File: E2-1 FPAG
Fraser Public Advisory Group (FPAG)
Meeting #27 Minutes
1. Call to Order
Chris Harvey from the Teal Jones Environment Department, welcomed members of the
Fraser Public Advisory Group at the Pantry Restaurant in Chilliwack on the 17th of May
at 5:30 pm.
2. Members
Present:
-
Heather Morlacci, Hatzic Valley
Sharie Conroy, Hatzic Durieu,
McConnell Ck Ratepayers Assoc.
-
Astrid Dimond, Hatzic Valley
Watershed Committee (alternate)
Al Stobbart, Inch Ck Hatchery,
FVRD
Support:
-
Kevin Stanczyk, Teal Jones
Group
-
Chris Harvey, Environmental
Department
-
Martin Edwards, Shxw’ow’hamel
First Nation
Lloyd Forman, FVRD
Steve Dillen, 4 Wheel Drive
Assoc.
Mary Sandy, Esh-kn-Am
Chief Clem Seymour, Seabird
Island Indian Band
Gordon Sherwood, Cacuse Pt
Resident
Jean Warkentin, Norrish Creek
Resident
Keith Warrener, Teal Cedar
Sawmill
Regrets:
-
Frank Andrews, Stό:lō Tribal
Council
Chief Andy Alex, Union Bar First
Nation
Mike Peters, Ministry of Natural
Resource Operations
John Bowles, Harken Towing
Randall Dayton, Ministry of
Natural Resource Operations
Bruce Edwards, Hatzic Valley
Chief Don Harris, Douglas First
Nation
Shawn Gabriel, In-SHUCK-ch
Nation
Chief Douglas Sidney, Cheam
Indian Band
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
-
Page 1 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
3. Documents
Documents distributed to members:
1.
2.
3.
4.
FPAG Meeting #27 Agenda
Handouts for the presentation (including draft indicators)
Summary of SFMP 2010 annual report
Draft Meeting Minutes for March 8, 2011
Documents available:
1. SFM Plan June 2011
2. CSA Sustainable Forest Management Standards Z809-02 and Z809-08
3. Terms of Reference
4. Call to Order, Introductions, Health and Safety & Current Events
Chris called the meeting to order at 5:30. She noted there were other members who had
given confirmation for attendance who hadn’t arrived yet, Sharie noted there were
delays on the highway. Chris noted that the indicators planned for discussion tonight
were all old indicators that were amalgamated with SIPAG indicators or made into core
indicators without any significant changes to the wording; there were no new topics,
therefore she felt it was appropriate to continue the meeting despite the low attendance.
Members present agreed.
Chris asked if there were any current events within the member’s respective
organizations that they wished to share. There were no events noted. There were no
additions to the agenda.
5. Previous Meeting Minutes, November 9, 2010
Chris referred to the draft meetings minutes for the March 8th, 2010 meeting. It was
noted that the meeting minutes were previously distributed via email, therefore the
review during meeting time would be kept brief. This version was updated with
comments received from Sharie.
Chris reviewed the status of the action items in the minutes:


Action Item #26-1: Include old-growth management on anticipated field tour in
2011 (November 2011). Still planning that for the fall.
Action Item #26-2: Post the meeting minutes on the internet April 30th,m 2011
(completed)
No other comments were received from email. The meeting minutes are considered
approved.
Action Item #27-1: Post the meeting minutes on the internet.
Environment Department, August 30th, 2011
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 2 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
Heather asked how you determined the age of a stand to determine if it is old growth or
not? Kevin noted old growth is 250 years + and they can use increment borers on site;
generally on the coast if a stand hasn’t been harvested before it is considered old
growth. Heather noted that some of the second growth is getting to that age. Kevin
noted it was possible but generally the age of second growth in the Fraser TSA is 50-80
years. Chris noted old growth is on the agenda for the field trip and perhaps we can
look at the definition of old growth at that time. Heather noted she had other
preferences for the field trip and members agreed to discuss that later in the meeting.
6. Discussion of Core Indicators
Chris pointed out there are only two core indicators that are not yet approved. These
indicators were discussed at the last meeting, however we ran out of time before they
were approved.
