g

i

THB CORPORATION OF THE CI,TY OF PORT COQU1TLAM
ENVIRONMENTAL PRO I BCEION COMMlTFBE

Wednesday, October 26, 1994

Meeting Room No. 2

2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitlam, BC
5:00 p.m.

AGENT

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

XKhU:

1995/96 El iiRONMENTAL BUDGET - AMENDMENTS

IllBUI II:

FREMP TASK OPTIONS
(For Committee's Information)

ITEM HI:

ENERGY STRATEGY DRAFT - COMMENTS FROM GVi(D
(For Committee 's Information)

'"') st@Alt

EKKLK

ITEM V

R,I

COMPOST PUPPET SHOW
(For Comndttee 's Information)

"." OTHER BUSINESS
'-"

$m'i5 llllii'I

xiii J

III II(

&i ~ii

I,'l

0'8 l 'I
'
3 I Ii loll
I

I

I l I

III I

'll @II I
~ pe
—

me l

~

a

~ tnn ~ ~ ~ +gtttaa~ sI
I I

m

&

&

~

i

~

~

sw

~'''"

.

"—

I ae

IIll, NJita i t

5'I

~

IR gi..'..
tant''"

"

ill it I

ala

sIII-

i)]Ii;;"''

'-

stai,lssl ,'RR; ,'s'ini liIIII~JISISntwll

a IIiII:,

II

&I

Il

L1

—

'i
'—

=

5 M S W Wl+ Sins ~
I

Pe,i
I~ iis'1 lliIIJ s

~

- ~
KI

5

~

.„'-„,,smpaim
—

—

I f'I,ll,lL

'

'

'&ala'llittI

—::: ."===,..=.1 bstgglgI inlkll]1illlg~~giggW~~ll~

THB CORPORATION OF THB CfIY OF PORT COQUITLAM

ENVIRONMENTAL PRIECTION COMhBTTEB

MINI JTBS
A meeting of the Environmental Protection Conuuittee was held in the Second Floor Meeting

Room, 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitiam, Wednesday, October 26, 1994 at 5:00 p.m.
In attendance were:

Councillor M. Gates, Chairman
Councillor R. Talbot, Co-Chairman
J.E. Yip, P. Bng., Deputy City Engireer
C. Deakin, Engineering Secretary

CO~TION OF MH IUHK
The Minutes of the Environmental Protection Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, October
5, 1994 were considered, read and auopted.

1995i96 EFATlRONMBNTAL BUDGEI'- AKEINDMENTS
The Deputy Engineer outlined amendments to the proposed budget and Committee approved the

changes.

Committee asked that Mr. Ken Cameron be invited to a run&re meeting concerning procedure
layout and staff.

ENERGY SrRATBGY DRAFT COMMENTS FROM GVan
Committee received this report for information.
1TEM IW

CQIPdtQgsI'UPPET SHOW

Committee received this report for information.

Cstt&Liddh.Lab
asketl the Deputy Engineer to forward the information to the Parks &
Recreation Committee for their review and possible implementation of trees.
'onunittee

i~lllII
~ai

Committee asked that a repnn he forwarded tn Council to look into a jurlicial
inquiry regarding the Salmon Resources, but first add background information
from the coalition and return to Committee.

