Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project

Public Advisory Group Meeting #10

December 3, 2001

6:00pm to 9:10pm

Fort St. John Cultural Center

MEETING SUMMARY NOTES

Attendance:

Name		Interest	Phone	E-mail
Participants			-
Roger St. Jean		Small Business Forest Enterprise Program	787-5600
John Dymond		Slocan L.P OSB Corp	261-6464
Jeff Beale		Slocan LP OSB Corp	261-6464
Warren Jukes		Canfor	788-4355
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates:
Mike Waberski	Oil and Gas		787-0300
Ron Wagner	Labour		787-0172
Frank Schlichting	Range, Agric. & Private Woodlots		787-5383
Orland Wilkerson	Urban Communities		787-6243
Wayne Sawchuk	Environment & Conservation		788-2685
Neil Meagher	IWA Canada		563-7771
Gary Rehmeier	Forest Workers		787-5214
Karen Goodings	Rural Communities		785-8084
Facilitator:
Gail Wallin			305-1003
Advisors:
Paul Albu	Ministry of Forests		787-5600
Winn Hays-Byl	Ministry of Sus. Res. Mgt., Dawson C.		784-1200
Ron Rutledge	Ministry of Sus. Res. Mgt., FSJ		787-5632
Observers:
None

ATTACHMENTS:

· Handouts from meeting:

· 1. - Meeting agenda (Dec 3/01)

· 2. - Canfor EMS Periodic Assessment

· 3. - Revised TOR page 3 Sec. B Defined Goals

· 4. - Amended draft CSA matrix

1. Welcome

· Facilitator explained that the overall goal of tonight’s’ meeting is to carry on from Nov. 13 meeting in fleshing out Values and Goals.

· Introduction of guest Paul Albu from Ministry of Forests

· Self-introduction by the each of those attending was made.

2. Review of tonight’s’ meeting agenda

· PAG accepted the agenda as proposed. (attached)

3. Review of November 13 Meeting Summary

· Suggestion was made and accepted by PAG that henceforth (while the matrix is being established) the meeting summary will consist of a text document as well as a matrix. Additionally, the meeting summary text will henceforth record only those people in attendance at the specific meeting.

· Two changes to the draft circulated meeting summary were made and accepted:

1. Reword observations made by member, in Section 4, final sentence, regarding forest health.

2. Addition of two bold bullets at bottom of page 4, regarding proposed Values/Goals and the Working Group review of PAG recommendations.

· The amended meeting summary was accepted and will be emailed to all parties, as agreed by the PAG in attendance

· Action items stemming from Nov 13 Meeting:

1. SFMP matrix to Orland Wilkerson – done

2. Confirmation of date of mailing of proposal – done – sent out Nov. 6 to Rick Manwaring then on to 4 ministers.

3. PAG and Working Group advisement of public release of Matrix – P. Wooding will advise when document is ready for release.

4. Review of Role of Public Advisory Group (PAG) – Warren Jukes

· Warren and the Facilitator jointly provided a brief outline of the PAG role, and handed out revised wording for the Terms of Reference (TOR), making the TOR consistent with the Pilot Regulation.

· The PAG accepted the new TOR wording, and that the May 2001 TOR should be revised/amended to reflect the new wording.

· ACTION: Circulate the revised Terms of Reference.

5. Update on First Nation Advisory Group Meetings – Jeff Beale

· Jeff provided a brief description of the proceedings and outcome of the third meeting with first nations on November 15, 2001.

· Only 3 bands attended, and those attending expressed no definitive direction or preference for involvement in the Pilot, or interest in the same.

6. Review of Canfors’ EMS Audit - Warren Jukes

· PAG received a handout (attached) of the results of Canfors’ EMS Periodic Assessment November 19-22, 2001.

· Warren described the terminology, specific nonconformance incidents and opportunities for improvement as presented in the handout, as well as the implications of the audit findings.

7. Continue Input to CSA Matrix

· PAG agreed that the wording for Goals and Values for Elements One and Two as presented in the matrix distributed this evening accurately represents their recommendation from last meetings’ discussion.

· PAG accepted the strategy of putting forward their suggested draft Goals and Values before tackling specific Indicators and Objectives, for the purpose of providing time for the Working Group to review and respond to the PAG’s Goals and Values in the interim.

