Jump to content

David Broadland

Administrators
  • Posts

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Store

Gallery

Wildflower families of the Discovery Islands

Forest-related journalism

Ocean-related reporting

Primary forest survey: Quadra Island

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (white-coloured wildflowers)

Loss of forest cover on Quadra Island

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (yellow-coloured wildflowers)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (pink-coloured wildflowers)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Blue-flowered wildflowers)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Red-orange-flowered wildflowers)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (brown-coloured wildflowers)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (purple-coloured wildflowers)

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Marine mammals

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Land mammals

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Marine birds

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Forest birds

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Amphibians

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Reptiles

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Marine Invertebrates

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Fish

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Green-flowered wildflowers)

Logging in the watersheds of Quadra Island

Plant species observed on the Discovery Islands that are endangered, threatened or species of concern

Animal species observed on the Discovery Islands that are endangered, threatened or species of concern

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Trees and Shrubs)

Lichen species of the Discovery Islands

Primary forest survey: Read Island

Primary forest survey: Cortes Island

Primary forest survey: Maurelle Island

Primary forest survey: Sonora Island

Primary forest survey: West Redonda Island

Primary forest survey: smaller islands

Primary forest survey: East Redonda Island

Place names: Quadra Island

Place names: Cortes Island

Place names: Read Island

Place names: Maurelle Island

Place names: Sonora Island

Place names: West Redonda Island

Place names: East Redonda Island

Place names: smaller islands

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Grasses, sedges & rushes)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Aquatics)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Ferns)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Lichens)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Fungi)

Plant species of the Discovery Islands (Mosses and Liverworts)

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Butterflies, Skippers and Moths

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Dragonflies and Damselflies

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Bees, Ants and Wasps

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Beetles

Animal species of the Discovery Islands: Slugs and Snails

Loss of forest cover on Read Island

Loss of forest cover on Cortes Island

Loss of forest cover on Maurelle Island

Loss of forest cover on Sonora Island

Loss of forest cover on West Redonda Island

Loss of forest cover on East Redonda Island

Solutions

Photographic survey

Forest carbon release by logging on the Discovery Islands

Portal: Public subsidization of logging on the Discovery Islands

Loss of forest cover on the Discovery Islands

The cost of the public subsidy of clearcut logging on the Discovery Islands

Impact of clearcut logging on forest-related employment

Loss of forest carbon sequestration capacity due to logging

Forest stewardship plans for area-based forest tenures on the Discovery Islands

History of forest loss on the Discovery Islands

Portal: A paradigm shift in how Discovery Islands forests are managed is urgently needed

Portal: Over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: Imagining a new relationship with forests

Portal: Loss of primary forest

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: Plantation failure

Portal: Use of ecologically damaging practices

Portal: Permanent loss of forest to logging roads, landings and quarries

Portal: Soil loss and damage

Portal: Loss of forest-related employment

Portal: Loss of employment resulting from the export of raw logs

Portal: Costs of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

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

Portal: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Portal: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

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

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

Portal: Loss of economic potential of other forest-related sectors

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

Portal: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Portal: The need to expedite treaties with First Nations

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

Portal: Surveys

Portal: The case for much greater conservation of forests on the Discovery Islands

Portal: Greater conservation of forests is needed to mitigate climate change

Portal: Retention of old and mature forest is necessary to protect biodiversity

Portal: Compared with old and mature forest, logged areas have a higher fire hazard

