Welcome to

Council maintains halt on approval of new logging pending public consultation on Municipal Forest Reserve

North Cowichan council has rejected a staff suggestion to approve logging an additional 5,000 cubic metres from the Municipal Forest Reserve.

Instead, council voted unanimously to log 2,000 cubic metres of timber, representing outstanding contract commitments from last winter’s blowdown storm.

One standard logging truck hauls about 40 cubic metres of wood, which means that 2,000 cubic metres totals about 50 logging trucks.

​

Council this week debated logging in the reserve as part of its budget discussions. Information in the agenda package was confusing and poorly presented — and even Mayor Al Siebring said as much. One does wonder why staff cannot present information on such an important topic of public interest in a clear and straight-forward way.

Siebring said he met with staff prior to the council meeting and learned that the additional 5,000 cubic metres is meant to give the municipality options going forward for logging later this year and is contingent on the recommendations by September from University of B.C. forestry officials on future management of the forest reserve as well as the outcome from a public consultation process.

“I didn’t understand this going in and I don’t think the public understood it,” Siebring said. “I didn’t get that from the documentation here.”

Council decided not to approve the 5,000 cubic metres.

Councillor Rob Douglas instead won unanimous support for his motion urging staff to proceed with the 2,000 cubic metres of harvesting obligations from last year and to “consider additional harvesting” after receiving recommendations from UBC as well as a FireSmart study into ways to reduce fire risks in North Cowichan.

Council already approved a two-phase engagement process for an interim forest management plan covering the period Sept. 1, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021, and a long-term management plan beginning on Jan. 1, 2022.

Sixmountains.ca earlier reported on freedom-of-information documents revealing Chief Administrative Officer Ted Swabey’s personal support for continued logging in the 5,000-hectare forest reserve. In the documents, Swabey advised council to preserve the “logging mandate” and warned that the “divisive” issue could take staff away from other priorities and that logging trees in the forest reserve is “part of our cultural makeup.” 

The reality is that logging has dominated the 5,000-hectare Municipal Forest Reserve, also known as Six Mountains, for decades and citizens are now demanding consideration of other values, including protection of viewscapes and forest ecology.

— Larry Pynn, Feb. 13, 2020

Much-anticipated public engagement on future of Six Mountains about to begin

Citizens of North Cowichan will soon have an opportunity to apply to join a public working group as part of the engagement process for future management of the 5,000-hectare Municipal Forest Reserve, also known as the Six Mountains.

Megan Jordan, North Cowichan's communications and public engagement manager, tells sixmountains.ca that a call will go out in two or three weeks via social media, the municipal website (northcowichan.ca), and the newspaper to apply for the working group.

Municipal staff will work with Vancouver consultants Lees & Associates to “finalize the membership, and will ultimately decide on composition of the group to ensure a diverse range of perspectives is included in the group,” Jordan said.

Lees’ representatives mentioned the public working group as part of their presentation to council on Jan. 29. The working group, comprised of perhaps 15 individuals, will help to guide the engagement process, but won’t have decision-making powers. 

The engagement process will include interviews with stakeholders, guided forest walks, phone and on-line surveys, public forums, and community pop-up events. 

Council unanimously approved a two-phase engagement process for an interim forest management plan covering the period Sept. 1, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021, and a long-term management plan beginning on Jan. 1, 2022.

During council debate, Mayor Al Siebring urged the consultants to ensure that stakeholder consultations are balanced — which is his way of saying he doesn’t want the process weighted in favour of pro-conservation forces.

The cost to the municipality of the engagement process is estimated to be at least $200,000, not including a separate engagement process with Cowichan Tribes and other local First Nations. 

Public concern over increasingly visible logging scars in the forest reserve just over a year ago led to a municipal moratorium on new logging pending a public engagement process. 

— Larry Pynn, Feb. 6, 2020

Cowichan Tribes develops major marijuana-growing operation on Mount Tzouhalem reserve

Logging has been taking place on Mount Tzouhalem in the Six Mountains, but this time it’s not the Municipality of North Cowichan.

Cowichan Tribes has been clearing trees on its reserve lands for development of a major  marijuana-growing operation.

“We are putting in a production plant for growing cannabis,” Chief William Seymour told sixmountains.ca. “It's a new economic development opportunity for Tribes to move forward on.”

Phil Floucault of Costa Canna Corp. revealed further that the facility will be built in two phases and cover a total of 40,000 square feet, with construction expected to be completed by the end of 2020.

Completion of phase one will produce about 1,580 kilograms of annually, rising to about 4,600 kilograms per year under phase two, he said.

“Premium flower will be sold in our retail locations, partnered retail locations, and medical patients via e-commerce,” Floucault said in an email. “We will also process lower quality flower into extract which will also be distributed in the same manner. If we have residual available it could be used for international markets as well provincial distribution.”

