From:                                             Warren Warttig [warren.warttig@interfor.com]

Sent:                                               Wednesday, October 9, 2013 1:13 PM

To:                                                  Taggart, Duncan U FLNR:EX; Ashford, Andrew FLNR:EX

Cc:                                                   Hanacek, Megan A FLNR:EX; Mitchell, Scott C FLNR:EX; Hudson, Don A FLNR:EX; XT:Marquis, Dave FLNR:IN; XT:Corby.Lamb FLNR:IN; Haight, Deidre M FLNR:EX; John McLaughlin; Kiss, Les FLNR:IN; Randy Hart; Rick Monchak (E-mail); Beetham, Amy FLNR:EX; Barolet, Jennifer L FLNR:EX; XT:Bavis, Paul FLNR:IN; jchfor@telus.net; Mogensen, Dave FLNR:IN; McCulley, Michael B FLNR:EX

Subject:                                         Central Coast Region MaPP Update - to October 8, 2013

Attachments:                               MaPP_Analysis_Aug30.pdf

 

Leading up to the September meeting, we prepared maps for all three regions (North Coast, Central Coast and North Island) where we delineated areas that were estimated by the forest sector to have low risk to operations should some form of restrictive zoning was applied (subject to no restrictions on marine traffic). We used the 12 provincial “Marine Ecosections” classification to measure our performance for coarse filter representation (see attached).

 

September 25-26/2013 Meeting Highlights

We had our Central Coast MaPP advisory committee meeting at the Hakai Research Centre on Calvert Island in September 24 to 27. Hans was unable to attend the meeting. Seats for Commercial Fisheries, Public Recreation Fisheries and Marine Transportation sectors remain unfilled. The next meeting is scheduled for November 14-15 in Richmond.

 

The government Science Coordinators for MaPP have been working primarily on the zoning framework, a master list of uses and activities, the vulnerability matrix (potential effects of various sectors on marine ecosystem types), the compatibility matrix (ability for different sectors to coexist in the same area), recommended sector uses and activities, and a web portal called “Sea Sketch” to view spatial planning layers (protection management zones (PMZs), special management zones (SMZs), and general management zones).

 

The government to government marine planning working group has been working on draft Special Management Zone (SMZ) categories and recommended uses and activities (RUAs) that can occur within the SMZs. They have also been working on draft Protection Management Zones (PMZs) tables and associated RUAs that can occur within the PMZs. Finally, they have been working on documentation of rationale for spatial zone placement.

 

·        The content of the RUAs and the spatial placement of the PMZs and SMZs are ultimately the most critical aspects of the Marine Planning that could impact the forest sector. 

 

Despite projections that spatial zoning designations would be available for review and comment in August, the government to government working group admits they we overly optimistic. This, unfortunately, will reduced the amount of time our sector will have to complete a review and comment on the spatial placement of the SMZs and PMZs.

 

·        There is a commitment to have all of the shape files for the SMZ and PMZ polygons available for sector review and comment two weeks before our next meeting (October 31), and at least one week afterwards (ends November 22).

 

I am pushing for a longer review period post meeting. I will be forwarding the spatial information for the PMZs and SMZs out shortly after I receive it.

 

·        There needs to be a relatively short turn-around for comments so staff need to be aware of how important this is.

Timelines for the marine plan:

-   December 31: Finalized marine plan for public review

-   January 1 to June: Review and edits by the government to government planning group

-   March 1 to April 15: Public review

-   June 30: Deadline for completed plan

-   July: The plan will be provided to DFO as a recommended scenario

 

Marine Zoning:

Not all spatial zones developed through MaPP will necessarily become legally designated where activities are regulated. The zones and associated management direction are intended to provide direction for marine and coastal resource management decision makers and marine user groups. There are three overarching zones: General Management Zones, Special Management Zones, and Protection Management Zones:

Special Management Zones

There is currently four SMZ types contemplated for the Central Coast Region:

-   Shellfish Aquaculture: Forestry operations are conditionally recommended based upon perceived impacts that could occur on shellfish aquaculture operations. Shellfish aquaculture tenures are to have priority over log-handling tenures in this zone. The following comments were provided verbally at the meeting and in writing:

§  To date we have had no conflicts with shellfish aquaculture in our coastal tenures

§  Our concerns lie with isolation of timber, and with the criterion by which the tenures are determined. There has been a gold rush mentality for independent power producers where several tenures are established to tie up various drainage systems. A similar situation is possible for areas modeled as high shellfish aquaculture potential. There should be active use or active development of a tenure before it becomes a priority over log handling (provided it is not impacting a previously used site for log handling).

