This investigation identifies fire preparedness issues facing those subject to the Wildfire Act; determines if there are differences in fire preparedness between various groups (e.g., small versus large forest licensees, certified versus non-certified); and highlights fire preparedness practices in the interest of contributing to fire prevention.
In September 2009, the Board received a complaint about large pieces of wood (i.e., logs) being left on a cutblock at the head of the Bigmouth Creek watershed, in the interior cedar hemlock (ICH) biogeoclimatic zone north of Revelstoke. While working in the area, the complainant observed large amounts of sound wood, including cedar, hemlock and spruce, in waste piles in cutblock A60881. He also saw that at least one large spruce taken was from outside the block boundary. The complainant was concerned that merchantable timber was being left, rather than being removed to a mill. The complainant was also concerned about the impact that the harvesting in an old cedar ecosystem would have on threatened species, such as wolverine and caribou.
The Forest Practices Board has audited the appropriateness of government’s enforcement of the provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act, in the Columbia Forest District in southeastern British Columbia.
The Board commends the Ministry of Forests and Range staff in the district for their good compliance and enforcement (C&E) practices during the audit period. They completed a large number of inspections, demonstrating that they were out on the ground, extensively monitoring forest activities. They also conducted numerous investigations and took appropriate enforcement actions when problems were identified. When interviewed, licensees in the district reported that compliance monitoring and enforcement practices were conducted fairly during the two-year audit period. Overall, the investigation found no C&E weaknesses of concern in the district.
A group of residents of Slocan Park submitted a complaint about a British Columbia Timber Sales (BCTS) timber licence regarding harvest and harvest plans for four cutblocks in Slocan Park. The complainants were concerned that BCTS had not consulted with them effectively and that BCTS would not monitor road building and harvesting. As well, among their many other concerns, the complainants were worried that harvest would impact water supply, terrain stability, visual quality and fire risk.
The Board investigation considered the following:
In British Columbia, use of Crown range is regulated by the Range Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA). The Range Act provides the authority to grant range agreements, including permits and licences. These agreements include things like the tenure area and the amount of forage that can be consumed by livestock on Crown land. Similar to the former Forest Practices Code, FRPA provides the necessary authority for government to manage the Crown land resource. This includes authority to require the agreement holder to prepare a range plan and follow practice requirements.
The investigation found that the current framework for range planning under FRPA is not working well for agreement holders, MFR range staff or for management of the range resource. First, there is widespread uncertainty about what the objectives for range mean and what is required to achieve them. Second, agreement holders are expected to write measurable and enforceable plans, yet may not have the necessary qualifications and experience to do so. Finally, the preparation and approval of RUPs is a time consuming and challenging task for agreement holders and the MFR, and it is not clear if range planning is achieving any measurable benefit in managing the range resource.
This investigation is about cattle grazing on the Overton-Moody Range Unit near Grand Forks. The complainant asserts that the range licensee did not move its cattle according to its range use plan (RUP); that there was over-grazing, over-browsing and streamside damage; that a salt block was misplaced; that some fences were not maintained; and that government management was insufficient.
The Board found that the licensee moved its cattle on time, but because of inadequate fencing and public tampering, about 20 head of cattle periodically returned to one pasture for weeks after their scheduled removal date.
