UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Controlling log debris in the Fraser River Hughes, James Richard 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 H83.pdf [ 5.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094139.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094139-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094139-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094139-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094139-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094139-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094139-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094139-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094139.ris

Full Text

CONTROLLING LOG DEBRIS IN THE FRASER RIVER by JAMES RICHARD HUGHES B.A- URBAN STU DIES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF -K=L- CO- • ' -j:.' :•• - . • MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1977 (c) JAMES RICHARD HUGHES, 1977 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requ i rement s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I ag ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i ABSTRACT Every year about 9 m i l l i o n m3 of logs are transported for processing, to the Lower Fraser River in B r i t i s h Columbia. During the transportation and handling about 3% of these logs escape from t h e i r booms, from the sorting grounds or from the m i l l ponds- These escaped logs represent over 15% of the debris coming from the r i v e r , and account for about 8.8 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s of clean-up, salvage, log loss and boat and property damage costs- There are also other s o c i a l and environmental costs that are not easy to calculate, but which may be high- The purpose of t h i s research i s to determine a pr i c i n g and regulation policy which would co n t r o l log loss to the extent that t o t a l s o c i a l costs would be fflinimized. Hemlock logs are a particular problem because they have a high density and escape r e l a t i v e l y e a s i l y from log r a f t s - I t i s found that the most cost e f f e c t i v e means of reducing the t o t a l s o c i a l costs of escaped logs would be to handle a l l hemlock logs, and a portion of the other logs, i n a manner such that single logs cannot escape- These logs should be sorted and bundled on land at the logging operation, transported in bundle booms to the m i l l and bundles should then be opened only on m i l l decks- The costs of dryland bundling and of m i l l up-grading to accept bundles i s determined- These costs together with the costs mentioned above, are calculated as a function of the i i volume of timber bundled- A s o c i a l least-cost point i s calculated and a s o c i a l l y optimal l e v e l of implementation for the control scheme i s derived- F i n a l l y , the p r i c i n g and regulation policy options that could be applied to achieve the desired l e v e l of hemlock bundling are considered- It i s concluded that to i n s t i t u t e a p r i c i n g policy which allows i n d i v i d u a l m i l l s to choose which means of log transport and handling they w i l l use, but obliges them to meet the s o c i a l costs of escaped logs due to t h e i r decision, i s f e a s i b l e and in the i n t e r e s t s of the forest products industry and of society as a whole. i i i CONTENTS page I INTRODUCTION 1 II COMPOSITION OF WOOD DEBRIS IN THE LOWER FRASER 6 Debris: Types 6 A. Natural Debris 7 B. Logs 8 C- Other Debris 11 Debris: Volumes 11 Debris: Problems 20 III THE COSTS OF LOG DEBRIS 24 Clean-up Costs 24 The Costs of Log Salvage and Log Loss 29 Boat and Property Damage 31 Environmental Costs 41 IV THE COSTS OF PREVENTING LOG ESCAPE 44 Dryland Sorting Costs 48 Bundling and Sorting Costs 52 M i l l Up-grading Costs 5 3 Bundle Booming: Savings 59 V DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL SOCIAL COST 62 Total Cost Curves 6 2 Policy Mechanisms f o r Inducing the Control of Log Debris 71 A- Self-Regulation 72 B. Legal Enforcement 73 C. 'Enforcement' Through Pricing 74 Setting a Charge 79 VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 87 REFERENCES 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION 95 TABLES page 1. DEBRIS FROM THE FRASER RIVER 17 2- LOSS AND RECOVERY OF ESCAPED LOGS 20 3. DEBRIS CLEAN-UP COSTS 29 4. BOAT DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEBRIS 34 5. ADDITIONAL COST OF BUNDLING FRASER TIMBER ON LAND 53 FIGURES 1. THE FRASER RIVER AND VICINITY 5 2. MAJOR LOG HOLDING GROUNDS 10 3. COASTAL LOG FL08 46 4. MAJOR FOREST PRODUCT MILLS 54 5. TOTAL COST CURVES 63 6- SETTING A CHARGE 80 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would l i k e to thank Michael Poulton and Gordon Stead of the O.B.C. School of Planning, for t h e i r assistance in bringing t h i s project to a conclusion- Their diligence and patience are greatly appreciated-A note of thanks should also be given to a l l those who took the time to provide the information which was needed i n order to complete the necessary research- I t would not be possible to l i s t a l l those who helped i n some way, but two persons, Wally Bowden of the Council of Forest Industries and Ken Boyd of MacMillan Bloedel deserve recognition for t h e i r most valuable assistance-1 I INTRODUCTION Wood debris has always been a natural component of the Fraser River system i n B r i t i s h Columbia, but i n recent times man's a c t i v i t i e s , including logging, have created additional sources of wood debris- For example, large volumes of debris are being generated by the use of the Fraser River for the transportation, storage and processing of timber. The volume of wood debris frcm these unnatural sources i s now ten times as great as the volume of natural debris- The presence of t h i s debris i n the waters of the Fraser and ultimately in the S t r a i t of Georgia i n t e r f e r e s with shipping and pleasure boating by causing considerable damage to boats- Also s i g n i f i c a n t clean-up and control costs are sustained by various users and j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bodies on the r i v e r , and various environmental •costs 1, such as decreased oxygen levels i n the r i v e r , may be caused by the debris. Every year about 9 m i l l i o n m3 of timber i s brought to the Fraser for processing. At present around 60% of t h i s wood i s bundled, yet 3% of the t o t a l volume i s escaping from the m i l l ponds, from the sorting grounds around Vancouver and from the f l a t rafted booms- These escaped logs r e s u l t i n costs of no le s s than 8-8 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s - The forest industry spends 4.4 mill i o n d o l l a r s for log recovery and looses at least 3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s worth of logs annually- Also society bears costs of 2 around $300,000 f o r beach clean-up and for sweeping log debris from harbours and bays, and 1.1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n boat and property damage. There are believed to be other unguantified s o c i a l and environmental costs which are not included i n the above cost estimate. I t i s therefore evident that log debris re s u l t s i n substantial costs; these costs are unnecessary and are reduceable. Hemlock accounts for half of the timber processed on the Fraser, yet escaped hemlock i s responsible for just over 7 mi l l i o n d o l l a r s or 71% of the t o t a l cost to the f o r e s t industry and to society. Hemlock logs are a p a r t i c u l a r problem because of t h e i r high density which enables them to escape r e l a t i v e l y e a s i l y from f l a t r a f t s . Also hemlock logs on the bottom of log bundles absorb a l o t of water and w i l l often escape from the m i l l ponds into the r i v e r . These logs are usually low f l o a t i n g and are p a r t i c u l a r i l y hazardous to boats i n the r i v e r and S t r a i t of Georgia because they f l o a t at the interface between the s a l t water and the lower density fresh water, and are very d i f f i c u l t to see. In t h i s report i t i s suggested that control mesures should be implemented to control log escape- Uith the primary measure being the bundling of a l l hemlock. It i s also suggested that logs should be controlled further by dryland sorting and by providing bundle l i f t i n g equipment at the mi l l s so that bundles 3 would only be broken open on the m i l l deck. These measures would ensure that no i n d i v i d u a l logs would be able to f l o a t free in the water at any time during transportation and handling. To undertake the control of a l l logs would cost over 12 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s , but to control a l l hemlock would cost under 7 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Preventing the escape of a l l logs would not be s o c i a l l y optimal- But i t would be near optimal, to control the escape of hemlock, since the costs of the proposed control program would be l e s s than the benefits which would be obtained i f no hemlock logs were escaping. In chapter V these various costs are used to derive a s o c i a l t o t a l - c o s t curve- From t h i s curve i s calculated a s o c i a l least-cost point which indicates that 72% of a l l timber should be controlled i n some manner, and that a l l hemlock and 44% of the other species should be controlled- If the environmental costs and the unguantified s o c i a l costs not including boat damage, are less than about 1-1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s the cheapest e f f e c t i v e control measure would be dryland sorting/bundling. However i f these costs are above 1.1 million d o l l a r s , i t becomes s o c i a l l y c o s t - e f f e c t i v e to include bundle l i f t i n g equipment at the mills-At present the forest industry i s finding that by undertaking a dryland sorting/bundling program they w i l l be able to reduce operating expenses. It appears that the industry w i l l 4 be reaching the optimal l e v e l of bundling i n the near future. However t h i s program w i l l be only p a r t i a l l y successful i n reducing log escape. I f environmental and unguantified s o c i a l costs are high i t would be necessary for the f o r e s t industry to undertake m i l l up-grading i n order to reduce log escape from the m i l l ponds. But there i s not an economic incentive for them to implement such a control measure. It would therefore be necessary for an administrative body to intercede and encourage the forest industry to control log escape and to i n t e r n a l i z e the costs which they are i n f l i c t i n g upon society. This study i s concluded with a comparison of three administrative measures; s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n , l e g a l enforcement and a charge system. And i t i s shown that a charge system would be r e l a t i v e l y easy to implement for c o n t r o l l i n g log escape on the Fraser. Log recovery presently i s handled by a cooperative association consisting of salvagers and the forest companies. A charge based on the volume of recovered logs belonging to each company would l i k e l y be an e f f e c t i v e means for inducing companies to reduce log escape. I t i s found that a charge of approximately 20% of the present recovery cost would induce the firms on the Fraser to adopt methods of log handling and transportation which would minimize the external costs to society, escaped logs. Figure 1= THE FRASER RIVER AND VICINITY 6 II HOOD DEBRIS IN THE LOWER FRASER Debris: Types In the Fraser there are di f f e r e n t types of debris causing d i f f e r e n t kinds of problems. But as well as the various problems associated with each debris type, there are di f f e r e n t means available for dealing with each type of debris i n order to either prevent i t s generation or to remove i t - Thus i t i s useful and often necessary to know the source and natare of the debris i n order to understand the range of the problems which w i l l a r i s e , and also to implement a means of control. Although i t i s not very often possible, i t i s useful to know certain things about a p a r t i c u l a r debris accumulation that i s under consideration, in order to determine the problems which are associated with that debris. The useful information includes the average s i z e , shape and condition and also the source, volume and species mix of the debris accumulation. 1 Since most of t h i s s p e c i f i c information i s lacking attempts at defining simple c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems, of the various types of debris, have been made.2 One simple system for debris c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , which w i l l be used for the remainder of t h i s report, has the following categories: 1) natural debris; 2) f l o a t i n g logs, low-floaters, dead-heads; 7 3) logging waste (eg. slash, bark, and small trees) ; 4) sawmill waste (eg. ends, bark and splintered wood); 5) construction waste (eg. beams, planks and pier timbers) ; 6) dunnage (waste from shipping, eg. c r a t e s ) ; 7) miscellaneous (eg. f l o a t s freed by f l o o d s ) . Some types of debris cause more problems and r e s u l t in greater damage and costs than do other types. Low-floaters, for example, though at times less prevelant than some kinds of natural debris may cause greater damage to boats due to t h e i r low v i s i b i l i t y . Generally the f i r s t four types of debris in the above l i s t are the most common, causing the most problems and res u l t i n g i n the greatest costs. But i n certain areas and at certain times the l a s t three may cause greater problems, re s u l t i n g i n serious damage and various costs. A. Natural Debris About 150 kms east of Vancouver i s the Stein River, (see Figure 1). The watershed of t h i s r i v e r i s an unlogged preserve in the natural state for over 130 kms. Yet even i n t h i s p r i s t i n e environment the amount of debris which has accumulated i s reported to be quite high. 3 The Skwawka River watershed area, above Queens Reach, i s a s i m i l a r area i n the natural state. In t h i s area also there are reported to be large 8 accumulations of d e b r i s . 4 I t seems evident that since man's a c t i v i t i e s play an i n s i g n i f i c a n t role i n the generation of present debris volumes i n these watershed areas, there are important natural forces which cause the generation of the large amounts of debris which i s to be found along the banks and sandbars or f l o a t i n g i n the water of a r i v e r . Two large contributors to the volume of natural debris are erosion and l a n d s l i d e s . 5 But other natural factors such as age, wind, flood, f i r e (caused by l i g h t n i n g ) , snow, i c e , insects and fungi a l l contribute to the death of trees and bushes. Some of t h i s dead material i s inevitably washed into r i v e r s during periods of high run-off.» B. logs Logs which escape due to poor handling at the log sorting and storage grounds and at the m i l l s , during transport, or because of boom break-up due to bad weather or accidents also add a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of debris to the t o t a l amount generated in the Fraser River or i n nearby water bodies. Although most of these logs are of commercial value and are guickly recovered they are free i n the water often f o r many hours or even days, and during that time are part of the t o t a l volume of debris. Of concern also are those logs which escape but due to t h e i r low commercial value are rejected by log salvagers and remain i n the 9 water u n t i l they are either co l l e c t e d by patrol vessels, sink or are washed ashore or out i n t o Georgia S t r a i t , where they remain a problem. Some of the reasons for logs escaping from f l a t r a f t s i n the Fraser Biver, as elsewhere, are: 1) when booms are brought into the fresher water of the Fraser from the s a l t water of the S t r a i t , the more dense logs often f l o a t lower than more buoyant boomsticks, or high f l o a t i n g logs escape over low f l o a t i n g boomsticks; 7 2) storms, strong currents and wash from passing boats can shake logs free from booms both while i n t r a n s i t and while they are tied-up; 3) high towing speeds, guick starts and stops and f a s t turns can also cause logs to escape; 8 4) poor tie-up, especially in t i d a l areas where booms can be p a r t i a l l y grounded and careless boom construction can subject booms to wash and to t i d a l and current pressures and can result i n logs escaping or i n a break-up of the entire boom, logs can also escape through gaps between the boomsticks i n poorly constructed booms;5) when logs remain i n the water for long periods they absorb water and become less buoyant, t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r i l y the case with logs which are on the bottom of bundles or are on the bottom of a barge-dumped p i l e s , which remain i n a tangled heap. When the bundles or p i l e s are broken apart i n the water, the heavier logs w i l l often escape under the m i l l pond retaining boomsticks- 9 11 Hemlock logs have generally a greater chance, than other kinds of logs, of escaping from booms fo r any reason. This propensity to escape i s due primarily to two f a c t o r s : 1) hemlock logs are often s p l i n t e r e d , rotten and hollow i n the core or punky; and 2) small and second-growth hemlock logs have a density which i s very near the density of water. 