A recently built logging road along side slopes in excess of 50% intercepted subsurface drainage and concentrated this water in the drainage ditches until it finally blew over the road and created this debris torrent. This torrent dropped sixty vertical meters in elevation over a distance of approximately 300 metres where it was intercepted by Highway 31. It loaded the highway ditch line for a distance of 75 metres and plugged a culvert that had to be dug out.

The outer road slope where the water flowed over to the scarp was 70% and the slope above the road was 100%. The presence of heavy deciduous slash on the lower side of the road that appeared to have been yarded straight up the slope alongside the scarp, and the presence of notched stumps above the road indicate that a yarder had been set up on the road above the scarp. This setting likely caused a depression in the road surface that allowed the water to flow over and initiate this debris torrent.

At the time of my inspection there was only one culvert in place approximately 400 metres along a 10% adverse grade from this slide scarp. This culvert was poorly installed with no armoring or ditch block present. There were numerous recently installed waterbars, and cross ditches, however, sections of the ditch line were plugged with ice and water was starting to flow over the road despite numerous days of a sub zero cold spell. There was heavy rutted truck tracks frozen into the road surface at the time of my inspection, despite the completion of logging and the presence of a grader parked on the road. This indicates that operations were being carried out during very wet conditions, and I have no doubt that the logging trucks were probably axle deep in mud along sections of this logging road. Despite the recent deactivation there were slumps sloughing into and partially filling the ditch line along the road above the slide scarp. This indicates that this deactivation is insufficient to stabilize this slope and that this section of road needs to be fully recontoured. At the present time the Ministry of Forests has completed their investigation and charged Meadow Creek Cedar $3000 for infractions of the Forest Practices Code. In his "Notice of Determination" of June 13, 1999 the District Manager of Kootenay Lake Forest District found that:

"1.It is an undisputed fact that, contrary to Section 62(1)(e} and (f) the Act, MCC did not follow the approved road layout and design in the construction of spur 100 to Block 6. By so doing, MCC did not comply with road Permit RO4954. 2. It is also an undisputed fact that, contrary to Section 13(1)(i) of the Regulation, there was no effective ditch block on the culvert located at station 0+808 m. Consequently, more water was allowed to drain down to the culvert at station 1+219 m where the slide occurred. 3. I consider the contravention to Section 62(1) of the Act to be significant because of the disregard shown for an important Forest Practices Code requirement, the road layout and design, which in turn resulted in the slope failure on forest land, It also resulted in sediment filling the ditchline on Highway 3 downslope which the Ministry of Transportation and Highways had to clean out. For this contravention, which carries a maximum administrative penalty of $50,000.00, I am levying a penalty of $2500,00. 4. I consider the contravention to Section 13(1) of the Regulation to be significant because it contributed to the occurrence of the slide. For this contravention, which carries a maximum administrative penalty of $2000.00, I am levying a penalty of $500.00. 7. I appreciate that MCC had reason to risk-rate this road construction project as low risk for MCC supervision. However, MCC remains responsible for the work of its' contractor and at the very least, should have ensured that the approved road survey and design was being followed. I find it questionable that MCC would pay a consultant to do a road survey and design, submit it for approval, pay the contractor for constructing the road and not determine if the results of the construction met the design. 11. Initially, there was some doubt about the cooperativeness of MCC in dealing with this investigation. Based on the seasonal climatic conditions at the time and the evidence provided to me, I have concluded that MCC reported the slide occurrence in a timely manner in accordance with Section 45(4) of the Act. In addition, an MCC representative initially led the Forest Officer to believe that the road layout and design had been followed and that the required culverts had been removed during the operations that occurred immediately following the slide. Following questioning in the field by the Forest Officer, this was later corrected by MCC at a point before the investigation proceeded too far. In view of the fact that the investigation was not impeded or influenced by MCC's initial position, I have concluded that Section 154 of the Act was not contravened."