Minutes of Access Roundtable Meeting Jan. 29, 2010

ACCESS ROUNDTALBE MEETING
Friday January 29, 2010
Malaspina Room – Town Centre Hotel

In Attendance:

Colin Palmer - Facilitator
Daniel Bouman - Sunshine Coast Conservation Association
Dave Hodgins - ATV Club of Powell River
Don Krompocker - Chamber of Commerce
Eagle Walz - PR Parks and Wilderness Society
Elisha McCallum – Plutonic Power Corporation
Frank Ullmann - Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts
George Ferreira - 4X4 club of Powell River
Jessica Hulsman – Plutonic Power Corporation
Lesley Fettes - Integrated Land Management Branch (via telephone)
Maggie Hathaway - City, Tourism, MLA
Mario Gussola – ATV Club
Patrick Brabazon - Regional District
Randy Mitchell - Knuckleheads Recreation Area, SaR
Shirley Storey, Plutonic Power Corporation (recorder)
Stuart Glen, Western Forest Products


Colin Palmer reminded all that his purpose was facilitation and checked that minutes were reflective of last meeting.

Patrick Brabazon corrected page 12 related to attribution that Regional District of Nanaimo has started an Alpine Club what they’ve done is created an Alpine Park, they don’t have any clubs.

Updates:

Elisha McCallum indicated Jessica Hulsman would provide this for Plutonic.

Jessica Hulsman
1. S Branch – bride will be left and beyond bridge is ATV access. ILMB requires someone to take on the responsibility for maintenance and liability of the bridge. WFP has agreed to do so. Thanks extended to Western.

Dave Hodges indicated that there is very rough ATV access which requires re swaling of the cross ditches past the bridge.


Eagle Walz asked for clarification on S-branch and Jessica reiterates as above.

Eagle Walz states road is seasonally deactivated for ATV traffic but that Dave Hodges says it is in rough shape.

Plutonic to follow up on road status for ATVs.

Jessica Hulsman
2. Goat Main – At December 18th Access Roundtable meeting ILMB confirmed they will require a report from a qualified professional detailing what the professional considers an appropriate level of deactivation to minimize environmental risks and remove any significant hazards. And ILMB will consult with MOF and MOE to confirm that they are comfortable with the deactivation plan. Obtaining a cost estimate from qualified professional and expect that by February 10th there will be an estimate to leave Goat Main 4x4 access to D Branch.

Colin Palmer referenced Frank Ulmann’s comments at Dec 18 meeting that for road deactivation and road access the main point is environmental protection it’s not just tourism and people getting through.

Jessica Hulsman states that ILMB wants to be comfortable that those hazards and risks are minimal so Plutonic can relieve itself of the permit. If this is a case where that hazards and risks are minimal ILMB will not require anyone else to take on a permit for that section of road. Plutonic is getting quote to support this and lave road without liability.

Colin Palmer asked if Lesley Fettes wants to clarify, Lesley states Jessica has covered comments.

Eagle Walz clarifies that if road hazards are minimal, road will require no permit or ownership.

Lesley Fettes states road would become a non-status road on Crown land but it should be noted that that means that no one will be responsible for ongoing maintenance, so it’s a use at your own risk situation.

Elisha McCallum asks if there are many roads like this now.

Dave Hodges and Eagle Walz reply affirmative.

Colin Palmer reiterates that to be non status road, with nobody in charge to the satisfaction of everybody will only occur as long as this report says there are no major hazards or environmental issues. If the report comes back another then we may have to accept that is the case.

Jessica Hulsman states ILMB has to consult with MOF and MOE.

Lesley Fettes agrees and states because ILMB are not road experts they must also review the report with other agencies.

Randy Mitchell asks who responsible of the road before Plutonic was it a status road.

Stuart Glen shares that it was non status – it’s going back to what it was to start with.

Randy Mitchell states the road shouldn’t be any different now unless Plutonic has altered something, it should just go back to what it was.

Frank Ullmann notes Plutonic or whoever holds the permit has to return the roads as per current regulations and the standards were laxer in the past.


Squirrel Creek Crossing – The bridge stays out and the banks have been left to allow ATVs to traverse.

Dave, Eagle, Randy all echo that the crossing is not in good shape for ATV use. Plutonic to follow up.

Colin clarifies through Jessica that Plutonic will follow up on ATV status.

Jessica Hulsman:

3. Goat II – Deactivation to be completed as per current prescriptions and agreement with WFP, these do not include maintaining 4x4 access at 2 km or ATV access above the bridge.

