Summary Report on Successes and Challenges with Objectives Under the FRPA Model

Forest and Range Practices Act

Summary Report: Successes and Challenges with Objectives under the FRPA Model

from A Joint Government / Industry Workshop

(October 16, 2007)

Version 1 November, 2007 Summary Report on Successes and Challenges with Objectives under the FRPA Model from A Joint Government / Industry Workshop (October 16, 2007)

Table of Contents Table of Contents...... 2 Document Change Control...... 3 Background...... 3 Introduction...... 3 Topic Areas...... 3 Presentations...... 3 Executive Summary...... 3 Experiences/Successes...... 3 Opportunities...... 3 Challenges...... 3 Identifying requirements for new objectives under FRPA framework...... 3 Summary...... 3 Experiences/Successes...... 3 Opportunities Identified...... 3 Challenges Identified...... 3 Writing clear and effective objectives under the FRPA framework...... 3 Summary...... 3 Experiences/Successes...... 3 Opportunities Identified...... 3 Challenges Identified...... 3 Other current challenges in “developing” new objectives/orders under the FRPA framework...... 3 Summary...... 3 Experiences/Successes...... 3 Opportunities Identified...... 3 Challenges Identified...... 3 Other current challenges in “implementing” new or old objectives under the FRPA...... 3 Summary...... 3 Experiences/Successes...... 3 Opportunities Identified...... 3 Challenges Identified...... 3 Case Studies...... 3 Legacy objectives from the FPC...... 3 Legacy Higher Level Plans (HLP)...... 3 Approved LRMPs that are not Higher Level Plans...... 3 First Nations experience in land use planning...... 3 Additional Information...... 3

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 2 Document Change Control

Version Date of Issue Brief Description of Change 1 November 15, Original document containing the successes and 2007 challenges as identified at the Objectives Workshop held in Richmond, BC on October 16, 2007. Edits and clarifications from workshop attendees are also incorporated into the document.

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 3 Background

This document contains a summary of the successes and challenges identified by government and industry personnel with experience with the objectives pillar of the FRPA model. The information was collected in a workshop held in Richmond, BC on October 16, 2007. The workshop focused on: 1) initiating a continuous improvement exercise by sharing our “learnings” and experience with the objectives pillar under FRPA; 2) identifying what we want from objectives and orders under the FRPA model; 3) identifying needs for suitable implementation tools to use for actions taken under the objectives pillar; and 4) Creating/enhancing a network for future dialogue and knowledge transfer.

Personnel who are developing and/or working with objectives under the FRPA model can review this information to take advantage of the experience and advice of those who have already been through the process.

Readers should use caution when reviewing this information. The information in this document reflects the experiences and opinions of those who participated in the workshop—it does not reflect government or industry policy nor does it summarize the requirements in the legislation.

Copies of the workshop presentations and products can be found on the PFIT website at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/pfit/.

DISCLAIMER

This document reflects the opinions and advice from participants who attended the PFIT Objectives Workshop on October 16, 2007.

These opinions, experiences and lessons learned are provided for your information and are not legal requirements that you must follow nor are they policy from government or industry.

The contents of this document reflect the items discussed at the Workshop based on the participant’s experience with objectives under the FRPA model as of October, 2007. It does not cover all activities involved in drafting and implementing objectives nor does it incorporate lessons learned since the Workshop. Please refer to the Administrative Guide for FSPs (AGFSP) and the PFIT website at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/pfit/ for a broader, more complete and current coverage of objectives under the FRPA model. Introduction

Information in this document reflects the experiences and opinions of the approximately 80 government and industry personnel who participated in the Provincial FRPA Implementation Team (PFIT) sponsored workshop on October 16, 2007. Government personnel consisted of Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB) and Ministry of Forests and Range (MFR) staff with representation from Ministry of Environment (MoE) and Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the Arts (MTSA). Industry personnel included representation from the Council of Forest Industries (COFI) and the Coast Forest Products Association (CFPA).

The experiences and opinions listed in this document were gathered through the following activities:  Presentations by government personnel on their experience in drafting and/or implementing objectives under the FRPA model; and  Break-out sessions covering four topic areas (listed below). Participants joined two break-out sessions to identify the successes and challenges they see in each topic area.

The contents of this document are organized into the four topic areas listed below. Information from the workshop presentations has been incorporated into the corresponding topic areas as well as the case studies section.

Topic Areas 1. Identify requirements for new objectives under the FRPA framework. 2. Writing clear and effective objectives under the FRPA framework. 3. Other current challenges in “developing” new objectives/orders under FRPA framework. 4. Other current challenges in “implementing” new or old objectives under FRPA.

Presentations The following presentations were delivered at the PFIT Objectives Workshop. The presentations focused on how organizations are drafting and/or implementing objectives under the FRPA model—their successes, lessons learned and challenges identified.

