MacMillan Bloedel/Parks Settlement Agreement Land Negotiations
MELP Summary of Environmental Values on Key Blocks Under Consideration

(updated June 28, 1999)

Following is the list of lands requested by MB on March 24, 1999, as per the agreement, with notes on the environmental resources and values on each parcel of land. In some cases, revisions were made to blocks as originally proposed. This resulting list is currently under consideration for land transfers.

A concern is that options for sustaining environmental values decrease once lands are no longer managed under the Forest Practices Code (FPC). Standards in the Private Managed Forest Land Regulation, for lands within the Forest Land Reserve, permit higher risk to environmental values, and thus lower probability that these values can be sustained, than does the Forest Practices Code. Options for conservation further decrease, and therefore, risk to the environment becomes highest when lands are removed from the Forest Land Reserve and not subject to provincial regulation for environmental protection.

Forest lands provide benefits to the public beyond timber volumes and fibre production potential. These other benefits are difficult to quantify in monetary terms, as the values benefit the public but are not traded in the market. Values such as wildlife, biodiversity and water quality are provided from these lands but absent from land appraisals. These non-market values are described and broad implications of changes in status explained. The loss of these values could pose a future financial burden on the public, through, for example, the need for water treatment to sustain water quality or the loss of productive capacity for fisheries habitat and the expense that restoration presents.

In the following sections, the broad implications are described, and specific values and implications are also provided for individual parcels. Options that could mitigate and lower environmental risks are suggested.

An alternate process which could potentially reduce risk to the environment could be to identify (with assistance from MELP) lands with lowest environmental values, and suggest these as substitute parcels for consideration as compensation. The concern is that environmental resources and values may not have been adequately assessed through a process whereby the proponent has first choice in selecting lands that also contain public resources.

I. SCHEDULE A LANDS (Note this does not cover numerous scattered small blocks as they are too numerous to assess in the short time available.)

Management implications of changes to Schedule A lands: (Schedule A lands are the private-land portion of the MB's TFLs)

• lands would be removed from TFLs 39 and 44
• lands would no longer be subject to the Forest Practices Code
• lands would be managed as part of the Forest Land Reserve and according to provincial standards for private managed forest land

Broad Implications

• Removal of Schedule A lands from a TFL means that excluded parcels are no longer subject to the Forest Practices Code (FPC) regulation and are also no longer subject to Tree Farm Licence regulation under the Forest Act. Under the FPC it is possible to apply management guidelines to restrict harvest and sustain non-timber values. The allowable annual cut (AAC) for the TFL as whole is subject to approval by the Chief Forester and adjusted proportional to restrictions aimed to maintain non-timber values. Protection of these public values is lost when lands are removed from regulation under the FPC and from harvest regulation under Forest Act.

• Without forest stewardship regulations, it likely will not be possible to maintain biodiversity associated with older forests on these lands. Old forest-dependent species, such as marbled murrelet (a species at risk), will not be able to persist on these lands, as there will be no requirement to maintain their large old tree habitat. Columbia black-tailed deer will also not be able to over winter, and the range of the species will be reduced. Water quality for community, domestic and fish use will be reduced, as water quality and run-off can only be managed if commitments are made to limit the amount of area in younger forests in a drainage so that rate of harvest is controlled to ensure water quality is maintained.

• Environmental values such as biodiversity, water, fish, wildlife and ecological services are not recognized in market appraisals and thus external to consideration. Land appraisal and land values are currently linked to investments and market value for timber. Full-cost accounting for environmental values and losses would be needed to adequately address the real cost to the public of land settlements.

• Commitments to phase out clearcutting on private lands are helpful for some wildlife species. However, this practices does not address the cumulative impacts of harvesting, which can only be considered if there are controls on the rate of harvest in a watershed within a forested landscape. Commitments to cut controls and longer rotations are needed to maintain old growth forest and sustain water quality within landscapes. Assessments to address the cumulative impacts of forestry activities on water quality and provide old forest biodiversity are part of the framework for forest management if these lands remain part of the area managed under the FPC.

• Although the ministry must maintain an open mind, we must at this point state that we are not yet confident that MB's variable retention practices make a substantial difference in terms of protecting environmental values. In addition, it is acknowledged by MB that their methods do not protect wildlife winter ranges, which in fact are being very actively logged in areas such as the Nanaimo Lakes.

