THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM ENVIRONMENTAL PRCXf'ECTION COMIMITIEE Wednesday, July 6, 1994 Meeting Room No. 2 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitlatn, BC 5:00 p.m. AQEiqDA PERSONNEL IN ATI'ENDANCE: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Held June 22/94 LTT~lVI: BILL 26 AMENDMENTS TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT ITEM II: ABORIGINAL FISHERIES STRATEGY - DEPT. OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS 1TEM III: CITY ENVIRONMENTAL NEWSLETTER I II@I BURKE MOUNTAIN NATURLISTS - RIVERVIEW LANDS ITEM V': @i=i:-)li.[~alt (g ]iPPII " 'III I~ ) I'L» [1 KEMANO COMPLEIION PROJECT FRASER BASIN MANAGEMENT Board Brief to B.C. Utilities Commission IT~: ., . — DISTRICT OF KITIMAT AND FRASER RIVER ACTION PLAN - MID TERM REPORT (for information) ~; blitt B% OTHER BUSINESS /lllflll JUL - Ii 5% ill! ~ a ls H II~L!ij 1llraih@ 8 g !i gt g I tg 511%%IItllLIIIP@ll rt wiii ~I" lii ~ ~mi IW: wseautgnp stm attm~= ~= u i ( ) I!I'lint i, ,...: s8',,',uti aa& a il;",',i '' '''=., ~;=„;, 'I~a & !t-! ' — ., ' = 8+ &&,, ', — ." '.- = ~ i',P II 'Zl — iii lie I IIIIIiiat.e les 4g ~ I ~FJ ~ '+'sllltatti '~nI «I — II"" =-. ~anal'tasll5k%lllt1ntt::ja ~SR lemma.,a ~ ~ — I a'':!'8 . ''I~II 'a n'I IS Mti I alilli ~ ~" IaII — — ir !ill SS --~ — uauaalw-ggJ// THB CORPORATION OF THB CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM ENVIRONAL PROTECTION COMM ITilvE MINUTFv held at City Hall, 2580 Shaughnessy A meeting of the Environmental Protection Committee was in Meeting Room IJ2. at 5:OO p.m. 1994 Street, Pon Coquitlam, on Wednesday, July 6, In attendance were: Councillor M. Gates, Chairman Councillor R. Talbot, Co-Chairman J.E. Yip, P. Eng., Deputy City Engineer F. Cheung, P. Eng., Project Engineer C. Deakin, Engineering Secretary The minutes for the June 22, 1994 Committee meeting were KBhfL BILL 26 - considered, read and adopted. AMEND~ TO THB WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT will write a memo Committee supported the UBCM resolution and the Deputy Engineer Council regarding the above. ~ to ABOIUGINAL FISHBRIBS SIRATEGY - DEPT. OF FISHERIES Engineer to write Committee reviewed the report regarding the above from Mr. Chamut. Deputy information. letter to Mr. Chamut thanking him for the @ ITEM IIIt CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL NEWSLBITER Committee received this item for information. Deputy Engineer to Farm is available for the newsletter from Mr. C. Felip). check if update on Colony BURKE MOUNTAIN NATURAIJSIS - RIVERVIBW LANDS but will wait for Land Use Committee reviewed the report from the Burke Mountain Naturalists Engineer to write letter Deputy cortunents. any making before Study being done by B.C.B.C. informing Ms. Gold of their decision, ITEM V: KBMANO COMPLETION PROJECT Committee received this report for information. Cont'd .../2 pit iaaf+i,I I III ill us ~ —:' ~~hue '~ ==~~hgg ala ~I% litle'' ,,ftts m -6 $5 JUL I ~ s ~ ~ - ="=!: ='"=:= ~ tin I ~ ~ -' — ~ &nial a+Silas Iltsta ~ lg Ill I IKI %I I f 56 gal ggpfgRSSR g f/] g g/J [a ~4 IRiis"-"-"'-":t'gsg r II/8~m!I'ii III w i ii anat . ~~====~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I a wII LK I g I & NI I 8 ~ ImI i i i ~ ~~ c I -2- Bnvimnmental Protecnon Comroinee Meeaing of July 6, 1994 C~'d ... FRASHK RIVER ACIION PLAN - MID-TERM REPORT Committee received this item for information. HEbL39L OTHER BUSINESS a) SIrnat Tree Plantina - BFI Donation The Committee received this report for mformation. b) Douglas Islttttd Committee received this report for discussion. c) Hgtttylion Environmergal Producta see if Fire Department or Deputy Engineer to check with Fire Department to safety. extra for kits these could cany Operations Department d) Kliynralctt of Creek - 4040 Tomnto Committee asked that the petition be forwarded with a copy of comments to Water Management. our previous There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm. JEYlcd NOTE CC: II( Coun)riilor M. 'Gates Committee Chairman Minutes not read and adopted by the Committee until certified Chairman's signature. correct by the Mayor and Councillors City Administrator City Engineer Project Engineer Project Technician ianna& I I~i jj) ~ '' 8 ~.P@P. Eng. 4puty City Engineer I / '5 III 1ll &04 5s Rs,'t ~ JUL-6 $94 I! I I II'gl iil~lll st a,, s I Stt I I ~~ f ~ "i ill@ gib i er Za &,t~~ i g+/a alllI I ~ IIR R g~amaslstw I ai a~gg~l& . III nluI leo ~ s ~ a pl es ;'""-,".,,'5/jgiI @;: —:;.li5" g Ill — '~g.i&~$ R g l i THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM REPORT TO COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Maitland Acting City Administrator DATE: July 07, 1994 FROM: Francis K.K. Cheung, P. Eng. Project Engineer FILE No: EPC SUBJECT: BILL 26 AMENDMENT TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT - SOIL CONTAMINATION REGULATIONS (Environmental Protection Committee of July 06, 1994) ',NDATION: That Committee supped the resolution addressed to the Premier and the Minister of Environment: 1. "That the Lower Mainland Municipal Association request the Province of B.C. to defer any action on Bill 26 and its a= " iated regulations members of the U.B.C.M. have had an opportunity to respond following the U.B.C.M. Annual General Meeting in September." BACKGROUND dk COMIVIENTS: The proposed Bill 26 amendment to the Waste Managentent Aot on soil contamination regulations are expected to be considered by Cabinet at the end of August 1994. It is anticipated that the amendment will be in effect January 01, 19o5. The proposed Bill 26 amendment will have serious liability implications for local government throughout British Columbia. Since most municipalities did not have the opportunity to examine Part III of the proposed Bill 26 amendment because it wss not made public until mid,tune 1994. The IJ.B.C.M)s Lower Mainland Municipal Association unanimously endorsed the following resolution: "That the Lower Mainland Municipal Association request the Province of B.C. to defer any action on Bill 26 and its associated regulations members of the U.B.C.M. have had an opportunity to respond following the U.B.C.M. Annual General Meeting in September." Illl1III )''! It is recommended that Council adopt this resolution addressed to the Premier and the Minister of Environment showing our concern to the Bill 26 amendment and requesting more time to respond to the amendment. Ri1III 'iwi4I J. Qpiblp/Eng. Iiilat ss/ Itl llf I%i ~ B 0 D+tJJCity Engineer I lb ~lb'bgl II iq hssI I Ia IIIIi111 gjI FKKCI aaachm eat JUL ~ b alllb10 alI1amII I ~=— &lmaagl=.- — — - iSI+I'la '— -6 Iglt THE CORPORATION OF THF CITY OF PORT COQUITLA',1 MEMORANDUM TO: Environmental Protection Committee DATE: July 04, 1994 FROM: Francis K.K. Cheung, P. Eng. Project Engineer FILE No: EPC SUBJECT: BILL 26 AMKNBiMKNT TO THE WASTE MANAIIKMKNT ACT Ie RKCOMMKNBATIONI 1. That Committee support the resolution addressed to the Premie. and the Minister of Environment: "That the Lower Mainland Municipal Association request the Province of B.C. to defer any action on Bi1126 and its associated regulations members of the U.B.C.M. have had an opportunity to respond following the U.B.C.M. Annual General Meeting in September." B~QUJeiB~OMMKNTS: This resolution was unanimously endorsed at the U.B.C.MJs Lower Mainland Municipal Association Annual General Meeting held June 15, 1994. The resolution was addressed to the Premier and the Minister of Envirtenment showing their concern to the Bill 26 amendment and requesting the Province to provide more time to respond to the amendment. Enclosed please also find a summary of Bill 26 amendment, prepared by Michael R. McAllister of MacKenzie Murdy & McAllister, listing the serious areas of concern to all local government under the Bill 26 amendment It is recommended that the City pass this resolution address'o the Premier and the Minister of Environment showing our concern to tbe Bill 26 amendment and requesting the Province to provide more time to respond to the amendment, Nml Francis K.K. Cheu Project Engineer @li 5 Ill II IM'LR gglig FKKCI attaciemeet Imam Rsl LSIJllll iig lgll,lll I,(l I'KIlll JUL -6 1994 kl II II I l ta ~ I Ill i (i ( R 40 jg jj II a eiee tr, ll1 ill ee ~ I ~ I Ill gR ~ I 111 I ~ I ~ it Iiillj I: ,I fI 1111II II I I 'IRIS' Rl ais I %II m e, m R,ara jgglgl l$ % ee e vai ~ i ~ Ilm il Ii I '',, II I ~ ' —: g¹uma jmlgsmggg~'''aseeem I I14 R I ''' — Iies pIiele -~8'" qg4IFI'"" ' ~ Isi ~est+ I Sjggi RIR s' ' Iiiil5k::. Il em . m — =;e Ie Ir isa i liming 194I! " '." ~ -' Iglll ~~,,'I" '~m eaaeeegR~R, .ImIII&aeee ~ eeemsejj jg TELEPHONE MAYOR'S OFFICE 59 5 II NOT*I AVENUE L 53 3TII FAX NEW WESTMINSTER, S. C. (80 T 53 -3891 8 June 22, 1994 Mayor ... and Members of Council B. C . Municipalities Dear Mayor ... and Members of Council: Bill 26 Amendments to the Waste Management Act contamination legislation, Bill 26, the proposed Provincial soilarising from Bill 26 have Regulations and recently proposed throughout serious liability implications for local governments to be scheduled is Regulations of British Columbia . This packageCouncil . 1 4 3 9 9 August on I, In Order brought into force by the Most municipalities have not received a copy o f Part I I I of mid until public made not were because they proposed Regulations need to have June 1994 . The enclosed information highlights the and if necessary time to examine the details of the regulations request changes Re: At Lower Meeting held June 15, 1 9 9 4, U . B . C .M its Annual GeneralAssociation unanimously endorsed the following . ' Mainland Municipal resolution: "That the Lower Mainland Municipal Association request the Province of B. C, to defer any action on Bill 26 and its associated regulations until members of the U . B . C . M. have had an opportunity to respond following the U;B.C.M. Annual General Meeting in September." We are requesting that your municipality or regional district pass of a similar resolution addressed to the Premier and the Minister Environment showing your concern and support for more time to respond . We would appreciate a copy of your letter . Sincerely, IIIII I LLI I Pl!lid I IVIII 8'I i IIS lli III'III gill::-:='"88I~': — I iI ' '; ~El'R II( III +g7g, » Iss- — II IIIlmi~ ~IssM g:: — IEI ISSESSIII'~SIII III .''-= ':-'. = &Ii 5== - -' II III SI I IIII 5 &IESSI IMillllw Ilail B"" " '=- .,— I EI~N ."s ']]liiml OII»» IEII RIim; —. . ~ -- ~ ~IL hn LU HVU ~ ('~ 48m MaCEZWZZZ NIJa~V a NCAXZZSTZXk BTLIETEISTZTES 25 SGI IGITOBS 3 2LOOR 2'OUR SENTALL CENTRE 1655 DUNS HUIS STREET TAX (OOA) SSS.DOES tELEPHONE (664) 665 5263 P. O. SOA 45055 VANCOUVER. CANADA VT IC June 21, 1994 TRANSMITTED TO FAX NO. 527-4564 Patrick A. Connolly, P.Eng. City Engineer City Hall Mr. New Westminster, B.C. V3L 1H9 Dear Pat: Re: Bill 26/Amendment of the Waste Management Act Our File No. 2605 The Regulations to Bill 26 are xpected to be considered by Cabinet at the end of August 1994. It is anticipated that Bill While it 26 will come into full force and effect January 1, 1995 behind Bill 26, many is difficult to disagree with the philosophy serious areas of concern to the City and all local government have yet .to be addressed. The implications of some of these concerns are monumental. We have below set out nine areas of concern to the City. a~mill I I, ..~el i)ai Ill)5 2 j~g 'sss ~ 55 Ig f I 5. jj jmjg g j I a ~~i 'j jljjjjl ~~~)iss jgjjfl& II))! II First, there are serious implications'o the City as a effect. past property owner. The legislation is retroactive in introduced and owned the property the City time in past, at If, any a contaminant to the property (even if it was lawful at the time) the City is deemed to be a responsible person. Also, if, at any time, the city purchased property and failed to make reasonable inquiries as to the site and despite the fact that it did not contribute to the contamination, the City will be considered a responsible person. Under Bill 26 any responsible person may be ordered to clean up the entire site. In other words, the principle of jointa and several liability applies to an order to remediate contaminated site. Given that property owners come. and go, the long history City has a continuity of existence and a relativelychance that he and the City is a "deep pocket", there is a good City will face the prospect of having to clean up many sites in the City. there is a Second, and despite the wording of Bill "assessment» of the site the in ~ potential involved liability the in the protect City specifically not does Bill the as profiles, 26, JKL- 6 8(1 .I SIIwiijg .=,.'