The presentations are listed in the sequence in which they were presented. Some information in the presentations is integrated with the corresponding information in this summary report. Copies of the presentations can be found on the PFIT website at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hth/timten/ FRPA _implementation/index.htm. Introduction

Topic Presenter 1. Context of Objectives in FRPA Dave McBeth, Operations Division, MFR 2. Role of Information and Considerations Guy Brownlee, Influencing Decision Makers Compliance and Enforcement Branch, Determination in Plan Approval Process MFR 3. “Perspectives on need for objectives for FSP / forest management direction” a. New FRPA objectives (Land Use Rory Annett, Regulation or GAR) District Manager, Campbell River Forest District, MFR b. Legacy Higher Level Plans (HLP) Tom Volkers, District Manager, Headwaters Forest District, MFR c. Approved land use plans (LRMP) Bill Thibeault, District Manager, Vanderhoof Forest District, MFR d. GAR actions Stewart Guy, Ecosystems Branch, MoE e. First Nations issues/ influences on land Darrell Robb, use planning Aboriginal Affairs Branch , MFR f. Land Use Objectives: policy and Angela von Sacken, procedures Strategic Land Policy and Legislation Branch, MAL

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 6 Executive Summary

Experiences/Successes The objectives pillar under the FRPA framework is supporting the goals of FRPA as identified in the table below and described in more detail in the experiences and successes sections of each topic area. FRPA Goals Balance Provide Social, Industry Maintain High Environmental, Maintain Be within resource “Freedom to Environmental Economic Public capacity of Topic Area Manage” Standards Interests Confidence government Identifying 1. LUOR/GAR contains “criteria” for establishment requirements 2. Monitoring to confirm effectiveness of objectives for objectives Based on Based on Objectives that are science science spatial are easier to review/approve while non-spatial are more flexible Writing clear Dialogue and Higher risk 3. Stakeholders involved in Objectives that are and effective information issues can have reviewing objectives before general are more objectives sharing during more detailed established flexible while drafting objectives or specific objectives 4. Dialogue and information process “measures” are easier to sharing during drafting review/approve process Developing 1. Higher level plans (HLP) grandparented as land use objectives (LUO) “new” LUOR/GAR LUOR/GAR LUOR/GAR Flexibility to objectives/ objectives objectives objectives choose different orders established established established legal tools to establish objectives (LUOR, GAR) Implementing Objectives Monitoring and tracking effectiveness of “new” or “old” define objectives objectives government expectations Objectives are being implemented to manage FRPA values Executive Summary

Opportunities Several opportunities to ensure the objectives pillar continues to provide the best support for the FRPA framework were identified by participants. These opportunities are listed in the four topic areas and in the case studies below. A sample of some of the opportunities includes the following:  Completing a thorough requirements analysis before developing an objective. Develop a business case for each objective package (order) being established--identifying its role, implementation tool (LUOR, GAR) and plan along with monitoring and tracking requirements;  Reviewing existing objectives for currentness and relevancy given public expectations, environmental issues and economic conditions;  Utilizing a central organization to ensure all agencies are working together to develop “good” objectives with minimal, ineffective conflict and overlap along with reasonable implementation plans;  Providing advice, information and/or training to support those developing objectives to ensure they address the need and provide flexibility for implementation and future monitoring/maintenance;  Encouraging objectives to apply to all resource users including forestry, tourism, mining, oil and gas, etc;  Ensuring government has the resources and capacity to manage the workload associated with developing objectives under the defined LUOR/GAR procedure to ensure objectives are established in a timely manner; and  Identifying a tracking and monitoring framework to periodically confirm all objectives are fulfilling their role given current Public expectations, environmental issues and economic conditions.

Challenges Several challenges were identified at the workshop. These challenges are listed in the individual topic areas and in the case studies. Challenges can be addressed through information, experience, training and support. The Provincial FRPA Implementation Team (PFIT) is the ideal vehicle to identify, prioritize and address these challenges as the need arises.

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 8 Identifying requirements for new objectives under FRPA framework

Summary

The Land Use Order Regulation (LUOR) contains “criteria” that must be considered before any land use objective can be established (Source: Land Use Objective Regulation presentation, Angela von Sacken, Strategic Land Policy and Legislation Branch, MAL):  Add value - No duplication;  Determine conflicts;  Provide balance;  Importance outweighs adverse impacts; and  Consider public review comments.

Expectations for objectives under the FRPA model include the following (Source: Context for Objectives in FRPA presentation, Dave McBeth, Land Use Specialist, MFR):  To be set where and when needed based on “risk”;  To provide clear strategic direction;  To give due consideration to FRPA goals;  To ensure a high level of stewardship “liability” is in hands of the tenure holder and their professionals;  To add value to the FRPA framework (responsible governance);  To include flexibility for more specific actions in the future;  To allow for new improved information to enter the picture;  To be supported by strong and compelling information; and  Allow for good results or strategies to be written.

Many participants felt it was too early to assess the effectiveness of objectives under the FRPA pillar but that monitoring is required to identify objectives that are not achieving their goals and/or identify the requirement for new objectives.

Some challenges identified include the ability to assess the need for objectives based on current public expectations, environmental conditions (e.g., MPB) and economic conditions (e.g., new markets, wood products). Many participants saw an opportunity for increased coordination of objectives—assessing the cumulative impact of new objectives on existing objectives as well as addressing conflicts between objectives applying to the same area. This increased coordination could also periodically review objectives to ensure they are still relevant and meeting the intent for which they were established. Identifying requirements for new objectives under FRPA framework

Experiences/Successes

Participants felt that objectives with strong science behind them are more readily acceptable. They also thought objectives should be spatial for ease of management and writing results and strategies for. Participants suggested a balanced was needed between spatial objectives that are easier to develop results/strategies for and non-spatial objectives that are more flexible. Several participants thought that the necessary flexibility could be built into the spatial objective alone.

