Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Projects
Public
Advisory Group Meeting #7
July 12,
2001
6:00pm to
9:30pm
Fort St. John Cultural Center
Attendance:
Name Interest Phone Email
Participants:
Dave Menzies Canfor Jeff Beale Slocan LP OSB Corp 261-6464 Roger St. Jean Small Business (MOF) 787-5645 Canfor 788-4355 PAG Interest Representatives and
Alternates: Mike Waberski Oil and Gas 787-0300 Ron Wagner (R ) Labour 787-0172 Wayne Sawchuk (R ) Env./Conservation 788-2685 Karen Goodings Regional District gov’t 787-8150 Budd Phillips Non-comm. recreation Gary Rehmeier Orland Wilkerson Urban Communities Facilitator: None available Advisors: Joelle Scheck MWLAP Jim Stephenson Canfor 962-3363 Ron Rutledge Ministry of Forests, FSJ Dave Lawson Ministry of Forests Observers: Ken Long Trevor Swan Common Ground Forestry
NOTE: Mike Waberski arrived at the meeting at 8:00 pm.
1.
Welcome
·
Self-introductions were made around the table.
·
Review
of meeting agenda for tonights meeting by Warren Jukes. No changes proposed
to the agenda and accepted.
2.
Review of Meeting Summary of June 14, 2001
·
Jeff
Beale briefly reviewed highlights of the June 14th meeting.
·
Clarification requested on the action item noted on bottom
of page 4, regarding the construction of a draft letter for the PAG. A version was
prepared by Gail Wallin and forwarded to all PAG members prior to the meeting
and it to be discussed further in tonight’s meeting.
·
On the
meeting summary provided to the PAG members it was noted that Peter Vandergugten
was noted as an observer as opposed to a PAG alternative whose interest is Rural
Communities.
This has been corrected.
3.
Review of July 3rd detailed
proposal
§
Warren
briefly identified the changes to the detailed proposal, a one page summary was
provided that highlights the changes that were made to the detailed proposal,
§
Question/Comment: For
the SBFEP write-up in the proposal under Section 4.4 there is no reference to an
EMS Program being implemented. All other participants have stated that they
will be implementing an EMS program but this is lacking for the SBFEP.
Answer: The Fort St. John SBFEP will be
implementing an EMS program commencing in early 2002 and Section 4.4 will be
amended to state this.
§
Comment: From PAG
member on behalf of the Oil and Gas Representative who could not be in
attendance.
They were pleased with everything contained in the proposal and the
regulation and wished to express their thanks for the manner in which all of
this was completed.
§
Question: What is going to be
the role of the PAG in the future.
Answer: The PAG will now
begin to help develop the Sustainable Forest Management Plan, the regulation
also speaks to the proposed role of the PAG.
§
Comment: Table 5
of the proposal needs to be updated to include reference to the Forest
Operations Schedule (FOS).
§
Question: Does the
detailed proposal accompany the draft regulation when forwarded to the JSC , and
who is the JSC now with the latest government re-shuffle?
§
Answer: Yes it will
accompany the regulation and the JSC may now include four ministries as opposed
to four previously but not certain.
§
Question: The
District Manager does not approve a FOS but may withhold authorizations, how
does this work?
Answer: There is no FOS until a comprehensive SFMP has
been completed and it is assumed that operations will proceed unless the DM says
otherwise, opposite of current process. DM must give authorizations similar to the
issuance of a CP or RP as is now however he may withhold authorization Trevor and Ken
further explained the authorization process, primary difference is that it lasts
several years for the number of blocks and roads initially requested. There was a request
that the last sentence of Section 5.3 of the detailed proposal be amended to
clarify what exactly that means. The participants agreed to reword this section
and to include a flow diagram identifying the various stages and linkages which
will hopefully clarify this aspect.
§
Question/Comment: Section
5.2 doesn’t really say who approves an SFM plan, would like a flow diagram
included which would draw the current process and the new process which is being
proposed.
4.