~i( m(rs -:-~ s(igggg'g~@( iii s — - —— 5 I G I MGKBNzxz MTJRDY a MGALLIsTEB June 21, 1994 2 event of negligence. A site profile must accomoany any application for rezoning, development permit, development variancy permit, demolition permit or subdivision where the site in question has in the past been used for industrial or commercial purposes. Third, and related to the second concern, given that the fr-eedom of information legislation is soon to be made applicable to the City, the City may well incur liability for failing to disclose event in Bill 26 certain historical information. The triggering In use of a site. historical around the revolves primarily used for industrial particular, where a site has in the past been prior or commercial purposes a vendor must summit a "sitea profile" may have to any sale of the site. In considering whether site been used for industrial or commercial purposes or may be contaminated, the primary source of information to a vendor or purchaser will, no doubt, be the City. Fourth, as the City has already experienced, Bill 26 will have serious implications to the City's tax base. There is nothing in Bill 26 that protects against the reassessment of a si.te based on the decrease in value so as to reflect the cost of remediation. Fifth, there is a serious risk to the development community, given the potentially enormous costs involved in environmental clean ups. Sixth, and related to the fifth concern, there is a real risk that the City will be left with large tracts .of land that given their historical use and cost of remediation will simply be left, at best, undeveloped and, at worst, abandoned. Seventh, there is a concern to the City as a current provide site profiles property owner in that it may be required to it owns. If and when of rezoning property prior to initiating a the City adopts a new zoning bylaw for the entire City, the costs and implications may be staggering. Eighth, there will be very little possibility of third party liability insurance being available. The cost of remediation will, in many cases, be staggering. with respect to Finally, there is some serious concerns Regulations to Bill 26. the level.s proposed by the concentration levels of acceptable the that concern a is growing There contamination are not based on scientific evidence and do not pose health hazards. By way of illustration we provide an example of how Bill The example is 26 would affect the City as a property owner. fiction. partially an example serve as better to fact and partially ) I) III $ [lj N '"" "--;-«5 I'3" ~'"5m==-: ~ KJNLi -'=» „... ,'N,; - 4s ~ I%I .,;: --,. fag --:::;~iijgj - =-=" iis@[fg 55iiiiR''f i555 aeiSjwljtRNpR"-' - ajjl+$ 5j s „.— — 3555 554 II llz - — - gg B — 'l 5 jgggNIEl y~gyw .;. — = ' gg l555~j + ae ~ — — gJf 5~'jgg ()f5'll'II%5,'~'0''m'/ ( '$ g~~sHL ','' %E=='-c='~mamm gssN35Ngm~c-.'mN @j~lI" E $ 5j j'g~~ + ~ 1B5[$ $ ' Ming GKKNZTE MURDER 8 NGALLISTKa. June 21, 1994 3 The City in the 1940s and 1950s operated a state of the place at that time. all regulations in on art incinerator, It met an adjacent site. buried was incinerator the The discharge from Both sites were, in the 1950s, sold to a lumber mill operation who complied with the necessary standards. for the sake of this example transferred to a construction waste were sites In 1990 both no enquiries as to the made have to who appear operation, recycling purchase. condition of the site prior to Under Bill 26 the materials introduced into the sites by standards set out in the City and the lumber operation both exceed fully aware of the being operation, the Regulations. The recycling and uccessfully assessment its appealed last year contamination, There is 51,000. to reduced the value of the sites from SBI30,000 the tax owner put current the that 26 no requirement in Bill site. of the remediation i9ito the saved dollars to be In the above scenario all three parties arebedeemed. to ordered parties may the of all or Any persons. responsible is it clean of the cost up, remediate the sites in question. Given owner declare will simply current entirely possible that the mill operation has ceased bankruptcy. In addition, if the lumber that the City, who is always to exist, there is a real possibility dollars and with the entire tax the present, will be left without remediation. cost of the This example is not at all extreme and will likely become a reality over and over again. Yours truly Mac MURDY & McALLI STER Michael R. McAllister MRM/cc/am Mr. Lawrence E. Kotsef f, City Administrator „,ii) JUL -4 1RIRII@gii-~~. gai5559;.-"- '~~~45 i 5, s91'5i",;I5 u -~~5~,'c: ~ 9B IIS~)gICame w a ill I599l~99 ii955 Ii i5l9lgielg RI jgq ) 1999„i '-MIMI%ISI I).. ~ I s I .". l g/ggj~ll N N':=:;;;xiii i li55 ill& I'le99 ~555 Nl ~ .. -- --",'99 'im ggg~l pll--,...~ lggmiii g(5g(/Ig i995I»ssi ~ 5 ~ 9 ~ 555I9 liIL = x ~'' ' hd "".'e I I I I iiiii 5 pig,)i [$ 59" IRII95&gf /[555 N9; ~g~sl9119I ill 19lll fIi l~ ~ 9 i ~ iml N1 III~R/fhgi5mm isaac = : ~, ~I i [19.iis'sl! '59 — —" I ~ ~a a aI 49 „,~ m ~ s ~9m 5 ~ s9 S I ~ ~ Service have now arranged a half-day seminar for tanning operators in an effort to educate them on the effects of ultraviolet radiation and help them develop risk management techniques. Since the initial investigation of the Richmond area, the "Tanning Operator Knowledge Questionnaire" has been used to survey tanning facility operators in Victoria and three municipalities within the Simon Fraser Health Unit district. A report summarizing the results of the surveys and the survey methodology, has been submitted to the Canadian Journal of Public Health for publication. The "Tanning Operator Knowledge Questionnaire" (and answers) is available to any Health Unit/Department wishing to conduct a survey of their district. The Radiation Protection Service would like to remind all Health Units/Departtnents that they are available to serve their needs regarding any health d I fr - "O'» OOO'CCCO'Lgg GJx=j99AXg~~Y pteF43':8 Gfq~TAgd AA'.Itv 889'~8L(TTR@M8~&rr'P„, Submitted hy Dr. Ray Copes, Medical Toxicologist I In response to a growing public concern over the potential ecological and human ~ilgjg IK contaminated sites, the Canadian Council ''-== ,==-"II ii ~jl) . jj jptgI 'lJIj d initiated the National Contaminated Sites p for the Remediation Prcgratn (NCSRP) contaminated priority of high retnediation sites in Canada. To promote consistency in the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites under this program, the CCME requested the development of numerical criteria that could provide guidance for the remediation of contaminated sites in Canada. A CCME Subcommittee on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites was established to create an improved scientific derivation basis for application in this progratn. The subcommittee has since released a draft document which considers the effects of contaminated soil exposure on human and ecological receptors for given land uses. The pathways and receptors of contaminated soil'considered in their derivation of soil quality criteria were selected based on exposure scenarios illustrated for agricultural, residential, parkland, commercial and industrial land Uses. What follows are some selected comments by Dr. Ray Copes, Medical Specialist, Environmental Health Risk Assessment & Toxicology, on the CCME Subcommittee's draft document on Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites. The Executive Summary indicates that the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program (NCSRP) wa's initiated in response to "growing public concern". This wording seems to indicate a perceived problem rather than one based on actual health effects. At this point, with some experience in dealing with contaminated sites in Canada and elsewhere, the premises behind the NCSRP should be questioned. While it would be rash to claim that these sites never pose a threat to human health or the environment, it is clear that the perceived problem is much greater than the actual impacts on humans or the environment. The United States Program was an attempt by Superfund ' 'tll U.S. Ilegislators to ea I wit roug on ic outrage understandable pu as such situations, of byy Ppoor handling .. I~;,:=- = uP ' we wou Cana a, C in of a program have been made. ~ ==''"-"'-"-'-'--'-'--,.',ai -„-„=:::=: =;; — lIN~~ """ yt"g "" 'ji,=---j - = -.='-;,' jI &I — I =:.;:: '.'== o we ong t tese is a u m: = -.'-"...'„",. "=-."== 'P ' ———— ==;:- '====",'= — — ~ \ tsutesst I ttttr .'=, ', I defensible scenario. A high-rise building or shopping centre grade could be developed. Similarly, a root vegetable grade, cereal grade, or rangeland grade might be devised for agriculture. A groundwater protection criterion could be developed. The advantage of this approach is that it is tied more closely to the impacts one might reasonably wish to prevent (ke., on children, groundwater, etc.). Far fewer assumptions and cross-checks would be required to develop criteria, although additional information is necessary to develop some of these criteria. While each of these new use criteria would require far less complexity than those currently proposed, there may be some trade-off with an increase in the number of criteria. A further advantage of the redefined uses is that people can readily understand that children's playground grade means just that, and there is no reason why every gram of soil on a housing development would have to meet this criterion. The implication of "residential" grade is that all soil on site should meet this standard. Giving managers in the field a variety of use-speciac criteria to apply at a site is also an advantage. Klil IIIII specific risk assessments conducted to date. These form an evolving "case lawn of contaminated sites. Basing g eneric criteria on the accumulated results of site-specific assessments'would require a periodic updating of criteria. is not necessarily bad as it will prevent a widening gap between generic criteria set on a crude and highly uncertain basis in 1993, and site-specific cleanup criteria based on rapidly evolving state uf the art risk assessments. ~ I g Submitted by Tim Roark, Chief Environmental ideaith Officer The Central Fraser Valley Health Unit is pleased to announce that Mr. Charles Young, currently an Instructor in the Environmental Health Protection Program at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, will be joining them for a one year term starting January 3, 1994. JUL -b j904 . ~ I'Iiii im ti I Il, II pjjI Ilj'tj)tet'tta tu nt ttilP~[, jIpgII III [I „, "" g itat utsll 1 g I =':,:: .==,-==- -,„';. ~:.: ""~ iii II 5'p, .''n'&": au . nnm atnu '— , ~ iten ~nw I a~ IL ~ ia .. ~5 ttiI+~~((III [gianttsttx n:===~ ~~nit~ 5~1IINIun ~ -'+ ~1 - IIj ~jrt~tiai''" u'«'IIIIIIIII1R IRiattt a i')R)Ilia t'Ii ~ )[- «~~~~'4M ",„.,g'his 5 %$ I r a. et'476& risk:;'''I iiliy~j I Even in the case of children's exposure to lead in soil, recent'rials in urban settings have not yielded encouraging results. While one should not generalize from these trials to all sites and all contaminants, it provides ample grounds to question the wisdom of widespread soil remediation. Even if one assumes soil remediation is effective in reducing exposures, it probably provides less reduction in human health risk per dollar spent than other public health programs. Costs of up to $ 15 billion/cancer averted have been estimated in the United States and it appears that only at a minority of sites would the cost per hypothetical life "saved" go below $ 100,000,000. Whether these remediation activities represent a wise use of resources is a judgement for elected officials and the public to make. Ironically, when the risks of remediation activities are factored in, in many, cases we will end up doing more harm than good from a public health point of view. Another option for setting generic standards is to use the results of site- BENIN) i All concerned with contaminated sites in the CCME Committee structure should recognize that there is very little evidence to support the view that soil cleanups are effective in reducing human exposures. '— ' I ut %'1 Jl '~i" mana ~ II ~ I ~ ti QI III I -',,-~fii"-- =;,;::: i Ps i I~ Ij/jlijiai lllietk=-- =:~ IIII I&5 '"Ik'"' I i ~ I i -'' ' (plttgnwf -= " 8" j0[ I serious underestimation of the number of "contaminated" sites (a number which will vaty directly with the number of criteria set and inversely with the concentration selected to represent contamination). There was also an initial attempt to remediate these sites to extremely strict management criteria, although over time the selection of more realistic goals appears to be occurring. Remediation Criteria As stated in a review of environmental agencies world wide, no agency had a method to consistently'et generic soil criteria. This is a comment on the lack of an adequate scientific basis on which to set generic criteria and the problems posed by using them. Do Canadian authorities believe that they discovered the science others missed, or will they be the only ones willing to make assumptions that other felt inadvisable? Criteria vs. Risk-Based Accroach The finest quality risk assessments used at contaminated sites today use stochastic methods and provide risk managers with the best available information on which to base site decisions. The method proposed by this subcommittee, for setting the generic soil criteria, is also risk-based but nowhere, near as rigorous as a high quality, site-specific risk assessment. The subcommittee's draft document proposes that criteria be set using extremely complex methods. Despite the complexity, they are not scientifically defensible as they are based largely on assumptions rather than empirically verified findings. Conservative Assumotions - The "Safe" Choice? «~I The proposed criteria are based on ver/ II'%58 "conservative" risk management criteria. The selection of 1 in 10 as an acceptable level of cancer risk is extremely difficult to defend in the context of contaminated sites. First, with a background lifetime risk of cancer in the total population of 1 in '3, a risk of 1 in 10e has absolutely no real-world meaning in either individual or sa p a I II'l N I IR:i = ii [N KRIS lit [ « I se'i: 5 Illh1 u«NL«i 5 u«thWSNwma~~ "-'+'="l! ~+gal~ — — m«s nu '' -....; ngw — -- public health terms. Given the small numbers of people "exposed" at these sites, it should be clearly understood that reducing risks from even 1 in 10'o 1 iu 10 is unlikely to prevent even a single case of illness. Whether expenditures of large sums of money on theoretical reductions in without risk any real-world benefit is worthwhile is a risk management decision that needs to be addressed by senior government officials, elected representatives and members of the public. It should also be appreciated that the lower the soil concentration criteria, the greater the number of contaminated sites and the larger tne perceived "problem" becomes. Land Use: Residential, Commercial/Industrial. Asricultural Although setting different generic criteria for these land uses may seem reasonable, this approach is based on several assumptions that are not realistic. One difficulty is the diversity of uses at agricultural, residential and 'commercial sites. For example, it is difficult.to conceive of one general exposure scenario that applies across Canada at ail agricultural sites. Is it reasonable to apply the same generic agricultural soil criteria to land used for t 1) vegetable farming in Holland Marsh, 2) growing apples in the Okanagan, 3) growing oil seed in Alberta or, 4) grazing cattle in Saskatchewan? Is it possible to develop a single "scientifically defensible" soil criterion to these vastly different agriculture scenarios? If the "problem" is contaminated foodstuffs, setting tolerances might be a more effective approach. Other Anoroaches It may be possible to come up with scientifically defensible generic soil quality criteria for more limited applications than the current residential, agricultural and commercial categories. For example, a children's playground grade could be derived using a reasonably 1. g,+~giwnsa- - — ==Nmsal~~ttamlSI~RR items=:=«~mt,:-=~I %II —— Np~isiaa sag f+ ~ppllsl . IU &. ', ' amain -- ~ ---.