Opportunities Identified

Requirements analysis:  complete a thorough requirements analysis before drafting and implementing the objectives (e.g., understand why are we drafting an objective, do we need it or can we address through the non-legal realm, does it conflict or overlap with existing objectives, does it add value). Objectives should address “risk” where needed. Determine who the objective applies to (e.g., just forest industry or all resource users). Understand the overall impact, what we are trying to achieve and where we at are (e.g., is it necessary to change, what are the targets). What has been done from a cumulative perspective (6%) impact on the AAC. Determine what causes the impact—land use decisions vs. FRPA/FPC impact?  Review existing plans/objectives to determine if they need to be clarified, consolidated or updated. Identify the public priorities/values and ensure the objectives are consistent with them (e.g., MPB and how it impacts the objectives and what the public expectations are). Bring more clarity and measurability to plans (e.g., legacy HLPs, LRMP). Clean-up old “problematic” objectives before establishing new objectives by monitoring the effectiveness of current objectives. Reporting requirements in older objectives should be reviewed to confirm they are applicable. Reword or drop objectives that are too vague to write results/strategies for. Other objectives are too specific--creating issues for licensees to draft results/strategies that are consistent with. These should be reviewed and enhanced as necessary. Identify and address inconsistencies between FRPA objectives (e.g., FPPR and RPPR have different objectives for soils--needs some reconciliation as they often apply to the same areas). Address existing objectives that have sub-objectives instead of “desired conditions” (e.g., objective is to follow the objectives elsewhere or process or plan in X)?  Maintain and enhance collaboration between agencies through interagency cooperation and networking. Clarification is required at the regional and district levels for interagency and intra-agency communications and collaboration. Through effective collaboration between and across agencies, we can:  Ensure all FRPA values are addressed with objectives (IAMC’s, partnerships) comprising minimal, ineffective conflict and overlap;

 Ensure government is working together to deliver “good” objectives if and when needed;  Ensure commitment across all agencies to new objective;  Identify and resolve disputes in drafting and/or implementing objectives;  Facilitate ongoing data custodianship—especially for non-spatial objectives. Need to get this information in a state such that others can understand (e.g., First Nations, public); and  Avoid unilateral decision (perception or reality).  Recommend a clearing house with upper management level decision makers to decide if we need to draft an objective and if so, balance targets/needs to ensure consistency between similar planning units and industries.  Develop a “decision tree” or guiding principles for determining if an objective is required to be established. Include examples. Alternatives include leaving the requirements in the non-legal and professional realm. Include guidelines for using tools in establishing objectives (e.g., identify objectives—legal or FRPA default objectives—that are adaptable to quickly changing circumstances such as MPB).  Design a process for identifying changes in Public expectations. They are very different Public expectations today than the past. They will also change in the future.

Monitoring objectives  identify a process and develop guidelines for re-evaluating objectives to determine if they are fulfilling their role/purpose. Periodic reviews should be conducted to determine if the objective(s) are still effective. If public expectations, environmental concerns and/or economic conditions have changed, a new or modified objective may be necessary.  Develop and maintain solid and comprehensive inventories to support monitoring of objectives (e.g., are they achieving their targets). Include in the inventory and analysis other areas such as Protected Areas (understand what they provide). What did previous planning processes agree to (e.g., Sunshine Forest Protected Areas). First Nations rights and titles issues.

Objectives Matrix  Review the repository of objectives (i.e., objectives matrix). Some felt the objectives matrix worked well while others thought it did not succeed (need a better way). Determine if we need to change the repository to ensure objectives are easily found and current/accurate.

Challenges Identified

Monitoring  How to monitor objectives when they are vaguely written?  Who is monitoring the performance of licensees with overlapping objectives? Who monitors if overlapping tenures (agency or licensee)?  How do you determine the effectiveness of an objective? What information do you use?  No set coordinated framework in looking at “objectives”—legal or not.  Are existing objectives working (including legacy plans and objectives)? How do we know? Are they doing what they are supposed to? Commitments in some legacy plans are not necessarily possible to carry through. Are they relevant and effective in the FRPA world as well as consistent with current Public values and expectations?  How are new objectives translating into FSPs? How are FSPs being assessed? Are they working to achieve objectives? Is this FREP’s responsibility?  Do we understand what data we are collecting and why? For example, are we establishing benchmarks for visuals or just collecting data?  What do we do with the outcome of monitoring? How do we determine if the objective if effective or not?

Professional reliance  What is the role of professionals in monitoring (professional reliance) and working with objectives?  How does professional reliance play into “consistent with objectives and measurability” tests as they relate to risk?  What is the relationship between professional reliance and any objectives written in terms of dealing with the public interest?

Types of objectives  all FRPA values not addressed with objectives. Do the “big 11” cover everything off? Are other objectives required? Are we covering the breadth of values? Are we digging deep enough to deal with these values? NOTE: Section 93.4 of the Land Act provides authority for the Minister to establish objectives for the use and management of crown resources or Crown land—including the 11 values listed in FRPA and other values not listed (e.g., objectives for access management).

Development process  Who should take care of or hold the responsibility for the objective? Does the holder of responsibility of the objective have the resources to designate or manage the objective?

 Risk. Priorities—are we tackling the biggest priorities regarding developing new objectives? For example, there is no forest health objective. Is the resource being managed adequately?

Other  Can we deal with emerging issues on the landbase (e.g., visuals that do not trigger a mandatory amendment to an FSP)?  How climate change affects objective?  First nations.—how do FRAs/FROs, government direction, etc. mesh with objectives?  This may be covered elsewhere: FN some agency staff and publics want more FPC like objectives for values of importance to them so delivery on the ground can be more assured  There is no agreement (or policy) on what can/can’t be in a FRPA objective or when an objective is needed which is creating differences between planning units and conflicts between agencies/public/FN  pressure from forest licensees to make legal objectives so forest licensees can identify impacts are not due to forest operations (tracking).