xiii ssiRI

E

Ill llli p
I I

I

s ~: ~ j

I

PP

I II

s

"5 N IWI PRPP

—
p

~~~

a II I I j l
PPPtiipi

Pl ss

&

iii it@ fsu

i

ei s'ti ii i&If igK ~ ~:= !

'I...

Iit lliiI[it IIR"'."-";;;
.=

'"-'iP

.I~

0

]Pl[1m/
-."

594»

~ z tnt~

I

i

/

IP

i

OCT 2 6

l

W~

I I IS

~legal

~llkllli I JSI +/@~a t — — lSIII4RI

Pt

l

l

VI I

I

I" 4

im

Ill

~1

"S a ~iug
==

=- —

g

'
@

.—,.--,,

—..—

!.:=:--:;—

FPC Minutes of October 26. 1995 Cont'd ...

2133 Anita Drive

Committee received an updated report from the Ministry of Health for
information. Phone numbers for the Ministry of Environment and Department of
Fisheries are to be forwarded to the Councillor's boxes.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

cl

JiX~i.H

DepPfy City Engineer

CounJrtflor M. Cr'ates

Conknittee Chairman

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. Fng., City Engineer
Michael Davies, P. Eng., Project Engineer
Anne T. Pynenburg, Project Technician

OCT 2 C i994

Iic

T1

TIIF. CORPORATION OF THE

ClTY'F PORT COQUITLAM

DATE: October 04, l994

TO:

Enviromnental Protection Committee

FROM:

Anne T. Pynenburg
Project Technician

SUB JECT;

FREMP TASK FORCE OFITONS — FORPORMATION ONLY

Attached is a copy of reports sent to Strategic Planning Committee, Sewerage dc Drainage
Committee and Budget Committee and deals with the option to merge two govenunent bodiesFREMP and BIEAP (Burrard Inlet Environmental Program).
See page 5 for staff recommendations from G.V.R.D.
Also attached is a copy of FREMP's Annual Report.

Mne T. Pynenburg
Project Technician

attach

lmie@s
lill 1 1 alla 81 'I!
91tt a I I",
I

I

I I'1111',1 5

;;; .—...— —...— =~;===— = et=-,—,=
——,",em1"~~
:;, ~atm1jj'
&-=3
=

~

-

m

m

'

''n

i

~

inc»sEat

1

tie

OCT 2 F tim4
lI

Hi&N: „==--',
~„~',,
„-

„==-:=-'',

.'',,'.l,.m'm
!'.-.,;.,;.
IRwg

1wlg

I

i

fyreater Vancctugter Eegirgnal District

tgagioaat A'aaas

$330Xtasmmy Samaby Slfoog CooimSta, Caaoda 033$ $OS

(6033 $32-62!0

a'atayhom

Strategic Planning Committee Agenda
7 September 1994
To:

Strategic Planning Committee
Sewerage and Drainage Committee
Budget snd Administration Committee

From:

B.E. Msgr
Regional Manager

Date:

24 August 1994

Report of the Tash Force on FREMP/BIEAP Options

To present the report of the Task Force on FREMP/BIEAP Options and to recomgnend a
cougse of action to the Board.
2.

p

Backnrouggd

The Bugrsrd Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP) and the Fraser River Estuary
Management Program (FREMP) are intergovernmental entitles to coordinate the activities of
federal, provincial and local government entities in a manner that transcends formal
jurisdictionyJ boundaries. The GVRD was a founding member of BIEAP when it was
established under a 6ve-year agreement among the parties in 1991. The GVRD became a
member ofFREMP at the invitation of the other parties under a three-year aggeemeglg'set up
in 1991. The FREMP agreement is being extended by the parties for a further two'.ar
period to 31 March 1996.

img

During the past two years, conccgns have been raised by members of the GVRD Board about
the value of the GVRD's participation in'these two programs and the possible bene6ts that
might be achieved &om partial or complete merger of the prognuns. The Management
Committees of the two program appointed a Task Force to review this matter. The Terms of
Reference of the Task Force'were approved by the Board in early 1994.

~

Illi -„
IRa aauiI

III Il

In the process of considering the proposed twc-year extension of the
agreement in
March 1994, the Strategic Planning Committee again considered thc benegts of partial or
comp'late merger. To undeghne its dissatisfaction with the status quo, the Committee
recommended that the Board approve the extension of the agrggsment and simultaneously give
the necessary one year's notice of its intention to withdraw &om both programs as of 31
March 1995. It was understood that this notice period would give all of the parties to the two

o:','i',"=gill

i, IIIIP Iiil

l 1 SR Sg I Sg

I'IIII
'Lkilll'I

II IIIII II ft