~iyg~ )ms 'ag '-= —— mew = ' "l j lgwgNli~ ts llg'~s~stt ~~)[[g (j=,'=-='as'a - ---.:~g ~ if whelk '- — — ... — ' --Ill. - ~'g jllllg) MAY 1994 Contaminated Sites: Preparing for the Site Profile We Iucutiouca in our january, 1994 Ilczvslcttcr that Lidslouc, young, l I A ildci'sou uzl7I bc offcrhlg coauucuis olz Ihc dl'afi I cga)alfalfa for Ihc IIUIU colztaluiuntcd sizes Icgislatioil (IIIII 26) as they bccoulc available. Tiic Icgislatiou zuIII uot come into effect nutil the rcguialious arc comylctc, Thc Miuistny of Envirouulcut has indicatcd timt Ihc draft rcguiatious zui7I be rclcascd hl three ynrls; as of May 1, 1994 Parts 1 aud 2 have bern re'eased for comment. Tive Ministry remains comluil ted to enacting Ihc Act aud rcgulaiious by October 1, 1994, hozocvcr, this is bccomiilg ail increasingly unlikely timeline. , i l , Part 1 of the regulation addresses the site profile, the site registry and fees while Part 2 focusses on remediation standards, procedures for contaminated soil relocation, remediation approvals and groundwater quality standards. Part 2 also clarifies an earlier concern with respect to municipal interest in easements or rights of way. Section 7 now states that j where a municipality is a current or previous owner of an easement or right of way, it will not be held responsible for remediation as 'long as it did not contribute to the contamination. Although mar y components of the regulations merit attention, of particular interest to local government and the , : iwI II% » II IIII(jg/ llllaa sl)II I" iJlilkisj I i . , m za ~ zemi Ill lI III I ~~~lhHlazzzm= subject of this review is the site profile. '.. the local Irovernment needs only to determine that the site profile has been completed; it need not analyze the substance of the answers Section 20.11 of the amended Waste Mmlagcmcut Act establishes "triggers" for providing a site 'he ! profile (for example, zoning of 'and that a person knows or reai I I I ; sonably should know is or was used tor industrial or commercial purposes) while section 2(l) of the regulation provides for the timmg receives a site profile it shall "deof providing a site profile(for ex- 'ermine if the site profile is a satisample, when a person submits a factorily completed site profile" written request for sub-division). and notify the applicant if this is Therefore, depending upon the not the case. At first blush this particular type of approval sought 'eems an onerous task. However, from a municipality, the time for 'satisfactorily completed site profile" is defined in section 1(1) of providing a site profile will differ. tlu draft regulation to mean that The regulations define "site proall questions in the site profile are file" as the information provided answered and particularly that in Part IV of the site protz)e, that all by a person required to submit a site profile in a site profile form in questions are answered either "yes", "no" or "don't know." In Schedule I of the regulation. The site profile itself is a ten page other words, the local government document which requires the apneeds only to determine that the plicant to disclose information on site profile 'l. s been completed; it such topics as their understanding need not analyze the substance of of what the land was used for in the answet . A local government the past; evidence of potential can charge up to $ 50 for such a contamination concerns on the review. land; and the information sources the applicant has used to comOnce the municipality has complete the site profile. Once the site plied with section 3(1) it must forprofile is completed it will be sub- ward the site profile to the Minismitted, in many cases, to a mutry of Environment regional waste nicipality. What does the municimanager if any of the questions in Part IV of the site profile have pality do wiih these site profiles? been answered "yes'r "don' Under section 3(l ) of the draft regulation, when a municipality coul mucd yag~e i ) I LIDSTONE YOUNGr ANDERSON NEWSLETTER Section 3(5) and (6) o! the draft regulation allows the municipality some discretion to fonvard a site pmfile to the regional waste manager when the "site profile conflicts with knowledge of the municipality." Once a munici pa lity takes this decision, it must forward to the regional manager the information that is the basis of this knowledge. Other than adding another layer of administrative responsibility, the assessment of a site profile will not be an overly difficult or onerous task. One question that arises is where the information to complete the site profile comes lrom. In many cases, municipal records will be the source of choice. Given this, municipalities can expect that those PI'IIII II1 i 1 I 1 I 1 i rsons needing to complete a site profile w ill base such a site profile ation supplied, at least : , municipalities can expect that those persons complete a site profile will base such a site profile on information supplied, at least partially, from the municipality itself. any information in contravention of the privacy provisions of the Act. needing'o know". Where this is not the case (for example, it is a "green" site profile) the site profile shall be forwarded to the registrar of the site registry. There does not appear to be any further obligation on the municipality once these steps have been complied with. Further, s. 3(4) of the draft regulation makes it clear that a municipality has no duty under the Act or the regulation to "receive, assess, store, file or otherwise manage" a site profile once the above mentioned sieps are completed. partially, from the municipality itself. In preparation for these inquiries municipalities should consider. 1. compiling checklists of possible sources of information available within the municipality related to contaminated sites, and systematizing such records to help ensure full, efficient and accurate disclosure to applicants; 2. preparing a disclaimer that accompanies data provided by the municipality to the public. Although they cannot insulate a municipality from liability, disclaimers are helpful in warning the public that the information supplied may not be accurate; and 3. familiarizing themselves with the Freedom of information nnd Protection of Privncy Act to ensure that they are not releasing . , Last, we are aware that several municipalities have been submitting comments on the proposed regulations dlrcctly to the Contaminated Sites and Toxicology Section at the Minishy of Fnvironment. Tlus is impor tata as local conditions (e g., groundwater standards on the Gulf Islands) may necessitate changes or exemptions to some of the provisions of the Act or regulations. Such submissions should be encouraged so as to ensure changes before the legislation is proclaimed. Recce ffnrding nn IIIM O I II I 1111I I II) III II Ill~Ill )11(1 8 111 I) n ~ 'n I nn nn ~ 5+ I and Oceans Pgches et Ocgans et''j(~-'. Suite 400- 555 West Hastings SE Pacific Region Region du Pacifirlue Piece 400- 555 nie Hastings ousst Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5G3 Vancouver (C.-B.) V6B 5G3 ClT)'F PO 21 $ ENGINEE 99/) J l.l is) Fir E. Yip, P.Eng. Deputy City Engineer City of Port Coquitlam 2580 Shaughnessy Street Port Coquitlam, B. C V3C 2A8 Tc FPCM Dear Mr. Yip: ABORIGINAL FISHERIES STRATEGY I am writing in reply to your letter of April 5, 1994 which expressed some concerns about the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS). I would like to conunent on these concerns so that you can convey this information to your council. The Department's basic responsibility to ensure conservation needs are met is not altered by the AFS. As a priority 5 cond to conservation, the Depa~ent has a constitutional obligation to ensure the opportunity exists for Aboriginal people to harvest fish for their food, social and ceremonial needs. Where applicable, harvesting in the recreational and cotnmercial fisheries is rated next in priority. A uis s~ RIIIIH, Between 1989-1992, the average aiuiual number of salmon taken by Aboriginal groups in the Pacific Region was 3.1% of the total allocation. This is a relatively small, stable percentage that is not seen as a marked departure from past averages. A review of this information does not indicate that there is any danger to commercial and recreational components of the Fraser salmon fishery. There has been no change in the authority and responsibilities of the Department's fishery officers. We have developed cooperative arrangements with Aboriginal groups and working together, we were successful in achieving a very well managed 1993/94 Aboriginal fishery. A significant portion of AFS funding goes toward habitat improvement and other enhancement work throughout the Fraser watershed. In fact, the emphasis of working with fish and habitat increases as you go further up-river. Vlf Rh s '6~ re is I ~ il I ~ Itasul'I I A Still i I II IA lt!ts Canadm Rll M II 2 For example, in the lower river, the Chehalis Band contributes funds to fry and adult enumeration, beaver dam control, and marking programs. In the mid Fraser area, approximately one half of the Nicola Valley Watershed and Stewardship Authority's budget is dedicated to habitat improvement work. All agreements under the AFS program have clauses indicatirg clearly that this program is not part of the Treaty Process. The activities within the agreements deal with various fisheries management issues. Jim Wild, Fraser River AFS Manager, is prepared to discuss this matter with you and your council. Please contact him at 666-3578 if you have further questions. Yours sincerely, P.S. Cltamut Director-General Pacilic Region cc: P. Kariya J. Wild IIIIIIII t as!'I I I!I . II J,)Ytp, . Eng. 55IE. II 4'5L : Elu I Deputy City Engineer 115 lljjN II Ill(lj Ill II I j'i tsim 1I' I/ i'rtlII t & a& ~ 118~%': i I I &1I a s, gi Il JEY:ca cct Illkl% Councillor M. Gates Councillor R. Talbot I.R. Zahynacz, P. Eng., City Engineer '3eisis r Ill15$ II I II I I %II I I II Rt II IIII r F ~gsr~ CQU.;-C-,':„ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM NAR 14 TO: J. Maitland DATE: March 9, 19 FROM: I.R. Zahynacz, P. Eng., City Engineer FILE: E.P.C. SUB JECT: ABORIGINAL PISHERIES STRATEGY Protection Comminee Meeting of March 2/94) Acting City Administrator (Envim~ That Council resolve to communicate the following concerns with respect Fisheries Strategy to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: I) 2) 3) 4) to the Aboriginal the impact on fish That the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy be reviewed with respect to Community. Fishing the in stocks and the economic impact to the point that That the authority and responsibility of DPO Officers be re-established that the resource is ensure to order in river the on fisheries they have control of all which rely on the communities protected for the future and that all individuals and resource are not hampered. process. That non-aboriginal and aboriginal fishermen have equal input into the Sahnon Fishery not That the commercial and recreational components of the Fraser River be endangered as a result of thc strategy. 5) That the enhanccrnent of the fishery not be reduced. 6) That the fishery is not used as a component of Comprehensive Land Claims negotiations. IIACKGR~ COMME': and support attached information The Environmental Protection Committee reviewed the regarding the Aboriginal Fisheries documents received from the District of Maple RidgeCoalition attended an E,P.C. meeting Survival Fisheries B.C. the Strategy. A delegation from Environmental the discussion and and provided background information. Following reviewconcerns be communicated to the aatua/Ig)I ~,.... Protection Committee recommended that the noted recommendation. Department of Fisheries and Oceans and that Council approve the J. E. Yi Deputy ia'.