TBB CORPORATtON OF THE CITY OF PORT CQQUITLAM BNVIROFiMENTAL PROTECTION COMM1'ITBE Wednesday, November 2, 1994 Meeting Room No. 2 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitlam, BC 5:00 p.m. AGENDA IN ATTENIIAIqCB: NFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING AIR POLUTION IN COQUITLAM - LETTER FROM MR. TIM KELLEY r Information) POSED COQUITLAM RIVER WiLDI.IFE MANAGEMENT AREA OTHER BUSINESS "...E s. J.-',ee NOV 0 2 gg!lgII //l!!a~ t': — .—.;',",3stts~ z g-;, "'j 'g. ':= — '-".— .-.'~a~z 3 n asa ~ 'o@i~~i~ iBllgj)f]![' sdl!a"~,a--i .--- I ' II'!t = '' „=,==":,;,, '' aaaoa ra Ital B — . &&ii j! lj jgjsa -whldlBI hl 'IIISllllisa ~althllllsas~ gg~IBas~a ,'~~~- -.'— ggJ//j~IBai~a (I ~ I-'-",: I-'- , —." — ai ~ — ! i ' ~~ . 13ll lip& @ i $94 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT CI3QUITLAM ENVIRONS iBTTAL PRO'IECIXON COMMIITEE MINUTES A meeting of the Environmental Protection Committee was held in the Second Floor Meeting Room, 2580 Shauglmessy Street, Port Cotluitlam, Wednesday, November 2, l994 at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were: Councillor M. Gates, Chairman Councillor R. Talbot, Co-Chaimoan J.E. Yip, P. Eng., Deputy City Engineer F. Cheung, P. Eng., Deputy City Engineer C. Deakin, Engineering Secretary INFIMATION OP MINUTES The Minutes of the Environmental Protection Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, October 26, 1994 were considered, read and adopted. AIR POLLUTION Committee received this item for information. Committee asked that the information be circlulated to other Committees for their review and comments. a) Canadian Industrv Packaging Stew~ Proaraxn Committee received this report for information. b) Draft Letter to Anita Drive Area Residettts Committee reviewed letter and suggested that Philip Environmental's full name be in the letter (i.e. Plulip Environmental Services Ltd.). Also to make sure that residents are aware that as soon as we know, they will krow. Cont'd .../2 1776 Broadwav Street The Deputy Engineer advised Council that some barrels were detected at the above address and Mr. Joe Leung, Ministry of Environment was contacted for a site investigation. The barrels werc noi hazardous so the City will proceed with the standard regulation of issuing a "Untidy Property" notice to the owners and have them remove it. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Councijl6r M. Gates Conunittee Chairman Deputf Chg Engineer JEY/cd Hag: Minutes not read and adopted by the Committee until certified correct by the Committee Chairman's signature. CC: Mayor and Councillors City Administrator Igor Zahynacz, P. Eng., City Engineer F. Cheung, P. Eng., Project Engineer Anne T. Pynenburg, Pruject Technician INIIIII NOV 0 2 N N'& "" i Imsniilii== Mews caen gim F ..,-. Ills ~ — c ~ i ii 5',=; »:.-,"-"":El! '~vis m. '.& — s ' ae I~. -'- " — en 1 a' ". „ ~ i ei II ~ I, ~ ~ ~, "..'— — "'.~ e- .— = ='O'I I =,'- h!I gIml N Iittl =-- = ~ we II teil I'l'lI gl ~ S g eg ~ Z '~ ggq„~-.s s!ileitis aili'''' aleut'')esse! a l g g,, —..— aue el I !slip @e ~ ~'8 Llt&P IIII'u . eia ' fll iiiii gg -"= =mist- .— — , Iemf III! ~ &as&&ytl}m ,n" "I &lltlg II! Milli is!!!—: — — — - Isi1!a ns == --. ' a lit eg I THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM MEMORANDUM TO: Enviromuental Protection Committee DATE: October 24, 1994 FROM: F. K. K. Cheung, P. Eng. Project Engineer FILE No: EPC SUBJECT: AIR POLLUTION IN COQUITLAM BFCOMltrQr~I~JQ5„ That Committee receive this memorandum for information only. BACKGRQIJ5ILIk~OMMENTL Honourable Moe Sihota, Minister of the Attached is a copy of the letter from Mr. Tim Kelley to the in Coquitlam. Environment, addressing his general concerns regarding the air quality 'l Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the AQMP As part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) his letter. An AQMP Working Paper on will address most of the concerns that Mr. Kegey has raised in particulatesoraerosols,PCBs,benzene,dioxins,furans,formaldehy e, h azardous air po utants(i.e.gases is is scheduled for completion in 1994.. This nichloroethylene, and trace metals such as lead, arsenic and mercury) the way address also The AQMP pollutants. hazardous air Paper will address emission reduction measures for Fraser Valley. L w-sulphur diesel fuel is now required Lower in the distributed and marketed fuel products are be used to recover gasoline vapours when at all distribution outlets. By the year 2000, a high-tech nozzle will air. into the filling a gas tank, thereby, preventing the release of gas fumes the GVRD and respond to Mr. Keiley's letter. The The Committee may consider referring Mr. Kelley's letter to is working towards solving the air qu .lity letter should assure Mr. Kelloy that the GVRD, as part of the AQMP, problems. ''n F. K. K. Chen Project Engin QADI PKKC/ attachment lliÃiII III'im ljII ~ a%I ~ I I I&'.'..;; ! gli egg Illll 'a'» grli '; „.'lf88 1 I~ III '''"':" 5'Ia(ra a ~ I 'jyI]il & .Ill~at%'-''"'" """ ~«egg llm i IIII 'saasa t~l m( KIsaIIi' ''"'' ', NOV 02 1994 nnsmt/ ' ' mgj:j'' l Il gss ~ .te»s „-, „„, =, ~ iIF' e ~~~ ~ "" PQRT CQQUITLAM ~ 2580 SHAUGHNESSY STREET. PORT COQUITLA84. B.C. VSC SA8 / PHONE: ')44-.54 I I / FAX: 944-5402 October 18, 1994 G.t h dA".To Mr. Tim Kelley 2995 Surf Crescent Coquitlam, BC V3C 3S7 i Dear Mr. Kelley: the Honourable Moe Sihota in Thank you for the copy of your letter of October 12, 1994 to Coquitlam. which you stated your concerns for the quality of the air in information our Environmental Protection Committee for their 1 have forwarded your concerns to and consideration. L. M. T Mayor LMT/jm Councillor M. Gates Councillor R. Talbot Mr. J. Yip cc: .Ial~ ''8 tt'EII I Itaai H jIK N a mes=; l I I ! =:.,""= I/Ill/ Il~ 8 j 0 II Inlltaallllggg'g, lala art ll I Iil I ~ ~ 8:.. II@:--'::—.::-'-:"'~I'I IIi~i~I'ii — aa, al8jgrttl ~@jm~~~ ~l =..''ljj as ~ISSI~ ljl'~ .:.:"'a r.'; trail l&IIINlil Sjea jjwlfI — I — ' ~ ~ IljIIiiiIe ji== IIII 84m ji Raaa Ilaaai 4 —, IFa ... aa ~ ia j / = — ' I ~ aijsa Isj ja& a 4 san - — Sl %/aaaaaa asaa 1IIan Ptalt I)I ~mljl lll ...Nl&ar 'ii ll — — -sa ~ I ~ I j O October 12, 1994 Honourable Moe Sihota Minister of the Environment Government of British Columbia Parliament Buildings Victoria, B.C. Dear Minister Sihota, REi AIR POLLUTION IN COOUITLAM I called the Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Pollution Complaint Service ( 436-6777) again this morning. I could have called most days the past couple of months or so but usually I don't bother. Our air smeBs bad. It usually becomes noticeable between 3 - 7 AM. Some days I have been woken out of a sound sleep by the intensity of the smell. To me it usually smells like sulfur, burnt tires and a gasoline refinery but those are my subjective impressions. My neighbors describe the smells in their own terms. What has happened is that our community now smells like it is in the middle of an unrestricted industrial zone instead of the lovely green space that we moved into eight years ago. Our quality of life is deteriorating. We need help, we do not know where to turn. The GVRD service gives some small comfort in that it provides a phone number to call and vent frustration. But it can do little else. During the times I have called, I have been toldi a) that it was a local problem with someone burning something in a fireplace and that I should go look around for a smoking fireplace. seams@ IM b) that unless I could pinpoint exactly where the smell was coming from and when it was happening, there was nothing they could do. They did not have inspectors. %811 Ii'mimi 5%! I I 5 IR FI'Lil PliLII 0 al IMs c) there was an inversion (as if somehow this absolves everything) 5 IIII Iii%1' I II%'l I Isla as I[ le jli NOV ' el, -''g, I '," —" l I" == =,',m, -"" ' 'III 'IIIi~ )LIE ,: 'a'g I I gl I ll i s I !— -'led &1ls %Ill~"" g~~ll ii @ i, i = .. =- am ss tI il — =. ~ Il — ". „„.",,....."."-". ', „~$ 'IillnPu..'.. =" -„,~-." i ... r ~ ] l 's a~ i i i I '= " . I - 02 1994 — -: ~i g llisli==".,', ""Illlll%I This morning, Mr. Don Miller of the GVRD told me he would call the refineries in Port Moody to see what was going on. So what do you think they will tell him? I am not critical of the GVRD. I can see that they have an immense task with little or no budget to do it. What I am concerned about is that there is a growing crisis in our corner of the lower mainland and I am not sure who if anyone is taking responsibility for it. An obvious starting point for any investigation are the mills, refineries and the Burrard Thermal Generating Plant in Port Moody. These have always been areas of concerns but what is being done to make sure they are not creating problems? One day during the summer when our air pollution level was high (in the 40's as I recall), the Burrard plant had inore stacks spewing out stuff than I have seen during the coldest days in the winter. I called the GVRD, but what could they do? So where do we turn? Who will take charge? Is it the Province, the Peds, the Regional District, the Municipalities? Where can a citizen turn before his community's environment becomes completely degraded? As the Minister of Fnvironment, your office seemed the logical place to start. I would appreciate any help you inight be able to provide me in seeking a cure for our problem. fll II ~ On a related issue, I was putting gasoline into my automobile on a warm day last week and could not help but notice the large amount of fumes that were escaping. My understanding is that these fumes are a major part of the problem when we get the brown ozone haze in the lower mainland. Why wouldn't we demand that the oil companies use fume recovery systems on their gas pumps such as the ones I have seen in Washington state? It seems to me that this is a good start to a solution without any added cost to the government. Nl) 'm&ll ssaimiR~—:::.. ~'" ~ .. IW'IW jpl llam ~assai~ ~~Si m!'i= .-. 5lgpissll ~ Ia ~1 — == I~l ~ '=«,—.=;,~~,'~~5] ~~@~!i lC-" — ) IN IS Il~ gp Rlll 55'1'!! ' 'sulc Iltstt i g)(i l pisssi /IP '=~ gl ll[ s', ~: " ".I"-='="' " '~-~--"-'-=-=i~ „'--'e=1e!!alSIINs! se Nil" IRL~!1-'= ~ — I - s~ i = ' . — 4 iii ea '' " — i11~: ~ ~ ~ &as sN '' ~ Njiii ''' ~ i', ~ i Illkl!'l ~', '.~e~ ~" sSllll 'burrs"sW'' "nssiil' '" "~'~" 1g% ~ ' ' l ~~ ' 551 ~01 Rls~g!g '!jg/g jill - . — —:SNIMi 1 —; -:'~1 ' 1 lm", ',—, 1 11 ll — 'II%' ~ '-'"' - . ' IER g aN ea as ~ g'&lJ I IL RIRlga '" ' "= =. '' Is 0'II!~ Hl iiii g g g —, "H"' ' 1 — — ii& s!j! Fgs i s isa a ( f l liI i'i Thank you for your consideration about my concerns. Sincerely, Tim Kelley 2995 Surf Crescent Coquitlam„B.C. V3C 3S7 cc: Michael Harcourt, Premier, Province of British Columbia Gordon Campbell, Leader of the Opposition, Province of Br tish 'olumbia Barbara Copping, MLA, Province of British Columbia Michael Farnsworth, MLA, Province of British Columbia John Cashore, MLA, Province of British Columbia Greg Halsey-Brandt, Chairman Greater Vancouver Regional District Louis Sekora, Mayor, City of Coquitlaru Len Traboulay, Mayor, City of Port Coquitlam John Northey, Mayor, City of Port Moody David White, Councilor, City of Coquitlam Ian Haysom, Editor, Vancouver Sun Brian Butters,'ditor, Vancouver Province Mark Hamilton, Editor, Tri City News Pat Cooper, Editor, Coquitlam- Port Coquitlam Now Ih 555 F~ Rl ss % Ms 81 I I lg/ jjjjl1jjl j aim&. (/p'as Ml'sRI 8 g '~am,';.,'~'~ g@ylf5]f)g N s())a(j((()q)j(~ jf $ $ — ~ '0V02 m 5M g$ / (jls~l I 1IIIIW(jg]$ 1I ~ ops amyg Sg,a~,m',t t jgj — == ..=,-.—.~ -'= ='==:--- -- ~jRNW '~ IR'N"" — - sl -'-"-'R----',&~~t jieii — -- -- Wqatjg — — ll I%I "I j$ THE CORPOR AT)ON OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUJTLAM TO: Environmental Protection Committee DATE: October 31, 1994 FROM: J.E. Yip, P, Eng., Deputy City Engineer FILF,: EPC SLTBJECT: PROPOSED CGQU1TLAM RIVER WKBLZFB MANAGEMENT AREA REPORT That the draft report be forwarded to the Public Works Committee, Protective Services Committee, Planning and Development Committee and the Parks and Recreation Committee for their review and comments. 2) That the comments be returned by November 25, 1994 3) Once all comments are received, a report will be prepared for the Environmentai Protection Committee's review and discussion prior to replying to Mr. Bruce Cox, Ministry of Envirorunent. BACKGROUND 8k COMMENT Attached is a copy of the proposed Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area report (draft) as prepared by Mr. J. Norrie of the Regional Fish and Wildlife Branch. The draft plan has been compiled to document the bio-physical features of the study area, to outline management practices that will be applied to habitat and maintain the biological productivity for fish and wildlife, and to describe acceptable recreational activities within the area. Also addressed are existing land uses and conflicts, legal arrangements and agreements with third panies as they pertain to the property. lt is recommended that the draft report be circulated to the Public Works Committee, Protective Services Committee, Planning and Development Committee and the Parks and Recreation Committee for their review and comments..Once all comments have been received a repon will be prepared and reviewed by the Environmental Protection Committee with a subsequent reply to Mr. Bruce Cox. J.E. Xip, P. Eng. Deputy City Engineer JEY:cd . ~g Attachments Ill NOV G 2 1994 IeslBghl III/pggg~pl'-„'-;";I@ '~ -'-"-'" -"WIIIH%waa&ggsgi~jiug~ssesJII~ " ~RE&~t~llRSIISag2:-"=. 8 -""— '='lllll~g II ~gli~Ig IIRIe". " ilats,s'' 'QII@s~ IM-.:-=: sstiaiis i&i q~~w '/s — ', ~,'~ - —:==" t," — -''usga — ij& ~,::=: I I'I IIIII &! — ':': sI 2 lltsm''gfli gbs ssis eaei lwhstel I THE CORPORA TION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAItf MEMORANDUM DATE: October 26, 1994, .TO: Jeff Yip, P. Eng. Deputy Engineer FROM: Tony Chong, P. Eng. City Administrator SUBJECT: Proposed Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area Attached please find a draft copy of the above report. I am forwarding this to you as the staff resource person for the Committee that is mandated to dea! with issues related to the Coquitlam River. Specifically, I would ask that you coordinate the review and compilation of comments from the City Departments that would be impacted by the proposals. Once you have the summary of all of the comments you should report back to the Environmental Committee before replying to Mr. Cox directly. As you read the attached letter from Mr. Cox dated October 4, you will know that he is somewhat anxious in receiving comments from us on the draft report. However, we have been in contact with his office upon our receipt of his letter of October 4, 1994 and have advised him that we did not receive a copy of the report which he had apparently sent out in August, ! 994. It was on the basis of this that his office forwarded another copy of the attached draft report. To ensure that Mr. Cox knows that we will be reviewing this report with due diligence, I would like you to contact him and provide him with an approximate target date when he may expect a reply from us on this matter. If you have «ny questions on this matter please do not hesitate to call. Thanks, 5-) ~8 City Administrator RRB~SSI attachment l%! f5Ijl I ! Councillor Gates Councillor Talbot City Engineer cc: jl,]aal ~ m saba nil a ea a si I i Illlisjiijj j Pil % m g!i I i IIIIP. — .—'.=- ~'«l~ pls ~ umt j lmuN i ~ '~+ Ilmiaseli~m~Ig +95m tzzz c ' ~ :==:- 'ss 'j '= Blllll ~ siiii " ji-" i, -=--"=""'-'~eii==e "-=-'' ~INljliHllillll»ta&l "jll Rahiivis-i:-..'.'a%ssn~~~"'-'-'' — — o llwsilllih Briuah ~MIMbie Env|rontytent 10334 — 152A Street Surrey British Columbia MINISIRY OF LOWER MAINLAND REGION V3R TPB Prou(MEME BCsttr of Telephone: (604) 562-5200 Fax: (604) 6604t626 ENNSONMEMT. IANDS AND PARKS Our File: 39120-20 October 4, 1994 Mr Tony Chong, Administrator City of Port Coquitlam 2580 Shaughnessy Street Port Coctuitlam, B.C. V3C 2AB Dear Mr. Chong: RB: Prooosed Coouitlam River Wildlife Manaeement Area Wildlife of the draft Management Plan for the proposed Coquitlam River not had a Management Area was sent to you in August 199K To date, we have written response from the City regarding our proposal. A copy ~ If you have We would appreciate receiving a response from you as soon as possible. 582-5217 or Tom at me contact any questions about the proposed WMA please from you. Burgess at 582-5215. We look forward to hearing Bruce N. Cog Regional Fish and Wildlife Manager cc: Tom Burgess, Wildlife Section Head Iiiiiiiy~II II gil~ lgl)LM Rl N El 3 gt iiii b )II Ig I '-= iI'8 utI Ere SI I I I )il'I ')u — I NOV 0 sr Sffllhtt '= '' ' ~ ~ ~ " ' IlltlsiII ™ - —. tggg il/F —: =' I"= ' Est+stilt II ii'statEEI I 5 )tart Ig ',iI Iil6 as iimmliL il am) tt ~ 'MRE Miate:—;; = R II R „- COQUITLAM RIVER WILDLIPE MANAGEMENT AREA Management Plan f or Period: 1994 — 1999 Written by: J. Roric, Wildlife Section August 1994 Approved: Regional Nanager Pish and Wildlife Branch Lower Mainland Region Date Regional Director Ministr Y of Environment, Date Lande and Parks Lower Mainland Region , ...Jt ''iia&i&S „ ~ Illrle'l! Ilil' i«i ''-== lj! d!~RJ |! I se ~i Iii=. Bsllm ~ ~~gal)¹ ~ R'"" ~~&s "'e""'lMn'III~ =i!!!= = swan &a~~ I'l 1ll I lileanlIlgg Nli wa jj Njl/gg[ )%lid IBAI, ~'~'- — - s &i il %Il ~~@~ p Rn~glljlllll8llIF " ':::: asm e I I!Rl 'l,',','jz&, j j j..:~,'~) ~ agltllliN ijj s i i~l&sIgl - g I(g jg«g~p ~+IN, g d ' ''w ~ l IINN ~ ~' / ~ "'- = —''.= '~nlgj -=' = =-: //gMliie~-:c— =- " ~~" '"e»lssle~" ~mam mam lgls ~ --=l=--~~-= Lllla meme mian~/ ~ )5: 'e@~ ma,— ~IIIRasam ~N!SMI ~Sjeemj~~~& NRNNAj ]Ngag ! ' — II '.'— —— — — —:: - I TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.0 Introduction. 1 Fisheries . 3.3 Recreation. 3.4 hd jacent I and Use 3.4.1 Kwayhquitlum First Nation...... 3. 4. 2 Forensic Psychiatric Institute. 3. 6.3 B.C. Buildings Corporation..... 3.5 Booming Grounds. 3. 6 Other 7 7 1. 1 Purpose. 1 1. 2 Background 1 1. 2.1 Regional Importance. 1 1.2.2 History of Land Tenure and Use.. ..1 1.3 Effective Period of I'lan. 2 General Description of the Management Area. .2 2.1 Location and Jurisdictions. 2 2.2 Physiography and Geology. 5 2.3 Climate. 5 2.4 Soils. 5 2.5 Vegetation 5 2. 6 Land Capability. 6 Historical and Present Resource Values and Land Use..... 6 3.1 Wi ldll fe. .6 3 1 Proposed Management Plan IIIRI 58'IN )'QSIII~ IJQN lire'i@i 1%.'m I I 1 ue Ial a I I 'i~1m' .8 ..........8 ..........8 .....8 .8 9 4.1 Objectives. 9 4.1.1 Preservation Objectives for Coquitlam River W.N.A. 4.1.2 Management Objectives for Coquitlam River W.N.A. 4.1.3 Regional Land Management Objectives.. 9 4.1.4 Provincial Wildlife Management Object ives.,10 4.2 Land Use Conflicts .10 4.3 Management Prescriptions .10 4.3.1 Habitat Enhancement .10 4.3.2 Research and Studies .11 4.3.3 Trapping. 4.3.4 Public Access .11 4.3.5 Wildlife. .12 4.3.6 Interest in Adjoining Land....... ..12 4.3.7 Aboriginal Pishing. 12 4.3.8 Wildfireu. 13 4.3.9 Booming Lease Applications....... ..13 4.3.10 Designated Archaeological Site.. ..13 4.3.11 Port Mann Bridge Expansion...... ..13 4.3.12 Storm Water Drainage. 13 4.3.13 Commercial Signage ..14 5.0 6.0 7. 0 Legal Arrangements .14 Provisions for Review. Ref erences. ..14 15 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Figure 2. Coquitlam River W.M.A. regional location. Coguitlam River W.M.A. site map. APPENDICES Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendxx C Append i x 0 Section 101 Application, Map Reserve Status, Map Reserve Continuation, Ministerial Order, Section 13 Application, 16 Colony Farm Bird List ..22 Unofficial Species List of Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles in the Proposed Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area. Map of east portion of riparian forest as found in "Port Coquitlam Riverfront Area Control Plan" Appendix F. Powerboat Ban Notice - Coquitlam River.. B.C. Archaeological Site Inventory Form Appendix G. Memorandum of Understanding, Appendix E. 25 . 