{"id":140,"date":"2023-01-28T18:26:08","date_gmt":"2023-01-28T23:26:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/chapter\/__unknown__-7\/"},"modified":"2023-12-30T15:23:17","modified_gmt":"2023-12-30T20:23:17","slug":"regional_planning","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/chapter\/regional_planning\/","title":{"raw":"Regional Land Use Planning","rendered":"Regional Land Use Planning"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Around the world, the practice of land use planning is most commonly associated with cities. In such urban settings, land use planning is grounded in statutory plans (e.g., Official Community Plan, as they are called in British Columbia) and zoning bylaws.\u00a0 The need for land use planning, however, extends far beyond cities and suburbs into the remote regions where provincial parks, forestry, and mining take place.\u00a0 These areas also overlap almost entirely with the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In British Columbia, 94% of the land base is public Crown land.\u00a0 Over 90% of these public lands are covered by land use plans.\u00a0 It is land use planning for this land base that we refer to as \u201cregional\u201d land use planning.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In this learning module, we first address the use of the term \u201cregional\u201d to describe land use planning at a large geographic scale.\u00a0 We then describe how regional land use planning was carried out in BC, which was through Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs).\u00a0 LRMPs and SRMPs remain relevant but all of them are now about 20 years old.\u00a0 Next, drawing from a special report by the Forest Practices Board, we highlight concerns raised about the legal status of regional land use planning in BC.\u00a0 In the final two sections, we cover shifts in policy direction for regional land use planning in BC.\u00a0 In 2006, the province initiated a \u201cnew direction\u201d for regional land use planning.\u00a0 Since 2006, policy shifts have been driven, in large part, by a concerted effort to reconcile regional land use planning and Indigenous rights and title.\u00a0 And today, the province aims to \u201cmodernise\u201d regional land use planning.\u00a0 This module also covers Access Management Plans and Crown Land Plans.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Use of terms: What is \u201cregional\u201d land use planning?<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The use of terms to describe land use planning at different geographic scales can be confusing.\u00a0 Although we use \u201cregional\u201d land use planning in a specific way for our case materials, this term is not perfect.\u00a0 The following discussion attempts to sort through the geographic scales of land use planning.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Urban land use planning is clearly associated with statutory plans and zoning.\u00a0 It is when we step outside of urban areas into the rural domain that we encounter problems due to a lack of consistent use of terms.\u00a0 The possible set of geographic terms include, among others, rural, remote, region, sub-region, hinterland, landscape, watershed, and Indigenous traditional territories.\u00a0 Each term can be used to characterise a geographic area or scale.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The Province of British Columbia associates the term regional land use planning with Strategic Land Use Planning (SLUP), with the two terms often used interchangeably.\u00a0 The emphasis on \u201cstrategic\u201d is to distinguish a comprehensive approach to land use planning in remote areas as substantially different from \u201coperational\u201d land use plans that are prepared for a specific reason or purpose, such as an operational land use plan for a mining project or forest licence.\u00a0 As a general term, Strategic Land Use Plans include both Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs).\u00a0 Thus, LRMPs and SRMPs are types of SLUPs.\u00a0 LRMPs are completed at a geographic scale that is larger than a SRMP.\u00a0 Several SRMPs are usually completed within and part of a LRMP.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Further, LRMPs are often described as either regional or sub-regional plans.\u00a0 At these scales, the boundaries of a LRMP can be informed by a diverse set of features.\u00a0 SRMPs, because they are completed at a smaller geographic scale, are considered \u201clandscape\u201d plans that can be based on a single watershed.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">For our purposes, we use regional land use planning as a general term to encompass LRMPs and SRMPs.\u00a0 We charactertise LRMPs as regional plans and SRMPs as sub-regional or landscape plans.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Finally, we must note one additional point of confusion. Regional Districts in British Columbia also complete land use plans.\u00a0 Logically, these efforts are also characterised as regional land use planning.\u00a0 For their urban areas, Regional Districts can adopt Official Community Plans and zoning bylaws. In co-operation with its member municipalities, a Regional District can also adopt a Regional Growth Strategy.\u00a0 Thus, we acknowledge overlapping concepts of what can be described as regional land use planning\u2014and apologise in advance for contributing to the confusion about the use of terms to describe land use planning at different geographic scales.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Strategic Land Use Planning\r\n<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In this section, we describe the development and use of Strategic Land Use Planning (SLUP) in British Columbia.\u00a0 The text is from the following source (used with permission):<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Integrated Land Management Bureau (2006). <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/policies-guides\/new_direction_synopsis.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">A New Direction for Strategic Land Use Planning in BC: Synopsis<\/a>.<\/em> Victoria, BC: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, pp. 3-5.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<h3 class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"text-align: left\"><strong><em>Strategic Land Use Planning<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Strategic land use planning (SLUP) is the process and associated outcomes that provide direction for the management and allocation of public lands and resources (both coastal\/marine and terrestrial) over a defined area (usually a large area, based on large administrative boundaries, Indigenous Nations' traditional territories, marine inlets or ecosystems, or large watersheds, or some combination of these units).\u00a0 This includes both regional plans (Land and Resource Management Plans or LRMPs and Sustainable Resource Management Plans or SRMPs).\u00a0 Strategic planning differs from operational planning which tends to be single resource focused at a site-specific level (e.g., site plans, harvest plans, etc.).<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>LRMPs<\/strong>\r\nRegional plans or LRMPs have been developed to address land use conflicts, environmental issues and competition amongst resource user groups. They have been used as a primary process for obtaining public sanction for new parks and protected areas. They are typically multi-agency initiatives coordinated by a designated planning agency, and involve stakeholders in an \u201cinterests-based negotiation\u201d at a planning table. LRMP approval has been a Cabinet decision. Regional plans or LRMPs result in several main products including: broad land\/coastal use zones delineated on a map; resource management objectives for land\/coastal use zones; broad strategies for integrating resource use; socioeconomic analysis; and plan monitoring, implementation and interpretation mechanisms.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>SRMPs<\/strong>\r\nThese plans facilitate resource management decisions for small to medium size landscapes or watersheds.\u00a0 They focus on similar issues and values as regional plans or LRMPs (e.g. timber, biodiversity, tourism) but at a more detailed level.\u00a0 For example, SRMPs are used to identify Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs), a priority component of biodiversity planning, for addressing specific economic development issues such as agriculture or tourism development, and are also useful for managing values such as spiritual and cultural resources as identified by Indigenous Nations.\u00a0 SRMPs are an important means of refining LRMP objectives so that they can be legally established under the <em>Forest and Range Practices Act <\/em>(FRPA).\u00a0 Some SRMPs deal with all resource values in a plan area, while others focus on only one or a few resource values and issues.\u00a0 There is also a uniquely identifiable subset of SRMPs that provide direction to public land and foreshore areas.\u00a0 These include coastal plans, Crown land development plans and pre-tenure plans for oil and gas development.\u00a0 They are developed by the effective resource agencies in consultation with key stakeholders (usually in an advisory capacity), and are approved by the appropriate minister (currently the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL).<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3 class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"text-align: left\"><strong><em>Strategic Planning Evolution<\/em><\/strong><em>\r\n<\/em><\/h3>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">SLUP has evolved considerably since its inception in the early 1990s.\u00a0 Five distinct phases can be identified over the past 16 years, as follows:<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase I.\u00a0 <\/strong>The Clayoquot Sound conflict era of the early 1990s and the subsequent Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) land use plans for the majority of public land on Vancouver Island and then the Cariboo-Chilcotin and Kootenay-Boundary regions.\u00a0 At the same time the government of the day developed the <em>Forest Practices Code of British<\/em> <em>Columbia Act (<\/em>the Code<em>)<\/em>, a part of which enabled a legal framework around plan implementation.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase II.\u00a0 <\/strong>The development and implementation of the first suite of LRMPs, beginning with Kispiox, Kamloops and Vanderhoof and ending with the completion of the northeast LRMPs (Fort St. John and Fort Nelson) and the establishment of the Northern Rocky Mountains Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (MKMA) in 1997-98.\u00a0 During this phase, the work required for \u201ccompletion\u201d of the Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin and Kootenay-Boundary regions took place.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase III.\u00a0 <\/strong>Completion of most of the interior LRMPs in BC. Robson Valley, Prince George, Lakes, Bulkley Valley, Fort St. James, Cassiar-Iskut Stikine, Dawson Creek, Mackenzie, Okanagan, Kalum and, finally Lillooet by mid-2001.\u00a0 After the Spring 2001 election, a Cabinet decision approving the Lillooet LRMP was rescinded.\u00a0 Further, the Code was repealed and two new pieces of legislation and accompanying regulations identified to take its place: FRPA and the <em>Land Amendment Act<\/em>.\u00a0 A decision was made not to initiate any new LRMPs.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase IV.\u00a0 <\/strong>Continued development of the Central Coast, North Coast, Morice, Sea to Sky, Lillooet and Haida Gwaii LRMPs, with increased levels of engagement of Indigenous Nations.\u00a0 Planning table recommendations from the Central Coast and North Coast were sent to government-to-government (G2G) discussions with affected Indigenous Nations, and resulted in a \u201cCoast Land Use Decision\u201d involving both areas, and supported by specific Indigenous Nations and government land use planning agreements.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase V.\u00a0 <\/strong>This phase involves concluding G2G negotiations with Indigenous Nations on the planning table recommendations for Morice, Sea to Sky, Lillooet and Haida Gwaii LRMPs.\u00a0 These negotiations are intended to develop mutually supported recommendations to Cabinet and Indigenous Nations\u2019 leaders and are anticipated to be complete by the end of March 2007.\u00a0 It is assumed that there will be a 2 to 3 year completion phase required for the government decisions on these \u201clegacy\u201d LRMPs.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>SRMPs.<\/strong>\u00a0 During LRMP Phase III, the province initiated planning at the landscape and watershed level (SRMPs).\u00a0 These were primarily focused within approved LRMP areas, with some exceptions.\u00a0 Most of this work involved identifying biodiversity conservation zones and objectives (e.g., OGMAs, riparian areas, wildlife management areas) to aid FRPA implementation.\u00a0 In other cases, they were undertaken to address economic development issues for resources such as tourism and recreation or agriculture.\u00a0 SRMP level planning has continued through subsequent phases to fulfill this role.\u00a0 A marine\/coastal foreshore allocation planning program took place during Phase IV.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\r\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Legal Implementation of SLUP<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">For all the good intentions of Strategic Land Use Planning in British Columbia, there remain questions about their efficacy.\u00a0 The extent of their legal force is central to these questions, as identified by the Forest Practices Board.\u00a0 The following text about the legal implementation of SLUP in BC is from the Forest Practices Board\u2019s special report published in 2008 (used with permission).<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Forest Practices Board (2006). <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bcfpb.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/SR34-Provincial-Land-Use-Planning.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Provincial Land Use Planning: <\/em><\/a><em>Which way from here? Special Report. <\/em>FPB\/SR\/34. Victoria, BC, pp. 8-12.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><strong>Provincial Land Use Planning: Which way from here?<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nStrategic land use plans (SLUPs) have a function similar to corporate mission statements.\u00a0 They normally provide high level direction about broad objectives for resource management zones and some strategies for achieving those objectives.\u00a0 Implementation of SLUP objectives usually requires more detailed planning and enumeration of specific actions.\u00a0 SLUPs are implemented through legal objectives that must be met, as well as through non\u2010legal discretion exercised by agreement holders.[footnote]Companies and people who hold licences under the Forest Act or Range Act.[\/footnote]\r\n<h3 style=\"text-align: left\"><strong>History \u2013 the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act<\/strong><\/h3>\r\nWhile still in effect, the <em>Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act <\/em>(the Code) governed the development of forest and range resource management plans and provided a regulatory framework requiring those plans to be considered by managers.\u00a0 The Code was predicated on a hierarchy of legally required planning.\u00a0 Portions of SLUPs relevant to forest and range management were to be translated into legally binding higher level plans, and those plans were to drive the development of tactical forest development plans (FDPs).\u00a0 Direction from the higher level plans and FDPs was to be used in operational plans (silvicultural prescriptions).\u00a0 For some objectives in SLUPs, notably old growth and landscape level biodiversity, further planning at the landscape unit[footnote]Typically, watersheds of 10,000 to 100,000 hectares.[\/footnote] scale was needed.\u00a0 Other objectives, such as ungulate winter range and community watershed objectives, were implemented through specific designations under the Code.\r\n\r\nTwo points are important here.\u00a0 First, under the Code, while there was no legal requirement for operational forestry to meet the objectives in the SLUPs\u2014it had to be consistent with the objectives as translated into the higher level plans, landscape unit plans and other designations.