Millennium Park - The City Council acquires the Trees

Post by Sunshine Coast Trail.

PRPAWS Commentary on WFP's DRAFT Management Plan #9

                              Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (1992)

                                 Box 345

                                 Powell River, BC

                                 Canada

                                 V8A 5C2

October 29, 2013

Re: Management Plan #9

Mr. Mike Davis
TFL Management Plan
Western Forest Products Inc.
#118-1334 Island Highway
Campbell River, BC
V9W 8C9

Dear Mr. Davis:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Board of the Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (1992).

First, I would like to thank you and Stuart Glen for your efforts to answer my questions and to provide the necessary background materials to enable me to get a historic sense and a means of comparison of the annual allowable cut in Block 1, as well as the other blocks of TFL 39. In particular I appreciated your patience, and willingness to meet with me, and my fellow board members of the Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society. 

We reiterate that we support the forest industry as we have stated and shown through our actions for over twenty years. The forest industry will remain an important part of our local economy, especially if we treat the resource with respect and hold the long view, rather than rapid liquidation. We know and accept that as participants in recreation and tourism initiatives we operate in a working forest, but we prefer it to be in a first class working forest where recreation and the tourism industry can thrive in concert with the forest industry through the use of adequate buffers at the interface between recreational/tourism facilities and logging. 

Recreation/tourism contributes significantly to the well being of Powell River. Not only does it support local workers and business owners through visitors’ expenditures, but it also attracts new people into the area who decide to become permanent, contributing members of our community who pay taxes that provide services we all enjoy.

As a group of volunteers dedicated to promote and protect the local environment and accessible trails as a world-class destination, we seek certainty, security and protection for our key nature tourism assets, the Sunshine Coast Trail, the Powell Forest Canoe Route, and the alpine areas. Powell River and its visitors enjoy amenities that have come about through the investment valued in the millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of volunteer labour. We want the recreation infrastructure investments to be preserved and enhanced because they are increasingly important economic generators. Like logging, tourism also needs an operational base that will allow it to grow now and into the future. 

All of TFL 39, Block 1 is still crown land in which a variety of industries operate. It’s not just a “working forest” where only the loggers get to work and recreation and tourism initiatives are tolerated at best. In protecting a small fraction of the TFL for the use of recreation and tourism we are at the same time creating additional jobs in the forest resource. Having a fixed trail corridor also contributes to increased biodiversity values. Moreover, tourism activities are sustainable. Year after year, on the same defined area (trail and huts), tourism activities generate wealth within the region, and taxes that will compete or outperform the wealth generated by a one-time harvest over the same period of time of a 60 to 80 year rotation. 

Blocks 2, 3, 4, and 5 up-Island and mid-Coast enjoy recreation and biodiversity objectives enshrined in the VILUP and SCCO. Block 1, Powell River did not get its legally established objectives re the Sunshine Coast Trail (contained in the Recreation Zone) transferred from the Code FSP to the new FRPA FSP. This left these values vulnerable and exposed to accelerated harvesting.

I have read your draft management plan with great interest. Your recommendation states in the Timber Supply Analysis that...

“The primary objective of this report is to estimate reasonably achievable timber flows for consideration by the Provincial Chief Forester in making the determination of the allowable annual cut for the term of Management Plan #9. More specifically:

1. The management of non-timber values such as fish and wildlife habitat, biodiversity, visual quality, and terrain stability is accounted for. Protection of non-timber values will be satisfied by land base reserves, rate-of-harvest constraints and/or by maintaining a percentage of the land base in older stands.

2. Timber flow is estimated by considering harvestable inventory, growth potential of present and future stands, silvicultural treatments, potential timber losses, and operational and legislative constraints.

3. Impacts of declining timber flow on community stability and employment are to be lessened by keeping rates of decline per decade as low as possible without inducing undue impacts on other values or long-term timber sustainability.”

Within these primary objectives we see opportunities for achieving a balance in an integrated management system, where recreation and tourism are also accounted for, up front, and not as an afterthought, where old growth is logged sustainably, not liquidated for the exclusive benefit of the current generation of forestry workers and shareholders, where jobs are not exported, but nurtured intelligently in the region through an assured wood supply for the development and manufacture of value-added products.

Where possible I have tried to compose my comments through the lens of your objectives above. I have addressed them sequentially, numbered 1 through 3. At the end of my letter I have added some general comments.

Initially, I found the draft management plan difficult to understand and to make the connections. It required a lot of flipping back and forth, and on the whole I don’t think it is a very user-friendly document. It seems to be aimed at satisfying the needs of the chief forester perhaps, but not the general public, which under FRPA’s framework is supposed to play an important part through its input, a role we are playing. That said, with your generous help I have acquired an understanding that allows me to make some measured observations on your recommendations.

1.     Management of Non-timber Values:

The management of non-timber values such as fish and wildlife habitat, biodiversity, visual quality, and terrain stability is accounted for. Protection of non-timber values will be satisfied by land base reserves, rate-of-harvest constraints and/or by maintaining a percentage of the land base in older stands.

A. The Sunshine Coast Trail

We want the Sunshine Coast Trail to be accounted for and have its own measurable objectives. 

Powell River is the most populous community next to any of the five blocks of TFL 39 and it’s the most isolated. People living in Powell River have to take ferries to enjoy some of the amenities others on Vancouver Island take for granted because they don't have to pay the high transportation cost to get there. Thus it’s important for the citizens of our community to have good access to the amenities of the local forests. 

Nature-based recreation and tourism are playing an increasingly important part in making this community survive and grow attractive. The Sunshine Coast Trail is Powell River’s pre-eminent tourist attraction. We request that within the next ten years the Sunshine Coast Trail be established in its final location. We realize that during this time there may be need for adjustment. In Objective 1 you state that you will meet non-timber values through land-based reserves. We request that the Sunshine Coast Trail have a 30 m buffer on each side, and be part of a land-based reserve. That’s about a tree length of a mature hemlock. You have the capacity to make this happen if you so decide. Your recreation allocation is startlingly underused in Powell River.

We did the math together when we met at your office, and figured out we would only be looking at 150 ha for an increased recreation allocation which with a 30-metre buffer a side would cover roughly 25 km out of the total 50 km of the SCT that lie within TFL 39, Block 1. 150 ha are not even a third of what was secured for Block 2 (Sayward at 531 ha) and it would enhance and protect the SCT. It would ensure a quality experience for the hikers who will want to come back and hike the rest of the trail. We do want repeat visitors. They will bring more business to this community, and they will tell their friends. Word of mouth and the social media have brought a spike in visitations, since we have built the free huts, but especially this year, now that the word has gotten out that we are Canada's longest hut-to-hut hiking trail. It would also continue to provide habitat for wildlife and keep the mushroom pickers happy.

