Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Project

Public Advisory Group Meeting #14

March 11, 2002

5:30pm to 9:33pm

Fort St. John Cultural Center

APPROVED MEETING SUMMARY NOTES

Meeting Attendance:

Name	Interest		Phone	E-mail
Participants:			-
Roger St. Jean	Small Business Forest Enterprise Program (SBFEP)		787-5645
John Dymond	Slocan L.P OSB Corp		261-6464
Jeff Beale	Slocan L.P 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
Roy Lube		Non Commercial Rec (non consumptive)	787-7619
Orland Wilkerson		Urban Communities	787-6243
Karen Goodings		Rural Communities	785-8084
Facilitator:
Gail Wallin			305-1003
Advisors:
Joelle Scheck		Ministry Water Land Air Protection	787-3283
Rod Backmeyer		Ministry Water Land Air Protection	787-3283
Paul Albu		Ministry of Forests	787-5600
Jim Schilling		Canfor, Forest Eng. Supt.	787-3638
Observers:
none

1. Welcome

· Introductions were made around table.

· Handout of meeting draft agenda, draft meeting summary of Feb. 25, and draft matrix from Feb 25 (PAG input).

· The primary purpose of the meeting this evening is to go though Matrix Criteria 3 to 6 Values Goals and proposed Indicators, but there will also be a presentation on water management and monitoring.

2. Review of Mtg. Agenda

· PAG reviewed proposed agenda for this meeting.

· PAG agreed to amend the agenda to include a review of PAG membership, and to include an opportunity for a PAG member to speak about fire on the Defined Forest Area.

3. Review of Previous Mtg.Summary and Matrix

· PAG reviewed draft meeting summary notes from February 25^th 2002.

· Clarification was provided to the PAG as to the intent of the ‘Parking Lot’ items that are part of the summary. The parking lot is meant to capture items that are raised by the group that do not fit into the matrix at this time, but will be brought forward toward the end of the Matrix process to ensure that they are captured in the final Matrix.

· PAG accepted the draft meeting notes as an accurate record of Feb 25^th meeting.

· PAG read over the distributed Matrix.

· Working Group (WG) provided an explanation that “PAG recommended” refers to those items that the PAG has requested the WG to consider for inclusion.

· Table (PAG/WG) agreed to remove all “PAG/WG agreed” references under the Objectives column of the Matrix.

· PAG asked to remove the hanging “and” in element 1.3 Indicator.

· PAG asked to remove the “end point” reference in element 3.2

· PAG agreed that Matrix, with the amended items listed above, captures their input from Feb 25 02.

4. Membership Review

· Handout of the current membership list.

· Discussion of membership attendance and the need for interest representation at PAG meetings. An update on response to contact with chronically absent PAG representatives was done.

· A review of the PAG Terms of Reference (TOR) for membership was done. PAG was reminded that TOR clauses referring to PAG membership were determined originally by the PAG, because PAG did not wish the public advisory group to be hand selected by the participants.

· WG asked what the PAG recommended for ensuring complete PAG representation.

· ACTION: PAG recommends:

· Participants to speak to all representatives and alternates to ensure they are up to date on content, and prior to each meeting to ensure their attendance.

· Participants to ensure that alternates are being kept apprised by their representatives.

· Participation of representative or alternate at the April 9 02 meeting or find replacement(s).

· Participants to advertise or canvas for new PAG representatives for those interests that are not now being represented.

· Participants to find alternates for interests currently without them.

· ACTION: update on membership at April 9 02 meeting.

5. Water Quality Presentation

· Presentation by Joelle Scheck (Water Air Land Protection) and Jim Schilling (Canfor Engineering) on how water quality and monitoring is done by forest industry locally, and the existing federal and provincial regulatory requirements.

· Discussion of locally developed stream crossing measures and timing windows, which incorporate ‘best management practices’; how they relate to local forest activity activities.

· Overview of Canfor’s stream crossing decision tree (matrix)

· The crossing matrix has proven to be cost and environmentally effective, especially when each stream has been assessed for fish-bearing status.

· Non-conformance = not following an environmental programme

· Non-compliance = not following regulation (and thus also not following an environmental programme)

· Canfor provided a presentation of the Meadow Creek project where long term hydrological information is being gathered to test the efficacy of Canfors’ operational strategies surrounding water protection.

· PAG asked whether water and soil chemistry is being looked at.

· The proponents indicated that Site Index will provide default information about the relative health or chemical integrity of soil, and,

· An advisor stated that water chemistry in the Peace area has not proved to be an issue.

6. WG Response to PAG input Criteria 3-4 Values/Goals and proposed Indicators

· Criteria 3, Indicators

· WG presented their response and associated rationale to PAG recommended Indicators (ECA peak flow indices and # of nonconformances) (Matrix Ver.11)

· # of nonconformances is meant to be an indicator of the effectiveness of preventative water measures and strategies.

