FORT ST. JOHN RESULTS BASED CODE PILOT

SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING SUMMARY NOTES

APRIL 23, 2002

Attending:

Bedford, Lorne	Kimmins, Hamish
DeLong, Craig	Leiffers, Vic
Hays-Byl, Winn	Long, Ken
Hawkins, Chris	Nakatsu, Dick
Hebert, Daryll	Seip, Dale
Innes, John	Silins, Uldis

Participants:

Beale, Jeff

Jukes, Warren

St. Jean, Roger

Others:

Fergusen, Alex	Kronlachner, Rod
Harrison, Dave	Rosen, Don

Facilitator:

Wallin, Gail

1. Welcome and Introductions

On behalf of the participants, Warren welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Scientific Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). The group then introduced themselves and explained their interest in the pilot project. Warren introduced Gail Wallin who will serve as facilitator for the meeting.

2. Overview of Pilot Project

Roger St. Jean gave an overview of the defined forest area and its geographic features. The Fort St. John Timber Supply Area is the Defined Forest Area for this project and encompasses 4.7 million hectares. He explained the purpose of the pilot project is looking at innovative ways to establish clear objectives for forest management while minimizing administrative tasks. The project will result in a Sustainable Forest Management Plan (SFMP) that will change and evolve over time to reflect new information, public expectations and science.

Warren explained that the STAC was identified in the pilot proposal as a tool to help ensure that the proposed forest management direction reflects the current scientific understanding. This Committee provides input to the participants along with a Public Advisory Group (PAG) that is currently providing input to the participants related to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) certification process. The participants have a Working Group (WG) of local representatives who are responsible for developing the sustainable forest management plan. The Working Group also takes direction and needs to meet the expectations of a Steering Committee comprised of senior representatives from each of the participants.

Steering Committee

Ken Higginbotham (Chair), Alex Ferguson , Dave Lawson, Bob Holland, Derrick Doyle, Phil Zacharatos

Working Group

Warren Jukes (Chair), Jeff Beale, Roger St Jean, Joyce Beaudry, Heather Cullen, Win Hays-Byl, Rod Backmeyer

3. STAC Terms of Reference

The group reviewed the draft Terms of Reference that were circulated. Following are suggestions for improvements:

a) Description

· expand to include explanations about the different committees- Steering Committee, Public Advisory Group, Working Group and the role with the CSA

· reflect that the role of the STAC may change over time

b) Objectives

· Add ‘including CSA matrix’

c) Structure

· the group reviewed the existing membership and made the following suggestions for strengthening the STAC

- recreation- Peter Boxall

- land-use planning

- non-timber forest products- Peter Boxall

- silviculture

- social science- Stephen Sheppard or Bill White

- fisheries (perhaps in future discussions- John Richardson)

· the group suggested the following changes

- change ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ to ‘traditional knowledge’

- change soil science to ‘soil and geological sciences’

d) General- the rest of the Terms of Reference were seen as acceptable

e) The revised Terms of Reference will be circulated and reviewed at the next STAC meeting

4. Overview of the SFMP

Jeff Beale gave an overview of the Sustainable Forestry Management Plan (SFMP) and the need to develop a number of landscape level strategies to meet the requirements of the pilot project. There are some strategies that are mandatory and others that are optional. The participants would like the STAC to provide some strategic input on these strategies as they are developed. The goal is complete a SFMP for early 2003.

The STAC would also have a role to play in providing input related to the CSA certification process once the public has completed their preliminary input on values, goals, indicators and objectives. The public input is expected to be complete in mid- May and this will be circulated for information to the STAC.

a) STAC’s role related to CSA

It was agreed that the STAC would:

· Receive the PAG matrix for review and identify any conflicts in the objectives and indicators (late May)

· Review and assist in the revision for completing the matrix (June)

· Critique the proposed SFMP to ensure that it reflects scientific understandings

· Provide input on how to meet certification needs

b) Landscape level strategies that need to be developed by early 2003 include:

- patch size, seral/adjacency, biodiversity

- visual quality

- riparian management

- range and forage

- mixed forest reforestation

- reforestation

- timber harvesting

- road access

- forest health

Reforestation and mixed-wood management strategies are also recognized as priorities.

b) The group suggested that these issues or strategies could also be considered:

- oil and gas impacts/ involvement

- water quality/volume watersheds

- traditional use

5. Identification and Direction for Key Issues

a) the members agreed that the following strategies should be addressed in the near future and will include input and feedback from the STAC;

- patch size/seral stage/adjacency/biodiversity

- mixed-wood reforestation

- range and forage

- riparian management

6. Scope of Key Issues/Strategies

For each of these key issues the group provided input on topics that should be addressed:

a) Patch size/seral stage/adjacency/biodiversity

· Aggregation of patches related to events (link this with green up and patch size)

· Review green up requirements, how to report out

· Define patch size- i.e. at stand level vs. watershed; show eco-site difference, disturbance intensity etc.

