Cranbrook West Recreation Advisory Committee Action Items

September 27, 2006 7–10 pm Prestige Inn, Cranbrook

Attendance of Plan Signatories Steve Flett, ILMB – Chair Sangita Sudan, ILMB Alan Gordon, City of Cranbrook Dave Miller, BC Snowmobile Federation Dave Quinn, EKBC Donna Morrison, Kootenay Livestock Assoc. Earle Tatlow, CBK Rod & Gun Club F J Hurtak, Kootenay Wildlife Heritage Fund Jeanette Sissons, CBK Chamber of Commerce Alternate Martin Cloarec, Cranbrook Archery Club Rick Olsen, Koot Mush & Berry Pickers

Jim Campbell, Purcell Hut Assoc. John Bergenske, Wildsight Leanne Colombo, GCC Norm Walter, RDEK Peter Davidson, Rocky Mtn. Naturalists Rex Holley, FOLKS Rick Hammond, Kootenay Quad Club Rob Bishop, EK Wild Turkey Fed. Tom McDougall, Koot Mush & Berry Pickers

Observers Meadowbrook Residents: Bob Johnstone E. Eccleston Lloyd Dean Margaret Mayes

Warner McKay Len Hunt Robin Ballard David Mayes

Alan Wilson 1. Welcome and Introduction

Additions to agenda - presentation by Meadowbrook representative Bob Johnston (Attachment 1); - Road closures.

Summary of presentation: Meadowbrook residents feel the CWRAC has exhibited a lack of due diligence by recommending an amendment to the CWRMS RM1 zonation to RM3 for the Canadian Mountain View Paradise (CMVP) application, and considering it as a minor rather than a major amendment despite opposition by the residents of Meadowbrook.

Mr. Johnson pointed to a letter attached to the presentation sent to Steve Flett on February 5th via email. Note: Bob Johnston sent a letter to Steve Flett attached to an email on February 5th. Due to travel time and meeting preparation required for the February 6th meeting, the email remained unopened until February 7th. By then the table had made their recommendation on the application. In the email Bob Johnston mentions that a signed copy of the letter was being faxed to Norm Walters on February 5th to be included as part of the deliberations on the CMVP tenure. It should be noted that no such letter was presented to the committee at the meeting by the RDEK representative.

The Chair asked Bob Johnston if he required responses to his presentation questions. Johnston indicated he did not need responses if the table was willing to revoke or amend their recommendation to MTSA on the application.

The residents believe that if the table revokes their Feb. 6th recommendation then Minister Stan Hagen of MTSA may take this into consideration and over turn the decision to issue tenure.

Norm W suggested amending the February 6th minutes. Bob Johnston was in favour of this.

Several members at the table disputed the language around their original recommendation and felt that it did not clarify what the actual intent of the motion was.

Jeanette pointed out that the recommendation was read out loud several times by the Chair before the right wording was captured.

Both the Chair and Sangita informed the table that they had ample time in which to point this out before the minutes were adopted at the April 19th meeting.

Several said they did not read minutes. The Chair was asked to amend the minutes to include a Caveat to the recommendation:

Provided approval of the residents and the RDEK can be attained. All were in favour of this change.

Meadowbrook residents leave the room. 2. Approval of June 26, 2006 draft Action Items: Rob B was not present at the June 26th meeting and wants it clearly noted that he opposed the recommendation in support of the Brad Park application.

Copies of minutes were handed out and the Chair reviewed each ACTION ITEMS with the table. Minutes were accepted and adopted.

3. Business arising from June 26th meeting a) Action points- copies of Blueprint for Action handed out to table. Additional copies available at the MOFR office. - FJ’s milestones article printed in the 2006 Autumn Edition, East Kootenay Outdoors – The Daily Townsman (Attachment 2). - Lost Dog/Meadowbrook Presentation (in section 1. Welcome).

In reference to the Dean Roe application John B advises that their mandate to promote front country development will be of concern to neighbouring communities.

Sangita agreed and suggests that it will be an even bigger issue of concern when identifying potential Intensive Use Areas. 4. Old Business CWRMS implementation work plans for commercial recreation tenure (CRT) review, intensive use area (IUA) strategy, communication/education strategy.

Sangita updates group on what is being done to date: - Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) have been prepared for the CRT review working group (WG). These need to be reviewed by those members who volunteer for this working group; - An Identification Strategy for Intensive Use Areas is being developed and will be reviewed once a working group is established; - A zonation review process will be defined with the CWRAC, at which time the table will elect/volunteer members for a working group; - A Communication strategy is currently under review and development by the Southern Rocky Mountain Advisory Committee that may be utilized and adapted to all three recreation access plans.

John B and Donna M suggest that WGs have “break out” sessions during regular meetings. The meetings will be more effective and create a collaborative atmosphere.

In reference to the CRT WG John B suggests that “process” is a way to neuter the table. Until their concerns have been addressed any WG may be premature.

