was left to grow. Over millions of hectares, this is a very large loss in carbon sequestration capacity, and a significant threat to climate stability. A caveat about this comparison: It assumes there would be no loss in soil productivity as a result of removing much of the biomass from the hectare of forest every 60 years. More likely, there would be a loss in site productivity and so the loss in carbon sequestration capacity would likely be greater than 80 percent. This same degree of loss occurs over the full range of site index. One argument offered by the logging industry to temper this loss is the idea that manufactured wood products would result in the safe storage of carbon. But BC ministry of forests’ own research, as illustrated by the graph below, has shown that only 20 percent of the carbon “stored” in manufactured forest products is still “stored” after 100 years. The rest has been released to the atmosphere. In the future, if trees are harvested at a much younger age than in the past, as is planned, a much smaller volume of the tree will be suitable for long-lived products and a greater volume will be used for ephemeral uses such as wood pellets for burning in thermal electricity generating plants. The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project is tracking the volume of logging on the islands and its impact on the carbon sequestration capacity of island forests. Now let’s consider the second way that the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere is increased by logging. When forests are logged, not only is there a sudden halt to carbon sequestration, but almost all the carbon that was stored in the biomass of that forest begins to be released to the atmosphere. Although this decomposition occurs over an extended period of time, by international convention the date on which emissions are considered to have been released is on the date the forest was logged. The image below illustrates the problem in a nutshell. These piles of wasted biomass, created by TimberWest on Quadra Island, were burned soon after this photo was taken. If the piles had been left unburned, they would have constituted an even higher fire hazard than does the fuel-laden clearcut and plantation that exists there now. Logging slash piles on TimberWest-Mosaic clearcut on Quadra Island in 2020. These piles were later burned. As mentioned above, the shorter the period of time between successive cuts, the smaller the trees and the greater the percentage of each tree that is wasted because it is too small and uneconomic to be removed from the clearcut and processed into something other than short-lived pellets. The Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project is tracking the volume of forest logged on publicly-owned land on the Discovery Islands each year and is calculating the forest carbon emissions and loss of carbon sequestration associated with that logging. We are using the methodology developed by the Evergreen Alliance.
  6. FIVE YEARS AGO, I created a wee website and started to add photographs of plants, birds, lakes, trails, people—and trees—that I had taken over a 40-year period on Quadra and other islands at the north end of the Salish Sea. Initially, it was a getting-old-and-remembering-while-I-still-could kind of thing. I called it the Discovery Islands Mapping Project. It was a personal thing, a kind of commemoration of a place I love. While putting the photographs in chronological order I got a clear sense of something that I previously had only a vague awareness was occurring. As time had passed, more and more of the places in the photographs—beautiful, difficult-to-get-to natural places where my wife Leslie and I had enjoyed many day-long hikes getting to—had been logged. Places like Darkwater Lake, Hummingbird Lake and Long Lake. Roads had been blasted into these places and areas of forest stripped clean of life. All that was left were giant slash piles and ruined streams. The previous inhabitants of these vanished forests were either dead or pushed into their neighbour’s territory. It wasn’t just the beautiful little lakes. Permanent logging roads and clearcuts seemed to be proliferating everywhere at an increasing rate. Was this destruction accelerating? Was there some point when it would stop? Or were the logging companies going to log everything that wasn’t in a provincial park as quickly as possible? After uploading all the old photos, Leslie and I began going back into the forest and measuring and recording things: The location, size and condition of clearcuts, old and new, and when they had been logged. Counts of the growth rings of recently created stumps. The locations of groves of old trees. The girths of individual large trees, and where they were. The plants and animals found in different kinds of forests. The condition of lakes and streams (Quadra Island has about 80 lakes mapped in the province’s database of bodies of open water, which is pretty darn amazing for a 310 square-kilometre island). And so on. It was hard to keep track of where things were because so few of the natural features on these islands had been named, perhaps intentionally. It’s easier to destroy something and pay no price if the place where the destruction took place can’t be identified. So we began to name those features that hadn’t been named, just so we could communicate with each other about what it was we were photographing, measuring or writing about. To help look for old trees and new clearcuts, I bought a drone and learned how to fly it. Leslie and I would go for a hike where the objective was to