Presentation by the Private Managed Forest Land Council (PMFLC)—Stuart Macpherson (Executive Director) and Rod Davis (Chair)—to the Private Forest Landowners Association at their 18th annual conference in Nanaimo, BC on June 20th, 2013.
Unlocking the Future: Explore Web 3.0 Workshop to Start Earning Today!
Private Managed Forest Land Council Update — June 2013
1. 1
Program Update
Rod Davis, Chair
&
Stuart Macpherson, Executive Director
Presentation to the Private Forest Landowners Association
June 20, 2013
2. Council’s Mandate
2
Independent provincial agency established under the
Private Managed Forest Land Act
Protect key public environmental values on private
Managed Forest land in British Columbia
• soil conservation, drinking water quality, fish habitat,
and reforestation
• regulating forest practices
• conducting inspections, audits, investigations
• administrating penalties, remediation orders, stop
work orders
4. Regulations
4
Private Managed Forest Land Act is the Authority for
three regulations:
Private Managed Forest Land Council Regulation
(Council’s regulation)
Private Managed Forest Land Regulation (Gov’t
regulation)
Private Managed Forest Land Council Matter’s
Regulation (Gov’t regulation)
5. 2013 Fee Increases
5
Fees increased 33% from 2012 [increase of 4% from
2011]
In 2012 a one-time 18% rebate was provided as a result
surpluses accumulated over previous years
Council has increased expenditures 18% to address
communications priorities, legal counsel, and office
operations
The general administration fee was increased to $120
6. Effectiveness of Current Model
6
Results-based regulatory model
High rate of compliance (99.5% based on 15%
inspection rate)
Cost-effective - funded by land owners
Council cost is $0.85/ m3
Private managed forest land located province-
wide on both the coast and interior
7. Issues
7
Conversations with local governments
and public have highlighted some
common concerns:
Urban interface issues
Viewscapes, habitat
Watershed management and
domestic water quality
Species at risk
Noise
Governance
8. Program Overview
823,200 ha (259 MFs) in program
• 640,000 ha coast; 183,200 ha interior
• 179 MFs coast; 80 MFs interior
<1% decrease in area from 2012
6 new owners
2 MF withdrawals
8
9. 2012 Program Activity
Harvest volume - 3.94 million m3
Harvest area - 8570 ha
Road construction - 414 km
Restocked - 9980 ha
Regenerated - 8970 ha
9
10. Investigations
2012/13:
12 self-reported slides, 2 into fish
streams
Slides were not associated with
operations; some were associated
with old roads
2 underwent formal investigation
Overall stream and water quality
impacts were judged to be
temporary
Compliance continues to be high
10
11. Effectiveness Audit 2012
Objective: Determine whether the forest management objectives in the
Private Managed Forest Land Act are being achieved.