Review of July 3rd
Regulations
·
Ken Long
went through the changes to the regulation as noted in the Summary page of
changes
·
Have
incorporated the remaining elements of the Operational Planning Regulation and
some section of the Forest Practices Code Act inside this Regulation which will
now ensure that any disapplications that may occur upon the approval of a
Sustainable Forest Management Plan can be accommodated. Essentially it is
becoming an all encompassing document.
·
The
Penalty provisions schedule for the PPR has been attached as per the
recommendations of the PAG and they essentially reflect the pattern set in
current legislation.
·
There is
a provision to replacing the forest development plan (FDP) with a Forest
Operations Schedule (FOS) upon the completion of a SFM plan. The greater the
content of the SFM plan the less you need to put into a FDP, logic being when
you've reached a certain level of information you want to avoid a lot of
repetition in the FDP.
·
Prior to
the replacement of the FDP with a FOS the requirements of Section 32(3) must be
satisfied fully.
Ken went through a few scenarios of some of the strategies with the
bottom line being that it is a relatively onerous task before you can disapply
the FDP.
·
The
attaching of CP’s to the authorization of the FOS
·
The
enforcement of site level plan content, 3 major points, soil conservation,
biodiversity and reforestation have been included in the Reg. can also propose
alternatives in other provisions.
·
Questions as of
the June 14th meeting? Where are the 4
categories-elements?
Where do they come from the numbers proposed?
Answer: They are
not presented in the same way as is the current process, shrunk them as simply
as we could without compromising the values. What is the normal business practice today in
Fort St. John is what was put forward for numbers in the Reg. The SFM plan will
undoubtedly change all of these numbers. The defaults are attached in the Reg and the
intent is to try and manage more on landscape level basis as opposed to stand
level.
·
Question: Are there any more
comments on the July 3rd version of the Reg. No
5. Going over the July
12th version of the Reg.
·
It is
anticipated that additional tinkering will probably continue with the Reg. but
nothing major being planned.
·
First
element was the well-growing croptree Section 29(6) (b)
Second element was to include the public review and comment
strategy part of the SFM plan format
·
For
authorizations Section 45(2) cannot commence harvesting under authorization
until after 14 days of appraisal data submission to the district manager. Under Section 45(1)
looking at a 3 year approval of authorization as opposed to 2 years.
·
Questions: Under
Section 33(2) there is no legal requirement to have all of the requirements of
an SFM plan completed.
Answer: If not all of the requirements are met it is
anticipated that a reason will be attached, the participants feel the proposal
is rigorous enough.
Not all of the elements of Section 33(2) can be feasibly completed in
certainty, (l), (m) and (n).
·
Question: Section
32(3) range and forage management is not included in the development of a
comprehensive SFM plan, it is felt that this is a important criteria for this
area and perhaps it should be included.
Answer: The reason for the
particular elements being selected as making up a comprehensive SFM plan is to
cover off these same strategies currently included in the FDP. Do we want to add
range as a new element?
Question: Biodiversity
management including wildlife habitat management for wildlife is also ver
important, should that not be a requirement for a comprehensive SFM plan.
Answer: Some of the biodiversity elements are already
included in the Reg. and it is anticipated that in the development of the CSA
SFM plan which is also planned for as described in the detailed proposal will
attempt to cover some of these concerns off. Again the central elements that have been
included in a comprehensive SFM plan are those that are already required for a
FDP, the comprehensive SFM plan allows you to disapply the requirement for a FDP
and replace it with the FOS. We have included patch size and seral stage
distribution which really wasn’t a FDP requirement.
·
General Question: What
about the level of First Nation involvement or lack of in the process todate,
will this be an issue, will it cause this pilot to be derailed by their
non-participation in the process?
Answer: We have had several
meetings with First Nations although not all First Nations have been in
attendance at these.
We hope that are process has been transparent enough and we have actively
attempted to involve First Nations in the process. We hope that the
process is not derailed but nothing is for certain.
·
Warren
Jukes summarization:
There are no more policy changes being proposed in the PPR, as Ken
indicated just some minor tinkering at this point. Rick Manwaring spoke
about the rest of the process with this Reg at the last meeting and we are
proceeding in that manner.