You have defended the practice of not allocating any additional recreation net-downs for Block 1 on top of the existing inadequate 11 ha by putting recreation areas inside other constrained areas. That’s fine, but where we can't have the trail in constrained areas (OGMAs, WTRAs, riparian zones, etc) we want a buffer. The folks who are now coming from all over Canada and around the globe do not like having to hike through clear cuts. Further, areas that are currently restrained may be altered or removed in the future.

Your suggestion of a survey to gather more than the anecdotal data that we are accumulating in our logbooks at the SCT huts, and through emails and conversations with hikers, is a good suggestion and we will do a survey. But to go on record for this submission, anecdotally, in the logbooks visitors write about the beauty of the trail, but also about the regretful lack of buffers, and the large number of cutblocks south of Tin Hat and Walt Hill. 

In Block 1 there is some inaccurate information on recreation trails. A couple of trails that are not in the TFL are included in the count as if they were (Lang and Suicide creek trails - totalling roughly 10 km).

B. The Powell Forest Canoe Route

Further, to bring recreation net-downs more in line with those in Block 2 we suggest that additional hectares should be set aside so that there will be no more logging too close to the portages, as there was at Windsor Lake WL-907, and again near Beaver Lake. The current legal objective for the Powell Forest Canoe Route buffers is a mere 5 m buffer on either side of the centre line. This is entirely unsatisfactory. Ten times as much would be good. A 50 m buffer on either side would provide the feel of being in the interior of a forest. We also request that some of the buffers between the lakes and the logging mains should be widened to diminish the sound and the dust of logging trucks and other vehicles driving by. Of course this is not possible everywhere, but should be implemented wherever possible, for now and into the future. 

Assume that for a 400 m distance along a lakeshore logging road there is a 2 year-old 50 metre wide cutblock between the logging main and the requisite 30 m lake buffer. Right now the paddlers on the lake will see a cloud of dust and hear the logging truck grinding along. Fast forward 10 years: The trees are now a vibrant and dense young plantation that will absorb a fair amount of the dust and noise generated by vehicles as they barrel by. Fast forward 10 more years: The trees have shot up during that decade, and filled in and the sounds of vehicles are virtually gone. The question is: How many hectares does it take to provide a priceless natural experience for the paddlers on the lake in the vicinity of this stretch of the road? That would be two hectares of course.

In fact there are a few stretches like that on Dodd and Windsor lakes that would benefit from less disturbed surroundings by means of wider sound absorbing buffers. This is one of the major complaints about our Canoe Route. More generous buffers on the Canoe Route portages and lakes would reduce this problem. To accomplish this, Management Plan #9 would have to set aside another 100 mostly riparian hectares.

2.     Timber Flow:

Timber flow is estimated by considering harvestable inventory, growth potential of present and future stands, silvicultural treatments, potential timber losses, and operational and legislative constraints.

Inventory: The decision to represent age classifications (stand types) in many of the figures by only four categories seems unnecessarily confusing, if not unsettling. Looking back at MP #8, a dozen years older, it uses different categories, categories that have been in use for many decades. For what reason or purpose was this changed? Why not have the same nine categories still used elsewhere in draft management plan #9, which would then allow the reader to make an easier comparison.

Having trees between 140 years and 250 years of age represented as old growth will give the layperson the impression that there is a far greater volume of old growth available for harvesting, as illustrated in Figure 3 on page 9 of the Timber Supply Analysis, than there actually is. This is misleading. Old Growth is defined as greater than 250 years old on the coast (BC Ministry of Forests: Old Growth Forests fact sheet, 2003.) The term 'old growth' is meant to represent forests that have persisted through all the stages of 2nd growth and have achieved a more or less steady state of equilibrium between growth and decay, or climax forest. In other words a fully expressed forested ecosystem.  Stands between 140 and 250 years do not meet the ministry’s, and generally accepted, definition of Old Growth. The unfortunate perception the reader must arrive at is that the Base Case is built on this premise. The Base Case in Figure 3 (Stand Types’ Contribution to Base Case Harvest) shows that in Decade 1 in excess of 50% of the harvest is contributed by old growth, while the remainder is contributed by natural second growth. 

What is happening to mature timber and what to the many small dimension immature stems that we see now being logged as well? Is there a recent accurate inventory, or is it only estimated? When was the last thorough forest inventory of Block 1 undertaken? If the latter method is the case, it will appear to the layperson as if there were a far greater volume of old growth available for harvesting than there really is, such as is illustrated in Figure 3 on page 9 of the Timber Supply Analysis. 

If a company were to use the Woodstock Model as proposed here, it would appear to harvest just a small percentage of the new “Old Growth” age class that makes up more than the 50% shown above, all the while being in a position to liquidate all the historic, non-conventional old growth (>250 years) worthwhile harvesting. By means of this re-labelling the age classes the historic Old Growth can be liquidated quickly, but the books would show that only a small percentage of old growth (under the new definition of >140 years) has been harvested, and that lots of old growth is still left in the Timber Harvest Land Base (THLB). 

Truly, this would be the end of large old growth, and the giants will become a picture of the distant past, like the old photographs of hand loggers lying in the gaps of 12-foot diameter giants that we now no longer see, sadly. All the old growth that will be left is the old growth outside the THLB, and no more big trees will be left available for harvesting within a couple of decades.

At the time when I brought this up at our meeting you commented that your choice of conveying your ideas on representing this age class as old growth was unfortunate, and that you thought it was a mistake and that you wished you had not put it into the draft. We agree. We think it would be helpful to the reader if this mistake were edited out of the document. We recommend that a new draft be written which will also include a straight-forward rendition in regards to which of the options were chosen to arrive at the proposed increased AAC.

3.     Impacts on Community:

Impacts of declining timber flow on community stability and employment are to be lessened by keeping rates of decline per decade as low as possible without inducing undue impacts on other values or long-term timber sustainability.”

Declining flow (3) - The Annual Allowable Cuts (AACs) of other blocks of TFL 39 are being decreased while Block 1 (Powell River) has to take up the resulting slack to allow for a Base Case that is flat as an arrow for the whole of TFL 39 for 250 years. You recommend that the Annual Allowable Cuts (AACs) of the other four blocks up island and coast be decreased by these percentages: Sayward –15.2%, Port McNeill –21.9%, North Broughton and Phillips Arm –64.0%. Meanwhile you recommend that Powell River, which has already suffered rounds of overcutting (125%) in the last few years, is going to have to ramp up its cut even more (16.4%). 

We cannot see how increasing the AAC is going to lessen the impacts of declining timber flow on community stability. It will only hasten the inevitable fall-down, and in the meantime it will diminish opportunities for the tourism industry to establish itself within its own set-aside area of operation inside the working forest, at a time when we ought to be looking at diversifying our economy. 

The proposed partition of the non-conventional Timber Harvest Land Base will lead to the rapid depletion of large sized old growth within a couple of decades, or less. We do not think this constitutes protection of the public interest. It is a corporate initiative to increase profits that puts corporate interests ahead of the interests of the environment, the struggling local economy, as well as the provincial treasury, which will get little in the way of stumpage. This policy of liquidation of large old growth would clearly result in an economic and environmental loss, now and for future generations. These large old growth trees cannot be replaced within the time frame of a century. Is Powell River expected to sacrifice its advantages that would help create more work in the long run, for future generations, while also help diversify its economy now?  

