Citizens' Forum on Public Policy

Introduction

This is a summary of the notes that I took at the Extraordinary Meeting of the Comox Valley Economic Development Society held at Crown Isle resort on 26 Julio 2001, which I attended on behalf of the Comox Valley Environmental Council. The purpose of this meeting was to receive information on the Bevan Road Value Added Forestry Village proposal. 

The proposal requires the re-zoning of some 500 acres (or perhaps only 130 acres) of forest reserve land to a comprehensive development which will permit raw logs from local forests to be intercepted on their way south and to add value to them. This is good as it will create jobs here and, perhaps reduce transportation (energy) costs of forest products. The downside will be a reduction of working forest and the unavoidable environmental impacts associated with industrial activity.

The land in question lies on both sides of Bevan Road from the Pidgeon Lake Landfill (the dump) towards Lake Trail Road. The VAFV could contain anything from sawmills, wood drying kilns to retail outlets and a limited amount housing for folks who work there. The key regulatory agencies are the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona who need to approve the land use rezoning and the Land Reserve Commission who have to either approve the use under the Land Reserve Act or allow the land or a portion of it to be removed from the Forest Land Reserve. The Hancock Timber Resources Group currently own the land. Whether Hancock will continue as owner/developer or sell off all or parts of the lands is not clear.

Agenda

CVEDS

Norm McLaren, EDO and Brian Taylor, Past President of CVEDS spoke to the need for the VAFV concept. Whenever a developer interested in value added forestry has approached the EDS and/or the RDC-S, they have not been able to identify land with the appropriate zoning or the potential re-zoning for the purpose. There has been some reluctance to get into a re-zoning controversy for fear of the Comox Valley syndrome. Potential developers have been turned off. It appears that the proponents of this project are trying to "get it right."

RDC-S

Regional District Planner Harry Harker presented the results of a Design Charette held for this project. The concept is to layout the project so that there is a logical flow from the heavy industrial operations such as sawmill, drying kilns, laminating plants, etc., to the fine finished furniture operations and retail outlets. Because of the magnificent viewscape overlooking the escarpment to the northeast of the lands, it is felt that limited housing, presumably for the people who work in the village, would be appropriate.

Forestry Product Issues

Ed Hughes, a RPF; Peter Fisher, a forest economist; Thord Jendle of the NIWA, very knowledgeable about the international forestry scene; and Dave Scholte, regional development representative for BC Wood spoke briefly on the economic and marketing trends of the industry. Thus:

• BC gets fewer jobs per unit of timber cut that almost any other jurisdiction. No to raw log export. 
• Global customers want dry, uniform wood products. Green hemlock is no longer acceptable. 
• Kiln dried lumber sells. Transportation of logs and primary wood products with over 50% water content is expensive and energy inefficient. 
• People expect their homes to last—shrinkage due to drying studs is no longer acceptable. 
• "The BC forestry industry is a disaster." 
• The global market is looking for quality. While the global commodity is "sick" because of over supply and depressed prices, the specialty, niche market is strong. 
• Condominium development is pushing wood mills out of the lower mainland. Will they go south or come north? 
• Forest product industrialists want to come here—we can afford to be selective! 
• European forest product purveyors cannot compete with high quality BC cedar, fir, etc. 
• Value added forestry product producers need aggressive marketing support and training. 
• Eco-Certification is rapidly becoming a most powerful marketing tool. This village will facilitate "chain of custody" certification—an important aspect of certification. 
• Successful back yard forest product operators, if successful, soon outgrow their back yards—they need a place to go.

Al Morrison of Levelton Engineering spoke on the Environmental aspects; Bruce McLeod of Levelton spoke on geotechnical assessment; and Frank Denton of McElhanney Consulting spoke to site servicing.

