Boundary Forest Watershed Stewardship Society is part of a complaint to the Ministry of Forests regarding the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation section 9 objective set by government for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape level. David Broadland wrote about this here: https://www.evergreenalliance.ca/direct-engagement-with-the-ministry-of-forests-and-logging-companies/28/
The newly amended Forest Act (section 52.05) says a District Manager must refuse to issue a cutting permit if doing so would compromise an objective set by government.
The amended legislation, if implemented by District Managers, could greatly reduce the rate of logging in BC.
We would like to thank David Broadland for doing an analysis for TFL 8 in the Boundary TSA and for both the entire Rendell Landscape Unit and the portion of the Rendell LU that was assigned a high biodiversity emphasis option in land use planning.
The rate of logging in all 3 of these areas over the last 20 years has significantly exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance.
The details are in the letter below, which was sent to the government on July 15, 2024. BFWSS is one of the signatories, along with others concerned about logging in the Selkirk District.
This request is part of a plan initiated by Broadland to confront various district managers with the rate at which logging in certain areas in their district has exceeded the rate which now appears to be defined by section 9 of FPPR and to urge them to not issue cutting permits that would lead to section 9 being compromised.
LETTER SENT TO MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT ON JULY 15, 2024
PDF VERSION (easier to read)
July 15, 2024
To: Charlene Strelaeff, RPF, Selkirk Natural Resource District Manager, Ministry of Forests,
To: George Edney, RPF, BC Timber Sales Manager, Kootenay Boundary Region,
cc: Ktunaxa Nation Council, [email protected]
cc: Hon Bruce Ralston, K.C., Minister of Forests, [email protected]
cc: Doug Clovechok, MLA Columbia River-Revelstoke, [email protected]
cc: Roly Russell, MLA, Boundary-Similkameen, [email protected]
cc: Hon Katrine Conroy, MLA, Kootenay West, [email protected]
cc: Tom Shypitka, MLA, Kootenay East, [email protected]
cc: Brittny Anderson, MLA, Nelson-Creston, [email protected]
Good afternoon Charlene and George,
We write to you regarding the newly amended Forest Planning and Practices Regulation
(FPPR). We are concerned that section 9 of that regulation may not be properly considered in
the ongoing issuance of cutting permits for logging in the Selkirk Natural Resource District.
Section 52.05 of the newly amended Forest Act states “The minister must refuse to issue a
cutting permit if one or more of the following circumstances applies: (a) the minister
determines that, taking into account prescribed matters, if any, issuance of a cutting permit
would compromise a prescribed government objective…”
As the minister’s designates for issuing cutting permits in the Selkirk Natural Resource
District, you now have the responsibility to refuse to issue cutting permits that would result in
an objective set by government being compromised.
As you know, one of the objectives set by government in the FPPR is for wildlife and
biodiversity at the landscape level. Section 9 of that regulation now states: “The objective set
by government for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape level is, to the extent practicable,
to design areas on which timber harvesting is to be carried out that resemble, both spatially
and temporally, the patterns of natural disturbance that occur within the landscape.”
As you also know, the clause limiting the impact of this objective on the timber supply of BC
has recently been removed by an amendment to the FPPR. By that action the government of
BC has confirmed that cutting permits should only be issued for logging that resembles
natural disturbance—both spatially and temporally—at the landscape level.
Including the language “both spatially and temporally” makes it clear that the objective is
aimed at ensuring that the rate of logging resembles the expected rate of natural disturbance
at the landscape level.
A critical consideration in making a comparison between these two rates is the natural
disturbance return interval at the landscape level. The most recent science-based assessments
of the temporal dimension of natural disturbance in BC is contained in the 2020 Standards
for Assessing the Condition of Forest Biodiversity under British Columbia’s Cumulative
Effects Framework and the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel’s Background and Technical
Appendices.
We have consulted with a reputable forest ecologist who is an expert on natural disturbance
return interval, and what that implies. She agrees with us that for logging to resemble natural
disturbance at the landscape level in the ICHvk1 biogeoclimatic subzone variant, for example,
both spatially and temporally, no more than 1/250 of the ICHvk1 portion of the timber
harvesting land base in TFL 55 (for example) could be cut in a year, on average, over a 250-
year period.