28 ...30 32 38 .IR I 8IIIR 115MI%$ I I IIWIK II I I RW I I ~imiiillll I/ smaiiR)g 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose This plan has been compiled to document the biophysical features of the study area, to outline management practices that will be applied to protect habitat and maintain the biological productivity for fish and wildlife, and to describe acceptable recreational activities within the area. Also addressed existing land uses and conflicts, legal arranoements and are agreements with third parties as they pertain to the property. The writing of this plan is a necessary step in the process of transferring administrative control to B.C. Environment as outlined in Section 13 of the Land Act (designated use) and Section 4 of the Wildlife Act (under which Wildlife Nanagement 1. 1 Areas are established). 1.2 Background 1.2.1 Regional Importance'teady population growth in the lower Fraser Valley has created a constant negative pressure on fish and wildlife habitats in the region. As more habitat is lost to new development, it becomes increasingly important to preserve remnant natural areas and their biological diversity for fish and wildlife populations and for public use and appreciation. The mature cottonwood floodplain forest at'he Coguitlam River mouth represents a remnant habitat that supports a modest but successful Great Blue Heron colony, waterfowl, raptors, amphibians and reptiles, shorebirdc and a variety of passerine birds and small mammals. Bear, deer and other fur-bearers may also use the area. Essondale Islet also contains valuable habitat beneficial to both fish and wildlife particularly because of its seclusion from human interference. These areas provide an excellent opportunity to protect one of the largest remaining tracts of floodplain forest habitat in the lower Fraser River delta. 1.2.2 History of Land Tenure and Use Prior to the development of the Nary Hill Bypass in 1985 the riparian forest portion of the study area was considered part of the Colony Farm property (Figure 1). During 1985 Ninistry of Transportation and Highways, in preparation for the the Bypass construction, set aside the lands in this portion for management. by the Fish and Wildlife Branch. Effective September 3, 1985, the Ninistry of Lands, Parks and Housing established five year Section 12 Nap Reserve on the area (Appendix A) under a the following description: "Reserve Wo. 85293 covering parts of Lots 23 and 168, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 66109." lkll Illa'l 'll'i III) III P IIII 8% 81 Ul I II g// reserve was extended for an additional nine years on September 3, 1990 (Appendix A). The application for transfer of administration and control under Section 101 of the Land Act was made on July 17, 1989. In response, a Ministerial Order from Crown Lands was drafted on November 6, 1989 to effect the Section 101 transfer (Appendix A). A further application under Section 13 of the Land Act was filed on April 15„ 1993 as a result of the amalgamation of the Ministry of Lands and Parks and Ministry of Environment in 1991 (Appendix An A). Essondale Islet is surveyed, vacant crown land described as District Lot 6429, Group 1, New Westminster District. It was not included in the initial Section 101 application noted above but was contained in the Section 13 application. 1.3 Effective Period of Plan This plan will be in effect from the date of approval by B.C. Lands for a period of 30 years before a review of he status is required. It is subject to review and revision every 'five years to reflect changing management objectives for the Wildlife Management Area. 2.0 2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE MANAGEMENT AREA Location and Jurisdictions The proposed Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area is located within Fish and Wildlife Management Unit 2-8 at the confluence of the Coquitlam and Fraser Rivers. The area is composed of three parts - two sections of the riparian forest and one offshore islet. The forest straddles the Coquitlam River mouth and is situated between the Fraser River and the Mary Hill Bypass beginning just east of the north foot of the Port Mann bridge. Essondale Islet is situated in the Fraser approximately 300 m due south of the east section of the riparian forest (Figure 1). v~~ll mill (W: Till i " 4 m' S ~ ig ~ — "'I'8~Elis 44 rIIi S4%1141 II 1 I4sa 141 IS C WKSKA '.nnnanO. NnNeea nkn n ae,'Sn a N,+ g ln E ~ DIST M. DIST MUN Reae* qaeene n on,.n'.. yaeeaI 0 one I~,W II ~I Id+) I . I I I I"— e siulldfor )Rn I j i " Figure 1. Coguitlam River N.M.P . regional location; scale: 1:50,000 (source: N.T.S. mapsheet 92 G/2) I IE II% I The southwest corner of the plan area is located at 49 10'42" N latitude and 123 50'22" E longitude. )fl5 o The UTM grid reference is 10.5144.54525. The proposed management area, including Essondale Islet, encompasses approximately 16.7 hectares (41 acres) of vacant Crown land (Figure 2). =:! II I 'm /g a I III snpe ~ nn ssp 'L ~ n I e Kl NOV 0 2 1994 &~l ~m~ one gEIIÃ wl 5 ~alee — -"am: sillal I LS 5 i'III% Ill east section of the riparian forest and Essondale islet lie within part coquitlam District Municipality. The west section of the riparian forest is in Coquitlam District Municipality. Zoning for the riparian forest is Al Agricultural. The area is also within the Greater Vancouver Regional District and is included in the Agricultural Land Reserve. — ''Siaiiji , I ll Di.ia& illL IIWlae IIham'he I ~ lj'l I "111 I 8 il'1'1 / i EM 88 I ~ )VILllli fl'till Ali I I 2. 2 Physiography and Geology The proposed Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area lies within the Fraser'owlands Ecosection of the Lower Mainland Ecoregion of the Georgia Depression Ecoprovince (Campbell et al 1990). Site geology can be described as quarternary postglacial,Fraser River sediments. The land has been described as gently undulating to undulating - .5 to 5% slope (Luttmerding, 1980). 2.3 Climate The proposal area is subject to the typical weather patterns of the lower Fraser Valley. Mild, wet winters and warm, sunny summers are the norm. The nearest, most complete weather statistics are from the "Burnaby Mountain Terminal" station located on the south slope of Burnaby Mtn. in the l,ake City area of Burnaby (elev. 137m). Selected values are: mean annual 18~".5 mm; mean temperatures: annual precipitation 10.3 deg. 3.2 de C, July - 17.6 deg. C (Env. Can., 1991). C, January — — — 2.4 Soils The dominant soil material is classed as orthic gleysol consisting of medium to moderately fine textured floodplain deposits. Drainage is poor to moderately poor due to the high groundwater table. The land immediately bordering the Coquitlam river mouth is classed as recent alluvium generally unvegetated areas subject to frequent flooding (Luttmerding, 1980). — 2.5 Vegetation The riparian forest is almost ezclusively covered with a stand of mature black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and, to a lesser degree, red alder (Ainus rubra). Vegetation found in the understory and mudflat areas includes willow (Saliz spp.), vine maple (Beer circinatum), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red osier dogwood (Coznus stolonifera), ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), horsetail (Equisetum spp.), cattail (Typha latifolia), sedges (Carez spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.). Essondale Islet is primarily forested with red alder. Other vegetation includes salmonberry, snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), saskatoon berry (Amelanchier alnifolia) and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) . 8 mmiI I II% II j I I I II "lfÃNi,l a g lz llfl II Ual & I s I 5 IR I)g»e iawIi I I I IIWtS ~ I 4$ ~ I I I~I NOV 02 1gg4 2.6 Land Capability The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) provides a rating of the capability of land to support various wildlife and activities under specific categories. The following selected of CLI ratings and other land capability assessments applies primarily to the riparian forest portion of the proposed W.N.A. list Waterfowl: CLI rating 3M - lands that may not be useful for waterfowl p'roduction, but are important as migration and wintering areas. Ungulates: CLI rating Class 4 lands that have moderate to low capability to support ungulates. Recreation: CLI rating class 3 lands that have a natural capacity to engender moderately high total annual use for intensive or moderately intensive activities. The area provides good shoreline angling opportunities from a variety of locations. Good potential exists for wildlife viewing on both sides of the Coquitlam River mouth. Forestrv: Due to soil conditions, the major coniferous species sought by the forest industry are virtually non-existent on the site. However the area supports a thriving stand of black cottonwood that could be considered valuable to commercial operators. Acri culture: Although the study area, is considered within the Agricultural Land Reserve no farming or livestock related activities could be easily undertaken in view of the property being undyked and entirely forested. — — gl BNIi 111mm I%I ]g xiii i l~l II I [[) W ICI ~ o same I h Ill~ ~ IIIssss W1~t Ml5 HRR:: 3.0 HISTORICAL AND PRESENT RESOURCE VALUES AND LAND USE 3.1 Wildlife The riparian forest habitat of the study area supports a wide variety of resident and migrant bird life. One of the most visible species is the Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), a colony of which has established east of the river mouth. Redtailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were found nesting in the proposed W.W.A. in spring 1993. Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have built both primary and secondary nests on the site in. recent years. Wood ducks (Aix sponsa) make use of both natural and artificial nesting sites in the east section of the riparian forest. Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) are often found foraging and loafing in the marsh at Coquitlam River mouth. Other raptors, forest-dwelling passerines, waterfowl and shorebirds also inhabit the area, many of which have been observed on the adjacent Colony Form property by members of the Burke Mountain Naturalists (see Colony Farm Bird List Appendix B). Other wildlife that inhabit, or transit, the proposed W.M.A. include Black Bear (Ursus americanus), Coyote (Canis )atrans), Black-tailed Deer (Odocoi)eus hemionus columbianus), Raccoon (Procyon )otor), Beaver (Castor canadensis), Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), various small mammal species and amphibians and reptiles (Appendix C). Fisheries Portions of the foreshore contain mudflats that provide feeding grounds for juvenile salmonids and other freshwater fish species. Commercial salmon fishing occurs on the Fraser River adjacent to the Coquitlam River mouth. Runs of chum (Oncorhyncus keta) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon utilize the Coguitlam Ri.ver in variable numbers every year for spawning. Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) migrate into the river for approximately three months every spring as part of their overall downstream migration to the Strait of Georgia. Resident salmonids include steelhead/rainbow trout (O. myki ss), cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and dolly varden char (Salve)inus malma) . Non-game species found in the Coguitlam River include: Long-nosed Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Coastrange Sculpin (Cottus aleuti cus), Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper), Three-spined Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Red-sided Shiner (Richardsonius balteaus), Northern Squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), Pea-mouth Chub (Mylocheilus caurinus), Carp (Cyprinus carpio), Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). 3.2 ~ Smarm Iae= = I ~ )IIII I /li=-==-: II1 I I, Ie x I & Nl /(~ I l 3.3 Recreation Foreshore angling is the most common form of recreation within the area occurring at the Coquitlam River mouth and near the east boundary. Sports fishing by boat is also common along the entire shoreline. Paddle-heaters can occasionally be found travelling 'the relatively calm waters of Coguitlam River. Bird-watching opportunities are good at the river mouth or along the foreshore when the tide is out. Bicyclers access the area along the gravel road beside the west riparian forest or along the paved path parallel to the Mary Hill Bypass on the east side of the Coguitlam River. ~ 7 I li XQV0& m4 3.4 Adjacent Land Use 3.4.1 Rwayhquitlum First Nation The Kwayhquitlum First Nation (also known as the Coquitlam Indian Band) has title to two tracts of land bordering the Coquitlam River. Indian Reserve ¹1 is situated the west side of the river approximately 600 m north of the onproposed W.M.A. Indian Reserve ¹2 is located on the east side of the river bordering Colony Farm-(Figure 2). The Band conducts a food fishery every year at the mouth nf the Coquitlam River. The hub of this activity typically the, east bank of the river mouth which is the Band's istraditional grounds. The Band has advised that they are planning to fishing file a land claim for this site in the near future (Chaffee, 1994). 3.4.2 Forensic Psychiatric Institute The Ministry of Health operates the Forensic Psychiatric Institute on a 23.5 hectare site immediately of the proposed W.M.A. on the north side of the Mary north Hill Bypass the west side of the Coquitlam River. The development of aandnewon facility followed by the demolition of the existing structures and site remediations are planned to begin in 1994. 3.4.3 B.C. Buildings Corporation B.C. Buildings Corporatiou owns and maintains the 240 hectares of land north of the proposed W.M.A. commonly referred to as Colony Fa'rm. Portions of the Farm have been considered for sale for several years. The majority of the west available side cf Colony Farm is leased to the Burquitlam Lions Club for cattle grasing. commenced a formal land use study of Farm in late 1993 to allow public input into the future Colony of the area. Development options for the site have included a demonstration farm, horse race track, golf course and vegetable farming. BCBC 3.5 Booming Grounds foreshore of valuable for such activity. The most recent application for log boom storage, by the east end of the proposed W.M.A., was received in early 1992. The application was turned down by B.C. Lands in favour of fish, wildlife and recreational values. are many other booming leases that exist nearby, but none areThere considered t'o cause management problems for the proposed W.M.A. the riparian forest has in the past been the site of log boom storage and the area is still considered The 3. 6 ! Other The portio n of the riparian forest east of the river mouth was stud&ed a part of a spring 1992 report commissioned by the City of Port Coquitlam. The draf t report, Port Cocuitlam Riverfront Area Control Plan (U.M.A. Engineering), identified the following as development possibilities within the forest: along the Fraser shoreline, park and interpretive centre attrail the east end of the forest, vehicle parking lot adjacent to the interpretive centre, fishing pier adjacent to the interpretive centre (Appendix D) Port Coquitlam City Council has adopted the plan however the municipality does not intend to initiate any activity other than the parking area and that priority at this time (Felip, 1994) . project is considered low . 4.0 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN 4. 1 Objectives 4.1.1 Preservation Objectives for Coquitlam River W.M.A. Much of the area comprising the proposed W.M.A. is an excellent example of the type of mature floodplain forest that once existed along much ofcottonwood/elder the lower Fraser River. The appeal to the public of this area lies in unique habitat diversity and its close proximity to urban its areas. the site will ensure existing and future residents will Preserving have the opportunity to appreciate a type of untouched, natural habitat that is fast disappearing from other locations along the river. 4.1 . 2 Management OBjectives for Coquitlam River W.M.A. The main objectives of the proposed Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area are to preserve wildlife and their habitats and ! to provide limited recreational opportunities (bird-watching, shoreline fishing access) that are in keeping with the preservation objective. I"-,Rh Iis&llll aIIepl~! jiI) ~ sl I I ( IS S I ~ -. f I Ill%: gltlans 4.1. 3 Regional Land Management Objectives With the high biological value and public interest in wetland areas,'he management objective of the South 'Coast Region is to establish wildlife management areas on wetlands those associated with the lower Fraser River. In particularly decreasing order of priority, the areas of greatest concern are: * all Fraser River estuarine habitats * other estuarine habitats identified as threatened * riverine marshlands along the Fraser, Pitt and Harrison Rivers * * * riparian forest larger interior wetlands smaller interior wetlands The proposed W.M.A. can be included in several of the habitat categories and therefore should be considered high priority for protect i on. 4.1.4. Provincial Wildlife Management Objectives (MoSLP, 1991) 1. Maintain and enhance wildlife and their habitats, and thus ensure an abundant, diverse and self-sustaining wildlife resource throughout. B.C. 2. Maintain, enhance and promote opportunities to appreciate, study and view wildlife in their habitats. 3. Maintain, enhance and promote recreational oppoz'tunities to hunt game species in their habitats. 4. Facilitate commercial use of wildlife. 5. Protect people and their property from intolerable levels of danger or harassment by wildlife. The proposal for creating the Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area addresses the fizst two pzovincial objectives listed above. 4. 2 Land Use Conflicts The one potential land use conflict that may emerge from the proposed W.M.A. involves Port Coquitlam Municipality and development plans that have been recommended to them for the Pitt River shoreline. Consultants for the municipality identified several different uses within the riparian forest all associated with public recreation. As part of the overall plan for the Pitt shoreline, these options were adopted by city Council. ln spite of the Plan's acceptance, City staff recognize that any changes to the riparian forest must first be approved by the Province. While the Province's objectives for the site are quite different is likely the recreational from Port Coquitlam's plans, activities identified in this plan will satisfy the city's goals f or the area. it IIg l I 1 IQIRI %Ills a ii& m~ I, Iiiig z iii ialm/ a uiees v vms I ':,—; —,, 01 II I 11IsiIi I&mirm:I ]& 9% R" kaama amicaw IS 4. 3 Management Prescriptions 4. 3.1 Habitat Enhancement The riparian forest does not require specific management activities at present. Spot measures (eg: falling of dangerous . trees) may need to be conducted occasionally to ensure public safety. S 4. 3. 