Plutonic supports the installation of a pedestrian bridge Western will speak in terms of funding. At the last meeting, Western had agreed to apply for FIA funding for the construction of that bridge.

Elisha McCallum notes that this was as discussed at last meeting. There are some significant environmental issues on this road. WFP and Plutonic have to have an agreement on in order to have a deactivation that fits for the roads so we are at the same conclusion as the last meeting. We are still very much willing to continue looking at options.

Colin Palmer asks Stuart Glenn if he wants to comment.

Stuart Glenn reiterates that position on Goat II has not changed. Will commit to crossing over creek and its on this years funding list. Is comfortable with other roads as discussed.

Randy Mitchell states there are 3 crossings is there a way all three could be left? The bridge at 2 km is a new big heavy log bridge reinforced it’s a good bridge. Above that there 2 creeks that there’s a double bridge Would they be able to be left for ATV?

George Ferreira echoes he does not understand why bridges need to go.

Stuart Glenn comments bridges can be left but I think it requires ILMB to take out a Section 57.

Colin Palmer asks Lesley Fettes if Stuart Glenn’s assessment is correct.

Lesley says no.

Stuart Glenn clarified he meant MOTCA.


Frank Ullmann states his issue is one or three bridges, there is no way MOTCA can maintain that road and if something happens to the larger bridges we would have to be able to get at them to fix that.

Stuart Glenn states if the bridge is left in and bridge in we can’t afford to maintain that road as an access road and we couldn’t get in to fix the road. A lighter bridge could be repaired by ATV or chopper. Major bridge can’t get equipment in to fix it.

Don Krompocker: Understands where you’re coming from but that roads been there for a long, long time as well as bridges is there no way we could leave those bridges until such time as something like that happens. And then address that with a community group and say that you don’t have the funds to repair a major bridge but maybe in some way through the community and with your cooperation we could look at putting a smaller bridge in at that time

Frank Ullman: If you lose a major bridge doesn’t just vanish, invariably it creates all sorts of problems within the stream, such that you have to fix the problem stream and to do that chances are you would need major machinery and then you would be reopening the road. There are all kinds issues.


Randy Mitchell: We hear that road is so dangerous and liable and that everybody wants out of there because they say something’s going to happen, if it does happen won’t you want to get in there and fix I even if it isn’t the bridge? It’s not the bridge that’s at risk; it’s the slide areas above it. Not prudent to remove bridges.

Elisha McCallum says a conversation is needed with Kiewit about bridges to determine if they could leave them in, cost or if they would donate.

Randy Mitchell asks how the area will be maintained.

Elisha McCallum says there would be an annual maintenance schedule, helicopters, ATVs would be used primarily as well as existing roads. Where needed Plutonic would evaluate temporary permits for access by larger machinery if required.

Randy Mitchell believes bridge is better than it has ever been that road is almost better than we’ve ever had. Does not agree with liability or imprudence of leaving that bridge. Lower section has a lot of steepness. Suggest Frank go up look at it from maintenance perspective. South Powell Divide is critical, not just Triple Peaks, that access to the South Powell Divide, This route is the best way in. The climb from S Branch is lengthy and brutal and more dangerous. Above that is worse, it’s really terrible the road that was put in there it is the best route to the South Powell Divide. So we keep talking Triple Peaks we should bet the terminology the Powell Divide, there’s a big artery there and we’re going to loose a lot of that and that, that’s pretty major.

Colin Palmer asks if George supports Randy’s position.

George Ferreira drove up recently and echoes good road and bridge conditions with exception of bottom 1.5 km area.

Dave Hodges agrees.

Colin Palmer asks who are the players that need to discuss this.

Stuart Glenn confirms Western holds the permit for that road.

Elisha McCallum confirms that Plutonic has temporary use permit and WFP has requested road left in certain condition.

Colin Palmer requests WFP clarify.

Stuart Glenn advised Plutonic has assessment of that road, the bridges and they are confident with the prescriptions/direction.

Colin Palmer asks for clarification.

Frank Ullmann clarifies under the road permit WFP is responsible for managing that road– if they decide at some point they don’t need this portion of the road any longer, they can have that road taken out of their road permit but, in order to do that are stringent guidelines from MOF to have it removed. To do that they would have to do a very professional assessment either by themselves or in this case Plutonic has done it for them as part of their agreement for the road and put together a report that says that this is what that road needs to do to be left alone. So this is a legislative requirement on them. They are not doing it because they want to.

Colin Palmer requests we clarify the players for this road.