C6.1.2: Evidence of Best Efforts to Obtain Acceptance of Management Plans
Based on Aboriginal Communities having a Clear Understanding of the Plans
Value
Aboriginal
values
Objective
Indicator
Target
Acceptable
Variance
Provide
opportunities for
input into planning
Evidence of best
efforts to obtain
acceptance of
management plans
based on
Aboriginal
communities
having a clear
understanding of
the plans
100% of landscape
level plans are
accessible for
review by local First
Nations, 100% site
level information is
provided as
mutually agreed
upon information
sharing
Zero
Chris explained the referral process, which has been long established and followed by
Teal: First Nations are given the opportunity to review all Landscape Level Plans (e.g.,
Forest Stewardship Plans, TFL Management Plans, Sustainable Forest Management
Plans, etc.) when they are new or when there are significant amendments.
Opportunities are also provided for First Nations to review Operational Plans whenever
there is a proposed development (e.g., roads or blocks) within the asserted traditional
territory. Information sharing protocols differ for each First Nation, however, the
general approach is consistent with the following: draft plans (where relevant including
maps and descriptions) are mailed or hand delivered to those First Nations’ whose
traditional territory have proposed developments or those First Nations who may be
impacted by the plan, along with a letter inviting comment and requesting a meeting to
review the plan together. Depending on the follow up requested, an Archaeological
Impact Assessment may be completed, more meetings may be scheduled or
correspondence exchanged until all concerns are addressed. Kevin confirmed that is
generally the process, some First Nations require slight differences for instance digital
maps, etc. but most referrals follow this process. Chris noted that from the annual
report it looked like Teal is getting feedback from at least one band per referral. Kevin
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 3 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
agreed. Al noted that this process is fairly standard – it is also followed by the Regional
District.
This indicator was originally developed by SIPAG and has been re-approved by them
with the re-wording to fit the core indicator. Sharie noted she felt uncomfortable voting
on this indicator as there are no First Nations representatives present at this meeting,
other members agreed. Chris agreed that is fair. Chris reiterated the discussion from
the last meeting; one of the First Nations representatives noted that this referral process
may not be adequate or effective. As a baseline both First Nations representatives
were ok with it and we reviewed another indicator which addresses additional
requirements, protocol agreements, etc. and since then there has been a meeting with
that First Nation to develop a protocol agreement. Al asked if we approve it, we can still
discuss it at another meeting? Chris noted of course it is always up for discussion if a
member notes a problem.
Since it is approved by SIPAG and based on a long standing practice that First Nation’s
have generally agreed with we will put it into the SFMP and note that FPAG abstained
from voting based on the reasons just discussed.
C6.1.3: Level of Management and/or Protection of Areas where Culturally
Important Practices and Activities (hunting, fishing, gathering) Occur
Value
Objective
Cultural
Heritage
Resources
Manage
Cultural
Heritage
Resources in a
manner that
adequately
reflects the
associated First
Nation’s goals
Indicator
Target
Acceptable
Variance
Level of management
and/or protection of
areas where culturally
important practices
and activities (hunting,
fishing, gathering)
occur
100% Compliance with
Teal’s Forest
Stewardship Plans
(FSP) results and
strategies for
Conservation and
Protection of Cultural
Heritage Resources, and
the Heritage
Conservation Act
Zero
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 4 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
Chris noted this indicator is based on an existing indicator and has almost identical
wording to original F6-4 Cultural Heritage Resource indicator (the exception being the
‘indicator’ which is now a core indicator. SIPAG also had an identical indicator. Chris
reviewed the requirements of the Forest Stewardship Plan (1. Timber harvesting and
road construction will not cause a Cultural Heritage Resource to become unavailable for
its continuing extent of use by an aboriginal people; 2. At a minimum of once annually,
for each First Nation with asserted traditional territory within the FDU: a) Extend an
invitation to meet with the First Nation to discuss this Strategy; b) Upon the request of
the First Nation, provide site level information regarding proposed developments within
the asserted traditional territory of that First Nation; and c) Provide the First Nation with
the opportunity to share information regarding Cultural Heritage Resources; and 3.
