Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Projects

Public Advisory Group Meeting #6

June 14, 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
Andrew Johnson	Small Business (MOF)		787-5600
John Dymond	Slocan LP OSB Corp		261-6464
Doug Russell	Louisiana Pacific		782-3302
Warren Jukes	Canfor		788-4355
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates:
Roy Lube		Outdoor Recreation	787-7619
Russel J Schular		Trapping
Vicki Allen		Trapping
Mike Waberski		Oil and Gas	787-0300
Ron Wagner (R )		Labour	787-0172
Neil Meagher (A)		Labour	563-7771
Wayne Sawchuk (R )		Env./Conservation	788-2685
Peter Vandergugten		Regional District gov’t	787-8150
Facilitator:
Gail Wallin		Facilitator	305-1003
Advisors:
Joelle Scheck		MWLAP
Rick Manwaring		Ministry of Forests
Howard Madill		Ministry of Forests, FSJ
Jim Stephenson		Canfor		962-3363
Ron Rutledge		Ministry of Forests, FSJ

Observers:

Ken Long Legal advisor, Forest Policy Services 561-1649

Trevor Swan Legal Advisor, Common Ground Forestry

1. Welcome

· Self-introductions were made around the table.

· Meeting notes from April 18 meeting were distributed.

2. Purpose of Meeting

· Doug Russell reminded the group that the original purpose of tonight’s meeting was to go over the final draft document. As significant changes have resulted from advice received, a final version is unavailable for review tonight. Instead, the group will go over the concepts of the changes to the document.

· The participants request that the PAG meet again to provide comment on the regulation.

· The basic concept of the reg. has not changed, but the wording is different. The Reg. has grown from 30 to 64 pages.

· The Participants are looking tonight for the PAG’s reaction to the proposed changes to the regulation and detailed proposal.

· Gail Wallin introduced the draft agenda and asked if there were additions – none forthcoming, PAG accepted agenda.

3. Review of May 8 Meeting Summary

· PAG was led through how changes recommended at our last meeting were incorporated. These are enumerated as ACTION items in

· A handout was provided which details the changes to the detailed proposal and regulation. (attached document ‘FSJ Pilot Project PAG Update June 11, 2001). Trevor Swan went over these changes. The changes fall into two categories:

1. The SFMP ability to disapply FDP requirements

· The Code Act FDP requirements have been brought entirely into the Pilot regulation for this to happen.

2. Application of administrative penalties

· The Pilot Regulation penalty section is now changed to be similar to the Code penalties.

· Meeting summary notes were distributed and time was provided for PAG members to review them.

· ACTION: PAG asked that the May 8 meeting summary be amended to better reflect the recommended wording around the link between the SFMP and the LRMP strategies.

· The PAG accepted the amended wording “the forest management activities will be consistent with the intent of the strategies of the LRMP” for Page 3 of 6 in the May 8 meeting notes, referring to Sec. 5.1 of the proposal.

· ACTION: The amended notes will be redistributed.

· The PAG accepted the notes as revised.

4. Review of new Proposal Changes

· Ken Long provided an outline of the process of Cutting Authority issuance (Cutting Permits(CPs) and Timber Sale Licenses(TSLs)), as a background to the integration of their content in to the FDP under the Pilot. Ken gave a description of the current planning process that a licensee must go through in order to undertake forest management activities.

· The group discussed the implications of integrating the CP/TSL requirements into the FDP, and the administrative efficiencies in doing so. The point is that it places strategic core strategies within the SFMP, which means no statutory approval of the FDP. Over time, the SFMP becomes larger and larger in scope and content, and the lower level (FDP etc.) get smaller, and are eventually replaced with an annual Forest Operations Schedule (FOS). The FOS will undergo public scrutiny through a Public Review and Comment Period, the same as today’s FDP. The purpose of these changes is to eliminate today’s re-approval process.

· There will be statutory approval of the SFMP and a statutory issuance (but not approval) of a cutting authority.

· QUESTION: As this concept seems to streamline the process while still addressing public review, will it be exportable to elsewhere in the province?

· Answer: very portable concept but there are area-specific nuances such as the willingness of licensees to work together, that may dictate it’s effectiveness elsewhere.

· QUESTION: Where does the actual block-level detail undergo review?

· Answer: The FOS is a detailed representation of boundaries and locations of the 2 years of blocks and roads of authorization being sought. (The whole FOS will contain 6 years of operations). There are still site level plans required to be prepared. The FOS 2 years of blocks may be authorized in part or in whole (i.e. some specific blocks or roads may be denied but the FOS itself authorized.

· QUESTION: How often is the SFMP submitted for approval?