Ill ll I I Ill lI II
I a sa'
I

==:—

-:2+~m ~ 'slmmi+~IRghgsgus ssgiiilIWI~IIIIm

II"..'=.

IH — --

OCT

— -

=..'='I

mm

I II II&~

I IJ

lail l'

+gmts ~— li ~ omi .—

'.-:==
=
— ''-"'

.

I

:.— — sgmsssgt

lo

immi~tug

''='-

"-'

—

—

.

m m

l

'
—:
SS '''' '
Ilgijij gg jggig'',',,,', "
lim SSIS
aii
"'ui u ~mss)~II
tillll@llglit
g
— it+ Ill [ps
Smg ~

...,,

"'~IIit

~ ii

2—2

":

--:,; - '

-;;--=

g ill JSSS

S~ISrati sssg-t

—

--

g

~

~

~

Illl@llii

) b )Qg)

'

~

I

~ a

..i''ll ''
I lg

- ---=:!.S

o

imiii ~ 0 Sl lg&g

g

agreements the opportunity to consider merger options and that the Task Force report would
provide a factual basis for this process.
3.

Policy

Creating Our Future 1993 Strategic Policy 4. Improve the environmental quality of the
region's receiving waters, through the following operational policies:
-xpedite and fast-track the implementation of the Liquid Waste Management Action
Plan;

continue to participate in and support the Burrard Inlet Environmer tel Improvement
Action Plan;
continue tc participate in and support the Fraser River Estuary Management Program;
participate actively in the Fraser Basin Management Program;
support efforts to restore the environmental quality oiHowe Sound.

4.

Discussion

Attached as Appendix A is a memorandum from the Management Conmuttees to the senior
representatives of the parties to the two agreements containing the
concerning the Task Force report. Appendix 8 is the Executive Summary
of the Task Force Report. Copies of the full report are available from Ken Cameron,
Manager, Strategic Planning, at 432-6379.

Comnuttees'ecommendations

The Management Committees suggest that immediate attention be given to the st!neo!re(s)
for hstegrated resource management for Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River Estuary for the
to
period fol/owirig expiry of the current agreements on 31 March 1996, In the period prior
would
that date the feasibility of some of the integration options is limited by the fact that they
require amendments to the agreements that might be resisted by some of the parties and
would, in any case, be ddEcult to achieve in the relatively short time period the agreements
changes
have left to run. The Management Committees recommend that the parties consider
of
the
integration
that can be made without amending the agreements, inch!ding the
Management Committees, the staff organizations and the project registries of the two
organizations. The Task Force report includes a gnancial analysis prepared by a management
consultant that shows that the dollar savings that might be achieved by integration are quite
seven
small - in the order of $ 35,000 in a combined budget of $ 1 milgon shared among
patties.

GVRD staff believe that the recommendations of the Task Force are reasonable and
that the
supportable. The Board should be aware, however, of the distinct possib!T!ty
It is
recommendations will not be acceptable to tdl of the parties to the two agreements.
stake in these two
important therefore, for the Board to consider the interests it has at
parks and
regional
planning,
strategic
in
programs &om the perspective of its mandates
recreation and liquid waste management.

I~ $$ 'lgwsf

l%'fli
II fllllu I la! gl (
I

Sl 1C

!

gi

a&

gts''

''
i

i iii

i ~

i s

-"

~

5''="':

IIIII! Ilili~a-" "*"-"=- —,

N

»N,

'

'''

llli."-

l

Ill!! IPRIIIPs

p

9!Iilii l [ 9

15'ILlt! c "

''»'1'

.i„»mi ~~0»t!id!~9~

! ~l

~

'-- - »li

~-....'dijtt tlli$ %llsllnnlti

c Planning
BIEAp and FREMp provide an opportunity to link the Board's major pogcies in Creating
Our Future and the Livable Region Strategic Plan to the management of land and water
areas lying beyond the jurisdiction of member municipalities. FREMP's recently completed
Estuary Management Plan highlights the ways in which federal and provincial authorities can
support regional priorities such as the Green Zone and provision for efdcient and safe
movement of goods and people.
~Strate

Because BIEAP has been more Focused on actions to improve environmental quality, there
