Forestsfor Tomorrow
In-stream Performanceand Completion Audits
ABC Forestry Consulting
Anywhere, BC
September 21 & 22, 2009
/ Silent RunningThe Administrator – Forests for Tomorrow
Re: ABC Forestry Consultants. –Anywhere
September 21 & 22, 2009
September 24, 2009
Private and Confidential
The Administrator – Forests for Tomorrow
C/o John McClarnon, RPFTo be addressed to John. The Audit Report is for the MoFR, the RAH
PO Box 9513 Stn. Prov. Govt. receives a copy.
Victoria, BC, V8W9C2
Dear John:
Re:FFT PerformanceAudit:
Investment Schedule: SOTSA011111 Project(s): 1111001
Investment Schedule: SOTSA022222 Project(s): 2222001
The Audit Report can be for multiple Investment Schedules and Projects at the same time.
This report has been prepared in accordance with the Recipient Agreement between the Ministry of Forests(MFR) and ABC Forestry Consulting(“ABC” or the Recipient). The report summarizes the results of a Forestsfor Tomorrow (“FFT) In-stream Performanceand Completion Audit of ABC Forestry Consulting, of Anywhere, BC.
The In-stream Audit was completed on September21st, 2009 with the assistance of Another Forester, RPF of Audit Consulting Ltd. Include the name, Company and designation of all assisting Auditors. The in-stream audit concluded with a closing meeting held on September 21stin the Anywhereoffice of ABC.
The CompletionAudit was performed on September 22nd, 2009 with the assistance of Another Forester, RPF of Audit Consulting Ltd. The completionaudit concluded with a closing meeting held on September 22ndin the Anywhere office of ABC.
Audit objective
Within the limitations outlined under the Audit Scope, Approach and Sampling section below, the primary objective of the audit was to assess the adherence of the Recipient’s practices to the FFT standards or other agreed upon standards governing the projects selected for audit. To achieve this objective, detailed protocols were developed by Ministry of Forests, Harvesting and Silvicultural Practices Sectionand used to facilitate the collection of sufficient appropriate audit evidence.
Audit Scope and Approach
FFT project-based activities, and associated program administration, were subject to audit. One of the primary purposes of the audit was to discover omissions, deficiencies, and other aspects of FFT project-based activities to determine the extent to which the Recipientwas in conformance with FFT work standards and the terms and conditions of the Recipient Agreement. The audit sample was selected from a listing of all approved projects during the fiscal year 2009/10. Also included in the audit sample were projects that exhibited an above average risk profile, as determined by the Investment Managers.
During the audit, the Auditor/s interviewed key project management staff and reviewed project documentation/products. Where necessary, correspondence and discussion with other project staff and government officials was performed. Project documents, field works, and outcomes were compared for adherence to standards.
The following is a description of the projects selected and a summary of the work completed for this audit:
Project 1111001: Mountain Pine Beetle(MPB) Spring Planting – The Recipient proposed to conduct spring planting of MPB impacted stands in the Anywhere TSA,works included:danger tree assessment, danger tree falling, tree planting, and inspection. The In-stream Audit was a one hundred percent inspection of seven units. The inspection included installation of plots (at 1plot/ha.) and planting quality assessments of all trees. ABC Staff were in attendance for the in-stream inspection. All units were within the ten percent planting quality calculation tolerance between the results of ABC and the Auditors. The Completion Audit was a review of the treatment plans, project files, and planting unit reports.Include a general description of the project and of the audit process.
Project 2222001: Wildfire Spring Planting – The Recipient proposed to conduct spring planting of Wildfire areas in the Next to Anywhere TSA, works included: danger tree assessment, danger tree falling, tree planting, and inspection. The in-stream audit was a one hundred percent inspection of one unit. The inspection included installation of plots (at 1plot/ha.) and planting quality assessments of all trees. ABC Staff were in attendance for the in-stream inspection.The unit was within the ten percent planting quality calculation tolerance between the results of Forsite and the Auditors. The Completion Audit was a review of the treatment plans, project files, and planting unit reports.