\u00a0 Second, most of the SLUPs were initiated during the Code era, and the work of those planning tables at that time was based on the assumption that the hierarchy of plans, codified by the Code, would be in place to effect implementation of the SLUP.\r\n\r\nIt is also important that the Code contained a broad safety mechanism in the \u201cadequately manage and conserve\u201d test (Section 41(1)(b)),[footnote]The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act contained the following:\u00a0 41. Approval of plans by district manager or designated environment official.\u00a0 41. (1) The district manager must approve an operational plan or amendment submitted under this Part if (a) the plan or amendment was prepared and submitted in accordance with this Act, the regulations and the standards, and (b) the district manager is satisfied that the plan or amendment will adequately manage and conserve the forest resources of the area to which it applies.[\/footnote] which enabled district managers or designated environment officials to ensure an agreement holder\u2019s FDP reflected the direction in SLUPs.\u00a0 This was a key tool in implementing SLUPs, because it could be used to offset any shortcomings where SLUP direction was not adequately reflected in higher level plans.\u00a0 Section 41(1)(b) was eliminated when the <em>Forest and Range Practices Act<\/em> (FRPA) replaced the Code.\r\n<h3 style=\"text-align: left\"><strong>Current legal framework \u2013 The FRPA Regime<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n<span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">In 2004, the Code was replaced by FRPA<\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">.<\/span>\u00a0 <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">FRPA, along with amendments to the <\/span><em class=\"import-fontstyle31\">Land Act <\/em><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">and a<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">series of \u201cprofessional accountability acts\u201d[footnote]The <em>Foresters Act<\/em>, the <em>Agrologists Act<\/em>, the <em>Engineers and Geoscientists Act,<\/em> and the <em>College of Applied Biology Act<\/em>.[\/footnote]<\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\"> are known collectively as the \u201cFRPA regime.\u201d<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Under the FRPA regime, the <\/span><em class=\"import-fontstyle31\">Land Act <\/em><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">can make direction in a SLUP into a legal land use<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">objective.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">The <\/span><em class=\"import-fontstyle31\">Land Act <\/em><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">also contains provisions to grandparent Code higher level plans into<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">legal land use objectives.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">When preparing land use objectives, the entire SLUP direction is<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">considered, not just the specific objectives.\u00a0 However, not all SLUP objectives are translated<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">directly into separate land use objectives; several SLUP objectives may be combined.<\/span>\u00a0 <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Additionally, land use objectives typically pertain only to the activities of forest and range<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">agreement holders, and not to other resource users.\u00a0 In general, draft objectives are developed in<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">consultation with the forest industry to ensure they are operationally feasible.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">As of September 2008, legal orders intended to comprehensively implement SLUPs were in<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">place for about half the province, and land use objectives had been established in 12 of the SLUP<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">areas.\u00a0<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\"> In addition, specific legislation was enacted to implement plans for the Muskwa\u2010Kechika<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">and Fort St. <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">John <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">areas[footnote]The <em>Muskwa\u2010Kechika Act<\/em> (1998) and Fort St. John Pilot Regulation of the Code, respectively.[\/footnote]<\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\"> (<\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Figure 1<\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">).<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Land use objectives under the <\/span><em class=\"import-fontstyle31\">Land Act <\/em><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">can also incorporate more detailed planning done<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">subsequent to the completion of an SLUP.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">These plans can provide a comprehensive set of<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">objectives reflecting the entire direction in the SLUP.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Eight such plans covering 11 percent of the<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">province have been completed. \u00a0<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">More commonly these plans are for single resource values<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">(i.e., old growth management areas or wildlife management areas), and often only for portions<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">of the SLUP area.<\/span> \u00a0<span class=\"import-fontstyle21\"> Another key difference between these plans and SLUPs is that they are not<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">based on a consensus model.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">The plans are developed by government staff, and key<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">stakeholders are consulted as appropriate. \u00a0<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">These plans are mechanisms for implementing<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">SLUPs.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">A table summarizing the status of SLUPs and lower level plans is provided in the on\u2010line<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">version of this <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fpb.gov.bc.ca\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">report<\/a><\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">The FRPA regime also enables the implementation of some SLUP objectives through objectives<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">or measures enabled by the <\/span>Government Actions Regulation <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">of FRPA, which addresses issues<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">about:<\/span>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">resource features (such as karst caves)<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">lakeshore management zones<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">scenic areas and visual quality objectives<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">community watersheds and water quality objectives<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">wildlife habitat areas and wildlife habitat features<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">ungulate winter ranges<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">species at risk, regionally important wildlife and ungulate species<\/span><\/li>\r\n \t<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">fisheries sensitive watersheds and temperature sensitive streams<\/span><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Figure 1.\u00a0 Legal status of SLUP<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_139\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"804\"]<img class=\" wp-image-139\" src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1-300x267.png\" alt=\"FBP 2006 Map_legal status\" width=\"804\" height=\"716\" \/> Forest Practices Board (2006). <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bcfpb.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/SR34-Provincial-Land-Use-Planning.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Provincial Land Use Planning: Which way from here?<\/a> Special Report. FPB\/SR\/34. Victoria, BC, pp. 8-12. Used with permission.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The extent to which these mechanisms have been used to implement objectives in SLUPs varies greatly and is, in part, a function of whether the related issues directly affect local residents and whether the mechanism was in place under the Code.\u00a0 For example, objectives for visual quality and community watersheds were well established under the Code and continue to be implemented in many places throughout the province under the FRPA regime.\u00a0 In contrast, objectives or measures for regionally important wildlife, or wildlife habitat features, have yet to be implemented anywhere.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The FRPA regime also contains provincial scale objectives, and practice requirements, under the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR), the Range Planning and Practices Regulation and the Provincial Non\u2010Spatial Old Growth Order established under the <em>Land Act.<\/em>\u00a0 These objectives, and the associated practice requirements, may reflect objectives of a given SLUP.\u00a0 To the extent that this is the case, those SLUP objectives are legally enforceable.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Forest and range agreement holders must prepare plans (forest stewardship plans (FSPs) and range use or range stewardship plans, respectively) that specify results or strategies consistent with the objectives set by government.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In preparing FSPs, agreement holders may refer to SLUPs to clarify the \u201cspirit and intent\u201d of a legal objective (where an objective is vague or could be interpreted a number of ways\u2014e.g., \u201cmaintain a mosaic of angling opportunities\u201d), or to clarify specific terms used in a legal objectives (e.g., to more specifically define \u201cthermal cover\u201d and how it will be measured in the objective to \u201cmaintain at least 25 percent of the forested area in thermal cover\u201d).\u00a0 Agreement holders may choose to incorporate alternative results or strategies in FSPs that reflect SLUP direction.\u00a0 For example, SLUP direction for pine marten could be incorporated into the results or strategies for FPPR 8 (riparian management areas) and FPPR 9.1 (stand level biodiversity), although the words \u201cpine marten\u201d would not appear in the FSP.\u00a0 If the direction is incorporated into the result or strategy for an objective, it becomes a legal commitment.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Results and\/or strategies in FSPs that are tied to legal objectives are enforceable under FRPA. FSP content <em>not <\/em>tied to a legal objective is <em>not <\/em>legally enforceable.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Forest agreement holders must also prepare site plans to provide direction to operations.\u00a0 FRPA states that site plans must be consistent with the associated FSPs.\u00a0 The extent to which the SLUP direction is explicitly reflected in site plans will depend on the agreement holder\u2019s commitment to the SLUP.\u00a0 SLUP direction that is out\u2010of\u2010date or unclear is unlikely to be used.\u00a0 Similarly, as agreement holders become less and less familiar with the SLUP, due to the passage of time and staff turnover, they are less likely to refer to it in site plans.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3 class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"text-align: left\"><strong>Non-Legal Implementation<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">A key element of the FRPA regime is the reduction in regulatory burden, compared to that of the Code.\u00a0 FRPA\u2019s intent was to reduce cost and administrative complexity, while maintaining high environmental standards, public acceptance of forestry operations and continued timber supply.\u00a0 The FRPA regime is imbedded in a policy framework that places much of the onus for maintaining these things in what some refer to as \u201cthe non\u2010legal realm.\u201d\u00a0 Because of the relatively recent implementation of FRPA, the effectiveness of the non\u2010legal realm remains uncertain.\u00a0 While only legal constraints can require the implementation of the social choices and societal expectations expressed in SLUPs, many agreement holders and government staff have commented that social licence was indeed a factor motivating consideration of SLUPs in stewardship decisions.\u00a0 In the context of implementing the aspects of SLUPs related to forest and range practices, there are a number of mechanisms that affect the accountability resulting from social licence.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Professionals responsible for forest and range practices could be held accountable by their professional organizations as governed by professional accountability acts.[footnote]See footnote 4.[\/footnote]\u00a0 For example, professional foresters are legally required to abide by the <a href=\"https:\/\/abcfp.ca\/web\/ABCFP\/About_Us\/Governance\/Code-of-Ethical-and-Professional-Conduct\/ABCFP\/Governance\/Code-of-Ethical-and-Professional-Conduct.aspx?hkey=d1008b68-5221-4a13-ae31-f618f1e5d15a\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Code of Ethical and Professional Conduct<\/a> of the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) and could conceivably lose their right to practice if they don\u2019t.\u00a0 The code of conduct states that a forester\u2019s responsibility is to protect \"<span dir=\"ltr\" role=\"presentation\">the public interest by ensuring the multiple <span class=\"highlight selected appended\">values<\/span> society has assigned to <\/span><span dir=\"ltr\" role=\"presentation\">BC\u2019s forest are balanced and considered.<\/span>\u201d\u00a0 SLUPs provide one articulation of the values that have been assigned by society.\u00a0 If a forest or range professional is thought to have acted inappropriately, the principle mechanism for recourse is through a complaint to his or her professional association. However, it is forest and range agreement holders, not forest and range professionals, who are responsible for ensuring that activities on the land comply with the legal requirements of FRPA and the <em>Land<\/em> <em>Act<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Plan implementation monitoring committees or other similar formal bodies (e.g., community resource boards) can promote accountability between the SLUP and its implementation.\u00a0 However, their effectiveness varies widely among SLUPs; these bodies are advisory in nature.\u00a0 In general, the most actively implemented SLUPs may be those that have a strong and committed public monitoring body in place.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Forestry agreement holders can enhance their social licence by obtaining certification that holds them accountable to independent standards[footnote]There are three standards in common use in BC:\u00a0 Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard (SFIS), Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and ISO 14001.\u00a0 A fourth standard, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), is not commonly used in BC for forest stewardship.\u00a0 ISO 14001 is often used in conjunction with SFI or CSA, as it only defines the environmental management system.[\/footnote] through third\u2010party audits with varying degrees of rigor.\u00a0 Certification typically requires agreement holders to consider both the legal and non\u2010legal context in which they operate (which would include SLUPs) but it does not require them to implement specific SLUP provisions.\u00a0 Sustainable forest management plans, created for the certification process, could implement SLUP direction.\u00a0 Agreement holders are not legally accountable for commitments made in a sustainable forest management plan.