1 1 Many of the hemlock logs which escape become low-floaters or dead-heads. 1 2 C. Other Debris In addition to the escape of commercially valuable logs, small, rotten and badly weathered logs; bark, s l a s h 1 3 sawn ends and splintered wood are produced by the log m i l l i n g operations. 1* L i t t l e of t h i s m i l l debris i s generated i n open waters. On the other hand s i g n i f i c a n t accumulations of m i l l debris occur i n r i v e r s , bays and i n l e t s , from generation at log dumping and sorting grounds and at m i l l log-ponds. 1 5 Debris: Volumes In an e a r l i e r paragraph the natural r i v e r areas of the Stein and Skwawka were mentioned. The debris on these r i v e r s i s almost e n t i r e l y the r e s u l t of natural forces. Whereas in contrast, i t has been found that i n B.C. watersheds, where man c a r r i e s on his a c t i v i t i e s , the percentage of natural debris drops from near 100% for the v i r g i n areas to an average of 12 57%. * 6 Debris studies undertaken at the Mission Bridge on the Fraser r i v e r , a r i v e r intensely used by man, have shown that the debris which i s the re s u l t of natural causes dropped to a low of 32% during 1972. The average yearly percentage of natural debris passing into the lower portions of the Fraser, over the past f i v e years, has been around 40%. 1 7 The r e l a t i v e percentages of both natural and manmade debris vary considerably from year to y e a r . 1 8 with respect to natural debris, there e x i s t s a d e f i n i t e c o r r e l a t i o n between the water l e v e l , r e s u l t i n g from increased or decreased runoff, and the volume of natural debris which i s flowing in the r i v e r . 1 9 A large portion of the natural debris, probably over half, 2° comes from the Fraser f r e s h e t 2 1 which usually occurs during the months of May and June. The amount of manmade debris i s also affected by the prevailing weather conditions since a large portion of the slash and other debris w i l l often be l e f t on the land or be beached, and w i l l not be washed o f f u n t i l there i s a very high t i d e , a flood, or increased run-off. Other factors including the l e v e l of a c t i v i t y at the mi l l s w i l l a f f e c t the t o t a l volume and r e l a t i v e percentages of debris on the r i v e r . Debris generation w i l l obviously vary greatly on a day to day, month to month and year to year basis. Equally the respective sizes, shapes and types of material are going to fluctuate i n accord with the various conditions a f f e c t i n g debris generation and flow rates- Therefore i t must be understood that the average rates 13 of debris flow used i n t h i s study do not describe the volume of debris that can be expected on any p a r t i c u l a r day. Studies of debris on the Fraser Hiver from 1971 through 1974, have estimated that the average yearly flow of debris which passes under the Mission Bridge, from upstream sources, i s around 57 thousand m3. Of t h i s t o t a l , 23 thousand m3 (40%) i s believed to be natural and 34 thousand m3 (60%) manmade-22 Of the debris passing under the Mission Bridge 17 thousand m3 (30% of the t o t a l debris) was determined to be logging and m i l l waste, 16 thousand m3 (28%) was found to be saw and pulp logs and another 1 thousand m3 (2%) was lumber and i n d u s t r i a l waste. 2 3 In comparison, a s i m i l a r study of debris i n most of the major lakes and streams i n B r i t i s h Columbia has determined that 43% of the debris was man made, and of the t o t a l debris 20% was the r e s u l t of logging a c t i v i t i e s and consisted of logging and m i l l wastes, another 20% was found to consist primarily of sawn logs which escaped from storage or dumping grounds and from r a f t s , and a f i n a l 3% was generated by other human a c t i v i t y . 2 4 The r e s u l t s from the Fraser River studies are comparable with the findings of the broader B.C. study. The r e l a t i v e percentages of each type of manmade debris are in approximately the same proportion i n both studies. The proportions are somewhat higher in the Fraser River as would be expected- On the Fraser there i s probably more of man's a c t i v i t i e s including log handling and m i l l operations, which would generate debris, than on any other B.C. r i v e r or lake-The volume of debris which flows down the r i v e r i s large, but the volume which i s added in the lower Fraser, i n the v i c i n i t y of Vancouver i s much greater- In addition to the debris which arrives from up r i v e r there are two other major sources of debris- One of these i s the debris generated by the m i l l s which l i n e the banks of the r i v e r and the other i s the escaped logs which originate from the log transportation and storage operations i n the estuary and the lower reaches of the Fraser, which include large volumes of logs brought into the r i v e r from points outside the Fraser watershed. To consider these other sources of debris i t i s useful to note that 9 m i l l i o n m3 of timber per year i s being transported through the mouth of the r i v e r , to m i l l s on the lower F r a s e r . 2 S This i s an average, considering that the volume of logs a r r i v i n g i n the r i v e r depends to a great extent on the state of the timber market- The amount of timber going to the North Arm and into the Main Channel i s about the same, with each receiving approximately half of the t o t a l - Of the t o t a l amount of timber a r r i v i n g , one half or 4.5 m i l l i o n m3 i s hemlock, approximately one guarter i s f i r and pine and the remaining quarter consists of other species such as cedar, cyprus, spruce and balsam- 2 6 The number of logs which escape and become uncontrolled and the 15 amount of debris which i s generated by the m i l l s , appears to be related to the t o t a l volume of logs being processed- 2 7 There i s approximately -5m 3 of m i l l debris produced per 100 m3 of timber processed; 2* therefore i n the lower Fraser i t i s expected that during a year approximately 45 thousand m3 of debris w i l l be produced by the forest industry- This i s in agreement with the figures obtained from the N.F.H.C. (North Fraser Harbour Commision)- They state that they presently deal with, on average, 23 thousand m3 per y e a r - 2 9 This debris i s contained i n bag-booms 3© and i s burned- It i s believed that since the m i l l s on the Main Arm handle a s i m i l a r amount of raw timber they also generate a s i m i l a r amount of debris, but t h i s debris i s set free i n the r i v e r and i s not contained- 3 1 Various studies indicate that the mean of the rate of log escape for a l l species i s around 3%, although the rate has been determined, from estimates c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e , to range anywhere from .2% to 12%, depending on the the species and on a number of factors such as: 1) the means of transportation: barge, f l a t r a f t or bundle boom; 2) towing methods; 3) the method of sorting: dry land or water; 4) the type of storage: dry land or water; 5) the length of time logs remain i n the water; 6) prevailing weather conditions; and 7) the method and point of sc a l i n g / c o u n t i n g . 3 2 16 The rate of escape i s probably higher than 3% f o r hemlock due to the propensity of t h i s species to become low f l o a t i n g and to deadhead. Whereas, the rate of escape for other species i s probably below 3%. The data given i n the previously mentioned studies indicate that more than 5% of the hemlock logs and around ^% of the logs of other species, being brought to the m i l l s on the Fraser Fiver, escape from t h e i r booms i n the v i c i n i t y of Vancouver. Using these figures i t can be calculated that of the 4.5 m i l l i o n m3 of hemlock brought to the m i l l s annually, approximately 225 thousand m3 escapes, and for the same volume of the other species, 45 thousand m3 escapes. Only a portion of t h i s volume of freed logs w i l l actually escape on the r i v e r in the v i c i n i t y of the m i l l s . 3 3 A large number of logs w i l l escape i n the storage and sorting grounds in Howe Sound and around Point Grey where the logs stay in the water for, often, considerable periods of time and have an opportunity to absorb a l o t of water. Also a portion w i l l become free during towing to the m i l l s and i n the lower reaches of the Fraser where the logs encounter the lower density fresh water. Escape rates given i n the l i t e r a t u r e have been calculated by comparing log volumes at the sorting area and at the m i l l s , thus i t i s not possible to derive a figure f o r the actual escape rate on the r i v e r - Nevertheless, since logs processed on the Fraser account f o r more than 80% 3* of the timber brought to the Vancouver area, the number of escaped logs 17 around Vancouver i s probably d i r e c t l y related to the volume of logs being towed to the mills on the Fraser. Therefore the volume of escaped logs (270 thousand m3) has been included i n the tabulation of the volume of debris coming from the Fraser River. To complete the estimate of the amount of debris which i s in the water (not necessarily free or uncontained) at the lower end of the Fraser, i t i s necessary to include two other minor debris sources. There i s at most 6 thousand m3 of natural debris added to the Fraser 1s debris volume below the Mission B r i d g e . 3 s Some of t h i s probably comes from the P i t t and Alouette Lake areas. As well as the natural debris there i s another 3 thousand m3 of debris, generated by other industry, which i s not d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the a c t i v i t i e s of the forest i n d u s t r y - 3 6 UUIil DEBRIS FROM THE FRASER RIVER (in thousands of m3) FROM UP FROM BEL08 TOTAL RIVES MISSION % % OF T % % OF T % OF T NATURAL 23 (40) ( 6) 6 ( 2) ( 2) 29 ( 8) LOGGING/MILL 17 (30) ( 5) 45 (13) (11) 62 (16) SAW LOGS 16 (28) ( <») 270 (84) (71) 286 (75) OTHER 1 ( 2) ( 0) 3 ( D ( D 4 ( D MANMADE 34 (60) ( 9) 318 (98) (83) 352 (92) TOTAL 57 (100) (15) 324 (100) (85) 381 (100) (•please see text above) 18 In the coastal waters of B.C. i t i s reckoned that 40% of a l l logs which escape are recovered, 35% ( c h i e f l y hemlock) sink to the bottom and 25% are l o s t i n the S t r a i t or to s e a . 3 7 Data obtained from Gulf Log Salvage Co-operative Association indicate that in the Fraser the recovery rate for logs i n general i s higher than in the coastal waters, around 45% as compared with the coastal average of 40%. 3 8 This i s probably due to the contained nature and smaller area of the r i v e r and nearby bays and because of the larger number of s a l v a g e r s . 3 9 Thus i t can be calculated that of the 270 thousand m3 of escaped logs (from booms towed to the mouth of the Fraser through the Strait) 120 thousand m3 are recovered. Without evidence to the contrary i t must be assumed that the percentage of sunken Fraser River logs i s the same as the percentage for the B.C. coast. Therefore about 95 thousand m3 sinks. The remainder of about 20% or 55 thousand m3, i s the volume of logs which i s estimated to be l o s t from the Fraser River. Although balsam logs and possibly logs of other species do at times become dead-heads or sink, t h i s problem i s confined almost e n t i r e l y to hemlock.* 0 From information supplied by those handling logs on the r i v e r and from data on log sinkage rates, i t i s estimated that close to 95% of the logs which sink are hemlock..** Therefore i t i s calculated that about 90 thousand m3 of hemlock logs, which escape from log booms being transported to the m i l l s i n the lower Fraser for processing, are 19 l o s t through sinking- And since hemlock represents 225 thousand m3 (83%) of the t o t a l escaped volume (270 thousand m 3), i t i s not unreasonable to assume that i t accounts for a s i m i l a r proportion of the timber which i s lost to the S t r a i t or to sea-Thus i t can be calculated that about 4 5 thousand m3 of hemlock i s l o s t - This leaves a volume which i s probably being recovered, of about 90 thousand m3 of hemlock. This recovered volume results i n a recovery rate of 4 0% which happens to be the coastal water average. The N.F-H.C. maintains accurate records on the number of dead-heads which they remove from the water every year; t h i s i s on average 2500 logs representing an estimated 4-6 thousand m3. The majority of these logs are taken to Canada Forest Products* Eburn m i l l and the remainder are taken to the Iona burning s i t e . * 2 I t seems, from available information that the F.R.H.C. (Fraser River Harbour Commision) also removes about the same volume per year, from the r i v e r - 4 3 There are also a small number of dead-heads which are retrieved by salvagers. Therefore i t can be computed that around 10 thousand m3 of escaped dead-heads are removed from the Fraser on a yearly basis. A s i m l i l a r amount, attributable to the Fraser River timber, i s removed from Howe Sound and the other Vancouver waters by a salvager, Archie H e l e t a . 4 4 20 IIBLE 2- LOSS AND RECOVERY OF ESCAPED LOGS (in thousands of m3) % % OF T HEMLOCK SINKS 90 (40) (33) RECOVERED FLOAT 70 (31) (26) D. H. 20 ( 9) ( 7) TOTAL 90 (40) (33) LOST LOGS 45 (20) (17) TOTAL 225 (100) (83) ALL SINKS 95 (35) SPECIES RECOVERED 120 (45) LOST LOGS 55 (20) TOTAL 270 (100) De b r i s : Problems From the indications of the amount of debris which i s being generated in other forest industry s i t e s near Vancouver, s p e c i f i c a l l y in Howe Sound, Burrard Inlet and False Creek, and in the ri v e r s such as the Sguamish, i t appears that the Fraser River contributes the largest amount of debris to the waters around Vancouver- From a number of studies and from an estimate made by the co-ordinator of the debris control program of the Council of Forest Industries, i t can be concluded that at l e a s t 80% of the debris which i s found i n the water or on the beaches of the lower S t r a i t near Vancouver has originated on the Fraser, or from log booms being towed to the m i l l s on the r i v e r . 4 5 21 The nature of the prevailing winds and the currents in the S t r a i t of Georgia tend to cause d r i f t material coining down the Fraser to disperse i n an arc from Lulu Island to Howe Sound; t h i s i s primarily the case with southwesterly to southeasterly winds- Under certain conditions and with winds from the opposite d i r e c t i o n , d r i f t may end up on the east shores of the Gulf Islands.* 6 In whichever di r e c t i o n the winds occur, the debris i s swept back and forth with the winds and tides, often for months, u n t i l i t f i n a l l y sinks, i s c a r r i e d out to sea or i s deposited on the coastal beaches around Vancouver or on the Gulf I s l a n d s . 4 7 But the erosion and the turnover of debris on the beaches appears to be quite rapid and a r e l a t i v e l y stable amount of debris i s maintained- Also h i s t o r i c a l information given by the authors of three d i f f e r e n t debris-study reports, regarding the amount of debris on the beaches and i n the water of the S t r a i t , indicates that the debris accumulations are not getting worse. 4 8 On the contrary, salvaging and clean-up a c t i v i t i e s , appear to have reduced the accumulated amount of d e b r i s . 4 9 Both i n the waters of the Fraser and i n the S t r a i t of Georgia and on the beaches around Vancouver the remaining debris i s creating a number of problems which res u l t i n considerable costs. logs and other forms of large debris, i n the shipping channels, are a major hazard to moving boats, and s i g n i f i c a n t damage occurs every year as a result of boats encountering f l o a t i n g debris. The problems are p a r t i c u l a r i l y acute with the 22 more dangerous low f l o a t i n g logs which are p a r t i a l l y or e n t i r e l y submerged and with the dead-heads which can have a very small portion of t h e i r volume above water- s o M i l l debris containment, removal and disposal and clean-up of both the water and the beaches to remove logs and other debris involves expenditures on the part of many j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bodies- The Harbour Commisions, the Department of Public Works, the Park boards in the G-V-R-D., the Council of Forest Industries and the B.C. Forest Service a l l are involved i n clean-up programs. The forest industry's companies also suffer direct costs in the form of m i l l debris bagging and disposal and log recovery costs and i n d i r e c t costs through the clean up and control operations of the Council of Forest Industries. There are also environmental problems such as pollution of the f i s h spawning areas, bark and debris accumulation i n feeding grounds, oxygen depletion i n the water due to decaying debris and log accumulations in recreational areas. These problems result i n costs, to the f i s h i n g industry and to society at large, which may or may not be substantial. Thus, the four categories of damage costs associated with the debris generated primarily by the forest industry can be i d e n t i f i e d as: 23 COSTS ASSGGIATJD WITH FOREST INDUSTHY DEBRIS 1) Debris clean-up costs; 2) the costs of log recovery and log loss; 3) costs resulting from damage to boats and to other property; and 4) environmental costs. 