He added: “We are starting as stand-alone company, however we have several partnerships that will be formed over the next two years.”

Asked if the operation might cause problems for neighbours, Floucault said: “Health Canada has strict regulation around facility exhaust which include carbon filters which scrub the air prior to be exhausting to the exterior. We are developing a sealed cultivation system as well which reduces the amount of exhaust from the facility overall, reducing the ability for external odour. Typically, odour is present in greenhouse cultivation systems which we will not have on this site.”

Tracy Parow, executive director of Providence Farm, which is close to the site, said in a statement to sixmountains.ca that the farm shares about 160 hectares of property boundary with North Cowichan, the Nature Conservancy,  Mount Tzouhalem Eco Reserve (BC Parks) and Cowichan Tribes. 

“The primary focus of Providence Farm is the renewal of body and spirit; this is achieved by stewarding and using Providence Farm land to restore, sustain and grow the spirit, potential and skills of people, especially those with barriers to education or employment,” she said. 

“Providence Farm prioritizes the value of harmonious relationship and we respect the right of our neighbours to steward their land according to their own requirements.”

Cowichan Tribes opened the Cowichan Valley’s first retail marijuana outlet, Costa Canna, last October, with speeches and traditional dances at Duncan Mall.

— Larry Pynn, Feb. 5, 2020

Consultant warns that two-phase talks on Municipal Forest Reserve could create public confusion, fatigue

A draft plan for public consultation on future management of the 5,000-hectare Municipal Forest Reserve — also known as the Six Mountains — has highlighted several “challenges” with the process being undertaken by North Cowichan council.

One of those challenges involves “avoiding confusion” over the requirement for both  interim and long-term management plans and the potential for “engagement fatigue,” according to the draft plan by consultants Lees & Associates of Vancouver.

The interim forest management plan covers the period Sept. 1, 2020, to Dec. 31, 2021, whereas the long-term management plan begins on Jan. 1, 2022 — the same year as the next municipal election. Which raises the question: will a reduced public engagement result in business-as-usual logging in the Six Mountains over the next two years while council completes a more extensive public consultation for a long-term plan? 

Municipal logging in the Six Mountains continued unchallenged for decades until the public expressed concerns over ever-more logging scars just over a year ago. One information rally sponsored by the watchdog group, wheredowestand.ca, drew a full-house of 700 concerned citizens to the Cowichan Performing Arts Centre.

Public concerns include the impact of logging on viewscapes, forest ecology, climate change and recreational opportunities. An average of 20,000 cubic metres of timber are logged annually in the forest reserve.

Other potential challenges identified in the Lees draft plan: 

— Limiting the scope of engagement to the Municipal Forest Reserve, and not other forest lands.

— Reaching a representative sample of the population.
— Reaching individuals as well as organized groups.
— Providing clear and concise information about tradeoffs.

A separate consultation process will apply to Cowichan Tribes as well as the Halalt, Stz’uminus, and Penelakut First Nations.

Council will discuss the draft plan at its meeting on Wed., Jan. 29, at 1:30 p.m. Further details can be found on page 138 of the agenda package:

— Larry Pynn, Jan. 25, 2020

Mt. Prevost and Mt. Sicker are critical viewscapes requiring protection.

Expert sees need for improved viewscape policy in Municipal Forest Reserve

As North Cowichan embarks on a public consultation on the future of the 5,000-hectare Municipal Forest Reserve — better known as Six Mountains — one of the key issues is the need to protect important viewscapes.

North Cowichan’s Official Community Plan states:

— The Municipality will protect North Cowichan’s visual appeal by undertaking integrated forest management planning and encouraging managers of privately held forest land to practise small-scale sustainable timber harvesting and to engage in logging practices that consider visual impacts.

— The Municipality will use its Visual Landscape Inventory (2001) to assess forest harvesting plans, paying particular attention to areas visible from highways, scenic roads, residential areas, and travel corridors on water .

— The visible faces of Mt. Prevost, Mt. Tzouhalem, Mt. Richards, Maple Mountain and Mt. Sicker, together with the landforms visible from Sansum Narrows, Maple Bay, Osborne Bay, and Chemainus Harbour require specific attention to protect the visual values of the Municipality.

Clearly, these guidelines are not being met, since the growing number of visible clearcuts is what led the public to rise up against harvesting practices in North Cowichan more than a year ago.

Which begs the question: what are some of the key considerations for a modernized viewscape policy for North Cowichan, one that has some teeth and an ability to be monitored in the field? 

To find some answers, I sat down with Cam Campbell, an expert in this field who is also a member of the municipal Forestry Advisory Committee. Campbell is a resident of Maple Bay and a former visual landscape specialist with the British Columbia government who is currently an adjunct professor and lecturer on landscape planning in the Faculty of Forestry at University of British Columbia.