Many of the trees from the TFL are exported as raw logs to markets in Asia and the USA. The continued export of raw logs is one of the major reasons for the loss of forest industry jobs, and the diminishment of the forest resource. 

We note that you have not included any forecast about the possible effects which climate change might bring to the short and long term health of the THLB of Block 1. We view the decision not to include the effect of climate change as flawed. A precautionary approach would be to consider this impact within your analysis.

These are significant factors that work against the primary objective of your report that aims to ‘estimate reasonably achievable timber flows for consideration by the Provincial Chief Forester in making the determination of the allowable annual cut for the term of Management Plan #9.’

Perhaps the timber flow is achievable, but the assumptions made in the draft management plan have not led me to come to the conclusion that it is sustainable. It is not in the best interest of Powell River. The current AAC is 408,000 m3/year, the Base Case being presented is 435,000 m3/year, and the WFP-recommended is 475,000 m3/year. By recommending a smaller AAC instead, WFP as the stewards of a public resource would ensure that the forests would recover and age again over time and so would biodiversity, which is being considerably fragmented. We recommend an extension of the current AAC.

General Comments: It appears that some blocks on the island and up coast will have specified AACs. We recommend that Block 1 should have a specified AAC too with greater opportunities for public participation than is currently available. 

PRPAWS was not alerted to last year’s first round of MP #9 draft, nor did we get any notification this year. Summers are notoriously the worst season for getting people’s attention. They are on holidays. They have other things on their minds. PRPAWS requests to be notified in the future about any initiatives that propose to bring changes to the practices of harvesting Block 1, TFL 39.

We would like to see WFP begin joint planning and installation with PRPAWS educational information signs along in certain sections the SCT as we have previously discussed and agreed to do (Deer Creek riparian trail reroute), and elsewhere on the SCT and the Canoe Route. The signs can explain WFP’s sustainable practices to help educate the public about their industry, as well as highlight the fauna and flora, and recreational features.

We look forward to working closely with you to find the proper balance needed to strengthen Powell River’s economy and to provide stable conditions for both recreation/tourism and forest industries to prosper on the Crown land in Block 1.

Sincerely,

Eagle Walz

President

On behalf of the Board of Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society

CC:      Dave Peterson, BC Chief Forester

Honourable Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Rob Thomson, Forest Practices Board Manager, Audits and Investigations

Paul Tataryn, Regional Manager (Coast) Recreation Sites & Trails BC

Shannon Janzen, WFP Chief Forester

Mike Davis, WFP Planning Forester

Stuart Glen, WFP Stillwater Planning Forester

Nicholas Simons, MLA, Powell River-Sunshine Coast

Norm Macdonald, Opposition Critic of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

Dave Formosa, Mayor, Powell River

Colin Palmer, Chair, Powell River Regional District

Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society Board of Directors

Stillwater Bluffs Park - PRPAWS request of Powell River Regional District

Powell River Parks and Wilderness Society (1992)

Box 345, Powell River, BC, V8A 5C2

www.sunshinecoast-trail.com

February 13, 2012

Colin Palmer, Chair

Powell River Regional District

5776 Marine Avenue,

Powell River, BC

V8A 2M4

Dear Mr. Palmer,

Re: Stillwater Bluffs

Last Thursday at its regular quarterly meeting PRPAWS passed a motion to write a letter to the Regional District.

PRPAWS requests that the Board of the Powell River Regional District negotiate with Island Timberlands LP the acquisition of Stillwater Bluffs (DL 3040) for the purpose of establishing it as a regional park.

PRPAWS also requests a moratorium on harvesting of the Stillwater Bluffs  in the meantime to allow negotiations to proceed and come to fruition.

Thank you very much for considering the above requests.

Sincerely yours,

Eagle Walz

President, PRPAWS

Stillwater Bluffs - PR Regional District High Priority Acquisition #5

The Powell River Regional District held extensive community consultations before establishing the Powell River Regional District Parks and Greenspace Plan in November 2010. In this plan the Board of the Powell River Regional District identified the Stillwater Bluffs as one of their six High Priority Parks Acquisition sites.

PRPAWS supports the Regional District working with Island Timberlands, the City and others on realizing its High Priority Park Acquisitions, primarily Stillwater Bluffs (DL 3040) at this time.

 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The first link below will take you the PRRD online document  - and page 52 will speak to Stillwater Bluffs. It is also excerpted at the bottom of this post in Italics. You might have to copy and paste them into the URL line.

http://www.powellriverrd.bc.ca/departments/PRRDFinalParks+GreenspacePlan_Nov18-2010withoutmaps&withNotetoReader.pdf

The second link is a map of the area of and around the Stillwater Bluffs  (DL 3040)


http://www.powellriverrd.bc.ca/areas/maps/SRD_IM_092F.079.3.2.pdf


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Powell River Regional District Parks and Greenspace Plan - 2010


Recommendation 5: 

ACQUISITION PRIORITY – STILLWATER BLUFFS (MAINLAND – SOUTH OF TOWN)

Prioritize the acquisition of Stillwater Bluffs.
Rationale
Description
Stillwater Bluffs is a popular recreational destination for both
residents and visitors to the PRRD. The area is characterized by
rocky coastal bluffs, spectacular ocean views and waterfront
access. It is highly valued by the public as an area for hiking, rock
climbing, wildlife viewing and swimming. However, the site is
privately owned all recreational use of the site is currently
unauthorized. Portions of the site have a sensitive ecosystem
classification of “herbaceous,” containing shallow soils with
bedrock outcroppings, grasses, moss, lichen and low shrubs.
Due to the site’s conservation values, traditional public use,
recreational potential and use by residents from all areas of the
region and beyond, it is designated as having high potential for a
waterfront park.
Location
Stillwater Bluffs is located south of the
City of Powell River in Electoral Area C,
on a point between Frolander Bay and
Stillwater Bay.
Existing Land Ownership
The site is owned by a private forest company, Island Timberlands.

                  _______________________________________________ 

above excerpt from PRRD Parks and Greenspace Plan - 2010

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.

