AN URGENT APPEALAT THE ALMOST 11th HOUR!
With careful revealing research by our brilliant teams, all the documenting facts are presented HERE NOW for your use in your comment.
“The average harvest age falls sharply over the next fifteen years as existing old-growth growing stock is harvested. The long-term average harvest age is 81 years.” TC MP#5 Version B p 13/pdf 20. (Emphasis Added)
This extraordinary opportunity to send your comment to Teal Cedar and cc the Ministries could help end Old Growth Logging at Fairy Creek and save the habitat of the endangered Marbled Murrelet and other rare species.
Here is another sample Comment:
Teal Cedar E-mail Address for comments: forestryadmin@tealjones.com
To Forestry Administration at Teal Cedar Products Ltd.:
Our ancient trees, beloved Old Growth, and one of its most precious tenants, the Marbled Murrelet (MaMu), a migratory seabird, is critically dependent on the preservation of the Old Growth / ancient trees (250 – 1000 years old) for its survival! Typically laying only one egg per year, this threatened bird was identified in need of protection as early as 1916 in Canada. Canada and 4 other countries joined in a treaty to protect the MaMu. The Migratory Bird Convention Act is still the law of the land in Canada and Teal Cedar is doing little or nothing to preserve Old Growth, the MaMu, or any of the other species at risk dependent on these trees to avoid extinction.
“The total area of Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 46 is 59,431.6 hectares. The productive area is 57,239.0 hectares. The Timber Harvest Land Base (THLB) area is 42,566.8 hectares.” TC MP#5 Version B Appendix B, also identified as Version D p 10-11/pdf 57-58 (Table 5.1).
In Table 5.1 you calculate the total productive Farm size by removing 1889.2 ha for roads from the total Farm size. I don’t believe it is accurate to remove 1889.2 ha from the total TFL area when computing the total productive TFL area, because those hectares include Old Growth that is harvestable in the creation of the road. You then remove the remaining designated categories from the total productive land base to determine your total THLB. In that calculation, you removed for Old Growth Management Areas (OGMA) 2,600 ha even though you report that you identified a total Old Growth area of 5,700 ha (9%). For MaMu you removed 4.4 ha from the THLB for this plan or 0.0073%. You identified a total area of 1,631 ha for MaMu (less than the total for roads). Therefore in calculating the total THLB you only commit to removing 4.4 ha for MaMu and 2,600 ha for OGMA despite your Tables that establish larger total areas for each of those categories. Your plan should save all of the total area identified for OGMA and WHA as they are a very small part of the total productive area of the TFL. In fact, to comply with Ministerial Order for the Marbled Murrelet you should not be including the remaining area for these two categories for which greater protection is truly needed. In leaving 3,100 ha of Old Growth and 1,627 ha of MaMu habitat in the THLB you are clearly including these hectares as available for harvest. Why are you ignoring the Minister’s Order? You must revise MP#5. Your plan also violates the Migratory Bird Convention Act as well as provincial law and totally ignores the Species At Risk Act (SARA). After removing the hectares (ha) retained for Old Growth Management Areas (OGMA), Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA), unproductive areas, etc. Per your Plan, you include in your THLB designated areas for OGMA and WHA that are already far smaller than the law mandates. Table 5.1 leaves much of the important category areas identified for greater protection in the THLB, the timber harvest land base of 42,566.8 ha, which means 75.5% of the total area of TFL 46 is not safe from harvest.