Specific implications

• Each of the lands identified has different environmental values. Sustaining the different mix of environmental values to a certain extent depends on how the surrounding land is being managed. Thus assessment of values and implications is provided for each parcel.

1. Queen Charlotte Islands, Block 6

• 10,412 ha block located north of Queen Charlotte City in the headwaters of Tlell, Yakoun and Honna rivers
• These lands contain and control water for primary spawning areas for steelhead, chinook, pink, coho and some sockeye. The Yakoun is the only river on QCI that supports chinook.
• A land and resource use plan (LRUP) that is ongoing is proposing a one kilometer corridor of special management along both sides of the Yakoun. The Yakoun has the highest fisheries values of any river on QCI, followed closely by the Tlell.
• Lands proposed for transfer on QCI are Schedule A lands, which are proposed to be removed from the TFLs. Although these are private MB lands, since they are within the TFLs, they have been subject to three ongoing, important Land and Resource Use Plans (LRUPs), with public involvement. These three LRUP areas are the Tlell River LRUP; the Yakoun River Corridor; and the Yakoun Lake Basin. In addition to these large, contiguous blocks, there are also many small tracts dotted around the forest district.
• In all three cases, MB has essentially logged around the LRUP areas since approximately 1993. Log-arounds represent a substantial portion of the landbase contributing to the allowable annual cut (AAC) on QCI, and to the standing old growth inventory. The remainder of the timber harvesting landbase (THLB) on QCI is showing the effects of the redirected cut. That is, log-arounds do not reduce AAC, so the remaining operable THLB must absorb the whole cut which is disproportionately high for that remaining landbase. Resolution of the LRUPs has been seen as critical to resolving issues related to log-arounds and impacts of the redirected logging.
• All three LRUP/log-around areas are also covered as part of the Council of Haida Nations' 14 declared protected areas, a topic of current Interim Measures Agreement discussions involving MOF, LUCO and the CHN.
• The Yakoun Lake Basin is now also overlaid with a Goal 1 approved study area for the Protected Areas Strategy.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Ensure that these lands remain in the TFL. When left in the TFL they are subject to FPC regulations for non-timber values.

Higher environmental risk option:

• If settlement involves removal of these lands, then boundaries should be redrawn so that significant corridors along Yakoun, Tlell and Honna Rivers are retained as Schedule A lands within the TFL. There is high to very high risk under the Private Managed Forest Land Regulation owing to loss of fish stream productivity associated with loss of riparian habitat and lack of regulation on up-slope practices. It is not believed that the fisheries productivity can be sustained at anything near current levels under the Private Managed Forest Land Regulation (PMFLR). There is also a high risk of loss of old growth forest biodiversity unless some old forests can be maintained in these areas, which is possible through the biodiversity and riparian provisions of the FPC but not enabled in private land regulation.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer entire parcel out of TFL and remove from FPC regulation.

2. Salmon River, Block 2

• numerous small parcels along the river totaling 1385 ha
• the Salmon River is very important for steelhead, salmon and trout
• there is a major fisheries enhancement project involving MELP, DFO, BC Hydro and a local stewardship group
• numerous water licences on the Salmon River
• some prime deer and elk Class 1 winter range on south slopes along the river

Lowest environmental risk option:

• These blocks would remain in the TFL and thus subject to FPC. This would enable management for deer winter ranges. MB seems to accept this.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer entire parcel out of TFL and remove from FPC regulation.

3. Powell River/Lois Lake

• 2861 ha in the Lois Lake area
• lakes generally affected are Lois, Tony, Dodd, Nanton, Horseshoe, Little Horseshoe, Beaver and Ireland
• coastal cutthroat, kokanee, and Dolly Varden. Cutthroat are known to be high value and grow to the 5 to 10 pound range, which is exceptional.
• this area has a very high recreational potential for the Lower Mainland population, for angling and as a canoe circuit that possibly compares with the Bowron chain.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain in TFL as Schedule B lands subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Remove from TFL and FPC. Note: This area is difficult to consider apart from the Schedule B lands that surround the Schedule A lands. Certainly the B lands are more important to retain in the TFL and subject to FPC (with the possible exception of one block farther to the east).

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer entire parcel out of TFL and remove from FPC regulation.

