1 / 24

CONTEXT

CONTEXT. We dove into the FRPA world not really understanding the substance of, or what was underneath, all our land use plans that are expected to form one of the pillars of FRPA.

howard
Download Presentation

CONTEXT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CONTEXT We dove into the FRPA world not really understanding the substance of, or what was underneath, all our land use plans that are expected to form one of the pillars of FRPA

  2. Now, as we cross the bridge from FPC to FRPA, we sometimes find ourselves clinging to the edge rather than walking a better constructed route

  3. Or peering into the abyss wondering what next

  4. Our legacy HLP – Kamloops LRMP • First HLP order effective January 31, 1996 established resource management zones with ±110 objectives applicable to operational plans and Goal 1 Protected Areas. • Second HLP order effective January 31, 1997 (an amendment order) further established Goal 2 Protected Areas and clarified Biodiversity management retaining ± 110 objectives applicable to operational plans.

  5. Third HLP order effective September 11, 2002 removed the requirement for joint sign-off of FDP's in special resource management zones for habitat and wildlife management areas. (RMZ's and ± 110 objectives remain applicable to operational plans) Fourth HLP order effective January 31, 2006 repealed first and second order and established 26 of the ±110 original objectives applicable to operational plans as legal objectives.

  6. Example Kamloops LRMP Objectives • Maintain old growth attributes within landscape units • To conserve the diversity and abundance of native species and their habitats throughout the Kamloops LRMP

  7. CHALLENGES • Maintaining public confidence – difference between HLP objectives and FPPR defaults • For Kamloops TSA – no measurable objective for old growth, BUT draft OGMA’s – no real status, not maintained, concerns about version of map • For Kamloops TSA – no measurable objective for wildlife tree retention • LRMP working groups – caribou, OGMA • Draft SARCO caribou recovery strategy • Inconsistencies in licensee incorporation of non-HLP direction from LRMP • Determining consistency for approval of FSP’s

  8. Our non-HLP legacy – Robson Valley LRMP • LRMP signed off as govt policy but not as a higher level plan April 30, 1999 • Therefore, no formally established government objectives for the purpose of FRPA • However, other mechanisms have created some clearer direction

  9. Non-LRMP definitive direction • VQO’s established Jan 14, 1998 by DM prior to the LRMP approval • Provincial Old Growth Order, June 30, 2004 • Spatial OGMA’s for 5 landscape units, May 26, 2005 • Draft OGMA’s for 1 landscape unit, May 31, 2005 • Spatial OGMA’s for 8 more landscape units, January 30, 2006 • Some Agricultural Development Areas

  10. Non-LRMP non-binding direction • Robson Valley Crown Land Plan, approved by Ministry of Lands and Parks, November 1985 • Revised draft circulated for discussion in 1990 but no formal approval

  11. CHALLENGES • Maintaining public confidence – expectations around non-HLP objectives • Need to address land use designations that do not have formal objectives Dealing with multiple overlapping plans • LRMP monitoring tables – PIMC’s • Draft SARCO caribou recovery strategy

  12. There is some irony in the fact that the LRMP that was formally established as a HLP provides less certainty around maintaining key resource values and creates more challenges with respect to implementing FRPA.

  13. Do our legacy HLP’s provide adequate clarity and direction?

  14. What are the public’s expectations and how will they be met?

  15. How do we ensure that government objectives apply to other resource industries and how do we ensure that activities of other resource industries don’t compromise FRPA and the forest industry? It may become a bit of a balancing act.

  16. How do we ensure that government objectives, particularly from legacy HLP’s, are properly stored, correct, current, and readily accessible? Who will be in charge and accountable?

  17. What do we do with storing, accessing, and monitoring delivery of those portions of the legacy HLP’s that have not been “established” as government objectives? What about non-HLP land use plans?

  18. What end results do we wish to achieve for the future and how do we get there?

  19. When setting objectives, we need to focus on the desired results, not on rules or administrative processes.

  20. How does a DDM determine consistency with legacy HLP objectives?

  21. If we forge ahead with FRPA without adequate and suitable objectives, what will the path look like?

  22. With adequate and suitable objectives, maintained and readily accessible, the path should end differently.

More Related