photograph “three lakes and a clearcut.” That soon became “three clearcuts and a lake.” Along the way we began to find new groves of old forest that in 40 years of hiking on these islands I had never found. I began to search online for information about the forests I was surveying, including such facts as who was logging them and what regulations those companies were working under, what biogeoclimatic zone we were in and how much old forest remained in that zone. When I searched for something, I would inevitably learn many other things that I hadn’t even realized I didn’t know. All the time I was working on collecting this data, I became increasingly aware of the history of efforts to protect nature here and who was involved in those efforts. It seemed to me that my fellow travellers and I did not have all the tools that we needed in order to be as effective as possible in our efforts to slow down the destruction of nature on the Discovery Islands. One of the missing tools was a place where everyone’s knowledge about our islands could be recorded and accessed by other interested people, including by people down the road in time. Even local knowledge of land-use planning that had secured protection for old forest on Quadra Island years ago had faded. Forest ecologists had been clear—thirty years ago—that there was a point at which removing any more old forest on these islands would put forested ecosystems at high risk of species extirpation. The Discovery Islands had already reached that point. We would lose the Northern Goshawks nesting near Ashlar Creek, the Wandering Salamanders at Darkwater Lake and the Osprey at Hummingbird Lake. The populations of cougar and wolves would decline or disappear. That was known, and land use planners had responded. For a brief time, all old forest on a large part of Quadra Island was protected, but community understanding of that soon faded. And in the darkness, the ministry of forests re-invaded the old forest. As I went through this gathering process, I learned more and more about the profound impact logging has on climate stability, how it increases forest fire hazard, how it silts up and warms streams that salmon depend on for survival, how it degrades and damages forest soil and that building permanent logging roads is permanent deforestation. Logging is so obviously destructive, yet it was my understanding—thanks to government and industry PR—that the industry was essential to BC’s economic health. “Forestry pays the bills, folks” has long been the common retort to anyone who dared to suggest that less logging would be better. But the deeper I examined that claim, the clearer it became that the opposite was true. It was costing BC taxpayers a million dollars more each day than they were getting in revenue from the logging industry. But it was the hidden costs—the loss of carbon sequestration capacity, the carbon emissions, the subsidization of the cost of energy for the mills—that were the most staggering. Lately they have eclipsed the logging industry’s contribution to provincial GDP. I was also shocked to learn that almost all of the trees being cut on my island were being exported as raw logs, and that 80 to 90 percent of forest destruction in BC is done so that other countries can have cheap forest products. My website had grown and the idea driving it had shifted. Rather than a “mapping project” of personal memories of nature, it had become a forest conservation project, an active effort to enumerate and slow down the pointless destruction of nature on the islands we had spent years living on and exploring. It’s now called the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project. As my knowledge of what was happening in my own backyard grew, I realized that I should share what I had learned. So I began researching and writing about these issues at the provincial level, too. As I did, I began to understand how rare community-based resistance to the logging industry is. There are notable exceptions, such as Conservation North in the Prince George Area. But small, place-based organizations exploring and publicizing these issues in their own forest-dependent community is as rare as Texas Toadflax is on Quadra Island. Yet it is our personal knowledge of—and physical connection to—cherished natural places that is the strongest source of motivation for personal action to protect them. If the people who live in or near those places won’t defend them, no one will. I imagined that in most communities, though, the people who could defend those places were only vaguely aware that the arguments made for logging them have little strength in the face of the known costs. That wasn’t going to change, I realized, unless someone made an effort to create a provincial network to support such community-based resistance. And so I created a second website, called the Evergreen Alliance, to encourage other people around the province to start a forest conservation project in their own community. The Evergreen Alliance website is for all those people living in so-called “forestry-dependent” communities who are appalled at the damage logging is doing to the forests they know and love and would defend. We all live in forest-dependent communities and logging is destroying our life support system and putting our communities at higher risk of forest fires and flooding. If you live in a community that wants to do something about that, the Evergreen Alliance is here to help you get more organized to communicate effectively with folks in your community about the need to conserve more of the publicly owned forest in your region. If you have already found effective tools for resisting forest destruction in your community, please share that with us. Visit the Discovery Islands Forest Conservation Project
