Fort St. John Results Based Pilot Projects

Public Advisory Group Meeting #5

May 8, 2001, REVISED

6:00pm to 9:00pm

Fort St. John Cultural Center

Attendance:

Name	Interest		Phone	email
Participants:
Dave Menzies	Canfor
Jeff Beale	Slocan LP OSB Corp		261-6464
John Dymond	Slocan LP OSB Corp		261-6464
Roger St. Jean	MOF SBFEP		787-5600
Warren Jukes	Canfor		788-4355
PAG Interest Representatives and Alternates:
Christopher Bakker (A)		Oil and Gas	780-539-3007
Frank Schlichting (R)		Range/Ag/Priv. Woodlots	787-5383
Ron Wagner (R )		Labour	787-0172
Neil Meagher (A)		Labour	563-7771
Wayne Sawchuk (R )		Env./Conservation	788-2685
Orland Wilkerson (R )		Urban Communities	787-6243
Gary Rehmeier		Forest workers	787-5214
Facilitator:
Gail Wallin		Facilitator	305-1003
Advisors:
Dave Lawson,		Ministry of Forests District Manager FSJ
Ray Schultz		Ministry of Forests P.G. Regional Manager
Howard Madill		Ministry of Forests, FSJ
Jim Stephenson
Ron Rutledge		Ministry of Forests, FSJ

Observers:

Ken Long Legal advisor, Forest Policy Services 561-1649

Trevor Swan Legal Advisor, Common Ground Forestry

1. Welcome

· Self-introductions were made around the table.

· Meeting notes from April 18 meeting were distributed.

2. Purpose of Meeting

· Gail reminded all that the public review and comment period for the draft proposal was over April 27 2001.

· The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to review the comments the participants have received, as well as the participant’s response to that comment. The PAG are to determine for themselves whether or not the participant’s response to comments received has been adequate.

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

3. Review of April 28 Meeting Summary

· Meeting notes were distributed and time was provided for PAG members to review the meeting notes.

· The PAG accepted the notes as presented.

4. Actions from last Meeting

Terms of Reference

· PAG Terms of Reference document was handed out, and latest amendments were discussed.

· PAG agreed that the new definition of consensus (page 8 Sec 4 (1) ) is acceptable. A short discussion of the value of consensus in the light of disparate opinions followed. The point is to work toward a point of commonality between dissimilar viewpoints.

· The PAG agreed to the amended Terms of Reference.

PAG Membership List

· A membership list of April 18 was distributed and discussed.

· Resolved outstanding issue surrounding Range/Ag alternate. Roger St. Jean has spoken with Egbert Weitzel who is interested in the process, but is unable to attend as an alternate. Egbert says his status would be as an observer. He is appreciative of receiving information and proceedings.

· Warren Jukes has correspondence from Karen Goodings who says her alternate will no longer be Larry Houley, but will be Peter Vanderguten.

· Warren Jukes had an email from Bruce Harrison, who said he is withdrawing his position as an alternate to Environment Conservation.

· The PAG accepted the now revised Membership List.

5. Review Input and Responses by Participants

· Distributed a note of clarification on the term ‘undercut’, a document of Questions and Answers on the Pilot, and the Glossary of Terms.

· Time was provided for the PAG to review the Q&A document containing the participant’s response.

· The purpose at this time is to receive input form the PAG as to the value or appropriateness of the participant’s responses.

· W. Jukes outlined the sources of input received during the review period; most comments received dealt with what the implications of the Pilot would be, and not with actual structure of the proposal.

Q & A

§ Page 10 Q&A document reference to the LRMP will be changed from “…will likely consider the LRMP…” to “…will consider the LRMP…”.

§ The clarification of the term undercut provided to the table tonite by way of a handout does not address the issue identified in the Q&A regarding the license volume table on age 10 of the detailed Proposal.

§ ACTION: delete reference to sustainability in footnote at bottom of table 1 page 10.

§ There was a public question called in recently as to whether the pilot will apply to privately owned land. The answer provided was no.

§ Environmental representative raised a question as the determination of sustainability of long and mid term yields.

§ A general discussion ensued, and the participants replied that the chief forester makes periodic adjustments to the cut according to prevailing conditions; the AAC is not locked in for an extended period.

§ Environment representative stated that he felt the SFMP and FDPs should be consistent with the strategies and objectives of the LRMP.

§ ACTION: A general discussion ensued, ending with an agreement that it would be acceptable to all so long as the draft pilot proposal states that ‘The forest management activities will be consistent with the strategies of the LRMP.’

§ Labour representative asked for clarification as to whether the Pilot might fetter the statutory decision-maker. (i.e. is it binding to the agencies?)

§ Trevor Swan replied that one of the tests for approval of the SFMP is its consistency with the LRMP. Also, there will be a joint signing by the RM and RD of the approval letter for the SFMP.

