LILLOOET LAND and RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

LILLOOET LAND and RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Table Meeting March 9-10, 2001 Lillooet, Royal Canadian Legion MEETING SUMMARYAttendees: 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 WaiteDocuments: Mailed Documents: 1. February 23/24 meeting summary 2. March 6, 2001, Draft Letter of Understanding Between MELP & MSBTC In-meeting Documents: 3. Final Option Selection Process –draft one 4. Integrated Resource Management (Draft #5) with map 5. Community Caucus Proposal (Draft #3) with map 6. March 7, 2001, Letter of Transmittal 7. Conservation Final Offer (Draft) with map 8. Sections Discussed During January/February LRMP meetings – Non-mediated Text March 2, 2001 9. 1.1 Introduction – February 23, 2001 10. 5.1.13 Recreation – March 6, 2001 11. 5.1.20 Wildlife – Moose / Mountain Goat / Predators – March 5, 2001 12. 5.1.19 Water Resources – March 6, 2001 13. 5.1.X Community Watershed/Drinking Water – March 6, 2001 14. Sierra Club note to reviewer on Drinking Water 15. Process for Phase 2 – February 23, 2001 17 Phase 1 Framework Document Mediated Sections Only - March 2, 2001 18 5.1.20 Wildlife – Bighorn Sheep/Mule Deer - March 5, 2001 19 4.1.7 Visuals – March 5, 2001 20 5.3 Strategic Recommendations for Protected Areas - March 1, 2001 21 Tourism Addendum – March 10, 2001 22 5.5.15.2 Species at Risk – Grizzly Bear 23 Conservation Sector Protected Areas Proposal Map 24 Community Caucus Proposal (Draft #3b) March 9, 2001 25 Grizzly Bear Critical Habitat Description 010310(cp) 26 Final Offer Selection Approach – draft two Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting SummaryStart: 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 05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 2 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting Summary 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 Mountain05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 3 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting Summary Shorthorn  Skihist Park extension  Southern Chilcotin Mountains  Yalakom CreekFirst 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 & YalakomSection 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.Break05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 4 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting SummaryIntegrated 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 05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 5 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting Summary 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.05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 6 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting SummarySouth 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 GroupsReview 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).Kevan - review of “middle of the road” proposal.RMZs Kwoiek - RMZ over whole area of concern. Cayoosh - extension of RMZ to Lost Valley. Bendors - main area of concern is McGillvray and Connel (but included the whole Bendors) Yalakom - with Community Forest (from community) South Chilcotin - Yalakom Nine Mile Ridge Pony Valley & Swan Lake - special management for the values Bridge Delta - no logging RMZ for protection of reservoir flats; South Chilcotin Buffer ZonePAs Cayoosh Goats Fred/Antoine French Bar Creek Gwyneth Lake South Chilcotin - boundary follows the industry proposal in Relay; park boundary linkage with Big Creek Park. Cinnabar - inclusion of this to accommodate conservation interests and 05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 7 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting Summary prevent mercury or arsenic mine development (community water source below); Upper Slim was included to control access into back end of the watersheds. A corridor was left along the western edge of the South Chilcotin Park for mineral access into the Taseko Lakes area. Suggestion to move some of the access points back to maintain wilderness values in the back part of the park and limit short trips (and increased numbers).Deferrals Yalakom Creek - longer term deferral Red MountainOther Comments: Upper Bridge - glacier access point - could be managed with access controls; concern with mineral access to Taseko Lakes area;Questions: Doug asked Andre whether this would meet his interests. Andre did not feel that this proposal would meet his interests, as mining would be excluded from a number of key areas. Protected area in Cinnabar is not welcome. Andre mentioned that his understanding was to have Gun, Leckie and Eldorado. Mining values in the southeast part of the area would not be available under this proposal. Andre mentioned that mercury mining in North America would not be likely.Dennis mentioned that Leckie, Slim and Taylor Basin were excluded from this proposal. Leckie is the only non-roaded, un-accessed valley in the area; most primitive in the District. Leckie is also an important grizzly area (red on map) and an important goat area. Under this scenario, Gun and Tyaughton would receive too much pressure because of access into Leckie and other buffer areas.The access into the top end of a number of valleys would be increased dramatically if Leckie were not included in the park. Taylor Basin is an important area to Tyax Lodge (visitors from around the world). This is an important area for tourism.Question of the lower southeast portion to Andre. Andre mentioned that this area is lower-value mineral potential and cannot argue for this area. Yalakom Creek - question of what the length of deferral would be for this area. Kevan mentioned that there would be a longer term deferral for Yalakom Creek and one year deferral for the surrounding area. Sylvia - question of whether there could be a healthy mining industry under their proposal. Andre mentioned that there may be other mineral opportunity areas (outside of the already roaded area).Dennis mentioned that access into Leckie