• Morrison reported that there were "no project killers" but some up front issues. 
• The site is well drained; there is very little surface water accumulation or run off. 
• As with the Pidgeon Lake Landfill, there is insufficient hydrogeological data to predict effects of site groundwater impacts on either Comox Lake—domestic watershed—or the headwaters of Morrison Creek—salmon bearing stream. 
• Solid waste management—there should be minimal wood "waste", as the integrated village concept should facilitate turning it into a useful product. It was suggested that "absolute waste" could be put to the dump. 
• There may be waste from historical coal production on site—could be a "planning" issue. 
• Mimulus (Michele Jones) did a wildlife assessment of the site—no major habitat (listed species?) except for Morrison Creek. 
• Geologically this is a good site—sand and gravel over bedrock, few fines, thin topsoil, absence of gullies and ravines and good slope stability. 
• While it is in one of the highest earthquake zones in BC, there is low probability of liquefaction in the event. 
• There is low probability of subsidence into coal mines below, except, perhaps for Bevan #7. 
• Storm water management is the highest environmental concern—Comox Lake and Morrison Creek. 
• Buffers along the northeast escarpment need to be increased. 
• All runoff from impermeable surfaces will be returned to ground—existing hydrological patterns (temporal and spatial?) will be maintained. Engineered wetlands are probably not practicable for runoff treatment because of high permeability. 
• Road access needs major improvement. Plan A has a new road around Maple Lake to the Inland Highway. Plan B connects with Lake Trail Road avoiding the privately owned industrial road. 
• Water supply could come from Cumberland which would be easiest but limited. Other options are CSRD with political and technical hurdles or on site wells with potential water quality concerns. Storage may also be required for fire fighting needs. 
• Sanitary Sewage—Cumberland, Courtenay or high level on-site treatment. 
• Hydro Supply could come via Bevan Road or Cumberland. [It was not mentioned, but some of that methane that folks may find could be used here—the need for heat to run the drying kilns and hydro for machinery, etc. would make co-generation a logical choice.] 
• Light Pollution—As the site is on a prominent ridge visible from Comox and East Courtenay, light pollution could be an issue. Choice of lighting and natural buffering would help. The possibility of building in a depression created by extraction of gravel (for building materials) from the site.

What guarantee is there that these lands, once alienated from their present use—working forest—will continue to be used for the purpose of supporting the forest industry, that is to remain as a value added forestry village? Is it necessary to remove all or any of the land in question from the forest land reserve in order to achieve the stated purpose? Sections 13 and 14 of the Forest Land Reserve Act suggests that most, if not all of the objectives of this project can be achieved within the Act.

What guarantee is there that the environmental commitments will be kept once the re-zoning is law? The Comprehensive Development must be specific in the standards and penalties that it sets. The development will be phased—there must be a re-examination of the standards at each phase and corrections made where necessary.

Won't restrictions interfere with the planning for and recruitment of tenants for the site? No, it shouldn't. In fact if it is true that investors want to come to the Comox Valley for its ambience and if the potential for eco-certified product is as great as is believed, it would be to the investors' advantage to have the guarantee and assurance that the highest environmental standards were upheld.

Links

Forest Land Reserve Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 158 

• Historical Table 
• Table of Legislative Changes 
• Forest Land Reserve Act (B.C. Reg. 222/96) 
• Private Land Forest Practices Regulation (B.C. Reg. 318/99) 

Agricultural Land Commission Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 10 

• Historical Table 
• Table of Legislative Changes 
• About the Land Reserve Commission 
• Commissioners 
• Land Reserve Commission Names and Numbers 
• Land Reserve Commission Telephone: 604 660-7000 Mailing Address: Rm. 133 4940 Canada Way Burnaby V5G4K6 
• Niels Holbek Land Reserve Commission Forest Practice Officer 604 751-7032 mailto:[email protected] 
• Roger Cheetham Land Reserve Commission Planning Officer 604 660-7020 mailto:[email protected] 
• Alan Chambers Chair LRC 604 660-7000 mailto:[email protected] 
• Kirk Miller CEO604 660-7000 mailto:[email protected] 
• Allen Hopwood LR Commissioner Courtenay

Permitted uses of forest reserve land

(2) Forest reserve land, other than Crown land or Crown licence land, must be used in a way that is consistent with one or more of the following:

(a) timber production, utilization and related purposes;

(b) forage production and grazing by livestock and wildlife;

(c) forest or wilderness oriented recreation, scenery and wilderness purposes;

(d) water, fisheries and wildlife, biological diversity and cultural heritage resources purposes;

(e) a use or occupation authorized under the Coal Act, Geothermal Resources Act, Mineral Tenure Act or Petroleum and Natural Gas Act;

(f) a use or purpose permitted by the regulations, subject to any applicable conditions established by the commission;

(g) a use specifically permitted by the commission under section 14 in relation to the land on which the use is to take place.

Specifically permitted uses of forest reserve land

(2) If applicable, before or at the same time as making the application under subsection (1), the owner must apply to the applicable local government for the authorization required by subsection (3).

(3) If an application under this section requires, in order to proceed, an amendment to an official settlement plan, official community plan, official development plan, rural land use bylaw or zoning bylaw of a local government, the application may not proceed under this section unless authorized by a resolution of the local government.

(4) Subject to the regulations, the commission may make a use permitted under this section subject to any conditions the commission considers advisable.

(5) Without limiting subsection (4), the commission may require as a condition of permitting a use that a covenant against the land in favour of the commission be registered under section 219 of the Land Title Act.