Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project
May 6, 2002
5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Quality Inn Northern Grand
APPROVED MEETING SUMMARY NOTES
Meeting
Attendance
|
Name |
Interest |
Phone |
E-mail |
|
|
Participants |
|
|
|
|
|
Roger St. Jean |
Small Business
Forest Enterprise Program (SBFEP) |
787-5645 |
||
|
John Dymond |
Slocan-LP OSB Corp |
261-6464 |
||
|
Dave Menzies |
Canfor |
787-3613 |
||
|
Warren Jukes |
Canfor |
788-4355 |
||
|
Paul Albu |
Small Business
Forest Enterprise Program (SBFEP) |
787-5600 |
||
|
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternate: |
|
|||
|
Ron Wagner |
Labour |
787-0172 |
||
|
Roy Lube |
Non Commercial Rec
(non-consumptive) |
787-7619 |
||
|
Budd Phillips |
Non-Comm Recreation
(hunting/fishing) |
785-1283 |
||
|
Orland Wilkerson |
Urban Communities |
787-6243 |
||
|
Oliver Mott |
Environment/Conservation |
785-9508 |
||
|
Mike Waberski |
Oil and Gas |
787-0300 |
||
|
Stanley Gladys |
Non Commercial Rec
(non consumptive) |
785-2596 |
||
|
Facilitator |
|
|
||
|
Gail Wallin |
|
305-1003 |
||
|
Advisors |
|
|
||
|
Janice Edwards |
Ministry
Sustainable Resource Management |
787-5616 |
||
|
Rod Backmeyer |
|
|
||
|
Observers |
|
|
||
|
Carl Jahn |
Small Business
Forest Enterprise Program |
250-784-1218 |
||
|
Rod Kronlachner |
Ministry of Forests |
250-784-1205 |
||
1.
Welcome
·
Handout
of draft meeting #17 agenda, draft summary of April 22/02 Meeting #16, and
draft Matrix #16 from April 22 (PAG input).
2.
Review of Draft Agenda
·
Facilitator
explained the purpose of this meeting, as presented in the draft agenda.
·
PAG
reviewed and accepted the draft agenda for tonights’ meeting.
3.
Review of Meeting 16 Summary
and Matrix 16
·
PAG
reviewed draft Meeting #16 summary notes. Question was called for changes.
· PAG asked WG to correct typographical error on page two of meeting summary, point three, third item; insert the word ‘Need”.
·
Meeting
Summary as amended is accepted by PAG.
·
PAG
read over the distributed Matrix 16. Question was called for any changes.
Matrix had also been emailed to PAG April 29 for their review prior to this
meeting.
·
PAG
accepted the Matrix 16 as the summary of Meeting 16 PAG input.
· Review of Action Items from Meeting 16:
· Outstanding items are:
· Provide a draft or final NDU map for the PAG to view, and relate to how the Pilot is affected by it and vice versa.
·
Provided
to PAG a copy of the letter of thanks written and sent to Frank Schlichting.
4.
Membership Review
·
Nothing
to report.
5.
WG Response to PAG input,
Criteria 2, 4, 5.3, 6.3, 6.4; WG response to PAG input for Values/Goals, and WG
proposed indicators
·
Matrix
17b Working Group proposal was handed out to all attendees.
Element 2.1 Forest Disturbance and Stress
·
Objective
1, Seral Stage: WG provided summary of proposed Indicators and Objectives, and
a brief description of what Natural Disturbance Types (NDUs) are and what
characterizes them. Also provided another description of seral stage.
·
Conclusion: PAG accepted Version 17b Goal, and Seral Stage Objectives a and b
·
Objective
2, permanent Losses: participants provided an rationale of the specified 7%
Permanent Access Structure limitation, and an explanation that 2a is meant to
address the site level issue, and 2b is to address the landscape level.
·
Participants
explained that 2009 was selected as a target date as that is the date at which
the second SFMP will be prepared. Participants will work with the Oil and Gas
industry to develop a common access database.
· Conclusion: PAG recommends removing second half of Objective 2b, and entering new wording for now point ‘c’. Intent is to work with other industries.
· ACTION: Also need to reword ‘permanent access structure’ as it has a specific definition under the Pilot regulation.
·
Objective
3, CWD: Participants explained that part a. is in accordance with regulation,
and provided an explanation as to the monitoring plots that would be utilized
to gather information on CWD.
·
The
intent is to gather information to determine a range for amounts of CWD.
·
Discussion
of the source of ‘50% preharvest’, and also how field practices may or may not
in future differ from current practices.
·
Conclusion: PAG
accepted Version 17b CWD objective a and b.
·
Objective
4 Snags/Cavity sites: Explanation that this is much the same as wildlife trees,
but that STAC has recommended we address cavity sites.
·
Participants
explained that ‘averaged over area harvested’ means that not each hectare will
have identical numbers of cavity trees; some may be more concentrated than
others.
·
PAG
requested that the word ‘total’ be inserted in objective, to describe area
harvested.
· Conclusion: PAG accepted Version 17b wording as amended for this objective.
·
Objective
5 Number of Hectares of Natural Disturbance Events.
·
Participants
provided explanation of the proposed objective.
