Public Advisory Group Meeting #24
October 17, 2005
6:00 pm to 10:10 pm
North Peace Cultural Center
Meeting Attendance:
|
Name |
Interest |
Phone |
Email or Postal Address |
Participants
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Tyrrell |
Canfor |
787-3665 |
|
|
David Menzies |
Canfor |
787-3613 |
|
|
Jeff Beale |
Canfor |
787-3651 |
|
|
John McCracken |
Canfor |
787.3618 |
|
|
John Rowe |
Canfor |
787-3680 |
|
|
Brian Farwell |
BC Timber Sales |
262-3337 |
|
|
Walter Fister |
BC Timber Sales |
262-3328 |
|
|
Andrew Moore |
|
789-3621 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates
|
|||
|
Stan Gladysz
|
Outdoor Recreation |
785-2596 |
|
|
|
Oil and Gas |
780-831-6002 |
|
|
Fred Klassen |
|
785-3901 |
|
|
Ron Wagner
|
Labour |
787-0172 |
|
|
Orland Wilkerson |
Urban Communities |
787-6243 |
|
|
Roy Lube |
Non-Commercial Rec. |
787-7619 |
|
|
Dale Johnson |
Ranchers |
262-3260 |
|
|
Karen Goodings |
Rural Communities |
785-8084 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advisors
|
|
|
|
|
Anna Regnier |
Integrated Land Mgt Bureau |
787-3563 |
|
|
Robert Hodgkinson |
Ministry of Forests, PG |
565-6122 |
|
|
Elizabeth Hunt |
Ministry of Forests, Peace |
784-1242 |
|
|
Rob Kopecky |
Ministry of Forests, Peace |
784-1200 |
|
|
Graham Suther |
Ministry of Environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Observers
|
|
|
|
|
Anna Tikina |
|
604-822-5523 |
|
|
Kieran Broderick |
Treaty 8 |
785-0612 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facilitator
|
|
|
|
|
Gail Wallin |
|
305-1003 |
|
Gail Wallin welcomed all members to the
meeting.
2. Review of Meeting Agenda
Gail gave an overview of the agenda summarizing that
the primary objectives of the meeting were to review the annual report, and a
proposed change to the CSA matrix. The
group had no changes to the agenda.
3. Review of Meeting Summary (Feb. 14, 2005)
§
Gail reviewed
the meeting summary and action items.
There was one change to the Meeting Summary (Roy Lube had been
erroneously listed as representing Forestry Workers, not Non-Commercial
Recreation).
§
Gail stressed
that the changes outlined in section 6 of the summary are not reflected in the
2004-05 annual report, but are for this year.
§
The meeting
summary was accepted, after noting the minor change regarding the interest
representation category for Roy Lube.
§
Introductions: all those present introduced themselves and
indicated which interest group they were representing. There were two observers present.
---Supper Break---
4. Update
from Participants
a. Canfor
David
Menzies provided an update of local Canfor operations:
Question from PAG (paraphrased): Is Canfor logging in any mixedwood stands in
short-term or are they targeting stands with a more ‘pure’ makeup (i.e., pure
conifer or pure deciduous stands)?
Response (DM): Most of
Canfor’s harvesting in the near-term will be in ‘pure’ stands, rather than
mixedwood stands. There are several
administrative obstacles acting as disincentives for harvesting mixedwood
stands, including lack of cohesive mixedwood strategy and disproportionately
high stumpage rates. There has been work
done by a mixedwood committee regarding mixedwood silviculture. Work will continue on a mixedwood strategy
for the long-term.
b. Canfor-LP OSB Corp
Jeff Beale gave an overview of the
progress on the OSB mill:
§
Mill
construction slightly behind schedule due primarily to shortages in qualified
trades people.
§
Hiring complete,
start-up planned for early November
§
Log deliveries
continuing, approximately 85,000 cubic metres in the logyard
c.
Andrew
Moore. gave an overview of Cameron River Logging
§
Canfor manages
timber licence on behalf of CRL. CRL
produces dunnage and lath for distribution around
d.
Brian
Farwell provided an update on BCTS activities.
§
§
The recent
acceptance of the ‘take-back’ volumes means an increase in annual cut for Fort
St. John BCTS unit from 77 000m3 to 440 000m3.
5.
Review of Annual Report
§
Gail identified
the purpose of the Annual Report –
i.
A summary of the
participants’ successes / failures and non-conformances regarding the each
indicator in the matrix current during the reporting period,
ii.
A summary of the
suggested revisions to indicators,
§
Gail provided
the context for the report and underlined the time frame it covers (April 1
2004 to March 31 2005). She suggested
the procedure for review during the meeting –concentrating on the indicators
for which the targets were not met, or had non-conformances associated with
them, or had revisions proposed for them.
Gail reiterated that the PAG was encouraged to provide input and
feedback on the report.
§
Dave Menzies
stressed that the report is in draft form, and that there are several
typographical and formatting errors. Any
suggestions for improvements were welcome.