  7. Forest legislation in BC protects logging from pressure to conserve nature. The legislation needs to be changed so that nature is protected from logging. But such a change would only be effective if forest product exports, which are responsible for 85-90 percent of the current forest loss, are halted. YOU HAVE LIKELY HEARD of the “30 x 30” initiative of the “High Ambition Coalition” of over 100 countries, which includes Canada. In an effort to protect global biodiversity, the Coalition’s goal is to protect 30 percent of Earth’s land and ocean by 2030. What’s the big hurry? Scientists estimate the rate at which species are currently being lost is 1000 to 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate. Historically, the idea of protecting land from any kind of development—human habitation, mining, logging, energy infrastructure, agriculture and so on—has been regarded as a luxury that society just couldn’t afford. By the early 1990s in BC, for example, only 6 percent of the province had been formally protected from such development. Under pressure from conservationists, that has risen to 15.4 percent in 2022. Only 9 percent of BC’s forested land is permanently protected, according to the ministry of forests. In this province, protection of forests for any purpose—including the long-term conservation of nature—is conditional on that protection “not unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia’s forests.” That clause is used over and over again in legislation that ostensibly regulates BC’s logging industry. In fact, in BC, logging is protected from the conservation of nature. Yet scientists have assessed that Earth is losing 200 to 2000 species every year. Much of that loss is due to logging of forested habitat, including clearcutting in BC. BC’s ministry of forests acknowledges about 180,000 hectares of habitat are lost to logging on publicly-owned land each year (independent analyses show this is closer to 250,000 hectares each year). Proposals like “30 x 30” attempt to address loss of biodiversity by increasing the amount of land given “protected” status. But a careful consideration of the pervasive physical impacts logging is having in BC would inevitably lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that merely shifting the status of land from “unprotected” to “protected” might very well provide no protection benefit at all. Unless other steps are taken to protect that newly protected land from the transferable impacts of nearby clearcut logging, little progress toward true protection will be made. Clearcut logging on the scale that has been occurring in BC—which is unparalleled anywhere else on Earth on a per capita basis—is contributing significantly to global heating and climate instability. Those mega-impacts are, in turn, contributing to further, widespread loss of BC forests—whether they are “protected” or not—as a result of drought, fires, wind and insect infestations. All of those impacts are occurring with greater frequency and severity than in the past. That added loss, in turn, further worsens global heating and climate instability. So the scale of logging in BC is contributing to a dangerous global feedback loop that, on a per capita basis, British Columbians have been more responsible for than any other population of humans on the planet. Moreover, BC is now beginning to experience unpredicted, complex and serious side effects from that feedback loop between growing climate instability and forest loss. Recall the unprecedented flooding that occurred after an “atmospheric river” swept over southwestern BC in mid-November 2021. The flooding occurred downstream from areas that had been heavily logged and were later burned by forest fires. The amount of rain that fell was not unprecedented, but the flooding was. Climate scientists say such atmospheric rivers will occur with greater frequency due to global heating. But the unprecedented magnitude of the flooding was attributable to both the loss of forest cover from clearcut logging and the way that forest fires make soil less able to absorb water. The large area of the forest fires was attributable, at least in part, to the widespread extent of clearcut logging and tree plantations and the unfortunate fact that clearcuts and plantations make forest fires easier to ignite and harder to control. The higher flammability of clearcuts and plantations compared to mature forest is illustrated in the satellite image below. This shows Fire #C10966 (upper centre of image), which started on July 7, 2017 when lightning struck a clearcut on the southern boundary of Kluskoil Lake Provincial Park. The subsequent fire burned logging slash and regrowth across almost the entire area of the clearcut out to its edges (click the image to enlarge), leaving the area blackened. But the fire was stopped by mature forest around the clearcut. The 207-hectare clearcut had been logged in 2015 by Quesnel Investments Corp. The aftermath of Fire #C10966 (a designation of the BC Wildfire Service). Click image to enlarge. This clearcut fire was ignited by the same lighting storm that started more than 20 fires, which eventually joined and burned over 545,000 hectares of the Chilcotin Plateau in July and August of 2017. The area burned by those fires contained large areas of clearcuts and plantations—and protected areas. Many other protected areas throughout BC were burned in 2017, 2018 