24 III THE COSTS OF LOG DEBRIS In t h i s section, the costs of log debris as indicated on the previous page, w i l l be considered. Since the margin-of-error i n the data used for cal c u l a t i n g these costs i s not known i n many cases, care has been taken to provide reasonably accurate but conservative estimates of the costs. Therefore i t i s possible that the actual costs to society are higher than indicated in thi s section. Conseguently the benefits a r i s i n g from a reduction i n these costs, may be greater than indicated. v Clean-up Costs Debris i n the Fraser and i n the S t r a i t r esults in s i g n i f i c a n t clean-up costs. But only a small portion of the clean-up expenditures are e f f e c t i v e , as the clean-up i s expensive and clean-up work i s quickly invalidated by the accumulation of new deposits. 1 An e f f e c t i v e program to reduce the volume of debris must include control of the generation of debris and u t i l i z a t i o n of the collected or controlled debris i n order to recoup seme of the expenses. 2 But no program w i l l be e n t i r e l y e f f e c t i v e i n removing a l l debris immediately. Accretion of natural debris, logging waste disposal, log s p i l l s , log losses, and i n d u s t r i a l disposal i n the r i v e r w i l l r e s u l t i n a continual flow of debris i n t o the r i v e r and S t r a i t -25 In the Vancouver area there are primarily four groups responsible f o r the clean-up of fl o a t i n g debris. These are, the North Fraser Harbour Commission (N.F.H.C.), the Fraser River Harbour Commission (F.R.H.C), the Department of Public Works (D.P.W-) and the Council of Forest Industries (CO.F.I.). The N.F.H.C. spends around $160,000 per year on t h e i r patrol vessel. They estimate that $50,000 of the cost of operating the boat i s d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the cost of debris clean-up, primarily removal of dead-heads from the channels. 3 The F.R.H.C. estimates that i n the operation of t h e i r boat they incur a s i m i l a r expense of $50,000 through the removal of debris trapped on bridge and causeway supports and through the removal of dead-heads from the channels. 4 The D.P-W. also operates a boat. Its operation cost i s estimated to be around $250,000 per year. I t i s used for some.Ministry of Transport work but at least $100,000 of the cost i s d i r e c t l y a ttributable to debris clean-up. 5 The CO-F.I. operates two boats, one in Howe Sound and the other on the Fraser. These boats are not used for debris clean-up, except i n emergencies, but are used for boom patr o l , i n order to reduce log theft and to police boom construction. The costs of boat operation, which can be d i r e c t l y a ttributed to debris, t o t a l approximately $300,000. But there are i n d i r e c t costs which could also be included i n the cost 26 estimate- These boats, during t h e i r general patrol operations are used for p o l i c i n g log and debris booms- The operators report log s p i l l s and poorly constructed and broken booms and thus are responsible for reducing the amount of debris which escapes into the S t r a i t - I t i s very d i f f i c u l t to estimate the percentage of the operating costs which i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to the prevention of debris escape, although i t i s believed that i t represents a substantial portion of the c o s t . 6 Some of the other costs which r e s u l t from debris clean-up are: 1) beach clean-up by the Parks Board, estimated to be $100,000;7 2) sweeping programs operated by the National Harbours Board and by CO..F.I. using hired tugs, $50,000;8 3) the lona burning s i t e , operated by the N-F. H.C, $50,000;9 4) disposal or burning of debris by the CO-F.I. or by the B.C. Forest Service, $50,000; 1 0 5) administrative costs sustained by the CO.F.I. ; l* 6) increased dredging costs due to the problems of removing submerged debris; and 7) prevention, c o l l e c t i o n and disposal by the i n d i v i d u a l companies. No estimate i s currently avai l a b l e on the various company programs. 4 2 Adding these costs to the cost of operating the boats a conservative estimate, of $500,000, can be derived for the cost of clean-up. It i s also i n t e r e s t i n g to note a project undertaken i n 1975 by the CO.F.I. During the months of Hay and June a pair of booms were constructed across a portion of the Fraser, adjacent 27 to Vasasus Island, west of Hope. A t o t a l volume of debris of 10 thousand m3 was contained. This represents about 37% of the t o t a l amount of debris which would have been flowing down the r i v e r during the time the boom was i n operation- The cost of t h i s operation was over $100,000. The CO.F.I. i s planning a s i m i l a r , continuing, operation for the Fraser, and i t i s estimated that t h i s program w i l l cost as much as $300,000 to construct and $50,000 per year to operate. As well as t h i s boom the CO.F.I. would l i k e to operate debris burning s i t e s for the Main Arm of the Fraser and the Vancouver Harbour. These burning programs could cost $200,000 per year. 1 3 From Table 2 (page 20) i t can be seen that 45 thousand m3 of hemlock logs and 10 thousand m3 of logs of other species i s l o s t . As well as the logs there i s an estimated 56 thousand m3 of debris from natural sources, from m i l l s or from other human a c t i v i t y , which i s escaping with the logs into open water. 1 4 These two types of debris, about 111 thousand m3 in t o t a l , account for the greatest portion of the direct clean-up costs. In addition to t h i s amount there i s the debris, including a portion of the debris generated at the m i l l s and some natural and man-made debris, which i s bagged at or near the source of generation. The amount of debris which i s bagged i n t h i s manner i s estimated to be about 55 thousand m3, or about 33% of the t o t a l of 166 thoousand m3 which would need to be removed from the water and beaches by clean-up operations.* 5 Most of t h i s 28 bagged debris i s towed d i r e c t l y to the lona burning s i t e and accounts for only a small portion of the t o t a l clean-up costs. In Table 3 i s shown the estimated cost of clean-up attributable to the d i f f e r e n t kinds of debris. As was mentioned in a previous section, i t was concluded that 80% of the debris in the lower S t r a i t originates from the Fraser or from booms being towed to m i l l s on the Fraser. Thus i t can be calculated that the cost for clean-up of Fraser River debris i s around $400,000 (second column, Table 3). A portion (33%) of t h i s debris, that which i s bagged and towed to the burning s i t e s , r e s u l t s only i n burning and administrative costs. Therefore i t i s necessary to deduct 33%, which i s probably too high, from these costs, i n order to obtain the cost attributable to escaped debris (third column). Logs account for almost the entire cost of boat operation and beach clean-up, but probably, only t h e i r proportionate amount (49% of the 111 thousand m3 of escaped debris) of the other costs. Hemlock probably accounts f o r 82% of the cost of boat operation and beach clean-up and a proportionate amount (40%) of the other costs. Therefore the cost of clean-up of logs has been calculated to be $299,000, and s p e c i f i c a l l y of hemlock logs, $246,000 (fourth and f i f t h columns res p e c t i v e l y ) . 29 TABLE 3: DEBBIS CLEAN-OP COSTS (in thousands) VANCOUVER FRASER AREA (total) (escaped) (logs) FRASER FRASER FRASER (hemlock) $131 OTHER COSTS BOAT OPERATION BEACH CLEAN-UP HATER SWEEPING BURNING $200 $160 100 80 50 40 100 80 50 40 $160 $160 80 80 40 20 54 26 27 13 66 16 22 11 TOTAL 500 400 361 299 246 The- Costs of Log, Salvage and Log Loss The i n s t i t u t i o n responsible for the salvage of logs i s the Gulf Log Salvage Co-operative Association. " I t was established by l e g i s l a t i o n under the Forest Act of B.C. as a non-profit organization consisting of members from the forest industry, log insurance agencies, brokers, and towing i n t e r e s t s . Gulf Log Salvage i s primarily a marketing organization designed to return l o s t p r o f i t s to the forest industry through the recovery and sale of salvaged l o g s . " 1 6 G.L.S. acts as an intermediary i n most transactions between holders of v a l i d log salvage permits and the firms owning or buying the logs. When G.L.S- has logs belonging to a pa r t i c u l a r m i l l , that m i l l has f i r s t option to buy back the logs at a price set by G.L.S., or determined through agreement with the m i l l . I f the m i l l does not wish to purchase the logs they are sold to the highest b i d d e r . 1 7 30 From data supplied by G-L-S. i t can be calculated that for the past three years (1974-1976) the average cost, to the m i l l s , of the recovery of one cubic meter of logs was $39- 1 8 And from Table 2 i t can be estimated that the yearly volume of recovered logs i s about 110 thousand m3- This does not include the 10 thousand m3 of dead-heads recovered i n debris clean-up operations- Thus the t o t a l cost of recovering the logs based on the non-profit status or G-L-S-, i s around 4.3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s -Gulf log salvage does not keep, e a s i l y obtained, figures on i t s volume by species, so i t i s not possible to determine whether the cost of recovering hemlock i s d i f f e r e n t from the average cost given above. But since the volume of hemlock tends to consist of the smaller logs, the cost per cubic meter could be higher because the cost of handling the smaller more numerous logs i s probably greater. Without supporting data, only a conservative estimate of 3.1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s can be calculated, for the cost of recovery of the 80 thousand m3 of escaped hemlock, not including 10 thousand m3 of dead-heads. As well as the cost of the recovery of merchantable logs there i s the cost of the logs which are l o s t or sink- If i t i s assumed that the bid-price paid for salvaged logs equals the cost of recovery by salvagers making 'magrinal p r o f i t s ' , then i t can be concluded that the logs which are not recovered have at best the same value- However, i t i s probable that the 31 unrecovered logs are not as valuable, and for t h i s reason they are not retrieved. It i s believed by those involved with debris clean-up, 1 9 that no les s than half of the wood in the logs which escape has any value for lumber or for wood chips f o r paper production. The si t u a t i o n i s probably the same for the wood of logs which sink. Therefore with an estimated volume of 150 thousand m3 of timber which i s being l o s t or i s sinking i t can be calculated that at minnimum 3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s worth i s pote n t i a l l y usable. Hemlock represents about 90% or 135 thousand m3 of t h i s lost timber and therefore at l e a s t 2.6 mill i o n dollars worth of the pot e n t i a l l y useable wood. Boat and Property Damage The data on boat damage i s sparse; therefore to determine the amount of boat damage at t r i b u t a b l e to debris i s very d i f f i c u l t . P r i o r to t h i s present study the most recent cost estimate of damage to pleasure c r a f t was made i n 1967, and to fi s h i n g vessels in 1970. 2 0 In order to obtain a t o t a l cost figure which would at least approximate the actual l e v e l of damage occuring today, i t was necessary to obtain a more up-to-date and more accurate estimate of debris damage. Through discussions with a number of marine underwriters about the matter, i t was found that there i s no attempt made to keep s t a t i s t i c s for the entire insurance industry; i n fac t few insurance companies maintain any s t a t i s t i c s for t h e i r own 32 company, which would have made i t possible calculate the needed estimates- In an attempt to r e c t i f y t h i s , a sample questionnaire was presented to the Hull Damage Committee of the Marine Underwriters f o r Vancouver. This committee represents about 10 companies with around 90% of the present insurance p o l i c i e s . After a hopeful i n i t i a l response, these companies proved unwilling to provide any information. There i s apparently a very competitive environment i n which these companies operate and they fear that i f any data, even of a very general nature, were given out i t might adversely a f f e c t t h e i r competative position- I t was therefore necessary to arrive at an estimate through a d i f f e r e n t method. In B.C. most of the appraisals of boat damage and repair costs are done by firms which are seperate from the insurance companies. The appraisers are most often experienced i n boat design or repair and operation, and some have engineering degrees. Data was obtained from very helpful personnel i n three of the largest companies, representing about 70% of the t o t a l claim-appraisals. In t h i s section w i l l be presented the estimates of damage costs, based upon the information obtained from these appraisers. For small c r a f t , under 10 m, the major type of reported damage seems to be damage to propellers and to the engine and steering mechanism. On inboard/outboard engines the leg which 33 holds the propeller i s apparently very e a s i l y damaged, even though the leg i s designed so that i t w i l l f l i p up i f debris i s hi t - But at speeds of around 30 km/hr a pleasure boat begins to plane; i t s bow l i f t s out of the water and i t s weight i s displaced to the stern, thus a considerable force i s required to l i f t the leg over the debris. The pressure often causes damage, or complete breakage, even i f the leg has been l i f t e d - 2 1 Similar kinds of damage occur to the leg of outboard engines. Damage to the propeller, leg, and steering mechanism on inboard/outboards and outboards i s the most commonly reported form of damage to pleasure c r a f t , i n the Vancouver area. It i s not as common for tugs, f i s h i n g boats or other commercial vessels to be damaged. Host of these boats are well b u i l t , with s t e e l or aluminum h u l l s and with propeller guards, also the operators of these boats are usually professionals and they are well aware of the dangers of d e b r i s . 2 2 But damage does occur even to these boats. At night, in fog, or i n poor weather conditions these boats can encounter unseen debris; a log can cause damage i f i t i s driven 'up the spout' leading to the propellers or i f i t s t r i k e s the propeller, propeller guard or shaft or the rudder with s u f f i c i e n t force. Though there are not a great number of commercial vessels damaged, the t o t a l cost of damage can be quite high. Damage to a propeller of a large vessel, 25 m and longer, may be very 34 expensive to repair as a considerable cost oust be incured in order to dry-dock the boat and repair or replace the damaged portion. When damage does occur, the larger the boat usually the more expensive w i l l be the repair c o s t s . 2 3 Estimates made from the average reported number of boats which sustained damages caused by h i t t i n g debris i n the waters around Vancouver, are given i n the following Table. 2* These estimates are rough, but the t o t a l calculated figure for damage i s believed to be lower than the actual cost of damage. In the paragraphs following the Table consideration s h a l l be given to a few of the costs which are not included i n the table because of the d i f f i c u l t y of obtaining data. TABLE 4: BOAT • B;A|-fl GE • CAD SEP BY • DEBRIS • <in the Vancouver area) % OF TOTAL NO. PER AVG. COST TOTAL COST DAMAGE YEAR PER INCIDENT PLEASURE CRAFT POWER 56 560 $1,000 $560,000 SAIL 11 110 500 55,000 LOCAL COMMERCIAL TUGS 10 100 2,500 250,000 SCOWS 5 50 2,0 00 100,000 FERRIES 1 10 5,000 50,000 FISHING 15 150 2,500 375,000 DEEP SEA 2 20 10,000 2 00,00 0 TOTAL 100 1,000 1,600 1,585,000 In 1967 i t was estimated that over 30% of a l l boats i n B.C. 35 where not i n s u r e d - 2 5 The apraisers who provided the information, did not believe that the number of uninsured boats i s as high as 30% but estimated that the figure was closer to 10%, for 1976- 2 6 The uninsured boats in B.C. are probably of low r e l a t i v e value, such as car-tops, i n f l a t a b l e s , row-boats and canoes- Most larger pleasure c r a f t and commercial vessels are insured- However, some damage re s u l t i n g from debris, undoubtedly occurs to the uninsured boats. The damage costs for uninsured boats i s believed to be r e l a t i v e l y low since the t o t a l value of the boats and t h e i r eguipment i s probably not high, and these boats are generally slower moving when i n the water. Although the t o t a l damage may not be very high, the damage to uninsured boats should be included i n the damage ca l c u l a t i o n s . As well as considering the damage sustained by uninsured boats, i t should be noted that there i s unreported damage which occurs to insured boats. The deductable amount for most marine insurance p o l i c i e s i s somewhere between 1 and 10 percent of the value of the boat, or about $200 and up- 2 7 But since the cost of just hauling a boat and having a propeller balanced can be over $120 i t i s believed that most owners report t h e i r damage, as often prop-guards, shafts and struts and rudders and h u l l s are also damaged. 