Audit Conclusion
Definitions of audit findings are presented in Appendix A. As indicated in the attached appendices, the following issues were identified:Summary of audit findings.
- One issue of project performance which met the definition ofa major non-conformance (Appendix B).
- One issue of project performance which met the definition of a minor non-conformance (Appendix B).
- One opportunity for improvement (Appendix C).
Limitation
This report provides a summary of results from the Audit. This report is intended for the use of the Ministry of Forests and Range (“MFR”) and the Recipient, and is not to be referred to or distributed to any person who is not a member of management, the MFRor the Recipient without our express written consent, in advance. We expressly disclaim any responsibility or accountability to any third parties who may gain access to this report, in whole or in part.
Freedom of Information
This document contains confidential information of the MFR and the Recipient or third parties which is commercially sensitive and the disclosure of which may be harmful to the business interests of the MFR, the Recipient or the respective third parties. Accordingly, pursuant to section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.B.C. 1992, c.61 (“FOI Act”) this document should not be disclosed to applicants under the FOI Act.
* * * *
I thank Jaclyn Pine, RPFfor their cooperation and assistance during the audit. I would be pleased to discuss any questions or comments, at your convenience.Include the names of RAH Staff involved in the audit.
Sincerely,
Dennis Sabourin
- Jaclyn Pine, ABC Forestry ConsultingSend to the RAH Representative for the FFT Program
Shane Berg, Ministry of Forests & RangeApplicable DM’s are cc’d
Mike Madill, Ministry of Forests and Rangecc’d to Regional Team Leader
Kathy Danchuk, Ministry of Forests and Rangecc’d to RSS
Kelly Osbourne, Ministry of Forests and Rangecc’d to Kelly?
Dave Cornwell, Ministry of Forests and Rangecc’d to Audit Coordinator?
(1)
/ Silent RunningAppendix A
Definition of Audit Findings/ Silent Running
Appendix A
The following is a definition of the findings that could be included in this audit report to summarize the results.
Non-conformance
Failure to meet one or more terms of the applicable FFT work standards, project plans, legislated requirements and/or the Recipient Agreement. Other non-conformance issues include not obtaining required agency permits or permissions and incorrect professional sign-off of Schedule A. Non-conformances can be classified as major or minor, which have different treatments:
- Major Non-conformance: A non-conformance issue that resulted in the project objective(s) not being met. Where possible, the Recipient must take, at their expense, whatever action is necessary to rectify the non-conformance and bring the project up to the applicable standard(s). The audit report will be finalized upon receipt of the agreed upon action plan. Should a second site visit or significant time be required to follow-up on the implementation of the action plan, this will be conducted at the Recipient’s expense (time, travel, disbursements, etc.).
If the non-conformance cannot be rectified and the project brought up to standard, then funds advanced to a Recipient may be recovered in accordance with the terms of the Recipient Agreement.
- Minor Non-conformances: A non-conformance issue occurred, however the project objective(s) were met. In general, minor non-conformances are administrative in nature but it should be noted that incorrect professional sign-off of Schedule A may be classified either as a major or minor non-conformance depending on the circumstances.
For all non-conformances, the Recipient must provide an acceptable action plan to the MFR within 15 days of the audit closing meeting. MFR will follow-up on all non-conformance action plans to ensure these have been implemented.
Opportunities for Improvement
Opportunities for Improvement serve to identify areas where a Recipient’s forest practices may be improved. These issues indicate isolated instances of low risk non-conformance with FFT standards that should be addressed, or practices that have the potential to become non-conformances in the future if not addressed.
Good Management Practices
Good Management Practices serve to identify where a Recipient’s forest management practices are considered to be above average.
