Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project
Public
Advisory Group Meeting #15
April 9,
2002
5:30pm to
9:30pm
APPROVED
MEETING SUMMARY NOTES
Meeting Attendance:
|
Name |
Interest |
Phone |
E-mail |
|
|
|
Participants: |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
Roger St. Jean |
Small Business
Forest Enterprise Program (SBFEP) |
787-5645 |
|
||
|
John Dymond |
Slocan L.P OSB Corp |
261-6464 |
|
||
|
Jeff Beale |
Slocan L.P OSB Corp |
261-6464 |
|
||
|
Dave Menzies |
Canfor |
787-3613 |
|
||
|
Warren Jukes |
Canfor |
788-4355 |
|
||
|
Paul Albu |
Small Business
Forest Enterprise Program (SBFEP) |
787-5600 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates: |
|
|
|||
|
Mike Waberski
|
Oil and Gas |
787-0300 |
| ||
|
Ron Wagner |
Labour |
787-0172 |
| ||
|
Roy Lube |
Non Commercial Rec (non consumptive) |
787-7619 |
| ||
|
Ray Jackson |
Guide Outfitting |
783-5220 |
| ||
|
Orland Wilkerson |
Urban Communities |
787-6243 |
| ||
|
Oliver Mott |
Environment/Conservation |
785-9508 |
| ||
|
Gary Rehmeier |
Forest Workers |
787-3672 |
| ||
|
Karen Goodings |
Rural Communities |
785-8084 |
| ||
|
Fred Klassen |
Forest Workers |
785-3901 |
|||
|
R. J Shular |
Trapping |
785-5816 |
| ||
|
Jim Eglinski |
Rural Communities |
787-8158 |
| ||
|
Facilitator: |
|
|
| ||
|
Gail Wallin |
|
305-1003 |
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
Advisors: |
|
|
| ||
|
Pierre Beaudry |
Consultant, water specialist (P.B.A) |
250-964-8405 |
| ||
|
Rod Backmeyer |
Ministry Water Land Air Protection |
787-3283 |
| ||
|
Paul Wooding |
Canfor |
604-661-5423 |
| ||
|
Jim Schilling |
Canfor, Forest Eng. Supt. |
787-3638 |
| ||
|
Janice Edwards |
Ministry Sustainable Resource
Management |
787-5616 |
| ||
|
Observers: |
|
|
| ||
|
none |
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
| ||
1.
Welcome
·
Introductions were made around table.
·
Handout
of meeting draft agenda, draft meeting summary of March 11/02, and draft Matrix
#12 from March 11th (PAG input).
2.
Review of Mtg. Agenda
·
PAG
reviewed proposed agenda for this meeting.
·
PAG
amended the agenda to switch order of presentation of items 3 and 4.
·
Intent
of tonight’s’ meeting is to complete PAG input into Criteria 3, and 6, then if
time allows to fill in the Objectives for Elements 1, 2, and 4.
3.
Review of Previous Mtg.Summary and Matrix
·
PAG
reviewed draft meeting summary notes from March 11th 2002. Question was called for changes.
·
PAG
accepted the draft March 11th 2002 meeting notes
with the amendment of a change of Interest from that of Outdoor Recreation to
Non-Commercial Recreation (non-consumptive), as had been originally agreed upon
by the PAG.
·
PAG
read over the distributed Matrix 12. Question was called for any changes, in
particular to PAG’s input to Elements 3, 5, and 6.
·
PAG
accepted the Matrix 12 as the summary of March 11th PAG input.
4.
Membership Review
·
Facilitator provided a review of the Terms of Reference for
PAG membership.
·
Introduction of Jim Eglinski as Alternate for Peter
Vandergugten, Rural Communities, who is the Alternate for interest
Representative Karen Goodings.
·
Discussion of resignation of Agriculture/Range/Private
Woodlots Representative Frank Schlichting.
·
Roger
St. Jean read Frank’s resignation letter, and provided summary of follow-up
correspondence between participants and Frank.
·
Frank
felt that his concerns were not shared by the fellow PAG members, and he had no
confidence regarding sustainability without fire issues being addressed. These were not able
to be fully addressed
as the responsibility for fire
management is guided by the Ministry and the
participants are required to meet these
expectations. Also, Frank was unable to provide the time he felt was
needed to address his interests properly.
·
No
alternate member has been identified by Frank, by PAG or by the participants.
Egbert Weitzel had expressed some interest early in 2001, but later declined
membership.
·
PAG was
asked for a recommendation for a replacement representative for Ag/Range/Private
Woodlots. None was forthcoming.
·
A
suggestion was made that perhaps Karen Goodings might consider representing
Ag/Range/Private Woodlots.
·
Karen
will consider this, but feels that she would be unable to properly represent the
Private Woodlot part of the interest.
·
Warren
Jukes reminded the table that private land (and private woodlots) are not part
of the Defined Forest Area, and do not fall under the Pilot Regulation.
·
ACTION: The
PAG requested that the participants write a letter to Frank Schlichting thanking
him for his participation and will recommend a new name if one can be
identified.
·
J
Dymond provided a summary of contact with members regarding attendance and
membership.
He pointed out which members were inactive and what their response to
future participation.
·
PAG was
asked to consider a proposal of Stan Gladys for alternate representative for
Non-commercial Recreation. No objections to his membership were made.
·
R.
Shular stated Representative Terry Howatt had said he would attend this evening,
but did not. Terry and R. will settle who will be representative.