The need to protect visual landscapes from logging, including for tourism and recreation, started to evolve in B.C. around the late 1970s, and became formalized in provincial legislation, including the former Forest Practices Code and the current Forest and Range Practices Act.  Visuals are one of the 11 resource values in the act that the government may set objectives for on Crown Land, Campbell says.  

A multi-step process is involved. First, the visible landscape is inventoried and mapped, and an evaluation made of its sensitivity to change. Visual quality objectives (VQO’s) are then established where considered appropriate setting out the level of landscape change. Five VQO classes range from “preservation,” where alterations are very small and not easily distinguishable from the natural landscape, to “maximum modification,” typical of large clearcuts.   

First Nations, industry, and local communities are typically consulted during the objective-setting stage. To achieve those, forest managers use design techniques to tailor the cutblock shape and level of tree retention, and prepare visual simulations to evaluate whether these meet the VQO. 

An important part of the B.C. approach includes research into public acceptance for the visual impacts of different forest practices. Campbell says the research shows that “in general, regardless of where you live, people prefer natural forest scenes to those showing forest harvesting, and selective harvesting over clearcutting or variable retention. Tourists are less tolerant of harvesting than residents, and the public is generally less accepting of harvesting than are forest professionals, he says.

North Cowichan is not obliged to follow the provincial model, since its lands are held privately, but the Official Community Plan does acknowledge the importance of protecting viewscapes for its citizens.

Going forward in North Cowichan, Campbell says “what’s needed are clear objectives for visual quality that are grounded in community input, and a more strategic and longer-term approach for forest development in scenic areas.” At present, he asks, how can North Cowichan evaluate whether operations are achieving the desired level of visual quality if there are no formal objectives or criteria against which to judge success or failure? He remains hopeful these issues will be properly addressed as part of the forthcoming public consultation process. At the same time, he recommends that the municipality provides citizens with 3-D visual simulations showing how their viewscapes might look under different forest management and harvesting scenarios as part of the consultation and planning process — including complete retention of the forests.

Anyone who drives around Vancouver Island knows that the forest landscape has been heavily clearcut, especially on private timberlands. As I see it, that puts North Cowichan in a unique position to make a difference, to forge a new progressive future for the Six Mountains that recognizes the importance of standing trees.

North Cowichan council is expected to review a draft for a public consultation process for the Municipal Forest Reserve/Six Mountains at its Jan. 29 meeting.

— Larry Pynn, Jan 14, 2020

Cowichan Tribes purchase of Genoa Bay Farm raises development, logging questions

Cowichan Tribes has purchased Genoa Bay Farm and plans to develop a residential community on the lands, says Chief William Seymour.

Logging may also be in the future, although Seymour said in an interview with sixmountains.ca that the extent and nature of any cutting has yet to be determined. The farm has some of the last best Douglas firs in the Municipality of North Cowichan.

“We might have some selective logging. Nothing huge.”

So no clearcutting? “No.” 

Seymour, who was re-elected to a fourth two-year term earlier this month, described the farm as about 130 hectares and the purchase from a numbered company in the ballpark of $10 million — all made possible by a loan, although he did not provide specifics.

“It’s huge,” he said of the purchase. “You’ve got farmland, timberlands and waterfront.”

Seymour said the farm used to be reserve land, but that the federal government “sold it from under us” around the late 1800s and that “it was a matter of getting it back for us.”

He said Cowichan Tribes is now working with the federal government to have the farm put back into reserve — and away from oversight by North Cowichan — although the process could take some time.

While it’s understandable that the First Nation wants to advance its economic position, there’s undoubtably going to be planning concerns related to a residential subdivision suddenly popping up in the absence of a comprehensive area plan.

While Cowichan Tribes has not yet made any decisions about the future of the farm, Seymour noted “we’re probably looking at a small subdivision, maybe 40 homes” somewhere on the lands.

North Cowichan is about to launch a public consultation into management of the 5,000-hectare Municipal Forest Reserve, also known as the Six Mountains — Tzouhalem, Stoney, Maple, Richards, Sicker, and Prevost.

The municipality is bending over backwards to accommodate Cowichan Tribes on the forestry file, giving the First Nation representation on the Forest Advisory Committee and authorizing a parallel consultation during the Municipal Forest Reserve review.

Asked if Cowichan Tribes will extend the same courtesy to North Cowichan on the future of Genoa Bay Farm, Seymour remained non-committal. “Maybe, I don’t know,” he said. “I haven’t discussed it with my staff or even with North Cowichan, yet.” 

— Larry Pynn, Dec. 23, 2019

North Cowichan to forge new path for the Six Mountains beginning in early 2020

In a few weeks, North Cowichan residents will get their first peek at plans for a public consultation process into the future of the Six Mountains/Municipal Forest Reserve.