§
Dave also
pointed out that the report in the PAG’s hands was a consolidated report,
including all the indicators - both ‘regulatory’ and ‘non-regulatory’, and that
a separate report containing only the ‘regulatory’ indicators would be produced
for government review prior for the October 31st deadline. A final consolidated report would also be
produced for the PAG after errors have been corrected and PAG comments
incorporated.
§
The participants
then gave a brief presentation summarizing the activities completed during the
reporting period.
Question from PAG: How much area will be harvested when the OSB
mill is up and running?
Answer (DM): Approximately 5000 ha annually.
§
After the
presentation, the participants discussed each indicator listed in the Executive
Summary of the report. These were the
indicators for which there was either significant progress, suggested
revisions, or non-conformance.
§
Several
constructive comments pertaining to the Annual Report, as presented, were
received from members of the Public Advisory Group:
o
In the Executive
Summary, include page number references for each indicator listed.
o
In the Executive
Summary, offer a concise summary of the corrective actions to be taken
regarding each indicator target for which the participants are in
non-conformance. As well a brief
description of any changes proposed to indicators, including the supporting
rationale, could be written into the Executive Summary.
o
Include the
breakdown of conifer and deciduous volume harvested in a year in the Executive
Summary.
o
There was some
difficulty reading the Non-compliance chart on pages 159-160, mostly in
relating the Issue Descriptions with the rest of the information
presented. Chart lines between incidents
would help.
§
At this point
Gail asked the group what parts of the Annual Report they’d like more discussion
around in the meeting.
Request from PAG:
Please
provide an update on First Nations’ relationships with participants, and the
harvesting opportunities available.
Participants’ Response (JB/DM): Mentioned the Memorandum of
Agreement developed between the former Slocan-LP OSB Corp. and local First
Nations. Up to 510000m3 of
deciduous volume available for the First Nations to supply annually to the OSB
mill (85000m3 each), from tenures held by the participants. Several approaches being adopted by
bands. Doig River First Nation have
independent logging company set up.
Other bands are entering into joint ventures with existing logging
contractors. New contractors are
currently in process of indoctrination to ISO 14001 requirements. The Tembec coniferous licence (84000m3
annually) is also associated with the Blueberry River First Nation.
ACTION: In future PAG
meetings, the participants will include progress reports regarding the
relationships with First Nations, including progress on harvesting
opportunities. (JB – ongoing)
Concern expressed by PAG: regarding the
recently publicized issue surrounding a section of the NWMP trail in the
Participants’ Response (DM): The recent concerns surrounding
the section of trail has occurred outside the reporting period of the annual
plan. Canfor had accommodated concerns
raised in past years and thought the issue had been satisfactorily dealt with.
Gail
suggested the discussion be continued later in the meeting, and perhaps explore
idea of a ‘Heritage Trail’ aspect into the plan. General agreement.
Concern expressed by PAG: regarding the
apparent time lag between a riparian non-compliance and the date of reporting
(occurrence in 2000, reported in 2004).
Participants’ Response (DM): In this case the error resulted
from the boundary layout, which was completed in 2000. The error was not discovered and investigated
until 2004.
Comment from PAG:
The
few non-conformances seemed very minor in nature.
Comment & Request from PAG: Pleased with progress of
indicators 43 and 45. Outdoor recreation
group would like a copy of radio frequencies commonly used on ‘forestry’ roads.
ACTION: Send Outdoor
Recreation representative a copy of latest Canfor road frequencies (AT, by Nov
30, 2005).
ACTION: The participants will review the suggestions
relating to the Annual report offered by the PAG, and consider incorporating
some or all into the Annual Report document.
Formatting and typographical errors will be corrected. The participants will send the reworked
‘regulatory’ report to the PAG via e-mail or regular post by Nov. 16,
2005. Three PAG members requested a hard-copy mailed to them (Ron,
Karen, and Dale).
ACTION: The full report will be posted on Pilot
Project website (http://fsjpilotproject.com/)
and http://www.Canfor.com (Jeff Beale,
By Dec. 9, 2005)
---Break---
§
Discussion
regarding proposed deletion of Indicator #51 – Utilization: Gail pointed out that if adopted, the
deletion would not be reflected in this Annual Report. It would be reflected in the next
matrix. DM provided some rationale
relating to the proposed deletion:
o
When the
indicator was originally developed, the government’s waste and residue policy
provided for a threshold amount of waste for each harvested block, up to which
the licencees would not be charged. The
government has now amended the waste and residue rules to remove the
threshold. Now licencees get charged for
all merchantable waste left on blocks, and it counts toward the amount
harvested in a year (‘Take or Pay’). It
should be noted that the exception to this is when retention is prescribed in
Site Level Plans (eg. Snags). It is the feeling of the participants that in
light of the government changes, the indicator is no longer relevant. Dave pointed out that there is virtually no
way the participants can conform to the indicator target.
Comment from PAG:
Would like to receive updates on utilization in
future meetings.