4. Port McNeill/Port Hardy, Block 4
4a. Quatse River

• the Quatse River flows through the Port Hardy portion
• the Quatse is a very high-value fishery stream with steelhead, coho, pink
• there is a fish hatchery (run by a stewardship group) on the Quatse
• close to $1 million has been spent on fish enhancement
• supports a very high number of angler days (5000 to 8000)

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain in the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain a corridor of 200 m on either side of the river within the TFL subject to FPC. [ Note MB seemed to accept subject to review.]

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer entire parcel out of TFL and remove from FPC regulation.

4b. Kokish River

• the Kokish which flows near Port McNeill, is also high-value fishery, but not a high as the Quatse.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain in the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain a corridor of 200 m on either side of the river within the TFL subject to FPC. [Note: MB seemed to accept subject to review.]

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer entire parcel out of TFL and remove from FPC regulation.

5. South Island (E&N)

• this is a large area totaling 73,219 ha
• includes community watersheds: China, McFarland, Rogers, Cold and Cameron
• the community watershed areas are also areas of very high-value deer and elk (in the Cameron) winter range. If sufficient old growth is not maintained in these high snowfall areas, the deer cannot survive. The new MB management approach (variable retention) does not protect winter ranges. In fact, winter ranges that were identified jointly by MELP, MB and UBC for protection about 20 years ago are now being logged in the Nanaimo River private managed forest lands.
• There is an identified Queen Charlotte Island (QCI) goshawk site. This species is listed as endangered. Under the FPC it would be possible to manage for QCI goshawk as part of the Identified Wildlife. Under the PMFLR it would only be possible to maintain the habitat if it is not being managed adequately elsewhere, and then government would have to compensate the landowner.
• The Stamp, Somas and Ash Rivers have extremely high fisheries values, particularly for steelhead and chinook. The Roberts Creek Hatchery on the Stamp produces the most chinook of any Vancouver Island river.
• Angling days on these rivers are extremely high (perhaps the highest on Vancouver Island. There are also about 10 commercial guides operating on these rivers).

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain in the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain the lands with community watersheds, which also include the winter ranges, in the TFL and subject to FPC. Also retain a significant fisheries corridor along the Stamp, Somass and Ash Rivers within the TFL and subject to FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer entire parcel out of TFL and remove from FPC regulation.

II. SCHEDULE B LANDS

Management implications of changes to Schedule B lands: (Schedule B lands are the Crown land portion of the TFLs.) These lands, if transferred, would:

• be transferred from Crown to private forest land

MB and the province would negotiate which of these lands would:

• remain in the Forest Land Reserve, in which case they would be managed according to the province's standards for private managed forest land (rather than under the Forest Practices Code as at present), or
• be removed from the Forest Land Reserve and be subject to no forest regulation and thus available for conversion to non-forest land uses, such as urban, agricultural or rural development

1. Salmon River/Spirit Lake

• approximately 6,000 ha which is scaled back to about 1/2 of the original proposal
• There are some freshwater fisheries values associated with lakes
• Although there is deer and elk habitat, it is not considered critical

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain in the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain land along the Salmon River and a 100-m buffer around Spirit Lake and public access to other lakes as a general access condition. If access is not provided, MELP would discontinue stocking lakes.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer entire parcel out of TFL and remove from FPC regulation.

2. Powell River/Lois Lake

• approximately 6,000 ha (although appears larger) that when consolidated with Schedule A lands would seem to incorporate all the accessible areas around Lois, Tony, Dodd, Nanton, Horseshoe, Little Horseshoe, Beaver, and Ireland lakes.
• high-value coastal cutthroat (5-10 lbs), kokanee and Dolly Varden
• supports a small herd of transplanted elk
• high recreation values

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC.

Alternate low environmental risk option:

• Crown selects land with lower public values. Because of the fisheries values and amount of waterfront within this parcel, there are unaccounted for non-timber values which provide a high potential for commercial back country recreation. These non-timber values could support tourism and enable Powell River to diversify its economy. If these lands are privatized, it is anticipated that, in time, waterfront portions will be removed from the FLR, and be used for private commercial recreation development.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown land and remove from FPC regulation.