Megan Jordan, North Cowichan’s communications and public engagement manager, says she is awaiting a draft plan from Lees and Associates, the Vancouver company that received the municipal contract to lead the public consultation process.

Jordan said the draft plan will tentatively be discussed at council’s Jan. 29 meeting. Actual engagement work would likely begin in February. “We don’t know what that will look like because we don’t have a plan yet,” she said.

Lees' project manager assigned to the contract is Megan Turnock. The company was selected from eight bids for the contract in November.

A Duncan-based company, Indigenuity Consulting Group, will be working with Lees, handling a separate engagement process with Cowichan Tribes. “That’s a huge aspect, really important to the project,” Jordan says.

The president of Indigenuity is Cheryl Brooks, a Sto:lo from the upper Fraser Valley and a former associate deputy minister in the provincial energy and mines ministry.

If the fiasco over the Vancouver Island Motorsport Circuit expansion bid is any indication, this public consultation process will be anything but straight forward. Residents favouring a progressive, long-term future for the Six Mountains that rates viewscapes, ecology, and recreation over the short-term benefits of logging will have to be forceful in expressing their views and not allow the process to be hijacked.

North Cowichan is also working with the University of British Columbia on management options for the Six Mountains, including the potential to earn carbon-credit cash for leaving the trees standing.

In 2013, TimberWest and the Crown corporation, Pacific Carbon Trust, finalized an agreement that paid the timber company $6 million for a carbon-sequestration project, the largest of its kind on the BC coast. The company agreed not to log more than 1,000 hectares of its old-growth forests at dozens of sites on Vancouver Island for 100 years, including 50-hectare Koksilah Grove in the upper Koksilah River, which flows into the Cowichan River estuary.

If big business can do it, why can’t North Cowichan?

Loaded logging trucks from Mount Tzouhalem rumble through residential area of Maple Bay

I saw something very strange this week — a fully loaded logging truck lumbering through the residential streets of The Properties at Maple Bay.

The truck was hauling logs from a blowdown logging site within the Municipal Forest Reserve on Mount Tzouhalem, one of the greatest mountain biking destinations on Vancouver Island. (In fact, it was a social media post from a biking enthusiast annoyed at yet more logging on the mountain that first alerted me to the issue).

Curious where the truck was headed, I followed it along Maple Bay Road to Herd Road and Osborne Bay Road before it turned into Mosaic’s Shoal Island Log Sort in Crofton.

What happens to those logs next? A Mosaic representative told me: “All logs are first offered to local mills, by law, before they are deemed surplus. So, typically, on any given load of logs, some logs will be taken by local mills and some logs will be deemed surplus to local mill needs.” Surplus means they could be exported as raw logs.

According to North Cowichan’s 2018 annual forestry report, 58 per cent of timber sales were exported and 42 per cent were sold locally, within BC.

The municipality’s official position is that, “In all blowdown salvage areas, contractors are asked to remove damaged timber only, as long as there are no safety risks of doing so.” If you wander up Mount Tzouhalem to see the logging, you are forgiven for thinking that it is simply clearcutting, if on a smaller scale, and that last winter’s wind storm is a convenient excuse for North Cowichan to keep logging revenues rolling in pending a public consultation process on the future of the Six Mountains.

Earlier this year, the watchdog group, Where Do We Stand, conducted a detailed investigation into municipal blowdown logging on Stoney Hill, and found that healthy trees were cut down for all manner of reasons.

Here are the details:

— Larry Pynn Nov. 14, 2019

Mysterious new land offer to Cowichan Tribes only fuels suspicion of motorsport expansion