and 2021. Forest fires, drought, insect infestations and wind pay no attention to whether an area has been designated as either “protected” or “available for logging.” But there’s a growing body of evidence that each of those physical impacts is made worse by clearcut logging. The fundamental rationale used by government to justify all this damage is that the economic value of the logging industry in BC is just so great that its actual costs must be ignored. In a 2003 report by the BC Ministry of Forests titled “British Columbia’s Forests And Their Management,” the authors stated: “Forestry is the most important industry, representing 8 percent of provincial Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or 15 percent or more of GDP when indirect and induced economic activity is included. Forestry is the principal source of income for 41 percent of BC’s regional economic areas. About 87,000 British Columbians (or 4 percent of total jobs) are directly employed in forestry, with about half of those in mills and other wood product manufacturing operations. When direct and induced economic activity is included, forestry accounts for an estimated 14 percent of BC employment, or about one in seven jobs. Direct forest industry payments, including fees for logging on public lands, provide about 10 percent of provincial government revenues.” This was the official government view of logging’s economic importance at the time forest legislation was re-written so that protection of other essential forest values—like biodiversity, water, wildlife, fish, soil, recreation, visual quality, and so on—was conditional on the protection “not unduly reducing the supply of timber from British Columbia’s forests.” Now, according to the BC government, logging and support services along with all wood-product manufacturing account for just 2.9 percent of provincial GDP (2018). There are now several industries that are more economically “important” than forestry, including tourism. In 2021, 56,000 British Columbians were directly employed in forestry, only 2.1 percent of total employment. When the cost of public forest management is included in a consideration of government revenues, there was an average net loss of about $1 million per day between 2010 and 2019. The economic importance of the logging industry didn’t justify the damage it was doing in 2003, and since then the industry has shrunk to less than half its former economic importance while the damage it is doing has grown immeasurably. Another much-touted justification for the vast extent of clearcut logging in BC is that logging can’t be reduced because it provides wood products that are essential for growing and maintaining BC’s own stock of buildings and infrastructure. But that line of reasoning is only 10 to 15 percent true. According to Sheng Xie, a postdoctoral research fellow with UBC’s Department of Forest Resources Management, about 85 to 90 percent of the volume of wood logged in BC is exported. In 2016, for example, 88 percent of the volume logged was exported. If logging on publicly-owned land was limited to supplying BC’s own needs for forest products, the area cut each year could be reduced by 80 to 90 percent. Instead of cutting 180,000 hectares (the Ministry of Forests’ number), that could be reduced to 18,000-36,000 hectares each year. At that rate, how much land would need to be set aside for logging? It would depend on the rotation period between cuts, but certainly no more than 1.8 to 3.6 million hectares. That’s just 3 to 6 percent of BC’s forested land. That’s all that’s needed to meet BC’s own requirements for wood products. Currently, BC is trapped in a paradigm where the amount of logging that is allowed is determined almost entirely by the market for wood products in the USA, China and Japan. Even though the high cost of the industry’s negative physical impacts are being swept out of sight, the industry is still only marginally economic in BC. That’s why many of the companies that are profiting the most from over-exploitation of BC forests—Canfor, Tolko, Conifex, Teal-Jones, West Fraser, Interfor—are all plowing the profits derived from BC exports into investments in other countries where the cost of doing business is even lower. A classic race to the bottom. Before all of BC’s primary forest is gone, citizens need to rise up and demand an end to exports. First the export of raw logs and then all wood-product exports. Let other countries figure out how to meet their own needs. Unless there is a large reduction in logging, none of the existential threats to BC’s remaining forests posed by the current scale of logging—such as more aggressive forest fires—will be diminished. Any newly protected areas, including temporary logging deferrals of old-growth forest, will be just as likely to become burned forest as they would if they were unprotected.
  8. Yves, that is such a comprehensive submission. It must have taken a great deal of time to write, but also a large commitment in time and energy just to comprehend the issues involved. That commitment is very admirable; thanks for making it.
  9. Yves, that is such a comprehensive submission. It must have taken a great deal of time to write, but also a large commitment in time and energy just to comprehend the issues involved. That commitment is very admirable; thanks for making it.
  10. Yves, that is such a comprehensive submission. It must have taken a great deal of time to write, but also a large commitment in time and energy just to comprehend the issues involved. That commitment is very admirable; thanks for making it.
