Yudel

Thanks for the clarification!

Thanks for the clarification!

The THLB is the area that is legally and economically available for logging. Aren't any old growth requirements, along with all other non-timber requirements, subtracted from the forested landscape before the THLB is defined? Isn't the THLB simply the area of productive forest that is left after all the deductions for non-timber values like old growth and visual quality are made? So by definition, the THLB shouldn't include old growth management areas, because those areas are off-limits to logging and are therefore not part of the THLB. It's possible that no spatial old growth management areas have been identified, but still 9% of the area of productive forest could have been left out of the THLB to meet old growth requirements. Is this possibly what occurred in these TFLs? Also, as I understand it, old growth protection should be 9% of the forested land base, not 9% of the THLB, so the amount of old growth off limits to logging should be higher than the 132,400 ha that you mention. Am I wrong about all this?

I would be interested in a sharper version of this letter, if that is possible?

The Valhalla Wilderness Society, who apparently did a lot of the campaigning to protect this area, does use the term "rock and ice", but it refers to a much smaller area than you describe. Taken from their press release (https://www.vws.org/incomappleux/) “At 58,000 hectares, the promised new Incomappleux Conservancy is relatively large,” says Pettitt. “VWS is pleased that it takes in the entirety of the Incomappleux unit of our park proposal. The Conservancy is close to twice as large as the Incomappleux unit of VWS’s park proposal; but the extra is mostly clearcuts, inoperable terrain, rock and ice." So a little under half of the conservancy is "clearcuts, inoperable terrain, rock and ice." That's very different from 94% being "rock and ice" [(58,000-3,600)/58,000 ha].

The Valhalla Wilderness Society, who apparently did a lot of the campaigning to protect this area, does use the term "rock and ice", but it refers to a much smaller area than you describe. Taken from their press release (https://www.vws.org/incomappleux/) “At 58,000 hectares, the promised new Incomappleux Conservancy is relatively large,” says Pettitt. “VWS is pleased that it takes in the entirety of the Incomappleux unit of our park proposal. The Conservancy is close to twice as large as the Incomappleux unit of VWS’s park proposal; but the extra is mostly clearcuts, inoperable terrain, rock and ice." So a little under half of the conservancy is "clearcuts, inoperable terrain, rock and ice." That's very different from 94% being "rock and ice" [(58,000-3,600)/58,000 ha].

"[T]he Incomappleaux Conservancy is not protected from mining... All of the existing mineral claims in the conservancy have been left intact." According to the in-depth Narwhal article on the conservancy (https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-rainforest-protected-area-conservancy/), this isn't true: "Logging, mining and large hydro-electric development will be prohibited in the conservancy... The southern one-quarter of the valley — 17,000 hectares — will receive a special designation under B.C.’s Forests Act to prevent timber harvesting but allow mineral exploration and mining, according to a letter the forests ministry sent to the Regional District of Central Kootenay, a copy of which was reviewed by The Narwhal."

"[T]he Incomappleaux Conservancy is not protected from mining... All of the existing mineral claims in the conservancy have been left intact." According to the in-depth Narwhal article on the conservancy (https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-rainforest-protected-area-conservancy/), this isn't true: "Logging, mining and large hydro-electric development will be prohibited in the conservancy... The southern one-quarter of the valley — 17,000 hectares — will receive a special designation under B.C.’s Forests Act to prevent timber harvesting but allow mineral exploration and mining, according to a letter the forests ministry sent to the Regional District of Central Kootenay, a copy of which was reviewed by The Narwhal."

"The vast majority of the area of the new conservancy consists of biodiversity-scarce ice and rock... The areal extent of the Incomappleaux Valley that’s now in the conservancy that was considered suitable for logging—see Interfor’s map of its timber harvesting land base in blue in the image below—was only 3600 hectares... much of which had already been logged once—little of that area still contains high levels of biodiversity: a mere 273 hectares." I think this is misleading. You equate everything outside the timber harvesting land base (THLB) with "rock and ice". But the THLB is simply the forest that is currently economical to harvest. This can be based on proximity to mills and/or current log prices (higher log prices leads to more area being economical to log). Areas outside the THLB might not only be forested, they might also be biodiverse. The fact that old growth forests were mapped outside the THLB supports this (even taking into consideration possible VRI inaccuracies, forested area and THLB are not synonymous since the THLB area itself was constructed using VRI). These old forests outside the THLB may not be as productive or have trees as big as those inside the THLB, but there's no reason to assume they have little biodiversity value, and they certainly shouldn't be called "ice and rock"! Your overall point, that the size of a protected area does not tell us how much old growth was protected inside that protected area, is still true. But you likely underestimated the importance of this conservancy for old growth protection.

