Victoria - The forestry operations of the Mid Coast district's small business forest enterprise program generally complied with Forest Practices Code requirements, says a report released today by the Forest Practices Board. The only significant non-compliance involved harvesting along the marine foreshore and road construction next to a fish-bearing stream.

The report concludes the board's audit of the government-run program under which the Ministry of Forests awards timber sale licences to small business licensees.

The audit identified significant non-compliance in two cutblocks logged using an A-frame, a method of harvesting that uses a yarder on a barge to haul logs from the shore into the ocean. Along 200 metres of the shore, large concentrations of wood debris, deposited along inter-tidal and sub-tidal zones, smothered highly productive marine ecosystems.

The audit also identified significant non-compliance involving construction of a road next to a fish-bearing stream. Problems included altering stream banks, piling timber on a stream, impeding fish passage, and causing sedimentation of the stream. The problems occurred because the stream was incorrectly classified on the road plan.

However, the board is pleased with the district's pro-active response to the audit findings. The district has advised the board that it has changed its A-frame logging practices to include follow-up assessments to determine if sensitive marine habitats have been affected. The district also plans to increase enforcement to ensure logging debris is kept above the high-water mark, and address the non-compliance in the two A-frame cutblocks examined in the audit. According to the report, the district has removed logs and debris from the stream that were deposited during harvesting; implemented a new, more comprehensive procedure to examine road layout and design; and developed a plan to repair damage to the stream caused by road construction.

The board recommends that the Mid Coast forest district carry out its plan to conduct post-harvest underwater assessments and determine if problems found in the audit relating to A-frame logging occur throughout the district. The board also recommends that the district continue to perform post-harvest underwater assessments to monitor A-frame logging practices.

Road construction recommendations include that the district proceed with its plan to rehabilitate the damaged stream, ensure that road plans include correct stream classifications, adequately monitor contractor operations, and follow up on non-compliant activities.

The Mid Coast small business program was selected for audit randomly, not on the basis of location or level of performance. The district includes Bella Coola and Bella Bella and has operations along the central mainland coast from Cape Caution in the south to Sheep Passage in the north.

The audit examined planning and field activities related to timber harvesting as well as construction, maintenance and deactivation of roads carried out between Aug. 9, 1998, and Aug. 31, 1999. Activities included harvesting of two cutblocks using grapple yarding and 46 cutblocks using water-based harvesting methods; 24 operational plans; construction of 4.8 kilometres of road; layout and design for 0.6 kilometres of road; maintenance and deactivation of 65 kilometres of road; and construction and maintenance of nine bridges.

The audit of the Mid Coast small business forest enterprise program is the 31st compliance audit completed by the board. Eleven were clean audits, meaning the forest planning and practices met code requirements in all significant respects. Twenty were qualified audits, meaning that there was some significant non-compliance with the code. Most non-compliance was related to logging practices near streams and the construction, maintenance and deactivation of logging roads.

The Forest Practices Board is an independent public watchdog, established in 1995, that publishes reports about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.The board's main roles under the Forest Practices Code are:

• Investigating public complaints.
• Auditing government enforcement of the code.
• Auditing forest practices of government and licence holders on public lands.
• Undertaking special investigations of code-related forestry issues.
• Participating in administrative reviews and appeals.
• Providing reports on board activities, findings and recommendations.

Victoria - Two licensees' forest development plans for logging north of Smithers were incomplete, the public review process was flawed, and government administration and approval of the plans was inadequate, the Forest Practices Board said in a report released today.

The report concludes the investigation of a series of complaints from the An Dsap Wilp Society, a group of first Nations people who hunt, fish and trap on forest land in the Sustut and Bear Lake areas in north-central B.C. Society members believed their interests were harmed by the forest practices of Takla Track and Timber Ltd. and Rustad Bros. Co. Ltd., who have logging operations 200 kilometres north of Smithers.

According to the report, the board found three out of seven issues raised by the society to be unsubstantiated. These included assertions that Takla caused damage to streamside habitat and contravened a stopwork order, and that ministry staff failed to adequately inspect Takla's operations and to enforce a remediation order. The remaining concerns were valid.

The board found deficiencies in the forest development plans that both licensees put out for public review. According to the report, the plans lacked adequate information about stream and wetland classification and about mountain pine beetle management, a serious forest health concern in the area. Information was also missing on forest cover, topography, water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity; and there was insufficient justification for cutblocks as large as 555 hectares where the code prescribes a standard maximum of 60 hectares.