· Answer: a maximum of 5 years between submissions, with annual updates.

· QUESTION: How often is the FOS done, and how does the public know when they may look at it? (question of consistency with current opportunities)

· Answer: Advertising and PR&C requirements are the same as for today’s FDP. Life of FOS may be short or long, depending on volume of timber and roads etc. are defined in the FOS, and the actual extent of operations. Amendments to a FOS will be sought if necessary from time to time.

· QUESTION: Why is the timing of the preparation of the SFMP critical?

· Answer: Public expectation of the opportunity to review and comment at a regular interval. Also, CSA requires continuous improvement that must be measured at regular intervals to meet the obligation of application for recertification.

· QUESTION: If the oil and gas industry take a sudden change in direction, would it have an effect on the SFMP?

· Answer: it could trigger the need for an amendment to the SFMP.

· PAG OBSERVATION: what is being proposed here in this change is better than the current methods as it forces all players to work together and plan cooperatively.

· QUESTION: Where are approvals of block level strategies?

· Answer: blocks and roads will be in the FOS, but strategies for such things as forest health will be in the SFMP. The SFMP is a strategic plan and spatial in that it may divide the area in to units for which there are specific strategies. The FOS is more detailed and provides the spatial definitions of blocks and roads.

· QUESTION: How will the public scrutinize the FOS?

· Answer: the District Manger has the authority to establish policy, which in turn will establish criteria for automatic scrutiny of plans. The public may have a role in establishing those criteria, for example through their input at the Public Review &C stage. The public will have the same opportunities as for input as for Forest Development Plan.

· Discussion of changes to the Compliance and Enforcement section:

· A concern was voiced by the Director of MOF Compliance and Enforcement (Roberta Reeder) regarding their mandate to enforce performance requirements defined by law. Due to this issue, the Pilot regulation now contains those standards or limits for such things as biodiversity, disturbance levels etc. that the province may enforce.

5. Overview of Pilot Projects

Rick Manwaring Provincial Pilot Project Manager, Ministry of Forests:

· Provided a short presentation of timelines for the Fort St. John pilot.

· Handed out a ‘business process’ flowchart for pilot projects, and described where the FSJ pilot is at this time. Beyond meeting the test of equivalent protection and managing and conserving, which are both Act requirements, it is the test of public acceptance of the proposal.

§ The written endorsement of the FSJ pilot project by the PAG would be very beneficial to moving the process along. Ministry of Forests is seeking PAG acceptance. Public acceptance of the Pilot may dictate whether or not a public advisory committee is established to advise the provincial ministers. The necessity of the establishment of this committee may be unnecessary if the PAG provides their acceptance of the pilot. There has been little public input; thus this PAG seems to fully represent the public.

· QUESTION: Do copies of all meeting notes attached to the briefing notes prepared for cabinet?

§ Answer: No, only changes made as a result of public input and letter received. (This includes the input by BC Environmental Network).

· Discussion ensued regarding the form a support letter should take. The PAG is generally supportive of the notion of providing written support of the Pilot. ACTION: Suggestion and decision was made by the PAG that a draft letter would be constructed by the facilitator, circulated to the PAG for review and amendment, and ready for signing by the PAG July 12^th 2001.

6. Next Steps

Timelines:

· The final iteration of the proposed Regulation is now scheduled for July 3.

· The next PAG meeting is scheduled for July 12^th.

Meeting adjourned 2140hr.

Attachments:

1. PAG Update June 11, 2001 (1) Issues arising from May 8 meeting

2. PAG Update June 11, 2001 (2) New issues

ATTACHMENTS

Fort St. John Pilot Project - PAG Update, June 11, 2001 (1)

Issues arising from May 8, 2001, meeting.

1. Penalty provisions.

PAG was concerned that negative public perception could work against the project

if the $50,000/$500,000 administrative penalty/offence fine structure were retained.

PAG recommended that the pilot regulation contain provisions for a $100,000/ $1,000,000 penalty/fine as per the standard legislation. PAG also recommended that a new penalty structure providing for a $100,000/$1,000,000 penalty should also provide for penalties lower than $50,000/$500,000.

Action: the regulation has been revised in accordance with PAG recommendations.

2. Future disapplications of ‘standard’ provisions.

PAG shared government’s concern with the approach to the anticipated future disapplication of standard provisions, most notably the replacement of the standard Forest Development Plan (FDP) with a form of FDP enabled by the Sustainable Forest Management Plan (SFMP).

PAG recommended that the FDP provisions of the Operational Planning Regulation be incorporated into the pilot regulation to ensure that the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes any decisions respecting the disapplication of ‘standard’ provisions.