III. VANCOUVER ISLAND PLANTATION (VIP) LANDS (East Vancouver Island Crown Lands)

Management implications of changes to VIP lands: (VIP lands are Crown lands that were once privatized under the E&N Railroad Grant, but which have since reverted to Crown ownership.) These lands, if transferred, would:

• again be privatized
• no longer be subject to environmental protection under the Forest Practices Code and not subject to meeting public objectives that can be set in higher level plans, such as the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan

MB and the province would negotiate which of these lands would:

• remain in the Forest Land Reserve, in which case they would be managed according to the province's standards for private managed forest land (rather than under the Forest Practices Code as at present), or
• be removed from the Forest Land Reserve and therefore not subject to provincial environmental stewardship regulations

Broad Environmental Implications

• The blocks identified on the east side of Vancouver Island are within the Nanaimo Lowlands Ecosection. This entire ecosection was privatized under the E&N Railroad Grant and less than 1% of the original old growth forests remain here. Because of the extremely high percentage of private land it has only been possible to establish less than 2% as Protected Area within the Nanaimo Lowlands Ecosection. A goal of the Protected Areas Strategy was to represent 12% of each ecosection within British Columbia.

• All the parcels of land crown land are second-growth and are currently subject to the FPC. These lands offer the only remaining opportunities through the provisions of the FPC to address the conservation of biological diversity. There are provisions in the FPC to set objectives for biodiversity and manage some Crown lands as old growth management areas (OGMAs) within landscape units. These fragments of Crown lands represent the only remaining options for managing to maintain old forest biodiversity in the Nanaimo Lowlands Ecosection. Because these lands are islands of Crown land in a matrix of private forest lands, they are also critical for managing to maintain many old forest species. Old forest-dependent species will not find suitable habitat on private forest lands, as these are managed on short rotations and not required to develop older forests or structures of old forest ecosystems.

• These VIP lands represent the only opportunity for conservation of biological diversity outside of the 2% of the land that is in Protected Areas. Management and restoration of old forest biodiversity is totally dependent on having these lands remain as Crown land where some parcels will be managed for old growth values through the FPC. Therefore, although they are referred to as Vancouver Island Plantations and these parcels are second growth forests, they are critical to the longer-term maintenance and restoration of old growth associated with Douglas fir forests.

1. Miller Creek block

• approximately 3600 ha
• 316 ha of valuable wildlife habitat interspersed
• major fisheries values on streams fed from this area (Quinsam, Campbell R.)
• major fish hatchery on Quinsam
• Campbell River is legendary and gets its water from John Hart Lake which is adjacent to this block
• three major water licenses potentially affected are 1) BC Hydro, 2) Elk Falls pulp mill and 3) Municipality of Campbell River
• there is a reserve in favour of BC Hydro over much of this area to protect water supply
• other high land use options being considered for some small areas (light industrial to replace industry moved from Campbell River Estuary)

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC. This parcel should not be considered for transfer. Note that this parcel was reduced by about one-half and a corridor was excluded along the Quinsam river.

2. Cougar Smith

• roughly estimated at 700 ha
• Cougar Smith Creek (near Fanny Bay) flows through. There are some fisheries values, but these are not well known.
• some wildlife values, but not critical

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC. Owing to the historic lack of management for biodiversity, this parcel presents the only option for management for old growth forest species.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown and remove from FPC regulation. Subject to further review.

3. Qualicum/Rosewall: Note that this parcel is no longer included

• approximately 9,250 ha
• the corridor along the Qualicum River is in an LIA (special management zone) under the Vancouver Island land Use Plan
• 750 ha of sensitive ecosystems scattered throughout the area
• This is the only significant area for protecting biodiversity and old growth management area at the landscape level in the Nanaimo Lowlands ecosystem, which is extremely under-represented.
• Mill Creek is a community watershed
• numerous private water licences
• Little Qualicum has runs of steelhead, sea run cutthroat, coho, chum and chinook. DFO has a large chum enhancement channel
• Nile and other creeks support coho, pinks and sea run cutthroat
• Past practices already result in some flooding in lower Rosewall and other creeks. An unmanaged rate of cut would exacerbate this, resulting in need for protection at public expense
• known QCI goshawk (red listed) nest sites
• two hatcheries (one DFO and one private) on Rosewall Creek.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC and subject to LIA. As a result of the general lack of management for biodiversity this parcel presents the only significant remaining options for management for old growth forest species through the FPC biodiversity provisions that enable the establishment of Old Growth Management Areas.

Higher risk environmental risk option:

• Retain a significant corridor along the Qualicum River for management under the FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown and remove from FPC regulation.