  11. Yves, that is such a comprehensive submission. It must have taken a great deal of time to write, but also a large commitment in time and energy just to comprehend the issues involved. That commitment is very admirable; thanks for making it.
  12. Yves, that is such a comprehensive submission. It must have taken a great deal of time to write, but also a large commitment in time and energy just to comprehend the issues involved. That commitment is very admirable; thanks for making it.
  13. Just found this interesting reporting in Northern Beat by Jeff Davies: BC Wildfires—more than just climate change. In the story, Robert Gray acknowledges the role logging is playing in BC's large forest fires. For example, he states, "The fire problem is no longer unmanaged stands. The fire problem is all the managed stands full of slash." Davies reported: "Gray says many of the big fires in B.C.’s southern Interior over the past year ravaged forests that had already been harvested, were being harvested, or had nothing the industry considered worth harvesting." Referring to the White Rock Lake fire in the Okanagan in 2021, Gray told Davies, "That fire was driven by cutblocks…When you look at the fires that threatened Ashcroft and Savona and the White Rock Lake Fire and all those fires, the July Mountain one up on the Coquihalla, they were all burning through leave stands—they weren't harvested because of poor economics or poor accessibility—and harvest blocks." That article was published a month before the Times-Colonist op-ed with Lori Daniels. Yet none of Gray's awareness of the role clearcuts and plantations are playing in making forest fires bigger and more numerous can be found in his op-ed with Lori Daniels.
  14. You can judge the character of an industry by the messages it uses to justify its continued existence in the face of clear evidence that it is causing permanent damage to our life support systems. Consider how fossil fuel companies have protected themselves in the face of evidence that they are causing irreparable harm. They simply assert facts that can't be proven or disproven. Likewise, the BC logging industry is making simplistic claims that can't be proven or disproven. For example, what does it mean by "BC" in "BC will never run out of old growth?" And what does it mean by "run out of"? What does it mean by "old-growth"? What does it mean by "Truth"? If by "BC" the billboard means the forest industry, the industry is certainly going to run out of old-growth forest that it can cut, either before all the primary forest that's currently in the timber harvesting land base has been cut, or after it has been cut. The industry is hoping for the latter. Land defenders are aiming for the former. Either way, the industry is going to run out of old-growth forest. To make such a slippery, bumper-sticker-like statement and assert that it is "Truth" is Orwellian double-speak. If the industry feels it needs to rely on Orwellian double-speak to justify what it is doing, that's probably a good indicator that efforts will soon be made to run it out of BC. Forest scientists have determined that a certain minimum percentage of forest in a given bio-geoclimatic variant needs to contain old trees in order to maintain biodiversity. Below that level, there is a danger of biodiversity loss. Biodiversity is an essential characteristic of Earth's life-support systems. That's hard to but on a billboard or a bumper sticker.
  15. Thanks for your comment Virginia. I agree, it is shocking. I can still remember the sense of dismay I felt when I first started going through the satellite imagery of BC. It's sickening. But also, at least for me, motivating. It made me ask, "What do we need to do to stop this and restore our life support systems?" I encourage everybody to spend a few hours touring BC via satellite imagery. The best, most up-to-date high resolution imagery can be found in the "Maps" app of anyone who has an Apple device. I'm not sure if there is a similar program for PCs. Google and Bing satellite imagery are okay, too, but not as up-to-date as Apple Maps, in my experience. For an area that I know well, Maps is about 1 year behind. You might also check out other countries, especially the USA, China and Japan, BC's main customers for wood products and raw logs. Good luck at finding the clearcuts, except those on private land in the USA.
  16. This study has interesting implications for the BC ministry of forests' policies around salvage logging of burned forests. An explanatory article at phys.org included an interview with Mark Harmon, the lead author: "We suggest that researchers and policy makers avoid using combustion rates not based on field study as they appear to overstate the wildfire emissions used in carbon emissions reporting; this can potentially misdirect climate mitigation policy," he said. Dead trees decompose slowly as new vegetation grows and absorbs atmospheric carbon, the scientists point out. If fire-killed trees are allowed to remain in place, the natural decomposition process might take decades to hundreds of years to release the trees' carbon. On the other hand, if those trees are logged to serve as energy-producing biomass, that same carbon could potentially enter the atmosphere much faster. More study is needed, the researchers note, to determine the degree to which post-fire forest management influences the carbon release time frame, including how biomass energy might offset the burning of fossil fuels and how wood products release carbon as they are used and disposed. "The effects of salvaging and putting some of that wood into durable wood products need to be fully investigated," Harmon said. "More fires need to be examined using our type of approach to determine how variable the combustion rates are at different levels for different forest types and ages."
