The Forest Practices Board has announced a decision regarding a complaint filed with the Board by five organizations from the Cariboo region in December, 1995.

The complainants asserted that forest development plans for the Quesnel River watershed prepared by five licensees and the Ministry of Forests Small Business Forest Enterprise Program were not consistent with the Cariboo Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP) and, therefore, that the plans contravened the Forest Practices Code. They asserted that the approval of the plans by four Ministry of Forests district managers also contravened the Code.

The Board is of the opinion that it can best assist all the participants in the Cariboo, including the five complainants, to find a cooperative, constructive solution to the matters raised in the complaint by stopping the investigation and making recommendations. The Board has made seven recommendations-five of which refer to the 1996-2001 forest develop-ment plans currently in preparation.

In making the decision to stop the investigation and make recommendations, the Board has not reached any conclusions whether the complaint is substantiated or not. The Board decided that continuing the investigation would focus discussion on the forest development plans approved in 1995 at a time when attention needs to be focused on the speedy implemen-tation of the CCLUP and achievement of the timber and non-timber targets of the CCLUP in the 1996-2001 forest development plans. These plans are scheduled to be approved in December, 1996.

Three members of the Forest Practices Board were in Williams Lake on Friday, October 4. Board Chair Keith Moore and Board members Cathy Mumford and Jack Toovey provided a summary of the Board's deci-sion in a meeting with representatives of 18 different organizations involved in the complaint.

These included the five complainants, five licensees, and four district managers as well as representatives of the Cariboo Chilcotin Regional Resource Board (RRB), the Cariboo Mid-Coast Interagency Management Committee (IAMC), Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO) and the BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

The Board released two reports:

a draft report from the Board outlining the Board's decision to stop investigating the complaint and make seven recommendations; and
a final report from Dr. Bruce Fraser, a consultant commissioned by the Board during the complaint investigation.

The Board has invited comments on the content of its draft report and the nature of the recommendations by Tuesday, October 15 and will consider any comments received by that date before completing a final report. Copies of the Board's draft report and the Fraser report are available to the public from the Govern-ment Agent's office in Williams Lake or from the Board's office in Victoria.

The Forest Practices Board is an independent agency established in 1995. Investigation of complaints from the public about forest planning, forest practices or enforcement of the Forest Practices Code is one of its responsibilities. Other important roles include audits, special investigations, special reports and participation in reviews and appeals.

On September 11, 1996 the Forest Practices Board requested an administrative review of the forest development plan for the Brooks Bay development area of MacMillan Bloedel's Port McNeill Division on northwestern Vancouver Island. The development plan includes logging operations and associated roads in five cutblocks scheduled for 1996 and 1997. Three of the cutblocks are in the Klaskish River watershed. The plan was approved by the Ministry of Forests District Manager on May 31, 1996.

In requesting an administrative review of the approval of this plan, the Board is undertaking one of the roles established for the Board in the Forest Practices Code. The Board is the only organization with the authority, under the Code, to request reviews of decisions to approve forest development plans. This is the first such request made since the Code came into effect on June 15, 1995.

In making the decision to request a review of this plan, the Board is performing its role to act independently on behalf of the public in requesting reviews of government decisions under the Code. This request for review reflects the Board's interest in ensuring that forest development plans comply with the applicable requirements of the Code. In making the decision the Board considered whether a review would meet several criteria established by the Board. These include improving forest management, improving public confidence in the administation of the Code, and whether the review will provide clarification or interpretation of important sections of the Code.

The Board's decision is based on its own independent evaluation of the approved plan. In requesting the review, the Board is reflecting its own evaluation and criteria, and is representing what it considers to be the broad public interest in sound forest management decisions.

The reasons for the Board's request are provided in its letter of September 11, which is attached.

The request for review is addressed to the Regional Review Official in the Ministry of Forests Regional Office in Nanaimo. As provided by the Code, the official may set a date for the review hearing and name a Review Panel. The Code requires that requests for review must be decided within 60 days.

The Board will make no further public statements beyond the text of the request for review while the matter is before the Review Panel.

The Forest Practices Board has released a final report which concludes the investigation of a complaint filed with the Board in late 1995.

This is the first major investigation report completed by the Board since the Code came into effect on June 15, 1995.

The complaint was about the September 1995 approval of logging in three cutblocks in a timber sale on Mount Elphinstone in the Sunshine Coast Forest District of the Vancouver Forest Region. The complainant asserted that the logging was within an area where an extremely rare, probably endangered, species of Tricholoma mushroom had been found.

In investigating the complaint, the Forest Practices Board reviewed the preparation and approval of silviculture prescriptions which allowed the logging in the three cutblocks. The Board considered whether the actions of the District Manager, who was responsible for the prescriptions, met the requirements of the Forest Practices Code and whether the process of preparation and approval was fair and reasonable.

In the Final Report, the Board concludes that the District Manager met the requirements of the Code but the process of preparing and approving the silviculture prescriptions was flawed.

On July 2, 1996, the Board issued an Interim Report to clarify matters arising from this investigation which may have had a bearing on the decisions about whether logging could begin again. The Interim Report is Appendix 1 to the Final Report.

In its final report, the Board recommends:

1. extending the timber sale by the length of time that logging has been delayed;
2. ensuring adequate opportunities exist for consideration of substantial information about biological values that become available after normal public review and comment deadlines have passed;
3. amending Section 40 of the Forest Practices Code Act;
4. clarifying interpretation of the Biodiversity Guidebook;
5. keeping records of how substantial submissions provided before the final preparation of plans are considered; and
6. recording the reasons for decisions not to include actions to accommodate forest resources that have been identified in substantial submissions.

Investigation of complaints from the public is one of the Forest Practices Board's roles under the Forest Practices Code. Other important roles include audits, special investigations, special reports, and participation in reviews and appeals of Code decisions.

The Forest Practices Board has filed an appeal of MacMillan Bloedel's forest development plan for the Brooks Bay area of northwestern Vancouver Island.

The Board is asking the Forest Appeals Commission to decide if the plan meets the requirements of the Forest Practices Code.

A review panel decided in November that the Brooks Bay plan met Code requirements in all but one respect - it had not been signed and sealed by a professional forester.

The Board is appealing because it believes the Forest Practices Code requires a higher standard for forest de-velopment plans than the standard determined by the review panel. The Board also believes that clarifica-tion of Code requirements on significant matters like forest development planning should come from the For-est Appeals Commission, rather than a review panel.

The Board's Notice of Appeal, filed with the Commis-sion on December 3, raises other issues of compliance with the Code, including stream classification, the number of years covered by the plan, the location of operable forest and whether public review and comment requirements were followed.

The date of the appeal will be scheduled by the Forest Appeals Commission.

The Board is the only organization with the authority, under the Code, to ask for reviews of approvals of forest development plans and to appeal to the Forest Appeals Commission. This is the first such request made since the Code came into effect on June 15, 1995.

The Board represents what it considers to be the broad public interest in sound forest management decisions and the need to sustain public confidence in forest management.

The Brooks Bay development plan includes logging operations and associated roads in five cutblocks scheduled for 1996 and 1997. Three of the cutblocks are in the Klaskish River watershed. The plan was approved by the Ministry of Forests District Manager on May 31, 1996.

The Board will make no further public statements while the matter is before the Forest Appeals Commission.