Minister, recommendations arising out of the ’Upper Kispiox Land Use Plan’, completed in March of 1997, were accepted by Cabinet earlier this year but no decision made at that time on the two areas, totalling 6,770ha., referred to as " Areas in Conflict" (as shown on the second of the attached maps). We understand that Cabinet has received the additional information requested from the Kispiox Forest District (KFD), and a decision on these areas is imminent.

The larger area, 5,800ha., is in the heart of the Upper Kispiox, an area our community has been committed to caring for over the past four decades, as detailed in the Land Use document, and we would like to again present our request for protection of these areas for your serious consideration. All quotations and data are from the April 1997 ’Upper Kispiox Land Use Recommendation’.

1. RPAT GAP Analysis: both these ’areas in conflict’ are rated as High Priority, (level 1 and 2) in the Regional Protected Area Team GAP Analysis. Currently the Protected Area in all the Kispiox Forest District, including those areas in the April 1998 decisions, is only at 5%, (a far cry from the general target of 12%) and the addition of these two areas would only represent another 0.44% of the district, for a total protected of less than 5.5%.
2. AAC and Socio Economic Impact: the Crane study commissioned by Forestry noted that if the entire 50,000ha. Upper Kispiox area was protected, and assuming the AAC and other conditions remained constant, there would be no resulting short term employment or community impacts. The forecast overall decline in harvest levels in the KFD would occur in 30th year rather than 40th year as previously forecast. (A positive decision to protect the unresolved 6,770ha. would have proportionately less economic impact.)
3. Chart Area: the Upper Kispiox Chart Area was only allocated by Forestry to Repap (Skeena Cellulose Inc.) in 1995. 1t is still un-roaded and they have made no investment in the area to date that we are aware of.
4. Special Management Zones: the KWPC, as representatives of the Kispiox Valley community, accepted the designation of these zones in the Upper Kispiox on the condition of protection for the balance of the Upper Kispiox Planning Area. We are currently reviewing and commenting on SCI’s logging plans for these areas, and expect to be reviewing and commenting on Forestry’s Small Business Enterprise Program logging plans early in the new year.
5. Monitoring Committee: the KWPC is not an anti logging group. We have participated in all the review processes initiated by Government over the past few decades and several of our members are actively involved in the industry. 1n this regard we would like to point out that both the 1996 Kispiox LRMP and the 1997 Upper Kispiox LAP call for a Monitoring Committee to be made up of government and public area interests. To date the MOF has not assigned the resources required to have their agencies implement the formation of this committee, and as a result the public input has been somewhat ad hoc. We recommend the immediate formation of this overdue committee.