Stuart Glenn: It requires someone to take that road whether it is ILMB or a community group, or government of some manner if it’s determined that that is beneficial to society that type of idea that’s what’s required. As far as our information that we have for that road and the stability of the area and so Plutonic has gone to extensive work and that is what is required for that road. That’s what needs to get done if someone says no they don’t want that the government in manner decides they want this without that work done then somebody could do that and that’s where Tourism Culture and the Arts or some other form of government in that case Western is not going to maintain that road year after year given the precariousness of the road.

Jessica Hulsman states WFP wants to divest its permit.

Stuart Glenn agrees we can not as a company handle this road.

Colin Palmer states is it correct you prefer someone else to?

Stuart Glenn agrees. Elisha McCallum echoes that is where we are at.

Colin Palmer asks if first step is to get Kiewit support on bridges. Elisha McCallum states Plutonic will look into it.

Colin Palmer asks how do we figure out who can take over that responsibility? Maybe some of you in the community could express some views as to how it could possibly be done. Now everybody wants to use the road, does anybody want to say well; yeah we could probably take some kind of responsibility or whatever in the future?

Eagle Walz asks would that require Section 56?

Frank Ullmann states they don’t take on roads with Section 56’s we usually recommend they go back to wilderness status.

Elisha McCallum states wilderness Road status you couldn’t have any structures, correct?

Frank Ullman says you need to be able to maintain the structures.

Randy Mitchell asks if Plutonic could do a fix up that bottom section 1 – 1.5 km and get it to the point where it would be more desirable for anyone to be tempted with it, with that section and the bridges left in and then somebody step up to the plate to the servicing because we at the Knuckleheads have already taken things like that on A Branch and so forth to around to check and what not. We’re doing that anyhow up there, voluntarily. That, if we could get the environment on that road a little bit better it will tempt someone or groups to take it on. The bottom section is the problem and it’s not huge. I think it can be fixed I really think that if what we talked about here, just do a little fix up, leave the bridges in, I’m sure we could dig up somebody to look after the thing to keep that going, that it would work because you are not going to convince the community that after they have been using the road for so many years that’s it’s no good all of a sudden it’s not going to wash.

Elisha McCallum states we’re not in the road and bridge business, and you know that, we’ve had this conversation before. So that makes it difficult for us, but also, at the same time we’re cooperating with Western because it’s their road, trying to figure out how we can step away from that at the same time as finding a solution and that’s where the catch is. We can’t just leave it and wait for someone to come along. All the ducks have to be in a row.

Randy Mitchell agrees. I think it’s a win situation for you guys because I’m sure that that power line us going to need work because if those bridges and that road is somehow maintained is going to benefit you. You don’t want the liability and I understand that but I know very well in my heart that you’re going to be back in there making a new road and putting the bridges in the next snow fall or next year sometime, it just happens it’s there’s a bit of movement up there all the time but it’s always been that way.

Don Krompocker: On the South Powell Divide that’s going to be a source of revenue for this community soon. So if we can come to some compromise to keep that access, coming from, I come from S Branch and that’s a long, it will beat you up really bad before you get to Goat. If we can keep that open I think that for tourism for all of the regions we need to generate economy in this town one of those would be I believe, there is a huge area up there with that access open to ATVers to all those types of people, cause we don’t want to loose that, if we can come to some kind of compromise then I’m, since my boss isn’t here I’ll speak for him. I know that this, I’m sure that the Chamber of Commerce would be there for whatever sort of help that they could give, whatever that would take, we’ll be at the table trying to put in as much as we can to help whatever the process is to get this going or to make sure, talk to a government agency you know my boss is great at talking to government cause that’s what he does for a living. So we will make that commitment, we’ll be there to see if we can’t make this, cause I would hate to see that source of such potential go out the window because I understand that there’s liability, we’re all, nobody wants to bear the liability of someone or getting killed or hurt on that and if there is someway we could get so that access groups whoever it’s going to be because you know what, you put it back to a designation of we look after the roads, you know what? We’ll look after that road.

Frank Ullmann comments it isn’t liability or dollars issue is who’s willing to step up and say, okay we’ll take the road permit, we’ll sign off on the road permit and if somebody has the road permit, discussion over somebody is willing to stand up and say, okay, we’ll take on that road, we will be the lead agency and we trust the community to help us out here, we will take that road on. That’s all it would take.

Colin Palmer identifies Director Brabazon

Patrick Brabazon states Colin nor I can speak for the Regional Board, I can speak freely. My opinion obviously, is we’re it. If somebody is going to be the umbrella under which this road and this bridge is maintained to some sort of standard it’s the Regional District. But you and I are would have to convince the Board that this is the way to go. We would also have to decide, this is the internal stuff, we would have to decide which program we would run it under, Parks, Community Parks, and we could come up with some sort service agreement. Colin, you’ve known these guys longer than I have, what’s your forecast if we went to the board and said we wanted to take over a tenured abandoned forestry road?

