Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 2008-FOR-011(a)

The appeal issue was whether due diligence and reasonable reliance on professionals in regard to a landslide across a road and into a stream due to poor culvert locations and lack of water control structures. The Board took no position on the contraventions under appeal, and focused on the law relating to due diligence. The FAC found that Tembec had exercised due diligence in the circumstances and allowed the appeal.

Appeal allowed.

FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/2008for011a.pdf

Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 2009-WFA-001(a)

This appeal raised the issue of whether the appellant had an "adequate fire suppression system" for the circumstances. The parties agreed to a consent order granting the appeal and rescinding the determination.

Appeal allowed.

Consent Order: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/wildfireAct/2009wfa001a.pdf

Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 2009-WFA-003(a)

The appeal issue was in regards to the meaning of "adequate fire supression system", due diligence, and whether the penalty was appropriate in the circumstances. The parties agreed to a consent order rescinding the contravention determination because it was made after the expiry of the limitation period.

Appeal allowed.

Consent Order: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/wildfireAct/2009wfa003a.pdf

This is just a test.

Special Report – SR/35
November 2009

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Government should seize the opportunity that exists to implement a landscape‐level conservation uplift by proceeding without delay to:

a. Clarify government’s objectives for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape‐level in areas affected by large‐scale salvage operations.
b. Provide leadership in the process of making landscape‐level decisions about what areas to retain during salvage harvesting.  
c. Evaluate the achievement of the government’s objectives for wildlife and biodiversity at the landscape level throughout the area of the salvage operations before opportunities are lost to influence the decisions made as a result of recommendation 1b.

2. The Ministry of Forests and Range should:

a. Use all available information to produce a disturbance/depletion map that shows all forest harvesting that has occurred, provides some estimate of the date of the harvest and indicates the source of the information. That map should be updated annually.
b. Take steps necessary to make available maps showing forest cover and forest harvesting on tree farm licences of sufficient detail for strategic level analysis.
c. Implement quality control procedures to ensure complete and accurate reporting of wildlife tree retention areas under Section 86(3)(a)(iv) of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation.
d. Make explicit the reserve status of all mature forest areas previously reported as being in harvested blocks.
e. Complete the mapping of existing wildlife tree retention areas in harvested blocks where responsibility has reverted to the Crown.

Response to Recommendations

Special Investigation – SIR/26
November 2009

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.a)  The Board recommends that government explore the option of creating a more streamlined framework for range planning by replacing the RUP with a set of clear practice requirements and creating a defined approach for preparation of RSPs. A number of considerations would have to go into such a framework including:

• What should the criteria be for determining who can follow practice requirements and who can prepare an RSP? Also, to what extent will the holder of an RSP be able to vary from the practice requirements?
• How should the timing and amount of grazing be determined—through range readiness criteria and stubble heights? And who should make the determination?
• How should tenure‐specific issues be identified and addressed?
• Who should have monitoring responsibilities and how should monitoring be set up to efficiently and effectively assess range condition and modify plans and practices to achieve continuous improvement?

1. b)  For those agreement holders who prepare RSPs, their content and quality needs improvements, such as ensuring that:

• Tenure‐specific issues or problems are identified, and measures to address them are proposed in the plan.
• Readiness criteria and period of use are specified in such a way that it is clear what is required so that over‐grazing does not result.  Issues and actions are measurable and enforceable.
• Designated features are identified on range tenure maps, and measures to protect those features from grazing impacts are proposed where appropriate.
• Adequate monitoring of the range resource is done to enable adaptive management and continuous improvement in range condition.

2. The Board recommends that government ensure that all range plans being considered for approval fully meet the content requirements set out in legislation before they are approved.

3. The Board recommends that government invest in training to ensure agreement holders and range staff understand government’s objectives for range and that agreement holders have sufficient knowledge to comply with the range plan and the range practice requirements.

Response to Recommendations

Complaint Investigation – IRC/159
November 2009

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Government assess the risk to public safety and the environment, in the Lake Koocanusa area, caused by unmanaged recreation use. The assessment should identify and assess problematic areas by issue, and identify the resources needed to implement appropriate management measures, such as recreation orders. The government should designate a lead agency to coordinate the process and its implementation.
2. The Board recommends that the Minister of Forests and Range examine the risk and effectiveness of the current system for collection of tickets under the Forest and Range Practices Act and the Wildfire Act. As part of this examination, the Board suggests that the Minister consider establishing a reciprocal arrangement with Alberta for the collection of fines and, internal to BC, an amendment to link the collection of Wildfire Act and Forest and Range Practices Act fines to driver’s licence renewals.

Response to Recommendations

Complaint Investigation – IRC/158
October 2009

REQUEST

The Board requests that MOE advise it of the status of the federal re‐evaluation by September 30, 2010.

Response to Request

Audit – ARC/108
July 2009

REQUEST

The Board requests that BCTS provide us with a report by October 31, 2009, on the remedial actions taken with respect to the ongoing maintenance issues on portions of the Potlatch and McNab forest service roads.

Closing Letter

Audit – ARC/106
May 2009

REQUEST

Subsequent to the audit, BCTS informed the Board that they are using an updated version of seedlot management software and have reviewed their contract administration procedures to address seedling transfer issues.

As well, BCTS plans to seek approval for those areas that were outside the transfer limits in effect at the time of planting, but will fall within the limits that came into effect April 1, 2009. For the remainder, BCTS has scheduled additional surveys to evaluate seedling growth and health. The Board requests that BCTS provide the survey results by November 30, 2010, along with an action plan for future monitoring.

Response to Request