has been less oF a linkage between the Board's strategic planning objectives and BIEAP
activities. The major issues in land and water use have been addressed in the Vancouver Port
Corporation's Port 2010 plan, to which the Board has contributed comments.
Involvement in BIEAP and FREMP provides the GVRD with the opportunity for direct
interaction with the iand management agencies in Burrard Inlet (Vancouver Port Corporation)
and the Fraser River Estuary (Fraser River Harbour Commission, North Fraser Harbour
Commission and the Ministry. of Environment, Lands and Parks). As harmony between
regional and municipal planning policies is developed, the GVRD's involvement provides a
cortext for complementary speci6c policies on land and water use for upland and wetted areas
that can be formalized through area designation agreements such as those already in place in
Richmond and Burnaby.

Reaional Parks and Ooen Soace
GVRD Parks has been actively involved in providing a regional recreation perspective to both
BIEAP and FREMP. This has included the identi6cation of critical sites, the development of
integrated recreational concepts (e.g. the Fraser River islands) and the organization of
interpretive programs and events, This involvement predates the.GVRD's involvement in
BIEAP or
and would likely continue even if that involvement terminated.

~

Licuid Waste Manauement
A major reason for the GVRD becoming actively involved in BIEAp and FREMp was the
hope that this. involvement might produce a shigle overall philosophy for the management of
water quality in these receiving waters and a context for regional liquid waste management
priority setting within that philosophy.

L'.

In practical terms, this has not been the experience to date. For most of the life of the current
agreements, BIEAP and FREMP have been gathering scienti6c information on water quality
issues without any overall context for the use of this information in determining priorities for
action. In fact, the diversion of sea~ federal funding for water quality science to a number of
coming programs has impeded the development by FREMP of a reliable information base
on water quality. In the meantime, initiatives such as the B.C. Environmental Protection Act
have been proceeding through the policy-making process without any apparent consideration
of their impact'on the coordination of water quality management programs in Burrard Inlet or
the Fraser River Estuary.

I

f54 lI
INI r.Iiim
I

Isa I'LN
3]'IIAIIl

Ill

ltllIL'ul~~mma~::

O''I Ill ill.!

I ll])

DCT 2 5

giiiPmgSIIIm"
!

j

mi

~l

-

] 4i'll[lIlm!I I+a ISIl [m t

'..
au'=

aam I assma mm K a

N

slsttls

iil'l Ill III~,

IIlii ~ ia.mlsuulHI
IIII Rg===
m
I

us=.=.-,-)('i-:,:,:,:,:,+5m.

'iii ii

i

-'"'

"

— —

——

4-

~~maes
mi)lgloo=--'--- — — 'm~lg(II& ~.sll,

emn,.

([g/jm)

I",',

"
~~

~ ~~
.

u

tgg)

--'..'iem

8 luau ja ~
if ~
a

8I

ill lli l gi"::
——

—

= —...'
mag

~ saausu

.'"

i

~,,„„,,il

=tlillha)I sIII=

" ''- ll 5
~

1

'I

ss mmI aa I aNKI I RW arne l samI IR
I

U

serious
With literally billions of dollars at stake in the resolution of these issues, staff have had
best
deployed.
be
should
resources
professional
reservations about where the GVRD's limited
The issue was brought sharply into focus in the consideration of FREMP's Estuary
all
Management Plan, which required intensive negotiations to produce wording acceptable to
water
to
"an
approach
integrated
the parties. As a result, an effort is being made to develop
that will dovetail with the
process
a
1995,
Estuary
Fraser
River
by
in
the
quality management"
GVRD's Stage 2 Liquid Management Plamnng process. If all of the parties are able to come
the water
to agreement on such an approach, the result would provide major benefits to
then the
If
not,
communities.
and
residents
resources of the region and the interests of its
in
progratus,
in
these
involvement
its
Board would have to consider the benefits of continuing
their current or revised forms, beyond 1996.
significant actual and potential

It is evident f'rom the above discussion that the GVRD derives