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 13 Writing clear and effective objectives under the FRPA framework

Summary

Orders have been developed and approved to establish objectives. The objectives create certainty for timber operators. Some objectives have been developed with clear content and intent. Some objectives (e.g., visuals) are prescriptive in nature—creating some success and some challenges.

Stakeholders have bought into the objectives and development process. The communication and consultation amongst stakeholders while writing and approving objectives is very impressive. The process and legal tools for creating an objective are understood. Some objectives have a clear risk assessment (e.g., defining the risk the objective is addressing).

Observations for the development of objectives include the following (Source: Context for Objectives in FRPA Presentation, Dave McBeth, Land Use Specialist, MFR):  more strategic objectives work like “hooks”, leaving it to the licensees and professionals to determine results/strategies;  strategic objectives containing a compelling “trail” leading to the best place of supporting information will assist in the development of good results/strategies;  higher risk issues may need more detailed objectives or “measures”;  more specific objectives leave licensees and MFR DDMs with less flexibility; and  more detailed and traditional resource management “SMART”(specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time bound) objectives can work in FRPA but have the potential to bypass at least some of the FRPA model.

Some participants felt that some objectives are too broad or too detailed. Some provide “too much” flexibility. Precision in objectives does not necessarily equal good stewardship under FRPA. Overlaps in objectives that apply to an area are not always addressed in the implementation—creating confusion in the field. Some parties prefer more specific objectives that are better for drafting results/strategies against while others prefer more general objectives for flexibility and consistency of implementation reasons. Some smaller or newer licensees prefer more directed “tell me what to do” objectives.

The objectives pillar under FRPA has the flexibility to handle general and specific objectives. Some objectives contain information that can be used as a result/strategy. Some participants felt this was a good thing in terms of assisting in the development of the FSP. Other participants did not like prescriptive objectives (e.g., shouldn’t contain results/strategies). A balance is probably the best solution—treating each objective on a case by case basis. Writing clear and effective objectives under the FRPA framework

Participants felt that an objective with clear content and intent leads to certainty in operations (e.g., understanding government direction and expectations implied in objectives). Clarity and effectiveness of an objective can be linked to spatial (mapping) objectives (e.g., OGMA). This helps to identify overlaps when establishing the objective. Participants also commented that:  “clarifying” documentation provides guidance for government/licensee if needed. For example, order (Kamloops) and document (Cariboo);  some non-legal information can be built into FRPA (FPPR) objectives. For example, in the South Island Forest District for the FPPR s.9 landscape level biodiversity objective, licensees brought additional results/strategies into the FSP. Part of Government’s role is to bring the best information/science into play and allow professional reliance to pick up the right things to do on the ground;  Results/strategies written by licensees look good so far; and  Drafting of objectives involves review, involvement, dialogue, negotiation with licensees.

FRPA (section 149) objectives are working well because they have factors and some have “defaults” which provide clarity. They also state the “why” and “what” components of an objective. This helps licensees understand the objective’s background and context—making it easier for them to draft results/strategies consistent with the objective.

Provide advice, information and/or training to support personnel drafting objectives (e.g., update old “Daryl Brown training”). Examples or mock-ups of objectives with a discussion on how they might affect FSP development (e.g., drafting results/strategies) and adjudication (e.g., result/strategy consistency test) could be included in the advice, information and training. Content to cover includes the following:  Understanding the legislative tools available to establish objectives including the process and content requirements.  Determining how specific or general the objective should be--based on risk to value and other mechanisms (e.g., higher risk objectives need more detail) Try to find a balance of precision and flexibility. Some OGMA need to be locked-down (e.g., prescriptive) while others need flexibility. Smaller licensees find prescriptive objectives with “default” results/strategies built in easier to work with when developing results/strategies (e.g., options inside objectives, possibly list key factors). Target objectives at a large geographic scale which provides flexibility. Consider how much flexibility to incorporate into the objective versus use of professional reliance and/or non-legal realm. Consider the need for flexibility in the objective for unforeseen events or conditions (e.g., wildfire, beetle).  Identifying the scope and amount of information required to substantiate the objective (e.g., supporting documentation). The documentation should ensure everyone

understands how the objective is intended to work. More communication may be required to ensure the objective is understood consistently—especially if it’s a broadly worded objective. This will be useful for licensees/BCTS to use when drafting/amending the results/strategies in their FSP. A consistent documentation package should be provided for each objective:  addressing any overlap in the new objective with existing objectives;  providing the context for the objective. What does it mean? How can it be applied? What is the intent (e.g., balancing social/environment/economical components);  providing a rationale for establishment and approval of the objective;  describing the implementation plan—including realistic timelines to communicate and incorporate new objectives into approved FSPs. Information on mandatory amendments and level of material change (for re-advertising of FSPs) should be provided. Criteria/indicators in Sustainable Forest Management Plans (SFMP) can be used to support non-legal implementation; and  providing information on tracking and monitoring the objective to assess if the objective continues to be effective as intended (over time).  Writing the objective to focus on the result, not the process. Deal with the value you are addressing vs. the process for protecting the value (e.g., buffers for recreation). Understanding the measure or the yardstick and ensuring the supporting inventories are adequate to measure and implement.  Deciding on spatial or aspatial objectives. Objectives should be spatial if possible. Spatial objectives are easy to administer, maintain and write results/strategies for. May need a balance between spatial and non-spatial to allow for flexibility through some non-spatial objectives. Responsibilities for “owning” and “maintaining” non-spatial objectives needs to be established along with an assessment of cumulative effects. Objectives without spatialization require more agency/industry interaction. Non-spatial should only be interim. Government needs the capacity to reset these objectives (e.g., after a fire/beetle event). FREP monitoring can be used to trigger the reset.  Writing objectives in a general tone and including considerations for implementation:  allowing for new information/science in the future (e.g., focusing the objective on what and why).  attaching measures (consideration) to objective for ease of implementation.  Allowing for monitoring. Need to be able to check how the objective is working and ensure appropriate precision.  Working with other agencies to draft objectives that minimize the administrative burden (e.g., avoiding agencies approving objectives that create administrative load for other agencies).  Conducting a review of the objective before the approval process. Reviewing/editing the objective to ensure ease of readability and comprehension (e.g., is it clear and concise?). Reviewing the SMARTness of the objective (e.g., does the objective describe the goal (why), who, what, where, when and/or content that can be used as a result/strategy that is

