fort st. john pilot regulation
training

1.0 Legal Context of Pilot Regulation

1.1 The Context Within Which the Pilot Regulation Was Drafted

1.2 The Pilot Project Regulation and the Code

1.3 The Pilot Regulation and Certification

1.1 The Context Within Which the Pilot Regulation Was Drafted

· The previous government was under pressure to streamline the Code while protecting environmental values.

· In 1999 PART 10.1 - PILOT PROJECTS TO IMPROVE THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR FOREST PRACTICES was introduced into the Act.

· Part 10.1 allows the LGC may make pilot project regulations to experiment with ways to improve the regulatory framework for forest practices (including disapplying provisions of the Code).

· However, several important tests had to be met before the pilot regulation may be made. These tests had a very significant impact on the resultant Pilot Regulation.

Part 10.1 Constraints

· Imposed requirements for public review and comment during regulation development

· Required that the regulation

· provide at least equivalent protection for forest resources and resource features as under the Act

· be consistent with the Preamble

· provide for adequate management and conservation of forest resources

· provide for public review and comment respecting forest practices to be carried out

· adequately provide for monitoring and for evaluation criteria of the pilot project

· maintain the role of the FPB

· maintain public access to plans and records.

Part 10.1 Constraints (cont’d)

· Limited the volume under all pilots in a region to 10% of the region’s AAC

· Required the pilot project area have a mechanism for balancing competing values & interests

· Prohibited the regulation from applying to a tenure holder who had not consented to take part in the pilot project.

Effect of PART 10.1 Constraints
on Pilot Regulation Design

It could only be made if it met all of the tests of Part 10.1

e.g. retained FPB even though an alternative approach may have provided for more efficient management of forest practices

It could not address matters outside of Part 10.1

e.g. did not address appraisal matters or cut control, even though these provisions have an impact on the forest management decisions under the pilot regulation.

1.2 The Pilot Project Regulation and the Code

· The Pilot Regulation is an integral component of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act

· The Pilot Regulation disapplies specific provisions of the Code and those provisions do not apply to the participants

· The standard Code applies for matters not addressed in the Pilot Regulation (e.g. fire prevention)

· The standard Code applies for those cutblocks and roads that are not addressed in the Pilot Regulation.

1.3 The Pilot Regulation and Certification

· The pilot regulation does not mention certification; the pilot project does

· The pilot regulation is consistent with gaining certification

· The pilot regulation forms part of the laws of the province with which the certification system will require compliance

· Failure to comply with the pilot regulation may result in certification issues

· Certification processes provide some assurance to government that participants will comply with the pilot regulation

2.0 Overview of the
Pilot Regulation

2.1 Overall Structure

2.2 Who the regulation applies to

2.3 What the regulation applies to

2.4 The objectives of the regulation

2.5 Streamlining Planning

2.6 Increasing Operational Flexibility

2.7 Providing Public Accountability

2.8 Planned Evolution

2.1 Overall Structure

PERSPECTVE

· The pilot regulation consists of 100 sections (approx. 78 pages)

· 27 transitional sections

· 13 pages of LRMP objectives

· The pilot regulation disapplies 198 Code sections (approx. 130 pages)

CONTENT

Part 1 – Interpretation and Application

Part 2 – Participants

Part 3 – Basic Planning and Performance Requirements

Div 1 – Pre-existing Plans and Permits

Div 2 – Forest Development Plans

Div 3 – Site Level Planning

Div 4 – Authorizations and Variances

Div 5 – Field Performance Requirements

Part 4 – Sustainable Forest Management Plan

Div 1 – Content

Div 2 – Approval Process

Div 3 – Effect of Approval of SFMP

Div 4 – Amendments

Div 5 – Forest Operations Schedules

Part 5 – Public Accountability

Div 1 – Public Advisory Group

Div 2 – Pilot Project Monitoring & Evaluation

Div 3 – Enforcement

Div 4 – Public Access to Information

Part 6 – General

Schedule A – Competing Values and Interests

Schedule B – Forest Development Plans

Schedule C – Forest Operations Schedules

Schedule D – Riparian Management

Schedule E – Green up

Schedule F – Reforestation

Schedule G – Maximum Admin Penalties

2.2 Who the Regulation Applies To

On the effective date, the regulation applies to FSJ operations of:

· Canfor; LP; Slocan

· SBFEP (except for a specified FL)

The regulation can only apply to forest tenure holders

(i.e. can not apply to oil & gas or range)

The regulation does not apply to any one unless they consent to have it apply

(particularly important for the SBFEP)

A forest tenure holder can apply to become a “participant”