benefit from its involvement in BIEAP and FREMP and in whatever structure exists following
District's interests
the termination of the present agreements. It is equally evident that the
the two programs in
of
activities
the
all
of
not
if
would be better served by . integration of some
benefits of
financial
that
the
noting
some reasonable time frame. In this regard, it is worth

integration are minimal and that the continued involvement and commitment of the
participant."is essential,

other

5.

Qptions

(a)

This
The Board could reject the recommendations of the Management Committees.
integration,
on
positions
previous
its
would be contrary to the Board's interests and to

(b)

6.

and
The Board could accept the recommendations of the Management Committees
This
is the
them.
agree to withdraw its notice of termination if the other parties accept
recommended option.
Financial Imclications

The GVRD's annual contributions to BIEAP and FREMP amount to $ 180,000 per year
the Strategic Planning budget.
7.

Rom

Member Municioalities

Member municipalities in the FREMP area participate directly in their activities and the
BIEAP programs provide opportunities for participation gy municipalities in its area.

~ 'l /
1

8.

H1 IIsI
I

BIEAP and FREMP are intergovernmental programs.

Ill 8N

I

IN

I

l~ NSI 'U
I~ LII

gjNN

I

I

1

.g 'ilills
o
I

« ~~~~@g 'ei&

'

.y~

g~

-qll ilq~&+" — ="'

~

Il I glJ ~ IIIRL

„"= '„ i "':
ups

!

Interttovernmen~t

i

i&

u, jts;;;;, ~c
'-;;-;-

ii

i
!

i!Ill:
e

t::

—

—

0!! &~" ~
8

'.',',',Ia 5 II

UI',;, '„,;,

'@ g)g~/pQ
i

8

'. 1III If

)

"'--'

!Ngt~!%NIN~ —.

'ggglll Nulli

-'". '

»tea
W III If'%
1%1
0 u,
":; iiiia '-,,::»;;~ ~aktpSl glliNj;,;,;;;
",,! j ig! i!g /I 3l'I lllh
t

s;

I,

2

i

„~

.

'il

'

'if

l

8Nl tN

mr

Ri~

!

gj/fg/!i!

9.

Communications/Education

education programs that are documented
BIEAP and FREMP maintiin communications and
coordinated with GVRD programs where
in the Task Force report. These programs are
appropriate (e.g. Fraser River Festival).
10.

(a)

StafF Recommendatio

that the Board approve the
That the Strategic Planning Committee recommend in BIEAP and FREMP to
parties
following recommendations and urge the other
approve them:
commence immediately to
That the parties to BIEAP and FREMP agreements
and organizational structure(s) for
prepare proposals for program mandate(s)
Fraser River Estuary,
'
ted resource management in Burrard Inlet and theconclusion oof thee
the
either jointly or separately, for the period following
1996.
BIEAP and FREMP agreements on 31 March
(ii)

That, in the period prior to 31 March 1996, the
FREMP agreements:

parties to the BIEAP and

~

Steering Committee, the
merge the activities and members of the BIEAP
Management Committee
BIEAP Implementation Committee and the
a representative &om each
into a joint Management Committee comprised of
Environment Canada
of the parties to the two agreements and co-chiired by
and the Ministry of Envi'onment, Lands and Parks;
and FREMP as currently
continue the policy and technical activities of BIEAP
Committee(s) to identify and
being implemented, but direct the Management
through cross-fertihzation of
implement opporturiity for enhanced effectiveness
ideas between the two programs;

Ijl

'gt lliiiasij jg

and the FREMP
c'onsohdate the BIEAP Program Coordinator's Offic
to the Management
secretariat into one staff organization reporting
until such time as the
ofEces
Committee(s), but maintain the two program
thc objectives of the
advance
arti determine that combining the offices will
patties
programs and the interests of the parties; and
review processes, but directing
continue to maintaht separate environmental
establishing a single project
the Management Committee(s) to consider
registry.

Ibl.
5

~j&ill
g

$ I IfP&

"'

sa.~ =waslasIN~ f
'Pl+
g 'g1

ggs ggN iwwtggairat[wrww
Kills Ilwha1% ~ sl

~

Il

That the Strategic Planning Committee recommend that the Board inform the other
parties to the BIEAP and FREMP agreements that it is prepared to withdraw its notice