§  As a legislated requirement, we are required to communicate with other potentially affected stakeholders, which is a general requirement for crown land tenures (there are few tenures that have exclusive use). Because of this we tend to resolve most concerns by other sectors. A similar requirement for communicating with forest tenure holders should be established for these proposed shellfish aquaculture sites.  

-   Cultural Heritage: All forestry operations and listed as “Not Recommended” in the table, but is  listed as conditional on the last page of the document. The following comments were provided verbally at the meeting and in writing:

§  We would like confirmation that this SMZ only applies to marine cultural features

§  With a classification of “not recommended” our concerns lie with isolation of timber, and with the criterion by which the sites are determined.

§  We work around terrestrial cultural values on a regular basis without impact. The archeology assessments we routinely have completed often identify previously unknown features and we readily share information from these assessments with the applicable First Nation. If requested, information is kept as confidential. Plans are often changed to effectively protect the identified features.

§  We request the classification for our sector be changed to conditional as it is written on last page.

-   Renewable Energy: Forestry operations are conditionally recommended if it supports current and future renewable energy operations. Renewable energy is recommended to take priority over forestry operations in this SMZ. The following comments were provide verbally at the meeting and in writing:

§  For an industry that has not had any success in BC, I’m surprised to this sector get their own SMZ.

§  My memory of the renewable energy representative  discussion was that renewable energy opportunities were sparse. I am curious why this sector would get its own SMZ when it is admittedly not even a legitimate sector in the Central Coast region.

§  Our concerns lie with isolation of timber, and with the criterion by which the tenures are determined. There has been a gold rush mentality for independent power producers for run-of-river where several tenures are established to tie up various drainage systems. A similar situation is possible for areas modeled as high marine renewable energy potential. There should be active use or active development of a tenure before it becomes a priority of log handling (provided it is not impacting a previously used site for log handling).

§  We expect that the “potential sites” are modeled for “future developments”, which we do not consider sufficient to determine preferential status that affects our business.

-   Recreation and Tourism: Forestry operations are conditionally recommended if they “limit any major deterioration of commercial and public recreational experiences”. The following comments were provided verbally at the meeting and in writing:

§  We work around many of the recreation tourism concerns, in particular timing and viewscape. Some of our tenures have been used by the commercial tourism sector while they are not in use.   

§  As a legislated requirement, we are required to communicate with other potentially affected stakeholders, which is a general requirement for crown land tenures (there are few tenures that have exclusive use). Because of this we tend to resolve most recreation sector concerns. A similar requirement for communicating with forest tenure holders should be established for these proposed recreation tourism sector sites.  

§  The forest sector has seen significant reductions in allowable cut (especially in the mid-coast region) due to LRMP decisions which included substantial increases in area of parks and protected areas that we think the recreation sector should be trying to focus the bulk of their activities. The is little stomach for further losses of cut should isolation of forest tenure occur.

§  We have completed significant work to identify substantial areas that are of low risk to our sector should SMZs be considered.

 

Protection Management Zones

All of the PMZs included in the Marine Plans will be used by provincial and First Nations resource staff to inform tenuring decisions. A subset of the PMZs will be advanced for legal designation as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by the Federal and/or Provincial government.