2 8 Probably most, i f not a l l , damage of any consequence or over $200 i s r e p o r t e d , 2 9 but s i g n i f i c a n t small amounts of unreported damage may s t i l l be occuring. This damage may be repaired at the owners expense or i t may be that the 36 damage i s ignored, although i t may af f e c t the re-sale value of the boat, or result i n compounded costs when other damage occurs. The absolute amount of unreported damage i s probably low, nevertheless t h i s damage should be included i n the cal c u l a t i o n s . A further boat damage cost which i s not included i n the above i s damage to boats which are not insured i n the Vancouver area. It i s believed that over 10 thousand non-resident pleasure c r a f t entered the B.C. waters, by sea, in 1976. 3 0 A large proportion of these boats probably traversed the waters adjacent to the Fraser estuary. There are also a great number of commercial vessels which enter the Vancouver area every year. As with non-insured boat damage and damage of under $200, i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to obtain empirical data on the damage to these non-resident boats, but i t i s s t i l l necessary to consider t h i s damage i n the cost c a l c u l a t i o n s . Another cost which i s not included in the above Table i s the cost or value of l o s t l i v e s . Drowning s t a t i s t i c s from the B.C.-Yukon Red Cross indicate that 12 deaths occured i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n 1975, which were caused by overturned boats. 3 1 The B.C. Safety Council stated, i n 1967, that there were two deaths during the previous year, which could be attributed to boats h i t t i n g debris. It i s unlikely that every year two deaths, i n the Vancouver area, can be attributed to debris since 37 the primary reasons for boats capsizing are high speed turns, large wakes, rough water and mishandling cf l i g h t boats such as canoes. But even i f only one death per year, or every two years, can be attributed to debris, which originated on the Fraser River, t h i s should be noted while appraising the more e a s i l y calculated costs. There are two other factors which should be considered when estimating boat damage costs. One factor of concern i s that while th e i r boats are under repair, fishermen, tug operators and other commercial boat operators, often incur costs res u l t i n g from the value of l o s t work time. The second factor i s that insurance estimates are not always commensurate with the l e v e l of actual repair costs, thus i t i s often necessary f o r the boat owner to pay an additional amount, above the appraisal. There i s probably a degree of over payment by the insurance companies, but on the whole the estimates of damage tend to be on the low side^ The r e s u l t i n g value of either of these costs have not been included i n the above cal c u l a t i o n s . It i s also worth noting that damage to boats i s not the only damage cost which i s attributable to debris. Fishermen claim that a s i g n i f i c a n t , though low, l e v e l of damage to nets, l i n e s and other equipment i s caused by d e b r i s . 3 2 Also at times sea planes, bridge and pier supports and other eguipment and structures are damaged by f l o a t i n g debris. I t i s believed that 38 from the evidence given i n the various reports i t can he concluded that these costs, and the costs discussed i n the above paragraphs, t o t a l at least $500,000. Also, as was stated previously, the estimated figure for t o t a l boat damage to insured boats i s believed to be lower than the actual figure, therefore a rounded figure of 2 million d o l l a r s per year would be a reasonable conservative estimate of the t o t a l amount of damage which can be attributed to debris. In Table 2 i t can be seen that about 175 thousand m3 of lower Fraser logs f l o a t free and are uncontained for at least a short period of time, i n the waters of the Fraser or adjacent to the Fraser. It can also be seen that of t h i s amount, 55 thousand m3 i s l o s t i n the waters of the S t r a i t . Furthermore, of the remaining 206 (381-175=206) thousand m3 of Fraser debris (Table 1), 95 thousand m3 sinks (Table 2) and at least 55 thousand m3 i s contained i n bag booms and taken to the Iona burning s i t e . 3 3 This leaves 56 thousand m3 of debris which escapes with the logs. Thus, the t o t a l volume of debris which escapes from the Fraser i s 231 (175+56) thousand m3, and the t o t a l volume which goes unrecovered i s 111 (55+56) thousand m3. Since i t i s believed that Fraser River debris accounts for about 80% of the debris i n the waters around Vancouver, i t can be calculated that the t o t a l volume of debris i s somewhere between 288- (231*0.8) and 138 (111*0.8) thousand m3, with lower Fraser logs accounting f o r between 60% (175*288) and 40% (55*138) 39 respectively. S i m i l a r i l y hemlock logs account for between 47% (135*288) and 33% (45*138). If uncontained or escaped debris from the Fraser caused damage to boats i n proportion to i t s r e l a t i v e abundance i t would be expected that between 33% and 47% of the damage, caused by debris, would be attr i b u t a b l e to hemlock. But much of the debris in the lower Fraser and in the lower S t r a i t i s not a major hazard to boats since i t i s too small or i t i s quite v i s i b l e , f l o a t i n g high on the surface of the water. The major menace to boats i s probably the low f l o a t i n g logs and to an extent the dead-heads, which are d i f f i c u l t to see even in the best of weather. 3 4 These low f l o a t i n g logs are not only a hazard i n the Fraser where there i s fresh water with a lower density than sea water, but they are a hazard even in the S t r a i t near the mouth of the Fraser, where s a l t water predominates. "Upon attaining the S t r a i t , the waters of the Fraser tend to form a layer overriding and mixing with the saline waters. During the freshet, water with low s a l i n i t y extends from the Fraser Delta across the S t r a i t to Valdes and Galiano I s l a n d s . . . 1 , 3 5 Logs and debris which just sink i n fresh water, therefore, may only sink to the more dense saline water, then d r i f t out below the surface into the S t r a i t and re-appear there at the d r i f t l i n e between fresh water and sea water." 3 6 It i s d i f f i c u l t to determine a s p e c i f i c figure for the 40 percentage of the damage attri b u t a b l e to any p a r t i c u l a r kind of debris, but since most of the low f l o a t i n g and dead headed logs are hemlock, i t probably accounts for a greater proportion of damage than would be immediately attributed on a s t r i c t l y proportional basis of r e l a t i v e abundance. I t seems reasonable to i n f e r that Fraser Biver hemlock causes at least 50% of the t o t a l volume of damage to boats on the Fraser Biver and i n the lower S t r a i t . Since i t has been estimated that there i s a t o t a l damage cost of 2 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s caused by Fraser debris, i t can be concluded that escaped hemlock logs, transported f or processing i n the lower Fraser, cause at least 1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s worth of damage. The logs of other species which f l o a t higher, are more v i s i b l e , and are less abundant than hemlock probably cause r e l a t i v e l y less damage. A possible minimum estimate i s that they account for only 5% of the t o t a l damage to boats, or around $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . Thus i t i s estimated that logs, i n general, account for around 1 .1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s worth of boat damage, leaving a high estimate of $ 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 caused by natural and other man-made debris. 41 Environmental Costs As with most r i v e r systems, there i s in the Fraser River system, considerable uncertainty associated with the extent of the environmental impacts of log p o l l u t i o n . 3 7 And although some of the environmental effects associated with wood transportation operations are highly v i s i b l e , the constraints of data a v a i l a b i l i t y and the complexity of the p o l l u t i o n problem do not allow exact, or even general a n a l y s i s . 3 8 However, to e n t i r e l y ignore the costs of environmental damage, both as l o s t p r o f i t s to someone else and as the the •cost' to the environment would be misleading. 3 9 Therefore i d e n t i f i e d below are a few of the possible environmental damages which may r e s u l t from log transportation and which w i l l be reducable through changed methods of transporting the logs. The quality of the Fraser River environment may be deteriorating, due to log transportation, in the following ways: 1) Bark, debris and logs sink to the bottom, these materials can blanket the entire bed. The sunken material can smother existing benthic (bottom l i v i n g ) l i f e forms and prevent r e p o p u l a t i o n . 4 0 Also these accumulations may p e r s i s t f o r long periods of time, placing high demands on dissolved oxygen (B.O.D.), covering feeding grounds, and generating toxic organic compounds and anerobic decay products.* 1 As a consequence the water quality l e v e l may drop below that "necessary for the 42 maintenance of a productive b i o l o g i c a l community". 4 2 2) Logs, and esp e c i a l l y bark, while i n the water continue to leach dissolved organic compounds which, when concentreated, are toxic to f i s h . 4 3 also these leachates place a demand on oxygen for biochemical decay, and can cause di s c o l o r a t i o n of surrounding waters. 4 4 3) Log r a f t s anchored i n the r i v e r can cover areas which could otherwise be used for f i s h i n g or b o a t i n g . 4 5 Also the booms, which are usually anchored near the shore for a major portion of the year, shade the bottom of the r i v e r and cause disruptions i n the production of aguatic l i f e . 4 6 4) " I t i s generally accepted that vigorous streamside vegetation maintains streambank s t a b i l i t y , and that r i v e r s with r e l a t i v e l y stable banks are more productive for f i s h and w i l d l i f e - " 4 7 The denuding of r i v e r banks, caused by water flow a l t e r a t i o n s , wakes from towed booms, beached booms and escaped logs which are washed ashore, therefore, a f f e c t s streambank s t a b i l i t y and releases a steady flow of s i l t and sediment into the water- This can r e s u l t i n feeding grounds being covered and in the smothering of f i s h eggs on spawning grounds and of invertebreate bottom fauna i n nursery a r e a s . 4 8 5) Large numbers of beached logs a f f e c t the use of beaches and r i v e r banks and may be considered unaesthetic by some people. No attempt, that i s known by the author, has been made to 43 put quantifiable values on any of these environmental 'costs'. It i s also clear that for the purposes of t h i s study i t would be very d i f f i c u l t to determine what percentage of these 'costs' could be attributed to escaped logs and to the respective methods of transporting logs. However, i t i s evident that escaped logs are causing problems which undoubtedly r e s u l t i n r e a l costs both to society and to the environment. Therefore as the costs of c o n t r o l l i n g logs are calculated and compared with the costs of the uncontrolled logs, i t i s hoped that the reader w i l l continue to r e a l i z e that the environmental 'cost' could be large and therefore the t o t a l costs of the uncontrolled logs may be substantially greater than indicated. 44 IV THE COSTS OF PREVENTING LOG ESCAPE In t h i s section, the costs of preventing log escape w i l l be considered- These consist primarily of the costs of constructing dryland sorting/bundling operations, bundling timber on land and up-grading the m i l l s so that bundles can be removed from the water before they are s p l i t open- Where accurate data needed to determine these costs was not available, high estimates have been used- Therefore i t i s probable that the actual cost of an industry control program would not be as high as i s indicated in the following section. Hany of the people involved with log handling on the B.C. coast believe that the major step that must be taken i n order to reduce log loss s u b s t a n t i a l l y i s to eliminate water based, loose log sorting, storage and towing of a l l logs or at least of hemlock l o g s . 1 The most feasi b l e method of eliminating the problem of loose logs i s to ensure that the logs are contained in bundles during the entire time that they are in the water. A bundle i s a quantity of logs of around 30 m3 which i s bound with two or three cables. There are only two other means for preventing log escape, which could be considered as even remotely developable for the B.C. coast: barging or trucking logs to the m i l l s . But barging i s not an alternative as the c a p i t a l expense of both the barge 45 and the cranes needed for loading and unloading, i s too high as compared with r a f t i n g methods- 2 Trucking logs to the m i l l s on the Fraser i s not an alternative either, since the m i l l s are designed to receive logs from the water, not from the land. 3 Also both barging and trucking would require changes i n the method of timber storage, presumably involving areas on land. However the problems of acquiring s u f f i c i e n t land behind the m i l l s , 4 problems with the timber drying out and with insect i n f e s t a t i o n , 5 the need for spraying with water and i n s e c t i c i d e s and the unsightly nature of large p i l e s of timber would seem to preclude these alternatives for log transportation to m i l l s on the Fraser River. 6 Figure 3 on the page 46, i l l u s t r a t e s schematically the coastal flow pattern for logs. The methods of log sorting, storage and towing which prevent logs from being loose in the water are designated by the hashed (- - - -) l i n e s . With these proceedures a l l small diameter hemlock logs (less than sixteen inches across the butt) and, i f cost e f f e c t i v e , a l l large hemlock logs plus logs of other species would be sorted into bundles on land. Logs which arrived by truck at a sorting area would be removed from the truck, sorted and bundled and then moved to the dumping apparatus. For operations u t i l i z i n g central sorting grounds, the truck bundles would be dumped into the water, towed to the sorting area and removed from the water for sorting. In both cases, when the sorted bundles were Figure 3- COASTAL LOG FLOW ( A p p r o x i m a t e p e r c e n t ; d i s t r i b u t i o n . ' e x c l . - w e s t c o a s t o f . V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d ) ------(• B u n d l e b o o m ; T r u c k "O" s o r t e d 4 4 i \ V Flat: r a f t = u n s o r t e d \ \ \ C e n t r a l s o r t i n g g r o u n d s •• '• . . 