A second opinion, please

I am Aaron Evans, an engineering student in B.C. I built a public-interest data project on logging around Port Renfrew, using only official government data. Before I share it more widely, I would like an honest read from someone who knows this field: is it fair, is it accurate, and where is it wrong?

You do not need to read everything. This page is the five-minute version, with links if you want to check anything.

What it says, in plain terms

• Official data shows about 32,800 hectares of recorded logging around Port Renfrew, San Juan, Gordon, Fairy, Walbran, and Harris, and almost none of it has recovered toward old forest, which takes roughly 250 years.
• Recorded harvest overlaps the province's own old-growth priority-deferral areas. About 30 hectares across nine sites were logged after the government's expert panel recommended those areas for deferral in November 2021, several of them mapped as ancient (older than 400 years).
• A 2021 economic study found protecting the old growth in its Port Renfrew study area was worth about $40 million more to the public than logging it, before counting wildfire, water, or most fish values.
• For any given block, the public still cannot see the site-level records behind the decision: the site plan, stream and riparian rules, road and culvert records, fuel hazard work, the sale economics, or why a particular old stand was kept or cut.

The one-line version: the public can see enough to ask serious questions, but not enough to judge whether a decision serves the public. That gap is the point.

What I am careful not to claim

• I do not claim anyone broke the law. Deferral was a recommendation, not a law.
• I do not claim local logging caused any specific fish decline or wildfire.
• Overlaps and distances are screening estimates from official maps. They are reasons to ask for records, not proof of harm.

Where I think this could be wrong

I would rather you catch these than a critic:

• Some blocks in deferral areas may have had First Nations agreement, or been approved before November 2021, in ways the public layers do not show.
• My study area is not identical to the 2021 economic study's area.
• The carbon and volume figures are wide screening ranges applied to local hectares. The 40-65% release fraction is a published figure (Harmon et al. 1990, Science); the uncertainty is in the per-stand numbers, not the fraction.
• I can confirm the data is accurate. I cannot confirm from a desk that my reading matches how forestry actually works on the ground. That is exactly what I am asking you about.

Check any of it

• The nine post-recommendation deferral openings, with checkable IDs: https://aaronevans.ca/port-renfrew/deferral-overlap.html
• 90-second visual story: https://aaronevans.ca/port-renfrew/story.html
• One-page summary: https://aaronevans.ca/port-renfrew/one-pager.html
• The interactive map, full report, and full-cost model: https://aaronevans.ca/port-renfrew/
• Every figure with a link to its official source: https://aaronevans.ca/port-renfrew/sources.html

What would help most

Pick whichever you have time for:

1. Is the framing anywhere too strong, too weak, or missing something important?
2. Are the old-growth, fish, carbon, or economic claims defensible as written?
3. Is there a specific block or watershed where this kind of records request would matter most right now?

A sentence or two is plenty. If something here is off, tell me and I will fix it.

Thank you for the time.

Aaron Evans aaronevans.eng@outlook.com