Questions about logging companies & importance of tree planting

[justAdirtyPLANTER]

Hi!

Been a planter in BC for four years now and I've got a few general questions that I've been trying to get to the bottom of...

- I know there was a law put in place (1985?) that required logging companies to put put money into reforestation, but I was just wondering how much/what portion of revenue etc?

- I was also wondering how important tree planting is to a reforestation company (that do spray, fire fighting, etc that make significantly more money). As I've been told by supervisors/owners that they don't make much money with tree planting (low bid system...?) so they don't have much leverage to increase tree prices. But how important is tree planting to their overall operations?

If you can source your information, that'd be even better!

Thanks so much!

[jdtesluk]

I'm not going to source my information because that is simply too much to ask on an open forum, and for all I know you're writing a paper on this and I wouldn't want to make it too easy for you. However, I can tell you that the law you speak of (not sure of year) requires companies to bring harvested stands to "free to grow" status within a certain time span. "Free to grow" means the trees can no longer out-competed by other plants, and will ostensibly continue growing to replace the harvested forest. So it is not an amount of money per se, but rather a requirement to replenish the resource. So your first question is moot.

Second question....that varies from company to company. Some multi-sector silviculture companies indeed make more money on other jobs (ie. firefighting, veg management etc). However, there are lots of companies that make the bulk of their money on planting, and only supplement, perhaps with a core veteran crew, with other work. It would be incorrect to say there is no money in planting, and many owners do very well. Just look at the trucks they drive However, they also carry a substantial level of risk, and must invest heavily as they take on bigger jobs. There is no reference to this other than having visited dozens upon dozens of companies, and worked with the industry for many years.

Another point in relation to your first question, forestry companies indeed have to spend money ultimately to reforest the land. A somewhat little-known and rather dirty secret of the industry is that they receive tax-credits for their reforestation....that is some type of tax relief for the money they ostensibly must invest in reforestation. However, they get this money in advance, and regardless of how much or even if they spend. Indeed, this means sometimes forestry companies happily pocket tax-payer dineros for reforestation efforts they never fulfill. This gap has never been tracked or measured....but it's out there.

[justAdirtyPLANTER]

Awesome, thank you for the response! definitely some interesting information in there. I didn't know that they got tax credits for reforestation, would be interesting to look into that.

I was also misinformed about how the system works with logging companies, but to be honest, that makes more sense anyways. Are there penalties against companies that dont fulfill these requirements?

[TripleS]

When a licensee fails to meet their free growing due dates, I believe they can be subject to fines and have their cuts reduced, although they can also apply for extensions. Where it gets really interesting is when MOF blocks or BCTS blocks fail to meet their free growing due dates, is the government going to fine itself? I have surveyed a number of such blocks over the years and wondered what was going to happen as there was no way they would get to free growing on time.

[jdtesluk]

Good point Triple S. Ostensibly the silviculture and harvesting arms would be objectively separate. However, there is also the BC Forest Practices Board, which oversees all forestry, including BCTS, and they can step in and take action if something is not being done right. Of course, they have to know about it in the first place, and if some official gives everything the green light, it is hard for anyone to know any different.
This is why we often hear years down the road, after the fact and too late to apply fines, that the forests are not in as good as shape as they should be or as good as maybe we thought they were.

[justAdirtyPLANTER]

great points guys! I found to have very little quality specs on BCTS contracts, and maybe thats because of that reason.

I'm also wondering, whats the lowest youve heard of someone being paid per tree? I recall in my second season someone on my crew planting in New Brunswick for 6 cents I think? something ridiculous like that..

[Scooter]

I'm also wondering, whats the lowest youve heard of someone being paid per tree?

What time frame are you curious about? I was paid as low as 8 cents per tree for faster ground with several BC companies in the 1990's and early 2000's.

[salbrecher]

Another point in relation to your first question, forestry companies indeed have to spend money ultimately to reforest the land. A somewhat little-known and rather dirty secret of the industry is that they receive tax-credits for their reforestation....that is some type of tax relief for the money they ostensibly must invest in reforestation. However, they get this money in advance, and regardless of how much or even if they spend. Indeed, this means sometimes forestry companies happily pocket tax-payer dineros for reforestation efforts they never fulfill. This gap has never been tracked or measured....but it's out there.

I don't think that something that is completely transparent could be called a dirty secret. The silviculture cost estimates that companies receive as a reduction to the stumpage they pay are in the Appraisal Manuals posted monthly on the governments webpage. These rates are based on the five year average actual reforestation costs for a given BEC zone that licencees and BCTS are required to report on. As it is an average sometimes a block costs more and sometimes it costs less. In a bad drought year like we had in 2017 there will be hundreds and thousands of hectares that died due to drought that licensees will be on the hook for with no additional compensation.

With climate change predicting increasing climatic variability and increased droughts (for BC) it will take quite a few years before the cost estimates catch up to increased spending if we indeed see more drought and therefore more replants and site prep to help reduce drought impacts.