If the federal statutes mandate preservation of Old Growth to support the MaMu and other species at risk, what did you do to determine that the only area in the total tree Farm size to be designated for Old Growth management is 5,700 ha? Biologists and radar confirmed more than 100 MaMu in Granite Creek watershed and the Fairy Creek watershed last July. You received their information. Even though you knew there was MaMu in the Granite Creek watershed, you began a final clearcut of the permit block right where the MaMu had been confirmed nesting. Bottom line, you co-locate OGMA and Wildlife Habitat, you move the designated area to other locations after clearcut, explaining that the clearcut area will be considered a recruitment area. A recruitment area for Old Growth means no harvesting in that area for 250 years but your long-range plan, as described on page 13/pdf 20, describes a continuous plan for harvest with the statement that the average age of the trees harvested will be 81 years, definitely not Old Growth. In fact, your Plan states that TFL 46 has only 3,867.7 ha of trees that are 250 years old or more, a drop in the bucket when the Ministerial MaMu Order will save an additional 60,000 ha of Old Growth. You must immediately stop harvesting Old Growth.
Sincerely,
friendsoffairycreek@gmail.com
250-598-0640
For additional Comment options see the following:
1. In MP#5 Teal Cedar describes plans to do sensitivity studies for the Northern Goshawk. There are no plans to monitor or look for the Marbled Murrelet, in total disregard of the Ministerial Marbled Murrelet Order signed November 19 and issued to the public on December 10, 2021.
2. Teal Cedar was clearly aware as early as October 2021 of the pending Minister’s Order to give the MaMu more protection. Teal Cedar also knew that the Minister was going to require an additional 60,000 ha of Old Growth to be preserved in BC. That fact is stated in Teal Cedar’s October 22, 2021, Forest Stewardship Plan for Chilliwack. See Supporting Information page 17/pdf 21 filed with the FSP October 22, 2021, specifically noting the pending Marbled Murrelet Order.
3. Since Teal Cedar knew about the MaMu Order in October, why is there no plan to do more for MaMu and preservation of Old Growth in Teal Cedar’s Management Plan #5?
4. Teal Cedar’s MP#5 should also be rejected because of the extreme confusion caused by Teal Cedar’s lack of any index for the entire 187 page MP#5 and also because of the lack of sequential numbering and multiple indexing not to mention intentionally blank pages that make it impossible for most to refer to a specific part of the document in a Comment: e.g.
When looking at Version C online, it is actually found under Version B Appendix C. You may not have noticed it but in the upper right hand corner of each online page of the contents of Appendix C, it will read Version C – Timber Supply Analysis Technical Report pdf 149-184.
If you are looking for Version D, it actually precedes what is identified as Version C and is found under Appendix B of Version B (see upper right each page) – Information Package with all of its appendices pdf 36-147.
5. MP#5 does not contain a Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) or even a proposed draft. Your current FSP expires June 29, 2022. Where is it?
Sample Public Comment:
- Granite Creek and Fairy Creek are about to be logged by Teal Cedar
- More Old Growth is coming down
- Teal Cedar’s Management Plan #5 (MP5) is up for review
- Teal Cedar’s Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 46 expires June 30, 2022
- They need to hear from the public
- Let’s make a difference and hopefully stop this tragedy and save the Marbled Murrelet (MaMu), a migratory seabird protected by Canada and four other countries by treaty
- MaMu and many other threatened species will not survive without the Old Growth
- Email your public comment ASAP and not later than March 3, 2022, to: forestryadmin@tealjones.com
- Finally, sample public comment below. Use any or all of the options below, add your own thoughts as each Comment sent needs to be unique to be considered
Please find here my public comment for Teal Cedar’s Management Plan #5
I find your management plan for TFL #46 completely inadequate with respect to Endangered Species and Old Growth Forests. There is little consideration for the wildlife in TFL #46 as outlined in Teal Cedar’s Management Plan. The Old Growth is also an integral part of the traditional and cultural practices of Indigenous People. In addition, Teal Cedar’s Management Plan #5 is intentionally confusing and should be withdrawn. The area of Old Growth designated to remain is less than 10% of the Tree Farm Licence (TFL) area.