 

PMZs are divided into six subzones based on IUCN categories (a type of international classification) https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_categoriesmpa_eng.pdf ranging from high to moderate activity restriction levels. Currently, under MaPP, none of our forestry operations are recommended to occur is any of the PMZ sub-zones, yet by the IUCN descriptions of the various sub-zones it appears that helicopter drop zones should be an acceptable activity. The following comments were provided verbally at the meeting and in writing:

§  As discusses earlier, the true test will be the location and extent of the PMZs to ascertain impacts to our sector, so our comments may not even be relevant.

§  As discussed before, the forest sector has several levels of activity ranging from very low (helicopter drop zones - HDZ) to relatively high (existing long term continual use log dumps). With IUCN class 1 parks, there is a requirement that no removal of species, modification, extraction or collection of resources [I’m interpret these to be marine in nature] is considered acceptable, of which HDZs meet these criteria (extraction/collection of resources are all terrestrial). HDZs are also a very light human impact (far less than linear utilities and docks, wharves and facilities which are conditionally recommended), are intermittent, and short in duration.

§  We propose that HDZs (and associated activities) be considered a conditional activity within all PMZ classes. There is good planning rationale for this:

§  The forest sector has seen significant reductions in allowable cut (especially in the mid-coast region) due to LRMP decisions which included substantial increases in area of parks and protected areas. The is little stomach for further losses.

§  Many areas of the coastal forest tenure are only accessible for extraction by helicopter, so isolation of timber could occur (depending on PMZ locations).

§  We have completed significant work to identify substantial areas that are of low risk to our sector should PMZs be considered. If HDZs were a conditional use, more area could be added to that already identified. Allowing HDZs would planning flexibility in areas that the forest sector would have strong opposition.

§  We propose that reactivated dump sites also meet the conditional criteria for all park types in that the initial footprint is not exceeded

§  We propose the new, small volume (<40,000m³) new log dumps meet conditional criteria for PMZ class VI in that the area of impact is compensated for.

________

 

Recommended uses and Activities (RUAs):

These include a list of sector activities that can or should not occur within a PMZ or SMZ. In RUAs, commercial fishing is broken down into several different gear types and fishing methods (as are other sectors). The forest sector is one line item despite our efforts to distinguish between the effects of helicopter drop zones, reactivation of old log dumps, the development of a new log dump and continued use of historic dumps. A requested was made to address this deficiency.

 

Vulnerability Matrix: Forestry related impacts are highly exaggerated in this matrix, especially considering current legislation requirements. Information used in the matrix is from a study completed in California. The following comments were provided verbally at the meeting and in writing:

§  As with other aspects of MaPP, we would expect that assessment of activities would be as they are under current legislation.

§  All helicopter drop zones, reactivation of previously used log dumps, and new log dumps have criteria for operating in proximity to sea grass (>100m), suspension feeding reefs [aka oyster beds and shellfish beds] (>50m), estuaries (>100m) and kelp beds (>100m).

§  We have monitored these features during our activities and following completion and have not found any indication of harmful impacts.

§  We disagree that we have any impacts beyond very low on any of these features.

§  The Forest sector on the coast operates through a series of points where the transfer of terrestrial products are focused. Very few of these points are active in any one given year. Most of our activities occur within 200m of the shoreline, and the average distance between terrestrial log dumps is 13.1 km. with an estimated 1000m² impact (which is exaggerated). This equates to an impact of 0.0004 % of the marine habitat. One could argue correctly that the photic zone is the most vulnerable (to a depth of approximately 20m) which would increase impacts to an estimated 0.18% of this area. With any new dumps, there is compensation of like-for-like habitat, so in essence there is no loss or percentage change. Is this considered in the vulnerability matrix?

 

Compatibility Matrix: This was not discussed in any detail at the meeting. An updated version was supplied October 1. I found our level of non-compatibility with other sectors, including safety issues with commercial ports and anchorages were exaggerated in the matrix.

 

Central Coast Marine Plan: The Marines plan under MaPP are ultimately being developed through First Nations working together through the Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance and the Province of British Columbia; our sector group only provides input for their consideration. This document is being written as if it was being used March 1 to introduce the marine plan to the public. Most of the document reads well, but the forest sector is listed as a major pollution source (a tree branch or a piece of bark is considered pollution if a human puts it into the marine environment. I provided the following comments:

§  I’m having trouble with the definition of pollution. 1000’s of times more coarse woody debris and allochthonous materials can permanently enter a marine environment than a human development, but if organic deposits are the result of human activity it’s called pollution?