deemed to be consistent with the objective?) Consider how difficult/easy it will be for licensees/BCTS to develop results/strategies and for government to monitor outcomes. Ensure definitions are included in the objective where necessary to avoid confusion (e.g., riparian management, how much wildlife tree retention, patch size).

Other  Legal orders are filed with MFR. Could they coordinate dissemination of information to districts?  Some First Nations demanding new relationship type process (not consultation) when agencies develop new orders  Some First Nations want rights and title issue addressed in LUOs’  First nations/public wanting more “detail” in FSP. Therefore some First nations/public drive to get more detail in objectives. Potential lack of trust.  G+G (government to government?)—are we going backwards regarding a new relationship?  Professional considerations if non-legal. Auditing reports are needed.  Reliance on due diligence dependent on quality of data.  Specificity dependent on who is behind order.

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 17 Other current challenges in “developing” new objectives/orders under the FRPA framework

Summary

FRPA relies on the land use objectives to direct stewardship. The current situation includes the following:  Higher level plans (HLPs) were grandparented as Land Use Objectives (LUO)--keeping those stakeholders happy and engaged. Some of those objectives will require improvement to function in the results based FRPA model;  Stakeholders who participated in policy LRMPs have not fully digested how their approved plans will work under the FRPA model – the perception is the plan may or may not be implemented - so additional support is required here to correct this perception; and  Many objectives for the FRPA pillar have been established using the Land Use Objective Regulation (LUOR) which has replaced the Strategic Planning Regulation (SPR). There appears to be a strong trend back to prescriptive objectives where First Nations interests are expressed – respecting their belief in the precautionary principle.

Most participants felt a major challenge was ensuring all resource users, not just timber harvesting, were working towards the same objective. Objectives established by government should apply to all resource industries and agencies operating on Crown land.

The objectives pillar of the FRPA model contains the flexibility to use different tools to establish objectives. Most participants felt the “legal” toolbox for establishing objectives was understood (e.g., LUOR, GAR, FPPR) at the agency/industry level. The appropriate tool should be selected based on the specific authority. Continuity with previous processes is a consideration and it may be expedient to use LUOR in some instances to maintain stakeholder buy-in. The “legal” toolbox is supported with administrative tools:  LUOR Policy and Procedures Guide; and  GAR Admin Guide.

The process for developing objectives is well defined—within the “criteria” of a specific regulation (e.g., LUOR, GAR). The process of developing an objective leads to good dialogue and communication between licensees and government. Cross agency and licensee workshops, meetings and other communications are happening before the objective is approved and implemented. The Public is actively involved in providing input into LRMPs and new/old land use objectives. Other current challenges in “developing” new objectives/orders under the FRPA framework

First nations consultation is getting more inclusive and giving decision makers better information for setting objectives. Buy-in from First Nations for setting land use objectives is improving.

Cumulative impacts  Due to increasing pressures there is a need to ensure all objectives to apply to all sectors (e.g., agencies and industries). Otherwise, cumulative impacts may create an imbalance and public values may not be managed effectively and/or as desired. For example, spatial OGMAs are counted on for many values but oil and gas organizations are not required to consider or recognize. When stacking values, we run the risk of significant disruption when an outside impact comes in (e.g., ski hill, beetles/forest health, power development). The solution is to ensure the objectives apply to all resource users.

Administration  Ensure government has the resources and capacity to manage the workload associated with drafting and implementing objectives. MOE needs more staffing as does ILMB. The legal process of establishing objectives is very slow. Some objectives are not being established, consulted and/or communicated properly due to understaffed agencies.  Ensure government has the necessary clarity in their roles and responsibilities for drafting and implementing objectives (e.g., who sets objectives, who tracks objectives).

Development Process  Provide advice, information and/or training on:  which tools to use in establishing the objective (GAR, LUOR, FPPR)? When is a legal objective really needed or not (e.g., perception vs. risk)? What can be a GAR objective, LUOR objective and FRPA objective? Some licensees prefer GAR because exemptions are seen as being easier. GAR orders may not trigger a mandatory amendment—implementation timeframe could be five years or more if not voluntarily implemented (e.g., visuals).  developing objectives to get the most stewardship with the least bureaucracy (e.g., tie to FRPA goals)?  Ensuring efficient and effective communication between ILMB, MoE, MFR and Licensees about new and existing legal orders. Break down “silos of information” when dissemination information on a new objective.  Establishing a contact list on who to communicate with at Districts (e.g., district manager, RIT contact).  determining how and who does the risk assessment and who has capacity to implement. How much information is required to substantiate the risk assessment? Risk assessment is important and critical to discuss. There is not necessarily agreement across sectors (e.g., agency, licensees, First nations).