6. PAG
letter to Rick Manwaring
·
Warren
went through Gail Wallin’s draft letter of support from the PAG group and noted
the minor changes that will be incorporated. There was no dissension to the letter.
·
Brief
discussion followed regarding the formal wrapup of this phase of the review of
the Reg. It was
agreed that each member of the PAG would receive in a mailout a complete package
that the participants will be submitting to government. It is proposed that
this will occur by the end of July or early August.
·
Question: When is the next
meeting of the PAG proposed?
Answer: It was decided that
Monday nights were preferred by most members of the PAG, the next meeting date
has been tentatively scheduled for September 24th, but this will be confirmed later through Email.
·
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Accepted
version of the support letter as discussed.
July 12,
2001
Rick
Manwaring,
Ministry
of Forests,
Project
Manager,
Results
Based Forest Practices Code Pilots,
#1
Cicada Road, Bag 50000,
Mackenzie, BC
V0J
2C0
Dear Mr.
Manwaring:
The Fort St. John Public Advisory Group (PAG) was
established in the spring of 2001 to provide input on a draft Results Based
Pilot project proposal and regulation. The concept of a public advisory group to
provide input into the Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project was first
proposed by the pilot project participants in their preliminary proposal to
government in September 1999. The project participants include Canadian
Forest Products Ltd., Slocan Forest Products Ltd., Ministry of Forests Small
Business Forest Enterprise Program and Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd.
The formation of the Fort St. John Public Advisory Group
(PAG) was the product of broad input and consultation to ensure that it
represented the diverse range of interests for the Fort St. John Timber Supply
Area. Input on the draft membership structure of the Public Advisory Group began
in the spring of 2000 and continued at an open public meeting on June 22nd, 2000. In January 2001, interested people began
formally working toward the establishment of the group. A Terms of Reference and
Membership document was finalized in May 2001 and describes the role of the
Public Advisory Group as providing advice or comments on:
a)
The
proposed pilot project package including the draft pilot project regulation and
detailed proposal;
b)
The
pilot project participants’ response to public comments on the draft pilot
project regulation.
The
group will also provide input to the proposed Sustainable Forest Management
Plan, review the participants’ performance, provide recommendations for
improvement and provide input on communication strategies.
In
addition to formalizing the structure of the group, the PAG has reviewed and
provided comments on several draft versions of the pilot project proposal.
Following the 60-day public review period that commenced on February 26th 2001, the PAG reviewed public comments and
responses and how the participants were proposing to address them. Based on input from
the PAG, other stakeholders and government agency representatives, the pilot
project participants then revised the draft proposal. Once again, the PAG
reviewed and commented on the revised proposal. The draft, dated July 12th, 2001 has been reviewed by PAG members and is seen
to have addressed all the concerns raised by the public and the PAG.
In
conclusion, based on the above, the draft proposal has been reviewed and
accepted by the PAG as an attempt to improve the regulatory framework for forest
practices.
We would invite you to contact any of the members of the Fort St. John Public Advisory Group if you have any questions regarding this submission.
Submitted by the Members
of the
Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project
Public
Advisory Group
|
INTEREST AREA |
REPRESENTATIVE |
ALTERNATE(s) |
|
Commercial Recreation |
Ray Jackson |
|
|
Environment / Conservation |
Wayne Sawchuk |
Oliver Mott |
|
Forest Contractors / Workers |
Gary Rehmeier |
Fred Klassen |
|
Labour |
Ron Wagner |
Neil Meagher |
|
Oil & Gas Industry |
Mike Waberski |
Chris Bakker |
|
Non-commercial Recreation - fishing, hunting |
Budd Phillips |
Barry Holland |
|
Non-commercial Recreation - non-consumptive |
Roy Lube |
|
|
Range / Agriculture/Private woodlots |
Frank Schlichting |
|
|
Rural Communities |
Karen Goodings |
Peter Vandergugten |
|
Trapping |
Terry Howatt |
Russel Schuler Vicki Allen |
|
Urban Communities |
Orland Wilkerson |
Bruce Kindrat |