(HBO only) At the request of a First Nation, work with that First Nation to establish a
protocol for identifying a current and/or future supply of western red cedar and cypress
trees suitable for traditional use. Chris also noted what the Heritage Conservation Act
covers and the idea that the Forest Stewardship Plan protects those resources not
covered by the Act; therefore this indicator is committing to be lawful.
Sharie noted Frank’s concern from past meetings regarding First Nation’s concerns
about sharing information regarding their cultural resources because they did not want
to disclose. Kevin agreed, he noted that Teal met with Frank and they are in the
process of developing a protocol agreement. Sharie noted he may want to change the
wording. Al noted that he is involved in the treaty process for the Sto:lo Nation, the
population of the Fraser area is such that it is impossible to keep some areas secret
anymore.
Chris asked Kevin if there were any such cases where there were confidentiality
issues? Kevin said no, Al said I see you have changed your plans. Kevin agreed, if
something is made known to Teal they change their plans to address the concerns as
part of the standard process. He has never encountered a situation where they would
not reveal the concern.
Again members felt it was not appropriate to vote as there are no First Nations
representatives present at this meeting. Chris noted that since this indicator is based
on legislated requirements and was approved by SIPAG she would make the same
notations in the SFMP for this indicator and that it is always up for discussion.
Action Item #27-2: Finalize core indicators in the SFMP.
Environment Department, June 30th, 2011
7. Other Common Indicators
Chris noted the following indicators are based on existing indicators that are common to
both the Honeymoon Bay and Fraser portion of the DFA. The indicators are for the
most part identical wording or slightly different wording to accommodate the ideas of
both PAGs but with the same intent and purpose.
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 5 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
D2-4 Stand Establishment
All PAG members present approved the following Value, Objective, Indicator, Target
and Variance that will be added to the SFM plan:
Value
Objective
Indicator
Target
Acceptable
Variance
Forest management
Successful
Full compliance with
activities do not
establishment of
Free Growing
compromise the ability
stands (cutblocks
requirements in
Zero
of the ecosystem to
meet free growing
approved stocking
recover from
criteria)
standards
disturbance and stress
This indicator has identical wording to original indicators H2-2 Stand Establishment &
F2-4 Free Growing. Chris reviewed the definition: Free Growing requirements are
defined within the approved stocking standards within the FSP or Forest Development
Plan, as applicable. The standards vary for each biogeoclimatic subzone, variant and
Site Series, but in general the standards require a minimum number of well spaced
stems per hectare of a commercially viable and ecologically suitable species, of good
form and vigour and free of brush competition.
Ecosystem
recovery
from
disturbance
& stress
Chris and Kevin provided some examples.
D5-1 Visual Quality Management
All PAG members present approved the following Value, Objective, Indicator, Target
and Variance that will be added to the SFM plan:
Value
Recreation
and
Tourism
Objective
Maintain visual
quality
Indicator
Target
Acceptable
Variance
Cutblocks designed
to meet the Visual
Quality Objectives
100 % of cutblocks within
visually sensitive areas meet or
exceed the requirements for
Visual Quality management
specified in Teal’s Forest
Stewardship Plans (FSP)
Zero
This indicator has identical wording to the originals H5-4 Visual Quality Objectives & F51 Visual Quality Management. Sharie asked how the objectives were established, for
example around Avatar Grove the president of the Port Renfrew Chamber of Commerce
said in the papers that visuals are an issue for the area? How does something like this
fit in? Chris noted that was an identical question brought up at the SIPAG meeting.
First she will explain what Visual Quality management is and then how a new area is
considered.
Visual quality management involves meeting Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) for known
scenic areas. A Visual Quality objective is a resource management objective
established by the Ministry of Forests and Range or contained in Higher-Level Plans;
these objectives reflect the desired level of visual quality based on the physical
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 6 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
characteristics and social concern for the area. The Visual Quality Objectives provide
parameters around the alteration of the visual landscape by forest harvesting and roads.
These objectives strive to limit the negative appearance of human activities on the
landscape. VQOs are established in Higher Level Plans or by the MoFR District
Manager and reflect public concern for viewscapes. Forest Practice Code Guidebook
Visual Impact Assessment January 2001. Kevin noted they are in the process to see if
they can update the inventory.