--=''=il JEY:cd Pl t«map Artachments a 'll~ Ri--/~Labs~ sls all ~ l i~ ~ II haaaiuss ski a 1gg qL"1- 'l 3CI I go &F'I December 23, 1 i U,. ':,l C iL JAN 1 g lggi CORPORATIOi'4 OF THE DISTRlCT OF MAPLE RIDCE 11995 Honey Ploce Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 Telephone (604) 463-5221 FaX (604) 467-7329 4 City of Port Coquitlam 2380 Shaughnessy Port Coquidam, B.C. V3C 2A8 1 593 / The District of Maple Ridge is sceiting your support to the following resolution passed by the Maple Ridge Municipal Council oa December l3, 1993: THAT GN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITI'EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1993 WXTH RESPECT TQ THE ABORIGINAL FISHERIKS STRATEGY, BE XT RESOLVED, ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE. ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION, THAT THE E(BLLQX)ttXNG„-CONCERNxs'Be~h(5'IiX'IN'XXB(h~ea:VSS ~!j+ENT! 1. )(XP.;~~i JJDt XXCEENSPX THAT THE PRESENT ABORIGINAL FISHERIES STRATEGY BE REVIEWED. '. THAT THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RELINQUISH ANY PART OF ITS AUTHORITY FGR THE MANAG~ AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE B.C. SALMON RESOURCE IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE RESOURCE IS PROTECTED FOR THE FUTURE AND THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES WHICH RELY GN THE RESOURCE ARE NOT HAMPERED. 3. THAT THE CGMMERCXAL AND RECREATIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE FRASER RIVER SALMON FISHERY NGT BE ENDANGERED AS A RESULT OF THE STRATEGY. 4. AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE FISHERY NOT BE REDUCED. AND FURTHER, THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES ALONG THE FRASER RIVER BE CONTACTED FGR THEIR SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE NOTED PQSXTXQ¹ I'l II 'I & 1 eI (el if you require aay further iaformation in this regard, please do aot hesitate to coatact the undersigned. II11ilkll f! (RKiA grs4~11 ! g as 111 115 I,III ~ $ gilt sI i I) t, I 'J I t) I I (Pl e ee 4 ~ e I k ge e Municipal Cterh „7'!:-(;.J«" i xe~e 'gex iene«««e», a+woo o 6864 49t 4S 68 le66r-Zt-NUI'EMOR ANDVM SubmSed to: ( ) Council Committee of the Whole ( ) Corporate and Community Services Commlilee ( ) planning and operational services comnlittee, ADMueIISTAATOAe8 RECDMMSNDATIQIif That the r'ecommendation of the Business Development Offer be approved. ADMINISTRATOR FROM: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DATE; 1993 NOVEMBER 22 SUSJECT: ABORIGINAL FISHERIES STRATEGY SUMMARILY a resolution was passed At the 1993.11 18 mooing of the Economic Advfscry Commission COm'mlSSIOn On the reocmmentsng that the pOSEOn paper prepared by the ECOnomiC AdVISOry Aboriginal Ffshede'6 Strategy be ftnwaided to'Mayor and Council. QSCOMMK(lfglLOQg OFFICE R RECOIEMENDS THAT THK THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT RECOMM KNDATIONS'REPARED SY THK BACKGROUND MATERIALS AND ERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF CONC COMMISSION ADVISORY ECONOMIC STRATEGY BE FORSIIARDED RIES FIBRE OCEANS'BORIGINAL FISHERIES AND CONSIDERATION; IR THK TO THE COMMITTEE OF THK %HOLE FQR Brook McDonald Business Development ONcsr M FI sa ii f/'.. I g 'I jjjl ij ll tjj ( 'I tK'ell ell ADMINISTPATKR4 Not( '2 3 Y)ta ~ee aeeliilnl I IIII i I e '-"-' i e I ' came Silkeie epee ~~ ~ -'-=- eee ~ ~ e ~ j MlhMK 888'35ud 35G i 8 31duW JSIG Wold SS e6 VC, 6 I Nor 6264 2.90 66IBB 066)-ZT-NBT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT 'USINESS Vax 082 11949 Haney Place, Maple RI09c, Bi.C, Telephenei i804) 407-7305 Fax: (004) 407-7330 recommending that the uncil Meeting a resolution was passed Commission for ategy be referred to the Economic Advisoty In an effort economic impact of the Strategy on the community. of the representative a ths issues, the Comtnission met with )itsrature received from reviewed Fisheries 2nd Oceans and are appended for val Coalition. Information from both groups ve noted information and dLScussing the issues mission offers the following comments: at length the and the e)dsting is the southern boundary of our Municipality At least culture. and economy our to is mon Fishery important trom results aLso employment re employed as fishermen and suppliers and same n and repairs, gear and equipment es. uss of the salmon resource, The Aboriginal Food Fishery is a iong sstabiished and there is little opposition to it. comb)srclallxe the Aboriginal Fishery will Ths Federal Government'3 pis'n tofish ars caught, who catches ths fish, and cause a major change ln how the who benefits from the rsscurce. is a frigile resource which csn bs destroyed The Fraser Ft)vsr salmon resource nurtured and built up over many generations by if it is abused. It hai bssn careful management ahd conservation. always Fraser Aiver salmon resource hasFideral Management and conservation of Ihe snforcemsnt the by procedure included an efficient and effective of Fisherlss and Oceans. Govsmfnsnt of Canada by way of ths Department its of,Fishedes and Oceans is to relinquishthe The new strategy of the Department of component major of a mandate of management and enforcemsnt community. Aboriginal the of resource In favor Continued Menteet ct 688'3BBd Ec~c~ '1610 Sects Risedaden et Canada SldVW WOud SSIB IIVW ~& P~ &B. Bt Ntlr 666I. 2.Sir 69 68 &F4'r-Pr-NHc Page Two to 6 large extent in the B.C. The Aboriginal community already participates has a long established right to food Commercial Salmon Fishery (35%) and Ocean's policy to commercialize the and fish. The Department of Fisherieschange history of management of long in a Aboriginal Food Fishery is a major the salmon stocks of 8:C, Oceans decision to allow a "Commercial The Department Of Fisheries and the Fraser River is a much reduced Aboriginal Fishery" In the upper regions ofpresent Commercial Fishery as the economic use of the resource from the upon entering the Fraser River. market value of salmon deteriorate rapidly COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THAT THE ECONOMIC A'DVISORY OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS COUNCIL CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT FOLLOVyING CONCERNS: AND COMMUNICATE THE FISHERIES STRATEGY BE THAT THE PRKSEI47 ABORIGINAL CA I.-S) I) R E V I E W E D. PART OF DOES NQT RELINQUISH ANY OF ENFORCEMKI4T 2) THAT THE DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE IN ORDER ALL THE S.C. SALMON RESOURCE THE FUTURE AND THAT THE .FOR PROTECTED IS RESOURCE ON RELY VIHICH INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES HARMED. RESOURCE ARE NOT OF AND RECREATIONAL COliAPONENTS AS ENDANGERED 8) THAT THE COMMERCIAL BE FISHERY NOT THE FRASER RIVER SALMON STRATEGY. THK A RESULT OF REDUCED. QF THE FISHERY NOT BE 4) THAT THE ENHANCEMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDS FRASER FURTHER, THE ECONOMIC OTHER'COMMUNITIES ALONG THE POSITION. THAT COUNCIL CONTACT NOTED ABOVE FQR THE RIVER AND SEEK THEIR SUPPORT 'TS Iaassmg Sll Respecdully submitted, Economic Advisory Commission N IIII j@l Illhi@agg jljjlR' SM:rem Enclosures is IISH ( II'I'J j I~IIII ! I IIIllll 'R III I I I I 'l I@i M'J I Ill Ill I/E&JSss 6 1 sl iill 88% 4 I I~assm;„ I I I I'88'396d 96!6 PAGE ~wI sic woss 96:6 06 IS~I zt wur =M~Kjgm j THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM MKMO~UM TO: Environmental Protection Committee DATE: June 04, 1994 FROM: Francis K.K. Cheung, P. Eng. Project Engineer FILE No: EPC SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL NEWSLETTER RECOMMFNDATIONt That Committee receive this memorandum for information only. 1. BACKC'ROUND dk COMMFNTSt The following is a list of possible topics For this year's Port Coquitlam Environmental Newsletter: l. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 Worm Bins. Water Conservation. Storm Drain Marking. Backyard Composting. Make a Difference; Help Us Meet the Goal. Garbage and Recycling Tonnage and Costs. Multi-Family and Commercial Business Rerycling Program. Give Us Your Views. Important Contact Number. If Committee members have any other topics they wish to include in the Environmental Newsletter, please let me know. I have attached last year's Port Coquitlam Environmental Newsletter for your information. Francis K.K. C Project Enginee FKXCI attachment mute ~ifSF~ jt]Samiijlj II@ I RRta sl illS'-;'-.=.-k ~%man~ am igjl~ I'=-:-= 111„-=I mnca a a an sinn ' malta at a aa na taaa =— I i ql ma a ~ ~ g~hiimij~ate~i -— ~c~ ~~n — III~:~---=- —— — ~ ~ ta— cd ~ tI I mn acaaam aa a gg a ataaatat t l ~1LSI I IS I SSS S I The City of Port Cotluitlam MEMORANDUM TO: g J. Yip Environmental Protection Committee FROM: M. Schmor Administration Dept. SUBJECT: Burke Mountain Naturalists DATE: June 24, 1994 Mayor Traboulay is referring the attached to your committee for a recommendatior.. I, „.'(:IIr ', &: O'I & j &'e»&IIF I.t .I I1:. I it i; ,. RI! SI FS=.; I iW'iiR IIINI1 IIIII II III t' 111/ I 14s as jill t& IllS 54 =:-:'.Hmll glI,il ~In ~ K~ .—;:— ~ ate& . IV & ... i BURKE MRNmylI RAIORALISTS 'ox 52540, 1102 2929 Barnet Hwy.. — Coguitlam, B.C. V38 7J4 Phcae I (604) 936-4108 June 21, 1994 Mayor'J:Traboulay ~GluwCX City of Port Cocjuitlam . 2580 Shaughnessy Port Coquitlam, B.C. V3C 2AS Dear Mayor Traboulay, 'ur club would like to have your assistance in saving the'iverview Lands fran being sold .to developers. We -feel. that the land has greater value intact and "as is" than could be realized by selling. it to provide houses. The beautiful stand of mature rar'e and unusual -trees found 'cnmore these lands was Western first botanical garden, and has no egual in.&anada. trees down for a quick sale would destroy a priceless and irreplaceableTo cut the heritage. A better altexnative would be td znke the Lands hans 'to .a selfsustaining international horticultural centre There are more reasons 'to keep the lands intact. They can/do provide (1) green space in our urban sprawl. (2) a recreational, area in a region with a rapidly expandi.ng population;. (3) patients of Riverview both therapy and vocational training. (The first two.points are particularly critical in view of the expected tripling of our population in this region.) ~'s , Revenue-generating potential of the Lmxie includes use as (1), an international conference .site; (2) a centre for training in nursery trades or horticulture; (3) a centre for educaticrial purposes, e,g. 'landscape design, forestry,. nursery trades, environmental arid ecological studies. you can arrange to see for yourself Why we endorse keeping the RiveM.ew Lands intact: call The Riverview Horticultural Gmtre Society c/o 942-7378 to up a personal. tour:. 'lease promote the concept of preserving these lands to set your col 1 eagues .. . Nfla Sincerely yours, QR I BURKE MCONTAIM RATORALXSTS RS I IISE JEE ,Rl ill fg IRINli liSII1 Elaine Golds, Chair Education and Conservation Cannittee 'jRI„. /sn cc: The Riverview Horticultural Society, Port Moody ! Pfllll llfi 5 I! (l3il ,«m~~ eeI) zw II il'8 EEItw Rill Nl II iEi ~ II% I IIIIII5I Sll ~ Jel ~ I k ..., ~ '.": — ==: = ~ ~ ol II' @ 'szI!.. ' u .~ I «Me 5 I II s m I 'I,, „......'s I , I e c5 imalP I I ILP ~ Sfl ~ I ~ I I el = 5i NI QI ~ 'I I IaSI I lip I ~ I'I III 1141 III ~ 11( u I iii,'I& l ..'.. 'l IL If II I ' aI U, E I ~ = - ~, disc~ IEI i INI I I E j I ~j I I IS L 5 l ~ III! Jl ;15 III I F s I I ( a I I I II 111 ~ ' ~I' I! ~I I The City of Port Coquitlam MEMORANDUM TO: /3.Environmental Yip Protection Committee DATE: June 24, 1994 M. Schmor Administration Dept. FROM: SUBJECT: Kemano Completion Project Mayor Traboulay is referring the attached to your committee. Illldli III IIIII I '/ Ie li !ill li ltl'g t I! g IS!I" 'I! I Ij I IIII Irt III i I I l 7 II ~ d I IS Il& II' I I I III I / "I WHII lilt Ia idee dr:- I I It I L e HI ~ e ~ e ~" I dIIll ell N Mleltl I I I id Id ~ ld!III» ~ See ,~ ,ed I..... == '.'.=:!! l! li Il!Its!" II I te ddl I I e Ieddee I ~ Vta ~ ad=. ==.=-- I li ~ Lt I /I!'l I I! I I I I II II, s s!I!Iii I I ~ I I Iiscl sl '=, a I I! a I I i III ~ )]II I I'll II Iud I II Illfl lIIII ~ I ! dd I ~ SRlalil "'! deme el II ~ C ~ ~ Ill lde il eldl . II du'~ II II%I I~ N& lira II ~ WRM:sab a Enclosure l I l 8 II I Sl I I I II!I Ie lea em nNNRNN IIII II Ill jill L a 141 ~ I I I~~l NJI ',l l II I RR Ii'i'l l I I IN eeal %T II'IF I I NSNII NNI IH I Nl ll Ia» il KIN II i I I ' a a a I II I '%mgglmgi I limni Iilll: R ee I 511I IK ' II ~ II I~ I IIII» IR N el l, Ill .. .„~ ., ' II IRWLlii .'=-:: eelIN~I I II'": "-'~ » li I II —.'-.'=- .—.=— .el "' "a'., I. i e; ~ I'l Iel e 41 II ' I II ei ~ . .—= ' :el e... %All,l JAI I'II 114 ~ ~ --'' I . III 4 IIIIPIIeaP ~ iiaL S14 iiiijj (I'l5llll )8$ i)A, I P4144 P41SS)l I I I! / I 551'II lf Sl% I' l55I Il II I ( L44il I ~ ! II '' SI Wl'4451448 '14114114/gi g Pl li I K"IPI;I llll N Pl PIIII ~ I 'i 'il »II Pil ~ PPI IP IIm %IS I~ mme!444 II F ~ 4\ ~ -— SS ~ SI 4glPSI Jl .I I II 185&@.:: 51 1l4 4iiii Jl arI -~i44114I P„= ~ I \ ~ Sl IS SS S S NR alas st 1 PI PPI ::: ~ ~~ llisi '.PP4 gll P I S I I I RR ''III ~ I ~~I lll sp Is i'0 of ely. the rict myriad of available project are not likel balance have chose The District of Kitimat wishes to put forward what we believe are a series of common sense points regarding the Kemano Completion Project followed xiii by several recommendations. if one thing has been lacking from our perspective, it is basic common sense. This lack of common sense is best displayed by many of the initiatives regarding Kemanc Completion that attempt to turn back the clock to either 1950 or 1987. The issues of the Kemano Completion Project will not be solved in the past, they will be solved in the present. Our points and recommendations aim to the future. IRBW QFtl'WQ 4«I4i ~ I IILIII sm si I e g i ijl$ %% a ll4II'1 Hl'I i RI9 I lI/it i~I 41 ~ f4=I I4 ~ III'is li' l4& ))III li4 J I r I '" I I I ~ i4 - - '«I4%IIF' I il I » ' s 'I xiii a., i ! li '-' 51%4 alrl « I I I ~ ~ I Ill - - ~ 24II» 4 III . ail 4'' I .''