[jdtesluk]

Point taken Salbrecher. I think the "dirty secret" implication is that I was personally shocked to learn of this arrangement, and generally feel that the silviculture investment in the forests pales in comparison to the riches extracted. I would expect that many BC'ers would be surprised to know of these arrangements, and consider it a bit of a sweet deal. Still, I could have phrased that better, as "dirty" implies underhanded, and I think "convenient" would be better, or perhaps "self-serving" considering the origin of these regulations. My concern is that the current set up of claiming credits in advance sets up a situation where there is incentive to reduce costs of silviculture when really we should be putting more into it. Indeed, there will be years where companies get spanked by climate, and perhaps you are right to suggest that future conditions will turn this system against licensees economically (and all of us, environmentally). However, I would wager that if one actually could calculate the data, that one would find forestry companies have net-benefited greatly from these arrangements thus far, while the condition of our resource has not improved. I do not begrudge forestry companies making their money, but I continue to have concern about what we are leaving for the next generation. Of course, that cannot be laid completely at the feet of forest industry players with climate change having its sway, but the longer history of practice (IMHO) leaves me with the opinion that we should not give breaks on the most important part of forestry.

As for costs of this past year, I would be interested to know how much insurance covers those losses, if at all.

[Scooter]

I'd like to know if the FTG requirements will be changed, because a lot of late-stage plantations (and I'm talking about tens of thousands of hectares) presumably have absolutely zero chance of meeting requirements now. How many hectares burned this summer? Over a million? And how many years does it take to get a plantation to FTG? Probably at least seven or eight, although the lack of competition and carbon carpet may help a small amount. But there must be hundreds of blocks scattered all over the province, for which BCTS and the Ministry and dozens of licensees maintain responsibility, that can never meet deadlines at this point.

[TripleS]

If more extreme conditions (i.e. drought/floods) become the norm, it could give smaller companies with more experienced planters a leg up with licensees who realize the importance of quality planting. Site prep helps, but I saw some pretty brutal survival out there this summer in prepped blocks, so even creamy trenches can be wasted by poor planting. Unfortunately, with the low-bid system for public contracts, we'll likely just see more fill-planting as they same old companies continue to slam in cheap trees. Ironically, this will end up costing the taxpayer more in the long run.

[Scooter]

This is an interesting comment, one worth exploring. Smaller companies don't always mean more experienced planters.

What metric are you using?

1. Absolute number of experienced employees: A larger company, even a rookie mill, will almost always come out on top. This is definitely not a good point of comparison.

2. Percentage number of experienced employees: I've had a higher percentage of experienced employees in my camp (at a "rookie mill" company) for two of the past six years than there was on the coastal crew that I was working on. So this measure is more accurate, but not always accurate.

3. Average number of years of experience per capita: This should almost always work in favor of the small companies.


Also, with respect to your comment about the importance of quality planting, I've seen some foresters at both government agencies and at licensees who DO realize the importance of quality planting, but who recognize that certain camps at certain companies can still provide a high quality job. In fact, perhaps a higher quality job than some of the "small companies" which allegedly should have high quality. I won't name any names with respect to some of those small companies who do just as (or more of a) shitty job than some of the bigger mills. Not that this should matter, since those small companies tend to avoid this digital space.

Point is, quality depends on camp/crew/company management and forester expectations. Generalizations are sometimes undeserved. Some of the "high quality" experienced planters that I've observed (worked with) at other companies would be fired if they tried to pull that shit in my camp, depending on the contract. And to be fair, that's not necessarily a short-coming on their part. Different regions and contracts have different quality requirements and expectations.

I think you're absolutely correct that planting quality at many of the larger companies, especially those who work in areas with low quality requirements, is generally much lower than at contracts in other areas. But generalizations can always come back and surprise you occasionally.

[Scooter]

Site prep helps, but I saw some pretty brutal survival out there this summer in prepped blocks, so even creamy trenches can be wasted by poor planting.

Do you think this is poor planting quality, or a reflection upon site conditions? I've seen places where a forester wanted trees planted in the absolute bottom of the trenches, and yet less than a hundred kilometers away, a different forester wanted trees planted on the absolute top of trenches. Neither opted for the hinge or slightly above the hinge.

In a situation such as the above, the regions are close enough (not near mountain ranges) that there should be no significant climate differences, therefore, one of the two projects should presumably see much higher mortality than the other. If the planters on each project plant trees measured at 99% quality by the forester's expectations/measurements, who is in the wrong? The planters, or one of the foresters?

[Cyper]

I think planting quality is for the most part a minor factor in the overall survival of plantations across the province. The much bigger factors are weather, stock quality and handling and foresters delusions about what constitutes a well planted tree. I have seen foresters ask us to plant fir in swamps, screef a foot by a foot and remove all organic material from near the seedling, pay no attention to stock handling, help unload reefers by tossing boxes 6 feet down to slam onto the ground and then call leaners over 15 degrees off vertical. I've done regen surveys and seen dropped plugs that a year later have sent roots down into the ground and are growing fine. I've seen well planted trees dead and j-roots surviving.