The Foresters and Engineers in Honeymoon Bay Operation recognize the ‘circle route’
a new highway that travels through the TFL (used to be a logging road, ministry of
transportation took it over a few years ago). Potentially one way to visit Port Renfrew
and Avatar Grove (from Lake Cowichan). Heather noted she had been through there
and there was huge clearcuts. Chris said that you travel through a large area of private
land so there are no visual quality objectives there, it is outside the DFA. As far as
tourism goes, there is a representative on SIPAG who notes he gets the most
comments on that area. The road then goes through the TFL, it is not within an
established scenic area, so Teal has recognized the scenic value and voluntarily done
visual management (no objectives). Chris noted some of the techniques used to
determine impact and sensitivity, she noted they are Registered Professional Foresters
and they do have to consider the scenic value.
Sharie noted a tourism committee had been formed? Chris replied that SIPAG
discussed that as well, it was the town councils and majors of each of the communities
along the circle route; a councillor for Lake Cowichan is a member on the SIPAG and
she explained their agenda is to increase tourism along the route and in the towns.
Sharie asked what is the process, could they could potentially go to Teal regarding
visual quality? Chris reiterated Sharie’s concern regarding new scenic areas and noted
there are no indicators that cover that concern specifically, however there is an indicator
committing Teal to respond to all public inquiries. At this point no one has sent Teal a
letter, however they are being proactive in addressing this concern. That would be one
option for the Town Councillors.
Heather asked where the visual objectives are located? Chris said they are on a map,
she and Kevin explained they are spatially identified polygons on a map. Kevin gave
some examples of the objectives – partial retention or preservation, modification. He
explained digital terrain models as one of the tools used to predict the impact. Chris
said for example in partial retention objective there is a range of the portion of the
polygon that can be modified, including the existing modifications. Heather asked is
there another way to look up? Chris confirmed it is a map developed by the ministries.
Al noted it works well with the private landowner who has a fishing lodge in Pitt Lake;
Kevin replied that is an example where Teal went over and above the legal
requirements to work with the lodge owner. Chris noted similar examples working with
the Chehalis and Pacheedaht First Nations for visual concerns from their villages.
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 7 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
D3-1 Riparian Management
All PAG members present approved the following Value, Objective, Indicator, Target
and Variance that will be added to the SFM plan:
Value
Objective
Indicator
Target
Acceptable
Variance
Maintain natural
Compliance with
habitat and
requirements for riparian
Zero nonZero
stream
management specified in
compliances
morphology for
Teal’s Forest Stewardship
aquatic species
Plan (FSP)
This indicator has identical wording to the original indicators H3-8 Riparian Reserve
Zone, H3-9 Riparian Management Zone & F3-11 Riparian Management. Chris
reviewed the Riparian terminology and requirements using a diagram; Riparian habitat
occurs next to the banks of streams, lakes, and wetlands; it includes both the area
dominated by continuous high moisture content and the adjacent upland vegetation that
exerts an influence on it. The Riparian Management Area consists of a legislated
Riparian Management Zone and, where required, a Riparian Reserve Zone (see figure
below). In most cases, no harvesting is permitted within the Riparian Reserve Zone.
The width of these zones are set in regulation (for older cutblocks) or within the Forest
Stewardship Plan and are determined by characteristics of streams, wetlands or lakes,
and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems.
Natural
aquatic
habitat
Sharie noted a stream she had seen that looked as if they logged right through it and
damaged the stream banks with no vegetation left, it wasn’t within Teal’s area, however
she was concerned with the management of this resource. Kevin asked where the
stream was located but didn’t recognize the area, he noted it doesn’t sound like a very
good practice. Kevin noted the additional requirements to protect gullies, green up
requirements, and maximum cutblock sizes. Al remembered when the regulations to
protect streams first came out there was ‘over’ cleaning of the streams, as the debris is
a natural process. Kevin explained the process followed if there is potentially unstable
terrain. Chris also noted the Standard Operating Procedures – all stream prescriptions
are fall away and yard away. Kevin noted in some circumstances you can’t, but you
have to make sure there is adequate lift so the stream is not damaged.
Sharie noted the objective is “Maintain natural habitat and stream morphology for
aquatic species” which includes all streams, not just fish streams. She was glad to
confirm that the practices she saw in that stream wasn’t standard practice. Al confirmed
he hadn’t seen many streams like that since 1970’s.