§  Is it still pollution if the net loss of productivity is adequately compensated for (meeting the no-net-loss policy)?

§  What if it is a helicopter drop zone (it’s a type of log dump) that can often have positive effects?

§  We can readily accept concentrations of hydrocarbons, fertilizers, pesticides, creosote, PCBs, etc. being categorized as population.

 

 

From: Warren Warttig
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:17 PM
To: Ralph Friedrich; Dave Mackay; Andrew Meyer
Cc: Blaire Iverson; Kevin Kenny; Bob Craven; Mike Landers; Karen Brandt; Tania Phillips
Subject: RE: Central Coast Region MaPP Update - to June 27, 2013

 

June 24-27/2013 Meeting Highlights

We had our Central Coast MaPP advisory committee meeting in Klemtu June 24 to 27. Hans was unable to attend the meeting.

 

Seats for Commercial Fisheries, Public Recreation Fisheries and Marine Transportation sectors remain unfilled. A representative of the Heiltsuk Economic Development Corporation attended our meeting (Gary Wilson), and provided some well thought out input. The Non-renewable Energy Sector is now attending the North Coast Region MaPP meetings.

 

The next Central Coast Region MaPP meeting (#7) is September 23-26 at Hakai Institute on Calvert Island. Meeting #8 will be late October in Richmond.

 

Of significant note – the PNCIMA process has been reactivated. In an ultimate blunder by the federal government, no funding was allocated for advertising of several open houses of which one occurred in Campbell River; as a consequence, the meetings were very sparsely attended. We were told that comments on the content they presented ( http://www.pncima.org/media/documents/pdf/draft-pncima-plan-may-27--2013.pdf ) were due July 8.

 

MaPP is now turning to a strong technical focus which will accelerate over the next four months. This includes working on a compatibility matrix to try to avoid conflict between sectors. The first draft was supplied for our meeting and conflicts with the forest sector are highly exaggerated (log handling is apparently incompatible with ports, and has a pollution radius of 0.5 km). There is also work on a vulnerability matrix to identify sensitive habitats and marine ecosections combined with compatibility of uses. Out of this, recommended uses and activities will be developed. We can (and will) provide comments up to the end of September.

 

In preparation for this we have been continuing to work on two phases:

·        Foreshore use: The most current foreshore use map was circulated to all forest tenure holders within the Central Coast region (see attached) and IFP staff. Some comments were received and incorporated. Other than BCTS, no other comments were received from any of the other forest tenure holders.

·         Identification of areas of low to very low risk: These are areas, that if they were to become marine parks, would not impact our interests, subject to two conditions: 1) that access across or through these areas is a permissible activity, and 2) that all registered anchorages, boom storage ties, and tow reserves are still allowed. As discussed earlier in the year, these low risk areas were intentionally anchored on BC terrestrial protected areas (parks, conservancies, SMZs). The most current low-risk area map was circulated to all forest tenure holders within the Central Coast region (see attached) and IFP staff. Some feedback has been provided by staff (more is needed); BCTS has been the only forest tenure holder to provide comment.  I will require meaningful input from staff to fine tune these maps, I would rather provide a solution to the MaPP planners that limits impacts to our sector than leave it open and have to claw areas back.

 

This exercise was done for two reasons:

§  To help direct marine parks away from our primary interest areas during the conflict resolution exercise the province is working on.

§   To provide us a report card of where our liabilities are.