2 Research and Studies The site provides excellent opportunities for studying riverine wildlife especially in view of the easy access. Of special note for this activity is the Great Blue Heron colony. — 4.3.3 Trapping It is not anticipated that trapping will be required as a management tool in the proposed W.M.A. 4.3.4 Public Access The two access routes currently existing for the east riparian forest are the paved foot/bicycle path bordering south shoulder of Mary Hill Bypass and the undeveloped the trail off the end of Mary Hill Road. No changes or additions starting to these routes are currently planned. The new public access proposed by Engineering (Section for the east riparian forest is of significant concern given 3.6) the inevitable impact it will have on the resource. This proposal is not appropriate given the current management prescription for the area and it therefore would not have the approval of BC Environment. As of'uly 1994, access to the west side of the Coquitlam River mouth has been restricted to foot and bicycle traffic only. A gate was installed across the gravel road near the foot of the Port Mann bridge in response to the frequent problems of illegal dumping, partying/rowdyism, 4X4 damage, overnight camping and firewood cutting. Pedestrians or bicycles can access the area past this gate, or from the end of Colony Farm Road. Water access on the Coquitlam River is currently available to paddle boats only. In response to public concern over the use of personal watercraft (jet-skis, etc.) on the river, the Visitor Services department of B.C. Parks implemented a powerboat over the lower Coquitlam River in June 1993 (Appendix E). ban ban applies to all of the general public except for membexs The of the Coquitlam Indian Band who have been operating powered craft harmoniou'sly on the river for decades. This policy is fully supported by the regional office of BC Environment in view the unacceptable disturbance powered water craft create for bothof fish and wildlife in and around the river. Paddle boats will continue to be welcome in the area. UMA ll 5''ISP S I 8 I I jijILII I I I I mIiiie 5 f'I'III iii iiip 4I '4 LE II 9 Sil ll I Ipl IE I I I I I 02 1994 ~ a,,naa,mEmluPIR'Sj fgjP "-— .",,:„-„=,gP li lit IIIII NOV (IL aawme laic s I F I 11 a ', I Ill Ia ie ~ II . 'p Ia aa I ~ & ',9 Pl a ~ as ~ all,aP II PIP 9 Is linea x 'p I Iji a I'.. ~ la: M'Pla aal I 'll „pimp 1 ip ll ~ r ~ a a8 .... „, p ei I-'SI =:l » '--' ', '.-''=--%ate»,— ; ~~IMMI( I K III I i IILljl 'ili I la I j 4.3.5 Wildlife Specific management activities will continue to be directed toward cavity nesting species such as Wood Ducks (Aix sponsa). BC Environment has installed and monitored 25 Wood Duck nestboxes in the east riparian forest since 1991. Additional nestboxes will be installed and annual surveys will be conduct .d to determine levels of nesting activity. Control of Beaver damage to trees may be necessary in some areas. Stucco wire will be used to wrap tree trunks to prevent further damage. 4.3.6 Interest in Adjoining Land The construction of the Mary Hill Bypass effectively cut in two the cottonwood forest. on the east side of Coquitlam River mouth, The portion on the north 'side of the Bypass is partially dyked but is still subject to flooding during freshet. It is virtually identical habitat to the south side forest and should be considered as a future addition to the W.M.A. This possibility is being discussed as part of the Colony Farm Land Use Study currently under way. Other property worthy of addition to the Coquitlam River W.M.A. is Tree Island (Figure 2). This island and its surrounding mud flats contains valuable fish and wildlife habitat which is, except for booming operations, largely undisturbed by human activities. Tree Island is currently owned by International Forest Products Ltd. BC Environment is also interested in securing some or all of the Colony Farm property. This acquisition, along with the land between the Coquitaam River dykes already under MoELP control, would eventually comprise the bulk of the Coquitlam River W.M.A. This possibility is also being discussed as part of the Colony Farm Land Use Study. 4.3.7. Aboriginal Fi.shing During the autumn salmon runs members of the Coquitlam Indian Band conduct food fishing on the east bank of the Coquitlam River mouth. BC Environment can see no conflict with existing management objectives and the Ministry fully recognixes and supports this annual activity. Band members using powerboats for this activity are exempt of the general powerboat ban on the river (Section 4.3.4). Ill.h~ Ilealmm I! , IHIIS 8 Rill I W I94NII I lie IIIIIII MII I Sall ~ I 91 I! sll li 9 sill IIII I! i!! 49 I I&(ll II'I, ',,;:: .'Iw'l 12 aellle! 94'la g el! Nl tw .".. li'l &%.- .-.,„ ~~~eesl ~; Kama mi ~ e l,~ E 4 ILEI, 4 ~s learn 44 Q Il! I im "I ml lf ' 4 I ll! 4 Ba a aea a! —; ~, ~ a . " ' . Cllalll ) /'IIE I sl9994 ~ 4a „ .; :" I . 4 ~ ia i . 4 1 'Ii III II'Ila l ~ I II, 9 ~ ii Iaail 14 Ei 4 ae arel I, ls'elel - ==I'rl&eig %iml m' '=;;,ll 8 lib I-'.==: -'' l~ Ia seaiii.', ~„II -9 ~ I ae ! I ! S MN 9aa . I JIIIISRi ayi .... — -..-- ~ IIIIR ~ i I I IR . I I Kl ! Iw IIE 4.3.S Wildfires The possibility of accidental fires W.M.A. Ms relatively high given the types start (beach fires during drinking parties, war that frequently occur. Despite it fires, once out of control, wouldthis, result due to the type of plant community that e green growth with very little dry fuels p wildfire on, the site all means necessary prevent its spread. 4.3.9 Booming Lease Applications The scientific community has long consider booms as detrimental to aquatic resources has occurred for lengthy periods. A recen that log booms may actually aquati this latest theory, Fish andenhance Wildlife with the view that log booming presents Man a especially with respect to.public recreati Therefore, any booming lease applications p"oposed W.M.A. will be denied. 4.3.10 Designated Archaeological Site In 1976 artifacts associated with historic were discovered in or near the east portio W.M.A.; the exact location remains to be c A designated archaeological site was subse Fish and Wildlife Management acknowledges site and has no plans to conduct soil surf [I ~,5 alterations that would harm its integrity. 4.3.11 Port Mann Bridge Expansion A conceptual plan exists with the Ministry of Transportation and IIighways that calls for the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge (Szalay, 1994). The consultants involved are recommending a second bridge be built within 300m upstream or downstream ofthat the existing one the preference the upstream option given that it has not been developed.being In the event that this bridge expansiorl would have a direct impact on the proposed W.M.A., Fish and Wildlife Management would request involvement in the planning process to ensure that habitat loss and damage is minimized. — 1~419 +b I II% b '~g$ Illllll 4.3.12 Storm Water Drainage A flood gate system has been in operation years at the west end of the proposed W.M.A. The systemforis many managed by the lllSilRI Wi'I iiillkll i ilBB44iI Ill% 44 41 MAIS 41 13 ,IP SQ I 4 R I MIMI I Ileb J I, lb b " I 4 II II 1 14 I I ~ b 'I -'«:.:l: 1am b« I I I 4 I«II« Il "'"'b'' '' ~ Miii:: I I I 14114 ~ ~ ~ I 4 a III ' «I«« ~ «MMI- II J I ~ lb- I -:am :b e I MIMI e« I ' I I 4 -Il 4 :is i,'I : 1 „i I I '= *14 I J I ;,:a I'lij ~ I 4l pe NOV0 2 IliiIIM I alm44 $ I $ 1% ~ ~ %1 '4 4 4ll4 ~ IMI 444 I 1B II ««I \ j( City of Coquitlam and it provides the main storm water drainage outflow for the southwest area of Colony Farm and all of Mayfair Industrial Park. No management activities are planned that could jeopardize its continued successful operation. 4.3.13 Commercial Signage In recent years selected trees close to the Mary Hill Bypass in the proposed W.M.A. have been used by small businesses wishing to promote their operations with sign advertisements, Fish and Wildlife Management does not approve of this practice. Existing and future signage will be removed and attempts will be made to return them to the respective owners. 5.0 LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS in order to formally recognize the'istoric and current significance that some of the land within the proposed W.M.A. has for the Kwayhquitlum First Nation, the Province of British Columbia signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Kwayhquitlum on August 18, 1994 (Appendix G). The MOU also clearly indicates that management of the W.M.A. will be conducted so that the Kwayhquitlum's historic and current relationship with lands within the W.M.A. will not be adversely affected. 6.0 PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW The management plan will reviewed and amended every five years as required by the Wildlife Act. III! III W 'l iLR I I I! Illiiee 1 1 ikil lg ils1aa Ig la ~ ««asl 11 all r Tm4m I,l Il ~~[ «41 fl «4 gg I ' ~ I I'41 I««4I «4««II Ill(,5 I iJ! I!i!I IN I««««II ~ I I' mr ll I s s m ill em I $ 1I F me ~ III I i 1 I4 1 44 I « '. «4- ~ — ~- k Ills, :4 7. 0 REFERENCES Burke Mountain Naturalists. 1993. The Birds of Colony Farm. Public information brochure. Coqvitlam, B.C. Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggart-Cowan, J.M. Caoper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E. McNall. 1990. The Birds of British Columbia. Volume 1. Canadian Wildlife Service, Royal British Columbia Museum: p. 61. Chaffee, Chief George, Coquitlam Indian Band, April 1994, Port Coquitl am, B.C. Personal Communication. Environment Canada. 1980. Canadian climate Normals, British Columbia. Atmospheric Environment Service. 266 pp. Felip, Carlos, City Planner, Corporation of the City of Port Coquitlam, July 1994, Port Coquitlam, B.C. Personal Communication. Luttnlerding, H.A. 1980. Soils of the Langley Vancouver Map Area, Volume 1. RAB Bulletin 818. Terrestrial Studies Branch, Kelowna. Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1991. Provincial Wildlife Management Objectives. Provinde of B.C. Hagorsen, David. 1990. The Mammals of British Columbia. Royal B.C. Museum, Ministry of Environment Wildlife Branch: 140 pp. — — Orchard, Stan A. 1984. Ecological Review. WMR-15. Amphibians and Reptiles of B.C.: An Research Branch, Ministry of Forests. Victoria, B.C. Pojar, Jim, Andy MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of Coastal British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lone Pine Publishing: 528 pp. Szalay, Maria, Senior Planning Engineer, Ministry of Transportation and Eighways, August 1994, New Westminster, B.C. Personal Communicatian. UMA Engineering Ltd., 1992. Port Coauitlam Riverfront Control Plan (draft), commissioned by the City of Area Port Coquitlam. IIPiiil g'ia ', 'lli~li)i(i' Wl ~ IL 5 M RIM I Jl, I IH I I ill I~ pr iilL ' II 'Nl, EP ~ P II I 15 I i hr' llhil .I ~ I Illil,lP I I II I I I &Ilk 'ili ~ I 8'l l I I Pil WI llrl IS IS P lm: I li "IIII II.I p' l@llh i gii I P I ~P I ~ . IPI Ira lie l Ifll'I E I „Ir, ~ P» PP ~ ~ P IIP III IEI II I' PP If I JEI II ll Qll Is%I Jil @ ~ I 'm w IISII I P ~ II Ilail $94 I'I lerl — 8::: .: IPPI PPP — — P,I S I...I fllgl i I' I SP IE I I I ~ 14 I I l~l. P I I %. P P NOV 0 J! 4 ill'I I i3! I irlr Ir III ~ I~ rr II I IP 1 I Ish Inr I rr I ~ IS ee E — — ~ P ~ I I I I III e I I I I ,','', $ JI ...; M I lll E ~ IJR 4 I 5 i e$ 4JI H illlfN RII 111' eel'I','Jill egg 5 f1 fl'lla)',f', e I NI e I, „, . P! f If fef efefjgjal,T '." 9 I calle, ama ~ ~ ~ Pl I Iff I Tl gee j 99 ea II I lal eel Sl I I I II I aI I ha ~ he aaa m P II P" eea ,- IS RI II i W laa II 9 Illa',Ilail'I ~ I ~ I I ~aa.9 RILI I I l II 'll I I I 11 ' I flee 8 I ' P Pl PSeel pa hei „,, t'f!~ = — .: ~ paI aa a aI I I I — ~. Belle!~ aR' ~ll"- —''9epa ii I t II ~ 'l'l I'. I II I I I gee I I I ''I I clif I I g I I'II I\ 111 e off '"&clif ':' I %BI e I I Ill.lm el f ''l Sti,~'i , I I I il'g ,, el o ~ i%8 If '0l D ORDER IN-COUNCIL RESER Q MAP RESERVE (SECTION 12 OSAL g AGENCY NAME TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRA Ministry of Enviro Surrey, B. C. Lo RSSFONSISLS T. Evan JN FOACONNTACT Wildlife B LAND PURPOSE Conservation of Fl LAND LOCATION Mouth of Cocluitlam D.L. 's 23, 168 IS I Q GIVE (files Plan 66109 I CROWN LAND — SURVEYED LEGAL Gp maps attached DESCRIPTION OR SURVEYED E METES D SOUNDS SCRIPTION lI IINlll TERM REOUIRED IIIII 'l 0 2YEARS Cj See attached ration l IN N 8 PROPOSAL IMPACT ON EXISTING OR POTENTIAL IAND USE [Illljl III II i! I 0 I YEAR IATIONALE :OR 'ROPOSAL I SS I THE AREA REO See attached I SOS I %I Ee I I I I ~ MIIlSI~I ~TIAI~I AGENCY AUTHORIEAT ION 17 Julv 1989 sF' OATS. ~ OS I I iN ,a, ','-'"'ANDS. )iml5 lIII4 I PARKS Rlliil]i P lll I /I/ TOIT/SOI 2 ISISI ISII I f lllf I d HOUSING ei Q FONSSNONS +~a DISTRICT OFFICE COPY I -' II I Rl O I Q I KI ITEI N~ If's T l!I! ~ ~ I ~ T l: „:—,.~ IIIM S il I+I ~ la I I So 87-24-1992 89: 56 6846685536 0 Province Ot Srlllsn Columbia Ministry of ksnua, Parks snd Housing Ninistry of Environment 1Q334-152A Street Surrey, B.. V3R VPS Attentiond Deer Birr Recional Directs Don Hehn, MOTZCE OF ESTABLZSHNEHT OP SECTZ The undersigned has been c WHEREASr administration of Section and Ths undersigned considers WHEREASd public interest to establi the area i de at if igd on the The Crown land aasa outlin attached map is hereby est, Reserve No. 652g3 covering 16S, Oroup 1, New'estminst 66105, containing 16.155 h on'behalf of the Ninistry o its"importance for fish:and purposgs, for a period of f THEREFORE: f ORIOIIYAL QWfksmber 3, 1SS5. BY i A. ISYEII Regional Director Ninist.ry of Zmnds, Parks and Housing AES/db ccd ig'i e& ~& I I ilfl 1 I senior Land officer, lower Nainla Survey and Land Records, Victoria W D. Clifford tlam 1,5H General 8 I, I(i fl @/yim Im"III/I / I y i as i ~ dsl i Ipip I I lfllRI If .=,:=.tII I a- '='di'i SIi«! r .I" id u5 I!III)lg'a all RN --- sisidcr" — ~ - ling " ~ss "'!:; ":=: — ~ !&Ig[[li alimr ES'i'----- N' uisa Ill '' Sml llamsf!I Sl'E/ill 'HfEII IIjllll sad aIIaas ~~IN,BI+II Ijasaa886 da ~ 5; » ~ ~ seal% "d sdsILI]k + —.~ S Sd i ~ ~ I I I I Province of British Columbia Ministry of Crown Lands Lower Matnland Region Suite 40I, 4603 Ksngsway Burnaby Bnt:sn Coiumbra V5H 4M4 Tetepnone: I604I 660.5500 Rapicom: 660.5536 Our File: 2402150 Your File: 0646 Reserve 85293 Attention: Ruth Green Date: I@I eii% Ministry of Environment 300 10334 152A Street Surrey, B. C. — V3R 7P8 Attention Dear Sirs Ken Lambertsen I NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF SECTION 12 MAP RESERVE The Crown Land area outlined in red on the attached map, covering those portions of Lots 23 and 168, Plan 66109, Group 1, New Westminster District is temporarily continued as a Map Reserve on behalf of the Ministry of Environment for fish and wildlife management purposes for a period of nine (9) years eftective September 3, 199$ . Yours truly, Roberts Regional Director Lower Mainland Region R. H. RGsjsm Enclosures ccs Surveyor General Branch, Victorifa, B.C. earn )IIII MI Igloo tl II II IIP lg[f is st st ses Is II IISSIII sl ee II I I e 's ~ =;. til %ha „„„„=.,s~sl I il leae'-= ser ~ ss I — - - iilili»r-" 'ssliiia tsasttas ~ ias.ar »4 i fl I II I I ~l» Sa as m —— i rosese SJ Scare glills» =" I ss 1mg re s 'w& I lal ~ s»e msttiseges i = atalalB, s I NOV 04! 1994 ~sl %-— I — ,,'-,:,",: 6 ~ iaw imillmIStf gtjfffll '~ .==:==Sill IW~ (I -:= am= 4R IS 8 I % SIR Rl gggy Ll :-:::M~ '~m i@14« I I ~ AGENCY I~P A4JTHORIZATIDN Aoci1 5. 1 WRAC I OCR DATE SIGN4ATMRE ! ii". OA C RECEIVED III'lilac GAV AEMIP ~ Remlil FDEE USE BY 4 4 PSCS S SS 1$ 1441~SlI Ia ill i SSOI 4 4 I W1I ~ ETTM44'R5 "~ LAPSUS PARKS S HOUSING I PROPOSAL FOR LASTFFSN ~ ISIEEaRI RIES IS«II)III ! I, ~ LANG IN g II 'SOP FILE ND Q FORESHOR«Q OTHER I !I ! VEAR MONTH «II«I- Q PuwNED ! ESTIMATE OF uwo VM VE MNPMVINEO AREA AAEA Q PROV FOREST 199$ ~ I APPENDIX B Colony Farm Bird List (excerpted from Burke Mountain Naturalists The Birds of Colony Farm 1993 ed.) — N,5 l~~hlll ! Ilgwu~ lilf .. 22 S~iilailRRI DIREi iIIygi Q/11sla& Igloo M ~aeagggg~~ E Immmm 141 14 4,-: I 44; ~ P "~ Gedwall Eurasian Wigeon American Wigeon Canvasback Aingvtecked Duck Greater Scoop U C U C U r U Mew Gull Ring%iliad Gull California Gull Thayer's Gull Glaucous-winged Gull r Aock Dove C U U c c C C C C C C 4- I 'III. 1 I Ill ~ I'ib' I I) ALl I ca ca ca lil Nov pg g@ I I I ' 41 III'I 11 * Sapsucker Warbler Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Ricker U Olive-sided Rycatcher * Western Wood-Pewee * Willow Rycstcher Qm IIM'I lac Vii p i Rll'ILfll ltlllll I I te WV BBe I c U U U U U U U c c Hammond's Rycatcher U Paciec-stops Rycatcher Western Igngbird * Eastern Kingblrd Swallow . c * Violet~roan Swallow c Northern Rough-winged * c 'ree I i i U c c U c c c c Rufous-sided Towhee American c r c c 'awtnnah Sparrow U cs c c c c c c c Common Raven U * Blackwapped c Chickadee Chestnut49acked Chickadee * Bushtk c Red49reasted Nuthatch Brown Creeper U ~ Bewick's Wren c Winter Wren Wren c Goldenerowned c c c c Lincoln's Sparrow Goldenwrowned U * Northwestern Crow U 'ong Sparrow ca c c Tree'palrow Fox Sparrow Swallow Bank Swallow Ceff Swallow Bam Swallow U U Grosbeak U U c c c c c c c c U U U U c c c c c c c c c Ruby. crowned Ignglet Mountain Bluebird cs Swalnson's Thrush c c " American Robin c c U U U Kinglet e,i iii U Lazuli Bunang 'arsh ''I c c Yeeow-runped Warbler u Black-throated Gray u Warbler MacGillivray's Warbler 'ommon Yellowthroat c Wilson's Warbler c Western Tanager u 'lack-headed Staker's Jay ascii" il u U Yellow Warbler U U c U U Sparrow White-crowned U Sparrow Darkeyed Junco * Red-winged Blackbird c Western Meadowlark Yellow-headed Blackbird Brewer's Blackbird Brown. headed Cowbird ~ Northern Oriole Purple Finch House Finch Red Crossbill Pine Siskin American Goldench Evening Grosbeak House Sparrow . c c c cs r u c U U U c c c U U U U c c c u c u c ' IIII c c U U c c IMlll %I%IN U 4 U U U II I ';: 1 9 II l ~ eil II les ri 911 Il ~1 I I Ik e fe v 80 e I I die ilia I I llg';..., Uk ki ll ~ Illlig, ': .'% !N I c c 'ileated Woodpecker gesmeilu c 1 11 1NS4 8%%I I liijllRHSI ) I 'I l~~l „. L/I'l l[jiltiii illlf '(ll Ik IB I 5 iI Rii 4 1 lM il. Iii 4 I 144 111414 ' 8 I IJ9 I Sl I I iill Si i ill i i mi i f/ )I I I I i ~ 4 I I4 I4 ii l 4 II 44 ~ 4 I II i I i'i'-'l) I 25 'Fir ~%I NOV 0 2 fBQ4 15 E;. 14 411 4'' II I; 'i i I I I ' II 4 14'fi'ii I ' 4 I I 11 I Unof f icial Species List of Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles in the proposed Coquitlam River Wildlife Management Area Mammals Canis latrans - Coyote Castor canadensis - Beaver Clethrionomys gapperi Southern Red-backed Vole Di del phi s vi rgzni ana - North American Opossum Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat Felis conc.glor Cougar Glau omys s« brinus - Northern Flying Squirrel Lasioycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat Lasi urus ci nereus Hoary Bat Lontra canadensis River Otter Hephi tis mephitis Striped Skunk Microtus 1ongicaudus - Long-tailed Vole Microtus oregoni Creeping Vole Mi crotus townsendii Townsend's Vole Mus musculus House Mouse Mustela erminea Ermine Hustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel Mustela vison Mink Hyotis californicus - California Nyotis Hyotis evotis - Wes «rn Long-eared Myotis Myotis keenii Kee..'s Long-eared Nyotis Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Nyotis Myotis volans - Long-legged Nyotis Hyotis yumanensis Yuma Nyotis Neurotri chus gibbsii - Shrew-mole Odocoi I eus hemionus col umbianus Black-tailed deer Ondatra zi bethi cus Muskrat Peromyscus maniculatus Deer Mouse Phoca vitulina - Barbour Seal Plecotus townsendii - Townsend's Big-eared Bat Procyon lotor - Raccoon Rattus norvegicus - NorwaY Rat Rattus rattus - Black Rat Scapanus orarius Coast Mole Sciurus carolinensis Gray Squirrel Sores bendirii - Pacific Water Shrew Sorex cinereus - Common shrew Sorex monticolus Dusky Shrew Sorex palustris Water Shrew Sorex trowbri dgi i Trowbridge ' Shrew Sores vagrans Vagrant Shrew — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Pl e 1 S g!kg""'I II Pl I !ISING II I I I Ji] ] SS Wl Rl — — $ /BIB ( — — Q««««E«K IIIII I E I II I lg,':.::; i — — .