·
PAG
questions the value of this particular indicator and objective, and a
discussion ensued regarding natural disturbance.
·
PARKING
LOT: how does quantifying # of hectares of unsalvaged natural disturbance
affect or influence forest management?
·
Conclusion: PAG accepts Version 17b objective 5 if it links to management.
Element 2.2 Ecosystem
Productivity
·
Conclusion: Version 17b Objective 1 Forest Types and 2 Seral Stage and 3 Patch Size
accepted by PAG, after explanation that the three work together as a suite if
indicators for biodiversity.
Element 2.3 Production Rates ad Productive Capacity
·
ACTION: define well growing in glossary.
·
Indicator
and Obj 1: Discussion of the intent of the objective, and what determines Long
Term Harvest Level, including discussion Chief Forester’s definition from TSR1
paper.
·
MSRM
advisor provided graphic illustration of LTHL and AAC determinations.
·
PAG
asks for better wording for this indicator and objective, as the role or
responsibility of the participants in setting or living by the LTHL is unclear.
Suggestions as follows: ‘maintain harvest (forest mgt.?) practices that avoid
negatively affecting LTHL.’ or ‘maintain harvest levels within permissible
harvest levels.’
·
PAG
also suggested changing ‘adversely affect’ in the objective to ‘reduce’.
·
PAG
suggests that volume harvested over time should be linked to LTHL.
·
PARKING
LOT: rework Indicator #1 to “Monitor LTHL and identify, if at all, the harvest
levels negatively affecting the LTHL”.
· Conclusion: no recommendations, only ideas.
·
Indicator
and Objective 2, Site Index;
·
Conclusion: PAG agreed to Ver. 17b
Element 4.1 Carbon Uptake and Storage
·
Indicator
1 and 2 – WG has removed the previously agreed to indicators as they did not
adequately address the Value.
·
WG
introduced the new proposed Ver.17b indicators, and explained that STAC had
assisted in determining these indicators. MAI is meant to address carbon
uptake, and growing stock is meant to address carbon storage.
·
Conclusion: PAG accepted both indicators, but recommended that Objective #2 is
split into two, 2a being to analyse and determine range, and 2b being to meet
target range
Element 4.2 Forest Land Conversion
·
Conclusion: PAG accepted a and b with minor modification, and recommended that
‘c’ be added to partition development of targets from the analysis stage.
·
NOTE:
DID NOT ADDRESS NEWLY PROPOSED GOAL 2.
Element 5.3 Fair Distribution
·
Participants
explained that 5.3 emphasizes the promotion of those values outlined in 5.1.
·
Conclusion: Will delete WG proposal for Indicators and Objectives as seen in
Ver.17b, and amend to capture intent of new PAG/WG proposal.
Element 6.3 Public Participation
·
Participants
explained the intent of this element and that the PAG’s role is a key part of
this section.
·
Conclusion: Indicator and Objectives proposed in Version 17b for 1 and 2 are
accepted by PAG.
·
Objective
3 requires insertion of the word ‘all’ before ‘public inquiries’.
·
Need
to ensure that indicator #3 is consistent with objective #3.
·
There
was general discussion regarding to whom the ‘participants’ in the Element
description refers to. Determined that it refers to those involved in the
public participation process, which at this moment is the PAG.
·
Conclusion: PAG recommends Indicator #3 should be changed to ‘Response to public
inquiry forms’.
·
PAG
recommends an additional objective and indicator that shows the participants
have kept the public informed of opportunities to participate.
·
Conclusion: New PAG recommended Indicator and Objective #4 on Matrix 18.
·
NOTE:
DID NOT ADDRESS THE WG RESPONSE GOAL FOR THIS ELEMENT.
Element 6.4 Information for Decision Making
·
PAG
recommends changing Indicator #1 to ‘Response to Public Inquiry Forms’.
· Conclusion: PAG accepts Indicator #1 as amended, and Objective #1.PAG accepts Indicator and Objective 3.
·
PAG
and WG agreed to drop Indicator and objective 2 from Version 17b, and add;
·
Indicator
2: range of information dissemination
·
Objective
2: To provide access to research, extention, and information relevant to
decision making process.
·
General
discussion of the role of the STAC, and whether their recommendations and they
would be open to question by the public. Terms of Reference are not complete as
yet for the STAC, and this particular issue has not been addressed.
·
NOTE:
DID NOT ADDRESS THE WG RESPONSE GOAL APRIL 22 FOR THIS ELEMENT
6.
Other Business
·
Determined
that no further meetings will be required at this time for Participants to
finalize Matrix with STAC.
·
Next
Steps:
1.
Working
Group will review the Matrix as it stands (Version 18) with the STAC.
2. PAG will reconvene in the fall (September or October) to review any changes and the Participants response to PAG recommendations.
7.
Public Presentations
· No presentations were made.
8.
Next Meetings
·
Dates
not set as yet, but next one is likely in Mid September.
1.
Review
matrix – 1 to 2 evening meetings with PAG
2.
Review
of draft SFMP, forecasting, etc. – 1 PAG meeting, possibly 1 field trip.
3.
Complete
SFMP in early 2003 – 3 to 4 evening meetings with PAG
Meeting concluded 9:25pm