 

The target for MaPP is to recommend at least 30% representation of each Marine Ecosection in each region (and >60% for rare and sensitive marine ecosystem types – e.g. known bird colonies, marine mammal haul outs, etc.). There are six Marine Ecosections in North Coast region, six in the Central Coast region, and eight in the North Island Region (for a total of 12 - see attached map). One of the first things you will notice is that some of the “Marine” Ecosections from LRDW appear to be mostly terrestrial (Hecate Lowland, Kitimat Ranges and Outer Fjordland-Johnston Straight). These areas are very coarse and do not line up well with TRIM, so an analysis of representation for these areas are highly inaccurate. I suspect these areas were supposed to be shoreline units and will be rolled into actual Marine Ecosections like the North Coast Fjords, Dixon Entrance, Queen Charlotte Sounds etc. Marine Ecosections. If this is the case, then our liabilities could be fairly low for meeting at least 30% representation (I have a query into the provincial FLNRO reps), with some additional area to be identified in the North Island.  

 

The Conservation Sector is preparing a Marine Protected Area (MPA) plan that they would like to see implemented (this was not available for sector review).

 

First Nations met with MaPP FLNRO staff for a workshop to go over sector input that has been submitted to MaPP, and to provide their high value areas to feed into the vulnerability and compatibility matrices. Another First Nation workshop is scheduled for some time in July, and a 3rd in August. The result will be a draft MPA plan. We will be reviewing this plan at our September meeting. A 4th FN workshop is planned for October. We will see the final draft MPA plan at our late October meeting. Between now and then we will have the ability to review and comment on the MPA plan through interactive software called “Sea Sketch” (Brynna and I are familiar with this software). I will likely be requiring a substantial amount of Brynna’s time over this period, and continued work from Lauren.

 

Zoning overall will include:

·        General Management Areas (GMZs) of multi sector sustainable use.

·        Special Management Zones (SMZs) where specific guidelines/prescriptions will apply to a sector.

·        Protection Management Zones (PMZs), which will include a “robust protected area network”

 

From: Warren Warttig
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:06 AM
To: Ralph Friedrich; Dave Mackay; Andrew Meyer
Cc: Blaire Iverson; Mike Ward; Bob Craven; Mike Landers; Heidi Kalmakoff; Karen Brandt
Subject: Central Coast Region MaPP Update - to April 3, 2013

 

March 21-22/2013 Meeting Highlights

We had our Central Coast MaPP advisory committee meeting in Richmond March 21 and 22.  Hans was unable to attend the meeting.

 

There was some discussion about the commercial fishing sector withdrawing from the process. I discussed the withdrawal with the commercial sector representative prior to the meeting and it was primarily because the province had not given them convincing rationale as to provincial governance jurisdiction over their industry, and that they did not want to be perceived as supporting (by association) recommendations from MaPP over fishing restrictions and revenue sharing.

 

Two seats remain unfilled: Public recreational fishery and marine transportation.

 

Main agenda items were:

·        Location logistics of next meetings:

-       Four day meeting, likely late June. Location choices include Shearwater, Bella Coola or Klemtu

-       Four day meeting in September; likely Calvert Island.

·        Objectives and Strategies for Governance:

-       Wally Webber is now the newly elected Chief of the Nuxalk. Wally is also one of the hereditary Chiefs so there is hope that the band will be less divided. Wally has attended a couple of our meetings, and from what I understand his impression has been positive. 

-       FN are pushing for shared decision making (instead of joint decision making as listed under the reconciliation agreements) similar to the recent Haida Gwaii settlement.

-       I requested, that in the future, a problem statement be provided prior to the meetings so we knew why there is a need for changing the status quo, prior to providing input on the objectives.

-       Details about what shared decision making would look like (or why it is preferred over joint decision making) were vague; direct information to the chairs was provided by Dan Cardinal (described as the expert). By the sounds of it, shared decision making would result in two statutory decision makers (FN and Province).

·        Marine Spatial Planning:

-       Spatial planning will be ramping up significantly between now and the next meetings in June.

-       There was introduction to a compatibility matrix as a tool to assist in recommending uses or activities for specific zones (to assess and categorize interactions between human uses and values). Impacts may be spatial or temporal, and some cases, uses can still occur through mitigation. The compatibility matrix will be run at the MaPP region level (a similar analysis was completed through the BCMCA process, but covered the entire coast).