to terminate its involvement in the programs if the other parties approve of the above
recommendations.
11.

Committee Comlnents

12.

Committee Recommendation

13.

Board Decision

Attachments:
Appendix A:
Appendix B:

Memo to the Senior Representatives of the Parties
Executive Summary of the Report of the Task Force on
FREMP/BIEAP Options

i~KIRI

IW iRia& I e

m

~

rm,ml

$ R stg
l

9

erennn gjmg)
))11IIP, ~,

IIN,„, aiIm!
I,'lie,ellen
i jt'n n e ili85
p

s Id ejH

II

s

'es

If -

~

"'gj .,=!:=:

.:;;;"',"
"&lg)JI'.I,'." .'::'''el',",,"„"''

-

'-:=
''::~

-

i i il

'gni

I

e

~

&Rilg a

le IS egt a 411 l% 8

singles

'",;- '~ g]

'»"jlel 'eji"*
IIII'I jg lk f1 )'""',
Ijl
I I

ass

g$ j$ 'III!l IIn lg'I Qj g$ gl'& RL115IRS Nj
I

lane.:-- —'--- -e' "ll "" -.uren& 1gll Snl ill I) Illa'~:= =, ="
~imiimi1 I
'llemeilj'd
gliijjji
II...
g
g
gm
"
—
m~
nel nelnlellllRkl
'~mnl I,ljgjj/ lm s ~sjl el I s 1
-"
-~4'
—
="-'"
=-'"-'1 ILIRu e»i&+l»~~g
-- --I
el rnua
— III
~',,"
u.iran
,

~

I

~

»e&eilwell Ik

',,g gg»
ii

ee

—

3

~~j

s

—

i

I

—

.II

h-

j,

n,pya aauaa

To:

Senioi Representatives of the Parties

Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program
Fraser River Estuary Management Program
FROM:

hlanagement Committees
Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program
Fraser River Kstuaiy Management Program

DATKi

14 August 1994

RKi

REPORT OF THK TASK FORCE ON FREMP/BIEAP OPTIONS

Attached is a copy of this report. After consideration of the report, the Management
Committees have decided to make the following recommendations:
1.
That th. parties to BIEAP and FREMP agreements commence immediately to
prepare proposals for program mandate(s) and organizational structure(s) for integrated
resource management in Buirard Inlet and the Fraser River Estuary, either jointly or
separately, for the period following the conclusion of the BIEAP and FREMP agreements
on 31 March 1996.
2.
That, in the period prior to 31 March 1996, the parties to the BIEAP and FREhP
agreements consider.
merging the activities and members of the BIEAP Steering Committee, the
(a)
BIEAp Implementation Committee and the FREMp Management Committee into a joint
Management Committee comprised of a representative from each of the parties to the two
agreements and co-chaired by Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment„
Lands and Parks;
continuing the policy and technical activities of BIEAP and FREIvLu as
(b)
currently being implemented, but directing the Management Committee(s) to identiTy and
implement opportunity for enhanced effectiveness through cross-fertiTization of ideas
between the two programs;
consolidating the BIEAP Program Coordinator's OIEce and the FREMP
(c)
secretariat imo one staft organization reporting to the Management Committee(s), but
maintaining the two program oIEces until such time as the parties determine that
combining the oBices will advance the objectives of the programs and the interests of the
parties; and
continuing to maintain sepatate environmental review processes, but
(d)
directing the Management Committee(s) to consider establishing a single project registry.

I

fgii~

RIR

Ifu''N'iiii

zJg
g,!NS
IINN!
g&ne&sngg

jllllll5ll
I,II1%iiis I,S

':

~
'~u 'eaaw

— - -- — -- —
—.- — - =-~Nms~llr'
~mir/II+~ieil@l~~lgl1NNmeggn~(BgelgIgMuaaamui
~ su sl NlnauuuI)lt
s ~ llj
»~ gI na
1 pg I ~ Nm sss aa
i

1%II mma ea»;If@a~ au nac~
&iI!

jj

tin''- „;=:=i:

put~ i, mu»aIW

ja

1

~

jglsslasss e

'

I

~illL

I

n

I

'" *

lllgu"-" ''" "s

Iusi I~i~

'~

~- — -::&gg II
—

a...

I

'a ml IK:..

g Nil

'9

u I ra wII
~

"'

'

'~

—

&

I

e e~a

iI si1$ i

I

~

"'

—

—

I

I

~

I

I

PN~ ——

III IpfH
II
=" .""
NIIItllllllas
„t ~ tu»& ~ » 9 j)lj Iaas ~
Il Ig I a ILl Igg 4 ltlaE
. ma=== "
g —,

3'&l iii it

'-' '' =,- =-

~~
~Laauauu'j~(ggINN~jjjja g:::'P
..

e i

''' ':::
ig

vii
,'",
ijjJI5 Iissstisnsal~,".
"— -"-''-'»a
—
am
'

—

—

'

—,

IN

I

iiiii;,

i

~

I

I

~IN@~

i I,
Ihl

~+t

I

I

i iu
I

m

s% I

Appendix 8

Raporf of rhr Tora Foraa on Opa'onrfor rhr Frar«Rigor Faraarp hlanogrmrra program and
