Lillooet LRMPMarch 9, 10 – 2001Meeting Summary
LILLOOET LAND and RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table Meeting March 9-10, 2001
Lillooet, Royal Canadian Legion
MEETING SUMMARY
Attendees:
Community Resources Board: Mike Nikkel, Bill Spencer, Chris O’Connor, Betty Weaver, Karl Delling, Linda Hume, Mike Kennedy, John Courchesne
Public Participants: Jack Carradice, Norma Wilson, Doug Radies (alt.), Greg Dixon, Sylvia Waterer, Kevan Bracewell (alt.), Andre Panteleyev, Dennis Perry, Brad Bennett, Desiree Mou (alt), John Edgar, Sue Duxbury (alt), Brain Woods (alt), Santokh Atwal
Provincial Government: Dave Horne, Dawna Harden (alt.), Mike Hanry, Roger Wysocki, Sandy Macdonald (alt.), Jacquie Rasmussen, Jim Britton, Matthew Simons, Rob Gowan, Graham Strachan
Federal Government: Dean Watts
Local Government: Russ Oakley, Sheila McLean, Kevin Taylor
PST/Staff: Bruce Walter, Marc Imus, Susan Omelchuk, Dave Tudhope, Cindy Pearce
Other Staff, Guests & Observers: Dan Johnston, Steve Carr, Andrea Sissons, Alex Grzybowski, Trevor Chandler, Susan Senger, Warren Mitchell, Mel Stewart, Keith Dufresne, Chris Galliazo, Paul Enhi, Kevin Anderson, ken Waite
Documents:
Mailed Documents:
- February 23/24 meeting summary
- March 6, 2001, Draft Letter of Understanding Between MELP & MSBTC
In-meeting Documents:
- Final Option Selection Process –draft one
- Integrated Resource Management (Draft #5) with map
- Community Caucus Proposal (Draft #3) with map
- March 7, 2001, Letter of Transmittal
- Conservation Final Offer (Draft) with map
- Sections Discussed During January/February LRMP meetings – Non-mediated Text March 2, 2001
- 1.1 Introduction – February 23, 2001
- 5.1.13 Recreation – March 6, 2001
- 5.1.20 Wildlife – Moose / Mountain Goat / Predators – March 5, 2001
- 5.1.19 Water Resources – March 6, 2001
- 5.1.X Community Watershed/Drinking Water – March 6, 2001
- Sierra Club note to reviewer on Drinking Water
- Process for Phase 2 – February 23, 2001
17Phase 1 Framework Document Mediated Sections Only - March 2, 2001
185.1.20 Wildlife – Bighorn Sheep/Mule Deer - March 5, 2001
194.1.7 Visuals – March 5, 2001
205.3 Strategic Recommendations for Protected Areas - March 1, 2001
21Tourism Addendum – March 10, 2001
225.5.15.2 Species at Risk – Grizzly Bear
23Conservation Sector Protected Areas Proposal Map
24Community Caucus Proposal (Draft #3b) March 9, 2001
25Grizzly Bear Critical Habitat Description 010310(cp)
26Final Offer Selection Approach – draft two
Start: 8:40 am
1. Introduction - Bruce reviewed meetings over the last month and mentioned that through mediation last weekend, a decision was made to develop “final offers”. Some of the community members present felt that the two existing proposals (Conservation et. al. & IRM) did not address community interests. Hence, there has been work on development of a community proposal.
2. Agenda Review/Summary Review/Rumour Check- Bruce explained that the three caucus groups will be presenting their proposals to the Table. The expectation is to work into the night.
Rumour Check - no rumours reported.
Housekeeping - There is a large collection of text available, most of which has been available by e-mail. There are updated maps for each of the mediation caucus proposals. Susan explained that the original Draft 4 was split into “Non-mediated text” and “Mediated text” documents. There is a “Most Current Version Document Key” available which explains how to find the most recent versions.