Creek would shorten the hike into Spruce Lake from 6 hours to 3 hours. IRM Caucus Proposal Greg - mentioned that there was some wordsmithing done this morning. Kevan - question of whether his map would address timber interests. Greg felt that this map would address timber interests, but is concerned about interests elsewhere. There could be an 05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 8 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting Summary opportunity to move some of the PA boundaries; but there is concern with implications elsewhere.The numbers in the table for wildlife are not added into the total.Conservation Caucus Proposal Doug - mentioned that things seem to have shifted away from binding arbitration into an option selection approach. The conservation sector would prefer two options at the most (as opposed to three or four); understanding that consensus would be the most preferable.Questions& Comments on Proposals: Doug - mentioned that he feels that the conservation sector has moved dramatically and is not seeing similar movement from the IRM caucus. Sylvia - question of whether the two offers could be identical (or 90% consensus) with the exception of a small portion of the plan. Norma - mentioned that the 90% consensus piece seems to be the general management text portions. Comment: Dennis - mentioned that the conservation sector is only 7,000ha (out of 300,000ha) apart from the IRM proposal. Betty - asked whether there is any further flexibility with PA’s. There is fear with demonstrating flexibility from the conservation sector without flexibility being demonstrated elsewhere.Bill - the bringing forward of the community caucus proposal has raised a number of questions; concern that there has not been adequate consultation with residents. Bill - local residents still feel that there is still strong interest from the community in a park at Fred/Antoine.A number of the details need to be worked out within Phase 2. A community forest pilot in Yalakom Valley would receive broad community support. Yalakom/Nine Mile - needs some greater attention (important to local residents).Community Caucus Proposal - none of the components have been changed, but there is flexibility to modify their proposal. Tyaughton Community Forest still being explored. Eldorado/Upper Bonanza - fault line still incorporated into the map.Bendors RMZ - has been re-worded to address Greg’s concerns. Overall - Next Steps: Dan - what people would like to do? It is important for people to take collective responsibility for the process. Norma - feels that the caucus groups need some time to discuss how to move forward. Originally, people felt the community proposal would end up being the middle option, but it seems to be a “third point on the triangle”; some new (and very valid) ideas have come out. This seems to be making it more difficult to find an agreement (seems more challenging). Betty - still feel that the community group would like to reach consensus; the proposal was an attempt to get over the blockage. Dan - feels that people really do want to find an agreement; fears of win/loss; may be slipping in terms of positions; some confusion over the final selection approach and the view of government. Interested in hearing dialogue on what should happen next.Thoughts from the Group:05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 9 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting SummaryJim – commented that of the 14 LRMPs completed to date, an average range of 4-6% in protected areas has been the outcome. There appears to be interesting social dynamics with increasing areas of protection. Dan - mentioned that there are parts of the province where there will be a significant departure from past recommendations, in the near future.Dan - feels that there are some significant solutions being developed elsewhere in the province.Question of whether the group should “cherry-pick” a combination of the best from all the proposals. Greg - mentioned that the protected areas is not the full picture; there is uncertainty around Resource Management Zones (RMZs). BreakQuestion for Caucus Groups : Have the caucus groups reached consensus on their proposals?IRM Caucus - 90% agreement on the key issues; some need to work on some of the language for RMZ’s. Conservation - reflects consensus. CRB - with the exception of some refined linework, they have consensus; still need to see some of the new wording (community planning, community consultation in Yalakom RMZ); approx. 90% agreement with some further clarification needed.Final Offer Selection Approach Dan reviewed the approach; the options were to be reviewed and revised based on discussions. Observations from government (who have seen the approach):  a bit surprised by the approach  see the merits in seeking consensus  based on discussions with Deputy Ministers, there would not be presentations to Cabinet (they’re very busy - this generally does not happen);  Cabinet cannot be fettered in their decision-making; however, if they “cherry-pick”, Table members may not support the decision by government. The intent is to have one option chosen in its entirety.  