The swamp that is the Vancouver Island Motorsport Circuit issue just got murkier and slipperier.
Last Wednesday, North Cowichan council voted unanimously to set aside last month’s 5-2 vote against the racetrack expansion bid and hold a second public hearing after the proponents (VIMC) threatened to suit for millions if they don’t get their way.
Mayor Al Siebring and Councillor Tek Manhas — no surprise — voted in favour of the expansion.
After that Oct. 4 rejection by council, Warren Goulding, publisher of the Cowichan Valley Citizen, wrote: “Clearly, input from Cowichan Tribes resonated with council. As well as delivering a five page letter critical of the proposed development, signed by Chief William Seymour, several Tribes members spoke at the hearing.”
Ok, this is where the swamp gets really dark and dank.
On Oct. 30, Siebring emailed Chief William Seymour of Cowichan Tribes to thank him for a recent meeting in which they discussed a revised VIMC offer that the Mayor says included:
— An archeological monitor present during the entire construction of the project.
—  $600,000 for habitat enhancement for streams, construction of a trail up Mount Prevost, and potentially an elk study.
— Protection for the A4 lands — “102.28 hectares of forested land” the company owns immediately to the north — “for cultural purposes in their natural state to be gifted to Cowichan Tribes when requested. These lands would either transfer to the Municipality immediately and be held in trust for Cowichan Tribes or be gifted immediately upon receipt of a rezoning.”
During last Wednesday’s council meeting, Siebring again referred to the new offer, this time as “250 acres,” and acknowledged the potential for public criticism of the land transfer as “some kind of nefarious motivation or an effort to buy off the Cowichan Tribes….”
Today, I wrote the Mayor for a second time to clarify the numbers, noting that I had been contacted by individuals including Isabel Rimmer of the Sahtlam Neighbourhood Association fighting the expansion to suggest the A4 lands were closer to half that amount.
Later this afternoon, Ted Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer, got back to me with the following statement: “On reviewing the lands in question we confirm that you are correct. Staff did make a typographical error and we should have noted the size of additional A4 lands to be dedicated as referenced in ‘acres’ and not ‘hectares.’ Cowichan Tribes has been made aware of our error. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.”
Typographical error? Is that a euphemism for sloppiness? And why isn’t Siebring sharing the blame? I thought the buck stopped at the Mayor’s office. After all, he said he owned the reason for bringing the racetrack issue back to council for another vote.
Deep breath while you pull your gum boots out of the swamp. For the record, 102.28 acres equals 41.39 hectares — still a significant potential gift to the Tribes.
I spoke last Friday with Chief Seymour and he confirmed that he met with the Mayor to discuss a “few things,” including a new offer from the racetrack, but said he has not received anything formal from the racetrack proponents. “They haven’t offered it to us,” he said. 
Karen Robertson, the municipality’s corporate officer, also told me Friday that she hasn’t seen any formal correspondence detailing such an offer.
I am still awaiting details from municipal hall on exactly how the offer came to be. Until then, the electorate has the right to be suspicious….
Nevertheless, Cowichan Tribes’ environment committee will debate the offer at its Nov. 21 meeting, Seymour says. “The committee will decide whether we move forward. I hope they come up with an answer on whether we support it or not.”
(North Cowichan’s ultimate vote on the expansion project could put Councillor Debra Toporowski in a sticky situation since she is also elected to the Cowichan Tribes council. The land offer could also become a hot topic in the run-up to the Tribes’ elections Dec. 6. Chief Seymour is running for re-election, as is Toporowski.)
Seymour confirmed that Cowichan Tribes has expressed concerns about the motorsport expansion plan, but has not formally come out for or against the project. 
Whether this new offer sways the opinion of the Tribes remains to be seen. Seymour said his people would have to have a close look at the lands and “can’t rule anything out” in terms of what might — or might not be done — with the property. 
“Whatever the public thinks, I don’t know. I can’t support everybody all the time.”
Back at last Wednesday’s council meeting, Siebring noted he’s taken his share of public criticism over handling of the VIMC file. “I’ve been called everything from a hillbilly mayor to somebody who’s obviously in way over his head. There’ve been references to the idea that money talks….”
A former president of the B.C. Conservative Party,  Siebring also emphasized the importance of the public having “as much information as possible” and said he supported “the fundamental idea that people are entitled to know all of the facts surrounding an issue when we ask them to comment on it.”
That all sounds good. But without access to council’s legal opinion, the public has no way of knowing how much weight to put on VIMC’s threatened lawsuit.
Another issue is the Municipality’s refusal — at least, for now — to release documents.
I received an email last Thursday from Nelda Richardson, deputy corporate officer for North Cowichan, stating that information pertaining to VIMC “will be made available in the Public Hearing binders” at the public hearing, scheduled for Mon., Dec. 9, 2019 at 6 p.m. “We will not be providing any information independently to members of the public.”
Wait a minute. How are citizens supposed to adequately prepare their submissions if key information is not available until the night of the public hearing?
Seeking to clarify the situation, Roberston said Friday she has been instructed by Swabey that any relevant information will be released as part of a “public hearing package” and not “independent stuff here and there. It’s just too difficult.”
Staff simply haven’t had a chance yet to meet to collectively discuss what information can be released, especially in light of a potential lawsuit, Robertson said. The hope is that more information will be posted well in advance of the next public hearing. “When we do pull it together…we’ll certainly update our website,” she said.
And so it goes. This is a swamp that runs deep, and we’re nowhere near the bottom.
— Larry Pynn  Nov. 12, 2019

North Cowichan could learn from Metro Vancouver’s no-logging policy in its watersheds

While North Cowichan debates whether or how much it should log within the 5,000-hectare Municipal Forest Reserve, it could learn some lessons from Metro Vancouver’s management of its own North Shore watersheds.

Metro Vancouver has had a no-logging policy in its watersheds since 1994, the result of a public backlash against timber harvesting — and the forests have not burned to the ground since then.