4. Mt. Benson/Boulder Creek near Nanaimo (note: believe excluded for treaty discussions)

• approximately 1,750 ha
• watershed feeds into Nanaimo River and is an important part of the Vancouver Island steelhead recovery plan announced last year.
• 12 ha of very rare grassland ecosystem
• some important deer habitat on south slopes
• there are some important fish, wildlife and watershed values at risk; however, they are slightly lower than Miller or Rosewall/Qualicum.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher risk environmental risk option:

• Retain the most environmentally sensitive areas and buffer for management under FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown land, and remove from FPC regulation.

5. Nanaimo River South

• approximately 2,100 ha along the Nanaimo River
• high fisheries values of Nanaimo River (steelhead, chinook primarily, coho)
• 950 ha of critical elk winter range, which is probably the most significant block on the east side of Vancouver Island.
• significant contribution to the Cassidy Aquifer, which provides water supply to Cedar, Cassidy and some of the Yellow Point area
• increased rate of cut could exacerbate flooding problems in Nanaimo and Haslam rivers
• numerous water licences
• Very significant if not major concerns over this block. Although not agreed to be rejected with MOF, it is felt that environmental values and risks to others may warrant rejection after further review.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain the most environmentally sensitive areas and manage under FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown land and remove from FPC regulation.

6. Ladysmith

• approximately 5,100 ha
• Stocking Lake, Holland Creek and Bannon Creek community watersheds
• 230 ha of critical elk winter range
• Ladysmith stewardship group heavily involved in Holland Creek fish enhancement; USHP project also
• Chemainus River (on south end) is important salmon and steelhead stream. This river is already severely impacted by over-development, which would be exacerbated by increased rate of cut.
• numerous water licences at risk
• although not rejected with MOF, the environmental values and risks to water quality and biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat are significant

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain the most environmentally sensitive areas and manage under FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown land and remove from FPC regulation.

7. Copper Canyon

• approximately 6,000 ha
• significant fish habitat for coho and steelhead in upper Chemainus River
• There are steep slopes above the Chemainus River that provide old growth and that present risk to water quality if harvested.
• 100 ha of critical elk winter range
• 1,100 ha of critical deer winter range
• numerous water licences
• increased rate of cut will exacerbate an already bad peak flow (flooding) situation for residents downstream, as well as worsen the already bad stream degradation for fish
• Although not rejected with MOF, the environmental values and risks are significant.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain the most environmentally sensitive areas and manage under FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown land and remove from FPC regulation.

8. Hill 60 and north

• estimated 4,000 to 5,000 ha
• known to have significant elk and deer winter range
• rate of cut could impact already damaged streams, including the Cowichan River and worsen the flood situation
• streams potentially impacted are very important for salmon and steelhead
• Although not rejected with MOF, there are some environmental concerns which may be very high; however, without some further work and field reconnaissance, it is not known how severe the impacts could be.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as crown land within the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain the most environmentally sensitive areas and manage under FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown land and remove from FPC regulation.

9. Cowichan River

• approximately 3,600 ha
• at least 115 ha of critical elk winter range
• some suspected high deer winter range
• There are significantly recreational fisheries values in the Cowichan River. This river is one of the main salmon and steelhead rivers on Vancouver Island. Runs are currently depressed and recovery plans (i.e., steelhead recovery plan) are in progress
• Cowichan River already suffers from over-development with changes in stream morphology and moving gravel wedges
• numerous water licences on Cowichan and Bing Creek
• Although not rejected with MOF, the fisheries and other values are extremely high.
• In addition, the risk to private property and homes is very significant from increased development in the watershed resulting from increased runoff and the need for cut controls.
• This parcel requires more consideration because of its high environmental sensitivity.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain the most environmentally sensitive areas and manage under FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown land and remove from FPC regulation.

10. Koksilah (NW of Shawnigan)

• approximately 770 ha
• at headwaters of Koksilah, but not known to what extent development could impact the very high fisheries values of Koksilah
• Little is known about this area. Staff did not know of major environmental concerns beyond the broad implications of not being able to manage for biodiversity in spite of the high need (see broad implications).
• MELP was not able to oppose this parcel in the March review, because resource values were not known, and the short timeframe to comment did not provide time to assess. This block is proceeding.

Lowest environmental risk option:

• Retain as Crown land within the TFL subject to FPC.

Higher environmental risk option:

• Retain the most environmentally sensitive areas and manage under FPC.

Highest environmental risk option:

• Transfer from Crown and remove from FPC regulation.

Previous Next