  17. Hi Virginia, Good question. Seems evident that the provision in question is aimed at blockades of forestry roads. The actual wording of Bill 23 can be found here: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/2nd-session/bills/first-reading/gov23-1 Yves Mayrand has an in-depth critique of Bill 23 here: In that analysis, Yves notes: with respect to a forest service road or forest resource road, requirements for a person who uses a forest service road to provide notice to the minister or a prescribed person in relation to the person’s use of the forest service road, authorizing a person to close a road, restrict the use of a road, and/or remove property from a road, including but not limited to removing vehicles or animals, and/or requirements for the owner of property removed from a road to pay a person who removed the property the costs of the removal; Here's the pertinent portion of Yves analysis: The following should be duly understood and noted with respect to the expanded powers of the executive government of British Columbia in section 155 of the FRPA, as amended: there is no provision in the FRPA, as amended by Bill 23, respecting the determination of, or the disputing of, the costs of the removal of property from roads; regulations under section 155 of the FRPA, as amended by Bill 23, may be issued by order in council setting their effective date and published in the Gazette without prior consultation or comments; no exception, accommodation, variation or reservation is made in the FRPA or the FA, as amended by Bill 23, for forest roads located within the unceded traditional territories of First Nations in British Columbia, their aboriginal rights, the application of their treaty rights, or the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act of British Columbia (DRIP Act); the explanatory note in Bill 23 with respect to the proposed amendments to section 155 of the FRPA only states the obvious: they expand the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (executive government) to make regulations in relation to roads; it does not provide any explanation as to their actual extent, why they are necessary, how, under what circumstances and for what period of time they will be used, or subject to what criteria and safeguards; this set of new executive powers may well be used with a view to legalizing and court-proofing the forcible seizure and removal of vehicles and other private property on forest roads by forest tenure agreement holders (such as, for example, Teal Cedar Products Ltd. in TFL 46), other industrial resource extraction licence or permit holders, infrastructure builders or operators (such as, for example, CGL in Wet’suwet’en traditional territory), their agents, contractors and subcontractors, and police enforcement bodies (such as, for example, the RCMP) at the unregulated and arbitrary expense of the owners of such private property, thus preventing or impeding the free circulation of the public and the media on these roads and the monitoring and reporting of controversial industrial logging or other industrial activities and enforcement measures within forested provincial Crown land. In short, the proposed amendments to the FRPA in Bill 23 will provide that: forest roads are essentially reserved for industrial uses (forest harvesting, sylviculture and natural resource development) by industrial users; Non-industrial users of forest roads, including BC residents, hikers, monitors and members of First Nations, may eventually be required to pay expenses to government, a holder of a permit or licence, other persons who meet “prescribed requirements”, or a person responsible for maintaining a forest road; forest tenure holders, road permit and timber cutting permit holders, other natural resource extraction licence or permit holders, pipeline owners or operators, their respective subcontractors, agents, or representatives, or police enforcement officers may be empowered by government regulation to control access to, ingress to and egress from forest roads and their related rights of way (37.5 metres each side from the centre of the road), including by lawfully blocking forest roads to members of First Nations, peaceful protesters, the press, monitors and legal observers; exclusion zones may be applied under the authority of new forest road regulations, and the courts effectively hindered or prevented from protecting freedom of the press and the constitutional rights of peaceful protesters in these exclusion zones; and vehicles and other private property may eventually be seized and moved to discretionary remote locations with or without prior court order or injunction, and their owners required to pay discretionary or arbitrary removal costs to regain possession of their property, thus targeting and arbitrarily penalizing peaceful protesters, members of the press, monitors and legal observers present on forest roads.