Although the board recognized that the licensees consulted individually with 11 local forest users, the report notes this one-on-one process missed the larger public. About 70,000 people live in nearby communities.

The board concluded that both licensees failed to comply with code requirements for public review and comment. "The public's right to review and comment on forest development plans is an important provision of the code," said board vice-chair John Cuthbert. "In order to comment effectively, the public needs enough information to understand what is being proposed and how forest resources will be affected. Takla's and Rustad's plans were missing crucial information."

The board found that the Ministry of Forests district manager also failed to comply with the code when he approved Takla's 1996 forest development plan. Takla's plan did not describe current beetle infestation levels, assess potential risks or propose a beetle management strategy, even though the ministry had advised the company to do so. Under the code, the district manager can only approve a plan if he is satisfied that the plan will adequately manage and conserve forest resources.

The report cites Takla for failing to comply with the Forest Road Regulation. The company's road construction and maintenance practices were inadequate to deal with the area's unusually fine-textured soils and resulted in erosion and sediment transport into the Sustut, a highly productive salmon river. Only after the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Forests issued several orders did Takla repair the problems. The board recognized that Takla put a major effort into correcting the problems and did more work than the government orders required.

The report also identifies a deficiency in the Forest Practices Code. The board concludes that the code does not deal effectively with environmental risks of damage from forest practices on very fine soils that occur on gentle slopes. Surface erosion assessments, which would have identified the erosion hazard and reduced the sedimentation problems in Takla's operations, are only required in community watersheds.

The board recommends that Takla and Rustad produce well-organized forest development plans that meet the full content requirements of the code; and develop proactive and efficient strategies for managing beetles and dealing with extraordinary soil conditions, before developing new areas for logging.

The board also recommends that the district manager make sure forest development plans meet code content requirements before they are approved. Finally, the board recommends that the Ministry of Forests implement measures to deal with a wider range of soil conditions outside of community watersheds.

The board's main roles under the Forest Practices Code are:

Investigating public complaints.
Auditing government enforcement of the code.
Auditing forest practices of government and licence holders on public lands.
Undertaking special investigations of code-related forestry issues.
Participating in administrative reviews and appeals.
Providing reports on board activities, findings and recommendations.

VICTORIA-The forestry operations of Tanizul Timber Ltd. near Stuart Lake complied with the Forest Practices Code in all significant respects, according to a Forest Practices Board audit released today.

The report concludes the board's audit of Tree Farm Licence 42 held by Tanizul in the Fort St. James forest district. Tanizul is owned and controlled by the Tl'azt'en Nation. Tree Farm Licence 42 is managed by Tanizul employees based in Tachie, with operational planning help from Canadian Forest Products Ltd. in Fort St. James.

The audit examined Tanizul's planning and field activities related to timber harvesting, as well as construction, maintenance and deactivation of roads carried out between June 1, 1999, and June 18, 2000.

The licence covers an area of 49,394 hectares, about 56 kilometres northwest of Fort St. James, and is bordered by Trembleur Lake on the north, the Tachie River on the east, and Stuart Lake on the south and west.

Activities included in the audit were: harvesting of six cutblocks, planning and approval for 10 cutblocks, construction of 13.5 kilometres of road, planning and layout for 4.5 kilometres of road, maintenance of 164 kilometres of road, maintenance of 10 bridges and deactivation of 27.5 kilometres of road.

Tanizul's licence was selected randomly for audit, not on the basis of location or level of performance.

The Tanizul audit is the 30th compliance audit completed by the board. Eleven were clean audits, meaning the forest planning and practices met code requirements in all significant respects. Nineteen were qualified audits, meaning that there was some significant non-compliance with the code. Most non-compliance was related to logging practices near streams and the construction, maintenance and deactivation of logging roads.

The Forest Practices Board is an independent public watchdog, established in 1995, that publishes reports about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.The board's main roles under the Forest Practices Code are:

• Investigating public complaints.
• Auditing government enforcement of the code.
• Auditing forest practices of government and licence holders on public lands.
• Undertaking special investigations of code-related forestry issues.
• Participating in administrative reviews and appeals.
• Providing reports on board activities, findings and recommendations.