\u00a0 We also note that SLUPs can be used to guide the preparation and approval of forest stewardship plans (FSPs) in a number of non\u2010legally binding ways.\u00a0 For example, district policy based on SLUPs can be interpreted as standard practices, and those could be cited in FSPs. Standard practices[footnote]\u201cStandards of practice\u201d are existing practices that have been informed by non\u2010legal guidance and believed to be the benchmark from which the degree of consistency with objectives can be determined.\u00a0 The designated decision maker can point to policy LRMPs as one source of results\/strategies that speak to the \u201cstandards of practice\u201d by value that also balance across values\u201d (MFR Resource Tenures and Engineering Branch, Administrative Guide for Forest Stewardship Plans, Nov. 2006, p. 134).[\/footnote] are assumed to represent a lower risks to the resource value, and require less supporting documentation than innovative practices.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\r\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Access Management<\/strong><strong> Plans<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">LRMPs often led to the creation of Access Management Plans.\u00a0 As per its name, the general purpose of these plans is to help manage access to Crown land in the midst of multiple and often conflicting uses, such as resource development and back-country recreation.\u00a0 To manage access, each plan considers social, environmental, and economic values.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">For example, the Vanderhoof Access Management Plan[footnote]Province of British Columbia, <a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/industry\/crown-land-water\/land-use-planning\/regions\/omineca\/vanderhoof-lrmp\/vanderhoof-amp\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Vanderhoof Access Management Plan<\/a>.[\/footnote] aims to ensure industrial and public access while also addressing the affects of providing access for such uses.\u00a0 Key elements of the plan include the following:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-Normal\">Managing road densities to maintain the integrity of recreational experiences for both motorised and non-motorised uses;<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-Normal\">Identifying a permanent road network for long-term access to various recreational opportunities; and<\/li>\r\n \t<li class=\"import-Normal\">Identifying specific recreation opportunities to provide certainty and reduce conflict between recreational \u00a0users experiences and expectations.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Crown Land Plans<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">A Crown Land Plan is a sub-regional plan based on within settlement corridors.\u00a0 The purpose of a Crown Land Plan is to establish policy to guide the planning, management, and disposition of vacant Crown lands regarding residential, recreational, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.\u00a0 Since the 1980s, only a few Crown Land Pans were created, perhaps only six.\u00a0 These include plans for each of the areas surrounding Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, and Prince George.\u00a0 A Crown Land Plan is primarily a map showing land designations accompanied by a legend and definitions of designations.\u00a0 Although Crown Land Plans exist, they are not referenced frequently.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The Fort St. James Crown Land Plan helps to illustrate the purpose and scope of these plans.\u00a0 Land use designations were based on \u201chighest and best use\u201d with consideration for the productive capability of the land (e.g., for agricultural use) and for the suitability of the land for specific uses.\u00a0 The capability of land accounted for such biophysical factors as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology.\u00a0 The suitability of land considered present use, proximity, local agreements, and land use conflicts.\u00a0 The process to complete the plan was directed by a steering committee and informed by public consultations.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Crown Land Plans are connected with LRMPs in two ways.\u00a0 Crown Land Plans that existed prior to the creation of LRMPs were used to guide the development of the LRMP.\u00a0 In other cases, some LRMPs included an action item to create a Crown Land Plan.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Provincial policy: <\/strong><strong>\u201cNew Direction\u201d<\/strong><strong> (2006)<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In 2006, the Province of British Columbia shifted priorities for regional land use planning.\u00a0 This effort was branded as a \u201cnew direction\u201d for Strategic Land Use Planning, as follows.\u00a0 The government\u2019s priority to establish a \u201cnew relationship\u201d with Indigenous peoples was a major thrust for this policy change.\u00a0 The text below is from the provincial document that set forth this new direction (pp. 8-13) (used with permission):<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Integrated Land Management Bureau (2006). <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/policies-guides\/new_direction_synopsis.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">A New Direction for Strategic Land Use Planning in BC: Synopsis<\/a>.<\/em> Victoria, BC: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><strong>A New Direction for Strategic Land Use Planning in BC: Synopsis.<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The following key questions have been addressed and a \u2018New Direction\u2019 for strategic land use planning formulated in response:<\/p>\r\n<strong>1. Completed plans:\u00a0 Do we need to update and monitor them and if so, what structures,<\/strong> <strong>mechanisms and priorities should we use?<\/strong>\r\n\r\nDirection\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.1\u00a0 Establish a strategic plan implementation monitoring committee (PIMC) for geographical regions or sub-regions of the Province, representing all the LRMPs and SRMPs completed in the geographical area.\u00a0 Include representation from key participants in the LRMP and SRMP processes, as well as Indigenous Nations.\u00a0 Develop a standard terms of reference for the PIMCs, clearly outlining their role and responsibilities, membership, and level of support.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.2\u00a0 Develop an action plan to migrate existing monitoring and implementation committees into these structures by March 31, 2007.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.3\u00a0 Restrict LRMPs and SRMP updating or amendment activities to specific components of a plan, as opposed to the entire plan.\u00a0 Require approval of updating or amendment requests by the inter-agency management committees (IAMCs).\u00a0 Develop standard procedures for Indigenous Nations engagement, and for consultation with the public and interested parties not represented on the PIMC.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.4\u00a0 Establish a list of priority circumstances that may warrant plan component updating or amendment.\u00a0 This list should include the need to align plan recommendations with policy and legislative changes, to reflect critical new information such as Indigenous Nations\u2019 interests and values, and major environmental changes such as Mountain Pine Beetle infestation.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.5\u00a0 If a business case can be made for a comprehensive and thorough update of an LRMP to reflect new legislation, policy, information or environmental changes this should be done through the development of a specific plan or planning study for the topic or issue in question and forwarded to the ILMB Board of Directors for approval.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.6\u00a0 Support the updating or amendment of existing approved LRMPs and\/or SRMPs affected by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>2. Legacy LRMPs:\u00a0 How do we expedite government decisions for the remaining LRMPs<\/strong> <strong>and complete the follow-up work required?<\/strong><strong>\r\n<\/strong><\/p>\r\nDirection\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">2.1 Conclude G2G discussions on all remaining legacy LRMPs (Morice, Sea to Sky, Lillooet and HG\/QCI) by March 31, 2007 for Cabinet decisions and land use announcements.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">2.2 Set a three year maximum time limit (end of fiscal 2009\/2010) for completion of any follow-up work required for government decisions made for the Lillooet, Morice, HG\/QCI, and Sea to Sky LRMPs, should completion work be necessary.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">2.3 Require any further LRMP completion requirements (e.g., EBM, adaptive management, conservancy management, Indigenous Nations interim measures, community support) to become the responsibility of the relevant ministry after the end of fiscal 2009\/10, following which ILMB will restrict its level of support to planning and implementation monitoring functions.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">2.4 Legacy LRMP plan implementation monitoring structures will be integrated into the sub-regional implementation structure recommended in Part 1 above.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>3. <\/strong><strong>FRPA planning requirements:\u00a0 How do we honour our current commitments to<\/strong> <strong>complete legislated FRPA planning while addressing new planning pressures?<\/strong><\/p>\r\nDirection\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.1 Undertake an assessment of the extent of planning required for the successful implementation of the current FRPA planning model. Develop an action plan that includes a schedule and list of priorities that will allow the completion of SRMPs for OGMA objectives in support of FRPA purposes by December 31, 2007.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.2 Complete biodiversity planning by the end of fiscal 2007\/08.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.3 Continue the FRPA planning that relates to establishing legal objectives.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.4 Wherever possible, create efficiencies by building planning for FRPA values into plans done in partnership with Indigenous Nations, the forest sector and other stakeholders.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.5 Complete the development of legal objectives for EBM for application on the Central and North Coast and HG\/QCI.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>4. <\/strong><strong>New strategic plans:\u00a0 Should we do new strategic plans and if so, what are the<\/strong> <strong>circumstances, priorities, processes and products?<\/strong><strong>\r\n<\/strong><\/p>\r\nDirection\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.1 Confirm the conclusion of the LRMP program and the initiation of new planning direction when announcing government land use decisions for the remaining legacy LRMPs.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.2 Drop the LRMP and SRMP terminology and re-brand the strategic planning program (e.g., Strategic Land and Resource Plans).<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.3 Review strategic planning guidelines and procedure to ensure a focus on product requirements (e.g. FRPA, marine, land allocation) as opposed to hierarchical, geographical area-based plan requirements.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.4 Initiate new strategic planning according to the following list of priorities and only in circumstances where:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Planning is required to give legal effect to products of strategic plans through\r\nFRPA, <em>Land Act <\/em>and other statutes.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Planning is required to address major emerging land use conflicts or competition among different user groups.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Planning is required to identify economic opportunities and constraints associated with public land and resources.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Planning is required to address Indigenous Nations\u2019 opportunities, constraints, values and interests in areas where strategic plans have not been completed.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.5 Require a \u201cplan scoping\u201d exercise be undertaken before formally proposing the initiation and funding of a new strategic plan.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.6 Require ILMB Board of Directors\u2019 endorsement prior to initiation of any new strategic plan, and based on recommendations of the \u201cplan scoping\u201d exercise.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.7 All new strategic planning processes should adhere to the following principles:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Led by government(s).<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Indigenous Nations\u2019 involvement on a G2G basis where interested.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Interest groups and stakeholders serve in a meaningful advisory capacity.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Clearly defined process, timelines and products.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.8 Product or outcomes of strategic plans should be:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Clearly defined in a Terms of Reference.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Facilitate operational planning.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Minimize the need for supplementary \u201cnext-level\u201d strategic planning.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Tailored to address the specific issues that led to the initiation of the plan.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.9 New strategic planning design, process and techniques should be structured on recommendations of the risk assessment for strategic planning.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.10 New plans should be undertaken only when the beneficiary or implementing agencies are prepared to support the costs of implementation.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>5. Indigenous Nations:\u00a0 What framework and processes do we use to address the New Relationship commitments to strategic land use planning with Indigenous Nations?<\/strong><\/p>\r\nDirection\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.1 Develop a strategic planning Statement of Intent with the First Nations Leadership Council that provides overarching direction in accordance with key principles based on an assessment of existing, more detailed planning protocols.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.2 Develop planning protocols with individual Indigenous Nations, where appropriate, based on the principles in the Statement of Intent developed with the Leadership Council.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.3 Ensure that planning processes are jointly developed, address capacity, decision-making and conflict resolution, and are mutually acceptable.\u00a0 Strive to reach formal agreement with individual Indigenous Nations or where possible, aggregations of Indigenous Nations at the plan level on both planning processes and products, recognizing that agreements differ in each case.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.4 Focus Indigenous Nations\u2019 involvement in new planning and plan updating or amendment processes on incorporation of Indigenous Nations\u2019 values and interests, and on land and resource management issues and outcomes that provide direction for these values and interests.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.5 Ensure plan updating activities generated by PIMCs are done in collaboration with Indigenous Nations, where Indigenous Nations have responded positively to requests for engagement.\u00a0 Plan updating will be led by government in collaboration with Indigenous Nations and with advice from the appropriate implementation and monitoring committee.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.6 Establish priorities for updating and amending existing plans based on:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>An assessment of risk to Indigenous\u2019 values and interests, with highest risk areas being addressed first.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Availability and cost of providing information on Indigenous\u2019 values and interests.