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 8 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
D2-1 Accidental Industrial Caused Fires
All PAG members present approved the following Value, Objective, Indicator, Target
and Variance that will be added to the SFM plan:
Value
Healthy
Forests
Objective
Indicator
Minimize stress
associated with
harvesting
Number of
Accidental
Industrial
Caused Fires >
½ ha in size
Target
Acceptable
Variance
Zero incidents
Average one
incident per year
over a five year
rolling average
This indicator has identical wording to original indicators H2-3 and F2-5 Industrial
Caused Fire, however we have revised target as per actual trends in both Honeymoon
Bay and Fraser portions of the DFA (showed results of the past 4-5 years for both
operations). The F2-5 target was originally Zero preventable industrial caused fires and
a variance of 1 per year.
Industrial caused fires are those fires which are initiated by management activities (e.g.,
caused by equipment operating or controlled burns that escape and cause significant
damage to timber, or regenerated sites). The intent is that this indicator measures
preventable impacts resulting from Teal’s forest activities, and does not include ‘acts of
nature’ or where unforeseeable circumstances cause a fire. For example fires caused
by lightening strikes or vandalism would be reported but would not count against the
target.
Chris noted the minimum size in the target (1/2ha) was added by SIPAG to
acknowledge that there can be small ‘escapes’ that are allowed under Resource
Management Plans (burning plans) that are not harmful but can be beneficial to the
land.
D2-2 Reportable Spills
All PAG members present approved the following Value, Objective, Indicator, Target
and Variance that will be added to the SFM plan:
Value
Objective
Indicator
Healthy
Forests
Minimize stress
associated with
harvesting
Number of
Reportable
Spills
Target
Acceptable
Variance
Zero incidents
Average two
incidents per
year over a five
year rolling
average
This indicator has identical wording to original indicators H3-5 & F3-5 Reportable Spills
to Land, H3-7 & F3-9 Reportable Spills to Water, however we have revised target as per
actual trends in both Honeymoon Bay and Fraser portions of the DFA (showed results
of the past 4-5 years for both operations). The F3-5 and F3-9 the original target was
Zero and a variance of 1 per year.
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 9 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
Chris reviewed the reportable limits for hazardous materials typically used in forestry,
including: petroleum products, fertilizer, herbicides, antifreeze, explosives.
D2-3 Landslides
All PAG members present approved the following Value, Objective, Indicator, Target
and Variance that will be added to the SFM plan:
Value
Healthy
Forests
Objective
Indicator
Target
Acceptable
Variance
Minimize stress
associated with
harvesting
Number of
Landslides
within Recently
Built Roads or
Harvested
Areas
Less than an
average of four
incidents per
year over a five
year rolling
average
+1
This indicator has identical wording to original indicators H3-2 Landslides in Recently
Built Roads; H3-3 Landslides in Recent Harvesting and F3-3 Landslides Resulting from
Roads & Cutblocks, however we have revised target as per actual trends in both
Honeymoon Bay and Fraser portions of the DFA (showed results of the past 4-5 years
for both operations). The F3-3 original target of Zero and variance 2 per year related to
roads; 2 per year related to cutblocks.
For the purposes of the SFM Plan, the definition of a landslide is based on damage
caused to forest resources. The following thresholds are used by the Forest Practices
Board of British Columbia to define a landslide that causes a materially adverse effect
on the environment:




A landslide of 200 cubic metres of sediment or more that directly entered a
community watershed stream, a fish-bearing reach of a stream, or a direct
tributary of a fish stream within 500 metres of fish habitat.
A landslide of any size that caused a debris flow that scoured a portion of a fish
stream.
A landslide that delivered in excess of 500 cubic metres of sediment to a stream
directly tributary to a fish stream.
A landslide that destroyed more than 0.25 hectares of forest or plantation
The intent of this indicator is to measure damage to the landbase caused by
management and implementation of road activities (e.g., construction, maintenance or
deactivation) and does not include ‘acts of nature’.
Chris noted that we ran out of time to discuss streamlining the list of Fraser indicators
but we will add it to the agenda for the next meeting. For example there are several
indicators that report ‘no change in status’.