.III II 41 s 44I54 !i iii e ':' 858llm investors have confidence in agreements they make with the British Columbia Government when successor governments do not show good faith in honouring RIWlll IRR Liiiiiiii il rl ~ IS 11 I~I I these agreements? Cl'R&5 'lllfl58 Ma 5RI I I I I I 'llllfi@ k II f '. i II 'l't I 5l I i@i' 5l '!5,IIl I i i i i aa l i I I I lit 8lf I II55I!55 I': Si 1ll i IS Illlllml --'i Ills NI ~ rr I Sf rtll ) 5 tl )1 Ila wjll'5 I glr lR RSS I: S. ~ ~ ~ ~ ISII ISI RI j o~ %1 ~ ~%~ I 11- jllg lrnll I I I IS 15 I;=: IR ~ R I I RIRV' I ~1 "-" I' II SS SR I lrl 5 R s I IM I R R m .~ ~s1 INST;~5. IRr1 S iiJ 'i'ill= ISM l1lliil5 I IM%11U I I r Ll l% i5N5filg l :I Il I it " ' R I I 11 S I4f5 ISI I R I 6IUS 1S 1 I $ [I I 1 re The delays in the Kemano Compietion Project are very unfortunate. The court challenge launched by opponents of the project was rightfully found to be without merit. The decision to undertake thi's review through the B.C. Utilitiss Commission continued to add uncertainty to the future of the project. While we appreciate it was Alcan's decision not to continue building the project when these uncertainties were introduced, we must accept that these factors were beyond their control. During the interruption in construction, the economics of the project have changed. To revitalize the project in a way that is fair to all concerned should be a matter to be determined through discussions in good faith by the affected parties. The interruption in construction has had direct and significant impacts on the B.C. economy — particularly the economy of Northern British Columbia. Ths affects were felt very acutely in Kitimat as many people in our area lost their jobs, much purchasing related to Kemano Completion ceased and citizens'onfidence in the local economy was shaken. We understand the joint brief of the Chambers of Commerce of Kitimat and Terrace will detail specifically the impacts on this region. There will never be a consensus on Kemano Completion. This is not unique in major resource allocation decisions. As clearly as this is known today, this was also known in 1987.. Faced with these. situations, the legitimately elected government has the responsibility to'deal with these matters and the mandate to make binding decisions. To reject this basic tenant of democracy leads us to the type of irresponsible anarchy that we are unfortunately seeing more and more of today. The hands of time cannot be tumed back. Those who wish to find their solution by returning to 1950 or returning to 1987 ars not a constructive part of the process. The issues regarding Kemano Completion should be dealt with in the present through a process of open communication and good faith. Ri.— 6 jrtrjc !/It'III )""=.",;.-.„%[ 15 I 1111 NHi ! is~~~ ~ I&f (f/g "" "' ~ ~g@' -.::."'"' — " I — 5f is~ i i~RI@ ':'l~ g ~ I ~ la ~ ~ + ' I I I I E. I ""- ==-'," 'fkf( ISJI 18 ) $ ( &~~ ' ', ~5I(lllllh ~ii~ia~ + ([g Recommendations lt is easy to be negative or to demand solutions that meet the specific needs of your special interest group. Constructive and balanced solutions are what are needed. All parties should put their best efforts into ensuring the resumption and completion 1. of the Kemano Completion Project. The Provincial Government should live up to the 1987 Settlement Agreement and actively support the Kemano Completion Project. A project the size of the Kemano Completion Project will have environmental impacts. Within the context of completing the project, everyone agrees such environmental impacts should be addressed in a reasonable and responsible manner. This was recognized in the 1987 Settlement Agreement with the provision for ongoing monitoring and activities through joint Technical and Steering Committees. We believe the three parties, those being the Federal Government, Provincial Government and Alcan, should look at the process as ongoing with the intent of dealing with arising issues jointly and in good faith. The process should be sensitive to public input but ultimately the Federal and Provincia! Governments must take the leadership role to balance competing interests. 3.... The water and the land used to generate Kemano Completion power are ultimately..... a public resource. The benefits derived from use of such a resource should carry with it a commitment to economic benefits to the effected regions. This type of commitment is demonstrated in the power commitment to Vanderhoof Pulp and Paper. 'iP IlIlff siPIIP r ass 'HIP ~ I'l I ~ 44lf) ~~ — - - - — shlllS Pa PSI4.4s IIIIII) $ Ia 4 EI44 IiIIPI I 15 h IIII I sPa s Rltl~aa P IfHIjs 444 . s "Ilafhs "'"'P,'Ia .'l fili I ILK: I; . "— . ~ I 44 14 P PP I IIal hsaI ~ jpwjII 4 I I I I JIsIJIIP II:;:— r PPiismniSgglfP s "i '-- —,aI ISgglf]1 II hll P a f/'~ I ~ , Isslsal)(IIIJ[I liiPI sh aP I RR I I g t I I g f II I I I I PI I Pi I P :-asss~- — — ' Is aP Kitimat Council believes strongly a similar power commitment should be made for the Kitimat Valley. The power commitment would be available as and when needed to support economic development projects in the Kitimat Valley. The power commitment could be exercised directly by Alcan for additional aluminum smelting capacity or purchased by other industrial concerns at a rate set to facilitate development. We would ask the B.C. Utilities Commission to support a cail for the Provincial Government and Alcan to enter joint discussions with appropriate local governments regarding reasonable levels of power availability to support economic development in the Kitimat Valley. The Dis",riot of Kitimat is very concerned that the hearing process keeps being extended including the recent announcement of extended dates for the Technical Hearings. To close, we would urge the B.C. Utilities Commission to complete their review at an early date and to resist any initiative to extend or expand the hearing process. '$1$ III1 'H!!I =:1IlltfiiiliiI. IIII III ~ II $ Lllsse ~asof ~salas~ &~jl +18 ~ ~ May 20, 1994 R BASIN MANAGEMENT BOARD BRIE+ {ti TO RITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION REVIEW PANEL ON THE KEMANO COMPLETION PROJECT On 26 May, 1992 the federal, provincial and local governments signed the f y Agreement Respecting the Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). This Agreement commits the governments to work together to ensure the environmental, +'gIit 'T 3 economic and social sustainability of the Basin. The Fraser Basin Management g~Q Board, consisting of a neutral chair and three representatives of each of the federal, provincial, local and First Nations governments together with six representatives of environmental, business, labour and public interests from the regions of the Basin, was established to lead the initiative and develop the FBMP. It is under this mandate that the Board is uniquely qualified to submit a brief to the BCUC Review Panel Hearings on the Kemano Completion Project (KCP). The Board's brief has the advantage of being able to draw on the results of its multistakeholder processes used in building the FBMP. The brief focuses on the Board's activities in developing comprehensive watershed management for sustainability in the Basin induding, in particular, the Nechako watershed. H WI At the opening hearing in Prince George on 2 April, 1993 the Board submitted a brief to the BCUC Review Panel on the KCP (Appendix 1). In this brief the Board stated that it was responding to major concerns about KCP heard during its Open Houses held throughout the Basin in early 1993, made specific recommendations on the need to broaden the Terms of Reference for the BCUC Review, and indicated its intent to submit a brief on sustainability management in the Nechako watershed at the Panel's upcoming Technical Hearings. This second brief results from that commitment and builds on the recommendations made earlier by the Board. The Board's key recommendation in this brief is that any subsequent decisions made by the governments on KCP should include specific provision for developing sustainability strategies and institutions for management of the affected watersheds such as the Nechako. On the First Anniversary (26 May, 1993) of the signing of the Agreement the Board released its 1993-98 Strategic Plan and 1993-94 Action Plan (Appendix 2). The Strategic Plan presented the Board's vision, mandate and programs for IR'raser Il@ I%I~I building a sustainability strategy and institutions for management of the Basin by the end of the five-year Agreement. The commitment to contribute to the KCP Review is part of the Board's 1993-94 Action Plan. 01I .~ rrrettr ~I 5 I I IIII Ia r $ $ me 1 Program Iln mew of the Province's position of neutrality with nspect to the BCUC Panel reviero on the KCP, p p m t pons the provincial government Board members have abstained from parti'cipating in the preparation of this bri~ Be sure to save this report in your Source Book under Section 9 061660. pl ~~'F. tenet nnn.tenn 11AM i I Iijl '%$II I ! ! re ~ ~,, =et iaee zgzo ZOO wett Georgia street Vaneaatet,6 B.C., VIV tgt m i' t6'.ea — I 1atht~',trrttita;, ~ Biitli'tae =-.--.= e„-;ul ~ May 20, 1994 The following sections of this brief outline key activities of the Fraser Basin Management Board, a new vision of watershed governance and the role the Board will be playing in developing watershed management for sustaLnability in the Nechako. A Sustainability Strategy and Institutions for Management of the Fraser Basin During 1993-94 the Board began work on the development of a sustainability strategy and institutions for the Basin and its watersheds. Activities were conducted under five Strategic Programs: Management strategies: Multistakeholder steering committees have been established to lead the development of management strategies and initial action plans have been adopted in four priority areas: water resources, fisheries and aquatic habitats, pollution prevention and waste minimization, and community development. ~ Institutional development: Options for initiating coordination and integration of management activities in the sub-basins have been developed and reviewed with stakeholders and an option based on establishment of regional coordinators adopted. ~ Demonstration projects: From 34 submissions, four watershed and two corridor projects have been endorsed by the Board as demonstrations of new ways in which non-government and government stakeholders can work together for sustainability. Audits: Through the mul tistakeholder steering committees and community workshops ways have been indentified for building on the strengths and remedying critical gaps and weaknesses in the existing strategies and institutions for sustainability management in watersheds and the Basin. A more detailed assessment has focussed on flood control and floodplain management. Information, Communications and Education: To improve understanding of the Fraser Basin, sustainability issues and activities of stakeholders the Source Book - a compendium of information - (Appendix 3) and a computer Bulletin Board System have been introduced. Also a multistakeholder steering committee has been established to develop a sustainability education strategy that coordinates and integrates existing environmental, economic and social education programs in watershed communities throughout the Basin. From this initial work the Board has drawn two general condusions both of which are being further tested and refined as part of the 1994-95 Action Plan. ItwilJi Ittijiig j,l i~~ I [ Firstly, there is an opportunity for sustainability of the Fraser Basin that is the envy of many other parts of the world. The Fraser is not a Thames where the miracle of salmon returns are counted one fish at a time. The mainstem of the Fraser has not yet been dammed like the Columbia and so there are still many options. The Fraser is not like the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence or Rhine or Columbia when it comes to remedying damage To a large extent the problems from development to date in the Fraser Basin are known and reversible. ¹ Secondly, seemg thrs opportunrty for sustamabdkty, stakeholders throughout the Basm have begun to shape a new vision of vsatershed governance. From discussions among 4»I Mls 111 %III ~lelil imrimai ~ ij 8 s% t1(tij Il ils 1 ill II I[ II II rm', Ils! "I I I rll Iiil.» I I II hia ili i j j 44'I liU'I jRI I I jra! 4 ll., a 441 II ~ sil 4 ' IIII' lm I I(IXI /,ijt s ~ 4 » I' » ~ U F.U II non-governmental and goverrunental stakeholders in the steering committees, community workshops (Appendix 4) and a recent intergovernmental workshop (Appendix 5), there is emerging a remarkably dear and broad agreement on a new vision of watershed governance for sustainability that can builld on the strengths of existing strategies and institutions while remedying critical weaknesses and gaps. ill I jji'j lanai)N os U ill(( N g &II I It is immensely significant that stakehniders are already putting this vision into practice throughout the Basin even though governmental policies and institutions have historically given relalively Httle attention to the watershed focus. Furthermore, the vision is characterised by turning the old system of governance inside out. The old approach placed en lphasis on induding local )El'I/II government, First Nations and non-governmental stakeholders within federal and provincial government programs. By contrast, the new approach reverses the perspective; it focusses on the ways that federal and provincial government programs might be redesigned to assist non-governmental stakeholders, First Nations and local governments in the efforts they are making of their own volition to manage their watersheds in the best interests of environmental, economic and social sustainability. This new vision has major implications for the innovations