VICTORIA-Except for bridge inspection and maintenance practices, Canfor achieved a high level of compliance with the Forest Practices Code while operating in very mountainous terrain with varied soil types and high rainfall, says a report released today by the Forest Practices Board.

The report concludes the board's audit of Tree Farm Licence 48 held by Canadian Forest Products Ltd. Chetwynd Division in the Prince George forest region.

Canfor's timber harvesting and road construction, maintenance and deactivation practices generally complied with code requirements, the report said. However, significant non-compliance in the company's bridge inspection system posed a potential safety risk for industrial and recreational drivers.

The audit examined 14 bridges for which Canfor is required to carry out inspections. Under the code, inspection reports must contain specific information, including a schedule for any required repairs, the date of the next scheduled inspection, and the length of time the bridge has occupied its current site.

None of Canfor's 1999 inspection reports contained all of the required information.

Of the 14 bridges examined in the audit, six were not inspected at the required frequency. When Canfor did inspect those bridges in 1999, three were found to be unsafe and two of these were immediately condemned, but public access was not prevented.

In reaching its conclusion of significant non-compliance, the board notes its concern that deficiencies in Canfor's bridge inspection and maintenance procedures resulted in a potential safety problem for road users.

The report also notes that, since the audit, Canfor has dealt with the two condemned bridges by removing one and replacing the other. Canfor has also taken significant steps to improve its bridge inspection process. The company has completed an overhaul of its bridge inspection system and is now able to generate an inspection and maintenance repair plan and track the implementation of the plan.

The report includes the board's recommendation that Canfor ensure that all future bridge inspections comply with the code's Forest Road Regulation.

Canfor's licence was selected randomly for audit, not on the basis of location or level of performance. The audit examined Canfor's planning and field activities related to timber harvesting and road construction, maintenance and deactivation carried out between Sept. 1, 1998, and Sept. 22, 1999.

The licence's operating areas surround the community of Chetwynd, approximately 100 kilometres west of Dawson Creek. Activities included in the audit were: harvesting of 72 cutblocks and 27 small-scale salvage areas, planning for 92 approved silviculture prescriptions, construction of 75.9 kilometres of road, planning for 52.3 kilometres of road, maintenance and deactivation of 1,111 kilometres of road, construction of three bridges, and maintenance of 44 bridges.

The Canfor audit is the 29th compliance audit completed by the board. Ten were clean audits, meaning the forest planning and practices met code requirements in all significant respects. Nineteen were qualified audits, meaning that there was some significant non-compliance with the code. Most non-compliance was related to logging practices near streams and the construction, maintenance and deactivation of logging roads.

The Forest Practices Board is an independent public watchdog, established in 1995, that publishes reports about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.The board's main roles under the Forest Practices Code are:

• Investigating public complaints.
• Auditing government enforcement of the code.
• Auditing forest practices of government and licence holders on public lands.
• Undertaking special investigations of code-related forestry issues.
• Participating in administrative reviews and appeals.
• Providing reports on board activities, findings and recommendations.

Victoria -The Sunshine Coast forest district's small business forest enterprise program generally complied with Forest Practices Code requirements, with the exception of fire-protection planning and preparedness, says a report released today by the Forest Practices Board.

The report concludes the board's audit of the government-run program under which the Ministry of Forests awards timber sale licences to small business licensees.

The only significant non-compliance identified in the audit involved deficiencies in fire-preparedness plans and on-site availability of fire tools.

The report notes that, at two of three industrial sites inspected, firefighting tools and equipment did not meet code requirements. The deficiencies included a shortage of water, hand pumps, shovels and fire extinguishers.

The report also states that seven fire-preparedness plans did not comply with code requirements for identification of people with training qualifications, availability of tools in central caches, location of weather stations, timing of industrial activities, and planning for fire-detection and suppression actions.

In its examination of fire-preparedness planning, the audit identified a need to review current legislation. The intent of code requirements for licensees to submit fire-preparedness plans is to help ensure that they are prepared to fight fires that may result from their forest activities. Yet provincial fire protection is now centralized through Ministry of Forests regional bases, and licensees' fire-preparedness plans are generally not used. Consequently, the code requirement for timber sale licences does not match the intent for having these plans.

The board suggests government re-examine the requirements for licensee fire-preparedness plans and assess whether current legislation is relevant in the context of a centralized fire-protection program. The board recommends that the Sunshine Coast forest district review its procedures for fire-tool inspections, and that the Ministry of Forests review the fire-preparedness planning process and content within the small business program, and amend legislation if necessary.