aaa Barrard Inlrr Enrironmrnrol Aaion Program

EXECUTIVE SI&11VIARY

The Flzser River Floaty Management Program (FREMP - established in 1985) and the B~id

Inlet EavirotunentJ" Action Program (BIEAP - established in 1991) are joint efforts created by
agencies and depainnents of government with clear interests in water-based resource management
and economic deva!opment in their respective parts of the Greater Vancouver region. The two
programs operate under management committees comprised of representatives of the sponsoring
organizations, (Eniirorunent Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Gceans, the I finistry of
Environment, Lands and Parks, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the North Fraser and
Fraser River Harbour Commissions (for FREMP) and the Vancouver Port Corporation (for
BIEAP)).

The Task Force was established by the management committees in February 1994 to evaluate the
potential for organizational changes that would produce better resource management fi om the
programs at the same or lower cost. The review was prompted by an interest in achieving more
efficient, effective administration and by the need to consider organizational requirements for
resource management in the Lower Mainland in the context of emerging broader initiatives such
as the Fraser Basin Management Progratn and the Georgia Basin Inititiative.

The activities of the two programs were evaluated according to the following categories: policy
and technical activities, project review activities and support activities. The policy and technical
activities of the programs, while similar in general intent, are quite different in their approach to
the provision ofelffective resource management in the Estuary and Inlet. The project review
activities are similar in function but rely upon diFerent personnel with difierent expqitise in their

review of applications for development. The support activities are similar4n function but refiect
diFerent emphases, with the FREMP activities stronger in program management and technical
support and the BIEAP activities stronger in public communications, public education and public
involvement.

A review of the programs in relation to the needs of their customers revealed that the programs
provide a wide range of government agencies with an opportunity to coordinate their activities,
including the pursuit of sustainable economic'development. In providing this function, the
programs also provide a point of contact and infiuence for a diversity of non-goveinment

lhaiig
a

i i
i i

&

a iaa r

1

-'-"-" 'Ill l(11I) 0l

»

Consideration of broad alternatives confirmed that improving on the present structures is likely to
be n:ore effective than terminating the eForts and replacing them with a joint technical advisory
committee, a "super-agency" or with nothing. Each of the program components in the present
structures vtas therefore reviewed in terms of what would happen under the status quo, an
administrative merger or a program merger. This review concluded that there is little benefit to
be gained fi om merging the policy and technical activities during the life of the current
agreements. There is also a case for continuing to run separate project review processes, but
these should be supported by a single project registry system on an electronic platform. The
public communications and involvement activities would have to have separate components as

iioa Iilel

aia

ilk ""';;=- „,:I

I I

business, environmental and general public interests.

---

a

'

'I

- — ==-= .—:

arran
I

I

i

—.~ 5

— —

.''g -

1$ ~1$ aa

j~g.'.. ~~
I

I I$7ahmIisiiiIIi
glglml lilIISUIi lllls
" III ~
O'
l

~

I

a

..— —,- — t-'mass'

si'asiat ~llaaal

~atrnl

— —

..."',III/ I IIIII mipWti%INIIii 851+I 'ill'

i=„,„a-i~la'='I;,"'„ll ~I ilmg(iilml,;;;.alii; —;
I

~ '

~ III

u~

Et~

st
onioncfo cite Fr or Iu
Rcpon of the r k F r
tea Barrard inlet Encironmcntai Action Program

&g

long as they serve s=.parate policy and technical programs. The management

~

and adnanistrative