— — llli' Spi logale putorius - Spotted Skunk Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail Tamias amoenus - Yellow-pine Chipmunk — Tamiasciurus douglasii - Douglas'quirrel v l Ursus ameri canus Zapus trinotatus — — Black Bear Pacific Jumping Mouse Ii Ii)~ ql' l I Sl I. I « ~ I I « -I «« I t « I I e es a « I « ~1 1 II ~ I I \ ~ I 11 1 lllll I i i I ' ~ 101 I ~ I 'I a f NOV 0 2 1994 %SIIII 4e~ll APPENDIX D of east portion of riparian forest as found in "Port Coquitlam Riverfront Area Control 'Plan" Map iglll JPlgl I I . 11I 4 81@ '] g JaJJ» ~ 4 lan l iII 4 li 4 l44ml ili1i l 4 II'~I . Ii II J444 ll I'l 28 ' I II na Ias ' II I I I I JJI ra I I I II ~ I I I I I J il 4 Ill ~ ~ I M %1. \ II I ~ I IL I I ~ K:: I C 4 I 99 I 4 LN 5I f $ 14 9 II 19 I I ~ I ~ illl Il ' ! I' I 'L Ill I I I I J '114 194 II If 91 I Ul '.. IL 'm jl" 111 I 19 ~ III '4 'I j'=' ILL LJ 9 I 11 '4 ~ ! I~ '! $ 91 lb L, I ' i: /1 gi[ I ~ ,li 30 14 I ll hl .'"''' 'hllR li ' '4 I'PI 44%4414lg I» 4 11 l R111 »'hl 'lh I ~ 11 II 'lh 1 ~ 4 Il'I I ~ 14 I " IIE ~ I IR hh I I ~ ~ hl I I 111 II I I I lll I 1 I II .'hht '— I 1 ~ 'I a 4 11 IP ll I" I ~ ' I 1 ~I I I I 141 4 "''% 111 e ' Ig hh R ~ h' 4 I I I h 1'l Gatgnc da Canada Part(a //. (FS/. /27, No l3 SOR/D(3RS/93-300 6. Part II of Sehcdule II to the said Regulatioos is further amended by aaddin ing ibereto t e the following items: Cdo Cdom 0 I Nmle glu by Ibe Oa eccc sk Csosdo. or lom locct km a p Il Oll Icccaol Cnaucl Ikon frcse ne peim or Blnhtcs Syis ~ Col Osocnl Nmu Iblc pol of un«coy nsy $ 1. Canoe al Suney 6. La p anie ie II dee 'annexc d u msme rs(glement est modlpice par adjonction de ee qui suit: N eoo le nlpcoo n sysseml Corno w 4(F03 OO Ihcc soolb fam II Cons c Iu Corno ~ IV C0Ndo $ 4onmkq" tsysst 4 Nomiodq 4 'su * Ic I 'peas Nom Icccl ~ ppncioosif Cns ol Ik b 5 FTC7 on «uh posir f I ~ paso lit poco 5 op phil 'n to pouc4 I h cl scf( c gtognphiq c Cu 122'SIOX sdasm Akc ee C nasl CFOXOO" 122'53(3X Blmu«spit iusqe'4 5 Ci m Ih petal lo rotates. co hkde Slscss I(tv/ Cd« Coloo * I lcc uco Idomoc (O«mu« I Co«44 Vale Hculcy Cil Xl'51%0" Lche 12(yue"ro Ihm pcn ef Con«Coo Inurn n lee I Call 4 I ~ I ~s hoyle ( Vm lorn.y 49 1400" IZI'4$ (XI recco spycoo ms Isols CCSIC Pol Icly 2 ka aollb Ls n«ic cc I I'00" 49 lsrxv Ixt 4$ '00" Cm I Its aulkc Omiaco nps I ZY05'00 4 paris dmno ~ moa cololl 1 hm ssa 4* Pon Coqokoc imq»'lew lesser III'f 7. Part Schedule II to tbe said amended by adding thereto the following itemxRegulations is Cotlaaa I 1 n II' I el'sosas, er dcssripdm 12, thos« Late IL Ibm yos of Chnaoo Ldo ia tos 11. Cns XL Choccoc Tcy d I ~ ~ so» asked' 150 cf Conk nfcsmc crsoall 44'5200" 70'I 4'otv Spccinc (Fnallos boo & p! III, ~ 4 CWO Iaqxreo 4 huo dm ldo. PS cr. the a tor ISO m 11!I I 1 tl Il! I I )I IF'' II I! PP li(m 'I I 11 lli,i P/II I ta pso' susie Aos I l«O Itt peon sknmnq « 4C rio n Vcc ps ck au Coodcl ~ 44'52(0" IIP I 4'o" «'49W loll. 7$ 'oroo" e so I~ 8. Items 9 to Part V of Schedule II to tbc said Regulatiom arc revoked. 8. Les article 9 I la partie V de I'annexe Il du mdme rdglement sent abrogds. 'sonrsy-340. 1957 c 'onwsf Idl o Icos*a 19'e ' Xt II I 13. gcnd l9'f I( IIPRW I ~ 12. atpcaein gtognphisn Coun . oo 4 Lm Oocae lips lP II Aokl 150 m I I'! )IR ($ rcltoc 44 FNCeocc Co Nom Iociq ~ ac« le Oeo.me ILI l«ue Nil.fttnlM I ti(I t(P I(P Cause lu Cmmocot giognphiquo kc, 4 pock' U pool ~ F I sis go \ IC4 4 4 IS I ~ I ol co sl ~ I'c ho cll c Ik I slwkc dn mas4 or dn Oos 4~ rene«tea d cnlk la omony 4nocioo ppiipR(W Cd«dc II coonnko Xl Cwso 4 Chmdn.q Ion o 4 ~ mnn nc 150 m dms k commcadas m o pom oa no d ccdice nm il 413 a wo cf III Cdocoe I Cdema m to«goo ccf~ (assoc« Nome at by Ibe Oss mor m ICF I I Canna tt III'e 7. La panic I'annexe li du mdme rbglement cst modifide par adjoncuon de ce qui suit: s i ok o ooe pos ll p. 2319 ~ Pone a. Way.p. Znp II I 2831 i iilll I I ~ ~ 4;1;„,:PI ss I IP( os a«s wb 1!" iia( m 't NOV 0 2 199II lpp nn .-- 5 I I ' i n I,i cd Fm f I ~ is% I I I lit I ' I I IF-- --. ~ I I I' 4 II ~ b I -'l ': I t r II Ig/ I 'lia I ~ s Ig I Igsg I Im I .'( i(II( IIR ~ ay ' a jI I l! ssII ~ APPENDIX F B.C. Archaeological Site Inventory Form I%5 88 SR @i".i,'. IIII I EN % g$ RR iP %le P Rl ~ W IRR P ~ I P,Rld =;;;el& g I R R I I I I I g I ( Pi lid I I 32 fili'diidjg 'R did Ild I ill l Sac 1=-— RPI ~l ""!;,RP Ra ld RMIIR I I NRPR' PIP I@II III I' IQ,' MRI11i RII IW RI I O'l I ~ I I I = . III R IR 4 'iLll Ii/1$ IP I """. All :PRRI -' 1 R' II RR R 1lP ~ I . RI I: n pe I mI I RL111: " "'5i. L-:— Rl I IRI l ~1993 15!56 684 3874!Isa ARCHAEOLCnY vr x w.vvww a 8 v vvsvte. oocjisq: e y~c~&o+~.I. i o' P. BBWBBG UbRo 19 l. S]teNo RRISH CQLRIRRL(t ARC]LIEOLOGICAL S]TE ]NVENTORV ]IRORM 2. ]areviaw Sealsoesoa{e). Sec........... 4. igget]ea {o) (k) ...,Cn 3. Site garne{a) Lot ~~sat sida.nf. tba Cti~gls]4 River pear its confluence tait]t .t]ta.~ez .~ mite.~ bout]datL.bK HarK.3ik13 Eoaad to the ar tbs the~a~ Snd. thy Byte to the South, (tba siM azsa ia ])sr~f ~a ~LB]]X farm -„WilsoQ farm - in cultivated ~ tba~~r boat. Eroceed u~the cotcoLtIam The site is East end South of Ri]ler..„t()-thg br~tie ove1 aha,br~e¹n~the inner btlundl]r]r of the Belike. By oar, from Co4pitlsmr ]2r]]stmNLdawn p]arvhiil road to the Eraser ~River wal]r i(est to the DJJ]te, bosket{]1 M(t)]iolc 3 Agcog — R]r— II -'--: '.B C 6 perse!go aad dittticg 'c) (o) ' (b) ]I!gag gia] 0iattaS Diet!tet VanobuVer 7 (ef) yrortgoia] Petit 7. ]4at .49 ~1'4~74 3aaiaeea (O) slicer CO4Luitlam 12. III II ~ 17. ill] 4 I )1 I'I'Ie I /I I i! I a gei I I I -- I I ' ~~ rsill gal )II I II"', „,, 4]erjg 4'... . - e! ' Il I II I II 4 I ~ 1 i I ~e al ~ I I1 '4 I I jri i L: —-- ;g $$ II a ~ 9 ]7r]le 145 527 92 0/2W. Hoer rdeSv 'd.rIStet galcr 10 Eraaer General Activity - Lithic Scatter I (6) rgtoagto] ' I 5R /1979- tst'utctct / (o) protect rlga 4 4 a S g ~ I@ IIP' I 240 m 10 Under cultivation 18. Priorit ~ Is me er ~ NOV 0 L 1994 ~ I 'I.' a1I PI 00 (6) (c) or]BI I m I ri ~ 4S i RiV81'6) ]6. VSaasahm (o) erect ii I o cg]terre as]]at]oa (e) Hal'kernel.em (7'1 II / Nev WeetmirtiSter etc!iree Maagygnmt ]]eyotL Lower ]t{ainland 5 3(stars ASL 13, M]eeetteg (4) 14. fiII ~ ~ gl tM II ) ]]]~„,& rmm,+ ]], Map (o) sa~ —. nmt (e) 8 ]oo@ 1.22 Iioi-en:m Alr y]aga 10. imm e R~s niscrir &ancouver alp fit]( 1 5 !II aININII ] al lr. ~ ltl I ' ~ ,'" m I lee ~ I~ =, III I! Ill,l(LNNli =i===!! o!S]slaimej 4 "" gii ia ~ iillil I el etggtlm! NNIr& jell I ~l aro aa ~414-. IIN4 II]RE ~e ~,„ aW AUG — 85-1993 (5'55 (c) cadrpssS malrix ARCHAEOLOGY 584 3GV4428 A. 8(LM)85 atilt ~d .PL87 (c) ccs-culrsral matric 20. Kscws Iiss)a scd.precast lccalics. P Ilvrss~des .2 ~ossj.his goxdL~Mss o ...................1.4R $23)la..nors ~ MQ,fiick) / 'IaarsweIr(rsavw I,.. ~~ '19?5~~ltd ~ yl. pb 22. d p plow ses Imps(I)h)rcd rclcrcscca (s). (b) 25. %as aee ssd (or) dale (a) .. Q a(so)am Q rsMpc (dy) SssasL wilson Farm~Part nx colon)r Faaas 24. Cpsyssr/T~ Prov. Cpovl e~- =@~ Vby e I@( III!"=.'Sl ~l lee ~ (c) '8jI,.... I()jjj, )IsI. IpesII IIs br Z W2112QIos VV1111 1 P 1976 T ter i(ill'rla NIII ~ a~ Mrs (~ ~)e)y Henso~nohs 1~8 Cultivation has disturbed clgltrrrel deposits to a dePth ot be . 1st. 1 eblbd eo rda d t ecto bl bet rial or rata below t)Lis level agre 'llItf[] ps ~ ~ ~b)v 25. (Vr) Jagssapsear t (septet ea page e ll ooepterr& I.ISM a)HI 'lg sl II IMP I- A)III II 111 y weev~)mIggg[IIE%58hl II~mlRggI IIme~v yw~~mjjyh 2)i)i —,— —,. aa (jg ~ S~/grgglt iP'm',,'; II/ /I I mp I ~ ~ ."V I ri@ I beep tv 5 2i ~ ~I ~ ... ~ ~ ',. 5 g)jmlemQ~ ~~ Jjl+n~~ ~-~~ 1993 15«67 Al¹3«AEOLOGY IhlmmlalmsilRSIIM~II 68«3874428 ne ~~mn«geiV" t~its .~n««nl r--611(ien-and — ~~-ld-th— agf 1 I'Nl S~« ~Q nm +s~ P. 88a«886 ~wnms md nl ~nnna1 Tlnd 979: sK Ylpp ARD p Gosgfghe exact location of the site is unknown locations on the maps in this site form), Although s'nor«orna ~— ;p«'ny —m m«««mm««e (RE: Two different —4IQAOI)« — crew—«eas..nnable4(L~«Im«ne +~vkgshgion- %&- «««em ge recommend that DhRq 19 be checked ¹s soon ae the vegetation disappears, because a possible highway iitgKF Se FdnsaiTCte«C Vii 5f nea prohjemee (eg. I,NIAL ~r tall grasses) . INI'Idyll Ni !i) I 'lIYf , m II ~ ~ S HILI'ILIII I tM'i/ill IP II it I I'l'I I I ~ « « I I «11 « II Ill' « « ,«I tali)N'f Skh ll lk / ISOI e I I i R I I I ISI , I 4 i wtf I IS I I 4 IL~ I I IINIL. I IIiiiiik II Cia IIPhP AI 1II & I%II IIIII' IF I I ~ UILOISO EI N ~ @ ADDI TIDSAL ' ROUUOATISO I ROAO ' CC RITCS/DRCCS~~ TRAIL I ~ II 1 — r~x — r— I'"- o 4TC ~ S SISS Sir ~AN TIIC HAACIR LIMIT AN% IIAT 41 G /2 IA OCC, &4 AA ia IIh'll LoSa. IC2'W MUCTC UTM OSIS SAILICAT ~ CSCC LCOCRD SCCA ~'Ar, I' Q$5g T~ra~ SCALC Bl APPEIIDI X G Memorandum of Understanding 'l I8 llPI I'lj 1 II I, IS li'/ lNI 1H Fl all% ,[( 5 Rii III M!I IIII i HIS I Qlg 418 III PP IM P i PIPPP P I '41 1NI ! 1441P 44 kill' III ih ) I ~ 44 !II g 111 IP I fi I I ~ I 4 4 P L !i, t,l I i Il ', I'14 II I i II 4i: ~ P 1 4 4i41 38 s i i 4I I + = '114 ~MO~UM OF Ul'DERSTANDIi4IG Between: THE KWAYHQUITLUM FIRST NATION (also known as the Coquitlam Indian Band; hereinafter referred to as UKwayhquitlum") HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (hereinafter referred to as "British Columbia" ) British Columbia wishes to create a Wildlife Management Area (hereinahr referred to as "WMAU) to preserve the natural environment of the floodplain forest at the Coquitlam River mouth (see Addendum); Ii1 egal g 'hereas glelia Is ewpm~spe l]ljll III@ Ilk LII ~IPsU'$$ esssl I IR sI' sl I e e s I I I IS !IS S SS ~ I~ S (~IS I 'sibyl I le& slem U O'II Imi IIUI s4 ss SI 4~ IR ih 11 I I PPP P c sII Ien s I fled I SIR " l i I PlelI 1 eijii e ~'I Il is I IPI a I IIIlj I g Pe e 1 ir, I -"i'jl III iiis - . 'Pl] I PI~ i I . $ 1iii S,I IS I e Pl 1 And Whereas the purpose of British Columbia in establishing the WMA is to preserve fish and wildlife habitat; And Whereas some of the land of the WMA is both historically and currently one of special significance to, and use by, Kwayhquitlum; And Whereas the purpose of Kwayhquitlum in entering into this Memorandum and in committing to jointly plan and manage the WMA is to ensure Kwayhquitlum's historic and current relationship to the area is not adversely affected by the establishment or management of the WMA; And Whereas it is felt by the parties that the special relationship of Kwayhquitlum to land in the WMA should be respected and preserved, and need not detract fiom the fish and wildlife values contained therein; And Whereas the parties agree that the rights, interests, and opportuxuties of Kwayhouitlum and the planning and management of the WMA would be best addressed in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding according to mutually agreed upon principles and the parties agree that the nature and extent of such rights can best be settled through treaty negotiations, and that no attempt is made herein to define such rights; It Is Therefore Agreed by the parties to use the following principles and agreements to guide development of the cooperative working relationship in the establishment and management of the WMA, namely: 1. The establishment of the WMA does not establish, deny or diminish, the rights, title or interests of a private party. Specifically, the WMA is without prejudice to the aboriginal rights and title of Kwayhquitlum, and its establishment will not limit any future treaty negotiations. 2. British Columbia recognizes that Kwayhquitlum kiss identified a number of traditional and ongoing activities within the area of the WMA that include, but are not limited to: fishing, hunting, gathering, and berry picking. I /2 NOV 02 IPI 1 $94 %5 I&I ~ lg IS»&»e L I IIIIIIJI IIIIIII ) I&I I II fggL1lll I! Il)l'(I 4!IRI I 7. In matters pertaining to the WMA, British Columbia and Kwayhquitlum will address issues of mutual interest in a manner consistent with a government-to-government relationship. (Sl,l! N Brxtxsh Columbia and Kwayhquitlum agree that in the event an agreement cannot be achieved on the issues pertaining to WMA planning, management or use, the parties will obtain the services of a neutral mediator agreeable to both parties to help resolve such matters. I1 ! I 15,! i 8. In keeping with the intent of the parties and the spirit of this Memorandum, the parties wish to seek consensual rather than adversarial or judicial remedies to matters of potential conflict pertaining to the WMA. British Columbia and Kwayhquitlum agree to work together constructively to ensux'e that the WMA is managed based on conservation of the natural environment, public safety, and other compelling public policy objectives. Where activities of a traditional nature or which may pertain to the exercise of an aboriginal right by a member of the Kwayhquitlum First Nation are at issue, British Columbia will make every effort through consultation with Kwayhquitlum to identify alternatives to legal enforcement for implementation where appxopriate. Further, the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks will convey the spirit of this agreement to other government agencies. 9. This Memorandum comes into force when signed by both pax'.ies, and remains 'l I 8 Rr I I III xll I'I!III in effect unless cancelled in writing by either party. This Memorandum may be amended at any time with the consent of both paxties. .../3 s x" s ~ Ill 3 1 I ~i 'I 1s I, »& ~ I » ax ~ —:«&» u I H ~ IX IS SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia represented herein by the 'onourable Moe Sihota, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, in the presence of: MJ/~~ HONORABLE MOE SIHOTA W DAn VN2(.la&AI~ 'Bi)66 dt's.&G@g kr Qg9j '89 -'. T I II I9 II ~ I I I F I aII I I I L' ~ .'TS 1 ~l ~9 ill i" s "'= I 9 99 Ql I ~ II ~ =m4 '1$ , ~F III P% ~ f Illa '8'III I I I 9II 01 PROPOSED COQUITLAM RIVER WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA S1TE MAP (scale 1~,000) II 81 I I' ~ Ii I S 551 E CORPORATlON OF THE TY OF PORT COQUITLAM MKMOHANDUM M: Environmental Protection Committee DATE: November 01, l 994 F. K. K. Cheung, P. Eng. Project Engineer FILE No: EPC BJECT: CANADIAN INDUSTRY PACKAGING STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE COMMFNDATIONt That Committee receive this memorandum for information only. IrIIOUND dt COMMENTSt e Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI - B.C.) is a proposal bv the packaged goods ustry as a means of providing financial support to B.CJs municipal curbside and depot recycling programs. CIPSI - B.C. proposal by the packaged goods industry is a good initial step in addressing the packaging te problems; however, there are many concerns over the enforcement strategies, financing structure, and ceived loopholes in the overall infrastructure of the plan itself. The packaged goods industry have initiated s with the Ministry of Environment on the CIPSI - B.C. proposal. There will be a long reviewing process amendments to the proposal before it can be implemented, ched is the memorandum regarding the CIPSI - B.C. which was discussed at the regular EPC meeting held October 05, 1994. F. K. K. Cheung, P. Eng Project Engineer n an s I s Iaig Xiii'WS II II FKKC/ anacbmcnt ))seel I I I)III' gi a/ fili:& 5 lmiii )1IIRIIII I /~5'i% I'5gsl I Ili nits» tl I ll,a mrs» ~ Iii .' 11118 ill ~ el I ', Lliv. i I ~II II ~ 11% a see iimi~ e — ~ ~ II ~ 2 II I I I re ma ee I'OV ~% iliitgISIE;; ~ I I I ...~see0 2 1gtif e~ m»a~: ntt I ~ I em s a ~ = ig 8 llli IJ ='iiki THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM MEMORANDUM TO: Environmental Protection Committee DATE: October 03, 1994. FROM: F. K. K. Cheung, P. Eng. Project Engineer FILE No: EPC SUE JECTI CANADIAN INDUSTRY PACKAGING STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE RRCOMIvtFNIPATIG¹ 1. That Committee receive this memorandum for information only. BACKGROUND & COMMFNTSI The Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI) is a funding initiative being put forward by a coalition of industry sponsors prepared to provide financial support to B.C)s municipal curbside and depot recycling programs. In addition, the stewardship program is prepared to provide economic incentives for responsible indusssies to reduce and reuse their packaging. The central idea of this proposal is that industry, municipalities and consumers have a shared responsibility for managing packaging waste. The principles of this proposal are that: packaged goods industries, governments and consumers share responsibility for packaging stewardship; recycling programs should be cost-effective, and the funding proposal environmentally responsible and economically sustainable; market-driven incentives are most effective in encouraging industry to reduce packaging, to use recyclable packaging and to ensure market development, and in encouraging municipalities to establish and maintain efficient recycling program; recycling solutions for packaging must be flexible and must fit in with other municipal multi-material waste management programs in a manner that is cost-effective and minimizes environmental impact. Thmugh a levy system, brand owners of packaged products (i.e. goods that are packaged in glass bottles, cans, paper and plastic, etc.) would provide municipalities with funds to support recycling of these materials. Industry vtould also support programs to strengthen markets and reduce municipal recycling costs. Municipalities would be paid a specific amount per tonne based on tlie amount of qualifying packaging material collected. gI 'NIP P:CISX—.-, MLI I=== =a; gP IIIim"-"-, Rl lilt I gl! I[ l fail Iii i'll --- isa) Rnw it Would Work Raising Funds - Brand owners in British Columbia would pay levies iu two phases: Phase l (two-year transition) - - Pay a levy of $ 24 a tonne base on the weight of Ihe final consumer packaging for products sold in thc province. - During this phase, the true cost of handling and recycling each individual packaging tom would be detcnnined on a material-specific basis. This information would be used to established the levy to be applied in Phase 2. Elhi d,'.'ii fl II III s Ill jIl'I( Cont'd...)2 P gl ui „,=Ial j NOV02 jgg) ~ IliI 4 aI s llll 3 11 all Pm)\ as lgpptas I I ~ sna l aslIR ai I WQI sumil mm Ial slsIIIaa I I ~ ~II~ -,— ~ —:ii:gill Istas lM sam,"„",IIIP sax)M~I ~P~R IR IPP Phase 2 (year three and beyond) Levies would be assessed on a material-specific basis. Objectives of the Phase 2 levy are: — — to encourage source reduction; or recycling; to encourage greater capture of materials for reuse the system of cost the to minimize to minimize overall environmental impact; contribution to overall system funding. to ensure that each material is making a fair ~ v ~ ~ ~t ~ to Afuni~al ti Phase i CIPSI proposed to pay municipalities a per tonne levy — for all qualifying packaging materials. Phase 2 — Municipalities would be paid for each packaging material, based on its true cost to be managed in the recycling system. Economic Instrument to Encourage Reduction and Reuse of to 52 per cent of their levy receive rebates up - Members of the stewardship organization would be eligible to material is collected and recycled in Britis based on the average rate at which the particular packaging Columbia. - The rebates encourage brand owners to develop markets for materials in order to increase t ie recycling rate. Markets for Recovered Materials - Funds designated for market development would be used to finance: materials; ~ ~ ~ ~ * new, improved or expanded uses for recycled packagingthese materials; new or improved methods for processing or marketing for secondary materials; demand policies and programs which support increased content in packaging; projects aimed at increasing demand for recycled opportunities to improve overall system eAiciencies. PartnershiP Roles and Responsibilities Industry's Role: market development activities. for - Raise the funds needed to make payments to municipalities and levies, and submit reports to the provincial - Conduct audits to ensure that members contribute the proper government outlining progress on its commitments. 