Portal: The extraordinary beauty of the Discovery Islands needs to be protected

Portal: We support Indigenous title and rights on the Discovery Islands

Portal: Logging on the Discovery Islands is heavily subsidized by the public

Species at risk on the Discovery Islands

Historical record of forest fires on the Discovery Islands

Lakes and wetlands of the Discovery Islands

Recreation Resources: Morte Lake-Chinese Mountain area

Recreation Resources: Nugedzi Lake-Mount Seymour area

Recreation Resources: Newton Lake-Small Inlet-Waiatt Bay area

Recreation Resources: Mud Lake-Nighthawk Lake area

Recreation Resources: Eagle Ridge-Blindman's Bluff area

Recreation Resources: Heriot Ridge area

Recreation Resources: Shellalligan Pass area

Recreation Resources: Two-Mile Lake-Clear Lake-Hummingbird Lake area

Recreation Resources: Maud Island-Saltwater Lagoon

Recreation Resources: Hyacinthe Point area

Recreation Resources: Raven Lake-Raven Ridge area

Recreation Resources: Main Lake Provincial Park

Recreation Resources: Octopus Islands Provincial Park

Recreation Resources: Darkwater Lake-Darkwater Mountain

Salmon bearing streams

Portal map: Salmon bearing streams of the Discovery Islands

Library: Logging and plantations create higher forest fire hazard

Libary: Conservation of forests needed to protect biodiversity

Library: Conservation of forests is needed to mitigate climate change

Library: Supporting Indigenous title and rights

Central library

Portal: Discovery Islands' place names

Export of raw logs from the Discovery Islands

Log exports from the Discovery Islands

Discovery Islands forest tenures and logging plans

Discovery Islands Protected Areas

Place names of the Discovery Islands

Portal: Calculation of direct local employment

Watersheds of Quadra Island

Watersheds of Read Island

Watersheds of Cortes Island

Watersheds of Maurelle Island

Watersheds of Sonora Island

Portal: Watersheds of the Discovery Islands

Engaging the mindustry

Species at risk of local extirpation

Artistic Expression

Volunteer

Discussion

Project calculations

Definitions

Fisheries surveys of Discovery Islands creeks

Portal: Resolution of forest-use conflicts

Vancouver Island Land Use Plan

About the Discovery Islands Conservation Project

Recent satellite imagery of forest cover loss on the Discovery Islands

Forest planning documents

Sources for April 2023 complaint to Forest Practices Board

Woodlot 2031 (Okisollo Resources)

Herbicide use

DI Forest Bulletin

Sources for 2024 submission on TFL 47 Johnstone Strait FSP

Comments on proposed cutblocks and roads

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Everything posted by David Broadland