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Indigenous Nations\u2019 willingness to engage.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Available agency resources.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Level of IAMC support.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.7 Pursue planning process outcomes with Indigenous Nations that will reduce and streamline subsequent consultation requirements for specific developments.\u00a0 Planning outcomes must improve resource management and development certainty for investors, the province and Indigenous Nations.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.8 Support for Indigenous Nations\u2019 requests for planning funds should be guided by the following:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>No support for the preparation of Indigenous Nations' land use plans.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Support for Indigenous Nations' participation in joint provincial\/Indigenous planning where the planning\r\nexercise is a priority of government or has been committed to as part of G2G agreement.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Support for Indigenous Nations participation in joint provincial\/Indigenous planning that is not a priority of government or committed to as part of a G2G agreement only if the Indigenous Nation can confirm that it does not have access to the New Relationship fund or other funding sources.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Support where new funding sources are specifically allocated by government as part of special programs or initiatives e.g., Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.9 Continue with FRPA planning, but provide for broader engagement on strategic issues with affected Indigenous Nations to support forest and range operations on public lands.\u00a0 On an interim basis, until Indigenous Nations\u2019 values and interests are incorporated into existing plans, use FRPA and <em>Land Act<\/em> provisions to manage environmental values considered important to Indigenous Nations.\u00a0 Amend and revise legal resource management objectives after Indigenous Nations\u2019 values and interests are incorporated into these plans.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.10 Consider a regionally-based process, similar to the regime now in place for the Coast, such as a traditional territory or grouped Indigenous Nation territories, where the province works collaboratively with Indigenous Nations to confirm broad areas expressing level of opportunity versus constraint, or confirm areas with different value levels that warrant variable management regimes relative to resource development activity.\u00a0 For each of the above areas, a different level of Indigenous Nations' involvement in subsequent activity can be negotiated, ranging from conservancy management agreements to refined and coordinated referral processes.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.11 Ensure planning processes and G2G planning tables do not become surrogate forums for negotiation of rights and title, interim measures and other treaty-related issues, and for negotiation over individual land transaction issues.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>6. Funding and staffing: How do we allocate resources to meet the new planning direction and the associated government priorities?<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Direction<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.1 Establish a three year maximum time limit for the end of ILMB\u2019s responsibility to fund completion work by other agencies and by Indigenous Nations (e.g. protected areas, conservancy management and planning) associated with Cabinet land use plan decisions.\u00a0 After this period, funding for agency completion work should be advanced by the appropriate agency as part of its own budget submission.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.2 Ensure that plan mandate and plan decision documents clearly identify the anticipated fiscal implications of proposed negotiating mandates and final land use plan recommendations to Cabinet on agency operational costs.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.3 Ensure agencies are made aware of the need to incorporate anticipated additional operational costs resulting from Cabinet land use decisions into their individual budget submissions to Treasury Board, particularly those costs that will be assumed from ILMB after the three year maximum time limit for ILMB funding of legacy plan completion work as noted in 6.1 above.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.4 Establish a budget contingency to address unforeseen planning demands and unforeseen planning projects with Indigenous Nations.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.5 Continue ILMB\u2019s FRPA related planning and development of associated legal objectives only the basis of availability of FIA and CLUPE funding.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.6 Maintain ILMB capability to represent the province in federal and local government planning processes where provincial interests and programs may be at risk, including maintenance of a marine and coastal planning program to support provincial involvement in federal oceans planning program, a marine protected areas initiative, and foreshore and marine resource allocation programs.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.7 Assign resources to amend existing approved strategic plans affected by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.8 Provide sufficient resources for ongoing monitoring and amendment of OGMA\/biodiversity plans.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.9 Continue ILMB funding of implementation monitoring committees formed to provide oversight to ongoing plan implementation activities, as well as funding of new plans and plan revisions.\u00a0 Provide for a uniform level of funding for the operation of the new PIMCs and dedicate regional staff support to administer the PIMCs.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.10 Provide sufficient resources to administer legal objectives and support ILMB\/MAL\u2019s role in FRPA implementation \u2013 in ILMB regions and in Crown Land Administration Division of MAL, and ILMB, Victoria.<\/p>\r\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.11 Support the re-establishment of strategic planning staff in resource agencies to provide capacity for direct participation in strategic plan development, and in implementation of land use plans and decisions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\r\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Provincial policy: \u201c<\/strong><strong>M<\/strong><strong>odernising\u201d regional land use planning<\/strong><\/h2>\r\nCurrently, the Province of BC is pursuing a policy direction to \u201cmodernise\u201d regional land use planning.\u00a0 Information about these current efforts is presented on the government\u2019s website:\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">Province of British Columbia:\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/industry\/crown-land-water\/land-use-planning\/modernizing-land-use-planning\">Modernizing Land Use Planning<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nAs stated, the purpose of the current policy direction is as follows:\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">The B.C. government is modernizing land use planning in British Columbia to advance reconciliation efforts, support economic opportunities, and guide stewardship of provincial public land and resources that reflects the diverse values and interests of all British Columbians.<\/p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nThe drivers for this shift in policy centres are as follows:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Reconciliation with Indigenous governments and the B.C. government\u2019s commitment to implement UNDRIP.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Ensuring communities and stakeholders are engaged in land and resource planning.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>A growing economy and increased demand on natural resources and the need to balance economic, environmental, social, and cultural objectives.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Increasing complexity as a result of climate change and factors that affect the land base, including species-at-risk management, wildfires, flooding, and drought.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Addressing cumulative effects on natural resource values.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\nBy addressing the key drivers, the shift in policy aims to achieve the following (as stated on the website).\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Reconciliation<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">Land use planning is carried out in partnership between the B.C. government and Indigenous governments. The values, traditions, knowledge, and cultural practices of Indigenous people are an integral component of planning processes.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Strong, sustainable economy<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">Land use planning improves dialogue between the B.C. government, Indigenous governments, and industry. It helps build relationships and identify solutions needed to advance economic opportunities for rural communities and create lasting economic benefits for all B.C. residents.<\/p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Resource stewardship<\/strong><\/p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">Land use planning helps manage our resources in a changing climate. Updated data and information from ongoing stewardship initiatives will support and inform planning processes.<\/p>\r\nIn October, 2023, the Province announced a major shift in governance of natural resources as part of its effort modernise land use planning.[footnote]Province of British Columbia (Thursday, October 19, 2023).\u00a0 \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/news.gov.bc.ca\/releases\/2023WLRS0060-001618\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Transfer of natural resource ministerial responsibilities: Information Bulletin<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Media release.[\/footnote]\u00a0 The aim was to bring responsibilities for natural resources under a single ministry; previously, responsibilities were divided among different ministries.\u00a0 In particular, responsibility for the following legislation, along with 24 additional legislative acts, were moved from the Ministry of Forests to the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship:\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Water Sustainability Act<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Land Act<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Wildlife Act.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\"><header class=\"textbox__header\">\r\n<h2 class=\"textbox__title\"><strong>Resources:\u00a0 Modernising Land Use Planning\r\n<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n<\/header>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Factsheets\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/factsheets\/modernizing_land_use_planning_factsheet_jun2019.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Modernizing\u00a0Land Use Planning in British Columbia - 2019\u00a0(PDF, 0.7MB)<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/factsheets\/mlup_working_with_communities_factsheet_mar2020.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Modernizing Land Use Planning in British Columbia: Working with Communities - 2020 (PDF, 0.3MB)<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Resource Planning Partnerships Workshop (September 20-21, 2018):\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/reports-publications\/resource_planning_partnerships_workshop_summary_20oct2018.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Workshop Summary (PDF, 1.4MB)<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t<li>\u201cWhat We Heard\u201d: Indigenous Engagement Process on Modernized Land Use Planning in B.C. (September 2018 to March 2020):\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/reports-publications\/indigenous_engagement_process_mlup_wwh_report_summary_3mar2021.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Report Summary (PDF, 0.3MB)<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/reports-publications\/indigenous_engagement_process_mlup_wwh_report_17apr2020.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Full Report (PDF, 0.9MB)<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Memorandum of understanding between Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Province\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/environment\/natural-resource-stewardship\/consulting-with-first-nations\/agreements\/mirr_-_ubcm_mou_2021_-_signed.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of British Columbia\u00a0and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on Engagement with UBCM and Local Governments on First Nations Negotiations and Other Indigenous Initiatives - September 14, 2021\u00a0(PDF, 1.4MB)<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n&nbsp;","rendered":"<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Around the world, the practice of land use planning is most commonly associated with cities. In such urban settings, land use planning is grounded in statutory plans (e.g., Official Community Plan, as they are called in British Columbia) and zoning bylaws.\u00a0 The need for land use planning, however, extends far beyond cities and suburbs into the remote regions where provincial parks, forestry, and mining take place.\u00a0 These areas also overlap almost entirely with the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In British Columbia, 94% of the land base is public Crown land.\u00a0 Over 90% of these public lands are covered by land use plans.\u00a0 It is land use planning for this land base that we refer to as \u201cregional\u201d land use planning.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In this learning module, we first address the use of the term \u201cregional\u201d to describe land use planning at a large geographic scale.\u00a0 We then describe how regional land use planning was carried out in BC, which was through Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs).\u00a0 LRMPs and SRMPs remain relevant but all of them are now about 20 years old.\u00a0 Next, drawing from a special report by the Forest Practices Board, we highlight concerns raised about the legal status of regional land use planning in BC.\u00a0 In the final two sections, we cover shifts in policy direction for regional land use planning in BC.\u00a0 In 2006, the province initiated a \u201cnew direction\u201d for regional land use planning.\u00a0 Since 2006, policy shifts have been driven, in large part, by a concerted effort to reconcile regional land use planning and Indigenous rights and title.\u00a0 And today, the province aims to \u201cmodernise\u201d regional land use planning.\u00a0 This module also covers Access Management Plans and Crown Land Plans.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Use of terms: What is \u201cregional\u201d land use planning?<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The use of terms to describe land use planning at different geographic scales can be confusing.\u00a0 Although we use \u201cregional\u201d land use planning in a specific way for our case materials, this term is not perfect.\u00a0 The following discussion attempts to sort through the geographic scales of land use planning.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Urban land use planning is clearly associated with statutory plans and zoning.\u00a0 It is when we step outside of urban areas into the rural domain that we encounter problems due to a lack of consistent use of terms.\u00a0 The possible set of geographic terms include, among others, rural, remote, region, sub-region, hinterland, landscape, watershed, and Indigenous traditional territories.\u00a0 Each term can be used to characterise a geographic area or scale.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The Province of British Columbia associates the term regional land use planning with Strategic Land Use Planning (SLUP), with the two terms often used interchangeably.