Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Projects

Public Advisory Group Meeting #3

March 28, 2001

6:00pm to 10:30pm

Fort St. John Cultural Center

Approved Meeting Summary

Attendance:

Name	Interest	Phone	email
Participants:
Doug Russell	LP	782-3302
John Dymond	Slocan Forest Products	261-6464
Roger St. Jean	MOF SBFEP	787-5600
Warren Jukes	Canfor	788-4355
David Menzies	Canfor	787-3613
PAG Interest Representatives:
Mike Waberski	Oil and Gas	787-0300
Russel J Shullar	Trapping	261-8018
Frank Schlichting	Range/Ag/Priv. Woodlots	787-5383
Ron Wagner	Labour	787-0172
Neil Meagher	Labour	563-7771
Roy Lube	Outdoor Rec.	787-7619
Oliver Mott	Environment	785-9508
Wayne Sawchuk	Env./Conservation	788-2685
Fred Klassen	Forestry Contractors	785-3901
Gary Rehmeier	Forestry Contractors	787-5214
Facilitator:
Gail Wallin	Facilitation	305-1003
Advisors:
Joelle Scheck	BC Environment	787-5637
Jim Stephenson	Canfor	962-3363

Observers:

Joy Sather

Dean Velkja

1 Unidentified public member

1. Welcome

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

· Doug reminded people that the Public Review Period for the Pilot proposal is at a midpoint, and there are 30 days left in the period.

· Dinner was held

2. Purpose of Meeting

· Gail Wallen introduced the draft agenda and asked if there were additions – none forthcoming

· This meeting is to provide additional information; the next meeting will be for PAG input into what the participants have proposed.

· Pilot information binders were distributed to the PAG; Warren Jukes provided an overview of the contents of the binder. The binder is meant to provide background data and information, and additional information will be added as the Pilot proceeds. The PAG did not suggest any additions to the binder contents when queried on this matter.

· ACTION: need to insert ‘INTEREST AREA” next to representatives names on the contact list. Next PAG mtg. Distribution of the CONTACT LIST is to have list of PAG members, emails, phone numbers.

3. Review of Feb 26 Mtg. Notes

· Time was given to review meeting notes in case not everyone had read them previously.

· It was noted that the recommended change in interest area from 'Range’ to ‘Range/Agriculture/Private Woodlots’ had not been effected.

· ACTION: will make change of interest, as discussed, in the notes for tonight’s meeting.

· No other comments or changes to the notes were recommended.

4. Terms of Reference

· Distribution of ‘Draft Membership’ list.

· Environment/Conservation recommended that they would like to split this interest or have 2 representatives with the intent of representing the global and human health interest. Much discussion ensued regarding the structure and use of representatives. No firm decision was reached on this.

· The representative list (except for the potential new interests) was confirmed as follows:

Interest	Primary Rep.	Alternate/Secondary Rep.
Forestry Workers	Gary Rehmeier	Fred Klassen
Labour	Ron Wagner	Neil Meagher
Oil and Gas	Mike Wabereski	None
Outdoor Rec. (Hunt/Fish)	Budd Phillips	None
Outdoor Rec. (Non-consumptive)	Roy Lube	None
Range/Ag./Private Wdlt.	Frank Schlichting	None
Rural Communities	Karen Goodings (?)	None
Trapping	Terry Howatt	R. Shular/V. Allen
Urban Communities	Undetermined	Undetermined
Commercial Recreation	Ray Jackson	None

· Review of TOR sections by PAG:

· Section A: provides a background and general overview of the Pilot. No questions were raised.

· Section B: Goals of the PAG: were reviewed; no question were raised. and accepted by the PAG.

· Section C: PAG Operating Rules: PAG reviewed and accepted this section.

· Section D: Timelines for Pilot and Certification: accepted by PAG.

· Section E: Communications: Reviewed and accepted by PAG.

· Section F: Expenses and Logistics: Reviewed and accepted by PAG.

· Section G: Roles and Responsibilities:

· Action: section 1a) v): change ‘Major Gas and Oil’ to “Gas and Oil”.

· Action:section1)a)viii):change to read “Range/Agriculture/Private Woodlots”

· Action: amend section 3e) to read “Alternates are encouraged to attend…”, strike “as observers”

· Action: amend section 3f) to read “…may contribute to discussion in addition to the representative but will not form part of the decision making or closure…”

· Section H: Decision-Making and Methodology: Accepted by the PAG.