Minutes of Access Roundtable Meeting Dec. 18th, 2009

Access Roundtable Meeting
As Convened by the
Powell River Outdoor Recreational User Groups (ORUG)

Date: December 18th 2009
Location: Coast Town Centre Hotel
Meeting Chair: Colin Palmer
Minutes: Hugh Prichard, Terracentric Coastal Adventures Ltd. (hugh@terracentricadventures.com)

Attended by:

Name Agency
Alistair Howard Plutonic
Colin Palmer Facilitator, Regional District
Daniel Bouman Sunshine Coast Conservation Society
Dave Formosa, Chamber of Commerce, City of Powell River
Dave Hodgins, ATV Club of Powell River
Don Krompocker, Chamber of Commerce
Don Turner, Regional District
Donald McInnes, Plutonic
Eagle Walz, PR Parks and Wilderness Society
Elisha McCallum, Plutonic
Frank Ullmann, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts
George Ferreira, 4X4 club of Powell River
Hugh Prichard, Meeting secretary, Terracentric
Jessica Hulsman, Plutonic
Kim Miller, Chamber of Commerce
Lesley Fettes, Integrated Land Management Branch
Maggie Hathaway, City of Powell River, MLA
Mark Forsythe, Alpine Club
Mike Schulkowsky, PR horseback riders
Mark Anderson Ministry of Forests
Shirley Storey Office Manager, Plutonic
Nicholas Simons, MLA
Patrick Brabazon, Regional District
Randy Mitchell, Knuckleheads Recreation Area, SaR
Steven Gallagher, Sliammon First Nation
Stuart Glen, Western Forest Products


· Impact statements and emails collected from community members are available and will be made available on the SCT website

· Review of purposes in terms of finding common ground


Key Summary of Meeting

Area of Concern Potential Mitigation People Involved
1. Goat MainGoat Main from Diane Lake to D Branch or Squirrel Creek Main (North End) PPC will apply to ILMB to abandon this road, ILMB would agree that no tenure to exist. This would be subject to an assessment of ongoing maintenance costs might be, the ATV Club possibly interested in committing to taking this on, maybe PRRD? Subject to road being left in an acceptable fashion. (PPC) If this is the path to a solution it cannot cost PPC in excess of what it would have originally cost to deactivate.In hearing from ILMB at Goat Main, PPC could make an application to abandon it, but that is not something PPC is willing to do until they understand what it will cost them to leave the road in an agreeable state, since there is culverts there we have to know what the ongoing maintenance program is going to be. If someone is going to take that on to the satisfaction of ILMB, we would be willing to spend the money to leave it in good shape subject to someone agreeing to take on the ongoing maintenance and environmental liabilities to the satisfaction of ILMB.
2. S-Branch PPC is prepared to spend money for some kind of minor bridge crossing, PPC unsure if it is going to satisfy everybody. WFP will need to take tenure up the road up to and including the bridge.From WFP: Hoping for some access beyond the bridge in some manner. This is trickier. Initial hope was to take on the liability on the bridge and road leading up to it. WFP is not sure what the state of the road is beyond this so is unsure as to how to value its worth to them. PPC says it has been deactivated but would not take much to reopen. It is in ATV shape now. WFP is prepared to think about this one, need to decide on incurring the environmental cost. WFP, PPC
3. Goat 2 Non exclusive recreational trail designation applied to from MOTCA.In Goat 2, application could be made to MOTCA to turn it into a recreational trail and replace with recreational oriented bridge.WFP to apply for FIA money. PPC, MOTCA, WFP


Other Actions Discussed

Action Description People Involved
Re: Goat Main: (PPC to apply to abandon and thus have original conditions waived by ILMB). Create MOU with all levels of government present as well as ORUG. MOU will declare the position and outcomes of meeting and be a tool to “stand-down”, giving ILMB the indication of community support and giving PPC the direction it needs. MOF, MOTCA, ORUG, PRRD, City of PR, PPC, MLANeed someone to work on draft wording for MOU and get signed by all parties.
Re: Goat 2: determine a community outdoor group capable of taking on the liability under a tenure with ILMB, to also cover the cost of maintenance. ORUG, PRRD?
On site reconnaissance Eagle and George F. to coordinate























Transcript and Meeting Notes

1. EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST AROUND THE TABLE

1. Donald McInnes, Plutonic Power Corp.(PPC)
As PPC understands it the community is concerned most for the following three different specific areas, these are:

1. (In the south, in the Freda area) S branch road;
2. Goat 2
3. Goat Main (North End)

Eagle Walz, indicated here that there was also some concern raised through e-mail on D-Branch. McInnes clarified that D-Branch is included in what he is referring to as ‘Goat Main’.

McInnes reviewed the Environmental Assessment Process that PPC underwent to gain access to Road Use Permits from ILMB, BC Timber Sales, etc. In all McInnes estimates that PPC ended up with ~52 different tenures, allowed the licenses for the large components of the project, and subsequently all the required individual permits. Hold 1600 tenures, permits, authorizations and licenses, which was a tremendous undertaking. McInnes underscored the public’s opportunity to be involved at various stages of this processs to provide input into the project, (eg. Placement of the transmission line at Eldred climbing area). McInnes asserted that there was ‘conditionality’ around PPC’s ability to go and do certain things (eg. Marbled Murrelet conservation initiatives).

At end of day PPC does not have a road tenure anywhere in their name, instead PPC maintains a relationship with Western Forest Products (WFP), BC Timber Sales (BCTS) giving PPC the ability to use other peoples tenures along the way. At the end of the project, unlike an active forestry operation, PPC must give back their tenure for access and enter into a long-term license of occupation. This gives PPC the ability to go out and maintain the right-of-way for the power line. At this point PPC would not have an active Road Use Agreement with any of the other stakeholder groups.

Correction: PPC does hold 2 permits on forest service roads with MOF, works permits and licenses of occupation through ILMB Roads are either covered under direct permits with MOF, ILMB, or shared roads use agreements with the forestry companies.

McInnes reads from the Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC), 2 master commitments (obligations) of PPC. Access Road Corridor Summary:

1.Project Design Criteria and Construction Plans and Mitigation for the access road must meet or exceed all standards and codes established by the relevant authorities for the project, including detailed design and construction. (as per legislation set out by the Ministry of Forests and Range) by MOF, DFO, and MOE. as per legislation set out,

2. Appropriate standards for road design: Design criteria plans and mitigation for stream and other water course crossings along access road corridor will meet or exceed all standards and codes as established by the relevant authorities for the project. This comes from MOF, DFO, MOE.

All this requires PPC to deactivate these roads for the tenures they have, where there are road use agreements with tenure holder (in this case WFP) Road Use Agreement requires PPC to put the tenures back to them in an acceptable form.

PPC reviewed the Toba-Montrose Partnership’s statuary obligations for the three areas on the large maps;

Goat Main: (area of concern) Diane Lake Main to D-Branch (tenured under ILMB), also S-Branch from Freda Lake upwards tenured to ILMB;

Goat Lake 2: PPC has agreement with WFP and several commitments with that when giving road back to WFP;

PPC’s Decommissioning Obligations:
1.S-Branch: Need to remove bridge at Freda Lake and fully deactivate the road to the top;
2. Goat Lake 2: 3 bridges removed and entire road deactivated;
3. Goat Lake Main: no bridges between Diane Lake main and D-Branch, however all other structure, culverts removed, access blocked etc.