Action: the regulation has been revised in accordance with PAG recommendations.

3. Potential replacement of the forest development plan with a forest operations schedule

The Act anticipates the replacement of elements of the forest development plan through the application of higher level plan strategies. The partners believe that at some point in the future there will be sufficient landscape level strategies in place in the SFMP that much of the forest development plan, including formal approval, can be replaced with an operations schedule.

For a forest operations schedule (FOS) to come into being, a ‘comprehensive’ SFMP must be in force. The comprehensive SFMP must contain strategies for riparian management, timber harvesting, road access management, forest health management, patch size and seral stage distribution and visual quality management. These issues are the most common ‘landscape level’ issues that are routinely dealt with in today’s FDPs.

The forest operations schedule would be subject to public review and comment. The district manager will not approve the schedule but may withhold authorization of operations.

Action: the PPR will be revised to provide for implementation of a forest operations schedule.

Fort St John Pilot Project - PAG Update June 11, 2001 (2)

New issues.

Subsequent to the PAG meeting of May 8, 2001, two significant and unanticipated issues arose with the pilot project. Both came from the Ministry of Forests and, while easy to accommodate in policy terms, have made the drafting of the proposed regulation more

difficult and delayed the preparation of the latest version.

1. Attaching the issuance of cutting permits (CP) and timber sale licences (TSL) to

the approval of the FDP, or of an annual authorization to harvest.

The Ministry of Forests has been working for some time on measures to make administrative procedures more efficient. The senior executive of the ministry recently approved the general policy of attaching the issuance of CP’s, TSL’s and road permits

(RP) to the approval of FDP’s. Staff from Forest Tenures Branch, Victoria, saw an opportunity for the policy to be implemented and tested through the Fort St John pilot and approached the partners to see if it were possible to incorporate this new policy into the pilot regulation. The partners are happy to accommodate this request but it has caused some technical problems in that the regulation has had to have been reworked to ensure that the process will work smoothly under both the FDP and SFMP.

Prior to the implementation of the Forest Practices Code, the issuance of a CP or TSL was a key decision as the terms of the CP (or TSL) ordinarily contained most of the forest practice and management provisions for the area covered by the CP. CP and TSL content is prescribed in the licence document (Forest Licence, Pulpwood Agreement) and is not defined in statute. Because the conditions of the CP are enabled by the licence document, a contract, and not specifically by statute, this method of doing business was known as the ‘contractual’ model. The Code, however, replaced the ‘contractual’ model of compliance, embodied in the CP, with a regulatory model. Systems to manage the CP process, however, many built up over decades of use, have continued to be applied even though their use is no longer warranted. These systems, while they affect the licensee, are largely internal to the Ministry of Forests.

Today’s CP has three key functions. It tells the person harvesting what the stumpage rate is, it tells the person what the area is that is covered by the stumpage rate, and it serves as a final test of government’s meeting of fiduciary responsibilities to aboriginal people in that the district manager may refuse to issue a cutting permit if the district manager believes that an aboriginal right may be infringed, or the district manager may impose conditions in order to protect the interests of aboriginal people.

What the ministry is proposing, and what the partners are willing to implement, is the elimination of a number of redundant administrative actions while ensuring that the three key elements, especially those around aboriginal rights, are maintained and properly managed. This requires some modification of the regulation, essentially the linkage of elements of the licences to the FDP and SFMP plans.

Action: the regulation has been amended.

2. Enforcement of site level plan content.

The Compliance and Enforcement Branch (C+E) of the Ministry of Forests has raised concerns around the enforceability of the site level silviculture plan.

Under the standard legislation there are four elements that are set out in the Silviculture Prescription (SP) by the prescribing forester for which there are no specific statutory requirements. These elements -- site disturbance, area occupied by permanent access, stocking standards (species and number of trees to be planted) and site level biodiversity (wildlife tree patch and coarse woody debris distribution) – if approved by the district manager, are then enforceable. This means that if the prescription as approved is not met, government has the right to penalize for the failure.

Under the pilot system site level plans are not automatically submitted for review and approval by the district manager. Government has the right to request a site plan at any time and to take enforcement action where failure has occurred. C+E Branch, however, is concerned that a pilot site plan that is not approved by the district manager may not be enforceable with respect to the four key elements. C+E Branch would be more comfortable if the base standards for the four elements were established in the regulation.

While there are good arguments that the existing enforcement structure is perfectly sound, accommodating C+E Branch concerns by establishing base standards in the regulation poses no hardship to the partners and may simplify compliance matters post-implementation.

Action: the regulation has been revised.