/ Silent RunningAppendix B
Non-conformance with FFT Standards/ Silent Running
Appendix C
The following identifies where the FFT management practices of the Recipient did notconform to the standards:
Investment Schedule: / SOTSA011111Project: / 1111001
Major Non-Conformance No.: / 1
Standard: / Planting Standards for Ministry Funded Programs
Clause Nos.: / 4.6a, c & 4.7 a
Clause Text: / 4.6 A Treatment Unit may be considered satisfactorily treated when:
(a) the average performance quality of all plots is 85% or higher;
(c) unless otherwise approved by the District Manager, there are no contiguous areas greater than one tenth (1/10) hectare that do not meet the performance quality
4.7 A Recipient must immediately notify the Administrator and District Manager or a MOFR regional program representative whenever:
(a) on any contiguous area greater than one-tenth (1/10) hectare planting quality is not satisfactory as defined in section 4.6 and, in the case of performance quality, the nature and extent of the errors are such that performance quality cannot be raised to at least 85%.
Non-Conformity and
Description of Objective Evidence: / On unit 092A.001.001 an estimated area of 10ha was not identified by the Recipient as being an area of unacceptable planting quality (I.e., <85% planting quality calculation [PQC].Note: Actual PQC from the Recipient’s plots = 81.20%). It was readily apparent from the plot data that this area (10ha.) should be stratified out from the larger unit (40ha), reworks performed if possible, and if reworks were not possible the MFR notified and payment calculated for both strata.After re-stratification into an acceptably planted stratum (>85% PQC; actual PQC = 91.43%), and an unacceptably planted stratum (<85% PQC; actual PQC = 81.2%) and recalculation of the Planting Payment Certificates (PayCerts) for each stratathe Recipient overpaid the planting contractor $1,000.00.
Corrective Actions Taken by Recipient: / Within fifteen days, the Recipient will review the unit reports for this unit and stratify out the unacceptably planted area from the acceptably planted area. Planting Payment Certificates are to be calculated separately for the acceptably and unacceptably planted strata within the pay unit. A summary of any re-stratification is to be supplied to the MFR and Auditor.
Within fifteen days, the Recipient will repay the MFR any overpayment - currently estimated at $1,000.00. Note: This total cost is based off of the Auditor’s estimated areas of the unacceptably planted strata. The Recipient must GIS confirm the strata areas when completing the PayCerts.
In the future, the Recipient will ensure that all unacceptably planted areas are identified, corrective actions taken (if possible), and will notify the MFR regional program representative within one business day of the PQC determination.The “Action Plan” is required to correct non-conformances (where possible) and to identify procedures so that the issue does not re-occur.
Investment Schedule: / SOTSA022222
Project: / 2222001
Minor Non-Conformance No.: / 1
Standard: / Planting Standards for Ministry Funded Programs
Clause Nos.: / 4.2
Clause Text: / An Inspector must inspect the Work in accordance with an Approved Planting Quality InspectionSystem (unless otherwise approved, this is to be the FS 704) in a timely manner to ensure all Work is performed to the Ministry Standards and/or FIA Standards and/or FFT Standards.
Non-Conformity and
Description of Objective Evidence: / As per the Recipient’s SOP the Inspectors would dig up 2 trees per plot, if a fault was found in either of those two trees they were to dig up more trees to confirm their assessment. According to J. Pine the Inspectors did not consistently dig-up trees past the initial two if a fault was found.
Corrective Actions Taken by Recipient: / The Recipient to ensure that the SOP for Planting Inspections and future actual planting inspections is as per the Approved Planting Quality Inspection System (the FS 704)unless otherwise approved.
Opportunities for Improvement
/ Silent Running
Appendix C
The following opportunities for improvement were identified during the audit.
A.Payplots should be evenly distributed and the locations unbiased throughout the entire unit. Inspections should be based on a systematic sampling methodology. (Planting Standards for Ministry Funded Programs - 4.3)
Payplots were evenly distributed, locations were unbiased, and the inspections were based on a systematic sampling methodology. However, for Project 1111001, on unit 092A.001.001the Inspectors were given too much discretion in regard to "dropping plots" (due to slash, unburnt piles, etc.).This resulted in only 184 payplots completed on 202ha of planted area. Inspectors should ensure that close to 1 payplot/ha is completed. Action plans are not required for Opportunities For Improvement. OFI’s are instances of low risk non-conformance with FFT standards that should be addressed.