Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Projects

Public Advisory Group Meeting #4

April 18, 2001

6:00pm to 9:00pm

Fort St. John Cultural Center

Attendance:

Name	Interest		Phone	email
Participants:
Doug Russell	LP		782-3302
Christy Nichol	LP		782-3302
John Dymond	Slocan Forest Products		261-6464
Roger St. Jean	MOF SBFEP		787-5600
Warren Jukes	Canfor		788-4355
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates:
Mike Waberski (R)		Oil and Gas	787-0300
Christopher Bakker (A)		Oil and Gas	780-539-3007
Budd Phillips (R )		Non. Com. Rec (hunt/fish)
Frank Schlichting (R)		Range/Ag/Priv. Woodlots	787-5383
Ron Wagner (R )		Labour	787-0172
Neil Meagher (A)		Labour	563-7771
Roy Lube (R )		Outdoor Rec.	787-7619
Oliver Mott (A )		Environment	785-9508
Wayne Sawchuk (R )		Env./Conservation	788-2685
Ray Jackson (R )		Commercial Rec.	783-5220
Fred Klassen (A )		Forestry Contractors	785-3901
Orland Wilkerson (R )		Urban Communities	787-6243
Bruce Kindrat (A )		Urban Communities	785-7573
Facilitator:
Gail Wallin		Facilitator	305-1003
Advisors:
Joelle Scheck		BC Environment	787-5637

Observers:

John Milan, public

1. Welcome

· Gail Wallin welcomed those in attendance, and self-introductions were made around the table.

· A working dinner was held

2. Purpose of Meeting

· The purpose of the current meeting is to review and update the PAG list, review and update the Terms of Reference, and then for the PAG to commence providing comment on the draft Pilot Project proposal (Detailed proposal and draft regulation)

· April 27 2001 is the end of the public review period for the proposed Pilot.

· Gail Wallin introduced the draft agenda and asked if there were additions – none forthcoming, PAG accepted agenda.

3. Review of March 28 Mtg. Notes

· No additional time was requested by the PAG to review the March 28 meeting notes, and only minor amendments were made to the notes:

· ACTION:

· need to update email list.

· Change ‘Observers/Advisors to ‘Advisors’

· Add section ‘Observers’ at bottom for attending public

4. Terms of Reference

· Discussion of ‘Draft Membership’ list.

· Confirmed that Environment/Conservation had agreed to remain as one interest, represented by W Sawchuk, with three alternates.

· Will add a section entitled ‘Aboriginals’ to the membership list.

· Orland Wilkerson will represent urban Communities, with alternate Bruce Kindrat.

· PAG not contrary to the now amended membership list being accepted as approved.

· The following Terms of Reference sections were amended, in accordance with the direction recommended by the PAG:

· Page 5 Sec. G viii

· Page 6 Sec 2d)

· Page 6 Sec 3c), 3d), 3f), and 3g)

· Also agreed to add the words ‘by the PAG in Section I d)

· Comments regarding the TOR were solicited from the PAG:

· PAG asked that the definition of “consensus” be revisited.

· The intent that was meant to be captured was that consensus would be reached when all parties were able to ‘live with’ the decision.

ACTION: Facilitator will provide PAG with a clearer definition for next meeting.

· The terms of reference were accepted by the PAG with the above noted amendments.

· ACTION: Participants to determine if the proposed alternate to Range Ag/ Private Woodlots (E. Weitzel) still wishes to be listed as an alternate.

Presentation of Pilot Background

· Warren Jukes, Canfor, provided a brief refresher of the project, including Section 10.1 allowing the application of Pilot Projects, a discussion of the number of Pilots around the province, and the intent of this particular pilot to move away from prescriptive management to results-based.

q Pilot Timeline is as follows:

March/April

q Public review and comment on the proposal

q PAG input regarding the proposal

q Meetings with interest groups

April 27

q end of 60-day advertising period

May 8(14)

q Participants provide to the PAG the former’s response to input and comments from all sources

q PAG seeks to find agreement/consensus regarding endorsement of the Pilot proposal

q PAG submits their recommendation to the provincial government

Mid-May

q Pilot proposal in its entirety is submitted to the Ministers of Environment, Forests, and Energy Mines and Petroleum.

