Adequate Consultation Checklist

Cutting Permit / Road Permit Information Sharing Checklist Kamloops Forest District

*This document is to be attached to all CP and RP submissions

File: ______Original Amendment

CP / Block: Licensee: Road(s):

Select the Bands that are affected by the proposed development as per the MFR Depiction of First Nations Referral Areas Map (August 2007):

Band MOU/CA in Place Yes No Adams Lake Indian Band Ashcroft Indian Band Bonaparte Indian Band Canim Lake Indian Band Coldwater Indian Band Cooksferry Indian Band High Bar Indian Band Kamloops Indian Band Little Shuswap Indian Band Lower Nicola Indian Band Lower Similkameen Indian Band Neskonlith Indian Band Nicomen Indian Band Nooaitch Indian Band Oregon Jack Indian Band Simpcw First Nation Shackan Indian Band Skeetchestn Indian Band Splats’in First Nation Ts’kw’alaxw Upper Nicola Indian Band Whispering Pines Indian Band Xaxli’p

Have the terms of the MOU/CA been met with respect to CP/RP information sharing? Yes No N/A Comments Re: MOU/CA relevant to this application: ______Was information received from the affected bands during FSP consultation related to this application in the proposed CP/RP area: Yes No Give details:

Last updated August 30, 2007 Page 1 of 3 ______

Summary of Information Sharing

Referral letter sent containing overview information inviting an opportunity for the affected First Nation(s) to comment

Date Sent: ______Length of review period: ______Expedited

Efforts made to discuss proposal with the affected First Nation(s)

Details: ______

Issues identified by the affected First Nation(s)

Details: ______

Additional efforts made to address First Nation(s) interests or rationale for no further action

Details: ______

Details attached: Yes No

Licensee Signature (RPF):______Date: ______

Please Print Name: ______

For MFR Use Only

Recommendation: Information sharing adequate ____ More information sharing required ____

Reviewed by: ______

Details / Rationale: ______

MFR Reviewer Signature : ______Date: ______

Last updated August 30, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Adequate Information Sharing

The following is the minimum expectation of the Ministry of Forests and Range for information sharing efforts with First Nations.

Step 1: Referral package sent out to the affected bands detailing the proposed activity with sufficient maps of the area included. This initiates the 60-day referral timeline and asks for comment from the First Nation(s).

Step 2: Approximately 30-days after the initial letter is sent out and if no response is received to date, send a follow-up letter, e-mail or phone the affected First Nation(s) to ensure they received the package and ask if there is any comment and restate the timelines for response.

Step 3: If comments are received then meet with the First Nation(s) to discuss the proposal and their concerns and work to accommodate their interests.

Where a Memorandum of Agreement between licensees and First Nation(s) exists the Kamloops Forest District is assuming that: 1. First Nations understand that the Forest and Range Practices Act is an attempt by government to delegate consultation to a third party, the licensee. 2. The agreement contains provisions for regular meetings between the licensee and the First Nation. 3. The licensee will present “high level” development proposals to the First Nation with a reasonable timeframe for a response from the First Nation. 4. The First Nation will indicate which proposals are of concern to them, and ask for additional information on these proposals. 5. The licensee will provide the requested information. 6. The First Nation will indicate how the proposals affect them. 7. There are opportunities for the parties to propose mitigation strategies, and to reach agreement on the final design. 8. The agreement contains a dispute resolution process.

Where there are no formal agreements between the licensee and the First Nation(s) the Kamloops Forest District is assuming that: 1. Licensees are forthright and fair with information presented to First Nations, and understanding in their expectations of First Nations’ capacity and desire to respond. 2. Licensees are diligent in their efforts to meet with First Nations. 3. All parties are aware that a lack of response from a First Nation does not equate to a lack of concern with the proposal.

Last updated August 30, 2007 Page 3 of 3