This reports deals with a complaint that large clearcuts, approved to address a mountain pine beetle outbreak, contravened the maximum cutblock size requirements of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and its regulations (the Code).
The complaint was submitted by the Fraser Headwaters Alliance (the complainant) in July 2000. The complainant believes that the district manager approved more harvesting than necessary to address a mountain pine beetle outbreak. The complainant is concerned that the large clearcuts will change hydrological flows and cycles, resulting in increased soil instability, erosion and harm to fish habitat.
The district manager of the Robson Valley Forest District authorized a shortened review and comment period for an amendment to McBride Forest Industries’ forest development plan for Forest Licence A15429. The Fraser Headwaters Alliance (the complainant) submitted a complaint to the Forest Practices Board on July 1, 2001, asserting that the review and comment period was too short, and that a forest health assessment should have been made available to them during the review period.
This investigation examines a complaint that Riverside Forest Products Limited (the licensee) is not adequately managing and conserving water resources and visual quality in the Mission Creek community watershed, 30 kilometres east of Kelowna.
The original complaint was that the forest development plans for the four major licensees operating in the watershed do not adequately protect wildlife, biodiversity and other resource values. The Board could not address all of those general, broad-ranging issues in a timely and meaningful way. The Board therefore narrowed the investigation to the issues and specific area of greatest concern to the complainant.
This investigation examines a complaint by the Fraser Headwaters Alliance (the complainant) about whether operational plans prepared by Zeidler Forest Industries Limited (the licensee) met the requirements of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and its regulations (the Code). McBride Forest Industries Ltd. now holds the licence. The complaint involves two issues:
Was approval of a road next to the Goat River, a fish-bearing stream, appropriate and consistent with the Forest Practices Code?
Was approval of a cutblock over and near a trail used for recreation appropriate and consistent with the Forest Practices Code?
The Board audited government’s Code enforcement infrastructure and processes in December 1999 in An Audit of the Government of British Columbia’s Framework for Enforcement of the Forest Practices Code (IPA). This audit set out to provide the public and the three government ministers with an independent, objective assessment of government’s framework for Code enforcement and to establish a solid foundation for developing the Board’s enforcement audits.
In May 1999, while considering a bid on a small-scale salvage licence near Three Valley Gap in the Salmon Arm Forest District, a salvage contractor (the complainant) observed signs of what he believed to be unauthorized timber harvest. He promptly reported a trespass to the forest district office. In June 1999, he complained to the Board that the response to his report was inappropriate. The Board did not investigate that complaint because the Comptroller General was carrying out an internal government audit of the district’s small business timber administration process. In November 1999, the complainant observed signs of what he beleived to be an unauthorized timber harvest near another block he was considering for a bid, this one near Anglemont. He made another trespass report to the district office. In September 2000, he filed a second complaint to the Board about both instances of trespass, and asserted that enforcement was inappropriate. The Board noted that the internal audit that might have resolved the complaint had still not been completed, so it decided to investigate.