required in watershed governance for sustainability. Ijjj(, llijii I j I I l I I 1I EISII 'I IS 4 ls , I A Vision of Watershed Governance for Sustainability of the Fraser Basin I IS In elaborating key elements of the new vision as stakeholders have identified it to the Board, it is necessary to begin with fundamental issues relating to boundaries and then relate them to the imperatives of decision making and implementation in watershed governance for sustainability. I II I II% I II ,,(R I 9L- 5 Pv itl 111 1 4 .' I I I ls» Sl I I I 4 I i I 1 ~I r~ I Iui May 20, 1994 Boundaries People attach great importance to watershed boundaries. They are a natural description of where they live, the stretch of land and water they call home. The old system of governance is characterized by a maze of overlapping and shifting administrative boundaries and mandates for the activities carried out by the four orders of government. These boundaries variously delineate areas on the basis of such factors as population, political units, land use, economic activity, forest resources, tourism, First Nations territories, etc. They are often in conflict with one another and create barriers to coordination and integration. I R% 'I I I iiiiN hii3 IIIII ¹l) f I ISI'Cll ;hll I'I Yil Ihli I I, I IS nl II 1 In II II 1 ' I I III ' I .:: ~ The new vision is framed by the natural boundaries of the watershed the area watersheds. drained by a stream or river. The basin is defined by its tributary The river is the lifeblood that unifies the human, ecological, and physical elements of the watershed. Watershed boundaries change in sync with the milleiuua of geologic periods rather than three or five year electoral mandates. Within the watershed environmental, social and economic systems operate in concert with one another. Thus, for example, trees cut in the headwaters are cut at a pace to ensure long term community stability and in a manner to preserve biodiversity. Likewise, water diversions that substantially undermine community stability and the resilience of the aquatic ecosystem are avoided. Decisions related to sustainability are then being made because the connections between the environment, economy and community within the watershed and between watersheds are recognized, understood and maintained by its residents. Decision Making Decision making in the old governance system has been widely typified as "topdown." In this system, decisions are made at the "top" by provincial and federal government agencies and imposed on those "down" below in municipalities, regions and First Nations - presumably with little or no input from those affected or by the decisions. In a top1Iown system, for the most part, homogeneous communities; blanket policies and regulations are laid over top of heterogeneous programs and services are distributed according to federal or provincial budgets; and responsibilities are downloaded without resources or authority. l I I I I I ~ I % I =a 'I I I I 11I I I I I IIS Decision making in the new watershed vision recognizes both top-down and bottom up perspectives and responsibilities. It is characterized by theme three elements: local decision making, the involvement of all interests with a stake in the outcome, and working by consensus. Together these three elements help people learn to see themselves as partners who work together in mutually beneficial partnerships, Local decision making II, l I At the local level, residents of an area have a first hand understanding of the issues they face and opportunities to resolve them. In the new vision, decisions are made with the benefit of local experience and knowledge, and with a recognition of larger interests of the 8asin, province, nation and globe. In its ,II5 IIIII direction. Partnerships go a long way towards reducing duplication and contradiction, increasing productivity, and streamlining programs. Programs developed through partnership with non-government groups and individuals benefit from a tremendous surge of energy, expertise and commitment. ]Il lmli II II gh I I I I+II II 5 7 I 4 liI 7:: 8 I I lllf 'I JI i rl ! ~ 7 hll II 7 a1 IP ~ I a I t Fil 9%.- lj i'ill I II I, I 7 II Ji I Pr a ~ ~ I li I 77 & j i '/ I i 7 ~ ~ I II l Iti i II'I 1 I Ji 7i'lit la 0 tliFi I ,;-iii lil i'I i'i i D'1 I I 'I ili RI III ~ II 111 li PFI I I' Implementation In the existing system of governance, the decision making style manifests in a number . f undesirable outcomes: lack of trust in, among and within governments; turf wars; jurisdictional confusion; confiicting mandates and boundaries; poor communication; withholding of information; and lack of credibility in the eyes of the public. Once decisions are made in the top-down II I %~ l I I 7PI II I I I IlIl.. I,, i 7 ~ ~ I I,I IIII 'li I .IBt li IIIINIRai~i Fs ~F7 I'— IP P I ~ ~ -- I Ill .P ty P P gP watershed and conununities. In building this common vision, participants share their hopes, fears, values and interests -the driving. forces that shape the opinions they bring to the decision making table and the actions they take in the watershed. The common vision that results sets up a shared purpose for all norlgovernment and government padicipants. ~ Achievable objectives In the new vision of watershed governanc, communities begin following through on the vision by setting priorities and focusing on dear, achievable objectives. The fulfillment that comes through reaching targets and meeting expectations is essential in maintaining positive momentum and commitment to work projects and to the watershed. A series of small successes lays the ground new about ways for tackling larger projects. Lessons are learned along the way of working together in cooperative arrangements - and they are learned in the context of both success and failure. Stetvardship proj ects Stewardship is about taking responsibility as individuals, communities and governments; individually and collectively we become stewards of the watershed. Stewardship projects focus "hands-on" energy and expertise on the restoration, maintenance and enhancement of the river. In the new vision of watershed governance, the community defines its own needs and seeks partnership with industry and all orders of government in defining common objectives. Industry and governments provide support and resources such as expert advice, funding, networking to other stewardship projects, training of volunteers, and equipment. Stewardship projects increase awareness of sustainability issues in the watershed, encourage positive actions toward sustainability, and increase the sense of pride and ownership residents hold for their watershed. I 11 ir ll g I i )ll ! lit'! ijj ll.lIj) I I ~ 118'I ~ Lsl ~ I II''lJIE 'll S!I!'I 51 ml I I ' I I I ~l lll I Il! I ! I 111 II I May 20, 1994 Accessibility In the new vision, residents have access to information on matters that affect how they live, work and play in the watershed. This information is provided in their communities and is also available in plain language. Opportunities are provided for sharing information and asking questions in non-adversarial settings, Credible information about ongoing programs and results from studies is available and accessible to assist the community in understanding issues and participating in decision-making processes. Data from all orders of government and non-governmental organizations are pooled and coordinated to meet the needs of those seeking information. Education The goal of sustainability in the watershed will come about only through changes in the way we act on a day-to-day basis; as individuals, communities and governments. Changes in behaviour come about through changes in attitude and awareness. Communications and education play a critical role in creating awareness about the interdependence and the dynamics of environmental, social and economic sustainability, All residents of the Basin, from pre-schoolers to retirees, have a role to play in achieving sustainability. In the new vision, education and communications efforts in the watersheds reach a wide range of audiences and help people understand the challenges and opportunities of sustainability. Pmlgl' ~ Sa~aaa") g:,.=pl I a am 'N sat gj Developing Watershed Management in 1994-95 As part of its Action Plan for 1994-95, the Board will be further testing and ~ gPiIl~g 4 ~ III refining this new vision of watershed governance for sustainability in several ways, in particular by beginning to apply it in selected watersheds of the Basin including the Nechako. Reduced funding for 1994-95 has lead the Board to focus its Action Plan into four programs: ~ Sustainability Strategy: The integrated sustainability strategy to be in first draft by 1997 will be designed and the multistakeholder steering committees in each of the four priority areas will focus on the development of these components of the strategy, as weH as monitoring the implementation of their 1994-95 Action Plans. ~ Sub-basin Coordination: Institutional development will concentrate on the iniatiation of sub-basin coordination by establishing regional coordinators for the FBMP, who will also build dose links with the demonstration projects. 4 Audits: Following the multistakeholder approach piloted in the assessment of flood control programs, assessments will be made of two major program areas: the Fraser River Action Plan and the various policy and legislative initiatives shaping new approaches to watershed management. ~ Information, Communications and Education: A second edition of the Source Book will be produced, the computer bulletin board system will be expanded and the integration of environmental, economic and social sustainability education programs will be piloted in selected watershed communities, I W I I II NÃl I ~mill jl'RI1I +IS i li'..: "I l! II NI 8! g! 'I (JIIII IK I r:'— I I 1Uf i ! I II al I 84 iii'=.: ':, I I I'4 ' 11$ 4~ III! ' ~ 1 I S M!' I F4 O'14i P' lfli Il I! III tl 1444%iI 181 1811 141 '!SI im I Ia I Ill!N 0 '1l i ' ~I II I ' 41 I I I'.44 li, I 4 I 4 11 May 20, 1994 /jg~lRj mrna Nll lP /III II I '%1 11 I SS I III',.;; g flal Nj a i ld irii &sill t IP j t is 1 I II ~ ~ ~ I I e: i I I I I 'I I 1111$ I I Two parts of this Action Plan will be particularly important in meeting the Board's mandate to facilitate coordination and integration of watershed sustainability management in the Basin and in particular in the Nechako. ~ Assessment of various initiatives impacting on approaches to watershed management. A wide variety of governmental initiatives are either already underway or will be introduced shortly that impact on various aspects of the governance system in the watersheds of the Fraser Basin. These indude Water Stewardship, CORE, Protected Areas Strategy, Land and Resource Management Planning, Forest Practices Code, Fraser River Estuary Management Program, Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Progratn, Fraser River Action Plan, Treaty Commission etc. The specific focus of the Board's evaluation will be on how these initiatives relate to the development of watershed management with particular emphasis on implementation of the new vision for sustainability and the varied situations in watersheds of the Fraser Basin. From the multistakeholder workshops conducted during the past year, it is evident that there are important lessons to be learned atnut strengths and weaknesses from the various approaches that are already in operation (e.g. FREMP, LRMPs, CORE). At the same time, it is clear that the differences between watershed situations have major implications for caution in applying experience from one part of the Basin to another. ~ Introduction of regional coordinators to begin coordination and integration of the FBMP in the sub-basins. While the commututy workshops and demonstration projects have made the Board acutely aware of the immense amount and diversity of stakeholder activity in the regions of the Basin, it is as yet not well informed about them, The first task of the regional coordinators will be to become familiar with who is doing what and then begin to work with stakeholders in identifying how watershed management can be advanced by building on the strengths of ongoing initiatives and remedying gapa and weaknesses on a priority basis. It is in this context that the Board will be addressing the development of watershed sustainability management throughout tiie Fraser Basin. The Board recognizes that developing and implementing a management program for the entire Fraser Basin is a challenging task. Based upon its appreciation of this new vision, it believes one way of doing this is facilitating the development of management programs at the watershed level. Although each one would have its own characteristics and priorities for action, common elements would emerge. Many of these common elements are already being developed through existing planning initiatives previously mentioned. These and new ones would be applied to new watershed management programs as they are developed throughout the Basin. Developing the Nechako Watershed Management Program The great concerns raised by stakeholders throughout the Basin, as well as from outside of it, have lead the Board to give priority to facilitating the development 14 a~I May 20, 1994 of watershed sustainability management in the Nechako. In this way it will be possible to respond to the diverse issues about the future of the watershed that may not have been addressed by the BCUC Review of the KCP because they lay outside of its terms of reference. This will be required whatever the specifics of the conclusions and recommendations reached by the BCUC Panel in its report to the provincial government. The approach that will be taken by the Board builds on its experience to date in developing both the overall Fraser Basin Management Program and a pilot in the South Thompson watershed. The Board will establish a multistakeholder task force with specific terms of reference including appropriate members of the Board and representation of key stakeholders. Outlined here is the first phase of a staged approach for evolving a management program that meets the specific requirements of the Nechako. The products at the end of Phase I would be an initial Nechako Watershed Management Program (NWMP) consisting of,the first edition of a rolling five year strategic plan for developing the sustainability strategy and institutions for the watershed together with an immediate action plan for the first year. Given the Board's experience with this type of approach and its ongoing work elsewhere in the Basin on particular elements that will need to be considered, it is believed Phase I could be completed within six months. Phase II would be defined by the specifics of the strategic and action plans. Io elell1 .... „. „ IIII I "—: j..', It is envisaged that the work will be undertaken largely by the task force with support from staff of the Board and short-term assignments from participating organisations. As needed the task force svould use workshops or sub-groups to other stakeholders in developing and reviewing its repoi t. It is our experience that this can be a highly productive and cost-effective approach. 