· A description of the makeup and role of the Regional Working Group was provided to the PAG

· Groups that have been met with to date regarding the proposal include:

§ Snowmobile Club

§ Three First Nations

§ BCEN (not directly met with, but provided with a review of information)

§ Forest Practices Board

§ Muskwa Kechika board

§ ABCPF, and various other professional organisations.

· The recently announced provincial election may slow the time frame for approval, however the group is proceeding with the presentation to the three Ministers as on schedule.

· A general discussion of the background ensued. No outstanding questions from the PAG remained at the end of this period.

PUBLIC ISSUES AND COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSAL:

Issue 1:

Section 5 of the Detailed Proposal, Page 18

· Concern re: consistency and linkage with other plans and in particular with the LRMP.

· PAG representative asked that the specific RMZ strategies from the LRMP be fulfilled or committed to in the Pilot rather than the overarching RMZ objectives. Is addressing only the objectives missing the spirit and intent of the LRMP?

· A PAG response to this question was that we need to enable adaptive thinking and management, and not necessarily be constrained by specific strategies. Should the INTENT of the strategies be captured, rather than the specifics?

· Need to ensure that the Pilot meets the test of consistency with the (intent of) the LRMP.

Issue #2:

There is a sense by the PAG that the rationale or justification for achieving CSA is insufficiently described. Suggest clarification of this issue in the document.

Issue #3:

What impact will the SFMP have on other tenure holder in the FSJ TSA, such as range? And what, if any, are the benefits to these other tenure holders? This should be spelled out in more detail in the proposal.

· A brief response to this by the participants was that range tenure holders were not requested to participate, however one benefit will be that they will have a single consolidated forest industry to deal with rather than numerous licensees with a variety of procedures.

Issue #4:

What is the intent and the current status of the individual licensees regarding certification? Must they all be certified, and what is the effect if one either does not attain certification, or loses it?

· All participants have made a level of agreement and commitment to certification.

· Certification could aid in the verification process of the SFMP

The PAG wishes to be provided with a means of verifying the level of commitment to certification by each of the participants.

Issue #5:

Table, Page 10

· The notes at the bottom of this table are confusing to the public, in particular as to the meaning of ‘sustainable”.

· Need to revise the wording, and provide a glossary of terms in the proposal

Issue #6:

Page 147, Sec. 25, part 2

· Need to clarify which act and regulation are being referred.

· A concern was voiced regarding precedence of the SFM over the Act, in a case of inconsistency between the two. (this will require a detailed review of the SFM, clause by clause)

· PAG concern that all areas of the SFMP that will be inconsistent with the FPC Act are identified and made available for public comment.

Issue #7:

Page 153 Sec. 38 (i)

· How does the $50,000 maximum penalty specified in the Pilot Reg. compare with what is currently in the FPC Act?

· Penalties should be consistent with those specified in the FPC.

Issue #8:

Page 157 of 157 of the detailed proposal, Greenup.

· Is the intent of this clause that green-up requirement for areas adjacent to licenses-to-cut will be waived? Need to clarify the intent of this clause, define what a license to cut is, and determine if a licensee is eligible to apply for a license to cut (sic).

Issue #9:

Page 140, Sec. 16

Clarify why these regulations should not apply, and address specifics such as Road Regulations. (Explanatory notes will assist in providing equivalency explanations.)

Issue #10:

The PAG expressed that specific ‘on-the-ground’ effects of the Pilot may be better explained in the document.

COMMENTS FROM OBSERVERS:

· A concern was voiced regarding the current perceived level of waste of wood fibre by oil and gas as well as forest industry. (ie aspen and cottonwood being wasted by coniferous licensees). Will the Pilot address this, and improve the utilization of fibre that is now being wasted.

NEXT MEETING:

May 8, and then possibly May 14, 2001.

· Define Consensus

· Finalize membership (Range/Ag/Priv. Woodlots)

· Review input and responses by participants

· Review revised TOR

· Draft a PAG submission/report to the gov’t.

· Determine the makeup of a meeting on May 14.

Meeting adjourned 2115hr.