· PAG asked if water temperature was an important element of water protection.

· Response was affirmative, but that correct riparian management techniques are designed to maintain natural water temperatures.

· Also, little data has been collected to establish temperature sensitive waterways in the Peace area. WALP (advisor) indicated that they might have some old preliminary data available.

· Conclusion:

· PAG agreed to Indicator 1

· PAG asked the Participants to reconsider Indicator2, to:

a) Better reflect best management practices

b) Separate “crossing of streams” from operations (logging) around riparian zones”

c) Review/consider water temperature

d) Maintain the Meadow Creek project

e) Utilize/evaluate science from other areas for pertinence to the proponents operations (does science from other areas benefit practices here?).

· Criteria 4

· Handouts: 1) of PAG goal input from Feb 25 meeting, 2) WG response to PAG goal inputs and WG proposal for Indicators.

· 4.1 Goal focuses on maintenance of Carbon processes

· 4.1 Indicators rate of disturbance (harvesting) and re-establishment rate (regen delay) are key elements to the maintenance of carbon cycling processes.

· ACTION: Rate of Disturbance is defined as rate of crop cycle or rotation length and Regen Delay is the length of time between harvesting and crop re-establishment. Place both these in Glossary.

· Conclusion:

· PAG agreed to Goal and Indicators but asked that participants consider “accepted rate for disturbance’ versus re-establishment, and also that participants consider “monitoring for new science and information on carbon cycling rates”

· 4.2 Goals: the rationale for the goal is to sustain forest lands.

· Conclusion:

· PAG recommends adding ‘within our control’ to the WG proposed goal

· PAG recommends adding Goal 2: Foster cooperation with other users re forest plans

· PAG recommends adding Goal 3: Improve regeneration practices/rate of productivity (silviculture practices)

· NOTE: bring back goal that was unintentionally dropped: (Manage forest activities in a manner that minimizes loss to the forest land (recognize that there are other uses of the land) and build cooperation between users.) This goal covers the points (suggested goals 2&3) above.

7. WG Response to PAG input for Criteria 5-6 Values/Goals and proposed Indicators

· Element 5.1

· Value:

· WG placed PAG input into “Timber and Non-timber Multi-Use Benefits”.

· Goal:

· ‘ecologically feasible’ is a component of this entire matrix, and is thus not emphasized in any one particular goal.

· PAG recommends replacing ‘maintain’ with ‘provide’.

· PAG recommends “provide opportunities for”:

a) Commercial and non-commercial timber activities

b) Commercial and non-commercial non-timber activities

· Suggestion from PAG to change ‘feasible’ to ‘sustainable’. Short discussion (inconclusive) of relative definitions and implications of the terms.

· Indicators:

· Move to Parking Lot: what is meant by “feasible” in Element 5.1

· ACTION: Define “restricted access” in glossary. Are these roads that the Participants have deactivated?

· Question was raised as to what is used to define/determine pine marten habitat. Use research data.

· Conclusion:

· WG proposed list of indicators is accepted by PAG , except that access should be further broken down:

· Unrestricted access – define and measure amount as an indicator

· Restricted access – define and measure amount as an indicator

· Element 5.2

· Value, Goals, Indicators:

· Rationale for 3 separate Values around communities stems from the Element wording and PAG input.

· Conclusion:

· PAG accepted WG values, goals and indicators as proposed on Version 11.

· Element 5.2

· Goal:

· PAG suggested changing ‘maintain’ to provide.

· ACTION: Glossary to include definition of community; concern is that it must include outlying places such as the 95 Rd. community.

· Indicators

· PAG suggests adding indicators as follows:

b) Social contribution – volunteer rates, and, community contributions such as roads and campsites.

c) Economic contribution – locally and provincially

· Question – what is ‘road use revenue’?

· Question – how do the indicators address equitable or fair distribution?

· Conclusion:

· Value is accepted by PAG

· Goal is accepted by PAG once ‘maintain’ is changed to ‘provide’.

· Indicators need work, as above.

8. Other Business

· None

9. Public Presentation

· A PAG member asked PAG and WG to consider the importance of fire on the landscape.

· The intent of the discussion was to illustrate that there are areas outside the company’s sphere of influence or operating areas that are subject to fire control. This area amounts to 75% of the Forest District.

· These areas should be considered to a limited freedom of wildfire, in order to prevent buildup of overmature stands subject to forest pest epidemics and other negative long term results of fire suppression.

· By permitting some wildfire, we ensure that a portion of the landscape is truly permitted to undergo natural succession.

10. Next Meetings

· April 9, 2002, Tuesday, 1730hr.

· April 22, 2002, Monday, 1730hr.

· May 6, 2002, Monday, 1730hr

· Meeting places are to be determined as yet.

PARKING LOT ITEMS:

· What is meant by ‘feasible’ in Element 5.1?

Meeting closed at 2133hr.