· ACTION: PAG expressed dissatisfaction of the Working Groups’ (WG) wording of Criteria 2 Goals and asks the WG for alternatives.

· PAG proceeded to work on draft Values and Goals for Elements 3 and 4, resulting in the draft matrix attached to this document.

· Opinion was expressed by members of the PAG that, where appropriate, the FSJ Pilot should be looking at other models of the CSA matrix already in existence around the province, instead of trying to start from scratch.

· ACTION: PAG requested information regarding carbon cycling, as referred to in Element 4.1. WG to research.

· ACTION: WG to provide the PAG with the definitions of “Forest Land Base” and “Forested Land Base”.

· A short general discussion occurred regarding other resource users in the Defined Forest Area, and how their input is represented in the Pilot. Discussion ensued regarding Agricultural Land Reserve and Provincial Forest designations and uses, and the authority for resource issue decisions in those areas. Clarity was provided that such authority rests with the Province, and not with the Pilot Participants.

· Agreed that the concern raised about the reflection of “other users” in Element 4.1 would be revisited after going through Element 5.

8. Other Business

· No other business was brought forward

9. Next Meeting Dates and Agenda

· Next meeting will be on January 7, 2002, at the Cultural Center, 1800 hr.

· Goal of meeting will be to complete the CSA matrix Values and Goals.

· Subsequent meeting is scheduled for February 4, 2002, to goal of which meeting will be to start developing the CSA matrix the Indicators and Objectives.

· Meeting adjourned at 9:12 pm.

(Meeting Summary Attachment 1)

Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Projects

Public Advisory Group Meeting #9

December 3, 2001

6:00pm to 9:00pm

Fort St. John Cultural Center

DRAFT AGENDA

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Review of Meeting Agenda

3. Review of Meeting Summary – November 13^th

4. Review of Role of Public Advisory Group

5. Update on meetings with First Nations

6. Review of Canfor’s EMS audit

7. Continue Input into CSA Matrix

8. Other Business

9. Next Meeting – dates and agenda

(Meeting Summary Attachment 2)

CANFOR’s EMS Periodic Assessment (PA#3) November 19-22 , 2001

Nonconformance Type	Description	ISO (P.A. 3)
Minor Nonconformance	Environmental Program-tracking procedure for documenting non-conformances (dispensing hose & break-away valve) were not followed	Yes
Opportunity for Improvement	Site map for existing winter road freeze-ins should be used due to instream works	Yes
Opportunity for Improvement	One isolated incident to improve operator level of awareness	Yes
Opportunity for Improvement	Environmental Programs-preworks do not require monitoring and inspection frequencies to be filled out	Yes

Major nonconformances:

· Are pervasive or critical to the achievement of the EMS Objectives.

Minor nonconformances:

· Are isolated incidents that are non-critical to the achievement of EMS Objectives.

All nonconformances require an action plan within 30 days and must be addressed by the operation.

Major nonconformances must be addressed immediately or registration can not be achieved/maintained.

Opportunities for Improvement: · Are not nonconformances but are comments on specific areas of the EMS where improvements can be made. (Attachment 3 Meeting Summary) (Terms of Reference, Pilot Project PAG) 

B. Defined Goals

The goal of the Fort St. John Pilot Project Public Advisory Group (PAG) is to provide input on the pilot project as described in the approved regulation and pilot proposal. In addition, the group will also meet the needs of the SFMS certification process which includes providing input to help ensure that the participant’s forest management decisions “…are made as a result of informed, inclusive, and fair consultation with local people who are directly affected by or have an interest in sustainable forest management”[1]. The PAG will represent the diverse range of interests in the Defined Forest Area (DFA) and will:

a) According to Section 47 of the Pilot Regulation, ensure that the participants’ forest management decisions, as contained in the sustainable forest management plan, are made as a result of informed, inclusive and fair consultation with local people who are directly affected by or have an interest in sustainable forest management and

i.) review proposed sustainable forest management plans and amendments to sustainable forest management plans (according to Section 37 with the Pilot Regulation and

ii.) review audits as noted in Section 50 of the Pilot Regulation

iii.) review annual reports as noted under Section 51 of the Pilot Regulation

b) According to CSA Z809, provide input or comments on:

i.) values, goals, indicators and objectives as related to CSA-SFMS

ii) design of a Sustainable Forest Management (SFMS) system, monitoring system, and evaluation process

1. Review performance evaluations and make recommendations for improvement

2. Provide input on a communication strategy to provide feedback to interested parties about the defined forest area, particularly the results of performance evaluations related to the critical elements of the CSA-SFMS standard.