ACTION:
Participants to provide update on current utilization
levels at next PAG meeting. (DM, Feb. PAG meeting)
ACTION: Proposed deletion to Indicator #51 is to be
explored in more detail at the next PAG meeting.
6. Audit Reports
§
Gail outlined
the time period the audit related to, and the general process.
§
The audit was a
comprehensive one. The participants were
audited to the ISO 14001-04standard (for re-registration under the new
standard), the CSA Z-809 2002 standard (surveillance audit), as well as being
audited for compliance to the Fort St. John Pilot Project Regulation.
§
The ISO and CSA
portions of the audit have been completed.
The Pilot Project Regulation portion will be completed in November
following submission of the 2004-05 Annual Report. The participants have been recommended for
re-certification to the ISO standard.
§
An audit action
plan has been developed to address the audit findings. The audit action plan has been accepted by
the auditor (KPMG).
§
The audit
findings were reviewed briefly during the meeting.
Request from PAG
(paraphrased): Expand on the issues relating to the audit finding
regarding the mixedwood reforestation strategy (2415-OFI-A2-01).
Participants’ Response:
o
Different
implications whether the approach is an “intimate mixture” one (conifer and
deciduous growing intermixed), or a “discrete mixture” (separate areas of
conifer and deciduous species growing in relatively pure, distinct patches in
the same block).
o
Some committee
work ongoing towards a strategy (participants plus Ministry of Forests &
Range staff)
o
Some surveys
have been conducted to assess some of the implications.
o
BCTS have been
operating with ”de facto” approaches on some blocks, in absence of a cohesive
policy for the Defined Forest Area.
7.
Presentation
to the Public Advisory Group – Mountain Pine Beetle
§
Robert
Hodgkinson, Regional Entomologist for the MOFR, presented information on
Mountain Pine Beetle. The presentation
included an overview of the organism including life cycle, host species, and
methods of attack. Several examples from
the Prince George Region, including the Peace District, were used to illustrate
the current infestation in the province.
§
As of 2004, 7
million hectares of forest in B.C. has been affected by Mountain Pine Beetle
attack
§
In the Peace
River District, 18 601 ha have been affected (south of the
§
Rob Kopecky,
MoFR, provided an update on the Ministry’s activities in the South Peace in
relation to the mountain pine beetle.
Rob is in charge of coordinating the Ministry’s mountain pine beetle
control efforts in the Peace District.
o
During the 2005
beetle surveys 9700 attack sites (61000 trees) have currently been
identified. The surveys are not yet
complete. They expect final numbers to
be close to 80000 trees affected.
o
The average has
been six affected trees per site.
o
In general,
crews have reported that the beetles are delayed in their developmental stage,
so hopefully a significant winter kill will occur this winter.
o
The ratio of
green to red attack is currently 1˝: 1.
o
Have applied for
$10.5 million in Federal assistance to fund fall-and-burn activities this
winter.
o
Some beetles
have been reported on the
8.
PAG Terms of Reference
§
Gail proposed
that, in the interests of time, the review of the Public Advisory Group Terms
of Reference be delayed until the following PAG meeting. The group agreed to this proposal.
9. PAG Membership Updates & Recommendations
for new Members from PAG
§
The participants
will follow-up with Gail regarding the missing representation from several of
the interest groups, and suggest replacements members if appropriate.
10. Public Presentations (if any)
§
There were no
public presentations.
11. Next Meeting and Focus
§
The principal
focus of the next meeting will be to update the CSA matrix. No date has been set for the meeting yet,
although it is planned for sometime in February 2006.
ACTION: Discuss the following outstanding topics
related to the matrix: Trails, Review of
Public Complaints. (Participants/PAG,
next PAG meeting)
§
The participants
suggested preparing a “half-page” circular PRIOR to the next meeting to provide
updates of the First Nations, Utilization, and Mixedwood topics identified as
interest points at this meeting. (Jeff
Beale – Jan.27, 2006)
12. New Agenda Item - Trails
§
Majority of
discussion related to a section of the Northwest Mounted Police trail in the
Cypress Creek area. This part of the
trail was the subject of a recent newspaper article. Dave Menzies provided a brief overview of
Canfor’s approach to dealing with the issue over the past years.
Comment from the PAG (paraphrased): Article printed in
Comment from the PAG (paraphrased): Several ranchers have had
concerns with trails not being “put back” the way they were found when used by
other industrial users -- including
BCTS.
Comment from the PAG (paraphrased): Perhaps the
Comment from ILMB: Blocks
currently in the Muskwa-Kechika area were ‘grandparented’ when MK
approved. Any new blocks or roads in the
MK area would be subject to a different level of planning.
Comment from the Participants (DM): Dave
gave a brief statement of Canfor’s position regarding the section of
trail. Canfor feels they went to a great
deal of effort to accommodate the concerns of the individual bringing forward
the complaint, including modifying their approved harvesting plans
substantially. Dave offered more
information to anyone interested, outside the meeting. He thanked the PAG for their participation
and comments, and asked that the PAG members bring forward any other ideas they
may have for future presentations.
Meeting Adjourned at 10:08 pm