Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project

Public Advisory Group Meeting #25

March 30, 2006

6:00 pm to 9:20 pm

FSJ Curling Arena

Meeting Summary

Meeting Attendance:

Name	Interest	Phone	Email or Postal Address
Participants
Andrew Tyrrell	Canfor	787-3665	Andrew.Tyrrell@canfor.com
David Menzies	Canfor	787-3613	Dave.Menzies@canfor.com
Jeff Beale	Canfor	787-3651	Jeff.Beale@canfor.com
Wes Neumeier	Canfor	787.3645	Wes.Neumeier@canfor.com
John Rowe	Canfor	787-3680	John.Rowe@canfor.com
John Deal	Canfor	962-3316	John.Deal@canfor.com
Brian Farwell	BC Timber Sales	262-3337	Brian.farwell@gov.bc.ca
Walter Fister	BC Timber Sales	262-3328	Walter.Fister@gov.bc.ca
Andrew Moore	Cameron River Logging	789-3621	Andrew@taylordunnage.ca
Doug Braybrook	TEMBEC	788-4509	Doug.braybrook@tembec.com
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates
Budd Phillips	Non-Commercial Rec – Hunting Fishing	785-1283	Budd.Phillips@worksafebc.com
Stanley Gladysz	Non-commercial Rec- Non-consumptive	785-2596	sgladysz@pris.ca
Fred Klassen	Forest Workers	785-3901	Fred.ffc@telus.net
Ron Wagner	Labour	787-0172	rojwagner@telus.net
Peter Bueckert	Forest Contractors	262-9580	bueckert@solarwinds.com
Roy Lube	Non-Commercial Rec- fishing/hunting	787-7619	Rlube1@telus.net
Darren Thiel	Non-Commercial Rec- fishing/hunting	785-1461	backcountry@telus.net
Dale Johnson	Range	262-3260	FAX: 262-3260
Ray Jackson	Guide/Outfitters	783-5220	horsesho@pris.ca
Larry Houley	Rural Communities	263-7752	FAX: 787-2279
Wayne Sawchuk	Environment/Conservation	788-7871	WSAWCHUK@pris.ca
Advisors
Anna Regnier	Integrated Land Mgt Bureau	787-3563	Anna.regnier@gov.bc.ca
Paul Wooding	Canfor, PG	604-661-5423	Paul.Wooding@Canfor.com
Rob Kopecky	Ministry of Forests, Peace	784-1200	Rob.kopecky@gov.bc.ca
Joelle Scheck	Ministry of Environment	787-3393	Joelle.scheck@gov.bc.ca
Janice Edwards	MOFR Peace	784-1241	Janice.A.Edwards@gov.bc.ca
Observers
Roger St. John	OGC	787-3234	Roger.stjean@gov.bc.ca
Facilitator
Gail Wallin		305-1003	Gwallin@wlake.com

1. Welcome

· Gail Wallin welcomed all members to the meeting.

· Meeting opened at 6:30pm.

· Roundtable introductions were made. Those people attending introduced themselves and specified what interest group they represent.

2. Review of Meeting Agenda

· Draft Agenda for tonight’s meeting was reviewed; no changes were recommended, agenda was accepted.

· Facilitator provided an overview of the purpose of the meeting.

3. Review of Meeting Summary (Feb. 14, 2005)

· PAG reviewed draft meeting #24 summary notes. PAG accepted the draft Meeting 24 notes with no amendments.

· PAG reviewed action items from meeting #24 notes. All actions were accepted by PAG to be complete; however, action items regarding utilization standards, Trails, Review of Public Complaints were to be discussed at Meeting 25.

4. Update from Participants

Jeff Beale provided an update of local Canfor operations:

· Thanked the members of the PAG who went on the tour of the OSB facility.

· Peace Valley OSB currently at 70-75% productivity.

· Issues impacting productivity: cranes, railcars, log pond, and de-barkers.

· Gave an update on First Nations:

Ø There are six First Nation Groups in the Defined Forest Area (DFA)

Ø In 2001, Canfor, Louisiana Pacific, and Slocan joined with these 6 First Nations to develop an increased fiber supply for deciduous trees.

Ø Each band receives 85,000m³/year.

Ø In 2005, five of the bands had 40,000m³.

Ø All deciduous logging is complete, except Dunne-za who should be complete soon.

Ø Louisiana Pacific provides funding to First Nations to sit at the joint management advisory (4 out of 6 bands show up).

Ø $20,000 given to each First Nation band that goes to members who enter a forestry program.

Ø Six Nation Ventures is operating a proportion of the OSB log yard. Currently have 11+ workers hired full time.

Ø Continued meetings with First Nations over herbicides and pesticides.

David Menzies provided an update of local Canfor operations:

• Sawmill has been reduced from three to two shifts.
• Two fires in the sawmill in January, which slowed productivity.
• Deliveries are decreasing due to spring break-up
• 411,680m³ delivered to the sawmill since last PAG meeting.
• 354,945m³ delivered to the OSB plant since last PAG meeting.
• 115,000m³ delivered to the Taylor pulpmill since last PAG meeting.
• Wes Neumeier hired as Silviculture Superintendent.
• Hired 10 logging contractors with quota wood for last logging season.

Ø 4 long-term contractors (hired in previous years).

Ø 3 new quota contractors.

Ø 3 contractors affiliated with First Nations.

Note: All contractors are considered local due to being from the Peace Area.

• Working on inventory to support the Sustainable Forest Management Plan (SFMP).

Ø Receiving Forest Investment Account (super stumpage) funds to complete the Vegetative Resource Inventory (VRI) for the Fort St. John TSA.

Ø 50% of the TSA has been complete.

Ø 25% is under contract and will be complete by March 2007.

Ø Air photos for remaining areas will be acquired in June and will be complete by March 2008.

Brian Farwell provided an update of BCTS operations:

· Acquired International Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 certification.

· Acquired Canadian Standards Association (CSA) certification in the Code Pilot area.

· Starting on this year’s field season.

· Planning on harvesting 442,000m³ of coniferous and 180,000 m³ of deciduous this season.

Question From PAG

Where is the remainder of the volume coming from to supply the mills?

Response (Jeff Beale, Brian Farwell)

When the OSB mill is at full production it will consume 1,100,000m³ of deciduous trees a year. The other volumes will come from Canfor’s various licenses and private sales.

Doug Braybrook provided an update of TEMBEC operations:

· Canfor manages the coniferous Forest Licence for TEMBEC.

· Have strong connections with First Nations.

· Allocate volume to 3 First Nation groups

Ø 33.3% to Blueberry (which is allocated to the coniferous Forest License in FSJ)

Ø 33.3% to Moberly Lake.

Ø 33.3% to Saulteau.

Andrew Moore provided an update of Cameron River Logging (CRL) operations:

· Canfor manages timber license on behalf of CRL.

· Received certification for wood packaging.

Question From PAG

What is certification for wood packaging?

Response (Andrew Moore)

Certification allows CRL to deliver international packages. To get this certification the wood must be heat-treated (use of kilns) or manufactured in a mill (Canfor FSJ sawmill). The certification exists in order to eliminate the risk of pests and other biological agents from infecting foreign environments.

5. Terms of Reference

· Gail gave a brief overview of what Terms or Reference (TOR) are and how they are reported. She then proposed to the PAG that the Terms of Reference should be reviewed bi-annually (every 2 years) instead of annually.

· PAG reviewed the Terms of Reference and the proposed changes. Parts of the TOR with changes were:

i. Background

A.1 Pilot Project

A.2 Description of Pilot Project Area

ii. Operating Rules

C.2 Meeting Agenda and Dates

iii. D. Timelines

iv. E. Communications

1) Internal to PAG

v. F. Meeting Expenses and Logistics

1) Meeting Expenses for one representative from each interest group is available

vi. G. Roles and Responsibilities

1) Public Advisory Group

vii. I. Dispute Resolution Mechanism

2) Technical Issues

viii. K. Review of and Revisions to Terms of Reference.

Question From PAG

Regarding Roles and responsibilities for First Nations: Why does Roles and Responsibilities state, “In addition to First Nations participation, the PAG will consist of a representative for each of the Following interests.” Shouldn’t First Nations be included in the list?

Response

Standard requires that Aboriginals (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) be consulted in a particular way. Aboriginals have the opportunity to have a separate advisory group; therefore, they are not involved in the PAG.

APPROVED: The PAG accepted the revisions to the TOR as reviewed, and agreed that changing to biannual updates were acceptable.

· See Attached Revisions to Terms of Reference

ACTION: The updated TOR will be sent to PAG members before the next PAG meeting.