\u00a0 The emphasis on \u201cstrategic\u201d is to distinguish a comprehensive approach to land use planning in remote areas as substantially different from \u201coperational\u201d land use plans that are prepared for a specific reason or purpose, such as an operational land use plan for a mining project or forest licence.\u00a0 As a general term, Strategic Land Use Plans include both Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and Sustainable Resource Management Plans (SRMPs).\u00a0 Thus, LRMPs and SRMPs are types of SLUPs.\u00a0 LRMPs are completed at a geographic scale that is larger than a SRMP.\u00a0 Several SRMPs are usually completed within and part of a LRMP.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Further, LRMPs are often described as either regional or sub-regional plans.\u00a0 At these scales, the boundaries of a LRMP can be informed by a diverse set of features.\u00a0 SRMPs, because they are completed at a smaller geographic scale, are considered \u201clandscape\u201d plans that can be based on a single watershed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">For our purposes, we use regional land use planning as a general term to encompass LRMPs and SRMPs.\u00a0 We charactertise LRMPs as regional plans and SRMPs as sub-regional or landscape plans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Finally, we must note one additional point of confusion. Regional Districts in British Columbia also complete land use plans.\u00a0 Logically, these efforts are also characterised as regional land use planning.\u00a0 For their urban areas, Regional Districts can adopt Official Community Plans and zoning bylaws. In co-operation with its member municipalities, a Regional District can also adopt a Regional Growth Strategy.\u00a0 Thus, we acknowledge overlapping concepts of what can be described as regional land use planning\u2014and apologise in advance for contributing to the confusion about the use of terms to describe land use planning at different geographic scales.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Strategic Land Use Planning<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In this section, we describe the development and use of Strategic Land Use Planning (SLUP) in British Columbia.\u00a0 The text is from the following source (used with permission):<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Integrated Land Management Bureau (2006). <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/policies-guides\/new_direction_synopsis.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">A New Direction for Strategic Land Use Planning in BC: Synopsis<\/a>.<\/em> Victoria, BC: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, pp. 3-5.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<h3 class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"text-align: left\"><strong><em>Strategic Land Use Planning<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Strategic land use planning (SLUP) is the process and associated outcomes that provide direction for the management and allocation of public lands and resources (both coastal\/marine and terrestrial) over a defined area (usually a large area, based on large administrative boundaries, Indigenous Nations&#8217; traditional territories, marine inlets or ecosystems, or large watersheds, or some combination of these units).\u00a0 This includes both regional plans (Land and Resource Management Plans or LRMPs and Sustainable Resource Management Plans or SRMPs).\u00a0 Strategic planning differs from operational planning which tends to be single resource focused at a site-specific level (e.g., site plans, harvest plans, etc.).<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>LRMPs<\/strong><br \/>\nRegional plans or LRMPs have been developed to address land use conflicts, environmental issues and competition amongst resource user groups. They have been used as a primary process for obtaining public sanction for new parks and protected areas. They are typically multi-agency initiatives coordinated by a designated planning agency, and involve stakeholders in an \u201cinterests-based negotiation\u201d at a planning table. LRMP approval has been a Cabinet decision. Regional plans or LRMPs result in several main products including: broad land\/coastal use zones delineated on a map; resource management objectives for land\/coastal use zones; broad strategies for integrating resource use; socioeconomic analysis; and plan monitoring, implementation and interpretation mechanisms.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>SRMPs<\/strong><br \/>\nThese plans facilitate resource management decisions for small to medium size landscapes or watersheds.\u00a0 They focus on similar issues and values as regional plans or LRMPs (e.g. timber, biodiversity, tourism) but at a more detailed level.\u00a0 For example, SRMPs are used to identify Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs), a priority component of biodiversity planning, for addressing specific economic development issues such as agriculture or tourism development, and are also useful for managing values such as spiritual and cultural resources as identified by Indigenous Nations.\u00a0 SRMPs are an important means of refining LRMP objectives so that they can be legally established under the <em>Forest and Range Practices Act <\/em>(FRPA).\u00a0 Some SRMPs deal with all resource values in a plan area, while others focus on only one or a few resource values and issues.\u00a0 There is also a uniquely identifiable subset of SRMPs that provide direction to public land and foreshore areas.\u00a0 These include coastal plans, Crown land development plans and pre-tenure plans for oil and gas development.\u00a0 They are developed by the effective resource agencies in consultation with key stakeholders (usually in an advisory capacity), and are approved by the appropriate minister (currently the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL).<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"text-align: left\"><strong><em>Strategic Planning Evolution<\/em><\/strong><em><br \/>\n<\/em><\/h3>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">SLUP has evolved considerably since its inception in the early 1990s.\u00a0 Five distinct phases can be identified over the past 16 years, as follows:<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase I.\u00a0 <\/strong>The Clayoquot Sound conflict era of the early 1990s and the subsequent Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) land use plans for the majority of public land on Vancouver Island and then the Cariboo-Chilcotin and Kootenay-Boundary regions.\u00a0 At the same time the government of the day developed the <em>Forest Practices Code of British<\/em> <em>Columbia Act (<\/em>the Code<em>)<\/em>, a part of which enabled a legal framework around plan implementation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase II.\u00a0 <\/strong>The development and implementation of the first suite of LRMPs, beginning with Kispiox, Kamloops and Vanderhoof and ending with the completion of the northeast LRMPs (Fort St. John and Fort Nelson) and the establishment of the Northern Rocky Mountains Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (MKMA) in 1997-98.\u00a0 During this phase, the work required for \u201ccompletion\u201d of the Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin and Kootenay-Boundary regions took place.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase III.\u00a0 <\/strong>Completion of most of the interior LRMPs in BC. Robson Valley, Prince George, Lakes, Bulkley Valley, Fort St. James, Cassiar-Iskut Stikine, Dawson Creek, Mackenzie, Okanagan, Kalum and, finally Lillooet by mid-2001.\u00a0 After the Spring 2001 election, a Cabinet decision approving the Lillooet LRMP was rescinded.\u00a0 Further, the Code was repealed and two new pieces of legislation and accompanying regulations identified to take its place: FRPA and the <em>Land Amendment Act<\/em>.\u00a0 A decision was made not to initiate any new LRMPs.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase IV.\u00a0 <\/strong>Continued development of the Central Coast, North Coast, Morice, Sea to Sky, Lillooet and Haida Gwaii LRMPs, with increased levels of engagement of Indigenous Nations.\u00a0 Planning table recommendations from the Central Coast and North Coast were sent to government-to-government (G2G) discussions with affected Indigenous Nations, and resulted in a \u201cCoast Land Use Decision\u201d involving both areas, and supported by specific Indigenous Nations and government land use planning agreements.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Phase V.\u00a0 <\/strong>This phase involves concluding G2G negotiations with Indigenous Nations on the planning table recommendations for Morice, Sea to Sky, Lillooet and Haida Gwaii LRMPs.\u00a0 These negotiations are intended to develop mutually supported recommendations to Cabinet and Indigenous Nations\u2019 leaders and are anticipated to be complete by the end of March 2007.\u00a0 It is assumed that there will be a 2 to 3 year completion phase required for the government decisions on these \u201clegacy\u201d LRMPs.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>SRMPs.<\/strong>\u00a0 During LRMP Phase III, the province initiated planning at the landscape and watershed level (SRMPs).\u00a0 These were primarily focused within approved LRMP areas, with some exceptions.\u00a0 Most of this work involved identifying biodiversity conservation zones and objectives (e.g., OGMAs, riparian areas, wildlife management areas) to aid FRPA implementation.\u00a0 In other cases, they were undertaken to address economic development issues for resources such as tourism and recreation or agriculture.\u00a0 SRMP level planning has continued through subsequent phases to fulfill this role.\u00a0 A marine\/coastal foreshore allocation planning program took place during Phase IV.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Legal Implementation of SLUP<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">For all the good intentions of Strategic Land Use Planning in British Columbia, there remain questions about their efficacy.\u00a0 The extent of their legal force is central to these questions, as identified by the Forest Practices Board.\u00a0 The following text about the legal implementation of SLUP in BC is from the Forest Practices Board\u2019s special report published in 2008 (used with permission).<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Forest Practices Board (2006). <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bcfpb.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/SR34-Provincial-Land-Use-Planning.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Provincial Land Use Planning: <\/em><\/a><em>Which way from here? Special Report. <\/em>FPB\/SR\/34. Victoria, BC, pp. 8-12.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><strong>Provincial Land Use Planning: Which way from here?<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Strategic land use plans (SLUPs) have a function similar to corporate mission statements.\u00a0 They normally provide high level direction about broad objectives for resource management zones and some strategies for achieving those objectives.\u00a0 Implementation of SLUP objectives usually requires more detailed planning and enumeration of specific actions.\u00a0 SLUPs are implemented through legal objectives that must be met, as well as through non\u2010legal discretion exercised by agreement holders.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Companies and people who hold licences under the Forest Act or Range Act.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-1\" href=\"#footnote-140-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: left\"><strong>History \u2013 the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>While still in effect, the <em>Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act <\/em>(the Code) governed the development of forest and range resource management plans and provided a regulatory framework requiring those plans to be considered by managers.\u00a0 The Code was predicated on a hierarchy of legally required planning.\u00a0 Portions of SLUPs relevant to forest and range management were to be translated into legally binding higher level plans, and those plans were to drive the development of tactical forest development plans (FDPs).\u00a0 Direction from the higher level plans and FDPs was to be used in operational plans (silvicultural prescriptions).\u00a0 For some objectives in SLUPs, notably old growth and landscape level biodiversity, further planning at the landscape unit<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Typically, watersheds of 10,000 to 100,000 hectares.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-2\" href=\"#footnote-140-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a> scale was needed.\u00a0 Other objectives, such as ungulate winter range and community watershed objectives, were implemented through specific designations under the Code.<\/p>\n<p>Two points are important here.\u00a0 First, under the Code, while there was no legal requirement for operational forestry to meet the objectives in the SLUPs\u2014it had to be consistent with the objectives as translated into the higher level plans, landscape unit plans and other designations.\u00a0 Second, most of the SLUPs were initiated during the Code era, and the work of those planning tables at that time was based on the assumption that the hierarchy of plans, codified by the Code, would be in place to effect implementation of the SLUP.<\/p>\n<p>It is also important that the Code contained a broad safety mechanism in the \u201cadequately manage and conserve\u201d test (Section 41(1)(b)),<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act contained the following:\u00a0 41. Approval of plans by district manager or designated environment official.\u00a0 41. (1) The district manager must approve an operational plan or amendment submitted under this Part if (a) the plan or amendment was prepared and submitted in accordance with this Act, the regulations and the standards, and (b) the district manager is satisfied that the plan or amendment will adequately manage and conserve the forest resources of the area to which it applies.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-3\" href=\"#footnote-140-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a> which enabled district managers or designated environment officials to ensure an agreement holder\u2019s FDP reflected the direction in SLUPs.\u00a0 This was a key tool in implementing SLUPs, because it could be used to offset any shortcomings where SLUP direction was not adequately reflected in higher level plans.\u00a0 Section 41(1)(b) was eliminated when the <em>Forest and Range Practices Act<\/em> (FRPA) replaced the Code.<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: left\"><strong>Current legal framework \u2013 The FRPA Regime<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">In 2004, the Code was replaced by FRPA<\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">.<\/span>\u00a0 <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">FRPA, along with amendments to the <\/span><em class=\"import-fontstyle31\">Land Act <\/em><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">and a<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">series of \u201cprofessional accountability acts\u201d<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"The Foresters Act, the Agrologists Act, the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, and the College of Applied Biology Act.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-4\" href=\"#footnote-140-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\"> are known collectively as the \u201cFRPA regime.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Under the FRPA regime, the <\/span><em class=\"import-fontstyle31\">Land Act <\/em><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">can make direction in a SLUP into a legal land use<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">objective.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">The <\/span><em class=\"import-fontstyle31\">Land Act <\/em><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">also contains provisions to grandparent Code higher level plans into<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">legal land use objectives.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">When preparing land use objectives, the entire SLUP direction is<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">considered, not just the specific objectives.