Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project

Public Advisory Group Meeting #11

January 7, 2002

6:00pm to 9:15pm

Fort St. John Cultural Center

APPROVED MEETING SUMMARY NOTES

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
Doug Russell	Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd.	782-3302
Warren Jukes	Canfor	788-4355
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates:
Mike Waberski	Oil and Gas	787-0300
Ron Wagner	Labour	787-0172
Frank Schlichting	Range, Agric. & Private Woodlots	787-5383
Orland Wilkerson	Urban Communities	787-6243
Wayne Sawchuk	Environment & Conservation	788-2685
Neil Meagher	IWA Canada	563-7771
Gary Rehmeier	Forest Workers	787-5214
Karen Goodings	Rural Communities	785-8084
Budd Phillips	Non-commercial Recreation	785-1283
Facilitator:
Gail Wallin		305-1003
Advisors:
Paul Albu	SBFEP	787-5600
Joelle Scheck	Ministry Water Land Air Protection	787-3283
Ron Rutledge	Ministry of Sus. Res. Mgt., FSJ	787-5632
Paul Wooding	Canfor	604-661-5423
Observers:
None

1. Welcome

· This is the eleventh meeting of the Public Advisory Group

· The purpose of this meeting is to continue developing Goals and Values of the matrix, commencing with Element 5 and 6.

· At the subsequent meeting the participants will provide their response to the PAGs’ input to the Values and Goals.

· A request was made of the PAG for permission for photographs of the group to be taken during this meeting, for the purpose of publication in the regional (North and South Peace) Canfor newsletter. Permission for photographs was granted by the PAG. The PAG was reminded that the newsletter is bound by the Terms of Reference regarding any outgoing or external communication.

2. Review of Meeting Agenda

· The draft Agenda was distributed and reviewed by the PAG for additions, deletions or corrections

· Draft Agenda was changed to include the addition of a brief update regarding the status of the Pilot Project Regulation.

3. Review of Meeting Summary December 3 2001

· Copies of the Dec 3 2001 PAG meeting were distributed and time was given for review of the text portion.

· Correction to the spelling of names was requested to be made for 2 PAG representatives.

· PAG was asked whether the Matrix attached to the Dec 3 2001 Meeting Summary accurately captured their intended input.

· Question was raised as to the meaning of the word ‘perjorative’ in Goal, (3), Element 1.1. This is an item that arises as a result of wording established during the November 13 2001 meeting. As the meaning of the word is obscure, it is recommended that an alternative wording be found. (perjorative means detrimentally.)

· ACTION: reword PAG consideration (3) under Goals, Element 1.1

· Element 4.1 Carbon Uptake and Storage: The PAG recommends that the Goal wording be replaced with ‘unclear what this goal should be: request further information”.

· ACTION: change matrix wording.

4. Presentation on Carbon Cycling

· Ron Rutledge of the Ministry of Sustainable and Renewable Resources provided an overhead presentation and Q&A on carbon cycling. A handout was provided entitled “British Columbia forests, forestry practices, and carbon dioxide”, from the Ministry of Forests research branch. Presentation was intended to provide background information regarding the substance of Element 4.1 of the Matrix.

· Information as to those things which might be considered as ‘indicators’ for carbon uptake and storage was also provided.

· A general group discussion ensued regarding climate change, carbon cycling, and effects of human activities.

· Further discussion of Carbon Cycling was tabled.

· ACTION: PAG requests that W.G. provide new proposal for Goal for 4.1.

5. Update on Pilot Project Regulation

· Doug Russell provided information that the proposed regulation passed legislature on December 4, 2001, with an effective date of December 1, 2001.

· A final draft is available from the Ministry of Forests

· The WG is unaware of when the formal announcement of the new regulation will be made.

· ACTION: mail hardcopy of new regulation to Wayne Sawchuk and Frank Schlichting, email copies of Regulation to all other PAG members.

6. Continue Input to CSA Matrix

· PAG was reminded that the CSA Element wording may not be changed. Also, the Values and Goals (Criteria 5 and 6) in the updated Matrix supplied this evening is proposed by the participants, for comment, review and input by the PAG.