5 l Ng/ ~imi ii sill I l~ & I II lg [])(/ uau lllg'I lN'l sill Cont'd. -d3 ; ...„:;;iig i i~/~[INIISISI~ g~~ Provincial Government's Role; - Asked to prepare and enforce a regulation requiring all who are responsible for intro tc the marketplace to take action to divert that packaging from dispc sl, either throu Role of Municipalities: - Asked to operate cost-effective and efficient recycling programs. - Would be responsible, directly and indirectly, for: collecting and processing final consumer packaging materials; consumer funding their share of the costs for collecting and processing final ('unicipal sharc'); which would es having representatives participate in the Management Forum standard and revenue factor; having representatives participate in the Stewardship Council; multi-material rec providing local education and promotion of the municipal Proposed Schedule - Should negotiations begin immediately, CIPSI-B,C. would propose the following s circulate draft agreement for public consultation in September; promulgate regulations; Stewardship Organization or tile their own within three months, brand owners required to join the B.C. plans with the Ministry; within nine months, municipalities become eligible for Phase 1 funding; are eligible for Phase 2 funding. twenty seven months atter Phase 1 begins, municipalities I 5IIl~g 4 K. K. Cheur.g, Project Engineer FKKC/ aaschmeat tiiii'i IIIIII IIIIi l I'gi[ I Ilia — j NOV02 algol s ~ sa ~ 1811I~~ z~gq'(g~ sre HI I 8 aat eu I i I 51%I THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM CITY OF PORT COQU!T[Aq rNr INFFprNc oppr .- ~o,, r OZ.g SFP MEMORANDrJM DATE: September 15„1994 TO: Jeff Yip, P. Eng, Deputy Eagineer FROM: Owen P.eimer-Pitt Administration Dept. RE: ENCLOSED BROCHIJRES Mayor Traboulay is referring the enclosed brochures for your Environmental Protection Committee. Thank you. sos tts HILII+iIN ',iilsai ratg ,'IMMI ittg ~err R)II ~ le I SW l)i'.===== ' !',!,! III%lg iiiattir Iaiui t,ii"!-'-'''===:=' i Canadian Industry I'aekallinss Stewardship Initiative Sponsored by: (CI'IGL Canadian Sofr Drink Assocmlian (Crore, Canadian Co neil of Grocery Disirik lors (CCGDI, Conadion Fcdrralion of Indrprndcnr Grorrm Canud (I:I'IC), Grnccry Fradncrs kfanufaciurrm of Cnnada (GFA(CI, Fnrdronmrnr and I'laslics lnslilurr of Canraa Council Rrsai( (I'ACk and of Canoda Assnciarin of I'ackacinc Scptcmber 8, 1994 .':~ gtt5Vv Mayor Len Traboulay and Council CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM 2580 Shaughncssy Port Coquitlam, B.C. V3C ZA8 Dear Mr. Mayor and Council: The Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI) is a funding initiative being put forward by a coalition of industry sponsors prepari:d to share responsibility for the care of our environment. Municipalities in British Columbia have been involved in the initiation, management, and and financing of recycling programs for a long time. Industry acknowledges your leadership for responsibility the efforts in these areas and, through CIPSI, is offering to share with you packaging stewardship.. have Our proposal is attached to this letter. It builds on the recycling infrastructure that you initiative CIPSI the of in.plcmentation that thc believe Wc already provided your community. will augment and greatly enhance the current rccycling initiatives in the Province of British Columbia. The CIPSI initiative will: Rcducc thc overall use of packaging Incrcasc thc number and amount of materials being rccyclcd Significantly rcducc thc waste stream to land fills Facilitate thc marketing of recyclable materials I la(jim Isis - I'%I ptas&RI INlsl iR IS I (I QI 1 1 as Kv (ics rara slrccl visncssuucs, t(A . cuts .(aa I NOV Ml ~a K IIIlm-l~~~mjj Pe 02 1994 R~stw ~ (asatlM fl5s ~I m,M! III ~ml~ss~~~~~IIIIIII s aat rsa ~Q IIII s Significantly rcducc thc cost to local taxpayers and consumers of current and altcrnatc rccycling initiatives As this is a significant and comprchcnsivc proposal, CIPSI is undertaking an extensive consultation process with municipal govcnuncnts in British Columbia to answer your concerns and questions. We arc confident this endeavour will provide an opportunity for us to learn from each other ways in which we can work together to improve the environment. We feel it is both necessary and beneficial to meet with you and members of your counciL This is why, as part of our consultation process, wc will be attending thc UBCM Convention. At the convention we will not only be making our technical experts available to answer questions but also in attendance will bc several British Columbian business leaders. They will be at thc VBCM Convention to explain to you how the CIPSI funding initiative will work in your community. We hope this will facilitate future dialogue leading to a mutually agreeable industry/municipal waste reduction program throughout British Columbia. Please contact CIPSI at 688-2505 to schedule a meeting during thc Whistler Convention and we will be happy to listen and respond to your questions. Thank you, Bob Holt President & CEO, Sun-Rypc Products Ltd. Co-Chair CIPSI British Columbia Alex Campbell President, Thrifty Foods Co — Chair CIPSI British Columbia ~~ ~ NNNNt 'n:..NII aflt~ g R5/age m ~ ICONS I life I III P "= '": s"':Nsi»'i f' f NN& Sasa — NK ' I =.NNiNNNKISNN= Ir- Itggml Ig I I W [ sista!,a 11%lilgsN l5NI%'L'ia I I %litt IS ' IINSsua I r t g ] =./ W ==...: a!. Qi I I I M Canadian Industry Packassing Stewktnlship Initiative Spon gorerf br I Canadian Councilof GroccndorsrrrkurnmrCCGDJ, Conodian prdrralionofl dcpr dr lGroccrs 1 'FIGL Can di gofiDrinkAssocmriu ICgllAI, Groccrg prod cls gfa ufaclu. rrs of Canada IGpkICk I n 'ironmrnr a d I'lassies Insrimlc of Canada rppICI, Packaging Assocmlion of Canada rl'ACI, and gclail Cou cii of Canada BRITISH COI.UMBIA A proposal by Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative - B.C. PC'gg jt's - Z 51 ~i (/=p ) )III lm (]sg - Z. 5 C» R@% M IaaISIR! Us/i gi a admi ma l I%I I ~ msasll lt 1515 - 1188 Nr. Georgia Sirccl Vancouver. B.C. V(iii aA2 Nilhr ir &ea Igiiiil II 0 ttar iluaii ~ ai ! I I I ', 885llIlle~h-- ~~eii I 8 aI1 aD I I I I ai I I uuil .— i IIIRI —— I.'::, . =-; i l,. l,::: P'aml1»I.:.; MR~I jl1NI it mi I I ll5R tg', ~ ans ~ 8 NOV 0 2 1994 HR ~~usa~samoa ~ &~ ~IKR ==" -@!Illfli) S I I I 's a l lit l &I 8 naca ~su TAttLE Ol CONTENTS I@i Introduction page 1 Background page 1 Who's Wo&king Towards a Solution? page 2 Major Elements Definitions page 3 How it Would Work Raising Funds Payments to Municipalities Encouraging Reduction and Reuse page 4 page 5 page 5 Markets for Recovered Materials page 6 Partnership Roles and Responsibilities Industry's Pole Provincial Government's Role Role of Municipalities page 7 page 7 page 7 Making Packaging Stewardship Work B.C. Stewardship Organization Board of Directors Management Forum Stewardship Council page 8 page 9 page 9 page 9 From Initiative to Implementation Backdrop Regulations Implementation Steps Proposed Schedule page 10 page 10 page 10 An Environmental and Economic Winner page 11 II IIU I 11 I I. em 11 I I I I! „.....:-5 ~ '1 I I I U I iiiiI elec Ig nn cia ~ &a& ~ &~ m sn lh U I I ' a I jRRi „i ~ ~ ~ IIt aIIPSI ~ III ~ Il~alhl us+ &a Nag! &Ill Ij — +I't etetenna etetenna 'Iette I 1I,~I¹ 11 Ilail n 2111': = -"— pl I ~ a I II I!II L,, ly,, ~, '.". Iillm 'II1j1 e CIPSI B.C. Intt t&dttt.tttttt 'I'lic Canadian Industry Packaging Stcwardsliip Initiative (CIPSI-I3.C.) is being proposcit hy itic packa cd goods industry as a means of providing financial suppor[ io I3.C.'» niuniciliul curbside and depot rccyclin ~ programs, which currently serve Ilulrc than 75 p r cent of thc province's llousct)olds. Tlie stcvrmdship pro~ram goes a step furt lier hy providing economic incentives for rcsponsiblc industries to reduce and reuse tlicir packaging. Central to Uic proposal is thc idea Uiat indusuy, municipalities and consumers lieve a shared responsibility for managi ng packaging waste. C v It is hoped this proposal will bc used as a focus for discussion on the appropriate roles and rcsponsibiliucs o( ail partners in maintaining and expanding B.C.'s municipal multi-niatcrial recycling programs. The members of CIPSI-B.C. invite your commcms and suggestions. ! 8acl&ground There is gcncral agrcemcnt in BriUsh Colun.bia that municipal recycling programs are a critical part of managing consumer packaging waste. Most householders fully support their local rccycling initiatives. More than 150.000 tonnes of residential waste were collected for rccycling by municipally-run recycling progrants in 1993. These materials included food and beverage cans, glass containers, plastic containers and plastic film, corrugated cardboard, telephone directories and newspapers. These were reprocessed into hundreds of new products. Thc costs of running B.C.'s recycling system are covered for the most part by municipal taxpayers. The balance comes from revenues from the saic of recovered matcrials. But there is agreement in British Columbia that a long-term funding 'armngemcnt for municipal recycling programs must be found, an arrangement that represents sibilityya more equitable distribution of costs for residential recycling. CIPSIB.C. is industry's answer to this concern. IIIII The principles at the heart of this proposal are that: packaged goods industries, governments and consumers share responfor packaging steivardshi pt M!I%IIWII II I I III I ' II recycling programs should be cost-egecti ve, and the fitnding proposal environmentally responsible and economically sustainable; II(IN e LIS( tart! markr't-driven incentives are tnost effective in encouragiirg industry to reduce packaging, to use recyclable packaging and to ensure nmrket dei eloprnent, and in encouraging niunicipalities tn establi sit and maintain efficient renclitig programs; I 'IIIIIIII Ill ~ml a III ~ - ~ - ~ - i tt! g!!IIII'p 'i u oI '" ~g gll„ t ,=„ta.ii *--- ='= ""--'-',-I!! "iii I Ii';— I i ta &!%~,—:: —...-:i!!!I. I9'Iliilglt;.,;'..-'.-': „t t „,= ~ I~g ilii' g, RIP I II& . ~ 'Uall lu!III!iII} ~~ ~ I ! i'g,.'IXI ~ ~ ', IIII. Ik ~t i jIIII/glI II! 'ki iw U =. = ilrtg I 5II 'lI',!I=.r" ";; ",, Ii, i w ii&t'm i i 'Etu ="-"'-'- - A IItat ut utu I iii ai i'III ig — Iirtu'~ '; !NiintN'g8'IN.! I!iiti===-'= at& ili ~u Jl I cl!'st n.c. r &Tr'/ott,' / tri it f t pack tgiog ootst 6 '/eri/t/e aod oust fit in ivt'th tililt't lfllttilcl/itt/ lliaiti otatrt'ia/ irastt'ltaflagelllt'tll /tl'ogl'oltts tll et tttalltter thatis cost-effective nm/ tninimizrs rovironmetttai impact. 'IYho's 6'orhing Towards a Solution? CIPSI-B.C. is sponsored by a group of associations rcprcscnting Canada's major packaged goods and other rclatcd industries. including brand owners, material suppliers, distributors and rctailcrs: Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors (CCGD) Canadian Fcdcration of Indcpcndcnt Grocers (CFIG) Canadian Soft Drink Association (CSDA) Environment and Plastics Insututc of Canada (EPIC) Grocery Produrns Manufacturers of Canada (GPMC) Packaging Association of Canada (PAC) Retail Council of Canada Rcccntly the B.C. Manufacturers'ssociation, Major Wineries of B.C. and the Association of Canadian Distillers have expressed support for tlte model. The proposal has also bccn discussed with dozens of other organizations and major companies. Fourteen other organizations in the food, packaging, hardware and drug industries, as well as the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, have added their names to the list of supporters. Major Elements of the Initiative The idea behind packaging stewardship is that those who create packaging waste should share the costs of managing Ihesc wastes. Through a levy system. brand owners of packaged products (i.e. goods that are packaged in glass bottles, cans, paper and plasuc, ctc) would provide municipalities with funds to support recycli ng of thcsc materials. Industry would also support progmms to strcngthcn markets and reduce municipa) recycling costs. Municipalities would bc paid a specific amount per tonne based on thc amount of qualifying packaging material collcacd. g~~~ I NIP%I g IK~~ I QmesmlII tj, ,15 IIII ' /il ii! ii.I '!'lt 2 ',, I glt Iitl'I~ .. ng ttaa pl g)i » I ~ ~ — '~ ttuumtiiiiimieiww~ggg egg/III~~laalfgtu ~gllggnI — —; "',~ltwaaalgtttgI~t g iillgl// =na~~IIIQIIIIItt ' "qiihgt z ztaw i~u vwa~tveaii I I — = " ~ z ""''-'IIIII I tglIItl ~"~'~'mtgmta itggtgtuuts"'msttilil ti igiI I pt I ti i tt iajgtIIIII igfsym' Itt j i 'i gii '"" Initial I I'th/twltzz: ' I i ~ I tat+id I III' — gll ~ HIIRR4 CIPSI B.C. Definitions imp- Scvcn terms used throughout Ibis outline of the stewardship proposal require some explanation: e Brand Owner thc owner or liccnsec of intclleaual property rigfits to packaged goods, the orterr/Btrst seller; and, wiUi respect to in-store packaging, Uie company wl! Ich manufactures packaging material to be used in the store ~ Final Consumer Packaging packaging sold to individual consumers and most often managed tluough municipal solid waste systems including packaging needed for foods, beverages (including alcoholic beverages), tobacco products, drug products, cosmetics, personal care products (including toiletries and paper products), toys, apparel, jewelry, household produrts, hardware, housewares, appliances and electror Ics e Operating Cost Sttandard t the calculated cost of running an efficient recycling program wluch would be determined by an audit of a reference group of municipalities, representative of the diversity of communities in British Columbia .pgs/i x ~ Qualifying Packaging includes all final consumer packaging cogected in British Columbia through multi-material, municipally-sponsored recycling programs serving residences and shipped for recycling to a viable market. True cost %4$$ refers to what it actually costs to collect and ship, in other words to manage, individual packaging material types in the municipal iecyding system. Revenue Factor a negotiated amount under the stewardship program rellecting the average revenues received by municipalities for recyclables and the prevaiTing market prices hajj for these recyclables e Municipal Share the share of the packaging s tc wardship program which would fall to municipali t ies and which is proposed to be onc -third of the operadng cost standard for packaging jp~g-'i~if, NOV 02 1994 '-:ut glgNIl ~;=== g~Ng ~ggltl$ ~4~)~~RIIN(I11 Nwll &m al'i I]I~ 1 ill 5 Igg4, ««,I ! )I'=I.-'4=''''' ;: ii~iWNlll'-='x=e.".'=5! Nt l,-,—,'ll==tt4ij;=ZRt I«ii«'NIlilg Iljllllsll I«IRNI'll 144tl " ':... „',«&;, «0 .','; " 1 '„'&x' .'$/t'( x~»»~ggNmii g Ies tisiai ttti'III!I tgx-....== '' "' lilt ' ',— ',— @ — 'ii'i'tie l""i '=~l '=-" ~% I f/~ 'ut+: ': *$8ilg'' '" "-"-" dm» IIIII d Ilil IIISi aa'sa' sa'JI«t«at -'=" ~aayj«t ljili diam'ii'" '.jl1 I.'ll MINI «ga'-"-' -~gal«~~ ~~gwggll., v ~~ iiisam'ifgki«i „~,,u g IN@ t.-c'-"~Peal«~; Ig)i fig; ia ~i II ' I — — — I tf ~ I I Ni II I —: ~ g g ' ' ~ - '' 4 i iii — t«J44 = - ' I «I " — —, ':: — — — I ' g I CIPSI B.C. liow it N'ovid ttVork Raising funds ltrand oivners in British Culumliia would pay levies in twn phases: Phase i (ttvo-year transition) Brand owners using consumer packaging would pay a levy of $ 24 a tonne based on the weight of the final consumer packaging for products sold in the province. Companies could receive rebates depending on the provincial recycling rates for the packaging materials they use. During this phase, the true cost of handling and rccycling each individual packaging type would be determined — on a material-specific basis — through detailed auditing of municipal programs in B.C. This information would be used to establish the levy to be applied in Phase 2. Phase Z (year three and beyond) would be assessed on a material-specific basis. The stewardship organization described below would monitor the actual costs of managing each material type so that accurate variable levies could be charged. The objectives of the Phase 2 levy are: .N:th; v to encourage source reducnon. /~jr'evies to encourage greater caprure materials of v for reuse or recycling; to minimize the cost of the system; fbi II Il~ IIstt ''"" =:~ill'sr'l;;;,. ~i I e to nunimize overall environmenral impact; ~ to ensure thar each material is making a fair contribution to overall system funding; IRillIg +'I ''IIII5[IIntiti Illllln i ~it lgisitvg'l 'l . g niit v~w ei! nal gi, n ii tave I - iIvt — "— ''-.— mt IIIi. g11~ ~ gi—: -: ,jg "n = ',aia, ' — —& — B aiII111lltlt ~ Iiv emIgi itttIlsu"- — =~2 @IlaJIII it artisan» as .— === — =— =~~'" -=-I... LII I C(PS( B.C. I iiyliicli(s tu MU((le(i)iili(ics Thc goal of ihc stewardship program js (o have paymcn(s to municipalities based on the true cost of rccycling packaging ma(crisis. In order to reach this goal a (wo-phased approach (o implementation is required. Phase 1 In Phase 1 of the program, it is propo. ed (ha( CIPSI-B.C. pay municipalities a per tonne levy for all qualifying packaging materials. This payment to municipalities is indus(ry's share of cos(s and is in addition (o the revenues received by municipal i(i as from (he sale of materials collected and shipped for recycli ng. During (his period, the operating cost s(andard (defined above) would be established. An audi t would dc termi ne what it costs municipalities in British Columbia to collect and process individual packaging types. The audit would analyze the costs of efficient programs in a reference group of municipalities representative of the diversity of communi(ies in the province. The reference group would take into account rural, urban, north, south, large and small geographic distribution and population, and whether services are delivered by the public, private or non-profit sector. ~~aFg ~~i'4 ((Lm(&SNAB ..pr All I RIIW 5 II% 1 g~~salS ) I I5' flu lj ll! Niii& 'I ) tl llm I The formula pmtects municipalities from fluctuations in the market price for recyclable materials. When the price of a material ("revenue factor" ) drops, then the "Indus(ry Payment to Mumctpahues goes up. Bccausc Uie amount of the levy is based on the amour t of final consumer packaging used, brand owners are further encouraged to reduce packaging waste in order to reduce Uicir levy. In Phase I, members of the stewardship organization would be eligible to receive rebates of up to 50 percent of their levy based on the average rate at which the particular packaging material is collec(ed and recycled in British Columbia. At the same time. the rebates encourage brand owners to develop markets for materials in order to increase thc recycling rate. IRim.g~ Nlj ~ In Phase 2, municipalities would be paid for each packaging material, based on its true cost to be managed in the recycling system. A key feature of this phase is that the municipal share would be one-third of the operating cost standard established for each packaging material type as shown in the funding formula. Additional costs above the operating cost standard would fall to the niunicipality. On the other hand, those programs whose costs are below (he standard would see their share of costs reduced. Economic Instruments to Encourage Reduction and Reuse Fi, ILII ~u ! Phase 2 w IN g I 'l I llil=--/lw ji n l in(a ii m ie L III :'."'