\u00a0 However, not all SLUP objectives are translated<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">directly into separate land use objectives; several SLUP objectives may be combined.<\/span>\u00a0 <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Additionally, land use objectives typically pertain only to the activities of forest and range<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">agreement holders, and not to other resource users.\u00a0 In general, draft objectives are developed in<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">consultation with the forest industry to ensure they are operationally feasible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">As of September 2008, legal orders intended to comprehensively implement SLUPs were in<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">place for about half the province, and land use objectives had been established in 12 of the SLUP<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">areas.\u00a0<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\"> In addition, specific legislation was enacted to implement plans for the Muskwa\u2010Kechika<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">and Fort St. <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">John <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">areas<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"The Muskwa\u2010Kechika Act (1998) and Fort St. John Pilot Regulation of the Code, respectively.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-5\" href=\"#footnote-140-5\" aria-label=\"Footnote 5\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\"> (<\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Figure 1<\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Land use objectives under the <\/span><em class=\"import-fontstyle31\">Land Act <\/em><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">can also incorporate more detailed planning done<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">subsequent to the completion of an SLUP.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">These plans can provide a comprehensive set of<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">objectives reflecting the entire direction in the SLUP.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">Eight such plans covering 11 percent of the<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">province have been completed. \u00a0<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">More commonly these plans are for single resource values<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">(i.e., old growth management areas or wildlife management areas), and often only for portions<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">of the SLUP area.<\/span> \u00a0<span class=\"import-fontstyle21\"> Another key difference between these plans and SLUPs is that they are not<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">based on a consensus model.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">The plans are developed by government staff, and key<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">stakeholders are consulted as appropriate. \u00a0<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">These plans are mechanisms for implementing<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">SLUPs.\u00a0 <\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">A table summarizing the status of SLUPs and lower level plans is provided in the on\u2010line<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">version of this <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fpb.gov.bc.ca\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">report<\/a><\/span><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">The FRPA regime also enables the implementation of some SLUP objectives through objectives<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">or measures enabled by the <\/span>Government Actions Regulation <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">of FRPA, which addresses issues<\/span> <span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">about:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">resource features (such as karst caves)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">lakeshore management zones<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">scenic areas and visual quality objectives<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">community watersheds and water quality objectives<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">wildlife habitat areas and wildlife habitat features<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">ungulate winter ranges<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">species at risk, regionally important wildlife and ungulate species<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span class=\"import-fontstyle21\">fisheries sensitive watersheds and temperature sensitive streams<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Figure 1.\u00a0 Legal status of SLUP<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_139\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-139\" style=\"width: 804px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-139\" src=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1-300x267.png\" alt=\"FBP 2006 Map_legal status\" width=\"804\" height=\"716\" srcset=\"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1-300x267.png 300w, https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1-1024x911.png 1024w, https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1-768x683.png 768w, https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1-65x58.png 65w, https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1-225x200.png 225w, https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1-350x311.png 350w, https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1865\/2023\/01\/image1-1.png 1076w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 804px) 100vw, 804px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-139\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Forest Practices Board (2006). <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bcfpb.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/SR34-Provincial-Land-Use-Planning.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Provincial Land Use Planning: Which way from here?<\/a> Special Report. FPB\/SR\/34. Victoria, BC, pp. 8-12. Used with permission.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The extent to which these mechanisms have been used to implement objectives in SLUPs varies greatly and is, in part, a function of whether the related issues directly affect local residents and whether the mechanism was in place under the Code.\u00a0 For example, objectives for visual quality and community watersheds were well established under the Code and continue to be implemented in many places throughout the province under the FRPA regime.\u00a0 In contrast, objectives or measures for regionally important wildlife, or wildlife habitat features, have yet to be implemented anywhere.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The FRPA regime also contains provincial scale objectives, and practice requirements, under the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR), the Range Planning and Practices Regulation and the Provincial Non\u2010Spatial Old Growth Order established under the <em>Land Act.<\/em>\u00a0 These objectives, and the associated practice requirements, may reflect objectives of a given SLUP.\u00a0 To the extent that this is the case, those SLUP objectives are legally enforceable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Forest and range agreement holders must prepare plans (forest stewardship plans (FSPs) and range use or range stewardship plans, respectively) that specify results or strategies consistent with the objectives set by government.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In preparing FSPs, agreement holders may refer to SLUPs to clarify the \u201cspirit and intent\u201d of a legal objective (where an objective is vague or could be interpreted a number of ways\u2014e.g., \u201cmaintain a mosaic of angling opportunities\u201d), or to clarify specific terms used in a legal objectives (e.g., to more specifically define \u201cthermal cover\u201d and how it will be measured in the objective to \u201cmaintain at least 25 percent of the forested area in thermal cover\u201d).\u00a0 Agreement holders may choose to incorporate alternative results or strategies in FSPs that reflect SLUP direction.\u00a0 For example, SLUP direction for pine marten could be incorporated into the results or strategies for FPPR 8 (riparian management areas) and FPPR 9.1 (stand level biodiversity), although the words \u201cpine marten\u201d would not appear in the FSP.\u00a0 If the direction is incorporated into the result or strategy for an objective, it becomes a legal commitment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Results and\/or strategies in FSPs that are tied to legal objectives are enforceable under FRPA. FSP content <em>not <\/em>tied to a legal objective is <em>not <\/em>legally enforceable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Forest agreement holders must also prepare site plans to provide direction to operations.\u00a0 FRPA states that site plans must be consistent with the associated FSPs.\u00a0 The extent to which the SLUP direction is explicitly reflected in site plans will depend on the agreement holder\u2019s commitment to the SLUP.\u00a0 SLUP direction that is out\u2010of\u2010date or unclear is unlikely to be used.\u00a0 Similarly, as agreement holders become less and less familiar with the SLUP, due to the passage of time and staff turnover, they are less likely to refer to it in site plans.<\/p>\n<h3 class=\"import-Normal\" style=\"text-align: left\"><strong>Non-Legal Implementation<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">A key element of the FRPA regime is the reduction in regulatory burden, compared to that of the Code.\u00a0 FRPA\u2019s intent was to reduce cost and administrative complexity, while maintaining high environmental standards, public acceptance of forestry operations and continued timber supply.\u00a0 The FRPA regime is imbedded in a policy framework that places much of the onus for maintaining these things in what some refer to as \u201cthe non\u2010legal realm.\u201d\u00a0 Because of the relatively recent implementation of FRPA, the effectiveness of the non\u2010legal realm remains uncertain.\u00a0 While only legal constraints can require the implementation of the social choices and societal expectations expressed in SLUPs, many agreement holders and government staff have commented that social licence was indeed a factor motivating consideration of SLUPs in stewardship decisions.\u00a0 In the context of implementing the aspects of SLUPs related to forest and range practices, there are a number of mechanisms that affect the accountability resulting from social licence.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Professionals responsible for forest and range practices could be held accountable by their professional organizations as governed by professional accountability acts.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"See footnote 4.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-6\" href=\"#footnote-140-6\" aria-label=\"Footnote 6\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[6]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 For example, professional foresters are legally required to abide by the <a href=\"https:\/\/abcfp.ca\/web\/ABCFP\/About_Us\/Governance\/Code-of-Ethical-and-Professional-Conduct\/ABCFP\/Governance\/Code-of-Ethical-and-Professional-Conduct.aspx?hkey=d1008b68-5221-4a13-ae31-f618f1e5d15a\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Code of Ethical and Professional Conduct<\/a> of the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) and could conceivably lose their right to practice if they don\u2019t.\u00a0 The code of conduct states that a forester\u2019s responsibility is to protect &#8220;<span dir=\"ltr\" role=\"presentation\">the public interest by ensuring the multiple <span class=\"highlight selected appended\">values<\/span> society has assigned to <\/span><span dir=\"ltr\" role=\"presentation\">BC\u2019s forest are balanced and considered.<\/span>\u201d\u00a0 SLUPs provide one articulation of the values that have been assigned by society.\u00a0 If a forest or range professional is thought to have acted inappropriately, the principle mechanism for recourse is through a complaint to his or her professional association. However, it is forest and range agreement holders, not forest and range professionals, who are responsible for ensuring that activities on the land comply with the legal requirements of FRPA and the <em>Land<\/em> <em>Act<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Plan implementation monitoring committees or other similar formal bodies (e.g., community resource boards) can promote accountability between the SLUP and its implementation.\u00a0 However, their effectiveness varies widely among SLUPs; these bodies are advisory in nature.\u00a0 In general, the most actively implemented SLUPs may be those that have a strong and committed public monitoring body in place.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Forestry agreement holders can enhance their social licence by obtaining certification that holds them accountable to independent standards<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"There are three standards in common use in BC:\u00a0 Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard (SFIS), Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and ISO 14001.\u00a0 A fourth standard, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), is not commonly used in BC for forest stewardship.\u00a0 ISO 14001 is often used in conjunction with SFI or CSA, as it only defines the environmental management system.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-7\" href=\"#footnote-140-7\" aria-label=\"Footnote 7\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[7]<\/sup><\/a> through third\u2010party audits with varying degrees of rigor.\u00a0 Certification typically requires agreement holders to consider both the legal and non\u2010legal context in which they operate (which would include SLUPs) but it does not require them to implement specific SLUP provisions.\u00a0 Sustainable forest management plans, created for the certification process, could implement SLUP direction.\u00a0 Agreement holders are not legally accountable for commitments made in a sustainable forest management plan.\u00a0 We also note that SLUPs can be used to guide the preparation and approval of forest stewardship plans (FSPs) in a number of non\u2010legally binding ways.\u00a0 For example, district policy based on SLUPs can be interpreted as standard practices, and those could be cited in FSPs. Standard practices<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"\u201cStandards of practice\u201d are existing practices that have been informed by non\u2010legal guidance and believed to be the benchmark from which the degree of consistency with objectives can be determined.\u00a0 The designated decision maker can point to policy LRMPs as one source of results\/strategies that speak to the \u201cstandards of practice\u201d by value that also balance across values\u201d (MFR Resource Tenures and Engineering Branch, Administrative Guide for Forest Stewardship Plans, Nov. 2006, p. 134).\" id=\"return-footnote-140-8\" href=\"#footnote-140-8\" aria-label=\"Footnote 8\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[8]<\/sup><\/a> are assumed to represent a lower risks to the resource value, and require less supporting documentation than innovative practices.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Access Management<\/strong><strong> Plans<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">LRMPs often led to the creation of Access Management Plans.\u00a0 As per its name, the general purpose of these plans is to help manage access to Crown land in the midst of multiple and often conflicting uses, such as resource development and back-country recreation.\u00a0 To manage access, each plan considers social, environmental, and economic values.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">For example, the Vanderhoof Access Management Plan<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Province of British Columbia, Vanderhoof Access Management Plan.