3. Update from Mediation Sessions- Review of final offer selection approach.
Questions:
Jack - is government prepared to accept the final offer selection approach.
Chris - has government bought into the “no cherry picking” piece. Who is actually making the decision (ADM, Deputy Ministers or Cabinet Ministers)?
Dan Johnston was brought into the conversation by phone. Dan apologized for not being present in person, but should be in Lillooet later this afternoon.
Warren - government would much prefer that this Table find a consensus if, at all, possible. Warren encouraged the Table to seek ways to resolve any differences between the “final offers”. If options do result after this meeting, Warren said that government would take those outcomes forward to Cabinet ministers. Cabinet ministers will make the decision. Warren mentioned that each of the options submitted would involve a presentation to the ADM’s committee. The decision process in government would go from the ADM’s committee to the Deputy Ministers and to Cabinet. Warren stressed that consensus is far more persuasive and preferable.
Question of cherry picking - Warren mentioned that each of the options would be made known to Cabinet with supporting information. Cabinet reserves the right to modify an option (do not need to accept an option in its entirety). Dan - in other words, Cabinet will not agree to fetter its decision or accept an option in its entirety. Dan/Warren clarified that all of the options would go forward to Cabinet unedited. Warren mentioned that this is the reality of all LRMPs across the province: Cabinet has discretion for decision-making.
Questions: Chris asked what schedule we are on? Warren mentioned that we are on a very tight timeframe, and have pushed things as long as possible (already the 9th of March). With the plan being submitted on Monday, the outcome of this meeting is likely to be dealt with by Cabinet within two weeks. Warren was not certain whether a Cabinet meeting would be called just to deal with the Lillooet LRMP.
Warren reiterated that government would prefer consensus, but if options resulted, Cabinet will not be fettered in their decision-making.
Chris - question of whether the caucus groups would be allowed to make a presentation to Cabinet ministers. Warren said that this is “not on”. It’s very rare that presentations would be made to Cabinet. Chris asked of whether caucus groups would be able to make a presentation to the three Ministers: Environment, Mines and Forests. Greg - mentioned that he would prefer that entire proposals be accepted (if consensus is not reached, all bets are off). Greg disagrees with making a presentation to Cabinet in this regard, since they would not be required to accept an option in its entirety anyway.
Warren - need to ensure that that Cabinet decisions remain unfettered.
Bill S. - question of how long it would take for the Table’s recommendations to land on the Cabinet’s table for consideration. Warren is uncertain as to when government would get caught up in an election. The best defense is to get a consensus and get something off to government for decision. Much of the time requirements are dependent on what the Table delivers. The further apart the options are, the more difficult it is to make a decision.
Keith - question of whether Cabinet would accept a consensus recommendation (and not tinker with it). Warren mentioned that, from his experience, Cabinet is not likely to modify a consensus recommendation. Where consensus is reached, it becomes difficult not to accept recommendations from the Table.
Bill S. - question about lobbying - how much influence can government assert to keep individuals from lobbying (and recognize the efforts of the Table). Warren mentioned that the Table still has the opportunity to reach a consensus. From Warren’s opinion, the longevity of a land use plan is directly related to the amount of buy-in from the participants. Where participants agree with what they can live with, Cabinet will generally affirm the agreements of the Table. People will sometimes lobby ministers, but those people are always encouraged to go through the Table process.
Dean W. - question about #6 in final offer selection approach - how should government (IST staff - including DFO) submit comments to Cabinet on the options. This will be discussed further amongst the federal/provincial government agencies.
Decision: Amendment to Schedule A in Final Offer Selection Approach: Change Deputy Ministers’ Committee to Assistant Deputy Ministers’ Committee. In Schedule A, change “option” to “offer” (to be consistent with the first page).
Conservation Caucus Offer Presentation - Norma Wilson
Assume that everyone has read the document and has a copy of the map.