=-. ml(u((balue—.iei +t jgt((gag(a(glsaa (t(mi ~IE'..I " ''-'~'.~z, &l,g', Ij IItljl Il!,Ilgwu:;:' ~ : .==— "= "'" (as=-"" -t!'I (Pi " '-'! '',:,;;;".= — NOV 0 2 1994 ~.",~g gyral ggmpss ', — ~ ~ .'ll i! —, — m If)P - '-~lm((trna 'll i. /[$ ~~ — -I waw~m g m»g ~ ~ 8 ai~.- ~: i,",»...,((to(Ill II Jll 1Luljlgljlgjl igp-"-"- =:=::—:"-= ==-HIQ1%aaeai =",~ ~iiilQI~~ = ", — = CII'Sl B.C. l«&xmvc thc Ivvy «pplics only &vhcn p;&ck;& 'in," first cntc&s thc nu&rkctplacc (or no( at;&II i I:& hr m&l «wnc& l«s sct up an acceptable, scparatc system to divert packagir&g %W fn)m disposal) hr;&nd owners are motivated to consider reuse options. I or example, packages tha( arc rcuscd by thc consumer, such as rc Billable liquid soap containers, would hc Icvicd &vhcn they arc Iirst sold in (3rit'.sh Columbia hut would have thc advanta 'c ol avoidin thc levy cvcry time thc package is reused. Similarly, thc re(ill pouch would carry a lower levy hccausc it weighs less. Use of this type of packaging represents a direct saving to both the consu&ncr and tite brand owner, providing an economic inccntivc to move (o rcusablc packaging. Markets for Recovered Materials Market dcvclopmcn( is a critical component of this proposal. Thc ongoing sustainability of the recycling system depends on stintulating ncw and expanded markets for materials collcctcd in recycling programs. The stronger (he markets for secondary materials, thc greater the revenues accruing to recycl i ng programs and the lower thc cost of (he recycling system as a whole. For example, the creation of strong markets for mixed-colour plastics will increase their value: the revenue received from their sale would therefore help cover more adequately Ute rost of collection and slu pment of plastics packaging. ::i&',.'"',:'i!;,';,.;1, Funds designated for market development would be used (o finance: new, improved or expanded uses for recycled packaging materials; new or in&proved methods for processing or marketing these marerialst policies and progrants which support increased demand for secondary ntateria(s; ;@~&@ ~ projects aimed atincreasing detnond for recycled content in packaging; ~ opportunities to improve overall system efficiencies. "&l21WL lg IImsIJNI 'I14HI I Partnership Poles and Responsibilities A basic principle of (hc s(cwardship program is U&a( the packaged g&xxls industri~w, governments and consumers s(tare responsibili(y for packaging stewardship. Each of thc active partners — indus(ty, municipal governments and thc provincial governmcn( -- have a rotc to play in thc implcmcntation and ongoing managcmcnt of thc progfattt. Tltosc roles andrcsponsibilitics arc outlined herc. jII@iglraiei~ tu Mull ~ I & I I I I% I(~ g ta u ~ 5RI(, Seas,ll I& Rsat &','..,— — Njl( lilt&(I ~ ~ '& ntlsl 1:: .: ','; I IRISgtgi(i i«&~ uvre 1 & , — 5& ~ a, Q ((J ll m ',', a — (e! e ~ —: — I ~ I 'ts - —= — - ~ ~ -" .=" It('-'t(still — w« ~ &'wt at&(a t&tt(a&ts ~ a u&w 1811&3 ~ i $ IIIQ u -—— — ', ".— -- —. &iu&- a(is ~ fj)I fj II 'u,',"','=„"-.'.='= IIIII'IjgttgW al n;s„ss II stll I'Is'nl sstt g Jglj 1(I an;" ' I - I ~- = ™--~-- "..--...,.=Id ,--,,gilt,. «&w«&v «« — v&s&~ ~ ~ u ~ p~„ (a I sta ((L(j t & - l-e"-~(lj& .='' I '/II I CIPSI B.C. ltsdttsiry's Role Under CIPSI-B,C., industry in thc province ivould establish a cotlsoration to rcprcscni brand owners — thc B.C. Stcivardship Organization. This organizauon would raise ihc funds nccdcd io make payments to municipalides and for market development activities. It would also conduct audits to ensure Uiai members contribuic thc proper lcvics, and subniit repons to thc provincial government ouUining progress on its commitments. Thc specilic functions and structure of Uie B.C. Stewardship Organizaiion are outlined below. AII brand owners of packaged goods using final consumer packaging sold in British Columbia would be urged to join thc stewardship organization. Brand owners are the focal point for packaging stewardslu p because it is brand owners who determine packaging type and design. When the brand owner is not located in British Columbia, the stewardship responsibility would fall on the first company in the province to sell Uie packaged product. tie'gg Provincial Governtnent's Role The BC. Government would be asked to prepare and enforce a regulation requiri ng all who are responsible for introducing packaged products to the marketplace to take action to divert that packaging from disposal, either through reuse or recycling. Role of Municipalities ln general, municipalities would be asked to operate cost-effective and efficient .%'%es ~ aM] recycling programs. As a key partner in the stewardslup program, municipalities would be responsible, directly and indirectly, for: collecnng and processing final consumer packaging materials; funding their share of tire costs for collecting and processing final consumer packaging materials ('unicipal share') PIISf5 ~ having representatives parncipare in the Management Forum (see below) which would establish the operating cost standard and revenue facrort ~ having representatives parricipate in rhe Stewardsnip Council (see below); and ~ providing local education and promotion of the muni ci pal multi-material recycling program. 'Ilgwu -aIIII88~»tglggfhIIe II asass flam . egg Ill m . IIIIPal~~~gm-= ,'!! I+ll ~attaI)~~i~g -IMsssa~ ~, as as I It'se sig"', lgt — —.-aittimlll l IIII h,Ill g l~i mssIIIII~as i»ssssgtasII119'IIIII'')iII5 IN—,:' a Itg~ilglhes~iss m~/[~, ~sas ~ Iatttttu ~ asa +I ig IIm w1~ — I hOV 0 2 199)s .~hggl NI e — jg i s ~ CIPSI B.C. Making!'ackaging Stewardship Work Thc B.C. Stewardship Organization would be thc corporation that would represent brand owners in the collection, management and distribution of program funds. But industries involved in CIPSI-B.C. believe other stakeholders must be able to participate in the organization's decision-making process. For example, titie involvcmcnt of packagin; material suppliers is critical in terms of market development opportunities, system cost-reductions, and developing new iechnologies in packaging materials. The structure and functions of the stewardship organization would not only provide efficient management of funds bui an appropriate level of involvement by stakeholders through management and stewardship forums. It would be composed of three inter related groups, thc Board of Directors, the Management Forum, and the Stewardship Council wluch, together, would co ordinate thc overall funding program. B.C. Stewardship Organization The inandntr. of the organization would be toi ~ raise the fuiuis to cover payments to municipalines; ~ provide poyments to niunicipalities; v ~ ~ ~ ~ fund research and market developmentfor rerovered packaging mat rials and packaging materials not currently collected; encourage packaging reduction through incentives; establish audits to ensure members subnu't rhe proper levies and reporting structures to indicate how obligations will be met; conducr administrative and other duties, seaing policy, creating working commi nees; liaise with niuricipalities, parallel organizations in other provinces, and the national organization. ups H.L'. iionrd of Directors Ttic board would be chosen from industry to be representative of various industry sectors according to procedures sct out in the by-laws. The board would be rcsponsiblc for ensuring that the mandate of the B.C. Stewardship Organization is carried out as identified above. Mattagemenl Forum ~ The Managenient Forum's responsibilities woiild be: o to determine operating cost standards and revenue factors; ~ to consider issues referred by the board or th Srewardship Council; .. to provide advice to the board; and ~ ~ to establish working level committees.to carry out tasks within its nutn date. The Forum would comprise one non-voting member elected by the Stewardship Council (see below) and 13 voting members selected as follows: six by the board, six by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBChI3 and a voting chairperson appointed by the board, in consultation with UBCM. Decisions would be reached by a simple majority vote; nine members would represent a quorum: members would be appointed for two years. Stewardship Council 'Ihe Stewardship Council would represent the views of environmental gmups; packaging suppliers, municipal associations, labor unions, consumers. indusuics and others. It would be responsible for the election of a non-voting me'mber to the Management Forum, consideration of such issues referred to it by the board and the Management Forum and the provision of advic~ to those bodies. Twelve members would sit on the Council: four appointed by the board, four appointed by UBCM and four appointed jointly by those two bodies. Ilail,II%I IIIII I)1111I 1 l I ! I 13 — stIIII!ir- — - --. = ~B=:= I Igll am — -RIIMRti~ sslmtl ~= — "" 1 a II ~ansi a uaIatsae L IIIIR51~ Rllliill---- ~ 'III I ~ N11~ --g~; Itgtai I SRI 1 ~ ... ai I ~:a=-:'- 'I f m~,,i navv NOV 0 2 1994 ~~ ~Illlmlar I$ 5511 I l~ I Il'l nla gtItl ==-„", Ii I'= -- - a uallll =: r~ggl6 ! rom Initiative to Implementation While indusiry has broug(it CIPSI-B.C. forward volun(arily, provincial government regulation is needed to require all who are responsible for introducing packaged products to the nmrl'nip(ace to take aaion io divert that packaging from disposal, ciUvir i(rough rcducdon, rcusc or recycling, Backdrop Regulation The regulation would apply to all retail and food service "final consumer packaging," whether domesdc or imported, and would rec .'re brand owners or the first person to sell the packaged produc( in British Columbia to take stewards!up responsibility for the packaging. It would offer two al terna(ives to brand owners: provide financial support to municipal recycling programs by joining industry's stewardship program, or manage their own packaging waste (I+ough a reuse or recycling program other than the public system. If a company chooses not to parti ci pate in CIPSI-B C., it would have to demonstrate to the provincial government that it would take stewardship responsibility for its own final consumer packaging materia) s through a separate non-municipal system. Implementation Steps The sponsoring associations of CIPSI-B.C. are ready to begin negotiations with the B.C. provincial government on the elements of the proposal and an implementation schedule as soon as possible. Proposed Schedule Should negotiations begin immediately, CIPSI-B.C. would propose the,following schedule for moving forward: Circulate a draft agreement for public consul (ation in September Promulgate regulations Widun three months, brand owners required to join the B.C. Stewardship Organizauon or lile their own plans with the Minisuy Withir. six months. levies would have to be paid to the stewardship organization or non-rxcnipt companies would imve to implement their individual plan I'aih aaaai 1RII~I Widun nine months, municipalities become eligible for Phase I funding Twenty scvcn months after Phase I begins. municipalities are eligible for Phase 2 funding Ill IIIII hLI,I Ill I 10 eiiuisi' I INlll 5 ! I rum l I ( 18%1 (I I CIPSI D.C. CIPSI-H.C. — An Environmental and Economic Winner The initiative should be supported by all partners in recycling in British Columbia because it: provides municipaliues with a reliable, stable funding source based on the amount of consun:cr packaging material collected and shipped for recycling; ~ ensures that all industries responsible for introducing packaged products to the marketplace will pay their fair share to support recycling programs; ~ encourages packagedgoods indusudes to reduce the amountof packaging they put into thc marketplace, and to consider more reuse and refill options; ~ vrould, after a two-year transition period, base its funding structure on the true costs of managing each type of packaging material; ~ q +~V! ensures long-term effectiveness of the program through the development of strong markets for recovered packaging material shipped for recycling, and through linking market development in B.C. to a national network; rewards efficient operation of municipal recycling programs by establishing a benchmark operating cost standard. Ml g-„Ã4! ~t"~p /IS its $ /f iR I ~q ~)l qq IIII,I R, I II lm Ill'f Rill) f gh IIWIJ 4 ~ qq ~ /III 44'lg II 4ll Il 4 lIPfl( i Ill Ill II!'I II I , I I4 ('Jggl IINI 11!, II Nq4~iiq444qs tarn~'m ~ill%SIR WF' 4 Ml —=== ~ Nov02 &gg& IF all'I I. a m a ... - - - - — I ~%1. ~44 qqqc zq~~gRR -''I ' ~ ~ I I I I I 411 41141! I 'oa!aiqqia y KECYCLIPIQ CAITADA SPECIAL R CIPSI PORT: Stam~dsÃp at tha Hds &1" 0) SS1 Stewardship initiative If adopted. the Canadian industry Packaging of a (CIPSI) will represent a turning point in the development the But is Canada. in model comprehensive waste management Columnist usual? as business or just stewardship. initiative really Diana Spear gauges the reaction of the Canadian waste management establishment to the proposaL Bv DIAPIA SPEAR ach day, millions of Canadians separate onscientiously 5=$ /II% r==- 1Il »III! &~(gI ef I «iI i&9~ cyclables &om their household garbage ready for collection by the municipality. But local governments are facing an ongoing crisis with their tecycling services. Cottcssns Anour MtxuctpAL RECYCLuto PROQRAPts There are three key areas of concern, costs, market development and recyclability of ptoducts (Recycling Council of British Columbia. 1992): a) Increasing costs to accommodate waste management planning and expanded recycling services — generally waste diversion suntegies have aot reduced municipalities'aste anagement expenditures. e ability of markets to handle the 4 " 'I'NS IIK,. massive quantities of recyclable materials raises questioos, since existing recycling programs depend on "open loop" recycling to use up some materials (e.g.: glass into gll, paper into compost, tires into fuel). c) As production of non-recycled and non-recyclable products expands, pressure on municipal waste management systems increases. The crux of the problem under the current system, is that municipalities are responsible for handling a waste stream over whose composition they have no control. Underregulations such as Ontario'sgR'sRegulanonsandNew Brunswick'sBeverage CoarainersAcr, some industries will be reducing packaging, but generally producers have little i l ceudve to design their products to facilitate municipal 3R's pmgrams (e.g.: using recovered materials in products or Because oflackofresponsibility by Industries and limited control of local governments, the existing recycling systems are open-ended snd out of control. A sustainable system responsi. would moie fairly share tbe the conincorporate would bilities and stewardship. of cept — TowARns A Spupr STEwARuepup packaging).'ustainable. SuaTARIAate Resouxce Usp. A SUSTARTA5LE RECYCLWIQ SYSTEPt The current structure of most munidpal recycling progralnS iS simply not 'TmducuPmdustry stewardship" applies the "polluter pay" principle and assumes that producers are accountable for their products "from cradle to grave." Under product stewardship ~ The producer assumes responsibility for avoiding negative envitoumental impacts throughout the life cycle of its ptoduct, i.e.: imm extraction of raw materials to the fate of waste materials. The rationale is that only a pmducer is in a position to select raw Iu a '. Il:t'!/I I ! IRIj ll I' II VOLUPtc 5. RUPIRER 9 — 5EPPEPISER. I 994 I NOV 0 2 1594 % I ~ RR I I all I ml J I4'l IIIII,l l]lkll j,l IIII II ~ 4 I I IPII ~ ~ !Iga«ae« « II I ~« l «a««I ««IPP~ — «igglm~ «««P « I ~1ml II li II I -.-'ii 'llill I . ~ ~+'%"' '.gu/1~1IRPa ~ « al ~ ~ «~ %PI I I I I emi I 'I RECYCLINo CArIADA ~ materials and design features to minimize the environmental impact of a product throughout its lifecycie. Full cost pricing is used so thar. product costs include the value of avoiding environmental damage during the product's lifecycle. Such costs inriude factors such as landflll operations. and siting a new landflll and are ultimately shared by the consumer, Product stewardship offers an equitable solution for financing our 3Rs infrastructure and provides incentives for incorporating the 3Rs hierarchy into product design and use. By internalizing the costs of post-consumer management of products, producers have a strong incentive to incorporate the 3Rs hierarchy into all aspects of doing business.'*'Ibis has far reaching implications for sustainable resource use in all industries. A NATIoIIAL STEWARDSInr lnrl'IATlvr, I'QR PACKAoulo MATERIALs ~g ~ II'llWli i Isl~e ia mm ~~ l 9 I I I + j~lI ~ ar4~ ~I%II IIIif~h One attempt to deve! op a national approach of stewardship for packaging is theCanadianIndusuy Packaging Stewardship Initiative (CIPSQ. This is a strategy to assist municipalities to pay S PECIAL REPORT: for their recycling programs. Itis sponsored by seven industry organizations representing more than 6,000 companies across Canada (CIPSI, 1994). CIPSI addresses "flnal consumer packaging" for products ranging from food, tl. personal care and household products, to appliances. It would apply to all Brand Owners — i.e.: those with the intellectual property rights to packaged foods. the importer/first seller, or the manufacturer of packaging for use at the in-store level (CIPSI. 