An investigation of 216 bridges constructed throughout the province in the last three years has found numerous non-compliances with legislation and over two dozen bridges that may not be safe for industrial use, according to a report released by the Forest Practices Board recently.
“The board was concerned with the growing number of instances of unsafe bridges showing up in recent audits, and so we did this investigation to find out the extent of the problem,” said Tim Ryan, board chair.
“What we found is highly disturbing, given the emphasis government and industry have placed on safety in recent years.”
The investigation found 19 bridges that were obviously unsafe and another 13 bridges that were questionable. Forty per cent of the bridges did not have complete plans and for 74 bridges, the required sign-off by a professional that the bridge was designed and built correctly was not completed.
“The problem is not the lack of legislation or guidance by professional associations,” said Ryan. “The problem is that some professionals are not performing to the standards government and the public expect. We are recommending that the professional associations that govern foresters and engineers take action to improve performance by their members. We also suggest that licensees ensure their bridges are safe and government compliance and enforcement staff increase their attention to bridge safety.”
Bridges constructed in the Chilliwack, Vanderhoof, Rocky Mountain, Okanagan Shuswap and Cariboo Chilcotin districts since January 2010 were included in the investigation.
The Forest Practices Board is B.C.’s independent watchdog for sound forest and range practices, reporting its findings and recommendations directly to the public and government. The board can investigate and report on current forestry and range issues and make recommendations for improvement to practices and legislation.
The Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) and Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (APEGBC) responded by saying they are very concerned about the bridge findings.
As the independent regulators of professional forestry and professional engineering through the administration of the Foresters Act and Engineers and Geoscientists Act respectively, the professions strongly believe one unsafe bridge is too many.
The two associations noted that, in its report, the FPB cited the role of the Guidelines for Professional Services in the Forest Sector – Crossings in setting the standard of professional practice for bridge projects. These guidelines were established by ABCFP and APEGBC in 2005 and revised in 2008. As the FPB report identifies, a number of professionals have not been following the guidelines.
In the coming weeks the two professional associations will be actively determining the facts involving professional practice or unsafe conditions that may have contributed to the problem bridge structures identified by the FPB. If necessary, the professions will follow up with their respective enforcement and discipline systems. In addition the professions will update the current professional practice guidelines, identify the necessary skills and competencies required for this work, and undertake specialized professional development with members in this area of practice.
The professional associations have an existing Joint Practice Board composed of experienced professional engineers and forest professionals who work together to provide standards, guidance and other direction to professionals on forest crossings and forest bridges.
It is recognized that the public expects development projects in the natural environment to be directed by regulated professionals to ensure projects are conducted safely, professionally and sustainably. Where the use of a regulated professional is absent or insufficient, the professions may enforce legislation or undertake internal discipline procedures.
The ABCFP and APEGBC said they will respond to the FPB by the requested date of Oct. 31, 2014 and advise it of the steps planned or taken to address the professional issues identified.