6. Review PAG Membership

· Trappers - Vicky Allen not present, so no representation from the trappers (may have inadvertently gone to the Cultural Center). She had indicated she would be at the meeting. D. Solomon was proposed as an alternate for the Trappers.

· Urban Communities - Orland Wilkerson not present.

· Rural Communities – Jim Eglinski can no longer represent the Rural component because he is mayor of Fort St. John.

· Stan Gladysz stated he represents “Non-commercial Recreation – non-consumptive” not “Outdoor Recreation.”

ACTION: Change the status of Stan from “Outdoor Recreation” to “Non-commercial Recreation – non-consumptive.”

7. Proposed Changes to the CSA Matrix

· Indicator # 13: Wes Neumeier reviewed the proposed changes to the indicator due to the changes in regulation. The PAG accepted these changes.

Question From PAG

What are the Chief Forester Standards for seed collection?

Response (Wes Neumeier)

The Chief Forester Standards tells us how we can collect seed. Some examples of these standards are:

· Seed collected from a minimum of 10 trees.

· Seed collected in a 10km radius.

· Seed collected in a certain elevation range.

· Transferring of seedlings when on site.

Question From PAG

Are you going with Forest Range Practices Act (FRPA) because the code regulation doesn’t exist?

Response (Wes Neumeier)

Yes, because the rules were repealed through the Code Pilot.

· Indicator # 51: Dave Menzies continued utilization standards from the last PAG. The original proposal was to eliminate the indicator due to changes with the stumpage rule. Dave explained that the original waste calculation for the indicator was only intended to address conifer species; however, now all species are used in the calculation. Due to this reason some of Canfor’s blocks would be over the allowable limit because of incidental deciduous, which was not economic to harvest. The revised indicator and target apply to Licencees and not BCTS, and apply specifically to waste accumulations (e.g. roadside or landing waste)

Question From PAG

If a logging contractor is allowed to leave large volumes of wood behind in a BCTS block this will severely limit the range use. How will this issue be dealt with?

Response (Brain Farwell)

BCTS recognizes these issues and as BCTS gets involved in Timber Range Action Plan (TRAPs), this issue will be specifically dealt with.

Question From PAG

How do you determine what volume of waste wood is left on the block?

Response (Brain Farwell)

All blocks have an ocular estimate done. To date BCTS has ranged between 4-7m³/ha with a few blocks around 10m³/ha. BCTS cannot enforce the logger to bring uneconomic wood to be manufactured because BCTS uses the Market Pricing System. The wood for BCTS is auctioned to the highest bidder; therefore, we sell the write to harvest to the logging contractor. If a contractor doesn’t harvest all the volume they still are responsible for payment on the wood left behind.

Question From PAG

Are the new log grades anticipated, and why were they brought in?

Response (Dave Menzies)

The new log grades are legislative changes, which will be effective April 1, 2006. These grades were brought in due to the Mountain Pine Beetle infestations in the interior. The old log grades assessed the grade of a tree on whether it was alive or dead, thus creating cheap stumpage ($0.25/m³), which was not accurate because more volume was being recovered from these trees. The new log grades assess the size and quality of these trees, which will thus increase the volume being milled and better represent the block. It is expected that Canfor’s waste will increase by 3%.

Question From PAG

How does the exception to BCTS fit with Matrix?

Response (Brian Farwell)

BCTS cannot set utilization standards because the logging contractor pays for the wood, and the wood must be established at market value. This is a provincial mandate for BCTS, which means BCTS cannot force a logger to haul wood at a loss.

The PAG accepted the indicator as proposed, with the following addition:

ACTION: Change target to state that BCTS will report the percentage of blocks and roads that fall within the target range of avoidable waste and residue accumulation levels, and that this is a reporting function only.

· Target # 59: Jeff Beale proposed to change the target from “annual” to “bi-annual” as discussed previously. The PAG accepted this change.

Trails: Gail continued discussions on whether trails should be incorporated into the matrix. Dave Menzies mentioned that no Historical trails (recognized under the Heritage Act) had been identified, so the participants are not currently proposing to add any indicators related to trails.

A PAG member brought up that the North West Mounted Police Trail (RCMP) has started the process of being certified; however, logging is not impacting this trail.

ACTION: Update on status of RCMP Trail only if it becomes a Heritage Trail.

ACTION: Prepare a presentation on the Heritage Act and Trails for a future PAG meeting.

Indicator # 60: Dave Menzies discussed how they track public comments and respond with the timeframes outlined in the SFMP. This will be reported in the Annual Report.