Norma - mentioned that in the PA table, the percentage total area should be changed to 9.1%. The descriptions of the PA’s have yet to be developed (would be similar to the one provided).
Norma - reviewed the list of PA areas:
- Antoine/Fred
- Arthur Seat
- Bridge Delta - ecological reserve
- Cerise Creek
- Cayoosh Goats
- French Bar Creek
- Gwyneth Lake
- Marble Canyon
- Swan Lake
- Red Mountain
- Shorthorn
- Skihist Park extension
- Southern Chilcotin Mountains
- Yalakom Creek
First Nations Protected Area Deferral (Lost Valley) - to reserve options in this unit over the next ten years. There is an interest from First Nations that roads be limited from this unit. The deferral would apply to forest development; mineral exploration & development would go through Mineral Exploration Code and consultation with First Nations would be important to maintain their interests. Norma did not feel that tourism developments would be largely affected - main concern is road development.
Melvin Creek - trigger to come back to the Table if a ski hill does not go ahead.
Deferral Areas:
- Pony Valley - move from PA to Category 1 deferral (no longer recommended as a PA).
- Bendors
- Intlpalm/Siwhe
- Clarification that all study areas would be maintained in deferral for the next year - (not just Shulaps & Noaxe).
Jim - mentioned that the 90% of high mineral value land still available should be corrected (more than 50% would be more accurate).
Longer-term deferrals - Upper Bridge & Yalakom
Section F - Jim suggested that #4 needs some clarification - see the IRM caucus wording.
Chris - question on the letter of transmittal with two options.
Norma - the reason that two offers would be preferable is that this would result in the caucus groups to come closer together. With three offers, there seems to be less incentive for groups to come to a consensus. The conservation caucus is interested in having two offers rather than three.
On page 2 - Accommodating Other Interests - should include Tourism (along with Recreation).
Sylvia - question of whether the Front/Mid/Backcountry areas were accepted. Norma mentioned that each of the zones was mentioned and this would be the tool to develop concepts and management further.
Sylvia - question of the Advisory Board for South Chilcotin - would this apply to both RMZs and PAs? Norma confirmed that this would be a broader interest approach to advise on RMZs as well as a PA in the South Chilcotins.
Break
Integrated Resource Management Offer - Jack Carradice
Jack mentioned that Andre and Kevan and Sylvia were not present at last week’s meeting. Jack asked them to point out any weaknesses and propose improvements in order to make sure that their interests are covered.
Protected Areas
In the IRM document, Jack referred to the following points:
#2 - Goal 2 areas may be considered after Phase 1 to a maximum of 1,000ha of total landbase.
#8 - Proposal includes additional protected areas of 5.3% - with existing amounts to 15.4%.
The Spruce Lake boundary was modified to include all of Bonanza and Eldorado and the Upper Relay (high mineral value) area was excluded.
The deferral area language needs some clarification.
Resource Management Zones (RMZ’s) - kept as simple as possible. Rather than having RMZ’s within RMZ’s - these units were kept as simple as possible. The intent was to have more comprehensive planning for adjacent areas.
Visuals - decided to adopt the Zone 1 & Zone 2 concept and visuals design principles. There was a 1% THLB impact allowance for Visual Quality Objectives (VQO).
Landscape Level Biodiversity - 3.5% THLB impact.
Stand Level Biodiversity - 3% THLB impact.
Mule Deer - may need to give some further thought to 1% THLB impact.
Visuals and Biodiversity were separated out of the table to remove any confusion over numbers with the base case (as per the previous draft).
Section F - Adaptive Management
The overall goal is to achieve an AAC of 636,000m3, however, it was recognized that due to factors beyond the control of the LRMP, this may end up at approx. 500,000m3.
Chris mentioned that the 636,000 number could be replaced with the Chief Forester’s determination.
Tourism triggers - may need to be confirmed by Kevan & Sylvia.
Minerals - may need to revisit minerals triggers with Andre.