3 8 N o r t h V 7 c o a s t d u m p s B a r g e -A ^ B u n d l e b o o r n ^ , A • s o r t e d \j f I Suggested control routes Log flow C e n t r a l s t o r a g e g r o u n d s •' . M i l l • 1 (For at l e a s t a l I h e m l o c k ) 47 complete, they would be l i f t e d by a crane-like apparatus and lowered gently into the water- The bundles would then be combined into sturdy bundle-booms which would be towed either to the m i l l s or to the storage grounds, depending on the log demands at the m i l l . From a survey of 30 of the largest forest industry companies operating on the B.C. coast and transporting over 90% of the t o t a l volume of timber processed, 8 i t was possible to determine that i n 1976 around 60% of the t o t a l log production was bundled at the logging operation dump or at a central sorting ground. Of t h i s about half or 30% of the t o t a l production, was bundled and sorted on land. Also from t h i s survey i t was determined that i t i s primarily the largest companies which are undertaking bundling of timber in a serious manner. They also have a tendency to bundle more of the i r timber destined for m i l l s in the Vancouver area. For instance HacMillan Bloedel bundles 70% of i t s timber in the Vancouver D i s t r i c t but only 63% i n the Alberni D i s t r i c t . And fiayonier bundles close to 95% i n i t s Mainland d i v i s i o n yet only 19% i n i t s Quitsano d i v i s i o n . From t h i s i t might be concluded that a greater proportion of the Fraser timber i s bundled, than for the entire coast, but without the facts to substantiate t h i s i t was assumed that r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r percentages could be applied to both the coastal and Fraser River timber. Since s p e c i f i c data pertaining to Fraser timber i s not available i t was necessary to 48 make t h i s assumption so that the respective lev e l s of land bundling, water bundling and f l a t r a f t i n g of Fraser timber could be determined- I t must be emphasized that t h i s probably r e s u l t s i n an underestimate of the amount of Fraser timber which i s land bundled as the evidence 9 given above indicates, and conseguently r e s u l t s i n an overestimate of the costs- Therefore of the 9 m i l l i o n m3 of timber transported to the Fraser m i l l s , a minimum of about 5-4 m i l l i o n m3 i s bundled and 3-6 m i l l i o n m3 i s f l a t r a fted, and of the bundled timber 2-7 m i l l i o n m3 i s bundled on land and 2-7 m i l l i o n m3 on water. Although most of the smaller operations bundle only a portion of t h e i r hemlock, some of the large companies, such as MacMillan Bloedel and B.C. Forest Products, processing i n t o t a l more than half of the coastal production, bundle at l e a s t 95% of t h e i r h e m l o c k - T h e r e f o r e i t i s reasonable to i n f e r that of the coastal production more than 60% and perhaps 75% of hemlock i s bundled- Thus i t i s safe to conclude that about 3-4 m i l l i o n m3 of the Fraser River hemlock i s being bundled, with about 1-7 m i l l i o n m3 bundled on land and 1.7 million m3 bundled on the water, and that around 1 .1 m i l l i o n m3 i s f l a t rafted. Dryland Sorting Costs The most e f f i c i e n t dryland sorting area i s apparently a small area of land ; l o c a t e d beside a r i v e r or bay. The small 49 area allows for e f f e c t i v e sorting of logs i n t o 10 to 15 di f f e r e n t log-type bundles, but with a minimal amount of log movement. And when bundles are completed they can be moved ea s i l y into the water. As a further consideration, dryland storage i s very expensive, and i s not necessary when completed bundles can be put int o the water e a s i l y . Therefore large areas of land are not needed for the scaling/sorting bundling and dumping operations. The ide a l s i z e for a sorting area i s less than 2 ha and probably around 1 ha. i l At present there are 65 dryland sort areas on the B.C. coast, these are handling about one t h i r d of the t o t a l coastal production, 1 2 Most of these sorting areas can process more timber than they are presently handling, but there i s a maximum distance for transporting logs by truck, beyond which i t i s cheaper to i n s t a l l a new dryland sorting area. I t i s not known how many sorting areas would be needed i n order to process a l l the coastal production^ Although, i t i s believed that i f 65 not f u l l y u t i l i z e d sorting grounds are presently handling one t h i r d of the timber then probably less than 200 well located sorting grounds should be able to process the entire annual production of coastal timber. 1 3 Only a portion of the 200 dryland sorting areas would prepare timber for the Fraser River m i l l s . The Fraser receives about one t h i r d of the coastal production of timber, so i t i s 50 expected that at least one t h i r d of the sorting areas would be needed to supply the Fraser M i l l s - But i t i s not possible to build only half a sorting area- And since some sorting grounds send th e i r timber to more than one m i l l i n g area, a larger proportion of the sorting grounds would be needed i f only Fraser timber were to be bundled- As an upper l i m i t , half (100) of the t o t a l number of proposed sorting areas would be the approximate number that would be needed to process the timber going to Fraser m i l l s . Since one t h i r d of the proposed t o t a l number of sorting grounds, for coastal timber, have been b u i l t i t might also be assumed that about a t h i r d of the sorting areas for Fraser timber have been b u i l t . But to be conservative, i t w i l l be assumed that only one quarter are i n operation and that 75 would have to be constructed in order to bundle and sort a l l Fraser timber. F i n a l l y , hemlock represents about one half of the t o t a l volume of timber being transported to the Fraser, therefore at least h a l f of the dryland sorting areas would be needed for hemlock. This i s the case only i f a l l the sorting areas are near the average size and handle primarily one species, but since neither of these suppositions would be easy to prove i t w i l l be assumed that possibly 70 sorting areas would be used for bundling hemlock destined f o r the Fraser, and that i t would be necessary to build 45 of these-51 Dryland sorting areas must be r e l a t i v e l y l e v e l with easy access for logging t r u c k s , 1 * And since these areas are very intensely used i t i s advisable to pave the areas with asphalt or with soil-cement or to spread a heavy layer of g r a v e l - 1 S The costs of l e v e l l i n g and paving can vary greatly- Some areas need extensive blasting whereas others have very gravelly s o i l and need no preperation except f o r c l e a r i n g . On the whole the average cost f o r an entire sorting area of around 1 ha with log moving, bundling and dumping equipment and adequate paving, would be around $500,000-The t o t a l cost of constructing 75 sortinq qrounds to handle a l l Fraser timber would be at most 37.5 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s - Host of these sortinq qrounds could be used i n d e f i n i t e l y to process timber from r e l a t i v e l y large areas of manaqed forest. Therefore i f the affected firms were to di s t r i b u t e t h i s cost over a twenty year period at 10% i n t e r e s t per annum, the annual cost to the forest industry would be 4.3 mi l l i o n d o l l a r s . A s i m i l a r c a l c u l a t i o n of the cost of the 45 m i l l s estimated above to be needed to process and bundle Fraser hemlock qives a t o t a l cost of around 22.5 mi l l i o n d o l l a r s . I f t h i s amount were amortized over 20 years, the annual cost would be 2.6 mi l l i o n per year. During the sorting and bundling process a considerable amount of debris from bark, tree branches and splintered wood, accumulates on the sorting pavement- The amount of debris which 52 accumulates depends on the species being worked, and ranges from .6 m3 to 11 m3 with an average of 3.2 m3 of debris generated for every 100 m3 of timber handled.1-1' The average cost of removing the debris i s around $.25 for the removal of 3.2 m3 of d e b r i s . 1 8 Thus with the sorting and bundling of a l l timber on land there would be a cost of $15,000 for the clean-up of 186 thousand m3 of debris generated by the processing of an a d d i t i o n a l 5.8 mil l i o n m3 of timber. For the 2-8 m i l l i o n m3 of hemlock, producing 90 thousand m3 of debris the a d d i t i o n a l cost would be $7,000. Bundld,nq and Sortinq Costs The add i t i o n a l cost above the cost for f l a t r a f t i n g , of bundling and sorting on land and booming the bundles into well constructed booms, i s le s s than $1.00 per cubic meter. 1 9 And the additional cost of bundling and sorting on land i s probably no more than $-10 per cubic meter 2 0 above the cost of water sorting and bundling. I t may actually be cheaper to sort and bundle on land since the cost of water operations has been es c a l l a t i n g quite rapidly, and also because of the new 'pressed sleeve 1 method of securing bundling cables which was developed recently by the Forest Engineering Research I n s t i t u t e of Canada, and which enables land bundling to be undertaken e f f i c i e n t l y and cheaply with a minimum of c a p i t a l expenditure. 2 1 Therefore as shown i n Table 5, the t o t a l additional cost of bundling Fraser 53 River timber can be calculated to be at most 3.9 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s and the cost of bundling hemlock can be calculated to be 1.3 mi l l i o n d o l l a r s . l A J B L J 5: A , p p i T I Q N a L - C O S T OF BJJNDLING F R A S E R T I M B E R ON L A N D VOLUME COST TOTAL (millions) (per m3) COST ALL TIMBER LAND SORTED/BUNDLED 2.7 M3 30 0. 00 HATER SORTED/BUNDLED 2.7 30 0. 10 270,000 FLAT RAFTED 3.6 40 $1. 00 3,600,000 TOTAL 9.0 100% $3,870,000 ALL HEMLOCK LAND SORTED/BUNDLED 1.7 19 0. 00 HATER SORTED/BUNDLED 1.7 19 0. 10 170,000 FLAT RAFTED 1.1 12 $1. 00 1,100,000 TOTAL 4-5 50% $1,270,000 M i l l Up-grading Costs Most m i l l s on the Fraser River are presently equipped with jack ladders designed to l i f t s i n g l e logs from a mill-pond onto the mill-deck. In order to u t i l i z e t h i s type of conveyer feed, log bundles a r r i v i n g at the m i l l must be opened in the water and the logs loaded singly onto the jack l a d d e r . 2 2 The major problem with t h i s system i s that when the bundles are broken in the water the low f l o a t e r s that have accumulated moisture during transportation sink or escape. If the unopened bundles were l i f t e d onto a deck and then opened, there would be no chance for Figure 4- MAJOR FOREST PRODUCT MILLS Pulp mills O Sawmills © © P l y w o o d plants and veneer mills © S h a k e and shingle mills 55 the logs to become loose i n the water. But only a few of the m i l l s on thelower Fraser are equipped to remove bundles from the water i n t a c t . 2 * Also there i s not always room available at the m i l l s , without additional deck construction, for bundle l i f t s . 2 5 And with the varying size of bundles (15-60 m3) some of the existing bundle l i f t s would not be able to handle the larger bundles. Either the bundle size must be standardized, 2* which would be very d i f f i c u l t because of the large variety of log lengths and diameters, or f a c i l i t i e s must be b u i l t to handle large and small bundles. In order for m i l l s to accommodate bundled logs i t would be necessary for them to upgrade t h e i r log handling f a c i l i t i e s . Some of the suggested methods f o r hoisting bundles onto the mill-deck are: 1) cranes; 2) steel-mesh platforms with hydraulic l i f t s , the bundle would be floated onto the platform and l i f t e d up to the deck l e v e l ; 3) jack ladders and conveyer systems with a capacity for large bundles; and 4) hydraulic arms, the bundle would be floated onto the arms, the arms would r a i s e the bundle and at deck l e v e l r o l l i t onto the deck.- The cost of i n s t a l l i n g one of these f a c i l i t i e s including necessary decking, ranges from .5 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s to 3.5 m i l l i o n dollars depending on the size of the m i l l and the volume of timber being handled. 2 7 On the Fraser there are about 6 0 m i l l s ranging from the extremely small ones to 1 or 2 which can handle a volume as 56 large as 900 thousand m3 per year. But i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine the volume handled by the various m i l l s on the Fraser without enguiring at almost every i n d i v i d u a l m i l l . Also the nature of the forest industry i s such that the continuing operation of many of the mills i s precarious. When enguiries were made about the number of mills which would need to be upgraded, s p e c i f i c information was obtained from only a few of the largest companies. It was suggested by the few who provided any information that maps supplied by Rivtow-Straits and the B.C. Forest Service, should be used to determine the number of mi l l s on the f r a s e r . 2 8 Using these maps and the data on the volumes of the t h i r t y largest companies, provided in the survey of log transportation on the B.C. coast, mentioned on page 47, rough, but representative, figures were derived for the number and size of the mills which would need conversion to be able to handle bundled logs. Over 20 of the very small m i l l s handle cedar and produce shakes, fence posts and ether s i m i l a r products. These m i l l s buy 1 or 2 large cedar logs at a time and are not r e a l l y of concern in t h i s study. There are actually l e s s than 30 m i l l s on the Fraser which could be considered to be important, 2 9 and since they include the m i l l s of companies such as HacHillan Bloedel, Canada Forest Products, Rayonier and Crown Zellerbach, they probably handle more than 90% of the timber on the Fraser-57 From the maps and from the coastal log transportation data i t was determined that of the 30 m i l l s , 10 are r e l a t i v e l y small and i t would cost .5 million dollars to upgrade each one so that i t could handle bundles. S i m i l a r i l y the next 10 largest m i l l s would cost on average 1 mi l l i o n each, the next 6 about 2 mil l i o n each, and the largest four, 3 mil l i o n each, thus the t o t a l cost to the forest industry might be 39 mil l i o n or around 4.5 mil l i o n d o l l a r s per year, at an amortization rate of 10% per annum over 20 years. As a comparison, i t might be considered that ten mil l s each handling 900 thousand m3 of timber per year could process the entire Fraser volume. If these m i l l s were each to i n s t a l l a 3 mi l l i o n d o l l a r system the t o t a l cost to the forest industry would be 30 mi l l i o n d o l l a r s . If t h i s cost were di s t r i b u t e d over a twenty year period, at 10% int e r e s t per annum, the yearly cost to the forest industry would be around 3.4 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . But since there are not 10 mi l l s t h i s s i z e , but about 30 of various sizes, i t would be expected that the t o t a l cost, as derived in the previous paragraph, for the conversion of the 30 mil l s would be higher. The cost difference for the conversion of 30 m i l l s has been estimated to be greater by a t o t a l of 9 million d o l l a r s , or 1.1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s per year-Since hemlock represents about half of the t o t a l volume of timber, probably at least half of the mills would have to ba 58 converted to handle the bundles, i f only hemlock were bundled. Companies with more than one m i l l on the Fraser, such as flacMillan Bloedel could reassign a portion of t h e i r t i mber- 3 0 But since most mills handle more than one species and are the only m i l l on the Fraser of each p a r t i c u l a r company, i t would be necessary to convert more than half of a l l the m i l l s . On the basis of the m i l l s on the Fraser which presently handle hemlock i t can be assumed that no more than two t h i r d s of the 30 m i l l s would be upgraded, and that 7 small m i l l s , 7 medium sized m i l l s , 4 of the large m i l l s and 2 of the largest would be o u t f i t t e d with bundle handling equipment. Thus the t o t a l cost would be 24.5 m i l l i o n with a yearly cost of nearly 2.8 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . As with the dryland sorting s i t e s there w i l l be a considerable amount of debris generated at the m i l l s . At present about half of the t o t a l volume of this debris i s contained i n bag booms and i s towed to burning s i t e s , the rest i s set free i n the r i v e r or disposed of i n some other way, (see page 15). If logs were bundled and opened on the decks the amount of debris produced would probably be greater than at present since more bark would have remained on the logs than i f they had been f l a t r a f t e d . 3 1 If i t i s assumed that the amount of debris would increase by at most 50%, to about .75 m3 per 100 m3 then the amount of debris produced i f a l l the wood were bundled, would be 68 thousand m3. S i m i l a r i l y the amount of hemlock debris would be 34 thousand m3. The present cost of 59 removing a l l the m i l l debris i n a manner which minimizes the escape rate, i s estimated to be around $30,000. 3 2 This increase in debris would r e s u l t i n a maximum increase of 50% in the disposal costs, and the t o t a l cost of removing a l l the debris would be at most $43,000, with $22,000 of t h i s being for hemlock. Bundle Booming: Savings The forest industry would not be confronted with just costs, when following a bundle booming polic y . There are some savings. For instance, although bundle boooms result i n longer towing times due to increased drag, at least three times as much timber can be transported in a bundle boom as i n a f l a t boom of the same surface area. Therefore fewer t r i p s are necessary and t o t a l towing charges w i l l be lower. The amount which can be saved i s on average at least $.11 per cubic meter of timber t r a n s p o r t e d . 