Sangita responds that a CRT review WG is necessary to establish and maintain consistency on how tenures are reviewed and recommendations on plan amendments are forwarded by the CWRAC to government for approval. The TOR for the WG will outline criteria which will in turn provide a rationale for their decision making if questioned.

Steve voiced his support on this point and suggested that various aspects of the plan including RM zonations need to be reviewed.

Norm added that CWRAC did not zone anything RM3 because one of the things that almost all of

the table agreed to was the fact that we did not want to see a bunch of development in the backcountry. The current zoning in the CWRMS plan allows the CWRAC to have a say in the type and level of development in the planning area.

Both he and John B feel that if the CWRAC is asked to make a recommendation on amending an area for a tenure proposal then the table should not feel like it must amend the plan to accommodate this development for MTSA.

The Chair asked the table for volunteers to the CRT WG. Volunteers: FJ Hurtak - Kootenay Wildlife Heritage Fund Jeanette S - CBK Chamber of Commerce Peter D - Rocky Mtn. Naturalists Alan G - City of Cranbrook Tom McD - Koot Mush & Berry Pickers Larry H – East Kootenay Hunters Association A copy of the Draft Terms of Reference for the CRT working group was handed out to these volunteers for review and comment. ACTION: a) Sangita to forward digital copies of TOR to volunteers. b) Volunteers will review and provide comments through email on draft terms of reference for discussion at the next CWRAC meeting. c) The CRWAC will confirm the working group, to ensure balanced representation. 5. New Business Road access updates:

Road closures are not being communicated to the Chair of CWRAC by MOFR or industry. The following are road closures the committee would like information on:

Cooper Lake Road, Lake Creek Road, Lime Creek Road. ACTION: The committee would like answers to some questions: Why are the roads closed and for how long? Are these legal closures, if not then on what authority are the roads closed? ACTION: Steve will follow up on these road closures and get back to them at next meeting.

Sangita explains that the bridge access to Lime Creek road is open for non-motorized use when bridge is out for all including resident hunters and the guide outfitter. However Galloway did not pull out the bridge this time but instead installed barriers. The SRMAC was informed of this by Bill Adair and have not expressed any concerns. ACTION: The CWRAC will work on summarizing their challenges with regards to RMS plan implementation including road closures by providing the Chair with examples. Open group Discussion:

Rob wants government to make commitments to the table. Dave M points out that we are not moving forward. Norm suggests walking away from the table is not the right thing. Dealing with provincial

government can be frustrating. Norm advises becoming more proactive. Peter D mentions that Lamb creek trail has been damaged in the last few months by logging

without considering degradation. The logging has been devastating to the area. Leanne suggests that with cases like this, the best thing is to go through the Forest Practices

Board to lodge your complaints. Peter points out that the licensee has charges pending for degradation to Lamb Creek Road. John B expresses that his concerns are not with CR tenures but instead the table needs to

become a political problem in order for things to get done. He suggests making a strategic plan on how to approach this.

Donna suggests that if we want to get things done we need to meet more often. We are ineffective because we are not meeting often enough and may be loosing credibility with as a group.

Jeanette points out that more time is spent venting at these meetings than moving forward on issues.

Someone mentions that road closures are a slap in the face especially when they are not communicated to the table. They want a letter sent to MOE, MOFR and any other ministry and MLA on why there are road closures in place with no legal mandate. This is not what was agreed to.

It was suggested that a letter to the editor should be written for the local newspapers. Several members want Steve to ask government and MLA why the plan is not being abided with. They would like letters to be written to Ministries regarding the issues with road closures. Leanne points out that Tony Wideski has initiated an investigation into C&E around the Lake

Creek Road closure. ACTION: The table would like letters forwarded expressing their concerns to the following: MOFR Galloway: Randy Byford and Bud Nelson Tembec: Brian Dureski, Ken Streloff, Chris Stagd BC timber Sales: Steve Byford First nations

The letter should point out specific incidents and how these actions do not conform to the intent of the CWRMS plan.

Confirm with KBMC why the CWRMS is not being used for policy direction on recreation by MOFR and their licensees and MOE.

Want a response from these agencies and what is their intent now that they are aware of these issues.

Norm suggests that letters should be written to the operation managers from these companies and if responses are not received then the first letter should be attached to a second letter and sent to their bosses.

Several members asked the Chair to prepare the letters by October 3rd. Jim C interrupted the discussion pointing out that the table needs to address public signage and

education on the plan with more emphasis on communication and education as a high priority. ACTION: Sangita will bring examples of signs and brochures for SRMMP and GBRAP to the next meeting.

Donna asked how SRMAC went about reviewing and making amendments to the SRMMP zonations for the interim areas. ACTION: Sangita to supply this information including the process used by the GBRAP. Next meeting scheduled for October 25, 2006.