Forest and Range Practices Act Technical Questions and Answers

Is a CWAP required under FRPA? The new community watershed objective (FPPR sec. 8.2(2)) certainly alludes to this, but nothing is stated outright.

Community Forest Pilot Agreements have a five year term, at the end of which both the government and license holder will negotiate replacement of the licence with one of a longer term.

Is the holder of a CFPA obligated to develop a FSP even though their license term is only five years?

I have an area that has been harvested in accordance with a site plan prepared for a FDP approved cutblock.

The harvest area overlaps areas encompassed by a Ministry of Transportation and Highways pit plan, and there is likely to be expansion of an existing pit into the site plan harvested area.

Is there provision within current legislation whereby we could now approach the DM to ask for a site plan exemption for that portion of the harvested area which is within the targeted expansion area of the pit?

Community Forest Pilot Agreements have a term of 5 years, and by definition, may not necessarily be replaced by a longer term tenure. What is the obligation of the CFPA holder to move from FDPs to FSPs if their current term "straddles" the transition period?

What reporting is required in the upcoming year re: Section 86(2) and Section 112 relevant to Section 86.1(2) and 86.1(3)? Section 86.1(2) seems to allow for a transition period, but appears to be overridden by Section 86.1(3).

July 27, 2004

Honourable Michael de Jong Minister of Forests

Dear Minister de Jong,

I am very concerned about the direction of the Forest Range and Practices Act reflected by the enactment of Bill 33, and its amendments to Section 16 of FRPA. This amendment would alter the approval authority for a Forest Stewardship Plan by allowing plans or amendments to be approved when "a person with prescribed qualifications certifies that it conforms to section 5 in relation to prescribed subject matter."

My objections to this provision are both procedural and substantive. Procedurally, this provision is a significant departure from the regulatory model discussed publicly, considered in the legislature and by the Minister's Public Advisory Council, embodied in regulations issued in December 2003, and upon which an extensive training program was based. It is very troubling that such a significant change in the regulatory framework through which we protect public values in the forest could be legislated so late in the day and with such little awareness and scrutiny by interested parties or the public.

Substantively, the provision represents a troubling shift in the balance between government and industry in the protection of forest values. FPRA, as I had understood it prior to Bill 33, is based on government establishing very broad objectives for what it considers to be a complete range of forest values. Some of these objectives will be specified in greater detail and made legally binding at the landscape level (e.g., the old growth order). They are supplemented by prescriptive default standards for the protection of a number of values (e.g., buffers for riparian areas). Licencees are granted the latitude to propose results and strategies that differ from the default standards, but those results and strategies need to be approved by a responsible government official. This model, as I saw it, was the crucial compromise between the government's initial model of May 2002 and the COFI model that was represented in the consultation process. I supported a similar compromise in the consultation process, although the approval test eventually adopted is different, and less rigorous, than I had envisioned. Despite my concerns about the approval test, it seems like an innovative model worth trying, with careful observation about how the approval process proceeded.

Bill 33 has the potential to change the model significantly. If broadly constructed, it would delegate far more discretionary power to licensees (through their professional employees) than envisioned in the model publicly discussed and debated. I am opposed to (hat much power being granted to licencees. I believe it is important to keep government accountable for protecting public values. And frankly, I doubt very much that the professional foresters (the only profession involved with which I am familiar) are ready for that amount of responsibility, especially given the sad state of affairs of continuing education. Admittedly, if very narrowly constructed, it is not a significant change in the model, but the legislation places no limits on how broadly it can be constructed through regulation.

As you know, environmentalists have been critical of FRPA for letting "industry write its own rules." Until now, there has been a sensible response: industry proposes rules, but government approves them. But that response is undercut by Bill 33, which really does authorize the industry to write its own rules.

I believe the regulatory framework for forest and range practices would be better off without broad legislative authority to delegate approval authority to professionals. Therefore, I would prefer to see that section of Bill 33 amended. In the interim, I urge you to clarify publicly what the government's intentions are with the FRPA Section 16 provisions of Bill 33. I urge you to confirm that our regulatory framework makes government accountable for the public interest in the protection of forest values in British Columbia.

Sincerely yours,

Original Signed by George Hoberg

George Hoberg
Professor and Head
Department of Forest Resources Management
The University of British Columbia
2nd Floor, Forest Sciences Centre
2045-2424 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC Canada V8T 1Z4

cc: Doug Konkin, Deputy Minister of Forests,
and Larry Pedersen, Chief Forester

We are working under a Forest Development Plan and are trying to clarify and simplify our process for establishing Helicopter Service Landings (HSL) and Helicopter Log Drop Zones (HDZ) within our TFL.

The THSPR defines a landing as:
“landing” means an area of land that has been modified by equipment to make it suitable for accumulating logs before they are transported.

A HDZ is usually a road used to accumulate logs for transport. Occasionally the roadside area is further modified by equipment (ballasted to support a loader), but not always. Is it reasonable to say that when the road was originally built the area was modified by equipment to make it suitable for a HDZ? Using this interpretation, any road can be used as a landing as long as it has the right characteristics for accumulating logs. Can we call a HDZ a landing? If not, how should a HDZ be defined?

A HSL does not meet the THSPR definition of a landing, as there is no accumulation of logs, however the road usually requires further construction or modification in order to have an area large enough to service a helicopter.

The Road Permit grants the right to harvest trees from the clearing area to the extent necessary to construct or modify, and use and maintain a road as follows:

1.00 GRANT OF RIGHTS
1.01. Subject to the Forest Act and its Regulations, and the Forest Practices Code of
B.C. Act, and its Regulations and Standards, the District Manager grants to the
Permittee the right to either:
(a) construct or modify the road to the standards/specifications described in the attached Schedules and to the extent necessary harvest from the Clearing Area, that Crown timber described in the attached schedules, that must be logged in order to construct or modify the road and use and maintain the road...

Section 8(1)(g) of the FRR indicates that the clearing width must accommodate (vi) the operation of equipment (HSL) and (x) a landing (HDZ).

Can we then interpret that, because a HSL and HDZ is part of the road clearing width, there is no further approval required (beyond the original Road Permit) to harvest trees to construct, modify, use, or maintain an area within the road status width for the purposes of servicing a helicopter or landing logs?

HDZ or HSL may or may not require further construction, and may or may not be placed in a RMA. Under what circumstances would a Road Layout and Design be required?

Why is a "gully process" only important on the Coast. It is equally if not more important in the Interior?

Under what section in FRPA does it state you can have multiple licensees under one FSP?

Does the MOF have a process or protocol established regarding monitoring professional accountability or is it up to individual staff to bring questions/complaints to the applicable association regarding practicing professionals?