'nvolve ~P ' The membership of the task force for carrying out Phase I and the specific terms of reference will be established by the PBMB. The task force will be chaired by a member of the Board. In selecting members of the task force, the Board weal follow its usual practice of ensuring that there is appropriate representation of the four orders of government and non-governmental interests. The Board would develop specific terms of reference for Phase I which reflect the FBMP Agreement and the new vision. of watershed management. —: ',: 'DI lllll ilil,i 'S m J I 4l Ill I ~ I ' ::i II/li ~ ~ 'll teII I 44' ~ ~l There are three major tasks that will need to be undertaken by the task force during Phase I: Identify breadth of interests and existing governance system: At the outset work would need to be undertaken to identify atakeholders and how they are presently involved in the existing governance systems of the watershed. The records from interventions in the BCUC Review provide considerable information but also it will be necessary to identify key stakeholders and processes which may not have been involved. ' g j) SMI 'ell I leel 4 ~ I 4 I 4 I JUL - h jtrtljlI I SIN', 'ie i» sel rstlil 'l ' I I 'si ji sa 'ja —.';eeera eert;=:='=:-...: I I I I .——, II — I njell,' 41 I - ~ ~ I II I I Ill II I ! Il ir Il I ~ I''' ~ I Isl Bi ll'I III ~ II 4 I ~ ~I ~ I I II I 'I 7 .USSR ~ 44 ~ 4~ I ~ -- " '-'0'el 'li ~ I I ~ I I 11 i II I I I I 'I May 20, 1994 Assess the existing governance system: Although there is presently no overall watershed management system established in the Nechako, there is a wide variety of governmental and non-governmental processes underway that might be utilised in beginning to build the NWMP, An assessment of the potential for building on the strengths and remedying critical gaps and weaknesses in the existing governance system will be necessary. Develop a strategic and action plan: Like the first edition of the strategic plan for will provide an initial statement of its the FBMP, the one for the the case of the Nechako, it will also need to In mandate, goals and programs. coordination and integration with the both its for include specific provisions FBMP and a multistakeholder mechanism for leading the development and implementation of the NWMP. The action plan for the first year would indude items both addressing critical issues in high priority areas of management and beginning to build the sustainability strategies and It would institutions required to implement the strategic plan for the of the recommendations of the specific implementation local the indude and mitigation research, monitoring, to relating as those BCUC Panel, such with the would begin Pnase II governments. the compensation, accepted by of the for the first year implemeritation of the action plan ~ ~. ~. In conclusion therefore, the Fraser Basin Management Board is recommending that any subsequent decisions made by the governments on the KCP include specific provisions for developing sustainability strategies and institutions for management of the affected vratersheds consistent with the Agreement Respecting the Fraser Basin Management Program. It is important that the KCP Review Panel appreciate the importance of supporting the Board's recommendation to the governments for developing watershed sustainability management as an integral part of its own recommendations in order that any options relevant to the sustainability of the Nechako and the Fraser Basin not be foredosed. When the Board speaks to this brief in Phase IV of the BCUC Hearing later this summer, it will report on the response from stakeholders and progress being made in implementing Phase I. 184 s111%144j 444 44uIIIml4 I 44mllsssj) I fjl ~ lg I me! !mal% ~ jm 4 ~ 451% al ~ ll ill W ei jill! Nj List of Fraser Basin Management Board Members Attached: 'iiiijj jljl IS 1 II /! Il'' hl I I r 10 ! !III»e 1!4411 8'1lljiik: '44 till II Il all ljsqg ~i arel SKISal %is ~ I I! ij!la i R '' a 1 ~ I » SII ' ~ ll 1 I I I S!1!I I'' 4 ' Si 1 1 ":ii 11 I ~ ~ 1 Jtjtsll 11 ~ '-JI I 4% iisIIN1I 114$ I» 'l.. 1 = 'I 4!II sii ~ I ~ 'ma «! 1 siiliia:&4. ~ R 11 1 I all I IILI ~ % I I &$ 11 ~ 5 , I 1 1111 %4 I I IW ~ .re»I I ~ I ER BASIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A unique multi-party management board consisting of a chairperson, three federal„ three provincial, three local and three First Nations government appointee, and" six members-at-large representing environmental, industry, business, and labour interests from all regions of the Basin. The members are: Susan Anderson Earle Anthony Danny Case Pat Chamut Trevor Chandler Tony Dorcey Bob Ellis Irene Frith Tom Gunton Mary MacGregor Rose Morrison-Ives Andy MotherweB Charmaine Murray Roy Mussell Stephen Owen Bob Pasco Frank Rhodes Horst Sander Bob Simpson ~! I j IIII l@miim jII I ill 1m 1 ilg I I II cl sa Rs II LI i a=a asiii8 QIIlQ lllllllllj IIL't IIa $ I e Partner, Fulton & Co., Kamloops Agriculture Instructor, University College of the Fraser Valley Director, Cariboo Regional District, Quesnel Councillor, City of New Westminster Chair, BC Aboriginal Management Board Commissioner, BC Commission on Resources & Environment Chief, Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council, Lytton Deputy Minister, Ministry of Employment and Investment Former President and CEO, Northwood Pulp & Timber Ltd. Business and Management Consultant heh --",':.,'! hl [ IyI gII!g' he =: !nstg pI s a s ' Dimctor, Aboriginal & Environmental Issues, BC Federation of Labour Regional Director General, Environment Canada Alexis Creek Indian Band Regional Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ptusident, Landscope Consulting Corporation, Lillooet (Board Chair), Professor, School of Community & Regional Planning, UBC Chair, Thompson-Nicola Regional District, Savona North Fraser Harbour Commission, Vancouver Deputy Minister, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks OUR CHALLENGE Froser Bosln Our challenge is to guide the development and implementaiton of a management program to ensure the environmental. economic and social sustainabiTity of the Fraser Basin. la la Ssnt9rom 9.O. 0 tOOBa Suite 2910 ii: I sli ia,e e, s ill lii i 9/ h rei trSOS&000-I trr e rena een. hrsnn s s' I II i ~ ats! aa 'h ~ ai I '' l1 9as Wll llPW5 luna 1 t ,'" ..alnI In-, 'gP BIM: still ht s~ ~ ~me! A~ I II s I lJ Bss ~ 4 's' ' sl I I ~ s II au ' I I ~ ' situ,, ~ ~ Is s ~ I I I I a aa All ee e s l ls !1! I I 0 Ia ~ Ml ~ hie ' ~ I ~a roo west cearoia street Vaneaueer, B.C, Vrr tsr rSSL- g $ ~ Ilo sac. II ' i ~ss i t s I I II =::.: 0 !II%! III III.I May 20, 1994 BASIN MANAGEMENT BOARD BRIhgj TO 'rt ITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION REVIEW PANEL ON THE KEMANO COMPLETION PROJECT On 26 May, 1992 the federal, provincial and local governments signed the gy Agreement Respecting the Frager Basin Management Program (FBMP). This AgreemtFtt commits the governments to work together to ensure the environmental, economic and social sustainability of the Basin. The Fraser Basin Management Board, consisting of a neutral chair and three representatives of each of the federal, provincial, local and First Nations governments together with six representatives of environmental, business, labour and public interests from the regions of the Basin, was established to lead the initiative and develop the FBMP. It is under this mandate that the Board is uniquely qualified to submit a brief to the BCUC Review Panel Hearings on the Kemano Completion Project (KCP). The Beard's brief has the advantage of being able to draw on the results of its multistakeholder processes used in building the FBMP. The brief focuses on the Board's activities in developing comprehensive watershed management for sustainability in the Basin induding, in particular, the Nechako watersheIL J z g~ At the opening hearing in Prince George on 2 April, 1993 the Board submitted a brief to the BCUC Review Panel on the KCP (Appendix 1). In this brief the Board stated that it was responding to major concerns about KCP heard during its Open Houses held throughout the Basin in early 1993, made specific recommendations on the need to broaden the Terms of Reference for the BCUC Review, and indicated its intent to submit a brief on sustainability management in the Nechako watershed at the Panel's upcoming Technical Hearings. This second brief results from that commitment and builds on the recommendations made earlier by the Board. The Board's key recommendation in this brief is that any subsequent decisions made by the governments on KCP should indude specific provision for developing sustainabtTtty strategies and institutions for management of the affected watersheds such as the Nechako. ill,..... IIIIII' I ~ I Il I Si "— "'I I I I On the First Aruuversary (26 May, 1993) of the signing of the Agreement the Board released its 1993-98 Strategic Plan and 1993-94 Action Plan (Appendix 2). The Strategic Plan presented the Board's vision, mandate and programs for building a sustainability strategy and institutions for management of the Fraser Basin by the end of the five-year Agreement. The commitment to contribute to the KCP Review is part of the Board's 1993-94 Action Plan. I &&IliIjllHI IIIII',IIII U Proser Basin s Management Program a 8 II II IIIIB I Illa/ jl llt" -" ttn VieW Of the PrOm'nCe'6 poaitiOr Of neutrality tvith reapeet tO the BCUC Panel reVieW On the KCP, the provincial ttovernment Board members hove abstained fnmt participoting in the preparation vf this brief. Be sure to save this report in your Source Book under Section 9 gpss -' nII 'I!lite tlrust I 1st =- ~%&1 im tiisi Ii ass I I Is ~ ~" I W I" 4!! .,;;„. Iti» Bitt Iilt ='" II II mtll~c "" == ' u iattw n~; ~ ~ — — — l'l" ' - '' i=r s sll,i ~ns ~ ss "— — =Is Bt,nwtnsru turnup ': ~ — "'" " 11I I 5 p p Bo 10086 5ojt'e sgrt 100 West Georgia 5treer Vooeoorer, B.C., Vt V 184 reejt604) 660-11st Iehel eeo eeoh e Bts~tiI~iiII~BIu, mm&~~~ll J'I'--'-'=' '" " ~tj~ — st rs attaml l1F tins II eiis" ='= I%!+'.....'IIIIBI m„,le Ig — aw Ittthtlslt':."-,mI~ 'liltlt into.— iss I I . I . I, II SI May 20, 1994 The very large fiows in the mainstem Fraser greatly facilitate the restoration of water quality when sources of contaminants are controlled as has been seen recently with reductions in dioxins from pulp mill discharges. Allowing for increased escapements and restoration of habitats can restore salmon runs to historical levels from decimated numbers as was evident last year on the Horse Fly River. Except in the Lower Valley the extent, diversity and intensity of urbanindustrial development is stfil relatively low, only two major tributaries have been dammed and numerous headwaters remain pristine. The opportunity in the Fraser and its tributary watersheds is envied because we have not yet made the number and extent of irreversible commitments that so constrain river basins such as the Thames, Great Lakes/St. Lawrence, Rhine and Columbia, because many options remain and because past and existing problems can be remedied and avoided in the future if action is taken now. Secondly, seeing this opportunity for sustainability, stakcholders throughout the Basin have begun to shape a new vision of watershed governance. From discussions among non-governmental and governmental stakeholders in the steering committees, community workshops (Appendix 4) and a recent intergoverxunental workshop (Appendix 5), there is emerging a remarkably dear and broad agreement on a new vision of watershed governance for sustainability that can build on the strengths of existing strategies and institutions whUe remedying critical weaknesses and gapa. It is immensely significant that stakeholders are already putting this vision into practice throughout the Basin even though governmental policies and institutions have historically given relatively little attention to the watershed focus. Furthermore, the vision is characterised by turning the old system of governance inside out. The old approach placed emphasis on including local government, First Nations and non-governmental stakeholders within federal and provincial government programs. By contrast, the new approach reverses the perspective; it focusses on the ways that federal and provincial government pr'ograms might be redesigned to assist non-governmental stakeholders, First Nations and local governments in the efforts they are making of their own volition to manage their watersheds in the best interests of environmental, economic and social sustainability. This new vision has major implications for the innovations required in watershed governance for sustainability. A Vision of Watershed Governance for Sustainability of the Fraser Basin In elaborating key elements of the new vision as stakeholders have identified it to the Board, it is necessary to begin with fundamental issues relating to boundaries and then relate them to the imperatives of decision making and implementation in watershed governance for sustainability. '"!4l II I RRi satt I) fg &mi aaa rma gas IS 'ars Ew II ~s I hjIjj ii sam ii jj g I I I II . I II B s. aie IllllgpIII m ggij 'ijllri 5 a ta&fiij [i c ~I ij', ': ti~.