The audit also identified two notable practices. Bridge construction on main access roads and over fish-bearing streams was high quality, which minimizes environmental risk, increases safety in areas of high public use and reduces long-term maintenance costs. Road rehabilitation practices, including full re-contouring and planting, exceeded the minimum requirements of the code.

The board also commends the Sunshine Coast forest district for its approach to managing non-timber resources through measures to protect marbled murrelet nesting habitat and implementation of an integrated watershed management plan.

The Sunshine Coast small business program was selected for audit randomly, not on the basis of location or level of performance. The program has operations throughout the Sunshine Coast, from Sechelt in the south to Desolation Sound in the north.

The audit examined planning and field activities related to timber harvesting; road construction, maintenance and deactivation; silviculture; and fire protection carried out between Sept. 15, 1998, and Sept. 22, 1999. Activities included harvesting on 45 cutblocks; 36 operational plans; construction of 43.7 kilometres of road; 179 kilometres of road maintenance and deactivation; construction and maintenance of 73 bridges; planting of 15 cutblocks; and fire-preparedness planning, fuel management and hazard abatement.

The audit of the Sunshine Coast small business forest enterprise program is the 28th compliance audit completed by the board. Ten were clean audits, meaning the forest planning and practices met code requirements in all significant respects. Eighteen were qualified audits, meaning that there was some significant non-compliance with the code. Most non-compliance was related to logging practices near streams and the construction, maintenance and deactivation of logging roads.

The Forest Practices Board is an independent public watchdog, established in 1995, that publishes reports about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.The board's main roles under the Forest Practices Code are:

• Investigating public complaints.
• Auditing government enforcement of the code.
• Auditing forest practices of government and licence holders on public lands.
• Undertaking special investigations of code-related forestry issues.
• Participating in administrative reviews and appeals.
• Providing reports on board activities, findings and recommendations.

VICTORIA - Western Forest Products' timber harvesting, road maintenance and road deactivation practices generally complied with Forest Practices Code requirements, says a report released today by the Forest Practices Board.

The report concludes the board's audit of Tree Farm Licence 25 held by Western Forest Products in the Vancouver forest region.

The only significant non-compliance identified in the audit involved road construction practices around streams along a total of one kilometre of road. These included diverting a stream, building stream crossings outside of timing windows and placing blasted rock in the bed of a known fish stream.

The report adds that, on several cutblocks, assessments of streams had not been adequately conducted before roads were built, as required by the Forest Road Regulation. Under the code, road construction must either be stopped when unclassified streams are encountered or be modified so the construction does not damage the streams.

In response to initial audit findings, Western Forest Products commissioned additional fish inventories of streams affected by road construction and has removed the excessive rock from the stream. Western has also put measures in place to make sure all streams are correctly identified, classified and mapped, and the company has improved road construction supervision.

Western's licence was selected for audit randomly, not on the basis of location or level of performance. The audit examined Western's planning and field activities related to timber harvesting and road construction, maintenance and deactivation carried out between June 15, 1998, and June 30, 1999.

The audit focused on the licence's northern areas of operation in the Sewell Inlet area of South Moresby Island in the Queen Charlotte forest district; on Yeo, Roderick and Pooley islands in the Mid-Coast forest district; and near Collins Bay in the North Coast forest district. Activities included harvesting on 17 cutblocks, plans for 13 cutblocks, construction of 14.3 kilometres of road, layout and design for 30 kilometres of road, 306 kilometres of road maintenance and deactivation, and construction and maintenance of 80 bridges.

In its report, the board recommends that Western Forest Products conduct a field performance review of its newly introduced stream assessment process and standard operating procedures to make sure that streams are appropriately protected.

The audit also noted concerns about quality control for assessments of streams and terrain stability, required under the code. Even though Western Forest Products relied on specialists for stream assessments and terrain stability assessments, it is the board's view that licensees are ultimately responsible for any assessments applied as a basis for operational plans.

In its report, the board recommends that Western Forest Products review its methodology for assessments prepared by specialists, and that it develop technical checklists for evaluating these assessments.

The Western audit is the 27th compliance audit completed by the board. Ten were clean audits, meaning the forest planning and practices met code requirements in all significant respects. Seventeen were qualified audits, meaning that there was some significant non-compliance with the code. Most non-compliance was related to logging practices near streams and the construction, maintenance and deactivation of logging roads.