On tables 5.1 (MP5, pdf 57) and 5.22 (pdf 69) you list the total area for Old Growth Management (OGMA) (5,700 ha) and total for MaMu (1,631 ha.), while retaining more area for your roads (1800 ha) than MaMu. Some of the OGMA on your map, as in Cowichan, were clearcut and are now being called a recruitment area, “future habitat.” (Teal Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) Supporting Information 2017 p. 11). What? In 250 years?? With so little land reserved for MaMu (2.7%), (OGMA, 9%) and all other wildlife habitats (0.5%), MP#5 does not comply with our Federal laws: Migratory Bird Convention Act, Species At Risk Act, Recovery Strategies for the Marbled Murrelet and Canada-BC Agreement on Species At Risk. That Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP) of 2017 expires this June and no new FSP has been released to the public. It’s not within MP#5. So, where is it?? What are you going to do this June when the FSP and TFL licenses expire? The total areas you commit to saving of OGMA and WHA, in MP #5 (tables 5.1 and 5.22 Area Removed) to compute total Timber Harvest Land Base are 2,600 ha. for OGMA and a mere 4.4 ha. for Marbled Murrelet (MaMu) (MP#5pdf pg 57 and 69) This is ridiculous because you’re not removing the total area supposedly preserved for OGMA or the 1,631 for MaMu. Other than what’s labeled area removed you leave in the Timber Harvest Area, why? In MP #5 for the next 5 years, you have actually only committed to saving 4.4 ha or 0.0074% for MaMu. For OGMA in MP#5 you actually remove only 2,600 acres from the Timber Harvest Land Base (THLB) or 4.4% for OGMA. The remaining area identified for both MaMu (1,627 ha) and OGMA (3,100 ha) is left in the THLB. Why?
In MP #5 for the next 5 years, you have actually committed to saving (ie. removing from the Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB)) only 4.4 ha or 0.0074% of the THLB for MaMu. For OGMA in MP#5 you actually remove only 2,600 acres from the THLB or 4.4% for Old Growth Management Areas.( OGMA).
The remaining area identified for both MaMu (1,627 ha) and OGMA (3,100 ha) is left in the Timber Harvesting Land Base (THLB). Why?
MP #5 must be denied and rejected. This comment will be copied to all individuals responsible for your plan.
Signature,
Email address
Phone number
Teal Cedar Products Ltd.
Honeymoon Bay Operation
9370A South Shore Road
Mesachie Lake, B.C.
February 28, 2022
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to comment on Teal Cedar Product Ltd.’s Proposed Management Plan #5 (hereafter
‘the Plan’). I am a local resident of the Capital Region District, an adjunct professor in
Environmental Studies at UVic and have worked as a consultant in various capacities reviewing
legislation, policy, status, and management practices for endangered species. I worked with the
original Marbled Murrelet (MaMu) recovery team and the original BC Resource Inventory
Committee (RIC now RISC) throughout the 1990s to develop training standards around the
monitoring and detection of MaMu nests. The scientific recommendations developed in the first
recovery plans about what protection levels were needed to halt this species from extinction—was
the protection of a 70% of remaining old growth habitat that existed in 2002. Since that time, the
province has placed the responsibility of achieving the “result” of MaMu habitat protection targets
on a professional reliance system. The basis by which members of the public can review and
comment are through a limited planning process, like Management Plan #5. The following
questions are raised for clarification, but it is my belief, judging from the paucity of evidence to the
contrary in the Plan with only 4.4 hectares removed for MaMu in TFL 46, that there has been a
fundamental failure of professional judgement from the licensee to account for the laws and
standards for monitoring and protection of this species.
Where is the evidence that any of the RISC MaMu monitoring standards
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/nr-laws-
policy/risc/mamu_ml20.pdf have been put into place for TFL 46 by your professional foresters?
When will the public be given the opportunity to review a ground-truthed plan of critical Marbled
Murrelet habitat in TFL 46 that considers Canada and British Columbia’s legal obligation to manage
for MaMu critical habitat under the Migratory Bird Convention Act, the federal Species at Risk Act
and section 149.1 as Identified Wildlife of the Forest and Range Practices Act?