Cumulative impacts  How to address cumulative impacts if non-spatial objectives on volume based tenures and multiple FSP holders with overlapping FDUs. Who is responsible? What is the role of other resource users? Tenure holders can try to work together but need to determine who is managing the data and what data will Compliance & Enforcement personnel use.

First Nations  How to ensure commitments are met for consulting with First Nations? First nations “non buy-in” to LUOs (old)--some are in and some are out. Should First Nations be considered as a government-to-government concern? Have to do legal consultation but there maybe opportunity to engage upfront in developing new objectives. If coming from a new LUP, probably more collaboration/engagement with First Nations to include their interests. The First Nations decision making process maybe more complex and varied. Will need increased timelines to ensure adequate involvement.

Development process  First Nations, process, timelines not a forgone conclusion. Interagency agreements take time. Process could impact good stewardship--scope creep, politically negotiated number functional, compromise with mooshy LUOs  How do exemptions fit with meeting the public interest?  Different process for different objectives.  Majors vs. newcomers. How do we involve the newcomers? Do we need to? Economies of scale.  possible gap—“consultation/communication” with licensees while developing new objectives.  LRMP Implementation group not sure where they fit in with legalized objective set.  ILMB reviewing the previous groups and may move to more standardized template (PIMCs).

Approval tests  Can GAR tests be “assumed” to be met if in an approved land use decision?  Do approval tests ensure the objective is appropriate and efficient?  How do we make sure we have all the information to apply the tests that the orders have to meet? How do we deal with objectives where information associated with the objective is not clear (e.g., Crown forest land base that can change radically from time to time

based on new inventory and play havoc with targets and potentially mess with the social decision, BEC which changes from time to time and can alter the decision that was made through the objective)? Do we need to hard wire things when drafting/adjudicating?

Timber Objective  is the timber objective effective? Do we need a timber result or strategy—particularly if partial cutting is prescribed or other systems that prescribe retention of existing volume? Prescribing foresters need to define, within the FSP, the “intended result” of prescriptions that will apply under FSPs (e.g., what products will be available at next harvest entry and when in the future).  Timber objective—“not duly…” needs better clarification. Is it impact on timber harvesting land base, AAC or the 6% impact on AAC from the Code? With uplifts, can other values impact go up? How to factor in the potential shift to other wood products (other than sawlogs) in the future?  Need to revise/add to/clarify the timber objective to define “scale” that “economically valuable supply” applies to. Is this the cut block or landscape level? What are the factors that should be considered by prescribing foresters in this regard (e.g., current stand value, target species, operability)?  Stocking standards. Seeing new approaches through amendments (e.g., species mix, future products). Should this be shared/encouraged?  Need for a FRPA General Bulletin (along with or instead of legislation) to clarify MFR expectations regarding the timber objective. What factors define “economically valuable supply of timber” and what elements of the “timber supply analysis” are binding (e.g., minimum harvest ages, “oldest first” harvesting, species selection)?  FRPA timber objective too general/vague. At what scale is timber objective applied? Minimum standard (e.g., MAI)? Quality standards for leave trees in partial cutting? Incorporate some flexibility into objective

Forest Health Objective  what happened to the forest health objectives? Do we need a separate forest health objective or do the other objectives cover it off well enough? Are there any gaps we should look at closing with a stand alone forest health objective?  Forest health is a scale issue. If applied to narrowly, you actually increase your risk.

Visual Objective  Confusion/uncertainty around the number of visual objectives established on the Coast  how to define visual objectives—defaults or GAR? VQOs established via GAR does not trigger amendment—therefore not taking effect until the FSP is renewed. Can create very long wait to see results of work. Issue could be gone (visuals degraded). Objective out of LRMP looks to be dealt with but disappears (retention VQO).

 GAR process lacks flexibility for varying VQOs for a few polygons at a time without having to do a Timber Supply Analysis or consult stakeholders at large. There is a hesitancy to make minor changes to VQOs due to the planning complexity implicit in licensee, First Nations and public consultation.  The GAR test to ensure that the VQOs do not unduly impact timber supply has become a show stopper. These ad-hoc assessments require resources that are not available while the results of the next timber supply review are too far in the distance.  GAR process and timing for TFLs has not been addressed (e.g., approvals, orders)  In some cases, licensees have resisted efforts by the DM to establish VQOs if there is any indication that they could be constrained.

Recreation Trails  Need to work on new objectives (there are good examples out there).

Salvage  How do we address salvage associated with fire and beetle in a timely fashion? Are there other provisions in FRPA that can be used instead of revising/developing objectives?

Fuel Management/Hazard Abatement Strategy  Do we need a fuel management/hazard abatement strategy? Operationally, there is a lack of landscape level planning or retention planning that addresses this issue. The issue is magnified when coupled with MPB, reserve zones, OGMAs, etc. Planning that currently takes place appears to be “after the fact” or ad-hoc.

Other  OGMA—Pl vs. Sx.  Access management—cover many agencies.  Sensitive ecosystems, grizzly bear, cultural values, old growth.  Queen Charlotte Islands legal objectives—POGO, Karst, marbled murrelet. Some licensees include all LRMP in SFMP so risk is small but not consistent between licensees.  Are specific objectives under LUOR appropriate and compatible with the spirit of FRPA?  Will the C&E model be effective?  FSPs appear minimalistic and don’t have strong commitments (C&E). More commitment means more risk of C&E, therefore more objectives are being written to fill the gaps.  No objective way of measuring professional reliance.  Impacts from new land uses (e.g., IPP) on legal objectives achieving objectives.  FSPs—possibly not as formal clear public involvement processes. Some concerns expressed—where did my public input go?