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-9\" href=\"#footnote-140-9\" aria-label=\"Footnote 9\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[9]<\/sup><\/a> aims to ensure industrial and public access while also addressing the affects of providing access for such uses.\u00a0 Key elements of the plan include the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"import-Normal\">Managing road densities to maintain the integrity of recreational experiences for both motorised and non-motorised uses;<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-Normal\">Identifying a permanent road network for long-term access to various recreational opportunities; and<\/li>\n<li class=\"import-Normal\">Identifying specific recreation opportunities to provide certainty and reduce conflict between recreational \u00a0users experiences and expectations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Crown Land Plans<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">A Crown Land Plan is a sub-regional plan based on within settlement corridors.\u00a0 The purpose of a Crown Land Plan is to establish policy to guide the planning, management, and disposition of vacant Crown lands regarding residential, recreational, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses.\u00a0 Since the 1980s, only a few Crown Land Pans were created, perhaps only six.\u00a0 These include plans for each of the areas surrounding Fort St. James, Vanderhoof, and Prince George.\u00a0 A Crown Land Plan is primarily a map showing land designations accompanied by a legend and definitions of designations.\u00a0 Although Crown Land Plans exist, they are not referenced frequently.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The Fort St. James Crown Land Plan helps to illustrate the purpose and scope of these plans.\u00a0 Land use designations were based on \u201chighest and best use\u201d with consideration for the productive capability of the land (e.g., for agricultural use) and for the suitability of the land for specific uses.\u00a0 The capability of land accounted for such biophysical factors as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology.\u00a0 The suitability of land considered present use, proximity, local agreements, and land use conflicts.\u00a0 The process to complete the plan was directed by a steering committee and informed by public consultations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">Crown Land Plans are connected with LRMPs in two ways.\u00a0 Crown Land Plans that existed prior to the creation of LRMPs were used to guide the development of the LRMP.\u00a0 In other cases, some LRMPs included an action item to create a Crown Land Plan.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Provincial policy: <\/strong><strong>\u201cNew Direction\u201d<\/strong><strong> (2006)<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">In 2006, the Province of British Columbia shifted priorities for regional land use planning.\u00a0 This effort was branded as a \u201cnew direction\u201d for Strategic Land Use Planning, as follows.\u00a0 The government\u2019s priority to establish a \u201cnew relationship\u201d with Indigenous peoples was a major thrust for this policy change.\u00a0 The text below is from the provincial document that set forth this new direction (pp. 8-13) (used with permission):<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Integrated Land Management Bureau (2006). <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/policies-guides\/new_direction_synopsis.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">A New Direction for Strategic Land Use Planning in BC: Synopsis<\/a>.<\/em> Victoria, BC: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><strong>A New Direction for Strategic Land Use Planning in BC: Synopsis.<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p class=\"import-Normal\">The following key questions have been addressed and a \u2018New Direction\u2019 for strategic land use planning formulated in response:<\/p>\n<p><strong>1. Completed plans:\u00a0 Do we need to update and monitor them and if so, what structures,<\/strong> <strong>mechanisms and priorities should we use?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Direction<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.1\u00a0 Establish a strategic plan implementation monitoring committee (PIMC) for geographical regions or sub-regions of the Province, representing all the LRMPs and SRMPs completed in the geographical area.\u00a0 Include representation from key participants in the LRMP and SRMP processes, as well as Indigenous Nations.\u00a0 Develop a standard terms of reference for the PIMCs, clearly outlining their role and responsibilities, membership, and level of support.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.2\u00a0 Develop an action plan to migrate existing monitoring and implementation committees into these structures by March 31, 2007.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.3\u00a0 Restrict LRMPs and SRMP updating or amendment activities to specific components of a plan, as opposed to the entire plan.\u00a0 Require approval of updating or amendment requests by the inter-agency management committees (IAMCs).\u00a0 Develop standard procedures for Indigenous Nations engagement, and for consultation with the public and interested parties not represented on the PIMC.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.4\u00a0 Establish a list of priority circumstances that may warrant plan component updating or amendment.\u00a0 This list should include the need to align plan recommendations with policy and legislative changes, to reflect critical new information such as Indigenous Nations\u2019 interests and values, and major environmental changes such as Mountain Pine Beetle infestation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.5\u00a0 If a business case can be made for a comprehensive and thorough update of an LRMP to reflect new legislation, policy, information or environmental changes this should be done through the development of a specific plan or planning study for the topic or issue in question and forwarded to the ILMB Board of Directors for approval.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">1.6\u00a0 Support the updating or amendment of existing approved LRMPs and\/or SRMPs affected by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>2. Legacy LRMPs:\u00a0 How do we expedite government decisions for the remaining LRMPs<\/strong> <strong>and complete the follow-up work required?<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Direction<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">2.1 Conclude G2G discussions on all remaining legacy LRMPs (Morice, Sea to Sky, Lillooet and HG\/QCI) by March 31, 2007 for Cabinet decisions and land use announcements.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">2.2 Set a three year maximum time limit (end of fiscal 2009\/2010) for completion of any follow-up work required for government decisions made for the Lillooet, Morice, HG\/QCI, and Sea to Sky LRMPs, should completion work be necessary.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">2.3 Require any further LRMP completion requirements (e.g., EBM, adaptive management, conservancy management, Indigenous Nations interim measures, community support) to become the responsibility of the relevant ministry after the end of fiscal 2009\/10, following which ILMB will restrict its level of support to planning and implementation monitoring functions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">2.4 Legacy LRMP plan implementation monitoring structures will be integrated into the sub-regional implementation structure recommended in Part 1 above.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>3. <\/strong><strong>FRPA planning requirements:\u00a0 How do we honour our current commitments to<\/strong> <strong>complete legislated FRPA planning while addressing new planning pressures?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Direction<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.1 Undertake an assessment of the extent of planning required for the successful implementation of the current FRPA planning model. Develop an action plan that includes a schedule and list of priorities that will allow the completion of SRMPs for OGMA objectives in support of FRPA purposes by December 31, 2007.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.2 Complete biodiversity planning by the end of fiscal 2007\/08.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.3 Continue the FRPA planning that relates to establishing legal objectives.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.4 Wherever possible, create efficiencies by building planning for FRPA values into plans done in partnership with Indigenous Nations, the forest sector and other stakeholders.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">3.5 Complete the development of legal objectives for EBM for application on the Central and North Coast and HG\/QCI.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>4. <\/strong><strong>New strategic plans:\u00a0 Should we do new strategic plans and if so, what are the<\/strong> <strong>circumstances, priorities, processes and products?<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Direction<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.1 Confirm the conclusion of the LRMP program and the initiation of new planning direction when announcing government land use decisions for the remaining legacy LRMPs.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.2 Drop the LRMP and SRMP terminology and re-brand the strategic planning program (e.g., Strategic Land and Resource Plans).<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.3 Review strategic planning guidelines and procedure to ensure a focus on product requirements (e.g. FRPA, marine, land allocation) as opposed to hierarchical, geographical area-based plan requirements.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.4 Initiate new strategic planning according to the following list of priorities and only in circumstances where:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li>Planning is required to give legal effect to products of strategic plans through<br \/>\nFRPA, <em>Land Act <\/em>and other statutes.<\/li>\n<li>Planning is required to address major emerging land use conflicts or competition among different user groups.<\/li>\n<li>Planning is required to identify economic opportunities and constraints associated with public land and resources.<\/li>\n<li>Planning is required to address Indigenous Nations\u2019 opportunities, constraints, values and interests in areas where strategic plans have not been completed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.5 Require a \u201cplan scoping\u201d exercise be undertaken before formally proposing the initiation and funding of a new strategic plan.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.6 Require ILMB Board of Directors\u2019 endorsement prior to initiation of any new strategic plan, and based on recommendations of the \u201cplan scoping\u201d exercise.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.7 All new strategic planning processes should adhere to the following principles:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li>Led by government(s).<\/li>\n<li>Indigenous Nations\u2019 involvement on a G2G basis where interested.<\/li>\n<li>Interest groups and stakeholders serve in a meaningful advisory capacity.<\/li>\n<li>Clearly defined process, timelines and products.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.8 Product or outcomes of strategic plans should be:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li>Clearly defined in a Terms of Reference.<\/li>\n<li>Facilitate operational planning.<\/li>\n<li>Minimize the need for supplementary \u201cnext-level\u201d strategic planning.<\/li>\n<li>Tailored to address the specific issues that led to the initiation of the plan.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.9 New strategic planning design, process and techniques should be structured on recommendations of the risk assessment for strategic planning.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">4.10 New plans should be undertaken only when the beneficiary or implementing agencies are prepared to support the costs of implementation.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>5. Indigenous Nations:\u00a0 What framework and processes do we use to address the New Relationship commitments to strategic land use planning with Indigenous Nations?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Direction<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.1 Develop a strategic planning Statement of Intent with the First Nations Leadership Council that provides overarching direction in accordance with key principles based on an assessment of existing, more detailed planning protocols.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.2 Develop planning protocols with individual Indigenous Nations, where appropriate, based on the principles in the Statement of Intent developed with the Leadership Council.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.3 Ensure that planning processes are jointly developed, address capacity, decision-making and conflict resolution, and are mutually acceptable.\u00a0 Strive to reach formal agreement with individual Indigenous Nations or where possible, aggregations of Indigenous Nations at the plan level on both planning processes and products, recognizing that agreements differ in each case.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.4 Focus Indigenous Nations\u2019 involvement in new planning and plan updating or amendment processes on incorporation of Indigenous Nations\u2019 values and interests, and on land and resource management issues and outcomes that provide direction for these values and interests.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.5 Ensure plan updating activities generated by PIMCs are done in collaboration with Indigenous Nations, where Indigenous Nations have responded positively to requests for engagement.\u00a0 Plan updating will be led by government in collaboration with Indigenous Nations and with advice from the appropriate implementation and monitoring committee.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.6 Establish priorities for updating and amending existing plans based on:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li>An assessment of risk to Indigenous\u2019 values and interests, with highest risk areas being addressed first.<\/li>\n<li>Availability and cost of providing information on Indigenous\u2019 values and interests.<\/li>\n<li>Indigenous Nations\u2019 willingness to engage.<\/li>\n<li>Available agency resources.<\/li>\n<li>Level of IAMC support.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.7 Pursue planning process outcomes with Indigenous Nations that will reduce and streamline subsequent consultation requirements for specific developments.\u00a0 Planning outcomes must improve resource management and development certainty for investors, the province and Indigenous Nations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.8 Support for Indigenous Nations\u2019 requests for planning funds should be guided by the following:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li>No support for the preparation of Indigenous Nations&#8217; land use plans.<\/li>\n<li>Support for Indigenous Nations&#8217; participation in joint provincial\/Indigenous planning where the planning<br \/>\nexercise is a priority of government or has been committed to as part of G2G agreement.<\/li>\n<li>Support for Indigenous Nations participation in joint provincial\/Indigenous planning that is not a priority of government or committed to as part of a G2G agreement only if the Indigenous Nation can confirm that it does not have access to the New Relationship fund or other funding sources.<\/li>\n<li>Support where new funding sources are specifically allocated by government as part of special programs or initiatives e.g., Mountain Pine Beetle Action Plan.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.9 Continue with FRPA planning, but provide for broader engagement on strategic issues with affected Indigenous Nations to support forest and range operations on public lands.\u00a0 On an interim basis, until Indigenous Nations\u2019 values and interests are incorporated into existing plans, use FRPA and <em>Land Act<\/em> provisions to manage environmental values considered important to Indigenous Nations.