Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project

Public Advisory Group Meeting #19

September 15, 2003

3:00 pm to 9:30 pm

North Peace Cultural Center

APPROVED MEETING SUMMARY NOTES

Meeting Attendance:

Name	Interest	Phone	E-mail
Participants
Warren Jukes	Canfor	788-4355
David Menzies	Canfor	787-3613
Don Rosen
Greg Taylor
Tony Fazekas
Roger St. Jean		787-5645
Walter Fister
Brian Farwell
Jeff Beale	Slocan-LP OSB Corp	261-6464
Chris Stagg	Tembec
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates
Mike Waberski	Oil and Gas	787-0300
Bud Phillips	Non Commercial Recreation
Ron Wagner	Labour	787-0172
Karen Goodings	Rural Communities	785-8084
Roy Lube	Outdoor Recreation	787-7619
Stanley Gladysz	Outdoor Recreation	785-2596
Gary Rehmeier	Forest Contractors/ Workers	787-5214
Fred Klassen	Forest Contractors/ Workers	785-3901
Facilitator
Gail Wallin		305-1003
Advisors
Paul Wooding	Canfor	604 661-5423
Pat Martin	MOF Branch
Howard Madill	MSRM
Observers
Chris Bauditz	MOF Region
Tanya Yadao	RPBio
Roy Lansall	Tay Creek Logging
David Doyle

1.      Welcome and Introductions

• Draft meeting #19 agenda, and Draft summary of February 3, 2003 Meeting #18 were circulated.

2.      Review of Draft Meeting #19 Agenda 

• PAG reviewed and accepted the draft meeting agenda.

3.      Review of Meeting 18 Summary (Feb 3 03)

• NO changes put forward; It stands as the record
• Revisions and review of TOR for PAG to be delayed until Sept 22^nd, 2003

4.      Overview of Actions since February

• Changes to the Pilot Project Regulation

§         Scope changed pre-Regulation harvested blocks (1987 forwards) have all been added in.

• Audits

§         KPMG in July began a compliance audit, and reviewed work to-date on the SFMP (document review)

§         KPMG back in Oct to complete field portion & CSA registration

• Revisions to matrix

§         Much of the “analyse and determine” … in VOIT’s  (values, objectives, indicators & targets) have been completed in most cases

• Pilot Project vs CSA requirements

§         Pilot regulation requires 7 Landscape Level Strategies with Performance Indicators, many of them overlap with the CSA Indicators

§         CSA matrix done with the PAG is integrated into the SFMP and overlaps with Code Pilot requirements

5.      PAG Input on Key areas in Draft SFMP

• Request to see all the previous work by PAG related to the SFMP (to see what PAG recommended and how participants have addressed the issues/interest)

§         the CSA matrix embodies much of that

§         Section 7 of SFMP will summarize PAG recommendations and comments on this SFMP

§         The Pilot Partners have set up a website.  All meeting summaries will be available at www.fsjpilotproject.com

6.      Review of Proposed Landscape Level Strategies and related indicators (Section 4 and 6 of SFMP)

Forest Health Strategy

• How has fire been dealt with in the SFMP?
• How has SFMP mitigated against fire?
• What are impacts of MPB to SFMP?  Including wood coming from outside the TSA/DFA?
• 6.26 - OK with changes since February, no disagreement as it stands.
• 6.25 – OK with new indicator.  Can the response be quicker than 1 year if needed, e.g., MPB issues?”
• 6.01 – reviewed OK

Range & Forage Management 

• 6.10 – Reviewed OK.  Suggest add in new invaders species
• 6.42 – Suggest target should be no-net damage
• 6.41 – reviewed

§         “mutually agreeable between who?”

·        participants and range tenure holders is the answer

§         “why not meet on an annual basis?”

·        to focus on the area of planned operations, to deal with tenure holders who have a real stake with impending operations, and we can’t focus on all tenure holders every year, and we can’t have an indicator with expectations that we cannot meet.

Visual Quality

• Strategy and 6.44 – reviewed OK

Road Access Management

• 6.24 – reviewed

§         How can reducing the requirement from 7% to 5% be achieved?

§         Cautioned about public reaction to increased block size.

§         Review with timber harvesting and block/patch size.

