Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project

Public Advisory Group Meeting #9

November 13, 2001

6:00pm to 9:30pm

Fort St. John Cultural Center

Revised and Approved Meeting Summary

Attendance:

Name	Interest	Phone	E-mail
Participants:
Doug Russell	Louisiana-Pacific Corp	782-3302
Jeff Beale	Slocan LP OSB Corp	261-6464
Warren Jukes - regrets	Canfor	788-4355
David Menzies	Canfor	787-3613
Andrew deVries	Canfor (alternate for Warren)	788-4358
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates:
Mike Waberski - regrets	Oil and Gas	787-0300
Chris Bakker - regrets	Oil and Gas	780 536-3007
Ron Wagner	Labour	787-0172
Budd Phillips	Non-comm. Recreation	785-1283
Frank Schlicting	Range, Agric. & Private Woodlots	787-5383
Orland Wilkerson	Urban Communities	787-6243
Wayne Sawchuck	Environment & Conservation	788-2685
Neil Meagher	IWA Canada	250 563-7771
Fred Klassen -regrets	Forest workers	785-3901
Facilitator:
Gail Wallin		305-1003
Advisors:
Joelle Scheck	Ministry-Water, Air, Lands &Parks
Paul Wooding	Canfor
Ron Rutledge -regrets	Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, FSJ	787-5632
Jim Stephenson	Canfor	250 962-3363
Observers:
Minutes:	Jeff Beale	261-6464

Welcome

· Self-introductions were made around the table.

1. Review of meeting agenda

· No changes proposed to the agenda and accepted

· ACTION:

· Mail-out Canfor’s 4 SFMP matrix packages to Orland Wilkerson & Neil Meagher

2. Review of Meeting Summary of Amended July 12, 2001 &

September 24, 2001

· The amended minutes from the July 12^th meeting were circulated and confirmed as acceptable to the Public Advisory Group (PAG).

· No changes were made to the September meeting summary.

Based on the Summary, the Public Advisory Group (PAG) accepted the meeting summary as presented.

3. Review Status of Detailed Pilot Project Proposal & Regulations

· Jeff reviewed the status and advised PAG that the Regulation was before the Ministerial (Forests) review that day and the outcome of that review was unknown.

· Participants had since September worked on a few minor changes to the Regulations on the basis of issues raised by the legislative review (legal) counsel. All changes have retained the original intent of the Regulation.

· We are expecting Regulation approval (Order In Council) in late November 2001 with implementation by the province and active participants effective November 15, 2001.

· Final revisions to the detailed pilot project proposal were made regarding timing and implementation, but no changes were proposed to change the intent of the proposal. The proposal was mailed out on Nov. 6^th to the Pilot Project Manager, and others??? WARREN?

· Question from PAG: “Will the governments’ Core Review affect the implementation of the Regulation? – No.

4. Review of the CSA (Canadian Standards Association) Critical Elements Matrix mail-out

§ An extended discussion on the mail-out around the table led to a more thorough understanding of the process the PAG was entering into, with regards to the fit between “filling-out” the CSA matrix and the development of a Sustainable Forest Management Plan.

§ Andrew deVries recounted the experiences Canfor has had in developing 4 other SFMP’s using the CSA matrix as a foundation for plan development. Andrew noted several important cautionary items as follows:

§ Fort St. John TSA is huge (4.5 million hectares)

§ Inventory information is not strong here, especially in comparison to the other management units that Canfor has had certified in the past

§ The other management units were much smaller (“simpler”) and done earlier.

§ Frank Schlicting had several observations on items noted in the CSA matrix… that spawned good discussion, as follows:

o “Expedient fire control”… he noted that this is not necessarily good, it may be better for the health of the forest to be left uncontrolled…

o “Control of insects infestations where economically viable” versus the concern with the overall health of the forests is more important… of course this is dependant on what measures we use for the “health of forests”. A key conclusion was “Don’t wait until salvage is economical when managing the health of our forests… consider doing it via the Small Business program”.

o “For insect infestations on private land… the Ministry of Forests should be concerned about this and motivate landowners to clear up forest health issues”.

5. Review of the CSA Critical Elements Matrix

§ Paul Wooding gave a more detailed review of what the six (6) Criteria are as per the CSA standards. He noted that the Elements are static, and not undergoing revision by the CSA technical working group at this time. Wayne Sawchuck enquired as to whether “the PAG or public could amend them, as the CSA version 2 matrix appears to have more wiggle room than they’d agreed to”. Neil Meagher added “that if the matrix or any aspect in our process was weak, then through continuous improvement we’d be able to improve things”. From this discussion it became clear that the PAG was involved in what appears to be two distinct processes: (1) implementing the Results based Code pilot (developing an SFMP) and, (2) providing public input to the CSA Matrix leading to a tool required to seek CSA certification for forest stewardship. Discussion evolved and it was seen that the CSA matrix process although separate from the implementation of the Results based Code pilot, that it is significantly overlapped and part-in-parcel with the development of a SFMP that is a key component of implementing the Results based Code pilot.

Regarding public review and comment of CSA matrix revision process currently being undertaken by the CSA, Paul Wooding said that he would advise (ACTION) the Working Group and the PAG of when the Matrix would be released to the public for comment.

· PAG reviewed proposed values and goals from the Working Group. The PAG provided comments and input for Criteria 1 and 2; see attached matrix.

· The Working Group will review the PAG’s recommendations and report back.

· Next meetings:

· December 3, 2001

· January 7, 2002

· January 21, 2002

· Meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm.