Third Party: M.G. Logging & Sons Ltd.

M.G. Logging & Sons Ltd. contravened FRPA by harvesting Douglas fir trees that were required to be retained for biodiversity reasons, contrary to its timber sale licence, and received an administrative penalty of $3500. The Board appealed on the grounds that the penalty amount was too low to reflect the seriousness of the contravention, considering both the environmental harm and the administrative justice goal of deterrence. The Board also argued that evidence of previous contraventions of a similar nature should have been considered.

The FAC found that administrative penalties are intended to encourage compliance with the legislation, by providing specific deterrence in respect of the contravener and general deterrence in respect of the industry. In addition, administrative penalties for unauthorized timber harvesting have the purpose of compensating the Crown for loss or damage to its resources. These overall purposes, in addition to the specific factors under section 71(5) of the FRPA, should be considered when assessing administrative penalties.

The FAC also found that when determining the penalty amount consideration of previous contraventions can include official warnings and compliance notices. Previous non-compliance by a director, an officer, or a closely related company may also be considered providing that adequate notice is given to ensure procedural fairness.

Based on new expert evidence provided by the Board regarding the environmental impact of the contravention, the FAC found that the Douglas-fir trees were ecologically important to the local area, which is near the northern limit for Douglas-fir, and it would take 50 to 100 years for the environment to recover. The FAC also found that the contraventions were continuous and repeated, and there was a high to very high degree of deliberateness, especially regarding 135 trees that were harvested after the TSL holder was reminded of his obligation to retain Douglas-fir.

Considering all of those factors, the FAC decided that the penalty should be increased to include $6,000 for deterrence, plus $21,128.76 for compensation for lost biodiversity values.

Appeal allowed.

FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestAndRange/2016frp001a.pdf

Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 2016-WFA-002(a)

CNR appealed a Wildfire Act determination ordering it to pay fire control and other costs relating to damage or destruction to Crown resources. The area affected by the wildfire contained timber, grass and was designated as mule deer winter range, scenic area and an old growth management area. The Board joined the appeal to make submissions on the determination of damages for “other forest land resources” and “grass land resources” in the Wildfire Regulation. Specifically, the Board argued that these terms should be interpreted in a non-mutually exclusive manner which would allow the Province to recover damages for both, rather than adopting an either/or approach adopting the polygon classification based on the government’s Vegetation Resource Inventory system. The FAC did not agree with these submissions.

Appeal allowed.

FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/wildfireAct/2016wfa002a.pdf

Third Party: Forest Practices Board

A district manager refused to approve a forest stewardship plan (FSP) submitted by BC Timber Sales (BCTS) Kootenay Business Area due to concerns about unacceptable risks to government objectives to water, fish, wildlife and biodiversity, and the cumulative effects resulting from large forest development units that overlapped with those of several other licensees. The Board joined the appeal because it raised a number of issues addressed in its 2015 special investigation report entitled Forest Stewardship Plans: Are They Meeting Expectations? Following discussions with the ministry and the Board, BCTS subsequently amended its FSP to meet the approval of the incoming district manager, and withdrew its appeal.

Appellant withdrew the appeal.

Special Report – SR/54
November 2017

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. FREP should clarify and communicate to all involved what is meant by the measure of “sustainability” it uses, and how that relates to government’s objectives for the values specified in FRPA. This should include the linkage between the impact ratings and sustainability measures and how the information is to be used by licensees and by decision-makers, such as district managers approving forest stewardship plans.
2. FREP should review the design of the monitoring program to ensure it can answer the priority evaluation questions and also develop new questions to address emerging information needs. It is essential that FREP is collecting the right data and providing the information that forest managers require today. This review should include consideration of long-term routine monitoring of specific sites in addition to the current approach of random sampling.
3. FREP should fully implement effectiveness monitoring for soils, wildlife, wildlife habitat, plant communities, landscape-level biodiversity, and values established under the Government Actions Regulation (e.g., wildlife habitat areas) and land use orders.
4. FREP should engage licensees and their professionals in all aspects of the monitoring program. FREP should also directly involve government and industry specialists in the monitoring program on an on-going basis, particularly in researching the causal factors affecting the condition of values. This should help to address industry concerns and build credibility, improving licensee confidence in FREP’s monitoring.
5. FLNRO should implement a collaborative process at both the provincial and district levels to facilitate continuous improvement of practices based on FREP’s monitoring results. At the provincial level, government should have a process to implement changes to legislation and/or policy where improvements are not made voluntarily.

Response to Recommendations

Special Investigation – SIR/47
September 2017

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The Board requests that, in view of the potential consequences and risks, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development review current legislation and regulations, and consider including additional legal requirements related to road construction if roads are located on terrain that is unstable or potentially unstable; on terrain with slopes greater than 60 percent; or on terrain where there are indicators of slope instability.
2. The Board requests that the Joint Practices Board of the Association of BC Forest Professionals and the Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia advise it of the steps, planned or taken, to address the professional practice issues identified in this report.

Response to Recommendations – Government
Response to Recommendation – Joint Practices Board of ABCFP/EGBC

Complaint Investigation – IRC/210
August 2017

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Government should confirm its population recovery objective and develop a strategy that includes a population target for the Kettle-Granby grizzly bear population unit that can be used to guide habitat management and industrial planning decisions.
2. Government should consider revising GAR Order 8-373, in light of the recent grizzly bear research in the Kettle-Granby area and the failure to meet the road density targets through voluntary guidance. This reconsideration should weigh the benefits of road density and secure core area measures to government’s recovery objectives for the Kettle-Granby grizzly bear population unit against an informed assessment of any material adverse effects on delivered wood costs.
3. Government should provide leadership to reduce the current risks to bears in the KettleGranby area. Government should lead local licensees and BCTS in an operational planning process for roads and timber harvesting in the Kettle-Granby specified area that protects high value bear habitat and addresses access management, such as road deactivation and regulatory road closures, while integrating with timber objectives. The Board’s previous reports on access management may be helpful to this exercise.
4. Government should monitor the amount of open road density, secure core area, and grizzly population size and distribution over time and make further adjustments to management and legal requirements if and as needed.

Response to Recommendations