If community is interested in having these as roads or trails then PPC is supportive of us having access to these areas, however PPC is under specific obligations as described. PPC is not in the financial position to take over a tenure from WFP if they are not interested in the tenure going forward, and maintaining these roads and accepting the liability for them on an ongoing basis. These areas are not part of the operating plans for the Toba-Montrose General Partnership.

2. Patrick Brabazon, Powell River Regional Board
Brabazon will report back to the Board on these proceedings. Director Brabazon reported on the regional boards Parks and Green space plan and a growing interest by the Regional Board in the areas of outdoor recreation. The Regional Board is very interested in hearing what the people gathered here today have to say and what they want from them in helping move process forward. Regional Board will have to consider what it is we can do in the future.

3. Dave Hodgins, ATV Club
Big issue is definition of liability and how we define this. When ATV club members register they are covered under the ATV BC parent organization’s liability insurance, so long as the club acts with due diligence. Due diligence and liability as terms are not well defined. The club is confident that all representatives will find a solution for Recreational access.



4.George Ferreira, 4x4 Club
The 4x4 Club is seeking free access to all roads, in the same or better condition as before PPC began working in the area. Other areas of concern brought forward by this group include a minimum 4wd access standard, avoiding ‘back room deals’ that benefit specific interest groups as roads are for all community users. Was a large supporter of Plutonic 4 years ago, at meeting then he was told verbally by PPC that access would not be altered and his club expects PPC to honor this commitment made.

5. Dave Formosa, Chamber of Commerce
A resolution to this issue is important for the PR Chamber of Commerce, and this is why they assisted in getting today’s meeting organized. Formosa sketched in some of the timeline of how the City and Chamber had heard of this contentious issue. Indicated didn’t like the tones and concerns at the meetings that he was hearing. Tourism is a big part of our economy, and the Chamber has historically supported outdoor recreational infrastructure (Thornton Bay, SCT, Inland Lake etc.) The back woods is for everyone to use and the chamber supports the concept that all need to find a way to coexist. The Chamber is also strong supporter of Plutonic and Formosa is a strong believer that meaningful dialogue is the answer, believing that PPC will listen to the community on this.

These roads need to be made available to the community. If Plutonic is punching in new roads we should be able to use them. If WFP or Plutonic no longer need these roads we must speak with our local government to find a way to make them a part of our public inventory of recreational and tourism infrastructure. The Chamber has a huge interest in seeing that a resolution occurs and that all parties find a way to get along.

Mark Forsythe, Powell River Alpine Club
Alpine Club is a loosely loose knit group of alpine enthusiasts that have contributed regularly to the maintenance of back country roads for more than 25 years (end of D Branch and South Powell Divide trails). In 1987 Powell River Alpine Club and Powell River Regional District co-sponsored a $250k grant to develop access to grant for end of Goat 2, Triple Peaks, Centre Lakes into D- Branch. Group is looking for continued 4x4 access to these areas for tourism and local use. Great destination with world-class glaciers and other areas, our access needs to be preserved as calling card for us in this area for revenue.

Mike Schulkowsky, Backcountry Horseman
Referred to the organization’s web site. Truck and trailer access is key for their members to be able to access these areas. Without open access it would be impossible for their membership to visit these areas as the weight of carrying enough food and other provisions would make it impossible. For more than 15 years the organization has been encouraging their membership to truck their horses up to the Powell River area on the ferry. Tourism will be definitely impacted if this happens. Through education we can eliminate ignorance and find a solution to work together.



Randy Mitchell, Knuckleheads Society
Knuckleheads Society has taken on the ongoing maintenance of the cabins at A-Branch, E-Branch and Emma Lake. At the A-Branch cabin alone the Society received 90 visits a month or more. The outdoors is very important for the residents of the PR area. It is one of the few options for things to do. Society is concerned that it appears that the general public is without any real legal representation to protect the public’s interest. Mitchell indicated that the public would be shocked to see the results of an inventory detailing the amount of volunteer time and money that has been invested into backcountry infrastructure in our region. Meanwhile the cross ditches are getting deeper, which is ironic considering the liability concerns of the big companies.

Steve Gallagher, Sliammon First Nation
Representing Chief Williams, here today to listen to the issues and report back to Chief and Council. Access to the backcountry has always been important to the Sliammon people for traditional and ceremonial use purposes. SFN supports the process today and maintains that access is important for the long-term. SFN supports the open dialogues manner of solving these issues.

Stuart Glen, Western Forest Products
In simple summary; WFP wants access in general across the area like most groups here today do. Recognizing however that there are certain environmental risks and specific deactivation work must be done. Will get into the details for specific areas of concern later in the meeting. Each year WFP picks one recreational infrastructure project to be involved with. Investing time and money in this area is important to the company.

Eagle Walz, Powell River Parks And Wilderness Society
When story broke through advert in newspaper PR people became alarmed, as for them access to the back country is there regular place of ‘escape’. For residents living in PR is like living on an island. In PR we have ~70 km of paved roads and 100’s of km’s of unpaved roads where people go to get away from it all. For that opportunity to disappear has raised many questions from the people ‘how is that possible?’- Many of these people had been staunch supporters of PPC. Walz is a supporter of ‘Green Energy’ as we will need new and more power in the future. Walz supported PPC on that basis initially. However, people are now saying “why are you ruining access that has existed for decades? You have improved it, and now need to under your obligations you are going to remove it. We need a working group that will look at all the opportunities that may exist to approach government together. The PR area needs this. We can’t not have access. We need to find a way to ensure that it continues as promised in this room 4 years ago. Walz closed with a quote from Winter 2009 edition of Monte Cristso Magazine, quoting McInnes’ belief that PPC is driven by more than just numbers, and that a ‘social license to exist’ is an important value for the company. Walz appealed to PPC to work together with the ORUG to arrive at a satisfactory solution.



Maggie Hathaway, City of Powell River, Tourism Board
From a Tourism perspective, it seems absurd to deactivate newly repaired and fixed up bridges. Not sure Plutonic is the bad guy in this issue as it appears that things are beyond their control.

Nicholas Simons, MLA
Simons sees his role as ensuring the public interest is protected, working towards a resolution through Legislative change, whatever that looks like. The rules have not changed in 5 yrs on how roads are built and deactivated. The time crunch is unfortunate, but we have work to do. Simons looks forward to receiving advice from the people and supporting however he can help.

Mark Anderson, Ministry Of Forests
Here to provide as much support as MOF can. Primarily on the technical issues, MOF feels that those gathered today have options and solutions. MOF and there Engineering Department spends a lot of time looking for funds for key access in the community. Unfortunately like others the dollars are decreasing. The Access MOF supports most are the ones that impact the most people in the community generally speaking. Keen to work through the legislative requirements, is a avid quadder and outdoor enthusiast. Anderson has 25 years experience in PR backcountry, we have a phenomenal backcountry that is in part due to development from PPC and other forestry companies. Things are not all bad.

Question (Chairman Palmer): Is there any legislation or regulations that MOF is involved with that could be contributing to or creating this issue?