§ Environment representative if the maximum penalties in the pilot were the same as under the current Code.

§ Issue: PAG raised the concern to the Participants that public perception of the lowering of the maximum penalty would be unfavourable, even thought it also results in an overall increase of penalty risk and amount through the raising of minimal penalties to a higher level. This is something for the participants to consider in the presentation of the Pilot. The options are a better explanation of the penalty rationale, or leave the penalties the same as in the current Code.

D.R. Estey Engineering

§ This response was the only letter response received from the public, and generally dealt with the need for the use of registered professionals under the pilot.

§ The second issue raised in the letter deals with the inclusion of the Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) in the pilot.

§ The participants have spoken with OGC and we will ask for a representative from OGC to sit on the Scientific Technical Advisory Committee.

§ No change to the pilot proposal has resulted from this letter.

Meeting with First Nations

§ Reviewed notes from meeting and follow-up letter to the bands.

§ The next meeting will be called by the First Nations, after they have met together to make decisions regarding level and form of participation.

§ First Nations may wish to have a separate First Nation advisory group. This will need to be referenced in and consistent with the Terms of Reference, which would be reviewed/revised to clarify roles.

§ A general discussion arose around the means of communication between the PAG and the First Nation group.

B.C. Environmental Network (B.C.E.N.)

§ Jim Stephenson provided a background on participant’s first meeting with BCEN and our response to their questions. The document handed out today reports on recent discussions with BCEN on outstanding issues. The PAG Environmental representative attended the latest meeting with BCEN and the participants.

§ ACTION:

§ Change wording in the proposed regulation to close any perceived loopholes.

§ A schedule for development and implementation of the SFMP will go in the 1^st SFMP.

§ Will amend the proposal that we will consider the intent of LRMP strategies when developing strategies under the SFMP. (further discussion taking place during tonight’s meeting supersedes this issue in the BCEN response letter.

§ Discussion of the Muskwa Kechika Act and that there is no authority under the Forest Act to include it in the detailed proposal.

§ ACTION:

§ Place reference to the preamble to the MK Act in the detailed proposal

§ Question: Labour asked if a third party such as BCEN could take legal action against the Pilot. The participants replied that they could, and that is why the participants have gone to great lengths to ensure that as many sectors and interests as possible are provided an opportunity to conduct an exhaustive review of the proposal.

Update on Other input from agencies

§ OGC issues are not pertinent to the proposal

§ The Forest Practices Board has reviewed the proposal and does not feel constrained by it, as the Pilot will not diminish the role of the board.

Feedback on Participants Approach and Responses

§ Gail Wallin summarized the process to date.

§ The general consensus is that the PAG is comfortable that the participants have addressed the issues that have been raised.

§ Oil and Gas representative expressed that the participants have gone to great lengths to make the process as transparent and open as possible.

§ Environmental representative said he would like to review the final proposal prior to ‘putting his stamp of approval’ on the proposal. A number of other interests expressed a similar interest in reviewing the final regulation.

§ The Environmental representative said he appreciated the opportunity afforded him by the participants to attend the BCEN meeting.

Next Steps

§ All comments will be bundled together, the proposal will undergo penultimate or possibly final revision, and the 3 ministers will receive the proposal in mid-May.

§ The province to ensure proper wording and appropriate fit with other legislation will draft the regulation.

§ Once drafted, and accepted by participants and government, it becomes law.

ACTION:

§ Penultimate draft regulation will be made available to the PAG by May 14. Changes will be hi-lighted. The PAG will then review only to see that the proposal now addresses those things agreed upon at tonight’s meeting.

§ PAG comments must be in to Warren Jukes by May 22, and final submission to government will be after May 22. If no comments by May 22, it will be submitted as is.

§ Comments on penultimate draft will result in either change to the final proposal, or if not, will be noted in the submission to the cabinet.

§ The participants will assume PAG approval of the proposal if no comments are received. If there are concerns, the PAG will respond by email. (all PAG members have email). The PAG agreed they supported the proposal once revised to reflect tonight's meeting.

Beyond Submission and Approval

§ Phase two commences, which will be to develop information for the establishment of a SFMP.

§ Next meeting is in the fall, and we will be working toward defining what Sustainable Forest Management means in the Fort St. John TSA.

§ Page 39 of the proposal (Tab 6) illustrates the evaluation criteria and measures. The participants and PAG will begin determining evaluation criteria to measure the project’s success.

Next Dates

§ Preferred dates are Mondays or Tuesdays, 1800 to 2100hr.

§ Participants will contact the PAG absentees to determine what dates are best for the entire group. This will be confirmed shortly.

§ Participants told PAG that the province may wish to speak to individual PAG members regarding the Pilot once approved

Meeting adjourned 2100hr.