“A good, fateful group of people were very persistent in wanting logging stopped, and the politicians agreed with that,” confirms Mike Mayers,  division manager of watershed operations and protection for Metro Vancouver.

Has that decision increased the fire risk? “I don’t think so. The current ecosystem is pretty healthy. Hopefully, things will eventually return to that old-growth balance.”

Mayers said in an interview that Metro Vancouver is looking at the potential impact of climate change on its forests, and how certain species may be affected more than others. The region has also done limited amounts of fuel reduction along some urban interfaces such as West Vancouver and Coquitlam. “Where we have boundaries with residential homes, we’ve done a little bit of thinning and reducing ladder fuels on the trees,” he said, noting the urban interface is where human-caused fires are most likely to occur.

Widespread removal of grounds fuels to reduce fire risk throughout the watersheds would be difficult given the area’s steep and rocky terrain and sometimes thick duff layer, he noted.

“Historically, the biggest fires in the watersheds were caused by activity like logging,” he added, noting an especially large fire occurred in 1910. More recently, lightning strikes have been the main fire source in the watersheds. 

“We fall back on having very prepared staff — two three-person initial attack crews, a big stash of fire-fighting equipment, over 30 staff trained in fire-fighting, and a memorandum of understanding with the province. We send crews their way when they’re in jeopardy, and they then reciprocate, understanding that the watersheds are extremely important to the residents of the Lower Mainland for their drinking water.

“So, we’d have a massive response if we had a fire. Our real goal is to be able to get on any fire report extremely quickly with our crews, and then call in the resources needed very fast.”

Metro Vancouver draws its water from a vast area stretching from Cypress Bowl to Coquitlam, including parklands and forested areas off-limits to the public.

Providing balance to the debate on carbon, forestry and old growth

North Cowichan Mayor Al Siebring recently referenced an opinion piece written by some of Canada’s senior timber industry officials who support the notion that it is better to log trees for profit before they grow old and turn into carbon and methane emitters. The Mayor said on Facebook that the industry comments were “apropos to the discussion about our Municipal Forest Reserve,” which could be interpreted as providing justification for continued harvesting and not allowing our forests to reach maturity. 

This is a nuanced subject area deserving a balanced and informed touch. As such, I have included, below, key passages from the study, Forestry and Carbon in BC, released earlier this year by the highly respected Dr. Jim Pojar, a long-time researcher for the BC Ministry of Forests, lecturer, and best-selling author, including co-author of the Plants of Coastal BC, the Bible of such field guides. Of course, there are many good reasons for maintaining old-growth forests, including biodiversity, hydrology, resilience to wildfires, recreation and culture. Regrettably, North Cowichan is bankrupt of old growth. Let’s hope that the pending consultation process for the Six Mountains is the beginning of a brighter, richer future for our forests.

MYTH #1 — Forestry is carbon neutral.

It could be but usually isn’t. At the scale of a forest stand, the conversion by logging of mature and old forests to young forests results in an increased release of carbon immediately, and for several years thereafter. This is because a) clearcutting generally leaves minimal carbon sinks (living trees and other plants) on the cutblock; b) a large pulse of carbon is lost immediately after logging due to the removal of trees and to the associated fossil fuel emissions; and c) disturbance to the soil and the original vegetation, and sometimes warming of the site, results in an increased rate of decomposition of coarse woody debris, litter, and soil organic matter, whereby losses of CO2 due to respiration exceed the amount fixed through photosynthesis by the regenerating forest—for at least a decade. Moreover, in managed forests, the overall carbon store is reduced if the secondary forests are managed on typical commercial rotations. The oldest stands typically have the largest stores of carbon. At the scale of a large landscape (say 300,000-500,000 ha) or of the entire province and if forest management is performed sustainably, it is possible that forestry-related emissions could be offset by uptake of carbon dioxide by the unharvested forests. It should be emphasized that the underlying carbon budget calculations are complex and depend on assumptions about a future with much uncertainty around carbon dynamics in a rapidly changing environment. Logging primary, mature and old forests and converting them to secondary, managed forests can reduce total carbon storage by 40-50% or more, even when off-site storage of carbon in wood products in buildings is factored in. The carbon dynamics are sensitive to rotation length, proportion of felled wood that becomes wood products in long-term storage (reportedly 25-40% for BC wood used domestically), and longevity of storage. Construction materials such as lumber, plywood, and laminated beams can last for many decades but wood products include paper and pulp materials (office paper, toilet tissue, paper towels, cardboard packaging, disposable diapers) as well as pallets and pellets, all of which have much shorter lifespans. Conventional short rotations and relatively short ‘life cycle’ even of long-lasting wood products (often reckoned to be 50-70 years in both cases, although some storage persists beyond 100 years) probably result in a significant one-time net loss of about 100-300 tonnes C/ha. A managed secondary forest could — in principle — recapture the lost forest carbon if allowed to regrow long enough to fully recover its carbon stock, which could be achieved more quickly and easily in most interior forests than in coastal or interior wetbelt forests. 2 “Oversimplification, and the second part is mostly false.” 