We initially had questions about what the language of section 9 of the FPPR means, legally.
But based on common sense and the Ministry of Forest’s glossary of terms, we are now
confident about section 9’s meaning.
Section 9’s use of the language “to the extent practicable” should not be interpreted as having
anything to do with this objective’s possible impact on the timber supply of BC. After all, as
mentioned above, the “unduly” clause that previously limited the application of this objective
because of its effect on timber supply has been purposefully removed by legislative
amendment.
The ministry itself defines “practicable” to mean “Is possible and can be accomplished with
known means and resources.” In the case of the FPPR section 9 objective, designing timber
harvesting that resembles, both spatially and temporally, the pattern of natural disturbance is
both possible and can be accomplished using the science-based natural disturbance intervals
developed by the Ministry of Forests.
The FPPR section 9 objective’s use of the language “to design areas on which timber
harvesting is to be carried out” clearly limits the applicability of the objective to the timber
harvesting land base. In our analyses (see the results below), we used the Ministry of Forest’s
own account of the areal extent of the timber harvesting land base in the timber supply areas,
tree farm licences and landscape units we examined.
A question may arise regarding what is meant by the FPPR’s use of the language “at the
landscape level”. The ministry’s definition of “landscape level” is certainly applicable, in our
view, to a tree farm licence and a landscape unit. We also ran analyses for the Revelstoke,
Boundary, Arrow and Kootenay Lake TSAs. While TSAs are larger than “landscape level”, they
are the sum of a number of landscape units. If the rate of logging for an entire TSA is greater
than the cut available under the FPPR section 9 objective, then the equivalent of a flashing
yellow light should be guiding your issuance of cutting permits at the landscape level.
To determine the area logged between 2004-2023, our analyses used the ministry’s RESULTS
Openings database. Using that information we have determined that the spatial and temporal
distribution of logging disturbance between 2004 and 2023 (20 years) significantly exceeded
the predicted rate of natural disturbance in all of the TFLs, landscape units and TSAs in the
Selkirk Natural Resource District.
Please note that in all cases our analyses ignored the impact of actual natural disturbance in
the THLB of each of the management units we considered. This approach has the effect of
minimizing the calculated amount of overall disturbance compared to the expected rate of
natural disturbance. That is, our analyses understate the rate at which logging has exceeded
the expected rate of natural disturbance.
Here is what we found for the management units we considered in the Selkirk Natural
Resource District:
TFL 55
Estimated THLB: 19,174 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 3546 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 177.3 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 72 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 2.5 times
• Cutting in ESSFvc exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 3.2 times
• Cutting in ICHvk1 and ICHwk1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 2.3
Times
TFL 8
Estimated THLB: 64,605 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 14,824 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 741.2 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 394.2 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 1.9 times
• Cutting in ESSFdc1 and ICHmk1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 1.7
times
• Cutting in IDFdm1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 2.9 times
• Cutting in MSFdm1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 1.7 times
TFL 23
Estimated THLB: 144,623 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 26,045 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 1302.3 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 618.8 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 2.1 times
• Cutting in ESSFwc1, ESSFwc4 and ESSFwh1 exceeded the expected rate of natural
disturbance by 7.2 times
• Cutting in ICHmw2 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 1.8 times
• Cutting in ICHwk1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 5.4 times
TFL 3
Estimated THLB: 27,587 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 3555 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 177.7 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 101.6 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 1.8 times
• Cutting in ESSFwc1 and ESSFwc4 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 5.2
times
• Cutting in ICHmw2 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 1.3 times
Rendell LU
Estimated THLB: 44,462 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 12,201 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 610 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 248 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 2.5 times
• Cutting in ESSFwc1 and ESSFwc4 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 11
times
• Cutting in ICHmk1 and MSdm1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 1.7
Times
Boundary TSA (entire)
Estimated THLB: 272,286 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 61,624 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 3081.2 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 1617.2 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 1.9 times
• Cutting in ESSFwc1 and ESSFwc4 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 9
times
• Cutting in ICHmk1 and MSdm1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 1.7
Times
Arrow TSA (entire)
Estimated THLB: 183,392 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 38,651 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 1932.6 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 837.5 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 2.3 times
• Cutting in ESSFwc1 and ESSFwc4 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 8.5
times
• Cutting in ICHdw1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 1.6 times
• Cutting in ICHmw2 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 2.1 times
Kootenay Lake TSA
Estimated THLB: 182,990 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 47,623.8 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 2381.2 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 1018.7 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 2.3 times
• Cutting in ESSFwc1 and ESSFwc4 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 10.4
times
• Cutting in ICHmw2 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 2.6 times
Revelstoke TSA
Estimated THLB: 88,073 ha
Total cut 2004-2023: 6946 ha
Average cut per year over that period: 347.3 ha
Available annual cut based on section 9 of FPPR: 234.4 ha
Factor by which actual cut exceeded expected rate of natural disturbance: 1.5 times
• Cutting in ESSFwc1 and ESSFwc4 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 3.2
times
• Cutting in ICHvk1 and ICHwk1 exceeded the expected rate of natural disturbance by 2.4
Times
Our calculations take into account the relative proportions of biogeoclimatic subzone variants
in the THLB and those variants’ scientifically-determined natural disturbance return
intervals.
