Between July and October 2005, the Board received a number of complaints about five BCTS cutblocks above Roberts Creek, on the Sunshine Coast. The complainants wanted the cutblocks withdrawn, a new planning process for Mt. Elphinstone established, and 1500 hectares above Roberts Creek protected.
A group of concerned property owners south of Chilliwack filed a complaint about a BCTS cutblock uphill of their lands. The complaint believes the cutblock will damage their water supply, wildlife and a rare plant species.
The Blue Mountain‐Kanaka Creek Conservation Group filed a complaint with the Board about the adequacy of planning and forest practices on Woodlot Licence W0007, in Maple Ridge. The complainant is concerned that woodlot activities will harm domestic water supplies and scenic views in the area.
The Chilliwack Field Naturalists asked the Board to investigate the approval of an amendment to a FDP--the Cattermole Timber Company proposed two cutblocks on Elk-Thurston Mountain. The complainant is concerned that public comments about the impact of harvesting on old growth forests and significant rare species were not adequately considered, and information about helicopter drop areas was missing from the amendment.
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.
The Board received a complaint from a member of the public about maintenance and development activities in a MOFR recreation site. The complainant was concerned about whether the work was authorized, as there was no sign posted to provide explanation about the work being conducted.