3 3 Therefore, i f the additional 3.6 m i l l i o n m3 of timber were bundled there would be a savings of $396,000.. - S i m i l a r i t y , i f the 1.1 m i l l i o n m3 of hemlock were bundled the savings would be $121,000. There would also be a s i m i l a r but smaller savings when the booms were towed from the storage grounds to the m i l l s . 3 4 Bundle booms of the same volume as f l a t booms require about 60 half as much area for water s t o r a g e . 3 5 Thus, there would probably be some savings i n the water surface and upland lease f e e s . 3 6 But these would be minimal since the bundle booms could only be stored i n the outer portion of the storage grounds due to their deeper d r a f t . I f excess storage capacity did become available i n the r i v e r or i n the P i t t area i t i s expected that more booms would be brought in from Howe Sound and other storage areas since the Fraser and P i t t being fresh water, are the largest areas where logs can be stored without being infested with wood boring animals. 3 7 Any savings from reduced fees or reduced log damage would probably be consumed by the necessity of constructing concrete or stronger wooden p i l i n g s f or anchoring bundle booms. Carrying through the policy of bundling on land and opening the bundles on the m i l l deck would dramatically reduce the number of lost logs. Bundle booms, espe c i a l l y those containing bundles secured using the 'pressed sleeve' method loose very few l o g s . 3 8 The possible savings from reducing log loss has been covered in the previous chapter, but there i s a further saving possible. Since there i s a reduced chance of log loss from bundle booms due to theft or major loss r e s u l t i n g from a boom break-up, insurance rates on the booms would be reduced by around 25%.39 There i s at least one other advantage of log bundling. 61 This i s that bundling allows for a greatly improved inventory of the logs being processed. Bundles can be marked and a complete history of the logs can be maintained. This allows f o r more e f f i c i e n t u t i l i z a t i o n of timber since the contents of each boom can be e a s i l y determined. Their inventory s t a t i s t i c s can be used for planning purposes both by the log supply d i v i s i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l companies and by other organizations including the B.C.F.S. and the C.O-F.I.*o 62 V DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL SOCIAL COST To i n s t i t u t e a program which would eliminate p r a c t i c a l l y a l l log loss due to handling and processing would cost the forest industry about 13 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s per year- But i f the industry were to undertake t h i s program there would be s i g n i f i c a n t reductions i n the costs which are presently being borne both by the industry i t s e l f and by other users of the rive r - It i s believed that there i s an optimal l e v e l of control for the discharge of logs- A possible means for c o n t r o l l i n g t h i s discharge has been suggested, and i t i s now necessary to determine whether there i s i n fact an optimal method and l e v e l of implementation, where the t o t a l s o c i a l cost w i l l be minimized. In seeking t h i s minimum s o c i a l cost i t w i l l be assumed that the forest industry w i l l continue to operate on the Fraser and that the s o c i a l minimum cost i s not an absolute minimum, but a minimum within a sub-system of the entire socio-economic environment. Total Cost Curves In figure 5 on page 63, are cost curves which show how the various costs would change as the proportion of bundled logs was changed, and what would be the t o t a l s o c i a l cost at each l e v e l of bundling. On the graph the various points (derived from Table 5) representing the bundling of hemlock and other species, 63 Figure 5= TOTAL COST CURVES 12-1 11-10-8H $ ( M I L L I O N S ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Log recovery Log loss Boat damage Towing Summed t. c.c. Summed t.c.c. Summed t. c.c. Mjll up-grading Dryland sorting areas Bundling ( l a n d b u n d l i n g & m i l l u p - g r a d i n g ) ( l a n d b u n d l i n g ) ( w a t e r b u n d l i n g of f i a t r a f t e d t i m b e r ) 10 2 0 3 0 H E M L O C K J O T H E R L A N D B U N D L E D 4 0 H E M L O C K | O T H E R W A T E R - B U N D L E D % B U N D L E D H E M . O T H E R F L A T R A F T E D 64 are designated by the v e r t i c a l l i n e s below the horizontal scale. Since escaped hemlock logs cause r e l a t i v e l y more damage and result i n r e l a t i v e l y larger costs to the industry and to society in general, the hemlock would be dealt with f i r s t i n each of the steps of improved control i n any program undertaken by the industry- As each firm attempts to minimize i t s costs i t w i l l invest where the marginal return would be greatest, and t h i s would be i n dealing with hemlock f i r s t . Curve 1 on the graph represents the cost of log recovery. At present the t o t a l cost of recovery i s around 4.4 mi l l i o n d o l l a r s . But i f the industry i n s t a l l e d bundle l i f t i n g eguipment and broke open the presently bundled timber only on the m i l l deck, there would be a decrease in the number of logs escaping from the m i l l pond, and therefore a reduction i n the cost of recovery. S i m i l a r i l y i f the industry moved a larger number of i t s bundling/sorting operations onto land, and continued the m i l l up-grading, there would be an even more rapid decrease in log escape. F i n a l l y , i f the number of f l a t - r a f t e d logs was decreased to zero, log escape r e s u l t i n g from normal handling would be eliminated. This of course does not include l o s s due to severe accidents. I t i s evident from the l i t e r a t u r e and from conversations with people i n the forest industry that for d i f f e r e n t log handling proceedures there are di f f e r e n t escape r a t e s . 1 The 65 information indicates that around 2% (30 thousand m3) of the hemlock logs which are presently being bundled on land are escaping from the m i l l pond. Also 5% (85 thousand m3) of the water bundled hemlock and 10% (110 thousand m3) of the f l a t rafted hemlock i s believed to be escaping. For the other species escape rates of .5% (6 thousand m3) , .75% (32 thousand m3) , and 1.3% (7 thousand m3) respectively, are apparent. Using the percentages of Table 2 (page 20), each of the escape volumes calculated above, was disaggregated into the proportion which sinks, i s recovered and i s l o s t . For example the f i r s t 19% of a l l hemlock timber i s bundled on land and accounts for an escape rate of 30 thousand m3 annually from the m i l l ponds. Of t h i s , 12 thousand m3 (40%) sinks, 12 thousand m3 i s recovered and 6 thousand m3 (20%) i s l o s t . The volume of dead-heads which i s not being recovered by salvagers but by the harbour boards was then deducted from the recovered volume- 2 For the above case i t was calculated that 11 thousand m3 i s the volume of escaped hemlock from the f i r s t 19% of the timber, which would need recovery- This represents about 10% of the t o t a l 122 thousand m3 recovered. It can be assumed that i t represents 10% of ($440,000) of the cost of recovery, since there are almost 2000 salvagers around Vancouver, who generally do not have a large c a p i t a l investment. Many undertake salvage operations only as a part-time venture depending on the number of logs available and on the price. Entry i n t o the a c t i v i t y and 66 departure from i t i s easy and since there are no s i g n i f i c a n t economies of scale i t i s possible to assume that a l i n e a r decline in recovery costs would occur i n each portion of the recovery program, as an increasing amount of hemlock was bundled- Thus, t h i s section of the curve was drawn as a linear function- Then the proportion of the cost was calculated for each of the other segments on the curve, and drawn accordingly. Using a series of s i m i l a r c a l c u l a t i o n s the points were derived, which were needed in order to construct the curve (2) representing log l o s s and sinkage. In t h i s case the percentage of the cost was calculated using the same escape rates as for the log recovery curve. But the c a l c u l a t i o n was based on the 150 thousand m3 of l o s t and sunk timber (see Table 2). For the boat damage (3) and the debris clean-up (not i l l u s t r a t e d ) curves, the same rates of escape were used but the hemlock was seperated from the other species f o r c a l c u l a t i n g the percentage of the cost since i t would not have been representative to use the percentage of the cost based on the proportion of debris. Hemlock for instance, accounts for 1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s worth of damage to boats and other property, whereas the other species account for only $100,000. The amount of damage caused by hemlock probably i s proportional to the volume of that species which f l o a t s free-Thus, to derive the the cost of damage caused by hemlock, the 67 percentage of escaped logs was calculated in each of the three segments of the curve which apply to hemlock, and then the same proportion of the 1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s of damage was calculated. 'with regard to the clean-up cost curve (not i l l u s t r a t e d , but included i n the calculations) i t i s the case that even i f the amount of log debris were reduced, much i f not a l l of the clean-up cost would s t i l l have to be borne by the various i n s t i t u t i o n s because natural debris and debris from accidents and from other human a c t i v i t i e s would s t i l l be generated. Also there would not be a reduction i n the costs of the patrol boats. However, the forest industry's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for debris would be reduced and also there would be benefits available to the other users of the r i v e r through the changes in the nature of the patrol and clean-up operations. So even though society might continue to spend the same amount fo r clean-up operations, the proportion of that expenditure a t t r i b u t a b l e to log debris would be diminished. Thus a declining cost curve has been used for the c a l c u l a t i o n s . The curves representing the cost of up-grading the m i l l s (8) and of constructing the dryland sorting areas (9) are 'step' functions. The f i r s t has an average step of $150,000 and 300 thousand m3. The second has and average step of $57,000 and 120 thousand m3. On the graph these steps would be too detailed to i l l u s t r a t e , and f o r c a l c u l a t i o n purposes a l i n e a r function 68 represents a reasonable approximation of the actual cost curve. The two curves cross the horizontal axis at d i f f e r e n t points since they apply to d i f f e r e n t volumes of timber. As no m i l l s on the Fraser are eguipped to handle bundle booms in the prescribed manner, i t would be necessary to convert some of the mills to handle the timber which i s presently being bundled. However, since 30% of Fraser timber i s bundled on land i t would be necessary to construct dryland sorting areas for only the remaining 70%. Curve 10 represents the cost of moving the bundling operation f o r water bundled timber onto land and secondly the cost of bundling on land the timber which i s presently f l a t - r a f t e d . The cost of sort and m i l l debris clean-up have also been included i n the ca l c u l a t i o n s , these have not been i l l u s t r a t e d . I t has been assumed that these costs increase r e l a t i v e to the volume of timber bundled, or handled at the m i l l s . On the graph i s also shown the sum (5) of a l l the t o t a l cost curves (1-4 S 8-10). For comparison, curve 6 represents the sum of the t o t a l cost curves when the cost of m i l l up-grading (8) i s not included. For c a l c u l a t i o n of t h i s curve the t o t a l cost curves (1-3 S 4) have been adjusted to include the cost of the log debris which would s t i l l be generated at each l e v e l of bundling, even i f other control measures were 69 undertaken. If there were no m i l l up-grading, log bundles would be opened i n the m i l l ponds and some logs would be l o s t . Curve 7 represents the sum of the t o t a l cost curves when the costs of both m i l l up-grading and the dryland sorting areas (8 & 9), are not included. In t h i s case as well the t o t a l cost curves must be adjusted since there would be even l e s s debris eliminated. To derive these curves i t was assumed that f o r each unit of timber bundled the same proportion of logs would escape from the m i l l pond as i s now escaping from the bundled 30%. As can be seen the point at which the t o t a l s o c i a l cost would be lowest i s where the entire volume of Fraser hemlock i s bundled and controlled i n some manner (curve 6). Also 14% of the other timber would have been bundled at t h i s point. A l l three of the control methods which are considered, res u l t i n t o t a l s o c i a l costs being lower with 72% of the timber bundled, than they are now with 30% bundled. But i t must be noted that not a l l timber should be bundled! The option of bundling on water (curve 7) the remaining f l a t - r a f t e d hemlock does reduce t o t a l s o c i a l costs but not as e f f e c t i v e l y as eithe r of the methods which include land operations. By bundling on land, the timber which i s presently bundled on the water and also a l l f l a t rafted hemlock, a savings to society of just under 1 .1 m i l l i o n dollars would be r e a l i z e d . To include equipment to remove bundles from the water at the 70 m i l l s , would resu l t i n a smaller savings, of about $665,000. Therefore, assuming that a l l relevant s o c i a l costs are included in the summed t o t a l cost curves and assuming that the forest industry i s to continue operating, i t can be concluded that bundling on land i s the most e f f e c t i v e means for minimizing the t o t a l s o c i a l cost. As was pointed out beginning on page 40, there may be substantial environmental and s o c i a l costs r e s u l t i n g from log debris on the Fraser., Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to put a dollar value on such factors as degredation of the benthic environment, reductions i n salmon populations, visual blight and interference with recreation, the derived cost curves can be used to show what e f f e c t additional s o c i a l and environmental costs would have on the optimal l e v e l of bundling and contr o l . For instance, i f i t i s assumed that hemlock causes $500,000 worth of environmental damage and re s u l t s i n other presently unaccounted costs and i f these costs decline as hemlock i s con t r o l l e d , then the curves can be adjusted by adding the appropriate cost to each point along the summed t o t a l cost curve. This figure was chosen since i t i s a moderate estimate of environmental damage.2 For ease i n ca l c u l a t i o n i t has been assumed that the other species account for an additional 10% of the damage. Thus the t o t a l damage would be $550,000. Sith an additional s o c i a l cost of $550,000 i t i s found that the option of bundling on land (curve 6) would reach i t s optimum at 12% bundling, at a t o t a l 71 s o c i a l cost of over 8.3 m i l l i o n . Whereas the option which includes m i l l up-grading would have a t o t a l cost of about 8.6 m i l l i o n . If 1 .1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i s taken to be the unnaccounted s o c i a l cost i t i s found that the optimal costs of both options d i f f e r by $46,000. As the estimated a d d i t i o n a l s o c i a l cost increases above 1 .1 m i l l i o n the option which includes m i l l up-grading i s the cheapest, by an increasing margin. Thus i t can be seen that the value place upon reduced environmental degredation and on improved recreational value w i l l determine which means of control i s desireable i n order to achieve a s o c i a l l y optimal l e v e l of log discharge. Policy Mechanisms -for Inducing the- Control of log. • Debris The discharge of logs by the forest industry can be likened to the discharge of any i n d u s t r i a l effluent. The portion of the effluent considered valuable i s recovered and the rest i s allowed to escape. 3 And as with i n d u s t r i a l p o l l u t i o n , escaped logs are primarily a problem because of t h e i r e f f e c t s on others outside of the polluting firm. The external e f f e c t s and costs of log debris are not included i n the cost considerations of the forest industry and therefore w i l l be borne by the affected people u n t i l i t becomes uneconomical for the forest companies to allow logs to escape. Thus the problem of debris i s primarily an economic problem.