In January 2004, the Forest Practices Board initiated an investigation of bridge and major culvert inspection and maintenance practices on forest service roads (FSRs). This special investigation assessed Ministry of Forests’ compliance with the Forest Practices Code requirements to inspect, repair and maintain bridges and major culverts. The investigation, consisting of both office and site visits, was conducted in the winter and spring of 2004. The Board examined bridges and major culverts on FSRs in six forest districts: Sunshine Coast, North Coast, Peace, Headwaters (including both former Clearwater and Robson Valley districts), Central Cariboo, and Kootenay Lake.
This is the Board’s report on a compliance audit of Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 25, held by Western Forest Products Ltd. (WFP). The operating area for TFL 25 consists of five distinct geographic areas within the Coast Forest Region.
This is the Board’s report on a compliance audit of Forest Licence A19243, held by Richmond Plywood Corporation Ltd. (Richply). The operating area for forest licence A19243 is within the Kingcome Timber Supply Area, in the North Island–Central Coast Forest District. The audit examined Richply’s operational planning; timber harvesting; road construction, maintenance and deactivation; silviculture; and fire protection practices for the period from May 1, 2002, to June 3, 2003. Richply’s forest planning and practices complied with Code requirements in all significant respects.
In 2000, a member of the Sierra Club of British Columbia examined a forest development plan (FDP) that he had reviewed a year before during the public review and comment period. It was International Forest Products' (the licensee's) 1999-2003 FDP for Tree Farm Licence 45 at the head of Knight Inlet, 175 kilometres northwest of Vancouver.
The FDP and its maps were different from what the member had reviewed in 1999. Information related to wildlife habitats and other biological resources had been removed from the FDP, apparently after the public review process was finished.
The Sierra Club filed a complaint with the Forest Practices Board because it believed that: removing the information after the end of the public review and comment period reduced the value of public review of the FDP; the information that was removed had been known to the licensee and government for many years, so it was not appropriate for a district manager to require its removal; the FDP should not have been approved because several cutblocks were proposed within sensitive areas, as indicated by the removed information; and the district manager should have obtained comments from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks before approving the FDP.
On June 21, 1999, the Board received a complaint from the David Suzuki Foundation (the complainant) about the approval of a 1999-2003 forest development plan (FDP) prepared by International Forest Products (the licensee) for Forest Licence A16841 in the North Coast Forest District. The complainant asked the Board to undertake an administrative review of the forest development plan approval. The Board dealt with part of the complaint by undertaking an administrative review. The administrative review addressed the licensee changing category I cutblocks to proposed category A cutblocks without changing the designation on the FDP maps. However, three remaining issues were not handled in the administrative review and are the topic of this complaint investigation.