Action Item #27-3: Finalize the DFA common indicators in the SFMP.
Environment Department, June 30th, 2011
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 10 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG
Action Item #27-4: Post the final version of the SFMP on the website.
Environment Department, June 30th, 2011
The meeting was temporarily adjourned for a 30 minute meal break at 7:00 pm, and
resumed at 7:30 pm
8. 2010 Annual Report
The results of the 2010 SFMP annual report were reviewed. The following is a
summary of the review:








Total 69 of 72 indicators met targets
5 indicators don’t have current status yet as they were just developed towards
the end of 2011
Appendix 2c Defined Forest Area 36 of 37 targets met (5 indicators no current
status)
Indicator C2.1.1 Reforestation Success, target is Full compliance with
regeneration delay requirements in approved stocking standards (variance
zero). In 2010 in the Honeymoon Bay portion of the DFA there were 27
cutblocks with regeneration expiry dates within the year were determined to have
achieved the required stocking levels of well-spaced stems per hectare. In the
Fraser portion of the DFA 46 cutblocks with regeneration expiry dates within the
year were determined to have achieved the required stocking levels of wellspaced stems per hectare; one block has not been planted or surveyed so the
current status is not known (JL-2 is a small heli-block and access is difficult; it is
planned for survey and planting in 2011 as soon as the snow melts).
Appendix 2b Fraser 20 of 21 targets met
Indicator F5-3 FIA Landbased Investment, Percent of allocated Forest
Investment Account funds re-invested into the land base target is 100%
(variance is zero). In 2010 95% ($338,308) The funds were allocated to and
managed by the Fraser Timber Supply Area Co-op. Although only 95% of the
budget was spent, the entire project was completed (note: the funds were
allocated and the job went out for bidding, the winning bid was lower than the
estimated project cost. Efforts were made to spend remaining funds, including
the development of prescriptions for future projects and additional area for
fertilization, however, due to administrative challenges the additional area was
not completed within the allowed timeline).
Appendix 2a Honeymoon Bay 13 of 14 targets met
Indicator H3-10 Management of Fisheries Sensitive Features, target is
Minimum of 20% of the annual FIA budget for TFL 46 to be spent on fisheries
related projects (variance is -10% and no upper limits). In 2010 no funds were
allocated to fisheries related projects as these projects are no longer eligible for
funding. It is important to note there were significant changes in provincial
funding for projects in the DFA; for example the list of eligible projects was
changed (in 2010 Net Volume Adjustment Factor sampling was the only project
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 11 of 12
File: E2-1 FPAG


eligible in the Honeymoon Bay portion of the DFA), funds are no longer allocated
based upon AAC and several funding sources are now amalgamated. Since
funding availability is changing Teal informed the PAGs of these changes, and
they agreed to re-evaluate those indicators affected in a year’s time.
Very good results considering two of these indicators did not achieve targets due
to outside factors beyond Teal’s control (e.g., changes to funding).
The results for several indicators that capture specific concerns were also
discussed (e.g., F6-10, F6-11, F6-12 and F6-13 concerning Sites of Special
Significance indicators), F5-6: Reporting Terrain Related Threats and F3-12:
Quality & Quantity of Potable Water
Chris reminded the group you can find the entire Sustainable Forest Management Plan
(June 2011 version) posted at http://www.tealjones.com/Sustainability.htm. As a
reminder Appendix 2 has three sections: Appendix 2a contains the indicators that are
applicable to the Honeymoon Bay portion of the DFA; Appendix 2b contains the
indicators that are applicable to the Fraser portion of the DFA; and Appendix 2c
contains the indicators that are applicable to the entire DFA. You can find a summary of
the 2010 results after the Table of Contents in each of these 3 appendicies, and the
2010 results for each indicator under the "Current Results and Strategy" sections.
Al asked for clarification on the numbering system of the indicators. Chris reviewed the
numbering at the meeting and noted she will add the summary to the June 2011 version
of the SFMP.
9. Next Scheduled Meeting
The next meeting will be scheduled for September for a field trip.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Minutes recorded by Chris Harvey.
Fraser PAG Meeting 27 Minutes (May 17, 2011)
Page 12 of 12