• 6.40 –OK.  Clarification that this refers just to main access corridors

§         How to determine what is “coordinated”?  Define multiple user

§         Clarify “report on accepted”, and determine what is accepted.

§         Suggest using successful / unsuccessful shared coordinated access, instead of using opportunities as the measure.

• 6.45 – OK

§         Concern about deactivation standards (i.e., cut culverts are hazards)

§         Don’t leave major hazards when you deactivate

Riparian management

• 6.36: OK
• 6.22: OK
• 6.07: OK
• 6.23: OK
• 6.34: OK

Patch Size, Seral Stage and Adjacency

• 6.02: provided handout.  OK
• 6.03: OK

§         “how different is the proposed Patch size distribution vs. current harvesting plans?”.  A comparison (rationale, in public-speak) should be made… need to be concerned about potential public reaction to large cutblocks.

• 6.04: request picture illustration to explain shape index (ie 1 vs 4). 

Timber Harvesting Strategy

• 6.48: why the increase for coniferous (2003 vs 2004)?

·        FSJ mill closed for part of 2003 to accommodate investment in mill

§         encourage local summer hauling

§         refer to delivered vs. harvested

§         refer to % of yr.’s volume for mill’s

§         consider impacts on residents & vegetation regarding eg., road into the Graham/Halfway

• 6.49: Conventional systems may limit summer deliveries.  Review limits created by the current target (95%)

§         consider options for horse logging

• 6.50: OK
• 6.27: OK, define even-aged silviculture system
• 6.18: OK, consider rewording to follow GRIMP or refer to Table 24--- but simplify
• 6.19: OK, simplify i.e., refer to Table X
• 6.20: OK
• 6.21: OK
• 6.51: OK
• 6.52: OK
• 6.53: OK, How is under-utilization addressed?

Reforestation Strategy

• 6.28: OK
• 6.30: Discussed change.  OK
• 6.29: OK.  Identified trade-offs for managing other values (riparian, water, soil, cwd, snags, shrubs etc)

§         Clarify whether current volume harvested can be maintained over time.

§         Compare new vs. old system (pros & cons).  Simplify.

§         PAG supports new system

§         How to protect against failure?

§         Suggest a review of the system every x yrs to ensure it’s effective. (annual reporting) 

§         Compare a sample of both systems parallel (i.e., old =’s block based species and stocking requirements vs landscape based productivity-- potential and actual)

• PAG recommends

§         Support of the new reforestation strategy

§         Build in assurances for monitoring overall system

§         Develop info/communications about the system to eliminate skepticism.

7.      Performance Standards

• Section 8.1.1 (WTP 6.9).  PAG supports.
• 8.1.2 (Permanent Access structures): clarify what is included here; define what’s in, what’s out.  PAG supports.
• 8.1.3 (Reforestation).  PAG supports.  See previous comments.
• 8.1.4 (Coarse Woody Debris 6.6): PAG supports. 

§         Review how CWD storage impacts the use of permanent access structures (roads and landings), and/or coordinated use of roads (inter-industry)

• 8.2 (Revised FOS Requirements): PAG supports, re-enforce continued support for coordinated access planning, and access issues to be raised directly to participants.

8.      Other INDICATORS

o       6.43: PAG supports;

§         Participants have not dealt with going beyond the maintaining recreation sites other than the Crying Girl

o       6.46: PAG supports;

§         Reword to clarify consistency by parties, and define mutually agreeable with user groups

§         Use the words “follow through” instead of “consistency”

§         USE This same line of thinking on the RANGE indicators too.

§         PAG supports old Indicator # 30, and reword if necessary

o       6.47: PAG supports

o       6.54: PAG supports

o       6.55: PAG supports

o       6.56: PAG supports

o       6.57: PAG supports

o       6.58: PAG supports

o       6.59: PAG supports

o       6.60: PAG supports

o       6.61: PAG supports

9.      Timeline

• Sept 22 – 26 (Internal Audit)
• Oct 14-17- KMPG
• November completion of public input
• Input expected from First Nations, STAC, Government
• Participants to revise and submit SFMP by December 1st

NEXT MEETING: September 22^nd 2003, 3pm

o       Feedback to PAG suggestions

o       Strategies/matrix

o       Revise TOR

o       Complete outstanding matrix items

o       Monitoring, forecasting alternate strategies

o       Next meeting