  1. There is an extensive area of primary forest (never roaded or logged) north of Thrush Lake (near Saltwater Lagoon) that contains old-growth forest. The trail to Maud Island passes through a portion of the forest. TimberWest has been logging towards this area for several years. View of old forest north of Thrush Lake TimberWest began logging nearby in 2008. The location of old forest is shown in the satellite image below. The images below were taken from a drone. The first image looks north and the subsequent images look progressively further south toward Thrush Lake. The image below shows a 2017 TimberWest clearcut that overlapped the area containing old-growth forest. The stand is mainly small-diameter hemlock. The Douglas fir are much older and one tree with a diameter of 3-feet at breast height was found in the forest. All the fir show the area was burned in the past; the 1925 fire burned this area. The forest floor is sparsely vegetated and almost entirely covered with step moss. The areas appears to have only a thin layer of soil, which may account for the fact that it has never been logged: the trees are smaller and less commercially attractive than other low-elevation areas on Quadra.
  2. There are six landscape units in the Discovery Islands area, three of which (Quadra LU, Thurlow LU and Texada LU) have not had a written plan developed and implemented for them. What is a “landscape unit”? Landscape units were initially developed in the late 1990s as a response to the international push to protect biodiversity. In 1999, the provincial government developed a Q&A to explain landscape units: LANDSCAPE UNIT PLANNING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS General Version A. Background on Landscape Unit Planning What are landscape units? Landscape units are areas of land used for long-term planning of resource management activities. They are usually 50,000 to 100,000 hectares in size. What is landscape unit planning? An important component of the forest planning system in British Columbia, landscape unit planning produces objectives that are one type of higher level plan under the Forest Practice Code of British Columbia. How are landscape units different from the resource management zones coming out of Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs)? Landscape units are usually smaller geographical areas than resource management zones. In areas with legal resource management zone objectives, landscape unit objectives can provide additional detail for more effective operational planning. What are the priorities for landscape unit planning? The current priorities for landscape unit planning are the conservation of old growth and the retention of wildlife trees. How will other resource values be addressed? Landscape unit objectives and strategies for other biodiversity values (e.g., maintaining younger forests) and other forest resources (e.g., recreation) may be established where ministers have approved higher level plan objectives that deal with these values. In the absence of an approved higher level plan, objectives for other resource values may be developed in draft form. The draft objectives must be tested with the cooperation of licensees for a limited time period. Draft objectives must not delay establishment of objectives for priority biodiversity values and must not have additional timber supply impacts for licensees. B. Purpose and Contents of the Landscape Unit Planning Guide What is the purpose of the Guide? What does the Guide contain? The Guide is a technical reference for staff in the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The Guide contains Government policy direction on landscape biodiversity and consolidates all current and new policy on this subject. It includes technical procedures for carrying out analyses; preparing landscape unit objectives and strategies; and writing and establishing landscape unit objectives. C. Conservation of Biodiversity How will the Guide contribute to the conservation of old growth forests? The procedures in the Guide are focused on maintaining representative areas of old growth forest across each landscape unit. How will implementation of the Guide help British Columbia meet it’s international commitment to protect biodiversity? The Guide is a significant step in meeting national and international commitments to protect British Columbia’s rich biodiversity heritage. It is a made in British Columbia approach to balancing environmental and economic needs, and complements the Protected Areas Strategy and the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy. How does the Guide relate to the Biodiversity Guidebook? The Guide draws on and includes key information in the Biodiversity Guidebook. Parts of the Biodiversity Guidebook are now outdated. Therefore, where the Guide differs from the Biodiversity Guidebook, the direction in the Guide prevails. How does the Guide relate to the recently released Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (IWMS)? This Guide provides the framework for landscape unit planning. Landscape unit planning and the IWMS are key initiatives for meeting the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia’s goal of conserving biological diversity. Landscape unit planning in conjunction with other provisions in the Code (e.g., riparian management) will address habitat requirements for the majority of wildlife species. The IWMS addresses the habitat requirements of specific species considered to be at risk. An Implementation Advisory Group has been established to advise on the implementation of both this Guide and the IWMS. D. Impacts on the Forest Industry Will implementing the Guide impact timber supply? Implementing the Guide will adhere to provincial timber supply impact limits set by government. These limits, as identified in the Forest Practices Code Timber Supply Analysis, 1996 report, are 4.1% in the short term and 4.3% in the long term. Will implementing the Guide increase forest industry costs? How will these costs be minimized? Implementing the Guide may result in some increased costs to the forest industry. The Guide contains clear criteria for managing costs to the forest industry, including: not locating Old Growth Management Areas over approved cutblocks; not locating Old Growth Management Areas where main haul roads exist or are anticipated; agency staff working closely with forest industry staff to minimize costs while maintaining biodiversity values. Will the forest industry be compensated for loss of timber supply or increased costs associated with implementing the Guide? There are no plans to compensate Licensees for loss of timber supply or increased operational costs which may occur in implementing this part of the Forest Practices Code. Our intent is to manage impacts so that major cost problems are avoided. E. Impacts on the Mining and Ranching Industries How will implementing the Guide impact the mining industry? Implementing the Guide will not have an impact on the status of existing mineral and gas permits. Exploration and development activities are permitted in areas set aside for old growth conservation. How will implementing the Guide impact the ranching industry? Implementing the Guide will not impact ranching activities. Range use will be permitted in areas set aside for old growth conservation but should proceed in a way that is sensitive to the old growth values in these areas (e.g. fencing and salting should not take place in these areas). F. Stakeholder Involvement How have stakeholders been involved in the development of the Guide? Representatives from the major forest industry associations, the British Columbia Environmental Network and the Sierra Legal Defense Fund have reviewed and commented on key draft versions of the Guide. How will stakeholders be involved in implementation of the Guide? Representatives from the major forest industry associations and environmental groups have joined with Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks staff to form an Implementation Advisory Group to advise on the implementation of the Guide and the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy. This group will: advise on the design and content of training on the Guide; advise on the development of a strategy to monitor the implementation of the Guide; work with senior government staff to advise on major issues with stakeholder groups which cannot be resolved locally. Stakeholders and the public will be provided opportunity to review and comment on landscape unit plans developed using the procedures in the Guide. G. Implementation of the Guide How will the impacts of landscape unit planning on biodiversity and timber supply be monitored as the Guide is implemented? A detailed provincial monitoring strategy is being developed which will include: formal semi-annual reviews; compilation of results from districts and regions; more detailed evaluation in selected districts and a quick response mechanism to deal with significant policy or technical issues. How will government staff be trained to implement the Guide? Training will commence in May 1999 and must precede finalisation and approval of objectives. Training will consist of separate sessions focused on the needs of statutory decision-makers, technical staff and the public. Stakeholders will be provided the opportunity to attend the training as appropriate. The Implementation Advisory Group is advising on the design and content of the training. March 18, 1999
  3. The Texada Landscape Unit includes Twin Island, Hernando Island, Mitlenatch Island and Savary Island, all of which are considered to be in the Discovery Islands. As of mid-2022, no Texada Island Landscape Unit plan has been published, although one is apparently in development.
  4. As of mid-2022, a Thurlow Landscape Unit plan, known to be under development, has not yet been published. The LU is part of the Great Bear Rainforest agreement and documents pertaining to the GBR are applicable in the Thurlow LU.
  5. Approved in 2014, this plan covers the southeast end of Bute Inlet and Stuart Island and a few smaller islands. See map below. Islands inside the highlighted area are in the Quatam Landscape Unit. To read the plan, use the link above or download it: sunshinecoast_lu_quatam_plan_dec2014.pdf
  6. Approved in 2011, this plan covers the southwest end of Bute Inlet and some small islands in Cordero Channel. See map below. Islands inside the yellow line are in the Estero Landscape Unit. To read the plan, use the link above or download it: LBIP_7012001_Estero_SLRD_Report.pdf
  7. In the 2001 Vancouver Island Land Use Plan (still in legal effect), much of Quadra Island was identified as as a “Special Management Zone,” which implied a less intense level of logging would occur. The details were to be included in landscape level planning. Undertaking that planning was established as a “high priority” by VILUP and was to take place within 3 years. That planning never happened. That has not prevented other agencies from referencing this non-existent plan. In 2022, the Forest Practices Board explained in an investigation report that old forest on Quadra Island is managed under the terms of the Quadra Landcape Unit. The lack of such planning has had the effect of reducing biodiversity protection on Quadra Island. For example, the island has no designated Old Growth Management Areas or Wildlife Habitat Areas. The lack of landscape-level planning has allowed forest tenure holders on Quadra to avoid committing to practical provisions for protection of species-at-risk in their forest stewardship plans. Instead of being subject to the higher levels of protection intended under Special Management Zone 19, Quadra Island is being logged as though it were an ordinary resource management zone. The ministry's mapping of the non-existent Quadra Landscape Unit is below.
  8. Approved in 2012, this plan covers Cortes Island, Read Island, Maurelle Island, East Redonda Island, West Redonda Island and several smaller islands. See map below. Islands inside the yellow line are in the Cortes Landscape Unit. To read the plan, use the link above or download it: sunshinecoast_lu_cortes_plan_10jul2012.pdf
  9. This grove, west of Raven Lake, is mapped in the Old Growth Strategic Review Technical Advisory Panel’s mapping of Remnant Old Ecosystems. Its existence appears to be supported by satellite imagery and a drone flight (see images below), but has not, to date, been ground-truthed. It is in TFL 47. The ministry’s Vegetative Resource Inventory identifies this as about 4 hectares of 263-year-old forest (2021). The area’s elevation precludes large-diameter trees and it was likely left because it is on steep slopes. Satellite imagery shows old forest in the location shown The area of old forest can be made out in the shadowed mid-ground
  10. Satellite imagery suggests there are 3 or more groves of old forest near the summit of Mount Yeatman. The project has not yet ground-truthed these. TimberWest's mapping of old forest shows extensive areas of old forest in this area. These are likely low-productivity sites with relatively small trees.
  11. Satellite imagery suggests there are three groves of old-growth forest on the top of Mount Ashlar (a project placeholder name), the prominent mountain due south of Ashlar Lake. Another grove just north of the narrowest section of Small Inlet is also likely. The project has not yet ground-truthed any of these four areas. Mount Ashlar, on the north side of Small Inlet
  12. 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 in the cutblock (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
  13. The areas circled were logged between January 2021 and August 16, 2022. Also circled are new roads. Click image to enlarge.
  14. Martes caurian (Pacific Marten) Observed near Main Lake on Quadra Island by Ume Hermanski on August 14, 2022. BC List: S5? (Yellow) For more information see: http://linnet.geog.ubc.ca/efauna/Atlas/Atlas.aspx?sciname=Martes caurina Photo via Wikipedia
  15. 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 in the cutblock (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
  16. 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 Evergreen Alliance
  17. Brachyramphus marmoratus (Marbled Murrelet) Observed in Hyacinthe Bay on July 14, 2022 by David Broadland BC List: S3B,S3N (blue) For more information see: http://linnet.geog.ubc.ca/efauna/Atlas/Atlas.aspx?sciname=Brachyramphus marmoratus&ilifeform=11 Photo by David Broadland
  18. Rhionaeschna multicolor (Blue-eyed Darner) Observed in Hyacinthe Bay area on July 17, 2022 by David Broadland. BC List: Unlisted For more information see: https://linnet.geog.ubc.ca/efauna/Atlas/Atlas.aspx?sciname=Rhionaeschna multicolor
  19. No data yet. Amongst the largest trees cut was this one aged 97 years.
×
×
  • Create New...