Colin Palmer states we’re proposing the Provincial Government that we take over the Inland Lake Trail right? Not to actually, physically run it ourselves, we would take over the tenure of the actual 14 km trail, maybe the campground and what would we do? We would sub-contract or sub-license, whatever, with shall we say the Powell River Model Community or with the School Board for them to look after the trail on a regular basis. We wouldn’t hire people to run it. We would also expect them to go and get grants with our blessing and all the rest of it. So that’s an example of how we operate.

Elisha asks if PRRD would extend insurance to cover.

Colin Palmer states we’ve looked around all the other regional districts, and they’re all looking after trails they don’t seem to have problems. We have a lot of blanket coverage and the Municipal Insurance Authority, they don’t seem to telling other regional districts oh don’t get a trail you’re going to be in trouble, and I mean we don’t hear that. So carry on Patrick.

Patrick Brabazon says I want Maggie take off her Constituency Assistants hat, and put on your Counsel hat because your are the only counselor here so you’re it. Inland Lake, if we ever get it on the ground is going to come under our park service which is funded; according to the latest numbers I saw, 54% by the City of Powell River. You’re going to have to sell the Mayor and the Council on the idea of funding of 54% a chunk of road.

Colin Palmer says well we would do a deal with the community groups. Hey, if we’re going to do this, we’re not spending everybody’s tax money on this, you guys are going to commit to looking after it and you’re also going to commit to help us to get grants from various things to help with the operation and maintenance.

Patrick states if this was actually a proposal that I would take it to the Board. That’s why I have to ask the hard questions.

Colin Palmer says I think after today’s meeting, Director Brabazon is not going to go anywhere until there is a general request from this group to move through. Okay, shall we say that’s one possibility? And we move at glacial speed, okay we’re not rapid movers in local government. So there’s something you need to think about right now.

Stuart Glenn suggests they keep in mind Western’s experience with the road and its costs and maintenance requirements that have been extensive.

Dave Hodgens requests figures such as what is the cost from Plutonic to put it back into a safe 4 wheel drive state? Somebody with a knowledge of road building and construction, with a 4 wheel drive road what’s a reasonable estimate they would expect to see on a yearly basis to keep it in that state, a safe state. Then it makes it a little be easier at some point, from a political point of view and also from a club point of view as to how much assistance we might be looking at on a yearly basis, because I ‘m not signing my name dotted line until I have some idea.

Colin Palmer agrees that is a question they would also be asked. Mark Hassett was on this group and if he, I know he’s not here today, the point is, surely we can talk to him and get an idea from him as to what he thinks and that would be, I presume, his commercial cost that you have to work through to go from there.

Colin Palmer reminds all to bear in mind that the parks and open space plan, I mean everybody’s going to be competing to have their park in everybody’s area, there is going to be all that kind of stuff going on so I don’t know if this would be a priority I have no idea. Shall we say these are challenges not problems and let’s go from there? So, if we could get Mark Hasset’s interest in helping on this, if we could get the community groups interest, Kiewit’s interest, Tourism’s interest and the Regional Board’s interest, what do the community groups think about that?

Don Krompocker is sure Mark Hassett would be more than happy if there was some information required from him and what he would think the annual cost to maintain that road and things like that I have a board of directors meeting on Tuesday with the chamber and we could have that discussion and anybody who knows more knows Mark I’m sure that he will be more than happy to help out wherever he could. The other side of that coin is if we need help with the political arena the Chamber of Commerce has always been there, whenever there’s a presentation to council, or regional district if our presence is required we are more than happy to do that to try and cause I’m getting some pretty positive vibes about they may come up with something to say in that area so I will bring that to the Directors I will bring that to Mark Hassett and see if he will help.

Colin Palmer states meeting needs to be arranged between:
§ Kiewit
§ Tourism
§ Mark Hasset
§ Community Groups
§ Regional District
§ Chamber
And using WFP and Plutonic as resources to try and figure out if we can move on this.

Elisha McCallum advises they can speak to Kiewit and bring their information forward.

Frank Ullmann suggests adding forest service.

Stuart Glenn says be aware of spring deadline, cannot have this drag on much longer.


