FORT ST. JOHN

RESULTS BASED PILOT PROJECT

PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP MEETING #1

January 24^th, 2001

Approved MEETING SUMMARY

Attendees:

Name

Roy Lube

Ray Jackson

Ron Rutledge -MOF

Howard Madill- MOF

Vicki Allen

Budd Phillips

Gary Rehmeier

Karen Jukes

Warren Jukes- Canfor

Cliff Kowalsky

Ron Wagner

Fred Klassen

Wayne Sawchuk

Neil Meagher

Hosts/participants:

Dave Menzies

Doug Russell

Roger St. Jean

Paul Wooding

John Dymond

Facilitator: Gail Wallin

1. Welcome and Introductions

Doug Russell welcomed everyone to the meeting. He had everyone introduce themselves. Doug explained that this was the first meeting to establish a public advisory group that will initially help guide the results based pilot project. He then turned the meeting over to Gail Wallin to facilitate.

2. Review of Meeting Agenda

Gail Wallin reviewed the draft agenda and asked for input. The group agreed to the agenda as circulated.

3. Overview of Pilot Project

Doug Russell gave a presentation on the pilot project including purpose, intent, timeframe and the role of the public. A handout accompanied his presentation. This was followed by discussion including such topics such as:

- how the public will provide comments on the forest development plans

- linkages to the Muskwa Kechicka (MK) Plan and MK Act

- ongoing roles of forest development plans

- lifespan of the pilot project

ACTION: Provide background information to members i.e. section 10.1 @ future meeting

4. Overview of CSA Certification

Paul Wooding gave an overview of the forest certification with a special focus on Canadian Standards Association (CSA). After providing input on the pilot project, the goal is to have the public provide input into the CSA process so that certification can be achieved for this area of forestland. Questions and discussion followed Paul’s presentation including such topics such as:

- frequency of changes to the matrix (values, goals, indicators and objectives)

- linkages between CSA/ISO

- definition for Sustainable Forest Management

- level of commitment by all companies (participants)

- relation of CSA and potential cutting/overcutting

- ongoing role of public group

5. Input on Membership and Structure

Gail Wallin provided an introduction into the role of a public advisory group for

this project. The following information was discussed and accepted at the June Open House:

a) That the public will be able to provide input to the pilot project through:

- Receive information on the process (i.e. meeting summaries, etc.)

- provide information to the public group (i.e. presentations, letters)

- liaisons with members

- participating in the advisory group

b) All meetings of a Public Group will be open to the public

c) Recommended size is 12- 15 members

d) The list of interests proposed at the Open House was reviewed and revised. The following was accepted by the group with the understanding that it could be reviewed and revised, if necessary, in the future:

INTEREST AREA	Potential Representatives
First Nations	Band appointees
Urban Communities	Bruce, Nicola, Orland
Rural Communities	Karen Goodings
Environment/ conservation	Wayne, Bruce
Labor	Ron*
Forest Workers	Fred, Ron*, Gary*, Frank
Forest Contractors	Cliff, Gary*
Major oil/gas- contractors and producers	Mike L., Greg, Barry, Ed
Recreation- commercial	Ray
Recreation- non- commercial	Bud, Roy
Trapping	Vicki, Russel, Terry
Range/agriculture	Egbert, Walter, Frank

*Indicates those whose names appear more than once in the list

Italics indicates those who were not able to attend this meeting

· One outstanding name is Rosemary Baird who is not linked to any of these interests

e) For each interest area, a list of names was provided based on interest expressed at the June Open House or to the participants (see above). Based on these proposed names, the group agreed that those in each area would discuss who could best represent their interest area.

- if those within the interest area couldn’t select a representative, then the next step would be for the interim PAG group to select a member

- if this didn’t work, the participants would then select a person

f) further discussion will occur at the next meeting as to whether there should be one or two members or the use of an alternate

g) if alternates are to be used, they will be kept informed by the member

ACTION: 1) The participants to contact all those who weren’t at the meeting to confirm their willingness to participate and link them to others in their interest area

2) All those in each interest area to liaise and recommend one person, a second person for alternate or member prior to next meeting.

6. Time frame

Gail Wallin gave a brief overview of the three phases of involvement.

a) Input on pilot project

- establish group

- input to pilot

- review public input and responses

- estimate- meetings every 3 weeks to April/May

b) Input to CSA process

- input on values, goals, indicators and objectives

- estimate 6-8 meetings by winter 2001/2002

c) Ongoing input/ maintenance/ monitoring

- approximately 2- 4 meetings per year

7. Meeting Logistics

The input on future meetings was to:

a) hold them in the evenings, from 6:00pm- 9:00pm (check with oil/gas people)

b) provide supper

c) preferably not mid week nor weekends

8. Next Meetings

a) next meeting date is February 26 ( Monday)

b) draft agenda includes

- resolve membership structure and representation

- draft Terms of Reference

c) the group recommends that a draft Terms of Reference be tabled for review and comments to facilitate the discussion

ACTION: Gail to prepare a draft Terms of Reference

9. Meeting Wrap-up

Doug Russell thanked everyone for attending and having an interest in the project. The meeting wrapped up approximately 9:45 pm