This evidence shows that for many years now, the rate of logging in the Selkirk Natural
Resource District has been approximately double the rate that is now understood to be the
expected rate of natural disturbance. During that period (and the 20 years previous to that)
there has been significant degradation of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity as a result of
this overcutting. The objective set by government for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape
level in 2004 through the FPPR has been compromised.
Application of sections 64 and 65 of the FPPR and other strategies employed by the various
tenure holders in their forest stewardship plans have clearly not resulted in timber harvesting
resembling, both spatially and temporally, the patterns of natural disturbance that occur
within the landscape.
Our concern is that current plans for logging in the district do not appear to reflect the
requirements of the legislative amendment to section 9 of the FPPR.
As noted above, we estimated the available annual cut in TFL 55 would need to be limited to
approximately 72 hectares per year in order that the rate of logging resembles the expected
rate of natural disturbance. This assumes that no actual natural disturbances—like fire or
insect infestation—occur in the THLB of TFL 55.
The ministry’s Forest Operations Map shows 242.6 hectares of proposed cutblocks in TFL 30.
But to resemble natural disturbance, this would need to be spread out over an approximately
3.5-year period in order that the proposed logging not compromise the FPPR section 9
objective.
Below is a summary of the area of recently proposed cutblocks (not including road segments)
as indicated in the Forest Operations Map (FOM) in each of the timber supply areas we
considered in your district:
Boundary TSA
Area of cutblocks proposed in the FOM (not including roads): 2773.4 ha
Estimated available cut based on section 9 of the FPPR: 1617.2 ha
Arrow TSA
Area of cutblocks proposed in the FOM (not including roads): 2399.5 ha
Estimated available cut based on section 9 of the FPPR: 837.5 ha
Kootenay Lake TSA
Area of cutblocks proposed in the FOM (not including roads): 1235.5
Estimated available cut based on section 9 of the FPPR: 1018.7
Revelstoke TSA
Area of cutblocks proposed in the FOM (not including roads): 1030.9 ha
Estimated available cut based on section 9 of the FPPR: 234.4 ha
The numbers above do not include previously approved cutblocks that have not yet been
logged.
In each management unit we considered, it seems clear that the area proposed for logging is
considerably greater than the area that would be available in a year under section 9 of the
FPPR if timber harvesting is to be carried out that resembles, both spatially and temporally,
the patterns of natural disturbance that occur within the landscape.
As previously noted, section 52.05 of the newly amended Forest Act states “The minister must
refuse to issue a cutting permit if one or more of the following circumstances applies: (a) the
minister determines that, taking into account prescribed matters, if any, issuance of a cutting
permit would compromise a prescribed government objective…”
As the minister’s designate, we expect that you will refuse to issue any cutting permits that
would result in the objective set by government for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape
level being compromised.
Please let us know as soon as possible what action you intend to take on this issue. We will
wait 10 business days to hear back from you. If we have not heard from you by July 31, we will
follow through with a complaint to the Forest Practices Board that your district may be failing
to properly regulate the rate of logging as required under section 9 of the Forest Planning and
Practices Regulation.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Eddie Petryshen for Wildsight, Marlene Johnson, resident at Kootenay Lake, Ray Hanson for
Boundary Forest Watershed Stewardship Society, and David Broadland for Evergreen
Alliance