The Forest Practices Board is an independent public watchdog, established in 1995, that publishes reports about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.The board's main roles under the Forest Practices Code are:

• Investigating public complaints.
• Auditing government enforcement of the code.
• Auditing forest practices of government and licence holders on public lands.
• Undertaking special investigations of code-related forestry issues.
• Participating in administrative reviews and appeals.
• Providing reports on board activities, findings and recommendations.

Victoria -Fundamental changes to the way forest development is planned in B.C. are recommended in a report released today by the Forest Practices Board. The report concludes the board's provincewide review of the forest development planning process. Forest development plans are prepared by individual forest companies and the Ministry of Forests' Small Business Forest Enterprise Program.

The board is recommending that government develop plans to manage a full range of forest resources at the "landscape" or "watershed" level, rather than at the cutblock level.

"These plans would provide strategies and measures for protecting all forest resources in the area of the plan," said board Chair Bill Cafferata. "The public would have to be consulted in development of the landscape unit plans, and would have the opportunity to comment on the objectives for the full range of forest resources including timber, water, fish, wildlife, and recreation."

"Once these landscape unit plans are in place, foresters will not have to 'reinvent the wheel' every time they prepare a forest development plan. They can focus on proposing roads and cutblocks that meet the strategies and measures already agreed to in the landscape unit plan," said Cafferata.

The board expects its recommended approach would save time and money in the forest development planning process, which consumes huge amounts of industry and government resources.

Forest development plans must be prepared and submitted for approval on an annual basis for all forest licences in the province. This amounts to hundreds of plans prepared every year. Landscape unit plans would incorporate a lot of the resource management information now found in forest development plans, but would only have to be revised every five years or so.

The report cites several other important findings:

• Where strategic land use plans exist, such as land and resource management plans (LRMPs), most forest companies incorporate those plans' resource management objectives in their forest development plans. They do this whether the objectives are higher level plans under the code, or not.
• Many people are concerned that current forest development plans do not adequately manage and conserve forest resources.
• Many people feel their comments on proposed forest plans are not taken seriously and that the Ministry of Forests and forest companies do not change their plans as a result of public comment.
• The single most important factor in making the process work is people. The commitment and attitude of the plan preparer, government agency staff and the local community have a direct effect on the level of satisfaction with the process.
• Despite the concerns raised in the report, the board also found areas where the development planning process works well and satisfaction with the process is high.

The main factors cited in these cases were positive and respectful relationships among government and industry staff and members of the public.

Accordingly, the board is recommending that government promote a working environment that encourages and recognizes the benefits of co-operation and respect among those involved in the forest development planning process.

The findings are based on a review of 18 forest development plans, randomly selected from across the province, and interviews with over 360 individuals involved in the process.

Government employees, industry employees, First Nations, environmental groups, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, trappers, tourist operators, ranchers and members of the general public were interviewed in all regions of the province.

The Forest Practices Board is an independent public watchdog, established in 1995, that publishes reports about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.

The board's main roles under the Forest Practices Code are:

• Investigating public complaints.
• Auditing government enforcement of the code.
• Auditing forest practices of government and licence holders on public lands.
• Undertaking special investigations of code-related forestry issues.
• Participating in administrative reviews and appeals.
• Providing reports on board activities, findings and recommendations.

Victoria -The Forest Practices Board began its first audit of the appropriateness of government enforcement of the Forest Practices Code today. The audit is examining enforcement activities within the Vernon Forest District.

Three government ministries are responsible for code enforcement-Forests; Environment, Lands and Parks; and Energy and Mines. The audit looks at the ministries' compliance and enforcement activities, along with associated management and planning provisions. These activities include risk assessments, inspection of forest operations, investigations of possible code contraventions, determinations (e.g., remediation orders, penalties, fines) and follow-up.

Under the code, the Forest Practices Board is required to carry out periodic independent audits to see if government is enforcing the code appropriately. The audit area was selected randomly, not on the basis of location or level of performance.

The ten-member audit team includes forestry, biology, engineering, range, enforcement management and audit professionals. The team began office work today and fieldwork will begin on Sept. 25.

Once the fieldwork is done, the audit team will report its findings to the members of the Forest Practices Board. Any party that may be adversely affected by the audit findings must be given a chance to respond before the board prepares its final report and recommendations for release to the public and the government.