-       The key to influencing the compatibility matrix is to identify our priority uses and values (to reduce spatial conflicts). Unfortunately, the matrix will be run thru Marxan, which is coarse filter (1km x 1km, which is too coarse to pick up on log dumps), and lacks temporal ability. The high value “ecological features” were decided upon thru an “experts workshop”

-       Regional zoning include three zones:

§  General management

§  Special management

§  Marine Protected Area

-       Note: the Regional Table was informed that 3D zoning for the water column was not on the table (land surfaces zones only) due to the water column being federal jurisdiction; but our CC MaPP group seems intent on doing 3D zoning as recommendations to the federal government.

·        Web Mapping Portal:

-       Compatibility matrix will be provided for review thru a secure site-Web Mapping Portal (they will beta-testing the site in April). By June (anticipated general release), this will enable us to review what has been produced so far and provide input/respond in real time.

§  Action Item 1 – We need to finalize our marine use maps and our marine foreshore use maps and submit the shape files

§   Action Item 2 – We recently discovered that a number of the new conservancies/protected areas also included restrictions on marine use for log handling purposes (including helicopter drop zones). We are currently analysing which areas have restrictions. 138 conservancies/PAs are within the LUO areas, of which we have identified 93 that have restrictions. The process to get allowances for a road or HDZ looks cumbersome (there are allowances under the regulations for some of these areas – for a fee and a list of paperwork). Some of these area might be good candidates for MPAs recommendations

-       Other marine planning tools include a model called “Marine InVEST”

·        Looking Ahead:

-       Vulnerability matrix for ecosystem types

§  Zoning

§  Marine pollution vulnerability assessment (April)

§  DFO marine bioregional classification (Spring 2013)

§  Climate change vulnerability strategies

§  Cumulative effects assessment

 

 

January 28–29/2013 Meeting Highlights

We had our Central Coast MaPP advisory committee meeting in Richmond January 29 and 30.  Hans was able to attend for both days (I was only able to attend on the first day). Main agenda items of the MaPP meeting were:

 

·        Introduction to Marine Tenures and Coastal First Nations Reconciliation Protocol

-       Many of the sectors were unfamiliar with tenures and FN agreements. There was some implication that no taxes for the tenures flow back to the Central Coast region

-       Forest sector to provide information where tax income is distributed

·        Monitoring and Enforcement

-       Coastal Guardian Watchman are currently active in the CC area. They are interested in receiving training for monitoring log handling operations (which would likely be better coming from us than an ENGO).

·        Forest sector presentation on desired future state and spatial interest areas in the Central Coast

-       Hans and I gave our presentation (which included an educational component on log handling) and presented the draft forest sector marine transportation and marine sector foreshore use maps.

-       We received good comments on our presentation and mapping work. Day 2: Labouchere was discussed as being controversial. Hans steered away from site specific operational issues as it is not within the mandate of the MaPP advisory table

-       The maps we produced are still in draft while we await information for other licensee’s. As well, one component of the mapping exercise was to identify areas we would recommend as MPAs (e.g. inlets surrounded by terrestrial parks or protected areas where we have no interest).

·        Commercial Fishery sector presentation

-       Commercial Fishery: Good information for people not associated with the industry.  They have a series of maps showing where they conduct fishing operations.  Their view is that in a global context the BC coast fish ecosystem can be considered ‘pristine’ so management is working.

·        Public & Outdoor Recreation sector presentation

-       Main area for increased development is outer coast – more interesting geography and more safe anchorages etc than inner coast fiords.  Safety is a key issue in these remote areas.  Fishing tourism is decreasing and people want to see wildlife, ecology and culture.  Opportunity to make ‘best in the world’ marine trail.  Looking to develop ~ 175 sites in CC.

·        Marine Renewable Energy presentation

-       At present they do not see much commercial opportunity due to costs. There are other cheaper energy sources.  They are relying on BC Hydro maps showing potential for variety of new energy sources at provincial scale.

-       Marine Harvest Canada is only company operating in Central Coast, only in Kitasoo territory.  They will not present any maps showing potential areas suitable for aquaculture as they will not begin to look for areas unless they are invited by the FN.