Jessica Hulsman aggress timeline is import and will get back and find out the exact date with Kiewit. Have a conversation with them; they know we’re working with community groups so we will ask how long can we put this decision off for, without impacting their operations.
.
Randy Mitchell asks about Goat Main into a non status road, how to just fix it up to be a wilderness road

Frank Ullmann thinks Goat main to my understanding can be left in an environmentally sound situation, with Goat II, that there is no option of that because it has structures on it, stability issue needs dealing with.

Randy asks about bottom section of road and it was brought up to someones satisfaction and somebody took on the bridges maintenance could it be non status.

Stuart: Glenn states assessment has shown what is required for that section of Goat. The assessment has been done and the assessment shows what is required. To do something other than that is doing something other than what the professional who that’s what his bread and butter is has said

Randy Mitchell has not seen an assessment where they condemn the whole road. I’ve seen so many times in wilderness where you guys condemn 10 miles of road because of a 50 ft piece of road, that’s just such a shame that there’s a liability spot then the whole 10 miles comes out

Stuart Glenn states because you can’t leave structures in behind.

Randy states that’s the hard thing he has to swallow.

Colin Palmer states we agree that that’s challenge and then go on from there.

Eagle Walz says I’m the VP of Tourism for Powell River and I had hoped that Darren Robinson would be here today but seeing that he isn’t or the President I will speak to this issue.

As far as the bridge at mile 2 is concerned, it is in the stretch of valley is at a very gentle slope, the river does not tumble or anything like that, it doesn’t seem to be an issue, the bridge is very high way above the river bed. We have recently had big storms, nothing has impacted that section and from a tourism point of view we need to have 2 accesses to the South Powell Divide – because we have Emma Lake to get to the northern end of the South Powell Divide we need to have something on the south end either S Branch access or Goat II access. One of those and it is preferable to have that which is the most difficult the real sticky point with Goat II, I can see that concerns expressed about the possibility of an incident there is greater than almost anywhere else, it’s not very stable territory. At the same time it would be really nice if we couldn’t explore where we were going a little bit earlier and that is for us to find out whether Kiewit was interested in not taking the material from the bridges and you’ve offered to have a talk with them.

For WFP, Plutonic the Regional District, Tourism, Ministry of Tourism Culture and the Arts sitting down together and hashing something out with the Regional District having been asked by the locals to assume the responsibility for it and the locals making a commitment towards participating in a) doing maintenance-realizing that some of the maintenance will have to be done mechanically on an annual basis so that it continues to be safe and also for the locals to be committed to finding or helping to find funds to enable us to do the annual maintenance. I think if we can drive towards that we may be able to reach a resolution to this.

Colin Palmer reiterates there has to be a meeting ASAP of these key players, get in a room somewhere and start figuring out how you can move along on this. Eagle asked to arrange meeting.

Lesley Fettes suggests some real figures down on paper, you could talk to Western see if they ballpark on how much money they spend annually.

Frank Ullmann some of this is done, numbers need to be written down, bring in Mark Hassett, Stuart has some #’s, I’m sure the Regional District can figure out if their act covers road as well as trails. What it is we need and set up meetings to hash things out. If we can charge people to get this information for the meeting

Stuart: We can get the road permit document to the regional district and they can sign their name to it.


ACTIONS:

RD holding road permit
Patrick will look into insurance costs

Maintenance funding:
Two or three community group reps: Knuckleheads.
Chamber of Commerce
Plutonic will look into: 4WD Purchasing bridges, getting costs for same or getting Kiewit to donate
WFP: Figures re annual maintenance
MOF: Info re road permit
Don: Mark Hassett – re road maintenance and equipment costs and Kim Miller for grants and funding ops.

Lesley Fettes to provide a link to the Community and Institutional use policy. RD allows government agencies or registered societies for nominal or no rent tenure for application fees, insurance and a security BOND

Plutonic/Mark Hassett to find the cost to take it 4x4 condition

Possibility of tenure under land act

Dave: Special use permit, is it easier to achieve? Is it applicable?

Frank: not appropriate for roads but will double check.

Colin: Well we have not stuck to the agenda but the first two issues were so quickly resolved…

Eagle: I was silent on S Branch because I was hoping that Goat II would be doable if it’s not we need S Branch.

Bridge in and access beyond will be ATV correct? Up to that bridge there is 4X4 access. If Goat II is deactivated and access gone S branch beyond bridge put into 4x4 access state so people can access 4x4 from the South end.

We would make the best of it (not ideal). S Branch is ½ hike to Alpine area and while it’s not the Triple Peaks it is Alpine. No one wants that alternative but if incapable of getting there via Goat II it’s an option.

Next meeting tentatively Friday February 5, 2010 at 9:15.