 Some licensees still doing public input processes but not as formal. Seems not to be widely known—publicity.  Biodiversity in Prince George TSA (completion of OGMAs).

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 23 Other current challenges in “implementing” new or old objectives under the FRPA

Summary

Objectives are providing certainty and setting expectations for resource users. Confidence by members of the Public in the management of our forest and range (Crown) lands is increasing as objectives for the FRPA values are implemented.

Communication amongst stakeholders is good—helping to address areas where objectives may be vague or confusing. Tools and processes are being developed to support the implementation of government objectives.

A tracking process should be implemented to assess the effectiveness of the objectives.

Participants identified several challenges for implementing objectives including the difficultly in drafting results/strategies for vague or impracticable objectives as well as communicating and tracking approved orders.

Objectives are providing certainty and setting expectations for operations. No more “adequately manage and converse”. Now the objective is spelled out. The government’s expectations are known for industry and DDMs. The Public sees how expectations are identified and understands how values may be managed.

Good communication is leading to success and engagement in implementation of objectives. Not all areas have “clarity” in terms of established, legal objectives (e.g., Kamloops LRMP, CCLUP). Success in areas without objectives or “clarity” in government expectations should be through dialogue.

Tools and processes are being developed to support the implementation of government objectives:  Licensees are being proactive in establishing working groups to support the implementation of an objective (e.g., Prince George);  PFIT is a developing process around filing/notification of approved orders; and  FREP monitoring is starting to provide good feedback into the development/maintenance of objectives. Other current challenges in “implementing” new or old objectives under FRPA

Tracking results of objective  need a tracking process and report card to assess the effectiveness of objectives including timber supply, environment and social impacts. This process should assess the effectiveness of all the objectives collectively. For example, here are the impacts overall, is it working? What are the results/strategies giving us? What is the state of the land base?  Ensure roles and responsibilities are defined and the necessary resources/funding available. Especially for aspatial and cumulative impacts of multiple objectives established through different legal tools (e.g., FPPR, GAR, LU objectives). One suggested proposal is for the licensees to track non-spatial and draft spatial objectives while the ILMB/government tracks spatial objectives.  Conduct periodic reviews for currentness and effectiveness of an objective (FREPable). Time binding for certainty of objectives meeting government’s (Public) expectations.

Administration  Ensure the government has the resourcing/funding to implement government direction as defined in objectives (including big ticket—for example, old growth, EBM).

Drafting/amending the FSP  vague objectives (FPC HLP’s) are difficult to monitor, write measurable and verifiable results/strategies for and enforce (e.g., submission of recruitment strategy for OGMAs). Objectives that are too specific/prescriptive may be “impracticable” to draft results/strategies for—making the objective ineffective. See the discussion above in the Opportunities Identified section of “Writing clear and effective objectives under the FRPA framework”.  How to incorporate the results of FREP monitoring into the FSP (e.g., adaptive management in the FSP)?

Development process  How to keep track of approved orders? Will this be addressed by the PFIT process?  How to amend objectives?

Other challenges

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 25 Other current challenges in “implementing” new or old objectives under FRPA

 Many FPC old objectives were never monitored so we don’t know whether they were followed or implemented  Data issues persist fro spatial objectives – multiple data versions, legal map vs best guess, LRDW not current for some data (eg VQOs)  Some FPC-HLP objectives are not applicable to Fsps or FRPA and need to be amended/updated or deleted  how does C&E fit into monitoring and tracking of objectives? How does C&E monitor results/strategies?  How to deal with conditional objectives? Exemptions?  First nations in Government to Government (and/or other partnerships). May be asking for more “certainty” to address First Nations interests. Trust issue.  How to ensure all stakeholders/agencies are satisfied with outcomes?

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 26 Case Studies

Legacy objectives from the FPC

Background The purpose of the Vancouver Island LUP was to zone forest land to meet land use concerns and end the “conflict in the woods”. In 1988, public expectations were shifting regarding expectations for forest management. After four years of public processes under CORE, objectives were brought into force under the Forest Practices Code as Resource Management Zone (RMZ) objectives. They were grandparented into FRPA as government objectives. The objectives were prescriptive in nature (from the FPC world) and can be cut and paste into FSPs as results and strategies (easy to implement).

Recently, the Central Coast Order was deposited addressing ecosystem management. In addition, the Campbell River Forest District is using a GAR order to address issues with growth and yield/research plots.

Lessons Learned/Challenges  The RMZs in the Vancouver Island LUP do not match landscape units. Future efforts should attempt to match areas under an objective with the landscape units.  Now, as public expectations are shifting to protecting old growth forests and licensees require access to 2nd growth stands, the stability of the RMZ is impacted. Agencies are hesitant to re-open the discussion on the RMZ objectives due to the timeframe to consult with the Public and other stakeholders. Future objectives should be written to address shifting values and expectations.  The objectives under the Central Coast Order are prescriptive in nature due to the re- definition of the social and economic balance point. It is too early to assess the success of this approach but the objective has an adaptive management component for future maintenance, should it be necessary.  The pre-amble to the objectives under the Central Coast Order contains valuable information for implementing the objective and should be used in future orders. The pre-amble contains information to assist in the implementation—including targets to hit, the tone for “keeping the eye on the ball” and when to modify the Order in the future, if necessary (adaptive management).  The implementation timeframe for the Central Coast Order is too short (6 months). More time is needed to adapt to the new objectives (e.g., submit amended FSPs). Communication will be key to ensure ease of implementation. Professional reliance will also be important in getting an approved FSP in place that incorporates the Order.  When addressing the growth and yield/research plots issue, several discussions were held regarding the best tools to use. Could the issue be handled through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)? Could we use professional reliance? Or use a GAR Order? In the end, it was felt an objective established under GAR provided the certainty necessary to address the issue. The objective would set expectations and clearly define the business Case Studies

process for all to follow. The use of professionals (professional reliance) may have been difficult when adjudicating issues around Public interest/expectations for the land base.