Answer (Anderson):
PPC spoke to earlier in the meeting of the tenures PPC and spoke to 2 of the areas in this issue. Their (PPC’s) tenure is with ILMB (Lesley Fette’s group). This is kind of where PPC’s obligations come on those 2 areas. The 3rd area they spoke to is a sub relationship they have with WFP. The MOF has legislative requirements with WFP on that piece of road. Specifically then one of the roads in question we have legislative requirements to do the deactivation and work with WFP on managing that road system. [What road is that?]

Frank Ullmann, Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts
Recognizes that this is a somewhat complex issue. It needs to be noted that the Tenures are written specifically for the need for environmental protection. We are not just talking about human liability towards others but also environmental liability. When we get into a situation when roads are no longer needed by a forestry company or whomever, then decisions need to be made with what to do with that road. This is required through legislation or through the tendering process. The way to get around that is to find a way of keeping the environmental protection aspect of that road in good shape. This always involves cost. There are a number of ways that this can be tenured; through legislation; the Forest and Range Practices Act. Either way someone has to step forward with the money to ensure that road remains environmentally sound, this is the crux of the issue right now more than anything else. MOTCA has spent some money and worked with volunteers in the backcountry, and would like to see ways found to protect that investment. Morally very supportive and MOTCA has priorities and limited budgets but is not sure what exactly they can do.

Lesley Fettes, ILMB
ILMB’s position is very similar to MOF and MOTCA, ILMB tries to stay out of the tenuring of roads as they feel it best managed by MOTCA, sometimes however they do get involved. There are a lot of options to handle the issues raised. The liability issue is the biggest question to resolve. Fettes’ work pertains to the Land Act and particularly how to tenure roadways, and she will be able to provide information on the Land Act tenures.

Question: (Chairman Palmer) There are options through the Land Act and Fettes can provide us with those options. All is not lost as far as ILMB is concerned?

Answer (Fettes): No, not at all.


2. DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
Corrections, clarifications of things said to this point.

PPC, Donald McInnes
Since hearing from the community on this issue PPC has spent considerable staff time speaking with with WFP, ILMB, MOF: about various things PPC could offer up. As an example in Sechelt where Regional District takes out an insurance policy which covers ongoing obligations for the tenure on roads in their area. So there may be a number of different things that could be done.

Looking at Goat Main McInnes thought that if in talking with MOTCA, if they were to request a non exclusive recreational trail designation, they are the appropriate agency to apply for this, that could be a solution up there. The bridge at Squirrel Creek will stay out, Kiewit has deactivated to ATV standards.

PPC would be willing to make a financial contribution that would allow for 4x4 access up to intersection of D branch and Goat main.

Goat 2: Again a non exclusive recreational trail designation could be applied for which lets recreational groups take on a formal permit up there and this would allow WFP to apply for FIA (Forest Investment Account) funding to build a recreational bridge which would allow for ongoing access. The biggest issue at Goat 2 is that there is a very steep road with the worst environmental risk, may not have potential 4x4 access, and moving it to trail designation would reduce the risks if deactivated to that level.

For both Goat 2 and Goat Main, PPC is committed to deactivating the road to remove any environmental liability on those sections. For Goat Main PPC believes they could leave 4x4 access if there was some funding and a group could take on the work for that.

For Goat 2: PPC just wants to leave it recreational trail access due to the steepness and instability of the slope above.

S- Branch: If WFP were to take out a permit including the bridge PPC would leave ATV access beyond the bridge. Again cost of building a bridge for ATV access which PPC would put in some money to fund that. This was the condition of the road pre PPC.

PPC concluded by stating that they were not sure if these are realistic strategies and if the agencies named would be willing to participate, or if the outcomes would be satisfactory for all the stakeholders. It is where they have been able to get to and is not cost prohibitive after exhaustive solutions based problem solving.

Frank Ullmann MOTCA- (replies) re Goat Main: do not generally have lots of funding options, as a matter of policy they do not establish new trails or rec sites without a clear partnership with someone who is willing to take it on as the main management group. Knuckleheads Society is a prime example of this as is SCT and PR PAWS. They are working on establishing some ATV trails as well. Clear partners need to step up to front the labour and some of the costs. In this way we could see moving forward on some of this. Unusual for MOTCA to have recreational trails on roads, we not be the first time though, it is a potential solution given these issues. Big concern are the bridges, particularly on Goat 2 where there are 3 bridges. At some point they will need attention. Either that or we take them out. (Clarification) Idea as presented by PPC could be take out the vehicle bridges and replace with a pedestrian or ATV bridges.

Stuart Glen, WFP:
Goat Main: Re: Applying for the MOTCA trail designation, is that really necessary? Or can that simply be that nothing is applied for and the road is deactivated to 4wd which was suggested and would be perfect.-And simply apply for permission to not have to baracade the road? MOF to answer.


Leslie Fettes, ILMB
In reference to requirements to deactivate: This section of road is tenured under ILMB. As it is under tenure from ILMB it is not under Forest And Ranges Practices Act. Because of this the only reference they have in their tenure document. Tenure states the requirement for tenure holders to return land to original condition. If they requested in writing to leave it in a better or different condition ILMB could authorize that. We would need to look at the environmental considerations and the liability issue, but we could authorize a different level of deactivation. PPC the tenure holder would request to ILMB that they waive the condition in their tenure stating that hey must return the land to its original condition. The approval of that process would involve consultation with other agencies.

Donald McInnes, PPC
If we (PPC) makes that application now, how long does that process take?

Leslie Fettes, ILMB
If my manager, MOF and MOTCA, FN and general public are onboard then it is a simple process. (MOF indicated that they are supportive), we would need to discuss to ensure comfort with the level of liability. Where there are no stream crossings this is very simple. When there are stream crossings then ILMB would be in contact with MOF to discuss liability issues.

Donald McInnes, PPC
Question: If PPC deactivates it to the state that the people agree upon, are we absolved of any ongoing exposure?

Leslie Fettes, ILMB
Answer: In this process ILMB would authorize in writing waiving the condition to return the land to its original condition that would authorize PPC to leave it in a certain condition. Once the tenure is cancelled then all obligations are over.

Mark Forsythe, Powell River Alpine Club
Can we please have clarification on what ‘original condition’ means? As far as PR Alpine Club is concerned PPC has already fulfilled their obligations to return it to original condition, as the road is much more stable now than it has ever been. Original condition; ‘pre PPC’ or ‘pre-human’?

Leslie Fettes, ILMB
Answer: Pre PPC

Mark Forsythe, Powell River Alpine Club
Has the definition changed in the last 5 years? Are there still ‘stages’ of deactivation?

Leslie Fettes, ILMB
Answer: There is nothing specific in the tenure as to ‘how’ the road must be deactivated, as the tenure is for the construction of the transmission line.

Don Krompocker, Chamber of Commerce
Since PPC has restored this road there is great access to the Alpine it seems like it would be a shame to take it out now. It is in better more stable condition than the previously existing road.