·        Conservation Sector:

-       Have maps showing high conservation value as identified through Marxan modeling using ~128 layers.  Interested in noise refuges for whales and marine mammals.  Shoreline types are used as surrogate to ID areas where 10,000 species are located.  They are not advocating that all areas of high conservation areas be protected, needs to be iterative process working with other sectors. (WW – I get the feeling that everyone is thinking of commercial activities when they envision noise, even though recreational boats are the most abundant noise source in the area).

·        Spatial Zoning Framework for MPAs

-       Draft framework was introduced.  No particular issues were brought forward by the committee.  Request was made by MaPP staff that advisors pay particular attention to the principles and provide comments back.

 

 

December 6-7/2012 Meeting Highlights

We had our Central Coast MaPP advisory committee meeting in Richmond December 6 and 7.  Hans was able to attend. Main agenda items pertaining to the forest sector of the MaPP meeting were:

 

·        General introduction

-       Included participants from the Nuxalk (Wally Webber) and Wuikinuxv (Jennifer Walkas). It was again confirmed that First Nations have their own Marine Use Plans which they consider to be approved. It was questioned why we are bothering with our MaPP exercise.

-       I see conflicting Marine Plans this a being our main challenge area moving forward  

·        Jo Smith (of the provincial Science Team) discussed a report on Central Coast Conditions and Trends for Climate Change

-       This was not a good report with much of the information being drawn from World Wildlife Canada resulting in sensationalistic predictions. One paper in particular was used inappropriately: Hamann and Wang 2006 base their climate change assumptions on a 10 year period and predicted loss of conifer species. Tectonic subduction maps were clearly inaccurate / misleading.

-       I provided comments that the MaPP group should be reading background papers (I submitted three good papers) in order to have an informed opinion instead of a belief mechanism

·        Current Trends and Conditions for Traditional Cultural Uses

-       There is a Community Watchman through the Coastal Guardian Watchman program in place that is funded through the Coast Opportunities Program. Their budget is from accumulated interest from a $60 million Trust. Their role is similar to C&E except they can only document and report to authorities.

·        Desired Future State

-       Forest Sector provided: The Coastal Forestry sector envisions the industry as a vibrant contributor to the local economy and human well being that conducts its operations responsibly and is recognized as a pillar of economic and environmental sustainability. Additionally, the sector envisions that they will be leaders if forming collaborative partnerships between First Nations and Industry. Another desire includes the ability to operate at multiple scales including large and small operations (i.e. hand loggers and beachcombers) and to maintain an economic and accessible supply of timber of 2.7 million m³ over the areas covered by the Ministerial Orders. Lastly, the sector would like to see that the best management practices are viewed as the norm with little need for regulation and policing.

-       For Barriers or Limiting Factors we provided: The Forest sector views Treaty Negotiations, certain policies, and loss of reliable transportation as barriers and/or limitations.

-       Forest Sector to provide marine use maps for next meeting. Two types of maps are envisioned. The first type is general level of marine transportation use: continuous-high, temporary intermittent, and infrequent-rare. The reasons for this is to show that we need water access to all tenured areas at some point and that our activity doesn’t warrant the level of concern over cumulative impacts (wood residue and noise). The second map type is foreshore zoning, which is basically just a coarse filter identification of areas adjacent to THLB. This helps illustrate that we operate on a small portion of the land base. The maps will be coordinated across the three MaPP zones.

-       Forest Sector to add “addition costs” to barriers and to clarify what is meant by “treaty negotiations” as a barrier

·        Objectives and Strategies for Marine Pollution

-       Draft strategies were supplied to us for the meeting. The strategies as written are apparently based upon the Marine Plans developed by FN. Log handling is listed as a pollution source and one of the strategies is to complete habitat restoration on log sorts, booming areas and heli-drop zone sites

-       Forest Sector to do educational presentation on log handling at next MaPP meeting

-       Forest Sector to respond to Marine Pollution Strategy

·        Marine Protection

-       It was reiterated that the objective of MaPP is to propose candidate areas for a Marine Protected Area (MPA) network. MPA can include areas that are zoned for various types of activities.