C. OPERATING RULES

1) Ground rules/ conduct

The PAG and its representatives agree to work under the following ground rules:

a) Show mutual respect for all representatives

b) To use a speaker’s list approach, managed by the facilitator

2) Meeting agenda and dates

a) Meeting agenda:

i) Input on upcoming meeting agendas will be obtained during each PAG meeting

ii) The participants will finalize and distribute meeting agenda and meeting summaries to PAG representatives and alternates

iii) Time (10 minutes, unless agreed otherwise) will allocated on each meeting agenda for public presentations or comments, if desired

DRAFT # 2.1 CSA Matrix FSJ Pilot recommendations from Dec. 03, 2001 PAG meeting are underlined.

CCFM Criterion 1 – Conservation of Biological Diversity Conserve biological diversity by maintaining integrity, function and diversity of living organisms and the complexes of which they are part.
Element 1.1 Ecosystem Diversity Conserve ecosystem diversity by maintaining through time the variety and landscape-level patterns of communities and ecosystems that naturally occur on the DFA.	Ecosystem Diversity Comment: need definition of ecosystem diversity	Natural range of diversity and pattern of communities and ecosystems Consider: (1) “how to define natural; (2) include adverb/verb e.g, “maintain, to have, the landscape exhibits”; (3) use of natural is pejorative, where does managed fit in?”	Consider: (1) “quality & persistence over time”
Element 1.2 Species Diversity Conserve species diversity by ensuring that habitats for all native species found on the DFA are maintained through time.	Habitat Diversity See Indicator for discussion on Value, but best addressed by Indicators	Suitable habitat levels for native species diversity Consider: (1) what is native, should reflect present situation	Consider: (1) quality of type, & amount of habitat; (2) connectivity corridors as an indicator
Element 1.3 Genetic Diversity Conserve genetic diversity by maintaining the variation of genes within species.	Genetic Diversity Agreed	A landscape pattern that allows for processes that permit natural genetic diversity. Consider: (1) deleting “natural”; (2) add-in “exist over time” NEW Goal: A landscape pattern that allows for processes that permit genetic diversity to exist over time.
Element 1.4 Protected Areas Respect protected areas identified through government processes as they play an important role in maintaining ecosystem, species, and genetic diversity. Identify if representative examples of the ecosystems are presently protected, if not, strive to have these areas protected.	Protected Areas Agreed	Protection of broad area representation and site specific values Consider: Replace the goal as follows: NEW Goal: To have representative areas of naturally occurring & important ecosystems & rare physical environments protected at both the broad and site-specific levels across the DFA.

CCFM Criterion 2 – Maintenance and Enhancement of Forest Ecosystem Condition and Productivity Conserve forest ecosystem condition and productivity by maintaining the health, vitality, and rates of biological production.
Element 2.1 Forest Disturbance and Stress Ensure that human and non-human disturbances and stresses maintain both ecosystem processes and ecosystem conditions within a range of natural variability.	Ecosystem processes and conditions within a natural range of variability Consider: one of two options in rewording; NEW Value: Ecosystems & ecosystem processes that have a level of disturbance & stress that is within sustainable & acceptable ranges of variability. OR Healthy & productive forest ecosystems that have a…. of variability. (as above).	Forest ecosystems that are functioning within the range of natural variability Consider: NEW Goal: Manage disturbances & stresses to maintain sustainable and productive forest ecosystems.	Consider: The impact of disturbances (possibly measured via incidence and severity metrics).
Element 2.2 Ecosystem Resilience Conserve ecosystem resilience by maintaining ecosystem processes and the range of ecosystem conditions that allow ecosystems to persist, absorb change, and recover from disturbances.	Ecosystem processes and conditions within a natural range of variability REWORD, since this is a copy of 2.1	Forest ecosystems that are functioning within the range of natural variability REWORD, since this is a copy of 2.1
Element 2.3 Ecosystem Productivity Conserve ecosystem productivity by maintaining ecosystem conditions that are capable of supporting all naturally occurring species within the range of natural variability.	Ecosystem processes and conditions within a natural range of variability REWORD, since this is a copy of 2.1	Forest ecosystems that are functioning within the range of natural variability REWORD, since this is a copy of 2.1
Element 2.4 Production Rates and Productive Capacity Manage the long-term productive capacity of the forest resource base.	Productive Capacity	Maintain or enhance mean annual increment of timber stands Suggest new wording