Mark Forsythe, Powell River Alpine Club
It is already deactivated and blocked to just past the bridge.


Lesley Fettes, ILMB
The idea is to leave the land in good condition, remember that if we have a road sitting there with stream crossing with no tenure on it, then from ILMB’s perspective they would like to see someone take responsibility for it. If there is a situation where there is a road that is going to continue on in perpetuity then ILMB does not want PPC to return the area to a condition that is in worse shape.

Donald McInnes, PPC
There are culverts on this road that need to be dealt with on Goat main.

Mark Forsythe, Powell River Alpine Club
For the club it is not just the 3 km’s of the Goat lake main, it is the access to the ~9kms of road past this to access the Alpine. (PPC has not had any interest and use of these roads…they are maintained by us). Forsythe understands that road deactivation policy changes states that structures cannot be trapped in a deactivation.

Patrick Brabazon, Powell Regional District
The interests of RD are changing, slowly becoming interested in things the Board has not been interested in before. We now have a Parks and Green space study underway, and this could be forestland, a trail, you name it. We have liability over the 4 parks we own, we should be more involved than we are. Nanaimo has established an Alpine club, and Brabozon thinks this is a great idea. The RB would not the first to establish liability over parts of the backcountry.

Donald McInnes, PPC
For Goat Main to get up to D-Branch, which has culverts, if RD wants to take on the tenure then we would be happy to leave the road in a state that allows those culverts to stay.

Patrick Brabazon, Powell Regional Board
Will take this back to the Regional Board.

George Fereira, Powell River 4x4 Club
Like to comment on 3 areas; rules have changed in the last 5 years- he has heard contrary to this. Clubs are maintaining the roads, ditches and culverts continuously. The roads are user maintained. Maybe making trails is a good suggestion will help with access, however the users who would use this type of access that would be 5-10% of population, PR is an aging community and needs , the club encourages no single-use road deals, it’s all or nothing access.

Donald McInnes, PPC
PPC is supportive of this, PPC is willing to put money on the table to pay for a bridge or whatever but once they have done their thing they need to be relieved of their obligations in finality.



Summary of Resolutions Proposed (for clarity)

Donald McInnes, PPC
1. Starting in the south S -Branch: at that place PPC prepared to spend money for some kind of minor bridge crossing, I don’t know if it is going to satisfy everybody. If WFP to take tenure up the road up to and including the bridge.

2. Goat Main: the application non-exclusive recreational trail be made to MOTCA. In hearing from ILMB at Goat Main PPC could make an application to abandon it, but that is not something PPC is willing to do until they understand what it will cost them to leave the road in an agreeable state, since there are culverts there. They have to know what the ongoing maintenance program is going to be. If someone is going to take that on to the satisfaction of ILMB, we would be willing to spend the money to leave it in good shape subject to someone agreeing to take on the ongoing maintenance and environmental liabilities to the satisfaction of ILMB.

3. In Goat 2, application could be made to MOTCA to turn it into a recreational trail and replace with recreational oriented bridge.

Stuart Glen, WFP
1. Goat Main: easy one, the better state that this road is left in the happier they are. The ILMB thing seems to provide some options there too.

Donald McInnes, PPC
I need to state that if it costs more than $300k to leave the road in that state then we couldn’t do that as our cost for decommissioning it is far less than that figure. If it is more than the cost of deactivating it then we are going to need to talk about how that is going to get done.

Stuart Glen, WFP
2. Goat 2: we have seen the deactivation plans, they look good, we recognize the known hazards. The work proposed makes sense. What are the options: bridge crossing, is there a way to maintain ATV or foot traffic across this. Maybe use existing stringers and FIA money we would need Frank’s support to make this solution to Goat 2 in this manner.

3. S-Branch: Hoping for some access beyond the bridge in some manner. This is trickier. Initial hope was to take on the liability on the bridge and road leading up to it. WFP is not sure what the state of the road is beyond this so is unsure as to how to value its worth to them. PPC says it has been deactivated but would not take much to reopen. It is in ATV shape now. WFP is prepared to think about this one, need to decide on incurring the environmental cost.

Dave Hodgins, ATV Club
Club is willing to sign paper work to get into Frank, his desire is that all user groups sign the same documents. They are willing to participate on volunteer labour. On Goat 2 the road existed for many years before PPC, much of the instability seems to be because of the hydro line being built above there. Section 65 EAO states that erosion control and sediment control measures both during and after construction, Dave thinks this applies to Goat 2. Dave does not think this cost should be put back on the recreational users or WFP.

Randy Mitchell, Knuckleheads, SAR
Alpine here is prime hiking spot, if you put foot traffic back where you are suggesting then we are doomed if this is the case, as it becomes next to impossible to access the Alpine in one day, as it is just too far to walk. This increased distance would create more liability not less.

Mark Forsythe, Powell River Alpine Club
Environmental Liability seems to just be related to power project as we have had more than 25 years with no concern for environmental liability previously. If a slide happens it is fixed on a case-by-case basis by volunteers. Community has taken care of these things historically. PR Alpine club have been dealing with these slides without bothering anyone etc. It is established historically, that there have not been any big time deactivations based on the fact that an area might slide. Access maintained and dealt with on case/case basis historically by the community user groups.

PPC: (responds) Goat 2 needs ongoing maintenance, or deactivation.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT??

Chairman Palmer: How to move forward from here?

Eagle Walz, PRPAWS- steps up to maps to get visual picture to ascertain what the companies are suggesting, not what ORUG is necessarily agreeing to.

S-Branch: WFP has concerns about this one, and will chat with PPC to resolve or not. Walz wants 4X4 access to end of road. WFP may have interest in opening beyond the bridge. The road has been deactivated to ATV access status by PPC, and the blockage is in place that keeps out 4X4 but allows ATVs.

Goat 2: PPC proposing to remove the bridge, replace with ATV access right from the bottom of the road. This is subject to WFP applying for using FIA funding and applying for recreational trail designation to MOTCA, WFP would build an ATV bridge. WFP would do best to make this happen, perhaps leaving stringers and adding new bridge deck.

Goat Main from Diane Lake Branch to D Branch or Squirrel Creek: PPC will apply to ILMB to abandon, ILMB agreeing for no tenure to exist. This would be subject to an assessment of what ongoing maintenance costs might be, the ATV Club possibly interested in committing to taking this on. Subject to road being left in an acceptable fashion. (PPC) If this is the road to a solution it cannot cost a lot more than what it would have originally cost to deactivate.

Chairman Palmer: Anyone Unhappy?

Mark Forsythe, Powell River Alpine Club
Yes, it feels like we are forsaking Goat 2 resulting in Alpine areas being cut off, not in favor of ATV access as single interest.