· Section I: Dispute Resolution: Accepted by PAG.

· Section J: Review of and Revision to TOR: Accepted by PAG.

· Environment/Conservation stated that they would like dual representation under their interest, rather than creating a separate interest. No decision was made at this time. This interest group will not accept the Terms of Reference until this issue is resolved. An agreement to leave this issue for the present was made, in order to proceed with the following presentation.

Presentation of Pilot Background

· Jim Stevenson, Canfor, provided a two part presentation:

1. B.C. Forest Policy overview

2. Fundamental Components of the Pilot Project, including the objectives and goals of the Pilot:

· Landscape planning, consolidated forest development planning, reduction of approval requirements, regulating consistency of operational plans with LRMP objectives, environmental certification systems as surrogates for existing administrative processes.

· Presented the function of the draft Pilot regulation and the disapplication of portions of the existing operational planning regulations (except those for Forest Development Plans).

· QUESTION: Would this mean that the SBFEP operators would be under the EMS, and how would that be implemented?

· The SBFEP will be under an EMS; the province was heading in that direction even before the initiation of this Pilot. There will be much more onus on the SBFEP operator for consistent environmental performance. Enforcement under the EMS will be largely self-administered, and focuses on results, and continuous improvement.

· PAG QUESTION: How will the District Manager (DM) be aware of issues with proposed operational plans?

· Through the Forest Development Plan process, through concerns raised by the public, by awareness of first nation’s issues.

· The FDP will be the document for review by the DM.

· PAG QUESTION: Will the LRMP RMZ emphasis provide direction for the District Manager review of operational site level plans?

· The District Manager will notify proponents of plans he needs to review based on licensee track record, or site specific issues in the plan area.

· PAG QUESTION: Will the PAG have the ability and authority to recommend to the DM in which RMZs all operational plans must be reviewed?

· The PAG will have opportunity to review the proposed SFMP. Their comments on the proposed SFMP will be addressed to the Regional Manager and Regional Director, who will make note of any concerns that the PAG may have, or recommendations regarding specific RMZs. The DM will be made aware of PAG concerns and recommendations during the forest development plan review and may ask the participants to provide notification prior to commencing activities under particular site plans.

· PUBLIC OBSERVER QUESTION: What is wrong with the way in which the Code works now, and why do you guys need you own special rules? DFO needs to be able to monitor and audit.

· There are many things about this area that make it unique, one of which is mixedwood management. The FPC was not written for mixedwood operations in the Northern Boreal. The Pilot allows some level of flexibility which facilitates MW mgt. We also have a unique situation in which we have multiple licensees on the same landbase managing two different species that grow in both intimate and non-intimate mixtures. The Pilot will provide a vehicle to manage this and other strategic plans appropriately.

· The pilot does not interfere in any way with anything affecting the DFO’s sphere of authority or influence.

· The Pilot is meant to focus on RESULTS, and not on administrative function. The Pilot is performance based instead of being driven by a set of prescriptive planning requirements; it is adaptable.

· PUBLIC QUESTION: If this Pilot is successful, won’t that mean that other areas of the province may adopt its findings?

· Yes. That is one of the intents behind the Pilot regulation, and was also identified in the Forest Resource Commissions (Wouters et. al.) findings in 1999.

· PUBLIC QUESTION: Will licensees still carry out reforestation obligations? Will there still be trees for our grandchildren?

· Harvested areas will continue to be reforested, either naturally or artificially. The long-term cut will not exceed the long run yield, and the landbase is managed on a long-term sustainable basis.

Important Dates

The group discussed and agreed on the following:

· March 28, 2001, information meeting

· April 18, 2001, PAG provides input regarding the Pilot Project proposal.

· (April 27, 2001 = end of Public Review Period)

· May 8, 2001, PAG reviews public comments on Pilot, and participant’s responses to those comments.

· May 14 – make recommendations

· Some time before fall – approval of Pilot Project will be made

· September/October – start work on SFMP

FOR DECISION:

· There are three options to consider for PAG formation:

1. Status Quo (member and alternate)

· To deviate from this form, we need to determine what knowledge set or issues related to forest management may not be brought to the PAG table by this makeup.

2. Add extra seat(s)

· Enviro/Conserv. Gets split into local and ‘global’

· Labour gets split into local and regional

· Forestry contractors split in to different seats.

3. Enable each interest to have two active participants, with two voices when it comes to consensus.

Mtg. adjourned at 2130hr.