APPROVED: The PAG accepted the revisions to the CSA Matrix as reviewed.

· See Attached Revisions to CSA Matrix.

8. Biodiversity Management Planning (John Deal)

ACTION: Send copy of presentation to Joelle Scheck by April 30^th, 2006.

9. Public Presentations

• No one from the public had any presentations to give.

10. Proposed Focus for Next Meeting

• In July 2006 the TOR will be audited.

ACTION: Have PAG minutes and contact lists ready for audit.

• Proposed late September to early October meeting, date to be determined

- Review Draft 2005-06 Annual Report at a late September PAG meeting.

• The PAG discussed a field before the next PAG meeting, people interested were:

- Bud Phillips, Ron Wagner, Wayne, Joelle Scheck, and Fred Klassen.

· The PAG discussed what field trips would be appropriate, the three possible field trips were:

- Examples of blue/red species

- Differences between forest management and non-forest management (oil and gas).

- Graham management strategies.

ACTION: Prepare a field trip with one of the areas listed above for early July (5-7).

· The PAG discussed potential topics for the next PAG presentation, some topics were:

- The Heritage Act (specific to trails).

- Follow-up on the Mountain Pine Beetle.

- Ministry of environment presentation on Wildlife Habitat Areas and Ungulate Winter Ranges.

ACTION: Organize a presentation for next PAG.

Attachments:

Utilization: Old Wording

Indicator Statement	Target Statement
The percentage of blocks and roads assessed in which avoidable waste and residue levels are within the target range	Annually, 100% of cutblocks and roads will fall within the target avoidable waste and residue range
SFM Objective: No decrease in the LTHL in the DFA
Linkage to FSJPPR: For evaluation of LLS (Sec 42)

Erratum: this indicator is under the incorrect SFM Objective on the SFM Matrix which will be updated in the Matrix

Proposed Revisions to the CSA Matrix

Indicator # 51: Utilization

Indicator Statement:

“The percentage of blocks and roads (excluding BCTS tenures) assessed in which avoidable waste and residue accumulation (see Rationale) levels are within the target range”.

Target:

Annually, 100% of blocks and roads (excluding BCTS tenures) will fall within the target avoidable waste and residue accumulation levels.

Annually, BCTS will report the % of blocks and roads which fall within the target range of avoidable waste and residue accumulation levels.

Variance:

Maximum acceptable annual variance is 5% less than the target (excluding BCTS tenures).

Rationale:

The change to the wording of the indicator clarifies that the waste being assessed for the purpose of the indicator will be that in roadside or landing accumulations (i.e., not including material left dispersed for CWD or vertical structure).

The increase in the variance recognizes that the changes in log grades will result in more material being classified as waste than in the past, even if no change to practice occurs.

BCTS target is a reporting function only, as it their mandate requires that markets determine the utilization levels.

Indicator # 6.13: Coniferous Seeds

Old Wording: Coniferous Seeds

Indicator Statement	Target Statement
The proportion of seeds for coniferous species collected and seedlings planted in accordance with the regulation	All coniferous seeds will be collected and seedlings will be planted in accordance with the regulations
SFM Objectives: Conserve genetic diversity of tree stock
Linkage to FSJPPR: N/A

Proposed Revisions to the CSA Matrix

Seed and Vegetative Material Use

Indicator Statement:

The percentage of seeds & vegetative material collected and planted in accordance with the Chief Forester’s Standards for Seed Use, November 20, 2004

Target Statement :

100% of all seeds and vegetative material will be collected and planted in accordance with the Chief Forester’s Standards for Seed Use, November 20, 2004

Variance:

As per the Chief Forester’s Standards for Seed Use, no less than 95% of the combined total of the number of seedlings and vegetative material planted during each fiscal year comply with the transfer requirements outlined in Appendix 3 of that standard (Seedlots and Vegetative Lots from Natural Stands).

Rationale:

Background: The Tree Cone, Seed and Vegetative Material regulation has been repealed with the legislation changes from FPC act to FRPA (Forest Range and Practices Act). Under FRPA, the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation empowers the Chief Forester to make standards for the purpose of regulating the use, registration, storage, selection or transfer of seed to be used in the establishment of free growing stands. The Chief Forester’s Standards for Seed Use were brought into force on November 20, 2004. Therefore, to comply with the new Standards this SFMP indicator should be updated to reference the new requirements and legislation.