1994). flow CIPSI WouLo Woax CIPSI is cu~ntly under review by the provincial governments to consider its implementatiolL If implemented, Brand Owners would have a choice, either to participate with the Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Organization (CIPSO) or to meet the provincial "backdmp" legislation. For those joining CIPSO, there would be two implementation phases: Phase 1 Participants of CIPSO would pay a I'ibreboard recycler secures feedstock Toronro — 'Ihe CanFibre group has signed an agreement with Laidlaw Waste systems for the supply of suitable waste wood to CanFibre's planned medium density flbreboard (MDF) plant under construction in Toronto. CanFibre's process turns waste wood and paper products into high quality flbreboard. I.aidlaw Waste Systems has agreed to secure contracts for the supply of 100,000 tonnes per year of acceptable waste CIPS I wood for the next ten years. Using a process that eliminates traditional (and toxic) urea formaldehyde bonding resins, CanFibte can prodr. te MDF flom this waste that is stronger, equally workable, and that costs up to 40 per cent less to produce than cooventional MDF. According to CanFibre, the use of recycled waste wood will save the cutring of approximately 3,000 acres of forest per year, Contact Andy Schwab, CanFibre; 604/685-2430. levy based on the weight of their final packaging. Companies would be eligible for a rebate depending on the provincial recycling rates for the packaging used. CIPSO would pay municipalities a rate (per tonne) for all packafdng materials recovered by their recycling programs. CIPS0 would collect data ffom'typical" municipal programs,to develop an Operating Cost Standard by material type (e.g.: glass. steel, aluminum). This standard would be used to determine levies paid by industry in Phase 2. Phase 2 In Phase 2, levies are expected to be higher than during Phase 1. By more accurately reflecting "real" costs, they are intended to promote at-sNuce waste diversion acuvities for packaging (e~z light weighting materials, more recyclable materials).'4 Also, since the Operating Cost Standard paylnent would be based on cost effective programs, municipalities with higher than average operating costs are expected to improve their efficiency and to work towards this standard. Municipalities would pay onetlurd of the gross cost of recycling packaging matett4ats. CIPSOwouldpay two-thirds. If consensus cannot be achieved on the "true costs" of opnation for Phase 2. then a default formula would allocate the proportion of costs shared by industry. Details of the funding formulaewouldbeagreedonbythe 4 respective provincial government selec ORoAR17&TIORAL PRAIIEWORR CIPSI proposes three inter-related organizations to administeri ts ptoposak the Board of Directors would that CIPSO performed its mandate$ @f e~ votlsseia ialrl S ER 9 Serizrseesc 1994 IIII lI 9 11111~i& ll~— ~ 9944 4141I 4 1411 ts xiii KEIR 4 RCCYCLINO CANADA Management Forum would develop ihe Operating Cost Standards and establish working committees; and the Stewardship Council would represent various pmvincial interests in the 3R's such as environmental groups, packaging suppliers. municipal associations, labour, consumers and industry. Municipalities would be represented in the above strucnues aad would be responsible for collectiag aad processing packaging for recycling. and for promoting the recycling program. LCQISLATION APPLES TO IION CIFSO MSNscas SrectAL K" tonrt CIPSI materials, and ultimately to reduce recycling costs. CIPSI explains that markets would be developed by: fading new. improved or expanded uses for recycled packaging materials; developing new or impmved methods for marketing or processing; and promoting policies and programs which support increased demand for secondary materials. No deelopmeut can be tails on marke determined unt" me organizational suucture is established. It is estimated. however, thatmarketdevelopmentexpenditums in Ontariio would be $ 10— 20 million over the erst five years.'ACRDROP A critical aspect of CIPSI is regulatory to establish support fmm the provinces vel playing field"a so that no busiwould be at an unfair advantage by not joining CIPSO. Backdrop legislation would require that Brand Owners who choose not to participate with C IPS 0, to i adependently take stewardship responsibility for their packaging. Such businesses would not have access to municipal recycling programs sponsored N...g Ilail by CIPS0. IWg I II ISI 4 fi/)~I Il I ss I 9 I s at I I Recycling Canada contacted various agencies and organizadons across the counuy. Response to the CIPSI propo'sel has been guarded from most provinces. However, there is unanimous aareement to the principle of pmduct stewardship as it has been long recognized that too much of the financial burdenofmunitdpaltecycling progmms has been unfairly on the public sector. An understanding of how stewardship should work appears to hinge on five key elements, as identified below along with some comments about the CIPSI pmposaL performances.'ctive IIIlliR For example. in Ontario. the pmvince has released a draft regulation that would require Brand Ovmers to develop waste management plans, recover 50 per cent of their packaging used in a given year, and submitreports to the pmvince very six months, documentiag their members of CIPSO would be exempt from the backdrop legislation. as long as CIPSO complies with its agreement with the province. Ifow Docs CIPSI MSAstntc Vp? A MAioR ilggspumr DcvctoPNSNT CIPS! GOAL POR %QP The overall goal of CIPSI is to develop strong sustainable markets for more (i) 3Rs Hierarchy Industry should place highest priority on waste reduction, followed by reuse and then recycffng. CIPSI relies on market iaceatives for business to resolutely adopt the 3Rs hierarchy. 'Ihe adequacy of tlus appmach is questioned ia terms of its effectiveness under current and variable market conditions."" performance requirements such as speriffc diversion tates to reduc= packaging or to use recycled material are not identified for CIP SO membets. Noa-CIPSO members must divert 50 per cent of their total packaging each year, but no reduction or reuse tequirements are identiff ed.ta CIPSI appears to focus oa recycling (i.e.: the Blue Box) rather than waste avoidance. Helen Spiegelmaa of the Recycling Council of Britirh Columbia challenges the use of a goal of 50 per cent diversion f'r noa-CIPSO members and proposes that higher targets be considered. (li) Polluter Pay Principle Environmental costs should be internalized so that producers and consumers share responsibility for envimnmental impacts of products'otal life cycles. CIPSI does notrequire industtyto accept full responsibility for its products. It compromises the Polluter Pay principle by allowing the polluter to pay some aad the municipality to pay the remainder."'doption of the "Polluter Pay" principle ensures full cost accountiag for the producers.'or example, deposits on packaging (e.g.: The Beverage Containers Acr of New Brunswick) fullyinternalizesuchcosts rather than relying oa public subsidies for one-third of recycling costs.'n contrast, CIPSI would discourage a deposit system for packaging because it is arguably less efficient and would reduce revenue from municipal recycling pmgrams. Ihe CIPSI proposal does not include newspapers. which can account for up to 60 per cent (by weight) of Blue Box contents in urban centres.. iVor does CIPSI include transportation packagiag. Critics believe that stewaalship principles should apply to a broader range of clearly defined pmd- 4Vi nII jj I Iaa I e aa a II votatttc 5 NDNsca 9 — scprc'Csex 1994 ~aaaI~~ f40V 0 2 1994 IaCCYCLItto CA!1AD* ucts and materials,'conomies of scale, geographical location and lack of existing recycling infrastrucmre means that some municipalities would be unable to pay one-third of recycling program costs, ix.s as proposed by CIPSI In general, municipalities agree that industry should pay the largest portion of stewardship costs, that industry funding should be directly to municipalities. and that funding formulae should not include avoided costs or generate prohibiuve costs to smaller municipalities.'oncern was expressed about CIPSI's funding structure and irs basic assumpuons. There are questions whether revenues from the levies will be sufficient to cover two-thirds (CIPSO's poruon) of the recycling costs. whether the funding formulae will provide sufficient incentives for indusuy to reduce packaging and for municipalities to staa&expandrecycling pmgrams, and whether the formulae can withstand wide fluctuations in SeecIAL Iter oari CIPSI in little waste. .: =:=: *."IiIIIII W II ~ m ll I cain I 5 7I l !5 II I Asphalt-based shingles currently account for between two and four per cent of the waste at the Caledon Landfill. 'Ibis initiative could divert up to 100 tonnes from the landfill quirements or the backdrop legisla- tion." market prices.' related consideration is who will bear the risk if setup and operation costs exceed. and revenues fall short, of expected amounts." fi'ii) tlfonitori'ng and Enforcement The stewardship system should be visibly monitored and enforced with requirements integrated with directives of existing provincial legislation. CIPSI expects industry compliance in response to market forces. It is not clear what provincial, governments would do if CIPSO fails in its mandate. Documentation of compliance by nonCIPSOmembers as well as theirmonitoring and enforcement would be problematic. Moreover. their prosecution would present a significant political and administrative challenge because of the large number and small size of such businesses acmss the country. Use of this approach questions the level Region begins shingle recovery initiative as residents begin Brampton — The Region of Peel has initiated a program to diivett asphaltbased roofing shingles from landfilL Oeginning earlier this month, area residents and builders were invited to drop off waste shingles at the Region's Caledon Sanitary Landfill Site. From there, the shingles will go Finoll Recycling rampton-based B to where the shingles will be pnxessed into new pavement products. 'Rnoll's recovery process accepts not only the shingles, but nails as well, resulting of commitment, to enforce CIPSI's re- over the next year to use the service. '"Ibis is a great initiative for everyone concerned," says Don Markle, Commissioner of Public Region is supporting Works. local industry through this partnership with Finoll, and in turn, offering. a cost-effective method of diverting waste and therefore using up less landrill space." Disposal costs for garbage in Peel Region run at about $ 70 per tonne, while the cost of recycling asphalt shingles is a mere $50 per tonne. Contact: Nigel Chubb, Waste Reduction and Recovery, Peel Region; 905/791-7800, ext. 4727. 'he (iv) Stakeholder Consulration All stakeholder sectors should be involved in the development. operadon and monitorinc of the stewardship program. CIPSI's proposed organizational st;ucture appears to be controlled by industry.'he Stewardship Council represents diverse interests in the 3R's, but has no voice in the management structure." A multi-stakeholder body putess. should oversee the process, such as the "arm's length" corporation in Manito- ba's Stewardship Program. Also, CIPSO needs to identify a democratic resolution process for management dis- ov~ Concerns were expressed lack of public involvement in ing the CIPSI proposal, since early public consultation would have been valuable to the process.' However, a number of provinces are involving the public in forming their responses to the proposaL pt+ (v) Bfarkct Development Market development should occur at a national level. Procurement policies of CLARIFICATION Iu the May issue of Rccycling Canada it was reported that Ontario's Region of Peel was not coUccdng a piovin«ially-required surcharge on loads of recyclables entering landfilL In fact. no such surcharg» exists at Ihc Provincial lcvcL The Region of Pcci maintains that haulers arriving at their landfill are well aware of cwrent bans ou recyclables, and that violatois of these bans arc issued written nouces of their Iransgrcs aloes. Thcsc notices m~a result in a surcharge being the load. Rccycling Canada regre error. tcvie~ voaacies,tlairicca9 I'~l scrietieciL Icca 'll II I E Ig I I il la I a I I ~ ~ vI! I I I III I I I "l1IIIlll I III II Ili 0imiii2 Wm=- IIS Ig! ~ — — — ~ R~!!IluIi iigg lf II ~lvm'%CCCCIICm~ Ia — both the public and private sectors should adhere to the 3R's hierarchy ecihl, Rel OAT: CIPS! gnd maximize use of recycled content in new products. A prime objective for CIPSI is market development. but there are few detai)s in this area. The amount of and percentage of total funds to be spent on market. development should be specified along with the type of market development that CIPSO will direct There is no doubt that C )PS I offers an important starting point for stewardship discussions because the private sector has acknowledged the need to take responsibility for its products. However government and non-govern- t agencies interested in the 3Rs ess concerns over virtually every aspect of this proposal: what pmducts are included, basic assumptions and formulae for cost calculations, and the organizational strucnue. Many concerns are founded on what stewardship means and how to achieve 9 sustainable system of resource use. In assessino CIPSI, it is important that we do not lose sight of that long-term goal. And that we are open to changing the way we cur- rently operate waste management pragf Ellis. Theinstitutionofstewardshipcan have profound implications on the sustainability of the global economy. If we choose to settie for less than true stewardship, we are neglecting our responsibilities as producers and consumers and may ultimately shortchange ourselves and future generations. gI IllllllIIIl I IIA lid 9II'b l pa urion controL iiii~ I 6 ' -— jI Ii ~ aiW Ij(I I I aa ~ I a Spearis a writer and consultanl lizi ng in waste snanagemdnt and 'ogeod. I.. August 5. 1994. Solid Waste aad kc. cyclieg Sector, Novi Scotia Dept. Of thc Ea itcsmeet. pcrsooal commuaicatioc. Jackroc. J.. 1993. "fudging Produa Smwardihip Plans . Wesrc less tunes. Cly. pp. I, Ciurca .'l STAATirta POINT... RCCYCUIIQ CAtlADA ' RBPSRENcm isaac, C.. Augun 12. 1994. Coordi astor of Cu'Sl Oetsrio. pcrsoaal commueicauoo. t Caoadiaa ladusny Packaging Stewardship laiuativc (CIFSI), luce 1994, Fendmg of Packaging Recyclmk in Ccnedrr A Proposal by rhc Ceneditm Jnduriry Pack gmg Stewardship Jrdrmrwc (CIPSI Ontario). I Fcderauoo of Cansdiaa MunicipaliYies (FCM), 1993. Municipal Werkshop ce Peckngi g Swwardsru'p — Su«cary Rcp on pre par cd by the LURA Group. 'ies, G.. July, 1994, "Packaging Opuoat for Ontari". Biocycle, pp. 54-55. i Graham.T.. July 29, 1994. Director of Policy aed Clearinghouse oa Waste Msacgcmcea 'aog,LAugust10.1994. ViccChsiroftbeEa i. mameat Policy Comminee of thc Associatioa of Municipalities of aetario aad recmbcr Couacil cf Mctropolitea Totoeto. pcrsoaal commuaicatics. u Mania. F.. August 9, 1994. Direcuu, policy plea. niag sad Coordiaetioa Di isioa, Nova Scorialkparuncat of the Eaviroameor. persooal commusicxtioii. 'r Recyclieg Council of British Columbia (RCBC), Who Should Pol ... Rcllcraic, Apttl 1992 pp. lb. 16. it Rccycliag Couecil of Maaitoba (RCM). 1994.POsirion Paper on ihc hfimirobc Sicwnrctsitip Pro. gram of the Canedinn fndusrry Pock gag Stow a vbhip lnidndvc. Planaiag. Newfnuadlaad Dept. Cf Eaviroomcat aed Lands, parsoasl commuaicadoa. ugpiegelman. H.. July 29. 1994. Rccycliag Couscil of BriYish Columbia, pcrsooel commuo ioadca. Gray, P.. August 16. 1994. Seaior Policy Advher, 'lew Brunswick De p turne at of thc Eaviroameuh persoaal commuaicauoe. uwallxcc. B.. 1993. "Blue Bnx Ftcaaeing . Weru I Hansoa, J.. July 29. 1994. Executive Director. u Winlield. M„July 26, 1994. Direaor of Rwiexith. Caaadian lnsdm«of Eaviromoeetal Lac iad Policy (CIELAP). persooal coaunuaicarioa. Recycliag Couocil of Ontario (RCO). pcrsoasl co ttittl U e I ciit I 0 n less yaws. It 18, pp. 14. citixeas'leannghcu« oe Waste Maeagement (CCWM), Toronto begins wood waste recovery Toronto — Metro Tomnto has launched a pilot program designed to pmvide an alrernative means of disposal for wood waste. Starting September 6, wood waste genemtors were encouraged to bring their waste to a new collection depot set up as part of a study to determine the quantity and quality of waar waste material being generated in Metro Tomnfn. The study will also gauge the feasibility of establishing permanent wood waste recycling depots. Wood waste that is acceptable at the new depot includes woad pallets. end cuts, crating, plywood. treated and painted wood, doors witiu)ut hardware, old decking, brush and tree limbs. Not accepted for recycling is wood attached to other materials such as windows, shingles and drywall. Currendy, all recyclable wood waste is banned from Meuo's solid waste management faciTities. Only non-recyclable wood waste can be disposed of at Metro's landtIII sites. Under Metm Works'ree residential disposal policy, Metro residents can dispose of up to 150 kgs of wood waste for free each day. Residents with large amounts of wood waste may apply for the annual free disposal exemption for up to one tonne of material. Contact: Art Smith, Solid Waste Management Division, Metro Works; 416/397-0951. volupte S. IIVII BBA 9 — Ser?EICBLA. 1994 I I I ~ n xi I' NOVO L jgg4 RRCYCI.Irt ca CA'tAOA institutional/commercial/indusuial IIC&17 sector. The association says that because the CIPSI proposal does not precisely define the residential waste stream, it opens the door to the encroachment of municipal govern- Rubber rncyclnrs nyning revenues tire tax from Alberta $ 200,000 has gone to Alberta EnviAlberta's tire recycling I llll%$ I] NIIK I IIL I% g iIiiigl ense/3 'ill II ) I IQ Isa la ~ I 9 lg Piitm n =-' i IIg Ilm a ronmental Rubber Products, also based in Edmonton, to develop its rubber crumbing facility. This latest round of funding will be administered by the Tire Recycling Management Board and will be used for research and development and to assist smaller Qrms develop new products made f'mm waste Urea. Contact: Doug Wright, Executive Director, Tire Recycling Management Board; 403/990-111i. Prooess developedfor mining irutustry Continued from page / tation. It was developed in the use mining indusuy Io solve cyanide sucbeen since problems, 2nd has incessfully applied in industries the as well as mining volved in production of toxic liquors. TTze received company has Jso recendy ~ I It I RI — A I I 9 I 1 I 9 I 1 I I I I I I I IK Its statal pubsuatlnn. Ractmaaantt nwast. Is pubashcd tasty lwu weeks b Sydanluml yubhshlag. 1'ouc lap u 1 ta hapsrcaac to na If you have sro communes n a the ca steat of oat pubtksdnas nl an ltam of Intalaa ynu thiak wa shnuld cove. unatatt us at. Sydaahast publtsbtug J44 2 sat secant Wan Owaa snuad, Ontario ltaa 4O7 Pbooa S1 9/Jy 147289 stat 5 19/57 I.sdyd edtca a adt totfat /tsststaab Rasaatuh nsstt tasb Punch ham steal ehgu ad tnuht Vaa esses Jta yJk its Qrst commercial order to treat municipal sewage. The repayable federal conuibution of $ 170,976 is pmvided under the Envimnmentai Technology Commercialization Pmgram. Con- tact: Bob Baldock, President, 1994. As ttghts lc served. tto pontua nf mls ptmlkstkn may bl caplnducad whtmut wmtan unasaac fmm m: unpydght holder. tluhlpla subsnlpm upna tagutsh dc Sydanhlun Fublhhtng malta as papal auakhu a halt g py. alcdllblalc su floupcauaama~. alaluc lalara fasaa slmpt daa paper, Mcrosep; 604/432-7660. vofxadeS,rttN!fag SeptzttaeH 199 I 'tlute iiII I I I I I ~ -„,=:lZJI jl la=.,'"'~ jI Liight .Riimlak Ratyctmg Canada Is pub Jshsd ately Suhsntlpdnn rate: 12 Issuas for 4 I I O. fl) I:;:,::;„:,h I ISSR 1 ISJJtttns rate'vagabla [ t&~&,Nlhl Edmonton — industry has been granted $ 3 million the in provincial funds as its share of provthe paid by levy 4-per-tire $ ince's tire buyers. More than 2.5 million tires arc purchased annually 'Ihe tire recychno across the province. about $ 10 million. fund now stands at Cement Inland Edmonton-based fmm milliorx 1 $ about has received its of development Utc for the fund 625,000 some process of converung tires into fuel each year. Another ments on the uaditional turf of private waste haulers in the pmvincs "Ihe spectre of 2 municipality hei a=subsidized to collect recyclables fmm the industrial and commercial customers of the private sector was:: management industry is a threat," argued the OWMA in a statemem released earlier this month. The OWMA adds that the proposal gives municipalities an unfair advantage over private waste haulers because no comparable support is offered to the private sector. Contact: Terry E. Taylor, Executive Director, OWMA; 416/ 236-0172. cnulta.'kid Management Association has rethe jected the pfoptlsal offered by StewPackaging Canadian Indus(fy ardslup Initiative as impractical and incomplete. In 2 Ictter to Environment Minister liud Wildman, the OWMA asked Utat the Ontario government consider a broader product stewardship plan that would purchased by all apply to all items the packagino of just not consumers. some selected products. As an alternative, the OWMA at wants the government to assess Incentive Levy Rccycling a source and/or on all pmducts manufactured funds The Ontario. in distributed derived Qom this levy would be used to defray the costs of operation of all materird diversion plums, whether they are operated by the public or the privam sector. The OWMA says the levy would also act as an incentive to increase the recyclability of products and the packaging in which they are distributed. The OWMA sees the proposal to its membership, which threat as a collects waste primarily Qom the mon'nd Toron to — The Ontario Wasre -' — N ~wsll@N@g N s ~ tmws wil ~ = =. — ~ II I cia t ~NI Qtasu ~. I an a IIQI Rg 1 m a I 4 II I I R R I =ilI'1&III ,I I ggl RzcvcL A(JOUST 23. 