· Adjacency and seed source related to mixed wood

· Difference between natural disturbance and harvesting vs. cultural/historical impacts

· Define natural disturbance

· Recognize seral expectations i.e. where, how

· Identify permanent requirements for biodiversity (rotating versus fixed)

· Role of non-harvest areas relevant to harvest area

· Consider representative levels

· Define attributes in deciduous and mixed woods as related to old growth and identify how to map

b) Mixed Wood Management

· Growth and yield: successional pathways, scale (stand/forest/etc)

· Recognize limits of operational experience

· Consider variety of decision tools

· Define mixed wood- scale and temporal

· Status of forest inventory and its limitations

· Establishing spruce by natural regeneration or planting; what is ecologically and/or economically sound

· Vegetation management techniques

· Relationship to range

· Impacts on wildlife behaviors

· Impacts on trappers

· Establish expectations for regeneration- what is the desired outcome and link this to silviculture and natural patterns

· Mimicking present stand structure vs. other

· Establish goal for percent of deciduous in mixed wood forest

· Gene conservations for hardwoods

c) Range and Forage

· Impacts of harvest and past harvest- biophysically, socially

· Community pastures- role, impact and expectations

· Impact of range/cattle on reforestation- including cattle management, requirements of the Range Act

· Relationship to coniferous and deciduous forests and age of forests

· Prescribed burning

d) Riparian Management

· Identify implications of not disturbing riparian areas and address, if necessary

· Maintain riparian- function, diversity

· Identify riparian characteristics

· Management of riparian for non-fish bearing streams

· Functional riparian classification over various landforms

· Recognize connections between mixed wood and fisheries (successional pathways)

· Impact/role of shrubs on riparian

· Management of riparian on alluvial fans

· Coordination of range and wildland riparian management

· Management of wetlands and water flows

· Role of snags and coarse woody debris in riparian areas

· Management of small drainages (non-classified)

e) Timber Harvesting

· Quality of inventory

· Utilization standards/residual

· Soil impacts of harvesting equipment

· Links to patch size/volume

· Intensity of harvest levels re: rotation

· Harvesting systems and silvicultural systems- and how to create variable disturbance intensities

· Timing and location of harvesting

· Log processing methods- deciduous and coniferous

· Long-term timber supply

· Infrastructure needs

· Policy on salvage timber

f) Road Access

· Permanency of roads

· Road status and tenures

· Maintenance of culverts (including material for road base)

· Wildlife impacts

· Loss to timber harvesting land base

· Coordinated access planning

· Harvest patterns and fragmentation

· Reclamation of roads

g) Visual Quality

· Describe where visual quality is relevant on the DFA

· Review public release documents to gauge public concern i.e. LRMP, TSR

· Need to take a dynamic landscape approach and involve effective communications

· Review investment in communications and VQO management

· Review impact and selection of silvicultural systems

· Review LRMP objectives

h) Forest Health

· Define breadth of forest health issues

· Define non-recoverable losses and monitoring strategy

· Impacts of climate change

· Impacts of chronic or acute air quality

· Identify local status of forest health levels in deciduous stands including who can monitor beyond free to grow; monitoring techniques, use of satellite imagery, etc.

· Growth and yield implications to forest health

· Identify thresholds for actions

· Link patch size, species composition and to spread of forest health concerns

· Hazard risk rating

i) Reforestation

· Identify landscape level stand objectives- set targets/desired future forest conditions, review at 10 years, project to mature stands

· Review expectations for allowable cut and the rotation cycle

· Consider Type 2 silvicultural analysis

· Review quality of inventory and related sensitivity

· Intensive silviculture and relation to donation

· Review value of reforestation as related to economic investment

7. Other Issues Identified for Discussion

a) Role and impact of energy and mines on the forest was identified as an issue to be addressed

· There is an interest in developing a common database with energy and forestry

· Need to identify cumulative impacts

· Need to identify cost saving opportunities such as through coordinated access

· Aim to develop an integrated resource management plan- consider the Graham approach (spirit and intent); identify areas to cooperate

· Identify where oil and gas can greatly impact the SFMP regarding location, timing and infrastructure

b) Information and Data sharing

· Identify how to share and coordinate data

· Develop a local data repository

· Consider a ftp site/ website for sharing PAG and STAC reference information

8. CSA Related Issues- Carbon

The group was asked to provide input on an issue that was identified in the PAG process and provide direction for developing a suitable indicator. The PAG has had numerous presentations and discussion on the topic and are challenged in relating this to the DFA.

a) The group discussed the topic regarding the following concepts:

· Consider the life cycle analysis for forest products

· Consider how fossil fuel energy is utilized regarding silvicultural, harvesting activities, etc.

· Consider soil carbon and the organic soil concentrating of carbon

· Reflect that the DFA is a sink not a source

· Consider drainage impact of wetlands

· Identify if there are any actions to reduce use of fossil fuels and consider the value of using wood products versus plastic, etc.

· Will need accurate forest inventory for effective indicators

b) The group recommended that potential related indicators could be as follows:

· Cubic meters/ hectare/year that are sequestered (total land base)

· Volume stored on the total land base

9. CSA Related Issues- Forest Land Conversion

The group discussed how this element and value could be effectively measured with an objective and indicators. The following recommendations were created:

a) Define reforestation and internal performance requirements for NSR

b) Review data assumptions for backlog NSR

c) For an indicator, consider:

· #Hectares permanently lost due to forest management activities

· Identify # hectares that are reclaimed to forest i.e. marginal lands, agricultural lands

10. SFMP Timeline and Next Steps

The group discussed the next steps for the STAC and recommended that:

a) Provide distributed information in mid-May- (including meeting summary, Terms of Reference, Contact lists, PAG matrix)

b) Load the ftp site in mid-May

c) Distribute the revised/completed PAG matrix by early June and allow 2 weeks for STAC feedback on issues (i.e. June 17^th)

d) Working Group to review feedback and determine the need, if any, for a meeting by June 19^th

e) Hold meeting (in Vancouver) or video conference in early July re: matrix

f) Meet in the fall on landscape level strategies

g) Meet in late fall/early 2003 to review draft SFMP plan

11. Travel Expenses

The STAC was invited to submit expense forms as distributed for reimbursement.

12. Next Meeting Times

The STAC agreed to book the following days aside to protect time for a meeting. The participants will notify other members of these dates. Participants will determine the need for a conference call or meeting and the appropriate date by mid- June. The next STAC meeting dates will be either:

June 27 or July 4^th.