#3 - need clarification on (historic and new) tourism use.
Section G - Economic Transition, Mitigation, and Diversification
Looking for funding to implement the objectives of the LRMP.
Questions: Warren asked about the Bridge River Trust Fund - are people clear on what previous land use decisions are being referred to?
Russ mentioned that the Bridge River Trust Fund does not currently exist.
Page 2 - Matt Simons mentioned the Shorthorn wording needs clarification.
Section C - Yalakom Community RMZ - Bill Spencer pointed out that the LRUP which is signed off by the District Manager already affords enhanced referral to the area north of the community (French Bar). This needs clarification. Greg mentioned that this section should be changed to enhanced level of consultation and management.
Page 7 - Biodiversity impacts generally related to timber supply rather than THLB - may be difficult to understand.
With respect to Visuals - difficult to know whether 1% impact on THLB is appropriate. Bill suggested that a timber supply impact number may be more appropriate.
OGMA’s - clarification is needed that old growth characteristics need to be present to be eligible for an OGMA status.
Community Caucus Offer - Betty Weaver
Betty mentioned that this draft (#3) is still very rough as the group has had little time (had to pull out pieces from the other proposals). Betty explained that the Conservation & IRM proposals did not seem to adequately provide for community interests. The community has an interest in protection of the environment and economic opportunity. There is a lower percentage of PA to allow for more management across the landbase. The PA candidates were chosen based on representation values and to allow people opportunities to recreate on the landbase.
The PA Table does not yet include the list of values (or classification) for the PA candidates.
Deferral Categories:
Category 1 - former Study Areas to have a one year forest development planning deferral.
Category 2 - longer term deferral:
South Chilcotin Advisory Board – wording around advisory board approval may require some clarification.
Community Tenure Areas (land based tenure) - Fred, Antoine & Buck Creek area; Lower Tyaughton and Bonanza. The government pilot system may be applied (with modifications to work locally). Clarification: this refers to timber tenure areas.
Resource Management Zones -
Table 2:
Total numbers should be changed to: 19,000ha and 6.4%
There is further work needed on the end of the document (utilizing the existing two proposals).
There is also a desire to have some wording around tenure reform as a high priority for government consideration. Betty reviewed the wording from last night’s CRB meeting which describes the Proposed Addition to Community Offer Draft 3.
“Low stability” refers to “instability” - subject to fluctuations.
Recommendations for tenure reform - there are a number of avenues that can be explored.
Fred and Antoine - clarification that: Fred and Antoine is deferred for a minimum of ten years or until such time as an ecosystem based plan is developed for the area. The polygon units have also been amended under the Community Tenure Areas section. A new version will be made available with the new wording.
South Chilcotin Advisory Board - the wording change to “interests” was deliberate since “stakeholders” may have a conflict of interest and the current wording leaves it open.
Greg - the Bendors RMZ wording may need some clarification. Concern over community tenure areas since he represents one of the major licensees. Note: The bolded text on “other boards” needs to be clarified.
Question of how the South Chilcotin Advisory board would affect mineral tenure. Betty mentioned that this needs some refinement (along with Fred/Antoine). The intent is that current regulations would direct activities until the ecosystem-based plan provides recommendations on land management.
Sylvia mentioned that she is comfortable having existing government agencies regulate their activities (range, other) and is concerned with how an advisory board (which they could not be part of) would affect agency management.
Amendments to Community proposal:
- The South Spruce RMZ should be added to the conservation proposal (after Siska) with Relay added.
- Change South Spruce to Spruce Lake/South Chilcotin RMZ.
PST Suggestion to have groups break into caucus to discuss what they have heard and discuss next steps.
Break Into Caucus Groups
Review of Caucus Group Sessions
Dan asked the caucus groups where they are in the discussions. Sylvia mentioned that she and Kevan had developed a “middle road” proposal that may serve as a solution (at least in portions of the plan area).