CCFM Criterion 3 – Conservation of Soil and Water Resources Conserve soil and water by maintaining their quantity and quality in forest ecosystems.
Element 3.1 Soil Quality and Quantity Conserve soil resources by maintaining soil quality and quantity.	Soil Productivity Consider: (1) Protect forest soils across the landscape. (2) Soil quality and quantity.	Sustain Soil Productivity Consider: (1) Soil productivity exists within natural (range of variability) within normal cycles. (2) Soil quantity is maintained and loss of (productive) soil due to forest management activities is minimized. THESE are the intents -still needs work!
Element 3.2 Water Quality and Quantity Conserve water resources by maintaining water quality and quantity.	Water Quality and Quantity	Maintenance of water quality and quantity within the natural range of variation Consider: (1) Water quality & quantity is conserved, and loss of quality & quantity of water due to forest management activities is minimized. - (Note, refer to pre-disturbance standards).

CCFM Criterion 4 – Forest Ecosystem Contributions to Global Ecological Cycles Maintain forest conditions and management activities that contribute to the health of global ecological cycles.
Element 4.1 Carbon Uptake and Storage Maintain the processes that take carbon from the atmosphere and store it in forest ecosystems.	Carbon Uptake and Storage	Maintain the processes for Carbon Uptake and Storage… plus ADD in: (2) Maintain stored carbon within the natural range of variation. (3) Maintain or increase natural level of carbon uptake. (within the DFA)
Element 4.2 Forest Land Conversion Protect forestlands from deforestation or conversion to non-forests.	Forested Land Base	Minimize losses to forest landbase from due to forestry activities. OR Manage forest activities in a manner which minimizes loss to the forest land (recognize that there are other uses of the land) and build cooperation between users. Note, REVIEW this after we’ve done Criterion # 5

CCFM Criterion 5 – Multiple Benefits to Society Sustain flows of forest benefits for current and future generations by providing multiple goods and services.
Element 5.1 Timber and Non-Timber Benefits Manage the forest to produce an acceptable and feasible mix of both timber and non-timber benefits.	Timber and Non-Timber Benefits	Maintain opportunities for a feasible mix of timber and non-timber goods and services that meet public expectations.
Element 5.2 Communities and Sustainability Contribute to the sustainability of communities by providing diverse opportunities to derive benefits from forests and to participate in their use and management.	Communities’ Sustainability	Provision of diverse opportunities to derive benefits from forests.
Element 5.3 Fair Distribution of Benefits and Costs Promote the fair distribution of timber and non-timber benefits and costs.	Fair Distribution of Benefits and Costs	Promote the fair distribution of timber and non-timber benefits and costs

CCFM Criterion 6 – Accepting Society’s Responsibility for Sustainable Development Society’s responsibility for sustainable forest management requires that fair, equitable, and effective forest management decisions are made.
Element 6.1 Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Recognize and respect Aboriginal rights and existing treaty rights.	Aboriginal and Treaty Rights	Allow for hunting, fishing and trapping rights under Treaty 8
Element 6.3 Public Participation Demonstrate that in developing the public participation process, the organization openly sought a balanced representation of interested parties, and invited them to participate.	Opportunity for Public Participation	Public participation process with a structure that allows for a balanced representation of interests.
Element 6.4 Information for Decision-Making Provide relevant information to interested parties to support their participation in decision-making, and increase knowledge of ecosystem processes and human interactions with forest ecosystems.	Information for Decision-Making	Decision making process with relevant information provided to PAG and FNAG members. Increase knowledge of ecosystem processes.

---

[1] Canadian Standards Association. 1996.CAN/CSA-A808-96 A sustainable forest management system: guidance document. Canadian Standards Association, Etobicoke Ont.