-       Wally Webber (Nuxalk) pointed out that we do not have their traditional ecological knowledge that they have included in their marine plans; but also that their marine plans are secret

-       I suggested that we need to focus on the largest stressors and sensitive areas, and focus on areas surrounded by or directly adjacent to terrestrial parks and protected areas

 

 

September 26-27/2012 Meeting Highlights

 

We had our Central Coast MaPP advisory committee meeting at Hakai research institute (Calvert Island) on September 26 and 27 with some of the meeting discussions occurring on the evening of the 25th and the morning of the 28th.  Hans was unable to attend, but we managed to share notes and discuss some ideas prior to the meeting.  Main agenda items of the MaPP meeting were:

-       Nothing of significance, there is still a seat for a person to represent recreational fishing

-       During the LRMP this exercise took many weeks to resolve and in the end it was never looked back on. The group chose a statement that I agreed with that was similar to the LRMP in that it encompasses using site level information preferentially and allow for adaptive management.  

-       Good discussion on use of best available information (i.e. site level) for zoning areas for use. My push has been to use the concept of establishing the low/no use areas (marine protected areas - MPAs) adjacent to the terrestrial protected areas (MaPP doesn’t actually establish MPAs, the group just recommends to provincial and federal governments). To this end, we supplied the HVFH layer used in TSR to the science team.

-       Sally Cargill (FLNRO) will be supplying the information from the exercise we did earlier this year (where we projected future potential log handling sites) along with records of active and historic sites.

-       One thing that we were advised to do is to identify our critical transportation routes (something that wasn’t done in the log handling exercise)  

-       This introduction to marine pollution was a joke. The MaPP science team is comprised of six young, naïve MSc types that clearly have a poor opinion of the forest industry and basically don’t have a clue (for your entertainment I’ve attached a copy). They relied heavily on ENGO “literature” in the development of their objectives and strategies.

-       I’ve been tasked to supply the science team copies of our log handling AWPs, and teach them how they work), as well as supplying so actual peer reviewed/published literature on log handling effects.

Additional topics were introduced which will require me to collect input from the forest industry reps in our area.

·        Future state/vision statements (for the next 25 years):

-       I provided an example statement along the lines of “To maintain an economic and accessible supply of timber of 2.7 million m³ over the areas covered by the Ministerial Orders”. Hans has a few other motherhood type statements

-       To be more precise in the central coast vision statement I will need a breakdown of how much volume we expect out of this particular region

 

 

MaPP Background:

 

MaPP is a provincially driven planning process that is funded primarily through Tides Canada. The purpose is to develop a marine plan that includes marine protected areas (MPAs) and for zoning the remaining areas for preferred uses. MaPP will then recommend the MPAs and zoning to the federal authorities. DFO is not at the table as their official planning mechanism is PNCIMA. The process itself looks and feels very similar to the LRMP.

 

MaPP is different than the BCMCA (BC marine conservation analysis) that Les Kiss and participated in earlier in that the spatial planning will be finer scale, and FN are participating. Much of the base information for MaPP has come from BCMCA.

 

In order to make the planning more manageable, the coast has been divided into four working groups and areas (QCI is not active). I am the representative for the Central Coast area with Hans Granander as my alternate. For the north coast, Dave Nicholson is the lead forest sector rep and Bruce Storry for the North Vancouver Island zone.

 

We are at the table to help ensure that we maintain access to marine areas for log dumps, storage and transport. There has been a heavy ENGO influence on FN starting in 2002 (or earlier) through the Turning Point initiative. Some marine plans have been developed (see page 26 of the attached marine plan) where ENGO influence is apparent and it has already affected our operations; so we’ve got some catching up to do.

 

The September 2012 meeting was only the 2nd of many more meetings. The pace will be becoming more intense as there are meetings scheduled between 4 and 6 times per year over a period of two years. I expect I will require GIS resources to keep on top of things.