I've opened boxes of trees to be assailed by the smell of botrytis with mould showing all over the slimy root collars. I've dangled plugs into planting holes as though they were marbles on a string with no plug left, just the under developed roots waving. Numerous times I've seen and heard of whole seedlots that have died due to nursery issues. I don't want to take away from the need to plant seedlings well, as without the belief that it matters, it takes too much away from the satisfaction of doing the job right. We still need to do the job as well as we can, that is if we do really care and/or have pride in what we do. But really, Mother Nature, nursery science and educated planting prescriptions determine what survival we'll get.

[TripleS]

^^^It looked like poor planting to me, (trees too high on the trench, duff sandwhiches, backwalls... ) but I suppose it could be a forester who is out to lunch. You're correct in that experience doesn't always mean better quality. I've had a coastal planter with 25 years experience make a mess of burnt trenches. There are also some good crews at some of the bigger companies but they tend not to work on the lowballed public contracts as they know better and so do their foremen.
So to be more specific, a forester with a licensee who works in an area like the Southern Interior where quality is more important to survival than most of the rest of the province, has the ability to pay more and have a company that has a proven track record plant their trees. A forester who works for the public sector is stuck with the lowest bidder, which is often a company that mainly works up North and in Alberta with a workforce consisting of a high percentage of rookies and planters who just made the move out West. Even though quality specs should be similar given the proximity of the contracts, it is unrealistic to think rookies and 2nd year planters from Ontario with a rookie foreman will do the job to the same standards as a crew with several years of experience on the same contract.

[TripleS]

I think planting quality is for the most part a minor factor in the overall survival of plantations across the province. The much bigger factors are weather, stock quality and handling and foresters delusions about what constitutes a well planted tree. I have seen foresters ask us to plant fir in swamps, screef a foot by a foot and remove all organic material from near the seedling, pay no attention to stock handling, help unload reefers by tossing boxes 6 feet down to slam onto the ground and then call leaners over 15 degrees off vertical. I've done regen surveys and seen dropped plugs that a year later have sent roots down into the ground and are growing fine. I've seen well planted trees dead and j-roots surviving.

I've opened boxes of trees to be assailed by the smell of botrytis with mould showing all over the slimy root collars. I've dangled plugs into planting holes as though they were marbles on a string with no plug left, just the under developed roots waving. Numerous times I've seen and heard of whole seedlots that have died due to nursery issues. I don't want to take away from the need to plant seedlings well, as without the belief that it matters, it takes too much away from the satisfaction of doing the job right. We still need to do the job as well as we can, that is if we do really care and/or have pride in what we do. But really, Mother Nature, nursery science and educated planting prescriptions determine what survival we'll get.

There are certainly large parts of the province where planting quality is not all that significant to the overall success of a plantation, and specs and prices usually reflect this. However, there are places that go from snow cover to 30 C within a week and drought conditions nearly every Summer. The specs need to be quite strict just to have decent survival never mind a thriving plantation. Fortunately there are a few foresters who recognize this, although they usually have to learn the hard way. You are correct though, poor stock handling or poor quality stock makes planting quality moot.

[newforest]

ahh, planting quality and survival - an important part of tree planting, though sometimes, only in theory. I think given average/normal precipitation, using plugs quite often obscures the relation between quality planting work and resulting survival. The bulk of my experience in my career is with bare-roots, and lots of bare-root conifer - quite delicate creatures.

so I have always said a high quality planting Contractor looks forward to a dry summer, as this reveals the quality of the work. the slam-n-jam-n approach could lead to failure. in a wet year, every Contractor looks good.

I have always told people that one of the most important numbers on a tree planting job is the date on the calendar. the earlier the seedling goes in, the more chance it has to increase it's total root system before dry weather comes. again far more critical with bare-roots than plugs. where it is probably still important is on certain site conditions - amount of organic in the soil, and localized weather regime. there are rain fronts, and rain shadows, in the mountains, and there are dry sand/rock upland sites and then there are low, open water table sites. plant the driest site first seems obvious - but it is not always so to the Forester or Contractor making the schedule. most years, it might not make a difference. but when the dry summer hits a big, expensive, site planted late in the season......

I like to plant a (relatively) high altitude site on the east coast, a recurring job where the agency is still making sowing decisions for 2020 and 2021. it calls for mostly Spruce plugs on the dry rocky post-mining soils, and a variety of bare-root wetland species where there are 'expressions' of the water table. as the site is a rain front catching 150cm of rain per year, it matters very little who actually plants it, or even what date.


re: micro-siting in trenches. I have always told people to plant as low as possible on a dry soil/site, to get the roots started out as close to the ever sinking water table (come summer), as possible. and conversely on a wet site that might show open water in the spring, to plant all the high spots to avoid possible problems with stem rot, should water appear for too long. so I have never set an always-same standard for that - even across a single site - just put some thought into it, it ain't hard. I have also seen a wide variety of trenches - too much of a V shape and you might wish to avoid the very bottom as erosion will fill the trench after planting, which could lead to too much stem in too wet of soil, later on.


I think planting quality can largely circle back to the morale of the planting crew, which can be economically driven, though not totally.