\u00a0 Amend and revise legal resource management objectives after Indigenous Nations\u2019 values and interests are incorporated into these plans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.10 Consider a regionally-based process, similar to the regime now in place for the Coast, such as a traditional territory or grouped Indigenous Nation territories, where the province works collaboratively with Indigenous Nations to confirm broad areas expressing level of opportunity versus constraint, or confirm areas with different value levels that warrant variable management regimes relative to resource development activity.\u00a0 For each of the above areas, a different level of Indigenous Nations&#8217; involvement in subsequent activity can be negotiated, ranging from conservancy management agreements to refined and coordinated referral processes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">5.11 Ensure planning processes and G2G planning tables do not become surrogate forums for negotiation of rights and title, interim measures and other treaty-related issues, and for negotiation over individual land transaction issues.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\"><strong>6. Funding and staffing: How do we allocate resources to meet the new planning direction and the associated government priorities?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\">Direction<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.1 Establish a three year maximum time limit for the end of ILMB\u2019s responsibility to fund completion work by other agencies and by Indigenous Nations (e.g. protected areas, conservancy management and planning) associated with Cabinet land use plan decisions.\u00a0 After this period, funding for agency completion work should be advanced by the appropriate agency as part of its own budget submission.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.2 Ensure that plan mandate and plan decision documents clearly identify the anticipated fiscal implications of proposed negotiating mandates and final land use plan recommendations to Cabinet on agency operational costs.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.3 Ensure agencies are made aware of the need to incorporate anticipated additional operational costs resulting from Cabinet land use decisions into their individual budget submissions to Treasury Board, particularly those costs that will be assumed from ILMB after the three year maximum time limit for ILMB funding of legacy plan completion work as noted in 6.1 above.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.4 Establish a budget contingency to address unforeseen planning demands and unforeseen planning projects with Indigenous Nations.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.5 Continue ILMB\u2019s FRPA related planning and development of associated legal objectives only the basis of availability of FIA and CLUPE funding.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.6 Maintain ILMB capability to represent the province in federal and local government planning processes where provincial interests and programs may be at risk, including maintenance of a marine and coastal planning program to support provincial involvement in federal oceans planning program, a marine protected areas initiative, and foreshore and marine resource allocation programs.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.7 Assign resources to amend existing approved strategic plans affected by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.8 Provide sufficient resources for ongoing monitoring and amendment of OGMA\/biodiversity plans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.9 Continue ILMB funding of implementation monitoring committees formed to provide oversight to ongoing plan implementation activities, as well as funding of new plans and plan revisions.\u00a0 Provide for a uniform level of funding for the operation of the new PIMCs and dedicate regional staff support to administer the PIMCs.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.10 Provide sufficient resources to administer legal objectives and support ILMB\/MAL\u2019s role in FRPA implementation \u2013 in ILMB regions and in Crown Land Administration Division of MAL, and ILMB, Victoria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"hanging-indent\" style=\"padding-left: 40px\">6.11 Support the re-establishment of strategic planning staff in resource agencies to provide capacity for direct participation in strategic plan development, and in implementation of land use plans and decisions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"__UNKNOWN__\">\n<h2 class=\"import-Normal\"><strong>Provincial policy: \u201c<\/strong><strong>M<\/strong><strong>odernising\u201d regional land use planning<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>Currently, the Province of BC is pursuing a policy direction to \u201cmodernise\u201d regional land use planning.\u00a0 Information about these current efforts is presented on the government\u2019s website:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">Province of British Columbia:\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/industry\/crown-land-water\/land-use-planning\/modernizing-land-use-planning\">Modernizing Land Use Planning<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>As stated, the purpose of the current policy direction is as follows:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">The B.C. government is modernizing land use planning in British Columbia to advance reconciliation efforts, support economic opportunities, and guide stewardship of provincial public land and resources that reflects the diverse values and interests of all British Columbians.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The drivers for this shift in policy centres are as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Reconciliation with Indigenous governments and the B.C. government\u2019s commitment to implement UNDRIP.<\/li>\n<li>Ensuring communities and stakeholders are engaged in land and resource planning.<\/li>\n<li>A growing economy and increased demand on natural resources and the need to balance economic, environmental, social, and cultural objectives.<\/li>\n<li>Increasing complexity as a result of climate change and factors that affect the land base, including species-at-risk management, wildfires, flooding, and drought.<\/li>\n<li>Addressing cumulative effects on natural resource values.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>By addressing the key drivers, the shift in policy aims to achieve the following (as stated on the website).<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Reconciliation<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">Land use planning is carried out in partnership between the B.C. government and Indigenous governments. The values, traditions, knowledge, and cultural practices of Indigenous people are an integral component of planning processes.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Strong, sustainable economy<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">Land use planning improves dialogue between the B.C. government, Indigenous governments, and industry. It helps build relationships and identify solutions needed to advance economic opportunities for rural communities and create lasting economic benefits for all B.C. residents.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><strong>Resource stewardship<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\">Land use planning helps manage our resources in a changing climate. Updated data and information from ongoing stewardship initiatives will support and inform planning processes.<\/p>\n<p>In October, 2023, the Province announced a major shift in governance of natural resources as part of its effort modernise land use planning.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Province of British Columbia (Thursday, October 19, 2023).\u00a0 \u201cTransfer of natural resource ministerial responsibilities: Information Bulletin.\u201d\u00a0 Media release.\" id=\"return-footnote-140-10\" href=\"#footnote-140-10\" aria-label=\"Footnote 10\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[10]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The aim was to bring responsibilities for natural resources under a single ministry; previously, responsibilities were divided among different ministries.\u00a0 In particular, responsibility for the following legislation, along with 24 additional legislative acts, were moved from the Ministry of Forests to the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Water Sustainability Act<\/li>\n<li>Land Act<\/li>\n<li>Wildlife Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox textbox--examples\">\n<header class=\"textbox__header\">\n<h2 class=\"textbox__title\"><strong>Resources:\u00a0 Modernising Land Use Planning<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/header>\n<ul>\n<li>Factsheets\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/factsheets\/modernizing_land_use_planning_factsheet_jun2019.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Modernizing\u00a0Land Use Planning in British Columbia &#8211; 2019\u00a0(PDF, 0.7MB)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/factsheets\/mlup_working_with_communities_factsheet_mar2020.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Modernizing Land Use Planning in British Columbia: Working with Communities &#8211; 2020 (PDF, 0.3MB)<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Resource Planning Partnerships Workshop (September 20-21, 2018):\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/reports-publications\/resource_planning_partnerships_workshop_summary_20oct2018.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Workshop Summary (PDF, 1.4MB)<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\u201cWhat We Heard\u201d: Indigenous Engagement Process on Modernized Land Use Planning in B.C. (September 2018 to March 2020):\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/reports-publications\/indigenous_engagement_process_mlup_wwh_report_summary_3mar2021.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Report Summary (PDF, 0.3MB)<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/farming-natural-resources-and-industry\/natural-resource-use\/land-water-use\/crown-land\/land-use-plans-and-objectives\/reports-publications\/indigenous_engagement_process_mlup_wwh_report_17apr2020.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Full Report (PDF, 0.9MB)<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Memorandum of understanding between Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Province\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/assets\/gov\/environment\/natural-resource-stewardship\/consulting-with-first-nations\/agreements\/mirr_-_ubcm_mou_2021_-_signed.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of British Columbia\u00a0and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities on Engagement with UBCM and Local Governments on First Nations Negotiations and Other Indigenous Initiatives &#8211; September 14, 2021\u00a0(PDF, 1.4MB)<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"media-attributions clear\" prefix:cc=\"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/ns#\" prefix:dc=\"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/\"><h2>Media Attributions<\/h2><ul><li about=\"https:\/\/www.bcfpb.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/SR34-Provincial-Land-Use-Planning.pdf \"><a rel=\"cc:attributionURL\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bcfpb.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/SR34-Provincial-Land-Use-Planning.pdf \" property=\"dc:title\">Figure 1.  Legal status of SLUP<\/a>  &copy;  <a rel=\"dc:creator\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bcfpb.ca\/\" property=\"cc:attributionName\">Forest Practices Board<\/a>    is licensed under a  <a rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/choosealicense.com\/no-license\/\">All Rights Reserved<\/a> license<\/li><\/ul><\/div><hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-140-1\">Companies and people who hold licences under the Forest Act or Range Act. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-2\">Typically, watersheds of 10,000 to 100,000 hectares. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-3\">The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act contained the following:\u00a0 41. Approval of plans by district manager or designated environment official.\u00a0 41. (1) The district manager must approve an operational plan or amendment submitted under this Part if (a) the plan or amendment was prepared and submitted in accordance with this Act, the regulations and the standards, and (b) the district manager is satisfied that the plan or amendment will adequately manage and conserve the forest resources of the area to which it applies. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-4\">The <em>Foresters Act<\/em>, the <em>Agrologists Act<\/em>, the <em>Engineers and Geoscientists Act,<\/em> and the <em>College of Applied Biology Act<\/em>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-5\">The <em>Muskwa\u2010Kechika Act<\/em> (1998) and Fort St. John Pilot Regulation of the Code, respectively. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-5\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 5\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-6\">See footnote 4. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-6\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 6\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-7\">There are three standards in common use in BC:\u00a0 Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard (SFIS), Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and ISO 14001.\u00a0 A fourth standard, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), is not commonly used in BC for forest stewardship.\u00a0 ISO 14001 is often used in conjunction with SFI or CSA, as it only defines the environmental management system. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-7\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 7\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-8\">\u201cStandards of practice\u201d are existing practices that have been informed by non\u2010legal guidance and believed to be the benchmark from which the degree of consistency with objectives can be determined.\u00a0 The designated decision maker can point to policy LRMPs as one source of results\/strategies that speak to the \u201cstandards of practice\u201d by value that also balance across values\u201d (MFR Resource Tenures and Engineering Branch, Administrative Guide for Forest Stewardship Plans, Nov. 2006, p. 134). <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-8\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 8\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-9\">Province of British Columbia, <a href=\"https:\/\/www2.gov.bc.ca\/gov\/content\/industry\/crown-land-water\/land-use-planning\/regions\/omineca\/vanderhoof-lrmp\/vanderhoof-amp\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Vanderhoof Access Management Plan<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-9\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 9\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-140-10\">Province of British Columbia (Thursday, October 19, 2023).\u00a0 \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/news.gov.bc.ca\/releases\/2023WLRS0060-001618\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Transfer of natural resource ministerial responsibilities: Information Bulletin<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 Media release. <a href=\"#return-footnote-140-10\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 10\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":1858,"menu_order":15,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"Module.Regional Land Use Planning","pb_subtitle":"LEARNING MODULE","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":"cc-by-nc-sa"},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[57],"class_list":["post-140","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","license-cc-by-nc-sa"],"part":77,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1858"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/140\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1229,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/140\/revisions\/1229"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/77"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/140\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=140"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=140"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/landuseplanninginbc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}