The Forest Practices Board is B.C.'s independent watchdog for sound forest practices. The board reports to the public and to government about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.

Victoria - The Forest Practices Board will audit the forest planning and practices of the Ministry of Forests' small business forest enterprise program in the Kamloops Forest District. Operating areas for the program are spread throughout the district.

This is a limited-scope audit that will look at construction, maintenance and deactivation of roads; timber harvesting; and associated operational plans, to determine levels of compliance with the Forest Practices Code.

The Forest Practices Board is required to carry out periodic independent audits to see if government and forest companies are complying with the Forest Practices Code. The small business forest enterprise program in Kamloops was selected randomly from the 40 government-managed programs in the province, not on the basis of location or level of performance.

The six-member audit team of forestry, engineering, and audit professionals will be in the operating areas during the next two weeks to do office and field examinations of timber harvest areas and logging roads.

Once the field work is done, the audit team will report its findings to the members of the Forest Practices Board. Any party that may be adversely affected by the audit findings must be given a chance to respond before the board prepares its final report and recommendations for release to the public and the government.

The board is undertaking 10 compliance audits this year. To date, the board has completed audits of 26 forest companies and Ministry of Forests small business forest enterprise programs. Ten were clean audits, meaning the forest planning and practices met code requirements in all significant respects. Sixteen were qualified audits, meaning that there was some significant non-compliance with the code. Most non-compliance was related to logging practices near streams and construction, maintenance and deactivation of logging roads.

The Forest Practices Board is B.C.'s independent watchdog for sound forest practices. The board reports to the public and to government about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.

Victoria - Poor planning for mountain pine beetle was found in an audit of Canadian Forest Products Ltd.'s operational planning and forest practices near Takla Lake, says a report released today by the Forest Practices Board.

Canfor generally complied with the requirements of the Forest Practices Code, the report said. However, significant non-compliance in the company's management of mountain pine beetle poses a substantial risk to forest health.

The report concludes the board's audit of the Fort St. James division of Canfor's Forest Licence A40873.

Canfor's licence was selected for audit randomly, not on the basis of location or level of performance. The audit examined the activities of Canfor, carried out between September 1997 and October 1998, in road construction, maintenance and deactivation; timber harvesting; silviculture; fire protection and operational planning.

The licence's operating area contains large stands of mature lodgepole pine, which are highly susceptible to beetle infestations. "Canfor did not collect or evaluate sufficient information on mountain pine beetle infestations to be able to assess the risk to forest resources adequately," said board chair Bill Cafferata. "Canfor relied on outdated ground data and aerial photographs that do not detect recently infested trees."

In the audit report, the board recommends that Canfor collect adequate current information to evaluate pine beetle infestation trends accurately, clearly define the timing and placement of harvesting areas, and develop appropriate management strategies to reduce the risk to forest resources.

The audit also identified a concern about protection of non-timber forest resources in Canfor's operating area, such as lakes with scenic and recreation values, old growth Douglas fir stands and caribou habitat. Canfor's forest development plan did not specify ways to protect those resources from the effects of logging. However, this is not considered non-compliance with the code.

There is no higher level plan in the Fort St. James district, and the district manager has not identified any forest resources that must be protected. "The result is that the code does not require Canfor to specify measures to protect non-timber forest resources in its forest development plans," said Cafferata. "Despite the absence of formally designated higher level plans, the board recommends that Canfor implement measures for protecting non-timber forest resources and that government speed development of higher level plans in a way that helps Canfor protect those resources."

The Canfor audit is the 26th compliance audit completed by the board. Ten were clean audits, meaning the forest planning and practices met code requirements in all significant respects. Sixteen were qualified audits, meaning that there was some significant non-compliance with the code. Most non-compliance was related to logging practices near streams and the construction, maintenance and deactivation of logging roads.

The Forest Practices Board is B.C.'s independent watchdog for sound forest practices. The board reports to the public and to government about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.

The Forest Practices Board is an independent public watchdog, established in 1995, that publishes reports about compliance with the Forest Practices Code and the achievement of its intent.The board's main roles under the Forest Practices Code are:

• Investigating public complaints.
• Auditing government enforcement of the code.
• Auditing forest practices of government and licence holders on public lands.
• Undertaking special investigations of code-related forestry issues.
• Participating in administrative reviews and appeals.
• Providing reports on board activities, findings and recommendations.