Soil conservation – protect soil productivity by minimizing the area occupied by roads,
landings & trails
Water quality – protect human drinking water
Fish habitat – retain sufficient streamside trees & understory vegetation to protect habitat
conditions
Critical wildlife habitat – to facilitate the long-term protection of that habitat
Reforestation – regenerate areas with healthy & commercially valuable stand of trees
11
12. Effectiveness Audit 2012 (con’t)
Purpose to verify whether the regulatory regime
achieves the desired environmental outcomes
Sampled 14 MFs reporting operations, ie harvesting,
reforestation etc in 2006/2008
Mix of MFs both < & > 1000 hectares
Field work completed last fall; report is pending
12
13. Effectiveness Audit Results
On balance a positive outcome
Forest stewardship practices align with industry standards
Owners self – motivated to manage
However some room for improvements in practices noted
Soil conservation
Site loss from roads etc < 7%
Low ground disturbance from harvesting
13
14. Effectiveness Audit Results
Water Quality
Minor siltation issues - low harm to fish
habitat
Good awareness & communication with
LWI holders
Regs don’t include protection of Water
Licence intakes issued for domestic water
consumption
An MF may be only part of LWI catchment
Unable to provide assurance that water
quality objective for human drinking water
can be achieved
14
LWI dam & intake
15. Effectiveness Audit Results
Fish Habitat
Well constructed stream crossings and
maintenance of ditches – few siltation
problems
Older roads main source of siltation
Riparian management requirement
mostly being exceeded but windthrow is
an issue, particularly Class C streams
Windthrow means that objective for LWD
and bank stability riparian may not be
achieved
15
68% blowdown adjacent
to Class C Stream
16. Effectiveness Audit Results
Critical Wildlife Habitat
No areas designated - not auditable
However evidence of voluntary measures - locally important
habitat recognized and reserved
Reforestation
Performance is outstanding
Reforestation within 2 years
Stocking levels greatly exceed requirements
Successful regeneration on track
Some local issues with brush competition and ungulate
browsing, root disease
Self - interested in maintaining forest productivity
16
17. Inspection Program
Objective: Inspect all MFs at least once every 5
years, new MFs within 3 years
2012 Program:
27 MFs inspected: 21 on Coast; 6 in Interior
Assessed performance re MCs & legislation
Good performance overall; operations with “soft
footprint”
Areas for Improvement
Update MCs & maps
Monitor plantations / regen up to SR
Opportunity to discuss management practices with a
professional as well
2013 Program:
Targeting 32 MFs (25/7) includes 10 new MFs
17
18. Contacts:
Stuart Macpherson, Executive Director
Tel: (250) 386-5737
Email: execdirec@pmflc.ca
Rod Davis, Chair
Tel: (250) 882-0072
Email: roddavis@shaw.ca
Website: http://www.pmflc.ca/
18
Editor's Notes
Applies to land classified as Managed Forest under the Assessment Act Owners must file a Management Commitment with Council Participation in the program is voluntary (must meet forest management and property size requirements) May voluntarily exit the program (exit fee may apply) Operations fully funded by an annual levy paid by Managed Forest landowners
Private Managed Forest Land Council is a unique independent public agency responsible to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2 members appointed by the Minister 2 members elected by Owners 5 th member appointed as Chair by the other four council members Small staff compliment to carry out program delivery (~ 2 FTEs + contract auditors, field specialists, and legal advisors)
Applies to land classified as Managed Forest under the Assessment Act Owners must file a Management Commitment with Council Participation in the program is voluntary (must meet forest management and property size requirements) May voluntarily exit the program (exit fee may apply) Operations fully funded by an annual levy paid by Managed Forest landowners
Inspections: Inspect all MFs at least once every 5 years, performance relative to management commitments & regulatory requirements is assessed On average we conduct 35 inspections per year (14% of MF) Investigations: Follow-up compliance issues resulting from inspections, audits, 3rd party complaints, or self-reported by owner On average we have 12 compliance investigations per year (5% of MF) Compliance Determinations: Where contraventions are alleged, formal determination hearings are convened, owners have right for an opportunity to be heard, and affected 3 rd parties may be granted status < 1 noncompliance so we have > 99.5% compliance rate Determinations are published on the Council ’s website Conclusion: MF is well regulated, and performance is quite outstanding
visual impacts of clear cuts lack of mechanisms for the community and local governments to influence forest operations (Section 21 of the PMFL Act) program is voluntary, and doesn ’ t apply more broadly to forest operations on private land that ’ s not part of the MF program direct and cumulative impacts on drinking water; harvesting in community watersheds concerns about landslides impacting private property and watercourses perception that we are an “ old boys ’ club ” in the “ back pocket of landowners ” the issue of cumulative impacts of forestry in drinking water supply area is something that Council want to take a look at, perhaps through some kind of special study what are current practices, results on the ground, watershed assessments, forest certification, etc. what defines owners ’ due diligence in meeting Council ’ s regulatory requirements are Council ’ s regulations measuring up to the drinking water protection objective in the Act