MYTH #2 — Young forests take up more carbon than they emit and are ‘carbon sinks’; mature and old forests take up less carbon than they emit, are ‘carbon sources’, and contribute to climate warming. 

That is an oversimplification and the second part of it is mostly false. Forests both absorb and release carbon throughout their life, from regeneration after disturbance through youth and maturity to old age. This results in a dynamic balance that changes over time, depending on stand age and on type and intensity of disturbance. The relative balance between uptake and emission determines whether a particular forest ecosystem is a net carbon sink or a source. After a stand-initiating disturbance, young forests are net carbon sources for several years until the amount of carbon they take up exceeds the carbon they emit through respiration and decomposition. Some old forests (sources) emit more carbon than they fix but most (sinks) fix more than they emit, depending on levels of within-stand mortality, decay, and growth. Net carbon uptake in old forests does level off or decrease, but total storage increases. Old forests usually store much more carbon on site than do young post-logging forests. Depending on how they naturally function, how they are disturbed, and how they are managed, forests can therefore either mitigate or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. 3 “Death is inevitable, but beside the point.” 

MYTH #3 — Mature and old forests are not permanent carbon banks because inevitably the trees die; the forests will succumb to wildfire, insects, disease, drought, and logging. 

Death is inevitable but in this matter beside the point, which is about the time value of carbon currently stored in forests. Indeed some existing forests will succumb or are already on the way out but BC forests will not disappear overnight. And some of these forests grow very old—ancient even— and carry on functionally intact for a long time, for several centuries or even millenia. If stand-replacing disturbances are rare or infrequent, as they are in wet coastal forests and many wet subalpine forests and interior wetbelt forests, the majority of the landscape will be occupied by old forests and most of them will just keep ticking along, taking up and storing carbon. Trees can get very old but they don’t live forever. If a forest does not experience a standreplacing disturbance (like wildfire, beetle attack, blowdown, clearcutting), as it ages individual or small groups of trees continually die and are replaced in what is called gap dynamics. The forest carries on with new recruits. Moreover, although all BC forests will eventually be replaced—suddenly, episodically, or gradually—currently they are carbon banks and their stored carbon has much greater time value now and in the crucial next three decades than anticipated, post-logging carbon storage recouped over the ensuing seven or more decades. Regardless of whether BC forests are a net source or a sink at any given moment, they continue to store megatonnes of carbon as long as they still have trees on site—even if the trees are dead.

View the full Pojar report: http://skeenawild.org/images/uploads/docs/Pojar-7mythsfinal-2019_copy.pdf

— Larry Pynn

North Cowichan embarks on new but uncertain path for the Six Mountains

Interim forest plan next step

North Cowichan Council approved what could be considered a milestone this week in terms of management of our 5,000-hectare Municipal Forest Reserve — better known as the Six Mountains. What it all ultimately means, especially in the short term, for logging in our community forests is not at all clear.
During a meeting attended Wednesday by an estimated 300 citizens at the Ramada Duncan, council officially approved two key motions: one, to move forward in partnership with the University of British Columbia on developing a long-term, forest-management plan for the Six Mountains, and, two, to hire a consultant to engage the public on this plan.
On the surface, it sounds good. But the details can be unsettling.
The goal is to implement this new forest management plan on Jan. 1, 2022. 
What happens before then? The municipality promises to “incorporate public feedback” as it develops an interim plan “to help the local forest manager meet short-term forest resource objectives” from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2021. 
That’s barely four months from now.
“Some key topics to be assessed include management response to natural disturbance events, reduction of fire risk, and promotion of forest health,” say municipal documents.
The plan also calls for identification of “areas where interim forest management activities may be warranted” and information on “different silviculture methods and options.”
All words that could be interpreted as justification for continued logging, much of which results in the export of raw logs.
Whatever happens in the interim, it’s critical that citizens be involved, have an opportunity to assert ecological diversity, recreation, and protection of viewscapes as the highest and best uses of our forests. Interim plans must not simply be developed by staff and UBC. 
All six councillors told me in writing prior to last fall's municipal election that they support the public’s right to review logging plans before any decisions are made. I now ask them to live up to that commitment.
Ernie Mansueti, general manager of community services, further informs me that the interim planning process “may or may not result” in harvesting, adding that “ultimately, council will make that decision….”
For now, I won’t be popping the cork on the champagne. 
While the future of the Six Mountains is in doubt, it remains a time for public vigilance.