· must meet criteria

· must be within 10% AAC cap

A participant can apply to be removed from the pilot regulation

2.3 What the Regulation Applies To

The regulation applies to some but not all of the standard Code

The regulation does cover

· normal harvesting and road networks

· normal reforestation

· backlog and stand tending where required by the licence

The regulation does not cover

· higher level planning

· fire prevention and suppression

· district manager backlog and stand tending programs

2.4 The Objectives of the Regulation

Within the limits of Part 10.1, design a more cost-effective forest practices regulatory model

1. streamline planning requirements by

· reducing the number of plans

· maximizing plan content flexibility

· minimizing plan approvals

· minimizing plan amendments

2. maximize operational flexibility by

· focusing on results

· providing for site specific variances

· simplifying the authorization process

· providing for long term result management through the SFMP

· enabling participants to trade blocks

3. Increase certainty

2.5 Streamline Planning

Long term:

Require: SFMP; FOS; SLP

· only SFMP requires approval (6 yrs)

· only prepare FOS when needed (no fixed terms)

· only submit SLP where required

· minimizing plan amendments

Short term: (until SFMP approved)

Require: FDP; SLP

· grandparent FDP for 2 full years (overrides ‘approval’ term)

· where no FDP on effective date, then

· reduced assessments

· no joint approval potential

· 2 year approval

· grandparent SPs

· only submit SLP where needed

2.6 Increase Operational Flexibility

Results vs. process

e.g. maintain slope stability vs. do an assessment

e.g specify std in reg vs. approving plan for each cutblock

End value vs. interim protection

e.g. protect fish and fish habitat vs. no landing within 30 m of fish stream

e.g. maintain streambank stability vs. no tracks of machines within 5 m of stream bank

e.g. sustain soil productivity vs. do not exceed limit for amount of scalps and gouges

2.6 Increase Operational Flexibility (cont)

Providing for site specific variances

· Enables participant to perform other than to prescribed result

· No limit on delegation of authority

· Give authority without requiring plan amendments

Simplifying authorization process

· No requirement for separate CP, RP, and RUP

Long term potential of SFMP

· Coordinates operational objectives of participants

· Enables legal performance requirements to be modified (e.g. manage PAS on a landscape rather than block basis)

· Enables reduced planning requirements in the FOS and SLP

2.6 Increase Operational Flexibility (cont)

Participants may assign responsibility for blocks and roads

Participants can declare obligations to be done in an operationally favorable manner

2.7 Accountability to the Public

Public review of plans and access to records

PAG

Annual reports

Periodic audits

Forest Practices Board

Compliance and Enforcement

Government monitoring & evaluation

2.8 Provides for Planned Evolution

· SFMP provides for increasing scope

· Information contained in SFMP need not be repeated in FOS

· SFMP provides for establishing landscape strategies and performance indicators that can supersede the current requirements

3.0 PHASE 1: The Effective Date

3.1 Those Affected

3.2 What is Covered

3.3 Smooth Transition

3.4 What Laws Apply

3.1 Those Affected

Participants

· Government for SBFEP

· Canfor; LP; Slocan

· Not the Canfor joint venture

Holders of Minor TSLs

· Only if consent given

· Unlikely for initial months of the regulation

3.2 What is Covered

Cutblocks

· Generally excluded active blocks

· Nov 15, 2001 used as cut off

MLs

· harvesting & reforestation

SBFEP

· reforestation

Roads

MLs

· Active cutting permit roads

· RP and RUP roads

SBFEP

· Wanted to maximize application

· Any active road that was used to access TSLs

SMPs

· Excluded if approved before effective date

3.3 Smooth Transition

Existing Operational Plans:

· FDPs continue to apply under the pilot regulation

· Silviculture prescriptions for captured cutblocks are taken to be site level plans under the pilot regulation

Existing Permits:

· Recognize CPs, RPs and RUPs as authorizations under the pilot regulation

· No need for any amendment or re-issuance of documents

3.4 What Laws Apply

e.g. Harvesting began before Nov 15:

· Standard Code applies to harvesting even if harvesting completed after effective date;

· Standard Code applies to reforestation even when it is carried out after the effective date

e.g. Harvesting started after effective date

· Pilot Reg applies to all operations

e.g. Harvesting started after Nov 15, but before effective date

· Standard Code applies to everything that occurred before the effective date;

· Pilot Reg applies to everything that happens on or after the effective date

4.0 PHASE 2: First Two Years

4.1 Planning Requirements

4.2 Field Performance Requirements

4.3 Administrative Requirements

4.1 Planning Requirements

Must have FDP and SLP

FDPs

Existing

· Term

· Reforestation declaration

· Extensions

· Amendments

New

· Term

· Assessments and content

· Approval

· Extensions

· Amendments

SLPs

Existing

· SPs taken to be SLPs

· Favourable standard applies

· Amendments and notices

New

· Where / when required

· Cutblocks; New roads; Deactivation

· Before authorization

· Content requirements

· Few set requirements

· Tied to performance requirements

· Notification requirements

· Amendments

4.2 Field Performance Requirements

Field requirements:

Two types: general vs. defaults

General requirements stated as absolutes

· E.g. maintaining stream bank stability

· Can get site-specific variance

Some requirements stated as defaults

· E.g. don’t exceed prescribed amount of PAS

· Concept of “applicable performance standard”

4.3 Administrative Requirements

Must prepare baseline cost information

· necessary to compare cost of pilot relative to the standard Code

· submit within 6 months of becoming a participant

Must make reforestation declaration (FDP)

· necessary to establish reforestation regime on Category A blocks without an existing SP

Must establish and maintain the PAG

· confirm membership and publish notice annually

· must be in place before the SFMP

· confirm operating policies and procedures

Must keep specified records

Must prepare annual reports

5.0 PHASE 3: Steady State

5.1 When is Transition Over

5.2 Planning Requirements

5.3 Field Performance Requirements

5.4 Administrative Requirements

5.1 When is Transition Over

Transition ends when:

1. SFMP approved

2. FOS gone through public review and comment that identifies a cutblock

3. SLP prepared for a cutblock, and

4. authorization issued for the cutblock

Timing:

· Flexible

· Could be the same for each participant or staggered depending on whether FOS prepared jointly or separately

5.2 Planning Requirements

SFMP; FOS; SLP

SFMP

Timing: Must be jointly submitted within
2 yrs of effective date

Scope: Must cover whole pilot project area

Content:

· Must meet base content requirements: objectives & strategies

· May include additional content

· May establish the “applicable performance standard” for the default performance requirements

· May establish different performance requirements and performance indicators

Review and Comment:

· Must go through review by PAG before general public review

· Must go through public review process

Approval:

· Submitted to RM & RD

· Strict approval test

· Approval valid for 6 yrs unless participants want a shorter period

Amendments:

· Require approval

· Minor changes do not require public review and comment

Public Availability:

· Place of business

FOS

Timing: Anytime after SFMP approved

Content:

· Must be consistent with SFMP

· Generally must show proposed blocks and roads

· Must meet other base requirements unless information already contained in the SFMP

· Establishes reforestation regime for blocks

Review and Comment:

· Similar to that of FDP

No Approval Required

Amendments:

· Significant changes require public process

· Minor changes do not require public review and comment

Public Availability:

· Place of business

SLP

· Generally the same as during phase 2

· Must be consistent with SFMP and FOS

· Could be modified depending on the content of the SFMP

5.3 Field Performance Requirements

· Generally the same as during phase 2

· SFMP may have established a different ‘applicable performance standard’

e.g. Modified reforestation standards

· SFMP may have established alternative performance requirements to those of the regulation

e.g. Manage road and access structure densities on a landscape basis rather than by cutblock

5.4 Administrative Requirements

MUST:

· Maintain the PAG

· Retain records

· Prepare Annual Reports

· Co-operate with FPB and government reviews

· Provide access to public

· Be audited every 2 years beginning on or before December 31, 2003

MAY:

· Use assignability provision

· Use declaration of completed obligation provision

6.0 PHASE 4: Winding Down

6.1 Ceasing to be a Participant

· A person may apply to the RM to cease to be a participant

· RM may place conditions on the application

· If the triggering event has occurred, then the regulation continues to apply

· If the triggering event has not occurred, the standard Code will apply

6.2 Cancelling the Pilot Project

· The minister may make an order saying that in 2 yrs the project will be cancelled

· During the 2 yr period, the minister may exempt a participant from some of the requirements of the pilot regulation

· After the cancellation date, the standard Code applies (it may contain transition)

7.0 Compliance and Enforcement

Government must have adequate assurance that the public resource is being adequately managed & conserved

The C&E provisions must:

· Provide tools to achieve end goal

· Enable participants to be treated in a fair and equitable manner

· Be affordable for both government and participant

1. Enforcement Tools:

· Stopwork order (Code)

· Remediation orders (Code and Reg)

· Administrative penalties

· Reviews and Appeals

· Offences

· Suspension, etc. (Forest Act)

2. Fair and Equitable Treatment:

· Participants have the ability to challenge any ‘remediation order’

· In some circumstances participants can be relieved from an oblgation even where it is not fulfilled

· Participant’s can try to demonstrate why it isn’t in the public’s interest to proceed

3. The System Must Be Affordable:

· Fewer provisions to assess

· Fewer resources required to approve plans

· Additional information sources reduces the need for large field presence

· Audits under the regulation

· Annual reporting requirements

· Audits by certification agencies

· The government may decline to take action if it is not in the public interest

8.0 Session Review

Application of the pilot regulation

Phase 1: Effective Date

Phase 2: First 2 Years

Phase 3: Steady State

Phase 4: Winding Down

Compliance and Enforcement