senior staff of the agencies would be available for consideration of the proposals (i.e., Doug Konkin, David Johns, etc.);  agency staff would provide analysis and opinions to the decision-makers (written into the approach);  re-iteration that Cabinet will not be bound in its decision;Suggestions: More time for caucus groups to meet; Dan would like to meet briefly with caucus groups this evening. Table members need to think how they are going to proceed after tonight; need to decide on how to submit options (whether to adopt the approach developed by the mediation group). It would be possible to have an option put forward that would address the interests around the Table. This could help limit the options or lead to consensus. Dan mentioned that when people reach something that they can live with, there is a significant amount of relief and a sense of accomplishment. This could help with discussions for Phase 2.05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 10 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting SummaryOptions: a) arrive tomorrow morning - & if consensus is not likely:  draft options  mediation  selection b) One last shot at a single option (PST, mediators, or person from four groups) c) Engage in a discussion of how to reach consensus (with aggressive/assertive facilitation) d) Shuttle approach (may not be practical with four groups)Decision: Move into caucus groups this evening and decide what approach will be taken tomorrow morning.Adjourned: 5:25pmSaturday, March 101. Introduction/Housekeeping - Introductions were made around the Table. Marc mentioned that there is an addendum to the Recreation section - Crown Land text that should be moved into the Recreation section. The Table has already reviewed this text, but people should be aware that this text was to be moved.2. Where do we go from here? - Bill Wareham (by phone) raised concerns over the Table not working on the options (understood that’s where things were headed). Dan mentioned that the final offer selection approach was intended to move parties closer together. Jack mentioned that he does not want to “play head games” and have people manipulated into one direction or another. Jack would like to support the CRB proposal and feels that this is a solution that would meet the local area interests. Andre also mentioned that he would support the CRB proposal. Russ - local government support for CRB. Kevin Taylor - mentioned that many people have been attracted to this area due to the values; important that these be maintained. Kevin said that he will miss the people around the Table being in the town and mentioned that the needs of the community are a key concern; appreciate the work of the Table. Kevin affirmed that the CRB has presented a good solution. Kevin mentioned that trust is important in order to maintain the plan. Brad - Ainsworth Lumber would like to work with CRB and will support this plan. Brad - wants to have a constructive day and would like to proceed working on the CRB plan; agrees with Jack - do not want to play head-games. Brad mentioned that he is less optimistic of the conservation sector plan. Jack - feels that working on the CRB plan is the one that’s worthwhile working on further. Sylvia - felt that the other three proposals (other than conservation) were able to find agreement. Sylvia has concerns with some of the CRB offer but would like to work on this further in order to find a majority (90%) of agreement. The problems with the CRB plan could likely be worked on and resolved. Andre had mentioned to Sylvia that a viable mining industry was still possible with the CRB scenario. Chris - would like to work toward one agreement. Chris would prefer to have “emissaries” from each of the groups work on “crunching” the two solutions together. Sylvia would prefer not to have people working in separate rooms. Sylvia would prefer to document the areas of agreement and clearly articulate where the differences are. Norma - feels that this is exactly the process that she understood we were working on. Dennis - agrees that the final option 05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 11 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting Summary selection approach was the right direction (as discussed in Kamloops) in order to find agreement. Sylvia - preference is to work toward one document where there is agreement. Dan mentioned that when the offers are compared, there are many components that are identical.Dan - it’s important that people decide how they would like to proceed (emissaries vs. final offer selection approach). It seems likely that, at most, we would end up with two options at the end of the day. Brad - mentioned that Cabinet will not be fettered. Warren - mentioned that the final offer selection should not be taken off the Table since this approach is the closest thing that the Table can get to having options considered the way they had intended.Norma - mentioned that the conservation proposal would likely incorporate elements of the other proposals (need to know what’s in the other document). Bill W. - agrees with Sylvia’s comments in identifying where the areas of agreement are. Bill suggested having a group work through the documents in order to form the basis of the agreement; ensure that this is clearly documented. Sylvia - when the differences are clearly articulated, people will have an understanding of where negotiation is needed.Jack - feels that the general management text should be sorted out fairly quickly. The proposals may take some more work. Brad - has always seen this as a package. Chris agrees that the general framework text and the proposals should be kept separate. Kevan mentioned that the fear is that having groups go back to working on proposals will lead to movement backwards. Brad - intent is not to move apart but to work as a broader group in order to seek consensus. Chris - feels that it’s important to keep the proposals separate.Dan - mentioned that the packages could delineate where the differences are (rather than re- stating common components). Brad/Chris - feel that the proposals are a package and should be kept separate. If government decides to pick out common pieces or “cherry pick” later then that’s fine.Dan - suggestion to move forward with the development of the two options. Bill W. - clarfied that the conservation sector proposal has reduced the PA recommended - THLB impact by 40%. Sylvia - feels that a document that spells out the differences is the best way to go.Betty - decide later how the paper will be sorted; there is a lot of work to do.Kevan - expressed concern with not being able to participate with the CRB group. Dan - clarified that the offers coming together should be focused on (did not hear anything about exclusion).Dan - suggestion on how to proceed: work on refining and bringing together the options (with emissaries as needed). Work toward defining the two options to go forward and then decide how the options will be presented to government.3. Break Into Caucus Groups: Conservation/Recreation & IRM/CRB 4:10 – Reconvene - Next Steps - Dan mentioned that it is clear that through the day’s discussions, the gap could not be closed. The two options being developed will proceed based on the Final Option Selection Process. Warren mentioned that the final options should be in the LUCO office by Tuesday, March 13 in order to get the approval process underway. The two groups will have to identify who will make the presentations to government. Brad expressed concern with the timeline in that there would not be time to 05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 12 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting Summary have a polished product by Tuesday. Warren mentioned that the Table has had a number of extensions to the timeline and has been working for some time. The products will be in whatever state they are to go forward. Dan reviewed “The Final Option Selection Process” - March 10, 20001 version. Questions/Comments: Sylvia - would like to submit their map to government. Sylvia does not have issue with the written text but would prefer to submit a different map to government. This appears to be a third option. Jack - mentioned that this is clearly a third option and would go forward with one name attached. Bill W. - feels that the efforts today were to find a consensus or end up with two options. Sylvia asked for the process to not accept the South Chilcotin Park map. The South Chilcotin map from the CRB does not suit Tourism’s needs. Bill W. - is interested in seeing Sylvia’s map to discuss her concerns. Dan mentioned that a different approach could be to have tourism’s map go forward (not as one of the final option selection process). Alex - suggested that a number of other maps could be submitted by other parties; this could be outside the final option selection process. If government decided to select any map outside of the two (Sylvia’s or any others), this selection may not enjoy the support of the Table. Sylvia - reiterated that there is a large bulk of agreement and does not want people to “black list” her since she does agree with the text.Bill S. - would object to Sylvia submitting a map of the entire plan area (as opposed to just a map of the South Chilcotins). Bill mentioned that there seemed to be agreement from Sylvia with the other areas and would object to a full map going forward. Sylvia reiterated that the only concern was with the South Chilcotin line. Bill W. - suggested tabling this item until Monday when he can caucus with Sylvia. Bill W. - supports Alex’s account that the submission of another map would be outside of the Final Option Selection Process.Dan - suggestion that if Sylvia (or anyone else) needs to submit a different map, then this would be consistent with the Final Option Selection Process - Step 5 c).Brad - expressed frustration and concern with completing a submission by Tuesday; the latest versions of text do not represent what had been agreed to.Karl - concern with Cabinet choosing a different option (what would occur?) Sue D. - concern with the Conservation/Recreation title on that option. Sue D. - represents recreation and does not agree with the Conservation/Recreation option (the title needs to be changed.)Discussion on the state of the text - a great deal of work still needs to be done. John C. - there is a need for more time in order to tidy up the text. Brad - important elements of text are missing. Betty suggested that the proposals go forward without the framework text. The framework text could then be refined later. Warren - asked for feedback from the Table on Betty’s suggestion.Jack - feels that this makes much more sense. Bill W. - this does not work for him; feels that there is no more time and that the text should go forward by Tuesday. Warren mentioned that this would be acceptable to have the proposal submitted on Tuesday with the framework text coming in on the following Monday.05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 13 Lillooet LRMP March 9, 10 – 2001 Meeting SummaryBill W. - concern that the stand level biodiversity was taken out and this changed the overall package for the conservation sector. Brad - reiterated that there is a need to put the full document together (since there was negotiating together). Bill W. - requested that the text be completed by Friday. Brad - most of the time that is needed is on the framework.Clarification: need to finalize the map, finalize the framework and ensure that there is consistency between the proposals and the framework text. Decision: Submission of the map and proposal text by Tuesday, March13 & submission of the framework text by Friday, March 16.Question of when the presentations would be organized with government. Warren mentioned that this would occur over the next couple of weeks.Dan clarified that if Sylvia decided to submit a different map, this would fall under section 5 c) of the Final Option Selection Process.Clarification on IST Role: The sectors will sign onto the agreement (not the government staff).Warren clarified that an indication of who supports which option can be done in a number of ways: transmittal letter, sign-off, or list of names that support at the front of the document.Decision: PST to get out the latest version of the Framework document out to people by tomorrow (March 11). Review: Consensus is not possible at this time; proceed with final option selection process. If Sylvia decides to submit a map, this will be outside the selection process 5c. Everyone will receive the most recent copy of the framework tomorrow morning.Appreciation was expressed for the facilitation: Dan, Alex, Steve & Andrea. Thanks to Trevor for his efforts throughout the process.Adjourned: 5:20pm05fc7d0dd6823ef1b0c963398ca824f5.doc 14

LILLOOET LAND and RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support