The Forest Practices Board conducted a full scope compliance audit of NRFL A76553 held by Pacific Bioenergy Timber Corp. (PBE) and NRFL A76729 held by RPP Holdings Inc. in the Quesnel District. The audit included all harvesting, roads, silviculture and protection activities, and associated planning, carried out between June 1, 2013, and June 23, 2015.
PBE and RPP operations are located about 100 kilometres west of Quesnel near the village of Nazko. Both licensees target lodgepole pine stands that have been killed or damaged by mountain pine beetle. During the two-year audit period, PBE harvested approximately 94 479 cubic metres and RPP harvested approximately 540 828 cubic metres.
With the exception of one opportunity for improvement for PBE, the operational planning, timber harvesting, road construction, maintenance and deactivation and fire protection activities carried out by the licensees complied in all significant respects with the requirements of the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act.
When the Forest and Range Practices Act became law over a decade ago, forest stewardship plans (FSPs) replaced forest development plans as the key operational planning document. Government stated its expectations for FSPs, saying they would, among other things, contribute to innovation, effectiveness in compliance and enforcement actions, and effectiveness in public consultation. In 2006 the Board examined the content of initial FSPs and concluded that they were not well-suited for public review, content was sparse and enforceability of results and strategies was limited due to the way they were written.
In 2014 the Board decided to undertake another investigation of FSPs in BC to determine if they have improved since 2006. Specifically, the Board investigated these questions:
This report contains the results of that examination and makes several recommendations to address key findings.
Between February 26 and March 31, 2015 the Forest Practices Board conducted a benchmark survey. The objective of this survey was to improve the Board’s understanding of its perceived value and performance in pursuing its mission, and to establish baseline metrics to ensure verifiable, meaningful progress can be made. This in turn will better position the Board to evaluate and improve upon its watchdog function and focus its outreach and communication activities with key stakeholder groups.
A summary of findings of the 23 audits published in 2013 and 2014 that draws attention to the number of failures to follow Wildfire Act requirements. This trend is concerning to the Board, especially as we enter into a summer following historic low snow packs in many areas of the province, and are seeing an early start to the wildfire season.
Of the 23 audit reports, 11 had no concerns noted, and 12 had a total of 24 concerns reported. Of particular concern to the Board is that one third of the findings relate to the Wildfire Act. The Board encourages all licensees, big and small, to pay particular attention to fire protection activities this coming season.
Fire has been a natural part of many ecosystems in BC. Lightning-caused fires periodically reduced the build-up of forest fuels, replaced older stands of trees and created a patchwork of different ages and forest types across the landscape. First Nations also used fire to create wildlife habitat, improve the growth of plants, and to protect settlements. But for the past century, humans have done a good job of excluding fire from the landscape and hazardous forest fuels have built up.
The 2003 fire season, and the Okanagan Mountain Park fire in particular, spurred BC into action. Since 2004, the provincial government, in cooperation with local governments, the Union of BC Municipalities and the First Nations Emergency Services Society have worked together to manage hazardous forest fuels around communities. Forest fire-fighters are increasingly being used to treat hazardous areas to protect communities and harvesting by the forest industry and ecosystem restoration activities have also had beneficial fuel management effects.
This report provides several ideas to get the conversation started, but the Board expects consultation with practitioners, local governments, First Nations, the Union of BC Municipalities, First Nations Emergency Services Society and others will be necessary.
In 2005, the Board reported on the state of access management in BC. The Board identified issues that reduced government's ability to provide positive benefits and prevent negative effects of resource roads. While there has been some progress in the intervening decade, many of the issues remain.
This special report provides an update to the 2005 report. The Board undertook this report in the interests of advancing the state of access management in British Columbia. Given the continuing and emerging issues with resource roads, it is time to review what has happened in the intervening years since the Board's 2005 report was published and to summarize the current situation.
