Audit of Forest Planning and Practices: Klatassine Resources Ltd. – NRFL A81390
As part of the Forest Practices Board’s 2010 compliance audit program, the Board randomly selected the Chilcotin Forest District as the location for a full-scope compliance audit. Within the district, the Board selected non-renewable forest licence (NRFL) A81390, held by Klatassine Resources Ltd., for audit. All harvesting, roads, silviculture, protection activities and associated planning, carried out between September 1, 2008, and September 21, 2010, were assessed for compliance with FRPA, the Wildfire Act and related regulations
The primary operating area for NRFL A81390 is in the Palmer Lake area, which is about 30 kilometres north of Alexis Creek, within the Williams Lake Timber Supply Area, in the Tl’etinqox-t’in’s traditional territory.
Audit of Recreation Management and Enforcement in the Central Cariboo Forest District
As part of the Forest Practices Board’s 2008 compliance audit program, the Board randomly selected the Central Cariboo Forest District and decided to audit forest recreation management and enforcement.
This is the Board’s first audit focused exclusively on forest recreation management and enforcement. The audit encompassed the following aspects:
- recreation resource management;
- recreation use management, including sites and trails; and
- recreation enforcement.
Audit of Recreation Management and Enforcement in the Central Cariboo Forest District
Pine Beetle Salvage Logging and Water Flows near Williams Lake, BC
In December 2008, the Forest Practices Board received a complaint from a rancher about proposed salvage harvesting of mountain pine beetle killed trees in the Big Creek area southwest of Williams Lake. The complainant was concerned that harvesting by Tolko Industries Ltd. (the licensee) would exacerbate the already altered hydrology of the area.
Pine Beetle Salvage Logging and Water Flows near Williams Lake, BC
Range Planning under the Forest and Range Practices Act
Range Planning under the Forest and Range Practices Act
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.
Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement
Fire Hazard Assessment and Abatement
In this special investigation, the Board examined 111 cutblocks to determine, in part, whether or not licensees assessed and abated fire hazard as required by the Wildfire Act. The Act requires that both the fuel hazard and the risk of a fire starting or spreading on a site be assessed. Fuel hazard was assessed on 41 percent of the cutblocks, but the risk of a fire starting or spreading on a site was not assessed on any cutblock sampled. The result is that none of the licensees complied with the fire hazard assessment requirements of the Act.
Despite complete non-compliance with assessment requirements, fire hazard was often abated satisfactorily through routine practices such as piling and burning roadside debris. However, in some cases, licensees did not recognize higher risk situations such as the fuel hazard created by processing trees at the stump.