"The vast majority of the area of the new conservancy consists of biodiversity-scarce ice and rock... The areal extent of the Incomappleaux Valley that’s now in the conservancy that was considered suitable for logging—see Interfor’s map of its timber harvesting land base in blue in the image below—was only 3600 hectares... much of which had already been logged once—little of that area still contains high levels of biodiversity: a mere 273 hectares." I think this is misleading. You equate everything outside the timber harvesting land base (THLB) with "rock and ice". But the THLB is simply the forest that is currently economical to harvest. This can be based on proximity to mills and/or current log prices (higher log prices leads to more area being economical to log). Areas outside the THLB might not only be forested, they might also be biodiverse. The fact that old growth forests were mapped outside the THLB supports this (even taking into consideration possible VRI inaccuracies, forested area and THLB are not synonymous since the THLB area itself was constructed using VRI). These old forests outside the THLB may not be as productive or have trees as big as those inside the THLB, but there's no reason to assume they have little biodiversity value, and they certainly shouldn't be called "ice and rock"! Your overall point, that the size of a protected area does not tell us how much old growth was protected inside that protected area, is still true. But you likely underestimated the importance of this conservancy for old growth protection.

"One possible solution to this dilemma would be to not conserve small areas of old forest as formal protected areas or conservancies. Instead, forest-related legislation could be amended to simply make it illegal to log old forest in these areas, including a suitable buffer of surrounding recruitment forest in those biogeoclimatic zones where old forest has fallen below 30 percent." This is a great idea. Not only would it solve the problem of how to protect thinly spread-out old growth, it would also solve the problem of the VRI inaccuracies that you pointed out in the other article. As policy currently stands, if government doesn't know an old growth stand exists due to VRI inaccuracy, they can't protect it or defer logging there. If a logging company then stumbles upon that old growth stand, they are free to log it. But if by default it is illegal to cut down old growth in biogeoclimatic zones/site series that have <30% old growth remaining, then if a company finds an unknown old growth stand in such an area, they would not be able to log it. Instead, the VRI data for that stand would be updated and the stand would be automatically protected.

"One possible solution to this dilemma would be to not conserve small areas of old forest as formal protected areas or conservancies. Instead, forest-related legislation could be amended to simply make it illegal to log old forest in these areas, including a suitable buffer of surrounding recruitment forest in those biogeoclimatic zones where old forest has fallen below 30 percent." This is a great idea. Not only would it solve the problem of how to protect thinly spread-out old growth, it would also solve the problem of the VRI inaccuracies that you pointed out in the other article. As policy currently stands, if government doesn't know an old growth stand exists due to VRI inaccuracy, they can't protect it or defer logging there. If a logging company then stumbles upon that old growth stand, they are free to log it. But if by default it is illegal to cut down old growth in biogeoclimatic zones/site series that have <30% old growth remaining, then if a company finds an unknown old growth stand in such an area, they would not be able to log it. Instead, the VRI data for that stand would be updated and the stand would be automatically protected.

You assume that the carbon in all the volume logged is instantly returned to the atmosphere as CO2. But the rate of decomposition depends on what the wood is used for. Pulp might become CO2 fairly quickly, although not if a large percentage of paper/cardboard is recycled. Lumber can last decades or even hundreds of years when used for construction. For coastal old growth this might still be less than the time the trees would have lived. But perhaps not by much. For the interior, the living trees might have decomposed just as soon, if not sooner, than the lumber. Also, why do you count woody debris in the carbon subsidy? That wood was already dead before logging and will be left there after logging (not much slash burning happens anymore, as I understand it). Roots too will decompose quite slowly and I don't think you should have counted 100% of their carbon. Taking into account the shelf life of wood products, and not counting woody debris, would lower your estimate for the carbon subsidy. Nevertheless, you're probably correct that there is a large carbon subsidy (externality). It's possible that the value of the forestry industry to provincial GDP is currently greater than the combined subsidies, but even if so, it's probably not by much. And the difference will shrink and likely become negative as the price of carbon rises, as you pointed out. I would just like to see revised numbers that take into account the shelf life of wood products.