Donald McInnes, PPC
To clarify this is a WFP tenured bridge that PPC has a road use agreement on. WFP has said they would like PPC to deactivate it, it is a liability. If someone wants to take over WFP’s tenure then they would be happy to have that happen. PPC would be open to spending the deactivation money they have to spend doing something else, however someone has to step up for the tenure. This is the road at greatest risk of sloughing off the mountain into the creek.

Dave Hodgins, ATV Club
Takes exception and asserts that no back room deals are being made. Under Section 65: (Road deactivation standard read out) what has changed and how can it be mitigated? Road has pre-existed for decades. Now due to construction of pole line conditions have changed and gotten worse. Losing site of reality here, if yearly maintenance is needed, is it that large a sum that we cannot assume it? We need a figure of what it will cost to maintain 4wd access, need to figure out if we can fund it between the group of us?

Chairman Palmer: It’s a matter of funding to see how we can find the funds to keep that section of Goat 2 open, lets keep working on that.

Eagle Walz, PRPAWS
ATV Club has more provincial affiliations than the ORUG and it is hard prospect to assume liability without this power. Whatever transpires here should be written into the Outdoor Recreation Management Plan that PPC has in its Environmental Assessment Certificate, so that in the end it will reflect the commitment of what we agree to. Donald McInnes unaware whether they have one of these in the EA certificate. Elisha McCallum states that they don’t have one, but they are working on it right now. Apparently this condition was waived by the province to have included up front, rather than now when the public is becoming aware of diminishing recreational opportunities.

Patrick Brabazon, Powell River Regional Board
Urged all participants to not leave with false expectations. The PRRD is an agile government compared to some. If PRRD were to accept PPC’s offer on Goat 2 the first thing we need to do is get feedback from legal people and take this to the PRRD. Things will happen at their own speed. Personally Brabazon likes the idea, will take it to regional board. Things cannot happen very fast.

Dave Formossa, Chamber of Commerce
Proposes an on the ground reconnaissance mission with stakeholders to create an MOU on specific mitigation for each identified areas complete with photos and cost estimates. Something that this group can agree to as a positive way to work together. It is for everyone’s advantage to do this.

Chairman Palmer: Does PPC have any worries about the time needed for putting this together, are they in trouble if they have to wait?

Donald McInnes, PPC
PPC would be attempting to fulfill its obligations in spring. We have ~4-6weeks to consider a path and get a plan together. McInnes acknowledges that there are other players to consider each needing to provide input on their schedules. WFP has to consider some things as well. McInnes hears the issue regarding the top of the switch back on Goat 2, PPC has creative engineers who will look at it. McInnes recommends constraining this process to Goat 2, as this is the big one. The other 2 can be handled and do not need to be worried about.

Randy Mitchell, Knuckleheads Society
Need to go back to the ORUG group as access proposed is less than what it has been. Mitchell is concerned that an ATV-only solution will have serious impact in the volunteer base in the community as many who assist are not a part of the ATV community. He is worried that the ORUG will be unhappy with a single access solution.

Don Krompocker, Chamber of Commerce
There are many small groups who will step up, beyond the ATV club. If we want this open then we are going to have to share the work. Access is crucial to all groups. Krompocker likes Formosa’s idea of going to look at it. If volunteering then people need to see the solutions in the flesh. We will get this done, it’s Powell River after all. Lets go see some of the difficulties and solutions.

Chairman Palmer: Can we agree that no one is going to do anything on deactivation until we get our ducks in a row, given that PPC may be facing some pressure given by the province. Need the agreement for this. We want to assure ORUG that there is movement here, it is beneficial. We have identified the really difficult one and are going to work on this. Still think we need assurance, to back off, until we get the ORUG’s on side.

Donald McInnes, PPC
When snow starts melting PPC is then exposed if the roads are not deactivated properly and sediments washing into the creeks etc, PPC will make the applications to ILMB right away, lots of other moving parts in the process. PPC has the financial liability pressure if Goat 2 collapses into the creek.

Mark Forsythe, PR Alpine Club
Likes the reconnaissance idea but snow on the road until June, makes hard to see until that time.

(2:00:05) Chairman Palmer: Sense is the Goat 2 is the ‘one’. S Branch and Goat main seem to have a workable solution. PPC are going to protect themselves from legal issues. We must rely on ILMB and Lesley to steer things through.

Leslie Fettes, ILMB
I can steer it through.



Donald McInnes, PPC
Without evidence that the community is supportive of the proposed mitigation, ILMB will have a difficult time, Leslie needs something to go to her boss with.

Dave Formosa, Chamber of Commerce
What about creating a MOU between all the players (PPC, WFP, ILMB, City of PR, RB, MOTCA, MOF) and the ORUG. All of us would sign it and give to Lesley at ILMB, then she will have something to go to her boss with. MOU is a great idea to reduce pressure. We have everyone here, and this will help out PPC in doing what they need to do.

Stuart Glen, WFP (2:03:22)
Re: Goat 2: WFP has knowledge on this road and maintenance required on this road and in the area over a number of years. PPC has used professional engineers who understand these requirements. WFP agrees with PPC assessment and treatment planned. The assessment is appropriate.

Knowing the costs to maintain a road like that and the legal requirements, this is a realistic challenge. Anyone’s ability to keep it open is going to be very very challenging. For the PRRD or an Outdoor Group to take this on would be unlikely and Glen would not be surprised if they didn’t go for it. Going out there to look at it is fine, however, realistically it is a very challenging piece of ground to be dealing with. We need to remember this. Going forward it is not physically possible for WFP to keep this road open given legal and other costs. Ongoing stability issues on these slopes, key is getting water off the road and the deactivation plan currently addresses these issues.

Chairman Palmer: Assumptions:
· Assume an MOU can be created
· Assume PPC will assist with applications,
· Assume WFP and MOTCA will find FIA money,
· Assume S-Branch and Goat Main are okay Goat 2 is the main stumbling block still
· Assume reconnaissance mission to see areas on ground

Eagle Walz, PRPAWS
Lets start drafting a draft MOU now and plan on meeting in 6 weeks hence. Is there anything else we can do, or anyone else to be speaking with?

Leslie Fettes, ILMB
One issue to explore, is whether or not there is an entity capable of taking on liability? If in looking at maintenance requirements on Goat Main, it looks like there will be lots of maintenance work to be done regularly. ILMB will need someone to take over the liability through a tenure. This would be good pro-active work to do.



Jessica Hulsman, PPC
We need a deadline for the MOU for 2-3 weeks. Eagle and ORUG will start this. Goal is MOU within 2-3 weeks.

Nicholas Simons, MLA
Will work with supporting process by speaking with manager for ILMB. Simons will do what he can to represent that the community is behind finding a solution.

Chairman Palmer: Are we agreed that Eagle will be the point man? (Yes). Lets go back to our community groups with meeting notes in hand, and remember not to ‘gild the Lily’.

Eagle Walz, PRPAWS
Thanks for coming, the positive attitudes and having a solution focus that has allowed us to move forward as we have.

Meeting Adjourned at 2:11