Where is the evidence that the licensee will implement the recommendations of the federal MaMu
recovery plans, or the recent provincial Ministerial Order (December 2021)—the Order identifies
an additional 60,000 hectares of MaMu habitat to be protected?
Why isn’t the information by independent researchers who found several nests in TFL 46 contained
within your report?
The public is being asked to comment on the merits of a management plan and timber supply
review without adequate documentation that shows how this landscape and MaMu nesting habitat
was evaluated. Procedurally, there is so much obfuscation around public process, lack of
documents shared, expiration dates of Forest Stewardship Plans (FSP) and allocations of AAC,
interim management plans with unclear jurisdictional goals that the only conclusion that I can
draw is that there is a failure with the process and professional reliance. Given the international
focus on these forests, the lack of social license to destroy endangered species habitat, and the
global twin crisis of the loss of forest sinks and biodiversity, the company should be held
accountable for failing to provide adequate documentation of the risk. As a member of the public
trying to navigate this process, these are additional questions directed to your professional foresters
in whose trust the government has put our forests and endangered species.
What is the long-term research/monitoring of these populations by your foresters? What budget
have you ever allocated to this task? There is no evidence that there have been any ground surveys
of nests by a TFL 46 lessee since the FRPA legislation came in in the early 2000s. The professional
forester given this responsibility has failed.
What is the WHA allocation in the TFL 46 draft management plan compared to the proposed
WHAs in the Order? For TFL 46 alone, according to the Order, there are 6 new proposed WHAs
mapped, none of which described (in Appendix A or the Order) appear to be in Figure 7 below of
the Plan.
Because spatial parameters to this Order are not solidified until the proposed Wildlife Habitat
Areas (WHAs) are embedded in licensees cutting plans, where are they in this plan? And if
embedded, what are your guarantees for protection? Spatial parameters are provided in Section
7s, but there are clauses in the Order that permit licensees: a) in eastern Vancouver Island, to log a
percentage of them for roads and infrastructure; b) all of the proposed are subject to variances,
substitution of areas by licensees, to which there is virtually no public oversight because your
professional reliance system has not provided any information.
What are the implications of the new provincial targets on maintaining healthy populations of
MaMu in TFL 46? Because high-level targets are not being “spatialized,” in TFL 46 where is the
proof that you are considering the health of MaMu provincial targets?
Why in the Plan does it appear Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) are located in the same spatial location as WHAs for Marbled Murrelets? and where are the maps showing this is being done ? What I now understand to be called co-location is contrary to the different objectives and
results desired. The practices of determining OGMAs as ‘non-spatial’ or ‘recruitment’ of second
growth mean OGMAs have no ability to support MaMu habitat (nor old growth for that matter).
These non-transparent practices question the professional judgement in this Plan.
Where is the evidence that your forester is ensuring these Orders are implemented to
recommended targets and established standards? What access does the public have to review the
final cutblock and road plans to compare against the Orders? Note, the reliance by the public on
the standards is highlighted in the MaMu Order professional in #3 items 3 and 4 [below].
(3) Despite subsection (1)(a), Suitable Habitat polygons shown in Schedule “1 to 6” in
the East Vancouver Island Conservation Region may be harvested, provided harvesting is
required for road access, other infrastructure, or to address safety concerns, where there
is no practicable alternative
(4) Variance from the Objectives in Sections 3.(1) to 3.(3) for the Suitable Habitat
polygons shown in Schedule “1 to 6” may be allowed, provided that: (a) A Qualified
Professional: (i) Completes a field assessment that identifies the characteristics of Suitable
Habitat using established standards; and (ii) Confirms the alteration will result in no net
loss or functional loss of Suitable Habitat. (b) A Regional Ministry of Forests, Lands,
Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development biologist approves the alteration of
the Suitable Habitat polygons.