Municipal Forest Reserve at a Crossroads

North Cowichan CAO Ted Swabey:  “We do not clear-cut as a harvesting practice:"

Not long ago, I asked Tourism Cowichan where I might go to see an old-growth forest. I was referred to Avatar Grove, a postage stamp of a protected area almost two hours away at Port Renfrew on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Then I asked the B.C. Forest Discovery Centre near Duncan the same question and was told I might also consider MacMillan Provincial Park near Port Alberni, about as far. That neither organization could point me to an old-growth forest in my own backyard in the Cowichan Valley hints at a troubling legacy that has placed far more value on forest cutting than forest conservation.

I got involved to make a positive difference — and hope you do the same.
After selling my home in Tsawwassen and purchasing a view property in the Maple Bay area in May 2018, I soon noticed clearcuts appearing near and far, including on Mount Prevost and Mount Sicker, both within the 5,000-hectare Municipal Forest Reserve. When I inquired, a municipal staffer informed me that the “municipality does not release logging plans for public comment before proceeding with any activities” and that the Forestry Advisory Committee is mainly comprised of “community members who are professionals in the forestry field.”
That concerned me as a citizen, a nature lover and proprietor of an Airbnb whose investment stands to be diminished by such clearcuts — an Airbnb, I might add, that brings in thousands of dollars to businesses in the Cowichan Valley.
Turns out I wasn’t the only person growing concerned about logging in the Municipal Forest Reserve.
Hundreds of people — the highest in recent memory — turned out for a council meeting last December to overwhelmingly support a change in management of the Reserve, which for too long has operated under the public radar.
Then, in March, a full-house of 700 concerned citizens turned out to the Cowichan Performing Arts Centre for an event sponsored by the grassroots watchdog group, Where Do We Stand, wheredowestand.ca (which, for the record, I do not represent).
A second event, The Magic of the Six Mountains, is now planned for 7 p.m., Oct. 2, at the same venue. Guests speakers include forestry ecologist and best-selling author Andy MacKinnon and University of British Columbia forestry professor Suzanne Simard. Today, North Cowichan is in a unique position to reverse its long-held logging policy and adopt a conservation ethic that recognizes ecological, recreational, and viewscape values. In doing so, the municipality might take a page from Port Renfrew’s book.
That small but forward-looking community at the end of Highway 14 has embraced old- growth forests, and officially calls itself the Tall Tree Capital of Canada.
Tourists today visit Port Renfrew for three main attractions: sport fishing, Botanical Beach and big trees — and the protected forests are a draw year-around, and don’t give a hoot about the daily tides.
“Strictly on a business basis, the attraction of an old-growth forest will last forever,” says Jon Cash, co-owner of Soule Creek Lodge and past-president of the chamber of commerce. “The benefits of logging will be very short-lived and you can’t take it back.”

Which is not an indictment of logging, but a cry for greater balance in our forests.
Will the winds of change make it to North Cowichan?
Freedom-of-information documents I obtained from municipal hall earlier this year reveal Ted Swabey, chief administrative officer, advising council to preserve the “logging mandate” and warned that the “divisive” issue could take staff away from other priorities and that logging trees in the forest reserve is “part of our cultural makeup.”

Well, Ted, let me inform you that North Cowichan is a fast-changing community, and not everyone agrees with you. Whether they are newcomers to the municipality or long- standing residents, people have seen too much logging on Vancouver Island and view the Municipal Forest Reserve as an opportunity to make a difference.

When Swabey further writes: “We do not clear-cut as a harvesting practice,” I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Just drive up Mount Prevost and see for yourself.
Mayor Al Siebring has also been hawkish on the issue. Before the last election, I asked council candidates where they stood on the issue of the public having the right to review logging plans in the Municipal Forest Reserve before any decisions are made. Of those elected, only the Mayor refused to commit to the motherhood idea.

The vast majority also expressed support for a greater balance of interests on the Forestry Advisory Committee. Again, the Mayor refused to commit.
Since then, there have, in fact, been additions to the Committee, but it remains weighted in favour of logging. For example, one of the latest appointees is also operations manager for Khowutzun Forest Services, the forestry arm of Cowichan Tribes, which receives forestry contracts from the Municipality.

For the moment, council has put a hold on contracts for new logging within the Municipal Forest Reserve. Tomorrow, who knows?
The future of the Six Mountains — Tzouhalem, Maple, Stoney, Richards, Prevost, and Sicker — hangs in the balance. UBC forestry faculty is working with council on a management strategy for the reserve that may include saving forests for carbon-credit cash, but nothing is guaranteed at this point.
Council meets at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 21, at the Ramada Duncan ballroom— and the Municipal Forest Reserve is on the agenda.
If you can attend, please do so. Council needs to know that the electorate demands a new vision for the Reserve, one that considers ecological values, recreation, and preservation of viewscapes to be the highest and best use of our forest.
Please encourage council to look beyond its four-year mandate to a time when people can once again walk amongst an old-growth forest in the Cowichan Valley.