1994 THE NEWSPAPER OF RECYCLING MARKETS Canadian Packaging Initiative Has House Committee Su, Serious Loopholes, Critics Say Measure, Passes Inte By Jennifer A. Gaff By Pauick Ivl The Canadian Industry Packs ino Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI), which was released for public commen( in June by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, I The House Energy and Commerce Cor has already come under fire from several key observers. related bills: one that would allow local go The CIPSI proposal aims to address market development for secondary packaging trol practices and another that would limit in materials; to provide incentives for brand-owners (o reduce and reuse their packaging; members said they may later merge these bill ~ d to supply private-sector funding for municipal curbside programs. Though some Legislators predict. however, that even i cycling officials have noted that CIPSI — a voluntary initiative sponsored by seven baule over flow control and solid waste mui packaging industry associations — is "a step in the right direction," manv have exoressed, House is expected to vote on the bills early n concerns over the enforcement strateaies, tinancina structure, and oerceived loopholes in,. "This is a very serious, very content!oui the overall infrastiucture of the plan itself. N.M.). The CIPSI proposal, which relies on both industry and government participation, Flow control, the right of local governm. maintains two phases of implementation (see Recycllng Times, Nov. 2, 1993). In Phase I, destiriation, became a legislative issue in MCIPSI would require brand-owners of "final consumer packaging" to pay C$ 24.for in Car&one v. Town of Clarksiawa that lacal each tonne (by weight) of packaging they use for items su'ch as food, beverages, and trade (see Recyc(ing Times, May 31). household products. One metric tonne equals 1.1 short ion. (See bo'x on page 7 for The.r'uling was a victory for private was'. listing of pacicaging types.) that'.sich regulations.allow:cities and coun '. Couhties 'and+olid w'as'te ii'ian'agement auth ..'The. C$ 24 would bo'paid to the'Canadian Indus'try: Packagingsgfewardsliip Organisation (CIPSO), a'Itanfl ty'comp rig ed a fan d us'tfynsfflciafs that would'act as faci) su ..would ioxe needeihcusto'mers a4ooal disposal itator of the fundb CIPSO'ould then pay municipalities C$ 65 per tonne for'ali final, lailonsthai would allow'hem to continue the I consumer packaging collected in Ontario for recycling. This payment, deemed a "top-The Energy and Commerce Ccimminee sti up" fee, would essentially help to offset costs of maintaining Ontario's soon(to-be one. (hat some larger private haulers said thei mandatory recycling system, or "blue box" program. Rep. Prank Pallone (D-N J ), the amendment tl Also in Phase I, rebates would be offered to brand-owners who use recovered control.ordinances in place prior to the Carhr materials in their packaging. ments. Io continue flow control for residential ln Phase 2, municipalities would be responsible for supportihg one-third of the ."Flow control isa v'ry important tool our costs of managing the packaging. Unlike in Phase I, wherein CIPSO would contribute large amounts of garbage we generate," said R a set price, Phase 2 would require that CIPSO pay rrnnicipalities based on the "true,'he amendment's cosponsors, costs" of collecting and proce sirig specific packaging (see CIPSI Fundiiig Fonnuld: The unsuccessful amendment; spansore in box on page 7). ther'ed existing flow conuol contracts for 'i The responsibility for establishing both (he operating cost standard anifthe'rev-, whichever was longer. ue fainor would fall to a sub-entity called the Management Forum, comprised of 14 . continued on page 7 ] 'omplete IIII iu==,QIl gl I I RM Q I I IE I'aI ISIwa u ( IISIma ~ '= ==naaR11i Judge Turns Bown SPl Suit Until Qre. BEG Becides Pyrolysis= By Randy Woods An Orc on circuit ciiurt iud'c rcccllllv Iia I Sl tw I w Recycling Times, March g). SPI had argued that pyrolysis — a process that brcak( down plastics into a liquid I'eed- wrote: "Plaintiffs have not mad premature judicial review under torv iudemeni %1ailfir I finii ii in .. R I ua I REcvcttt o TIMEs Aur,t r Jt. 1994 C:anadian m«mbcrt — six industry repr sent ti es, cont. from 1 Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship initiative (CIPSI) CIPSI os fvnCamcntally flawcd by viou» cieht-based svstcm. "Wh«n yo use a weight-based syst m, you are inherently biased against the hea ipr products [such as newspapcf)C,, Lucyk arguwl. And the rebate allowance; though penial compensation, will only apply in Phsie I of thc proposal, she . added.."The facr of the marrct is...wr. pay ou o n wayr six indi ideals From the Assoctation uF of the Fact d:at rr is a M ni ipalM«s of Ontario (AMO), a oting chair designat d by CIPSO. d on non- cling member, citosen to reflect ihe interests of Ontario stak«holders. Phase'2 Phase I (Begiflfling Year Three) (Fitst Two Yells) 'rand owners pay CS24 per tonne . Levies assessed on material-specific Tbc hnchoin of thc nrooosal lies in levy based on eight of packaging. basis (sec formula below). enforcine um areal oarticioarion in the True Cost of.mao ging indi idual . Rebate inccntivc no longer applies. initiative. In order to nush ind strv to ioin types of packagi g evaluated CIPSO. ihc CIPSI oronosal calls on rhr CIPSI Puodhe Pormuim CIPSO pays CS64 per tonne to cov«rnmcnt ro «neet legislation that Operating Cost Standard municipalities. would rcnuirc all brand-owners and Financing the details ~os c . ~ Brand-owners arc eligible for rlrtrttts Observcm have also obicctcd to the imooriers o(packaged products to cithcr. Rcvcrtuc Fttf tof ~ Join CIPSO, which would exempt rebalcs up lo 50% of their levy financing siructure of CIPSI. complainI rafts based on thc s eragc rate of coflecbrand-owners from mrlain dwersion acd tog that imuormnt details —such as how Municipal Sharc lion and rccyeli g of packaging. the monies wdl be accounted For and dis. disclosure regulations, or 9 M* or«etc their own clan for divenine at mbured — have bccn neelccted in Ihe oroIndmtry Payntent to Municipaltetes ~troat 50% by weight) of "final consuncr "I don'I think they've rtgured.out Rcrrilablc containers would only packagmgr Final Consumer psekegiog is dcrincd bc levied upon initial sale. A Under the tenets of this "backdrop how the distribution of cost is going ork" Winlicld said. The differential ss but not girdled refiflabl» container ould carry a Icgislationrbrand.o ncrs hooptednot bcvcrages (induding akcholic bcv. lower levy becaus it is lighter. to join CIPSO ould have to submit an between commodities can be cnoonousr "Nowhere do they gi re out a [doflarj eragcs), tobacco products, drug pttxkwtx outline cf their divemion strategy to the CIPSO defines and publisl'cs rcv- cosmetics, peoonal cae produos (induding Ministry of Environment and Energy figure for how much tbc Icvics will raise, anus itandard for each packaging lollclncs sra! paicf prtxlncu) lors, appslck v i thin tltrce monrhs of thc backdrop reg- how much will go to municipalities material group,.reflcciing optimum Jewelry, household products, hardware, ulation's enactment, as wcfl as a status thc budget for administrsdton, appliaccs, and clcccmics. prevailing market prircs. repon on Ihcir waste divcoicn plan every market devriopmcnt. ctc.r Lucyk said. six months. Lucyk also contended that given lhe If thc brand-owner ncilhcr joins fact that thc levy could "apply to a wid» CIPSO nor devises an altcmativc. diver- range of packaged goods," the adminis- box program chats [C1$ 86 mil.ion. but. is probably the biggest pfoducrr, and is sion plan, that brand-owner would be pro- trati c burden on companies that make [ihc CIPSlpmposal document] .an' tell ofl«n,looked at as the leader. Italso has advanced recycling prohibited (rom marketing products in packaging changes could be alarming. me how much thc packaged gocds indus- on Emma alrsdy in place." Ruppeo added. Ontario. Prosecuting non.compliance "Every time they make s pa«kaging for- Iry iigoing to pay. It is unfair to "Our objcctivc in market developould fall unC«r the jurisdiction o( Ihe mat change— e g bonus ~ izes ctc.— they pic tu Judg. [based[ on the written won!, En ifonmcntal Protecuon Act. according have to reweigh thc package. Imck qean- when the infocnarion is not available in mrnt...is demonstrating a will and a commitment to start more delibcratcly to Mark Winrtcld. research director for titics, snd adjust Icvics. Imagine the audit thc documentation," Lucyk added. But C«spite concerns about the details addressing the development of markets the Cnns dian Insri ture (cr Environmental nightmare!" shc said. for secondary packaging mate(isla« — -'Woinemgthcrccyclingofpackaging 'fthaproposal CIPSImaygotoCabinet Law andyoltcy — ---'— "Ith going to bc bard to enforce this," through top.vpfees is not fugwostinrcr- as carly as September in order to begin added Sandia Banks. vice president of relutions; for lhe Gin«cry said Christine Lucyk, presidcnr of nalizationc said Evelyn Ruppcri, msnng- drafting backdrop legislation. 'dmonishments from Canada's Products Mdnufacturirs of Canada Environmental Directions (Toronto) and erof poll«JIOEAMO . 'I director of environmental s(fnim for the Jn addition, thc municipal funding.2 Environment hlinistcr, Sheila'Copps. Toronto). the organiiation that was Nc spapcr Publishers of Ontario. "Thc formula eal would bn implcmenred in may have helped impel thc appioval pari of ClpSI's conception. "It is not co t o(cofotccmcnt falls lo go crrlmcnl Phase 2 to determine the "rrue costs" of process of thc pmposal. -Copps has intended as a psnaceat it is very much a and in the day of shrinking tax dollars. I'd spccifi«packaging werries some "madevcrysoongaatcmcntspublicly thai 'eed money approach, recognizing that indusuy has to gct its act together [by the there are other interests...who may cfl rather have [thc moncyl go to hard crime obscrvcfi. "Thc function of the [Management) fall or Ihc federal government,wifl step be investment'partricrs in efforts...to than to chasing someone ~ ho didn'I pay expand the usc, md inercase the value, thc levy on Ihcir pickle jarr Forum is to agree on operating coil stan- in and take action," Hanson sa'id.. of secondary matcrialsc dards snd revenue standards, snd these Even those who have eonccrns Paper's rble iu CIPSI soindards will dcterminc how much thc In defense of CIPSI Indccd. making sure that afl relevanl lop upfceshouldbe."Hansonexplained.'n spite of the criticisms CIPS(has about the logistics of thc proposal parties are held accountable is a maicr "This sttucture would tend to favor an- incurred. moslobscrvms tee rhepropos- assert that the initiative promotes Ihe bone of contention smone critics oF industry resolution. Plus, tlicrcis concern al as emu e in the rieht dirccuon. and ate ideal of shared stewardship. "We are ~PS . Fcr example, thc paprr industry is — with regard to the soucturc — mat the . looking to Ontario to be thc leader in happy tu bc moving in this direction, generally," Hanson concluded. relucran«o participate in CIPSI, and Management Forum (wifl havej difrtcul- cstahlishine a model forste ardshio. many recycling organizations regard the tycomingtoarcsolvcwhcnitcomesto* 'IfCIPSGcangrrontario,theythink "Whether or nut the levels of funding that wifl provide somi.'rvcragc with *re appropriate, we have made a ~ igpaper industry's lack of participation polarizationofissucsiic inequitable. Somr have cvcn likened this aspect of other provinccsp Winrrcld saldp'Ontario nirtcant leap forward." "This is not a complctc lhc proposal to taxation without proper cont. from I program..Paper producu makr up Ihc rcptescnution bc«ause large and influeri- Ho(lee lion's sharc. by weight, of hat is in thc tinl companies could have morc voice "Our amcndmect would protcm rhose farilitics that rely on flow contml. but blue box program." said John Hanson. than smcgcr enterprist,s in deciding thc executive director of thc R«cycling amount of i«vice. "It seu a dangcmu would look to the fro: market in rhe (uturcc said Rep. Jack Fields (R-Texas). a ceCouncil of Ontario. "E «rybody is hop. pr«cadent. It's giving taxauotability toe sponser of the amendment. Many in the waste indusoy Founil both amendmenu unpal*rabie. ing that the paper users will be proami e third pariy rhat is ueaccountsblcc Lucyk "We arc against liow conuoln said Sheila Hixson, dirrctor of congressional and come up wim a stewardship model of argued. "Brand-owners could sit do n lheirown" iFrhcy do nor sanction CIPSI, and decide what the levy should be.. relations for Environmental Industry Associations (Washingron. D.C.). "Iris an They'e basieagyscuing'Ihe ground rules election year, and Ihc cities, thc counties. the local municipalities werc the factor. hc added. "Clearly, they'vc gotten off lighdyr of companies they compete against They werc supporting it. In thc «nd. the consumers are going to pay thc priccc Somr. rccyclcrs, how«ei supported the «mendmcnts because "they give recyechoed Winfield. Though the paper cars some credibility," said psblo Collins, an associare st Dsvidson Coaing Group indusrry contribums about S I.S million Full disclosure Though the proposal has a public (Wcshington, D.C.), who rcprescnts thc Paper Recycling Coalition. Lcglslatom per year lo Gntario Multi.MEI«rial Recycling ("a Fund to help kick-smo the comment period of 46 days, both Hansoe often improperly consider rccycling to boa pan of waste managcmenh hc mid. TWc'rc not part of the waste indusuy, we'rc part of the manufacturing indusblue box prcgmm," according to Lucyk), and Lucyk wony that'not enough hss "that. in nc way. covers thc cost of ccl. becn unC«rate«sand discussml about the try...AR in sfl, wc'rc ery plcascd wirh rhe bill. It protecmrccyclcrs frommunicipal wast« liow. conool," he said. 1«cting newsprint in the blue box system," initiauve. "There' bccn litdc public discussion Wint cld said. about it," Hanson admiucd. "Thc blue T~hc aaerindustrv.ho c cr.rceardi 'cempfcr to, to'oods, '..what's 'nd . '... .. . )g/ l[t gi Sg II.II ni+/ NIIIlh)g lii gi5 gggtgg[g g.sill Ills li l" gjLK l', I ig e Jel' "".,gigg Bie g g, $M I d ii, eg $ I ' n5 I I w I as'f ~ ''ost ~ 'overnmcet O T-le-nrsd 1 '!PIPI FPI I I I T 11 I I.H (Pt IC«HI II'IE TI u,r I«; I I I 14~ A.S. F . I Il ROIVA&NTri L !7CS ORY SFRVlCE ~ k]m6 (d% ~+- BSn««r w rr. B.C Ca/ rncI 9««.z«99 -I-1 494 ~s~t'oble coniervaticn Loon co'nceot ..Municip«41 solid waste Recyclables The concept proposed attempts to illustrate how a Sustai!jable Conservation loop may be achieved, regarding the recycling component of an integrated waste management system. Free market forces managed by minimal regulation and mutually rewarding cooperation are considered critical. Six key elements, represented by coloured .gears, are aligned i.n such a manner that the free market forces the configuration or loop. Optimum conservation drives 3.s generated by recognizing and managing ths negat3.ve impact created by cyclically low raw mater3.al pricing caused by free market supply/demand imbalance created by this element, a recurring scenario in cyclical commodity type markets. In general, industry is apprehensive regarding any regulation; yet without a "degree" of regulation we have recurring loss of conservation. Cooperat3ve focused regulation - not strangulation, is the balance sought. It is generally recogn'ed that. the cost of environmental care, in this'instance sustainable recycling, will probably be shared(eventually) by the irresponsible polluting consumer and industry the question is one of share'' and timing! The coucept being proposed attempts to recognize, simultaneously, the principles of sharing through polluter Pay and I.nternalization of costs. Although the author' background ie Plastics, it is felt the approach is generic. Each elementIles3.s described, also the bas3.c regulatory approach and stewardship techniques to manage the system, Mul holder process of the concept is encouraged to dev e I ne and generate "reasonable consensus". — Nts ill I !4 L 11 418 I 4811 141141 !I I I M) llll 1 llmj,51 / e i,iiiil EPAS 'BC II I I III I EIIIIII EIISI ~ 1 I III 5 . ILI mill',j I. w1«e ' «4 I mls«144 II 44 %& I« ~~ a« .'P e 4 s I ~l I~ I IR I! I I ~ 4«qf~qy ..4! 4 l lsILE!Iaaiirm Ii s! IIII~: II Is«el ~ IEIjlj~ 4« I « 4 ~ Il I ~ 51 I I « !111= ."= Igg lmilp N 4«ll ~ I11 I =-4 Z« I I 4111 %! I 4«Ii I II e~=, '— ~ I IOCT-IB-tg-I C i I C I 7: IOPf I FPCTI 2 Tiff BIPII'33 HOflE P.IIS JSBBFIT E.PA.S, Igl E/v v/Ro/dafzwrptL P ASTICS 4 ADVISORY SERVICE 2O/O - 27zli 5reeer ivcsr vooeoreeee /r.c. 97I"ld Te/ep/Ionee rsffd/ 922 7a99 oii /dcd/ 922 f595 Mr. T, Foofe A/Chief solid Waste Management Division 351 - SI. Joseph Blvd. ~ 12th Floor Hail. Quebec KIA OH3 Environmeni Canada/Federal German Government - Symposium September 2?Ih 6 23th soma West coast Comments: Dear Tom Foots, The opportunily to be a psrticfpant, on what tumed out to be a comparison of the German Green Dot relative to tne evolving Canadian Industry Packaging Sfewardship inifative tclpsl), proposal vras very much appreciated, as I am sure it was by afi responsib(e par1ies seeking ft accelerate the development and Implementation of a Sustainable model. Afthougn B.c. representation did not voice public opinion. those opinions expresseo by. Dr. Dixon hompson. Afberia. Rick Penner, Manitoba and so eloquently by Martin Janowifz, fvova Scotia are certainly shared by EPAS. CIPSI is to commended lor their leadership initlaiive in that it acknowledges the folloviing rea((ties and the urgent need for change: a) To date, the Canadian Taxpayers continues to bear the major costs vis Prov(no(at/Municipal Taxes for recycilng infrastructure, b) Volunteerism. although meeting the National Packaging Protocols mifisl goals ',he current sys:ems will have severe financial difficulty in achieving Ihe 19BB/2000 goals. c) The primary dao(sion makers are the brand owners and retailerS, regarding what packaged gooda are devetopoif and presented for the consumer to lake (roin the shelf. d) Regional diversity and'dlsparilies are beginnfng lo be recognised/addressed while striving for a level National Playing Field. fdo doubt some criticism and further (constructive) dialogue will arise regarding Issues such as. Is enough attention being focused on environmental versus economic issues? Does Phase I treat sll PaCkaglng Components fair(y? Are the de((nation of brand owner, rata((efs, distribu(ors and others adequate? Are regions outside of the Windsor/Quebec comdor obliged to accept recycle Infrasiruciure costs vrghout de regard for the regional 'up vaiue poientials? flRNI11 ~ s asi ms Le o (I is sincerely hoped that the continued evolution of a leadership inilative sucn as c(Psi will accelerate the implementation of sustalnabie Ivlodel to meet Canadian requlremenls in achievi N t' Packaging Protocol Goals, 11IIIIIg I —::~ IH i s aI&ail l'IN1% II I I I fl ill A. I I I ~ I IIIII'RHII" Jim Cai ~ g~ I Ihflll III Yours sfe ~ lo ~ 1 dILea „'" TOTAL K. &1(1 fifisI ~ai iw i P,BB % Kw ~ »osii esf hr==:— ig ff Ifa%fsel& I ,III) II[ ll)ll