-—."-e =Iqisj ' IS l ~ ='I I s N as B, s i = a sl o III 5 Ilhi I II II l'!'l'--"= '-'==:—:=- -:: II I i IS llI a ~ IIan I I s ~, —,.—..'»' i~ — -'-"-- ' "-"-'XIIIjjgl II I I %IA ~ taa P '~gE-="-~is,sic II JI i . III — ~ II I q~»~~zz,",- '-Bigliifggjgljljllig &rmIRIse'=.',;;:-,gB fjlI . 'll j'iS'ill»laill IljjjII ~ Q~'~ arm i's~ " — I }, IIIs, j " '~'~ ~/mt '""','l~i yg &sea IIII i $ I ' I May 20, 1994 simplest form the decision making process is "thinking globally and acting locally." When responsibility is devolved, the arrangements include assurances of accountability and providing adequate resources for implementation at local levels. When broad policies and legislation are developed or revised, local needs, values, goals and interests are sought and considered in balancing wider provincial and federal interests. These broad policies and legislation then become tools for appropriate application at the local level. Multi-Interest involvement The new vision encompasses an indusive process of multi-interest involvementone that extends to Pirst Nations, local, provincial and federal orders of government together with non-government interests. All have the opportunity to participate from the outset in defining the scope and nature of the problems and creating solutions that strive for an accommodation of the range of interests. An inclusive decision making process leads to committed multi-interest implementation. It also allows for a "pooling" of resources, providing greater potential for more effective usage as resources grow ever more scarce. Consensus processes Decision making in the new vision is shared among all stakeholders. The process of consensus is facilitated so people can share views and interests, develop common visions and objectives, and reach creative agreements which reflect all interests to the greatest extent possible. Even when consensus is not reached on all aspects of a decision, the process highlights areas of agreement and moves all parties closer to resolution. The development of working reiatioruhips, shared understanding and trust are benefits of the process which prove to be invaluable during implementation of decisions reached. Pertnerships Partnerships develop when dedsions are made at the local level with a diversity of interests, and through a process of consensus. Growing out of citizen initiatives, these partnerships are essential for goverrunents with shrinking resources and increasing expectations. 8y developing common goals, the energies of non-govemxnent and government partne'rs are focused in one direction. Partnerships go a long way towards reducing duplication and contradiction, increasing productivity, and streamlining programs. Programs developed through partnership with non-government groups and individuals benefit from a tremendous surge of energy, expertise and commitment. Rl.'~wag '=s!Ill I Implementation In the existing system of governance, the decision making style manifests in a number of undesirable outcomes: lack of trust in, among and within governments; turf wars; jurisdictional confusion; conflicting mandates and boundaries; poor communication; withholding of information; and lack of credibility in the eyes of the public. Once decisions are made in the top-down I Rl Ss r= . =- = .. I SR I%I SR s JUL- 6 SQI '.'Ill'Ilgwu 5 ~ii'Iiillll'i Ifeele i iyIa,— — ',".— na~ais."..'..u p:,,—...~lltI '- =- ==ihlllll Lass JIS Nl» I ,'Il haghn, =-.'= ale,; (g; )ql [8----: ..::rI.i'l Llw[/ ~.ll ~ ' NI kl, —" has eai ~ -~'/[smlllllul~!Ig~si si ~~P~..~. ~ ~ .- $ jqp fciiia ~ gpss ~ IN ~~ ==%i iII INN May 20, 1994 Nasl( re-" !ISIS Accessibility that affect how In the new vision, residents have access to information on matters in their provided is information This they live, work and play in the watershed. are provided communities and is also available in plain language. Opportunities settings. for sharing information and asking questions in non-adversarial is studies from results Credible information about ongoing programs and and issues understanding available and accessible to assist the community in government of orders participating in decision-making processes. Data from all to meet the and non-goveriunental organizations are pooled and coordinated needs of those seeking information. Education through changes The goal of sustainability in the watershed will come about only and communities individuals, in the way we act on a day-to-day basis; as in attitude tplfll~kl If Ijmiiiiaii II Ik IHIII K% ~ I M Rl sp&gm +IIII II%I I S Sl II N f I I ''II L.','„,, ,'', III 1 I nlI I I ~I I% I ~ Rl I ptR IIIIIII' Ii I ~ ~ I I Ii I I I I governments. Changes in behaviour come about through changes in creating role and awareness. Communications and education play a critical social environmental, awareness about the interdependence and the dynamics of pre-schoolers to and economic sustainability. All residents of the Basin, from vision, retirees, have a role to play in achieving sustainability. In the new wide range of a reach watersheds the in efforts education and communications of audiences and help people understand the challenges and opportunities sustainability. Developing Watershed Management in 1994-95 further testing and As part of its Action Plan for 1994-95, the Board will be in several refining this new vision of watershed governance for sustainability the Basin of watersheds selected ways, in particular by beginning to apply it in1994-95 to focus Board has lead the including the Nechako. Reduced funding for its Action Plan into four programs: be in first ~ Sustainability Strategy: The integrated sustainability strategy to committees draft by 1997 will be designed and the multistakeholder steeringof these in each of the four priority areas will focus on the development of their components of the strategy, as well as monitoring the implementation 1994-95 Action Plans. will concentrate on the ~ Sub-basm Coordination: Institutional development coordinators for iniatiation of sub-basin coordination by establishing regional demonstration projects. the FBMP, who will also build dose links with the piloted in the assessment of Audits: Following the multistakeholder approach program flood control programs, assessments will be made of two majorlegislative and various policy areas: the Fraser River Action Plan and the initiatives shaping new approaches to watershed management. of the Source ~ Information, Communications and Education A second editionbe expanded will board system Book will be produced, the computer bulletin and social sustainability economic environmental, and the integration of communities. education programs will be piloted in selected watershed Mill lllllll Qlll II w mm'I )I gll iiI'I iil I I LIVI I I I! il i II I I i i Ii si Iii I el tQ a I ill I MI ii il I II B 11'li rc esi.u I I '! Ill i I ~ I I 'll I I . I i ) lliiii mime II May 20, 'i 8(5 I! i iEIRI I I & if'' i lM! I Iiimii Nlf I IIBRNI'I y(((i ((I I tfll ll (II ( lnsll! 1 PI! 11118 1 I i,!II IIII ~ ( ( ( I I I Ii'i I IIIHII I a 411 II 1 n a II I' ( fill I I llllll i( 'S li i I& I f of watershed sustainability management in the Nechako. In this way it will b possible to respond to the diverse issues about the future of the watershed tha may not have been,addressed by the BCUC Review of the KCP because they outside of its terms of reference. This will be required whatever the specifics o the conclusions and recommendations reached by the BCUC Panel in its repo the provincial government. The approach that will be taken by the Board builds on its experience to date developing both the overall Fraser Basin Management Program and a pilot in South Thompson watershed. The Board will establish a multistakeholder tas force with specific terms of reference indudirtg appropriate members of the Board and representation of key stakeholders. Outlined here is the first phase a staged approach for evolving a management program that meets the specift requirements of the Nechako. The products at the end of Phase I would be an initial Nechako Watershed Management Program (NWMP) consisting of the edition of a rolling five year strategic plan for developing the sustainability strategy and institutions for the watershed together with an immediate action plan for the first year. Given the Board's experience with this type of approach and its ongoing work elsewhere in the Basin on particular elements that will need to be considered, it is believed Phase I could be completed within six months. Phase II would be defined by the specifics of the strategic and action plans. The membership of the task force for carrying out Phase I and the specific terms of reference will be established by the F 8MB. The task force will be chaired by a member of the Board. In selecting members of the task force, the Board will follow its usual practice of ensuring that there is appropriate representation of the four orders of government and non-goverrunental interests. The Board would develop specific terms of reference for Phase I which reflect the FBMP Agreement and the new vision. of watershed management. 'I Ithl It is envisaged that the work will be undertaken largely by the task force with support from staff of the Board and short-term assignments from participatingto organisations. As needed the task force would use workshops or sub-groups other stakeholders in developing and reviewing its report. It is our experience that this can be a highly productive and cost-effective approach. Sl! There are three major tasks that will need to be undertaken by the task force 5 Sil Ii 'I ''I 'nvolve (I during Phase I: ~ Identify breadth of interests and existing governance system: At the outset work would need to be undertaken to identify stakeholders and how they are presently involved in the existing governance systems of the watershed. The records from interventions in the BCUC Review provide considerable information but also it will be necessary to identify key stakeholders and processes which may not have been involved. IJ I II' I I II It I I N'l ' It Xa ill! flil I' 'I 11 4 II II I I I ~ I I I I I liri I-' II I ~ I I II ~ i I 111. I .. '.5 ~ 'll 441 I Charmaine Murray Roy Mussell Stephen Owen Bob Pasco Frank Rhodes Horst Sander Bob Simpson Dnector, t.anboo Regional District, Quesnel Councillor, City of New Westminster Chair, BC Aboriginal Management Board Commissioi:er, BC Commission on Resources 86 Environment Chief, Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council, Lytton Deputy Minister, Ministry of Employment and Investment Former President and CEO, Northwood Pulp 80 Timber Ltd. Business and Management Consultant liri, lt I I 4 I i%1 l I ~ II i II I IL OUR CHALLENGE Our challenge is to guide the development and implementaiton of a management program to ensure the environmental, economic and social sustainability of the Fraser Frasrr Basin Managrmr~ I ~ I III!5 il il ll I Pmgram Basin. 'I, 9.O, so» 30006 Sole 2910 100 Wra Coorslo $ 414»I VooroIoor so Vrr isi 1&II (606) 660 I 111 ro»I (606) 660.3600 I ii,ti bali Pill~~ Ii&,~ , ddlgory d/ ildlll,lfji i i I d l &r a ' id I I d ddll & »«'$//g 'dj jiiiii, iS 'ht~4I/lg 'fil d&m ~ ~1 & ddi III: II IR El I II l)flllir e Re '&d I rn d ~0 ., ei LIII ,& ~ II a% ~ =II i Government f Canada Gouvernement du Canada Fraser Basin stakeholder: FRASER RIVE e are pleased to send you the enclosed Fraser River Action Plan Mid-Term Report; wldch onicles the federal government's activities in the first three years of the ambitious initiative. e Fraser River Action Plan was launched in 1991 in response to public concerns about the vironment as well as to mounting pressures on the Fraser Basin's ecosystems from increasing pulation growth, economic development and demand for resources. 1tg WI II INI IR ,ps s! I ~ 15 ~ I I I I s tsl R~R II Carried out by Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the six-year initiative is aking significant progress toward its objectives of cleaning up pollution, restoring the great rt er's productivity and developing a management program to ensure the Fraser Basin's sustainability. Still, much wcrk remains to be done. The cooperation and involvement of all stakeholders in the basin is crucial to achieving these goals and to ensuring the long-term environmental health of this vital watershed. Your interest in the Fraser Basin is appreciated. - III III,I'lilll P.S. Chamut Director-General Pacific Region Fisheries and Oceans Canada Encl. . An'y Director-General Pacific and Yukon Region Environment Canada IIII 4 lIII; 'I IIII II IIII II ~ I II II silo u s- t ,I'I I I @' I r Iso I I 'i Iias I iI r ' ' CBIlRcia. /I II I I fl II I I Il s I II Ill