· Element 5.1:

· PAG suggested that 5.1 capture “non-timber benefits” not otherwise addressed in the matrix.

· PAG raised a concern that the word “feasible” in the Element wording provides ‘wiggle-room’ for industry, and suggested that the word should be removed.

· PAG discussed that ‘feasible’ is balanced by ‘acceptable’ in the same statement in the Element, thus providing a level of assurance that industry determined feasibility is guided by the public’s determination of acceptable practice.

· PAG was reminded that Element wording is CSA determined and may not be changed by this table. Paul Wooding provided an overview of the CSA revision process and opportunity for public input into potential change to the CSA standards.

· Value: need to rephrase “non-timber values” to refer to social or multi-use benefits.

· Goal: PAG discussed the potential to define or describe desired conditions for a range of individual activities or values (i.e. range, trapping, hunting, rec. opportunities, visual quality, wilderness, back-country, etc.) for a series of Goals.

· A group discussion ensued as to whether these individual activities or values may instead be used as Indicators for this Element.

· PAG suggests the participants consider removing the word “feasible” in Goal 5.1, or add ‘and ecologically acceptable’ to it.

· Element 5.2:

· PAG conducted a protracted discussion of the relative importance of locally based processing facilities versus the export of raw materials to other areas.

· PAG discussed appurtenancy, and asked what government direction would be on this topic. This subject is not one which the Pilot Project may address.

· Value: PAG suggests that wording incorporate local economic viability, or wording that captures the maintenance of an economically viable community.

· Goal: PAG suggests

1. Maintain sustainable harvest at a stable rate over the long term (ie cut level for perpetuity).

2. Maintain local processing facilities. (specific) (Note that the PAG was split in their opinion as to the relative benefits of the movement of raw materials out of the local area versus maintaining local processing facilities. No consensus was achieved on this issue).

3. Provide diverse opportunities for local economic viability for local communities (general).

4. Maintain local employment opportunities (specific).

· Element 5.3:

· Value: fair distribution of benefits and costs. Question and discussion arose regarding the meaning of “fair”. (i.e. if one is paying 50% of the cost, should one expect 50% of the benefit?)

· Goal: PAG suggests:

1. the goal should reflect ‘cost’ as well as ‘benefit’

2. need to allow a component of the timber supply to the private entrepreneur, outside of the current Small Business Enterprise Programme.

3. “maintain opportunities for the community to access non-commercial benefits of the forest” (see if this is addressed in 5.1: review 5.1 to include ‘range of community interests may access commercial and non-commercial benefits’)

· No consensus on 5.3 was reached by the PAG, as there were widely divergent points of view held by PAG representatives on this element.

· Element 6.1 to 6.4: Criterion 6 is tabled until next meeting.

7. Update on Scientific Advisory Committee

· Tabled until next meeting

8. Other Business

· None discussed

9. Next Meeting

· Potential meeting dates were proposed. Agreed that the next meetings would be

February 4, 2001

- work on PAG input to Criteria 6 Values/Goals

- review WG response to PAG input for Criteria ½ Values/Goals

- review of WG proposed Indicators/Obj. for Criteria 1/2

February 25, 2001

- review of WG response to PAG input for Criteria 2/3.

- Review of WG proposed indicators/objectives for Crit. 2/3

· Subsequent meeting dates of March 11, April 9 and April 22 proposed for consideration (Please note that the Graham River meeting will not interfere with Mar. 11 date, as it will the GR meeting is during the day. Proposal of March 11 for a PAG meeting is now confirmed).

· There may be need for another meeting before proposed May 9 meeting to wrap up all PAG input to Criteria.

· PAG agreed that starting times for the next meetings will be at 5:30pm rather than 6:00pm, and ending time will be 9:30pm.

· PAG was asked to consider, for the next meeting, what further information is required in order that PAG is able to move ahead with concluding meaningful Values and Goals, and formulating indicators and objectives.

· PAG responded that they would like to know the number of range permits in the DFA, and also the number of Animal Unit Months (AUM) that have been calculated as available in the same area.

· PAG was informed that a different meeting venue may be sought for the next set of meetings but will be advised of any change in advance of the Feb.4^th meeting.

Meeting concluded at 2115hr.