Legacy Higher Level Plans (HLP)

Background The Kamloops LRMP was first implemented in 1996 with approximately 110 objectives applicable to operational plans. Since implementation, an order was made in 2006 to reduce the number of objectives down to 26 as there were too many and too prescriptive to address in an operational plan.

The Robson Valley LRMP has been signed off as government policy, but has not been approved as a HLP. Visual quality objectives have been established by the district manager prior to the LRMP approval, a provincial old-growth order exists and OGMAs exist for 13 (spatial) and 1 (draft) landscape units. The Robson Valley LRMP contains expectations around non-legal HLP objectives. They have no legal status as objectives but reflect public expectations. The land use designations do not have objectives

Lessons Learned/Challenges  The objectives in the Kamloops LRMP lack details and are creating a challenge in applying the consistency tests for results and strategies in an FSP (e.g., maintain old growth attributes in landscape unit, converse abundance of native species). Licensees/BCTS are also finding it harder to develop results/strategies for HLP with vague or non-existent objectives than the areas without HLP (use defaults in FRPA). Licensees are inconsistent in the incorporation of non-HLP direction from the LRMP.  Maintaining public confidence is an issue. It may be “easier” to be consistent with than FPPR objectives (default results/strategies) than with the “vague” objectives in the Kamloops LRMP. The Kamloops LRMP provides less certainty around maintaining key resource values and creates challenges with respect to implementing FRPA. The Robson Valley LRMP has challenges relating to public expectations around non-HLP objectives. Land use designations that do not have formal objectives need to be addressed.  For the Kamloops TSA—the OGMA is only draft while concerns exist about the different versions of the map. The Kamloops TSA also has no measurable objective for wildlife tree retention.  Questions the MFR is addressing include the following: o Does the legacy HLPs provide adequate clarity and direction? o What are the public’s expectations and how will they be met? o How to ensure the government objectives apply to all industries (e.g., mining, tourism, recreation) and do not conflict with each other? o How to properly store, correct, maintain and access government objectives—including legacy HLPs? Who will be in charge and accountable? o What to do with portions of legacy HLPs that are not legal objectives? What about non- HLP land use plans?

o What end results do they want for future and how to get there? They are focusing on the end result and not the administrative process or rules as there can be more than one way to achieve the desired end result. o How to determine if the result/strategy is consistent with the legacy HLP objective if it is vaguely written.

Approved LRMPs that are not Higher Level Plans

Background The Vanderhoof LRMP was approved in 1997 but was not established as a higher level plan. There is a moral and social obligation to consider the LRMP when developing and adjudicating the FSP but compliance with the plan is not required.

Lessons Learned/Challenges  Licensees are considering the LRMP when developing the FSP but not referencing the plan in their FSP. For example, BCTS has adopted the streamshore classification from the LRMP in their FSP.  The LRMP enabled licensees to develop relationships with each other and other stakeholders —a relationship that continues today. These relationships and communication processes are used in the review and comment phase of developing the FSP and in post-FSP approval activities. They are helping to build confidence with the public and other stakeholders as good stewards of the land.  Licensees/BCTS involved in the LRMP have developed a Sustainable Forest Management Plan (SFMP) that carried forward the values from the LRMP. Impacts of market forces and public expectations have been incorporated into the SFMP.

First Nations experience in land use planning

Background The Gitanyow First Nations band participated in a joint land use planning activity with MFR and ILMB in the Cranberry and Kispiox TSAs. The objective was to design ecosystem networks that incorporate First Nations uses along with other management objectives.

Lessons Learned/Challenges  outcomes of the joint land-use planning process include proactive consultation (vs. referrals), the identification of First Nations interests earlier and a more efficient consultation process.  many First Nations have issues with results/strategies. They prefer to see detailed or prescriptive plans.  First Nations do not want to be pigeon-holed into only focused on cultural heritage resource values. They are involved in other values such as wildlife and fisheries.  First Nations lack capacity to engage in extension and frequent information sharing.  First Nations have an interest in FREP and on the ground monitoring.

 Face to face consultations and pro-active involvement in the land use planning process is more efficient than “letter exchanges” at the consultation stage.

Version 1--November, 2007 Page 30 Additional Information

Additional information on the drafting and/or implementation of objectives under the FRPA model can be obtained from the following locations/resources:

Provincial FRPA Implementation Team (PFIT) Website

 PFIT Chair – Charlie Western ([email protected] ) http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rco/pfit/

 ILMB FRPA PFIT Team members: o Coast Region – Ron Cotton ([email protected]) o Northern Interior Region – Shannon Carson ([email protected]) o Southern Interior (& ILMB lead) – Ross Porcheron ([email protected])

Regional Implementation Team Members

 Coast Forest Region – Chuck Rowan ([email protected] )

 Southern Interior Region –Leith McKenzie ([email protected])

 Northern Interior Region – John Hybers ([email protected])

Administrative Guide for FSPs (AGFSP)

 Brian Westgate ([email protected]) http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hth/timten/AGFSP/index.htm

Land use planning and objectives

 MFR - Dave McBeth ([email protected])

 ILMB – Angela Von Sacken ([email protected])