• 72 In t h i s paper management and technological methods have been suggested for dealing with the problem of log debris- But these methods are only proximate means for reducing log escape, for there i s s t i l l the matter of inducing the i n d i v i d u a l companies to apply these measures- There are primarily three means for inducing compliance with a suggested measure. These are e t h i c a l persuasion or s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n , l e g a l enforcement, and monetary imposition or subsidization. A. Self Regulation A c t i v i t i e s of the i n d i v i d u a l forest companies are monitored and reasonably well controlled through voluntary compliance by the CO.F.I. Recommendations made by t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n are usually followed, although the CO.F.I. has no l e g a l powers to require compliance, and have been somewhat successful i n encouraging improved bundling and log-debris c o n t r o l operations. But so f a r , measures taken by the i n d i v i d u a l companies have not been e n t i r e l y a l t r u i s t i c . As the price of log handling has increased the value of delivered timber has also increased and the escape and loss of large numbers of logs has been f e l t by the companies and has encouraged them to reduce loq escape. Control measures suggested by the CO.F.I. or the B.C.F.S. w i l l be rejected by the i n d i v i d u a l companies i f they involve i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of presently external costs, unless there i s immediately some private net economic benefit. I t would be 73 e s p e c i a l l y d i f f i c u l t for the small firms to undertake control measures such as m i l l up-grading, even i f the long run benefits to them, the industry and society could be substantial. Furthermore the costs of a control measure such as m i l l up-grading which may be rather i n s i g n i f i c a n t , as a d d i t i o n a l cost per cubic meter of logs processed, for a large company may be prohibitive for a smaller f i r m . 5 Thus the conclusion reached, i s that s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n by the f o r e s t industry i s not going to be an e f f e c t i v e means for c o n t r o l l i n g log escape, since log companies are not required to comply with suggested control measures, and w i l l not comply i f there are no immediate net economic benefits from doing so. B. Legal Enforement there are a number of e x i s t i n g pieces of l e g i s l a t i o n such as the Harbour Commissions Act* the Fisheries Act, the P r o v i n c i a l Health Act, the Environment and Land Use Act and the Canada Water Act, a l l of which contain provisions that appear to have s u f f i c i e n t l e g i s l a t i v e powers to control log escape. 6 But there are numerous d i f f i c u l t i e s with proving l i a b i l i t y i n the case of damage to boats or to the environment, on the part of log owners. Also credible techniques for measuring damage to the environment or to aesthetic quality have not been adequately developed to the point where they are widely accepted by the c o u r t s . 7 Thus even with adequate l e q i s l a t i o n i t has not been 74 possible to control log escape. A second reason for the f a i l u r e of l e g a l r e s t r a i n t i s that laws c o n t r o l l i n g log handling methods would be d i f f i c u l t to enforce and would have to be equally applicable to a l l companies. For instance, i t would be necessary to use broad guidelines which would apply to every firm i n order to make the regulation e a s i l y enforceable. Yet i t i s conceivable that some of the smaller firms which produce only a few of the escaped logs, might be e l l i g i b l e f or exemption since the costs of log control could be considerably higer than the l e v e l of damage caused by th e i r escaped logs. Under a general law a small firm would be required to comply even i f the economics of the sit u a t i o n both for the firm and for society would indicate that non-compliance would be more co s t - e f f e c t i v e . But with a law applying only to s p e c i f i c firms, a l l kinds of p o l i c i n g and administrative problems would a r i s e . Therefore i t can be concluded that l e g i s l a t e d control w i l l probably continue to be an i n e f f e c t i v e means for c o n t r o l l i n g log escape. He are l e f t with one al t e r n a t i v e , to use a monetary mechanism to encourage the log compaines to carry the f u l l cost of t h e i r operation. C. 'Enforement' Through Pricing Measures which subsidize polluters with public money to enable them to implement control operations, or which charge for 75 the •right' to pollute and compensate those affected by the po l l u t i o n , are possible means which can be suggested for ameliorating the problems of uncontrolled e f f l u e n t s . But these measures are often as d i f f i c u l t to implement and to control as are other means involving l e g i s l a t i o n . There are also problems with subsidy or charge determination and with guestions of equity. However, as w i l l be shown i n the following paragraphs, there may be reasons for prefering a pricing system as compared with s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n or l e g a l enforcement, also the implementation of a charge system may be quite f e a s i b l e , given the present i n s t i t u t i o n a l structures involved i n log handling and control on the Fraser River. There are primarily three reasons f o r prefering an economic means and p a r t i c u l a r i l y an effluent charge, for achieving improved water q u a l i t y . F i r s t , a charge which allows a firm to continue p o l l u t i n g or discharging logs, i f they f i n d that paying a charge i s cheaper than implementing a control measure, tends to induce the least costly combination of measures for waste reduction by each p o l l u t e r , 8 and the least-cost d i s t r i b u t i o n of waste reduction among po l l u t e r s , thereby minimizing the rea l resources cost of attaining the water quality desired. This i s important on the Fraser since there are differences i n economies of scale for the affected forest industry firms and there would be different responses to the charge. For example, i n d i v i d u a l companies when faced with the charge would possibly decide to 76 a l t e r t h e i r log handling proceedures, increase the amount of timber bundled, cut back production, switch to other species less l i k e l y to escape or sink, pay the charge or implement a combination of these or other measures. 9 Thus the i n d i v i d u a l firm would be enabled to make i t s decision on economic grounds, without any compulsion from others. It i s t h i s lack of compulsion which i s the second reason for prefering an economic means of contr o l . For with a charge system the desired r e s u l t s can be achieved without the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n a l e g i s l a t e d system of control which requires that a l l comply. also the charge system makes economical, control measures which otherwise would not be considered, and especially not under a self-regulated system. Third l y , the pollut i n g firms i n comparing t h e i r marginal costs and marginal charges would decide whether i t would pay to reduce t h e i r discharge l e v e l s and to what degree. Consequently the i n d i v i d u a l users of the public water course would be competing f o r i t s use and establishing a r e n t a l value, and the rental value would be accruing to the p u b l i c - 1 0 Further advantages are available with the use of a charge system- The i n d i v i d u a l firm i n comparing the marginal cost of control with the marginal cost of the charge has an incentive to reduce the cost e f f e c t of the charge by undertaking innovative 77 research into more e f f i c i e n t control techniqes. A s i t u a t i o n such as t h i s i s not l i k e l y to arise i f firms are only encouraged to reduce t h e i r losses to a s p e c i f i e d l e v e l , as they would be under a voluntary or l e g i s l a t e d program.* 1 Secondly the charge system would generate revenue which could be used to compensate other users of the Fraser who s u f f e r damages from the remaining uncontrolled logs. Thus, the implementation of a charqe program for managing uncontrolled logs would not only help to minimize t o t a l s o c i a l costs but would also deal to a c e r t a i n extent with the problems of e g u i t y . 1 2 There are probably a number of d i f f e r e n t aspects of the log transportation and handling process which could have a charge placed on them i n order to control log escape or discharge, on the Fraser. For instance, f l a t rafted hemlock booms brought into the r i v e r could be charged on a volume basis. Since there are harbour patrol vessels on the Fraser, and since log companies are presently required to pay channel fees and storaqe fees, the implementation of the a d d i t i o n a l charqe for f l a t rafted hemlock would be f a i r l y simple. However, t h i s method of charging would l i k e l y not r e s u l t i n a reduction of log escape to the l e v e l desired. For even i f a l l hemlock entering the r i v e r were bundled there would s t i l l be log escape from the m i l l ponds and from the water based sortinq qrounds around Vancouver. And as was pointed out previously t h i s strategy of - bundling (Figure 5, curve 7) the remaing f l a t rafted hemlock does not r e s u l t i n 78 the lowest s o c i a l cost. To charge a tax on m i l l s which do not have bundle l i f t i n g equipment or to tax companies which sort logs on the water would re s u l t i n s i m i l a r problems. I t would not be necessary f o r the forest companies to change the other aspects of t h e i r log handling and transportation process, i f only one portion were taxed. Therefore dir e c t charges on the offending methods of handling and transporting logs would not necessarily r e s u l t i n the reduction of log escape. Thus i t can be concluded that in order to achieve the desired ends i t i s probably necessary to use an i n d i r e c t charge. An i n d i r e c t charge to change the methods of log handling and transportation, i s i d e a l l y suited to the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n of log pollution on the Fraser. At present most logs which are recoverd by salvagers are transfered to the owners or to buyers through Gulf Log Salvage. Furtheremore, since most recoved logs have a 'timber-mark' stamped on them, log ownership can be readily ascertained. Therefore, i t would be quite f e a s i b l e to charge log owners an additional amount which would encourage them to reduce log discharge. This charge could be assessed on the volume of recovered logs belonging to each company and could be collected with the other t r a n s a c t i o n s . 2 3 On logs which had l o s t their 'timber-mark' from a long period of time in the water or on the beaches, the charge could be 79 assessed i n proportion to the number of marked logs belonging to each firm, which were processed by G.L.S. F i n a l l y , to encourage the salvagers to return recovered logs to G-L-S. and to prevent a secondary market from being formed, where salvagers would s e l l large volumes of logs d i r e c t l y to the m i l l s , a portion of the assessed charge could be paid to the salvagers. This would also have another e f f e c t ; log salvage could probably be undertaken more intensely i f there were a larger monetary return available. Thus log clean-up, through recovery, would be improved. From the above, i t can be seen that to implement a charge system on the Fraser to control the discharge of logs, would be r e l a t i v e l y easy. The i n s t i t u t i o n a l system already e x i s t s f o r measuring the l e v e l of discharge or log escape, by each i n d i v i d u a l p o l l u t e r and also for c o l l e c t i n g the charge. It i s also l i k e l y that companies faced with t h i s charge would be induced to change t h e i r methods of log handling and transportation in order to reduce the number of logs which are escaping from booms being towed to or processed i n the Fraser River. Setting a Charge In order to determine the charge which would be appropriate for reducing log escape, i t i s necessary to consider the costs at each l e v e l of log bundling, which would be borne by the firms 80 Figure 6= SETTING A CHARGE 11 Charge: $10 per rrf 12 Charge-- $7.50 per m3 13 Summed t.c.c. 14 Summed t.c.c. 15 Summed t.c.c. (On r e c o v e r e d h e m l o c k ) f o r e s t i n d u s t r y c o s t c u r v e ; s i m i l a r to c u r v e 5 not i n c l u d i n g b o a t d a m a g e , c u r v e 3 . 6 - 3 . 7 - 3 . . ' ' • H E M L O C K | O T H E R L A N D B U N D L E D H E M L O C K J O T H E R W A T E R B U N D L E D % B U N D L E D H E M . ' • 9 0 O T H E R F L A T R A F T E D 81 which operate on the Fraser. In Figure 6 i s i l l u s t r a t e d these t o t a l costs. Curve 1.3 represents the sum of the costs of log recovery (Figure 5, curve 1), log loss (2), towing (4), debris clean-up (not i l l u s t r a t e d ) , m i l l up-grading (8), dryland sort construction (9) and bundling (10). These are the costs the industry would incur under a program which would eliminate a l l water-based log sorting, and would have logs transported only i n bundles with the logs l i f t e d onto the m i l l deck before the bundles were opened. As can be seen, i t i s not l i k e l y that the industry would implement any part of t h i s system vo l u n t a r i l y since i t s costs at any l e v e l of bundling would be substantially higher than the costs would be i f no timber were bundled. The t o t a l cost curves have also been derived for the industry i f they undertook dryland sorting (14) but no m i l l up-grading, and only water bundling (15) of the remaing f l a t rafted timber. These curves are s i m i l a r to the t o t a l s o c i a l cost curves (6 & 7) in Figure 5- In these two cases i t can be seen that for the f o r e s t industry the least-cost point would be at 72% bundling, including the bundling of a l l hemlock. This i s the same point which was also determined to be the least-cost point for the sum of the s o c i a l costs. It should be noted that the conservative estimates of the benefits (costs of log debris) r e s u l t i n t h i s point being less accentuated than i f the benefits are higher. I f the benefits 82 are higher the portion of the curve to the l e f t of the 72% point w i l l be steeper and the 72% point w i l l be sh i f t e d upwards s l i g h t l y - The costs (of preventing log escape) have been consistently over-estimated- If the costs are lower the right side of the curve (to the l e f t of the 72% point) w i l l be shallower and the 72% point w i l l be sh i f t e d down. However i t i s unlikely that the costs are low enough to s h i f t the r i g h t side of the curve below the cost l e v e l at the 72% bundling and control point. Therefore i t can be concluded with some assurance that the 72% point i s the least cost point. A comparison between curves 14 and 15 indicates that the option which includes dryland sort construction (14) w i l l r e s u l t in the lowest cost for the forest industry, with a savings of around $244,000. Therefore i f there are no other major costs, the forest industry would be expected to be heading towards t h i s point with t h e i r log handling programs. In the la t e 1960's i t was recommended by the CO.F.I- that the forest companies begin to seriously consider bundling.; 1 4 And one of the men most involved with the bundling program of B.C.F.P. has stated recently i n a speech that " i t i s in the log handling portion of our business that we can s t i l l f i n d the greatest opportunity for improvements i n productivity and cost e f f e c t i v e n e s s . " 1 5 Many others involved with log handling on the B.C coast also r e a l i z e that there are good reasons for 83 persuing a bundling program- And many are beginning to fin d that dryland sorting and bundling r e s u l t s i n cost reductions. At the present time around 60% of a l l logs are being bundled.* 6 This i s up from about 25% i n 1970. * 7 And i t i s believed that by 1980, 75% of a l l logs w i l l be bundled.*« If the figures i n t h i s paper are correct i t might be concluded that t h i s predicted l e v e l of 75% w i l l not be achieved, rather the industry w i l l probably f i n d that beyond about 72% costs of bundling r i s e too dramatically. However i t must be noted that t h i s predicted l e v e l i s for the entire B.C. coast whereas the calculations i n th i s paper are for the Fraser alone. With rough weather i n some areas reguiring special control measures, the cost s i t u a t i o n in other log processing areas may be d i f f e r e n t . A s i m i l a r prediction has been made by the i n d i v i d u a l firms in the forest industry, which indicates that by 1980 the amount of timber bundled on land at the logging operation w i l l r i s e from about 30% to over 40% of a l l timber.