This is a report on a compliance audit of Forest Licence A18979 held by Slocan Group – Radium Division. The audit examined Slocan’s timber harvesting and road practices, and related operational plans for the period of August 1, 1996, to August 31, 1997. The audit assessed compliance with the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and related regulations (the Code).
Slocan Group: Radium Division – FL A18979
Adequacy of the Public Review and Comment Period for Forest Development Plans in the Slocan Valley in the Arrow / Slocan Valley Forest District
In February 1996, four forest development plans were submitted to the Ministry of Forests in the Arrow Forest District and advertised for public review. The forest development plans showed five years of proposed roads and cutblocks for 1996 to 2000. They had been prepared by Slocan Forest Products (two plans), Pope and Talbot, and the Ministry of Forests for operations in the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program. Two organizations based in the Slocan Valley, the Valhalla Wilderness Society and the Slocan Valley Watershed Alliance, asked the district manager to extend the period for public review and comment on the plans by approximately eight weeks.
The district manager did not grant the request for an eight week extension. He did agree to accept public comments for an extra 10 days. In early May 1996, both organizations complained to the Board about the district manager’s decision and complained that he did not provide reasons for his decision.
Adequacy of the Public Review and Comment Period for Forest Development Plans in the Slocan Valley in the Arrow / Slocan Valley Forest District
Harvesting prescribed in Arrow Mountain subunit plan in the Kootenay Lake Forest District
The Board received a complaint from an environmental society concerning a silvicultural prescription that was inconsistent with a local resource use plan. The complaint asserted that:
- The Ministry of Forests failed to adequately address issues raised by the complainant by not providing evidence of root rot in two areas where harvesting was proposed because of disease problems and that the Ministry’s response to this and other concerns were inadequate;
- Silviculture prescriptions were prepared and approved that were not in compliance with a local resource use plan that had been in existence since 1993. Specifically, the approval of the cutblocks resulted in exceeding the maximum allowable five year cumulative volume of wood to be sold for the area as specified in the approval local resource use plan;
- The proposed harvesting for one cutblock is not in compliance with the Code since harvesting methods are inappropriate and are not scientifically proven to address root rot problems;
- That the forest district failed to allocate opportunities for single tree selection sales for horse loggers; and
- That the complainant has been unable to get the Ministry of Forests to respond to repeated requests to obtain permission under the Code to construct a trail.