·
No
alternate is available for Guide Outfitting.
·
A
suggestion was made that the two Non-commercial Recreation interests might
combine, to provide better attendance.
·
ACTION:
contact Barry Holland and Budd Phillips for their inputdecision on this item.
·
ACTION: provide
overview map of the Defined Forest Area for the next PAG meeting.
5.
Water Quality Presentation
·
Presentation by Pierre Beaudry (Forest Hydrologist
Specialist, Consultant)
·
Pierre
provided his qualifications and background in water management and analysis
·
Presentation One dealt with general forestry and water
quality issues.
·
Presentation Two centered on how the participants could
deal with water quality management and monitoring issues in the context of
satisfying the requirements of sustainable forest management.
·
The
participant’s proposal for monitoring is to measure a large activity area for an
evaluation of how sediment control measures are performing. This is instead of
intensively sampling a smaller number of sect streams.
·
Proposal is to use Stream Crossing Quality Index (SCQI) to
evaluate practices over a large number of crossings and to measure ‘in-steam’ on
a small area to evaluate the accuracy of SCQI.
·
Question:
·
Will
the participants be dealing with long range effects of water degradation (i.e.
effects of local forest activities that are felt outside the DFA)? Answer is
yes, if the adverse effects are as a result of participant’s activities.
·
Question:
·
Is the
intent of this process to create a set of operating guidelines that will specify
additional constraints to operating in areas such as riparian areas? Answer is
that the intent is to set measurable goals and objectives to keep effects of
activities to an acceptable level.
·
Question:
·
Concern
regarding the integrity of the sampling system, and the samplers; who is the
watchdog that will prevent bias? Answer is that Provincial standards must be
upheld, and professional accountability and third party audits will ensure
integrity.
·
A
discussion ensued regarding statistical validation and its dependence on number
of installations.
·
A
discussion ensued regarding the merits and alternatives to the proposed system
and what it measures. General consensus was that this system would likely
provided the level of monitoring that is required.
·
Question:
·
There
was discussion regarding the assessment scale of 0 to 1 that is meant to measure
zero effect to unacceptable effect. A question arose regarding those effects
that exceeded 1; should we not extend the scale to encompass those effects as
well? The answer is that if the scale were to be extended, the overall results
would be skewed to the lower end of the scale, due to the predominance of 0
incidence.
6.
WG Response to PAG input Criteria 3, 5, 6 Values/Goals and
proposed Indicators
·
PAG
reviewed Matrix 13 that includes the Participants proposed indicators and
objectives
·
Element
3.2
·
Dave
Menzies provided an explanation of proposed Indicators and Objectives.
·
Pierre
Beaudry provided an explanation of the Peak Flow Index
· PAG asked that Objective 1a) be changed to “Ensure that future operational plans do not exceed peak flow targets”
·
PAG
agreed to all other proposed Indicators and objectives for Element 3.2.
·
Element
3.1
·
Discussion and
explanation of Site Index, pre- and post-harvest.
· PAG finds proposed participant wording awkward, and recommends changing wording for Objective 1 to “site index post-harvest will not be less than pre-harvest”
·
PAG
agreed to all other proposed Indicators and Objectives for Element 3.1
·
Discussion regarding meaning of “directly attributable to
forestry”
·
Question:
·
PAG
asked what triggered a report (reportable event). Answer is that Environmental
Management Systems and Audits ensure that incident reporting is done where
required
·
Element
5.1
·
Timber:
PAG recommended changing proposed wording of Objective 1b) to
“ Ensure Timer Supply
Analysis is completed on a 5-10 yr. basis”
· Range: PAG accepted proposed Indicators and Objectives · Recreational Activities: PAG accepted proposed Indicators and Objectives, but would like to see opportunity for more recreation areas by the forest industry. · Visual Quality: PAG accepted proposed Indicators and Objectives.
·
Access: there
was discussion around the meaning of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and its
derivation. The point was made that ‘hectares’ in the Indicator do not equate to
‘factors’ in the Objective. PAG recommended changing proposed wording of the
Objective to “Maintain the # of Ha’s over time as determined in the LRMP,
for x sites related to forestry; tracked over X? period of time.”
·
PAG
observed that other resource users may make this objective difficult to
achieve.
·
Element
5.2
·
PAG
accepted proposed wording of Indicator 1 to 4, and Objectives 1, 3, and 4.
·
PAG
recommended changing the wording of Objective 2 to include both local and
non-local, and to read:
·
To establish the
baseline of the value for local/non-local services (Also, PAG recommended
that the value must relate to volume harvested)
·
To review existing level & make recommendations for
maximizing the return.
·
PAG
repeated their concern that there appears to be nothing in this Matrix that
addresses the fact that communities involves more than just the City of Fort St.
John.
·
ACTION: review
definition of Communities; define.
·
The
table will come back to Objectives 2 and 3 in the next meeting.
7.
Other Business
·
No
other business was brought forward.
8.
Public Presentations
·
No
public presentations were made.
9.
Next Meetings
·
April
22, 2002 (Monday)
·
May 6,
2002 (Monday)
·
May 21,
2002 (Tuesday)
·
The
three meetings may be cut to two if we can get through the rest of the
matrix.
Meeting
closed 9:30 PM.
PLEASE
NOTE THAT THE NEXT TWO MEETINGS (April 22 and MAY 6) WILL BE HELD AT THE
NORTHERN GRANDE HOTEL IN THE ‘GRANDE II’ ROOM, 5:30 P.M.