*'* Thus i t can be concluded that bundling and bundling/sorting on land, are considered to be cost e f f e c t i v e , and that the industry i s heading toward the derived least-cost point. If there were no other costs to be considered t h i s paper could be completed by stating that the industry w i l l be reaching t h e i r least-cost point shortly and w i l l thereby be minimizing the t o t a l s o c i a l costs. However, as was pointed out on page 41 84 and following, i t i s necessary to include the unaccounted environmental and s o c i a l costs i n any consideration of log debris- These unaccounted costs are probably high, and i f they are reducable by bundling and other control operations, then the control operation which includes m i l l up-grading becomes an important option in c o n t r o l l i n g log discharge-In order to encourage companies to up-grade th e i r m i l l equipment so that they could remove entire bundles from the water, i t would be necessary to impose a charge to s h i f t t h e i r least-cost point to the s o c i a l minimum-cost point of 72% bundling- Using the figures from Table 2 i t can be seen that 90 thousand m3 of hemlock i s recovered. Furthermore, from the figures mentioned on page 65, i t can be calculated that 12 thousand m3 would escape from the land bundled hemlock, 34 thousand m3 from the water bundled and 44 thousand m3 from the f l a t rafted hemlock. Thus i f a charge were set at $7.50 per m3 of recovered hemlock the t o t a l charge on the industry would be $675,000. And i f the f i r s t 12 thousand m3 was not allowed to escape the charge would drop by $90,000 to $585,000. The containment of the next 34 thousand m3 would r e s u l t i n a reduction of $255,000. F i n a l l y the containment of the l a s t 44 thousand m3 of hemlock would drop the charge to zero. This effect has been i l l u s t r a t e d by adding i t to the summed cost curve (13). This r e s u l t s i n curve 13 being sh i f t e d upwards so that i t has the shape of curve 12. As can be seen the charge of 85 $7.50 per cubic meter was chosen deliberately to r e s u l t i n a curve where the three low points on the curve are about at the same cost l e v e l . Curve 11 represents the e f f e c t of a $10 charge. Thus i t can be concluded that a charge of just over $7.50 would change the forest industry's cost curve so that i t would be induced to s h i f t i t s bundling and control operations to the s o c i a l minimum-cost point. At present the recovery cost for one cubic meter of logs i s around $39, so a charge of just over $7.50 would be an increase of about 20% i n the recovery cost. It i s therefore quite obvious that t h i s l e v e l of charqe could not be imposed in one increment. I t would be necessary to gradually increase the charge over a number of years, from a low s t a r t i n g point. This would give the forest industry time to adjust and to make the needed c a p i t a l changes. It i s also possible that the cost curves derived i n t h i s paper are not completely accurate. It would therefore be important to consider t h i s as a reason for approaching the proposed charge l e v e l slowly, since the actual charge needed could be below that sugqested. Should a charqe of just over $7.50 be too low, the charqe could be raised u n t i l the desired e f f e c t was achieved. The purpose of t h i s exercise i s not to determine an exact charqe but to qive an approximate estimate of the charqe based upon the available data, and upon assumptions about the shape of the cost curves. 86 The derived charge i s a minimum tax for inducing the forest industry to move towards the s o c i a l l y optimal point with i t s control operations. At any point of control below the 72% l e v e l , the costs to those outside the forest industry may be higher than the amount coll e c t e d from the charge. I f t h i s i s the case, t o t a l compensation for damages would not be possible using only the coll e c t e d money. Also at the s o c i a l optimum some logs from the remaining 28% of the uncontrolled timber would s t i l l be escaping and causing damage, but those persons damaged by the escaped logs would not be compensated. However, i t i s not c l e a r whether the charge should be raised so that rather than just change the industry cost curves to make control possible, the amount collected should provide t o t a l compensation- Nor i s i t evident that the industry should be required to pay compensation for damages when i t i s c o n t r o l l i n g log escape at the s o c i a l optimum- And i t would seem that the charge should not be imposed at a l e v e l which would lead to excessive investment i n log handling equipment. These issues indicate that the minimum tax for inducing changes i n log control would not necessarily solve a l l the problems of log debris on the Fraser River, and that there are matters of p o l i t i c a l concern and for further study-87 VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1) There are two major sources of debris on the Fraser River. Natural debris accounts for 8% of the debris and man-made debris contributes 92%. Escaped logs represent 75% of the t o t a l Fraser debris. 2) For the 9 m i l l i o n m3 of timber brought to the Fraser, half i s hemlock. For a l l species, 270 thousand m3 (3%) escapes. Of t h i s 35% sinks, 45% i s recovered and 20% i s l o s t . For hemlock 225 thousand m3 <5%) escapes; 40% of thi s amount sinks, 40% i s recovered and 20% i s l o s t . 3) Logs escape because of: a) high or low bouyancy; b) storms, currents, boat wakes; c) improper boom towing methods; d) poor boom tie-up and construction; and e) being submerged in bundles or under barge-dumped p i l e s . 4) Costs associated with forest industry log debris are: a) debris clean-up, $299,000; b) log recovery, 4.3 mi l l i o n d o l l a r s ; c) log l o s s , 3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s ; d) boat/property damage, 1 .1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s ; and 88 e) environmental damage and other s o c i a l costs. Hemlock accounts for at le a s t 80% of the cost of log debris. .5) In order to eliminate the escape of a l l logs i t would be necessary to bundle and sort timber on land and remove unopened bundles from the water at the m i l l . The costs of preventing a l l log escape are: a) dryland sort construction, 4.3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s ; b) debris clean-up at sort, $15,000; c) bundling, 3.9 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s ; d) m i l l up-grading 4.5 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s ; and e) debris clean-up at m i l l , $43,000. Thus the t o t a l annual cost would be about 12.8 mi l l i o n d o l l a r s . To handle the hemlock which i s not bundled on land, in t h i s comprehensive manner would cost 6.7 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Together with the reduced costs (point 4, above) there are two other reasons for implementing t h i s control measure; 1) reduced towing expenses and 2) improved inventory c o n t r o l . The inventory s t a t i s t i c s would be useful for industry planning purposes, and there might be better u t i l i z a t i o n of timber flows. Other le s s comprehensive methods sere also considered. One would consist of water bundling the remaining f l a t r a f t e d timber, the other of land bundling a l l timber. 6) The point at which the t o t a l s o c i a l cost would be lowest i s where the entire volume of Fraser hemlock i s bundled and 89 controlled i n some manner. Also 44% of the other timber would have been bundled at t h i s point. A l l three of the control methods which are considered, result i n t o t a l s o c i a l costs being lower with 72% of the timber bundled, than they are now with 30% bundled. But i t should be noted that not a l l timber should be bundled! The control method which includes the bundling of timber on land would be better than present timber processing methods since i t would save society 1-1 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . The method which includes m i l l up-grading would save society $665,000. And i f unguantified s o c i a l and environmental costs are above 1.1 m i l l i o n dollars then the control measure which includes m i l l up-grading would be the best for minimizing t o t a l s o c i a l costs. 7) The industry i s expected to be at the optimal l e v e l of dryland sorting and bundling around 1980. In reaching t h i s point, t o t a l s o c i a l costs and industry costs w i l l be minimized. However the program which the industry i s persuing does not include m i l l up-grading. I f unquantified environmental and s o c i a l costs are high then i t would be necessary to encourage the industry to i n t e r n a l i z e the costs which they are i n f l i c t i n g upon society. In t h i s study i t has been determined that a pricing mechanism, a charge on recovered logs, i s better than se l f - r e g u l a t i o n or l e g i s l a t e d enforcement for achieving a reduced l e v e l of log discharge. The charge system i s advocated 90 because: a) I t i s f e a s i b l e to implement since the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement already exists- Gulf Log Salvage i s responsible for managing the return or sale of recovered logs- A charge could be e a s i l y assessed on these logs. B) A company's least-cost combination of measures for the p o l l u t i o n and the least-cost d i s t r i b u t i o n among polluters s i l l be induced, minimizing the r e a l cost of achieving a reduced l e v e l of discharge. C) Innovative c o s t - e f f e c t i v e methods of log handling and transportation w i l l be encouraged. D) Companies w i l l be competing for the 'right' to pollute and thus the use of the r i v e r , establishing a r e n t a l value on a common property resource. E) Revenue from the charge can be used for among other things, compensation of injured members of society. A charge of just over $7.50 per cubic meter of recovered timber would t h e o r e t i c a l l y be the charge necessary to induce m i l l up-grading i n order to reduce log escape to the s o c i a l l y optimal l e v e l . This charge would be a 20% increase on the present recovery cost. I t would therefore be necessary to impose the charge slowly, increasing the amount incrementally, so that the industry would have time to make c a p i t a l adjustments. 91 REFERENCES The f i r s t number in each reference designates the corresponding numbered entry i n the BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION the second i s the page number- For example, *3.8* refers to page 8 of Investigation into Debris i n Lakes and Streams of B.C. (number 3 in the bibliography)- A single number indicates the reference with no page number s p e c i f i e d . II COMPOSITION OF WOOD DEBRIS IN THE LOWER FBASER 1 13.7 2 2; 6.2; 8.5; 11.7 3 39 4 Stan Nichols of B-C.F-P. 5 3-8; 4.1 6 2 7 4.4-9; 7; 11.9; 23 8 2; 4.10; 23; 29 9 4.11; 6.4; 23; 39 10 2; 20 11 4.4-9; 7; 11; 30 12 28; 30; A dead-head i s a log which has more than three quarters of i t s length submerged, and/or one end diameter e n t i r e l y above the surface of the water-13 Slash consists of branches, tree-tops, bushes, small trees and other logging waste. 14 3.8; 4.13-17; 8.68 15 8.68 16 3.1 17 2; 8.5 18 8-4 19 2; 8-5 20 -8.17 21 The spring run-off period, around May to June. 22 2 23 2; 8.5 24 3.1 25 1; 4.3,4; 8.10; 27 26 1; 4.3 27 8. 11 28 8.11,68 29 8-11,35 30 A series of logs connected with chains; generally not of a fixed shape. 31 8.16; 35 32 1; 2; 3; 4.8,10; 8.8,10; 23; 28; 36 33 8.8 34 see 45 35 8.16 92 36 8-16 37 1.11; U.25; 8.8-10; 15 38 8.9; 12 39 8.9 40 1.12,13; 4.7 41 4.5-7; 7; 28; 30; 35 42 8.9; 35 43 8.9; 30 44 8.66; 28 45 4.18; 7.11-15; 8.6,7; 19; 27; 30 46 4.18; 6.12,13; 13; 32 47 8.6 48 2; 4.1,17; 6.2 49 2; 4.1,17; 6.2 50 27; 30 III THE COSTS OF LOG DEBRIS 1 13 2 13 3 35 4 30 5 30 6 29; 36 7 6.15 8 8.70; 36 9 35 10 36 11 36 12 36 13 2; 36 14 8.11-17 15 8.11-17; 35 16 11.5 17 28 18 8.65,66; 12 19 28 20 -4.34,35 21 33; 34 22 33; 34; 37 23 32; 34; 37 24 4.34-37; 11.12,13; 24; 32; 34; 37 25 B.C. Safety Council 26 34; 37 27 37 28 37 29 32; 37 30 16 31 19 32 11.1 33 8.11-17; 35 34 4.44; 27; 28; 29; 30; 36 93 35 4.19 36 4.19 37 5; 11.15; 14; 18; 25 38 14.15 39 22.27 40 14.19; 18.13; 25.54 41 14.19; 18.12,13 42 18.12 43 14; 15.9; 18.20; 25.1,81,82 44 18.9,11; 25.1,81 45 11.15; 25.81 46 18.18 47 14.25 48 14.25 IV THE COSTS OF PREVENTING LOG ESCAPE 1 1.3,14,15; 4.23,27,38; 27; 28; 39 2 1.17; 27; 39 3 27; 39 4 27; 39 5 1.15; 4.38 6 27; 39 7 4.37; 8.16; 28 8 28; 36 9 28 10 27; 39 11 27; 28; 38; 39 12 28; 38 13 At 3 m i l l i o n m3 o f timber with 200 sorting grounds, each ground would handle 150 thousand m3 per year. With only 200 operating days per year 7 50 m3 of timber would be processed d a i l y . With average bundles at 30 m3 each, sorting grounds would produce 25 bundles per day or 3 per hour-14 1.14,15 15 39 16 28; 39 17 28; 39 18 28 19 27; 39 20 27; 3 9 21 21; 39 22 27 23 2; 20 24 1.20 25 1.20 26 29 27 27 28 2; 20; 27 ; 28 29 2 30 27 31 26 94 32 8-6 9 33 11-21; 27; 31 34 27 35 1.19,29 36 27 37 1.17,29 38 1.19,29; 2; 21.9; 27 39 40 40 28 V DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL SOCIAL COST 1 1; 2; 3; 4.8,10; 8.8,10; 23; 28; 36 2 10.98,99 3 11.22 4 9.3,135; 11.26 5 11.27 6 10.60-69 7 10.72 8 9.169 9 11.33 10 9.169 11 11.33 12 11.29,33 13 11.27,33 14 1; 23 15 39 16 28; 36 17 27 18 4.6,7; 28; 36; 39 19 28; 36; 39 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1 B.C. Council of Forest Industries- Report•• of the Task Force on Log Losses, 1974. 2 B.C. Forest Service. Fraser • River Debris Studies, f i l e no. 0311646, 1972, Jan. 1973, July 19*73,~July 19747 Sept. 1975, and July 1976-3 B.C. Forest Service- • Investigation i n t o Debris i n Lakes - and Streams of B.C., f i l e no.~~0233780, May"*1974. 4 B.C. Forest Service- Log and Debris Salvage in the Strait-21 Georaia, f i l e no- 0268446,~"l97l7"~ 5 B.C. Research. F i n a l Report on the Effect, of Locj Driving on the Stellako River Salmon, project no. 1185, Feb- 1967. 6 B.C. Research. Harbour Debris Investigation •-• Phase^ I, May 1968. 7 B.C. Research. Sinking of Hemlock Project, no. 61-34-B, 1964. 8 Centurion Engineering. Council of the Forest Tndustries Floating Debjris Management Studj, Vancouver, Oct. 1974. 9 Dorfman, Robert & Dorfman, Nancy S. (eds.) Economics of the Environment. Norton, New York, 1972-10 Fairbairn, Bruce- Saw log • Pollution- i n the Lower Fjcaser River, M-Sc- th e s i s , U.B-C-, April"~19747~ 11 Fairbairn, Bruce & Peterson, Ken- Controlling Sawlpq Debris i l the - Lower • Fraser' - Biver, technical report no. 5, Westwater Research Center, U.B.C., Vancouver, May 1975. 12 Gulf Log Salvage. Statement of Logs Processed, 1976. 13 Latta, Riki- Sjjecial Task Force on Harbour Pollution Vancouver, B.C., submitted to the National Harbours Board, July 1971-14 Karan, John. Water Transport of good: The Current Situation, report no. EPS 3-WP-75-3, Hater Pollution Control Directorate, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, Oct. 1975. 15 Mcintosh, J. A. S Meyer, R- w. Water-Storage Weight Changes in B r i t i s h Columbia I n t e r i o r Logs, in The Forest Chronicle, 96 vol. 48, no. 3, June, 1972. 16 Meyer, P h i l i p ft. Marina Policy i n the T i d a l Areas of the P a c i f i c Coast, Harbours 1 Branch, Environment Canada, 1975. 17 Mos, Gerard J. & Harrison, Mary C. -Resident- Boating in Georgia S t r a i t report no. PAC T-74-5 Fisheries and Marine Service, Environment Canada, 1974. 18 P a c i f i c Northwest Pollution Control Council, Log Storage and Rafting i n Public Waters, 1971. 19 Red Cross. Drowning S t a t i s t i c s for 1975, B.C. - Yukon Div i s i o n , 1976. 20 Rivtow-Straits Ltd. Map of the Lower Fraser. 21 Sauder, B. J . & Hallberg, K. A. • Pressed• Sleeve Connection for Securing Log Bundling Ropes, report no. 6, Forest Engineering Research In s t i t u t e of Canada, Vancouver, June 1976. 22 Stone, Christopher D. Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Trees, William Kaufmann Inc., Los Altos, C a l i f o r n i a , 1974. 23 Truck Loggers Association. Water Log Loss, 1973-24 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle D i s t r i c t ) P a c i f i c Northwest Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Pl-ea'sure • Boating Study, Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters, St ate of Washington. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Nov. 1968. 25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Influence of Log Handling on Water Quality, EPA R2-73-085,"~T 973. 26 Young, Bruce. Industry•Goal: Cleaner Salt Chuck, i n •B.C. Lumberman', March 1976. 27 Boyd, K. MacMillan Bloedel. 28 Bowden, W. CO.F.I. 29 CO.F.I. (operators, Fraser River & Howe Sound Patrol Boats.) 30 F.R.H.C (various personnel.) 31 Henderson, J . Point Grey Towing. 32 Hopkinson, I- Hopkinson and Co-33 Livingston, D- I . e .B.C. 34 Lovelidge, C. Brouer and Co. 35 McKewean. N-F.H-C 36 Paynter, M. CO.F.I. 37 Rorison, K. World Marine Surveyors. 38 Schevier, T. CO..F.I. 39 Techy, Z. B.CF.P. 40 Wright, P. Fireman's Fund Insurance Corp. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094139/manifest

Comment

Related Items