  18. Hi Virginia, Good question. Seems evident that the provision in question is aimed at blockades of forestry roads. The actual wording of Bill 23 can be found here: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/42nd-parliament/2nd-session/bills/first-reading/gov23-1 Yves Mayrand has an in-depth critique of Bill 23 here: In that analysis, Yves notes: with respect to a forest service road or forest resource road, requirements for a person who uses a forest service road to provide notice to the minister or a prescribed person in relation to the person’s use of the forest service road, authorizing a person to close a road, restrict the use of a road, and/or remove property from a road, including but not limited to removing vehicles or animals, and/or requirements for the owner of property removed from a road to pay a person who removed the property the costs of the removal; Here's the pertinent portion of Yves analysis: The following should be duly understood and noted with respect to the expanded powers of the executive government of British Columbia in section 155 of the FRPA, as amended: there is no provision in the FRPA, as amended by Bill 23, respecting the determination of, or the disputing of, the costs of the removal of property from roads; regulations under section 155 of the FRPA, as amended by Bill 23, may be issued by order in council setting their effective date and published in the Gazette without prior consultation or comments; no exception, accommodation, variation or reservation is made in the FRPA or the FA, as amended by Bill 23, for forest roads located within the unceded traditional territories of First Nations in British Columbia, their aboriginal rights, the application of their treaty rights, or the implementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act of British Columbia (DRIP Act); the explanatory note in Bill 23 with respect to the proposed amendments to section 155 of the FRPA only states the obvious: they expand the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council (executive government) to make regulations in relation to roads; it does not provide any explanation as to their actual extent, why they are necessary, how, under what circumstances and for what period of time they will be used, or subject to what criteria and safeguards; this set of new executive powers may well be used with a view to legalizing and court-proofing the forcible seizure and removal of vehicles and other private property on forest roads by forest tenure agreement holders (such as, for example, Teal Cedar Products Ltd. in TFL 46), other industrial resource extraction licence or permit holders, infrastructure builders or operators (such as, for example, CGL in Wet’suwet’en traditional territory), their agents, contractors and subcontractors, and police enforcement bodies (such as, for example, the RCMP) at the unregulated and arbitrary expense of the owners of such private property, thus preventing or impeding the free circulation of the public and the media on these roads and the monitoring and reporting of controversial industrial logging or other industrial activities and enforcement measures within forested provincial Crown land. In short, the proposed amendments to the FRPA in Bill 23 will provide that: forest roads are essentially reserved for industrial uses (forest harvesting, sylviculture and natural resource development) by industrial users; Non-industrial users of forest roads, including BC residents, hikers, monitors and members of First Nations, may eventually be required to pay expenses to government, a holder of a permit or licence, other persons who meet “prescribed requirements”, or a person responsible for maintaining a forest road; forest tenure holders, road permit and timber cutting permit holders, other natural resource extraction licence or permit holders, pipeline owners or operators, their respective subcontractors, agents, or representatives, or police enforcement officers may be empowered by government regulation to control access to, ingress to and egress from forest roads and their related rights of way (37.5 metres each side from the centre of the road), including by lawfully blocking forest roads to members of First Nations, peaceful protesters, the press, monitors and legal observers; exclusion zones may be applied under the authority of new forest road regulations, and the courts effectively hindered or prevented from protecting freedom of the press and the constitutional rights of peaceful protesters in these exclusion zones; and vehicles and other private property may eventually be seized and moved to discretionary remote locations with or without prior court order or injunction, and their owners required to pay discretionary or arbitrary removal costs to regain possession of their property, thus targeting and arbitrarily penalizing peaceful protesters, members of the press, monitors and legal observers present on forest roads.
  19. Herb and Fred, thanks for your comments on TFL 8. Most readers won’t know that TFL 8 is in the Kettle River’s drainage area and the logging company, Interfor, is named in a class action lawsuit that arose following flooding in Grand Forks in 2017, 2018 and 2020. Satellite imagery of TFL 8 shows what has happened on the ground: What does that intense level of logging look like compared to the AAC set for TFL 8 in 2009? Well, believe it or not, the AAC would have allowed even more logging. I looked at 13 years of ministry of forests’ data for the volume cut in TFL 8 and compared that with the official AAC. That data shows that the TFL has been undercut in those 13 years. The official AAC was 186,000 cubic metres per year (red line in graph below). The actual cut (orange line) gyrated wildly from year to year. The average cut was 160,362 cubic metres (gray line). That is, officially, an “undercut”. The Harvest Billing System recorded a cut of 2,084,700 cubic metres in those 13 years. If the AAC had been the guide, 2,418,000 cubic metres would have been cut. When you look at the satellite imagery of this TFL, it’s easy to imagine that, had the AAC been met, there would be little more than clearcuts and plantations remaining. The general ministry practice of setting the AAC much higher than can be achieved over a prolonged period of time—mainly because the forest doesn't grow that fast—was the subject of a recent story. The current chief forester’s calculation—on paper—that a past “undercut” can be made up years afterward is disturbing. Look at the graph below, which records the AAC, actual cut and a conservative estimate of timber supply for a 20-year period in BC. Will the ministry now decide that an “undercut” occurred all over BC and can now be rectified by additional logging, like in the case of TFL 8? Seems utterly delusional to me.