Have you confirmed the BC targets meet those outlined in the 2014 federal Recovery Strategy
(which set the original targets); the 2018 provincial Implementation Plan for Recovery of MaMu;
and the 2021 federal Amended Recovery Strategy for the MaMu? These high-level orders have
complex different jurisdictional boundaries, averaging percentages and presenting data because of
different legislative requirements. This Plan should have a GIS analysis to correlate the different
units of analysis proposed by the feds, the province and the Plan to see how they spatialized the
big high-level Land Use Order into polygons on the ground.
Because the high-level recovery plans need to be spatialized and given these averaging equations
(to even out distribution of habitat across the landscape) are based on various factors, where is the
evidence you are doing this work? The original intention of the 2014 federal Recovery Plan for
MaMu was to protect overall 70% of the amount of habitat that existed in 2002 (90% of the
amount of habitat in East Vancouver Island, 68% of the West and North Vancouver Island). This
high-level target should correlate with the WHA polygons within provincial Forest Districts. I
would expect to see a GIS exercise that correlates/overlays the 2021 Marbled Murrelet Order
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-
use/land-water-use/crown-land/land-use-plans-and-objectives/biodiv-hab-
mngt/mamu/mamu_luor_2dec2021.pdf (which is a combination of: a) an overriding Land Use
Order (to protect an additional 60,000 hectares from the 48,000 hectares already designated as
Wildlife Habitat Areas WHAs) and; b) Notices of the Forest and Range Practices Act Section 7 tool
which directs tenure holders to manage for species in Landscape Units/Forest Districts.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/natural-resource-
use/land-water-use/crown-land/land-use-plans-and-objectives/biodiv-hab-
mngt/mamu/mamu_fppr7_wlppr9_2dec2021.pdf
with the 2018 provincial Implementation Plan for the Recovery of MaMu.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/species-
ecosystems-at-risk/recovery
planning/implementation_plan_for_the_recovery_of_marbled_murrelet.pdf
The original 2018 Conservation Units were broken down into Landscape Units and then averaged
again under Aggregate Landscape Units so the Plan would need to correspond with the spatial
areas in forest districts described and mapped in the MaMu Order. For example, what is described
by the province in the MaMu Order as San Juan Area 6 of South Island Natural Resource District
(in which Fairy Creek sits) is split between the federal MaMu Conservation Unit for East Vancouver
Island (EVI) and the MaMu Conservation Unit of West and North Vancouver Island (WNVI). Each
one of these Conservation Units has a different target for protection. 90% for EVI, 68% for WNVI.
In summary, the public has no means of determining if the Plan reflects any of the larger landscape
protections necessary and even if they were identified there is no assurance that these designations
won’t be roaded, logged to a percentage, substituted for second growth, averaged out, or identified
for cutting through a variance. Typically, citizen watchdogs find out the WHA has been cut only
after the event and then you have few tools to bring any kind of remedy. On these grounds
described above, I have no confidence that this TFL licensee has given enough consideration to
the public interest and existing legislation on endangered species. The province should withdraw
this license and open this up to a much broader public discussion about the future or our forests,
endangered species, climate and biodiversity values.
Management Plan #5:
https://tealjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/tfl46_mp_v3_with_appendices.pdf
Tree Farm Licence 46 – Teal Cedar Products Ltd:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/timber-
tenures/tree-farm-licence/licences/tfl-46-lic-03-july-01-2012.pdf
Dr. B.H.E. Penn
119 Clarinda Road
Saltspring Island, BC
V8K 1W8 (250) 653-9996
Minister of Lands, Water & Natural Resource Stewardship, Josie Osborne LWNRS.Minister@gov.bc.ca
Minister of Environment & Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, Steven.Guilbeault@parl.gc.ca
Premier John Horgan, premier@gov.bc.ca
Forest Minister Katrine Conroy, FLNR.Minister@gov.bc.ca
Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, George Heyman ENV.Minister@gov.bc.ca
Chief Forester, Diane Nicholls Diane.Nicholls@gov.bc.ca
MFLNRO Graham Wells, graham.wells@gov.bc.ca
Migratory Bird Management Biologist, Jessie Russell, jessie.russell@ec.gc.ca