  20. Herb and Fred, thanks for your comments on TFL 8. Most readers won’t know that TFL 8 is in the Kettle River’s drainage area and the logging company, Interfor, is named in a class action lawsuit that arose following flooding in Grand Forks in 2017, 2018 and 2020. Satellite imagery of TFL 8 shows what has happened on the ground: What does that intense level of logging look like compared to the AAC set for TFL 8 in 2009? Well, believe it or not, the AAC would have allowed even more logging. I looked at 13 years of ministry of forests’ data for the volume cut in TFL 8 and compared that with the official AAC. That data shows that the TFL has been undercut in those 13 years. The official AAC was 186,000 cubic metres per year (red line in graph below). The actual cut (orange line) gyrated wildly from year to year. The average cut was 160,362 cubic metres (gray line). That is, officially, an “undercut”. The Harvest Billing System recorded a cut of 2,084,700 cubic metres in those 13 years. If the AAC had been the guide, 2,418,000 cubic metres would have been cut. When you look at the satellite imagery of this TFL, it’s easy to imagine that, had the AAC been met, there would be little more than clearcuts and plantations remaining. The general ministry practice of setting the AAC much higher than can be achieved over a prolonged period of time—mainly because the forest doesn't grow that fast—was the subject of a recent story. The current chief forester’s calculation—on paper—that a past “undercut” can be made up years afterward is disturbing. Look at the graph below, which records the AAC, actual cut and a conservative estimate of timber supply for a 20-year period in BC. Will the ministry now decide that an “undercut” occurred all over BC and can now be rectified by additional logging, like in the case of TFL 8? Seems utterly delusional to me.
  21. Herb and Fred, thanks for your comments on TFL 8. Most readers won’t know that TFL 8 is in the Kettle River’s drainage area and the logging company, Interfor, is named in a class action lawsuit that arose following flooding in Grand Forks in 2017, 2018 and 2020. Satellite imagery of TFL 8 shows what has happened on the ground: What does that intense level of logging look like compared to the AAC set for TFL 8 in 2009? Well, believe it or not, the AAC would have allowed even more logging. I looked at 13 years of ministry of forests’ data for the volume cut in TFL 8 and compared that with the official AAC. That data shows that the TFL has been undercut in those 13 years. The official AAC was 186,000 cubic metres per year (red line in graph below). The actual cut (orange line) gyrated wildly from year to year. The average cut was 160,362 cubic metres (gray line). That is, officially, an “undercut”. The Harvest Billing System recorded a cut of 2,084,700 cubic metres in those 13 years. If the AAC had been the guide, 2,418,000 cubic metres would have been cut. When you look at the satellite imagery of this TFL, it’s easy to imagine that, had the AAC been met, there would be little more than clearcuts and plantations remaining. The general ministry practice of setting the AAC much higher than can be achieved over a prolonged period of time—mainly because the forest doesn't grow that fast—was the subject of a recent story. The current chief forester’s calculation—on paper—that a past “undercut” can be made up years afterward is disturbing. Look at the graph below, which records the AAC, actual cut and a conservative estimate of timber supply for a 20-year period in BC. Will the ministry now decide that an “undercut” occurred all over BC and can now be rectified by additional logging, like in the case of TFL 8? Seems utterly delusional to me.
  22. May I suggest that each of you click the "Follow" button at the top right of this page? Doing that will provide you with an emailed notification that something has been added to this page. You can choose how often to receive such notifications.
×
×
  • Create New...