support activities unuld be strengthened by being merged.

could be made

changes
An ana'ysis of the «rrent agreements establi'shed that many administrative
commiuees vdthout
by agreement of the parties or under the authority of the manageinent
amendments iand
amending the agreements. Changes beyond these which would require
activities,
technical
and
the consent of all parties) include any'merger of policy

'herelore

integration of buda I and changes to financial administration arrangements.

acmriYies wouId

The report concluces that merger of the programs or of their policy and techrdcal
b'll of the parties
require amendmenu to the existing agreements which would not be supported
have left to
aitd be difficult to achieve during the relatively short period of thne the agreements
be in
should
that
structure
run, It would be Icore fiuitful to focus on the resource management
1996.
place for the Inlet md the tustuary afier the expiry of the agreemert&s in early

by
V'ithin tht terms cithe existing agreements, there are three changes that could be
creation
and
rtaffs,
the
of
merger
the parties, These are; merger of the management committees,
project revit w processes. Few
of a sing! e projem . egistry to support the continuation sf the two
benefit would be
if any savings could be achieved by these measures; the more significant
significant (but stfiI modest)
improved management and performance of existing acdvities. More
but these gains could only
savings could be artained by consolidating the offices m one location,
and to the water resources
customers
be made at the expense of other values such as prcximity to
agreements.
the
themselves which at e important to some if not aH of the parties to

considered

by a
A review of the fi.-.anciaI impguations tsf the progtam options was conducted
activities are so limited
management

consultant. It corcluded that the potential finanrdal savings from merging
that they should rot be a major factor in considering various options.

agreements are

I

gaia

I

I

The report concludes that options that require amendments to the existing determine what
parties to
probably not worth pursuing: The more important need is for the
the

March 1996. In
structure(s) should be in place when the current agreements expire in
the administrative
committees,
management
meantime, the parties should consider integrating the
staff and the project registries of the two organizations.

~analI

i

nalsISI

)fgiii
ttlaaca

i
I

gn;:".
/g/ gglgi~

OCT 2 6 1994

~)~PMIInaaa.~itmtaaal ~a ~I~RIRWIN I
===
tml!I Siiiie
Im Ia aassummia~'~.~:":
I 1 Ilm tm0

98I1Rswnn
~

~

~au uassiu '"

l

c

Waiilll c —

~gn

ca

g

B8.8

gg

Greuter Iyrrncouver Regional Disfricf

Brrarchic lranMus

3330 nlngruay. Bunrahy. Bnurh Cohunhla, Canada y3333C8

rckyhonc rdB33 333-637S

Serac red arl Mcnulonur ll. ISlh yloor, 3710 Klnscnay Burnahy B C. rcnlcrflora Ccnnul sou lcu are

Strategic Planning Committee Agenda
7 September 1994
Strategic Pianning Committee

From:

Ken Csmeron, Manager
'Strategic Planning

Date:

30 August 1994

Res

Establishing A Greater Vancouver Receiving Waters Technical Advisory
Committee

Pulcose
To report on the feasibility of establishing a permanent, intergovernmental Receivhtg Waters
Advisory Committee for Greater Vancouver.
1.

Backnround

2.

At its February 1994 meetinfe the Strategic Planning Committee recommended that the Board
extend the Fraser River Estuary Management Program agreement for one year on the
understanding that the Fraser River Estuary Management Program and the Burrard Inlet
Environmental Action Program will be merged in one year. In the discussion, it was
suggested that FREMP and BIEAP might be replaced by a technical, permanent,
intergovernmental committee to advise on issues related to the region's receiving waters.
This committee wcmd be supported by the GVRD with p~cipation &om the senior
entities currently involved in the FREMP «nd BIEAP programs. The Strategic
Planning Committee directed stafF to investigate the feasibility of this option and report back

'overnment

3.

Pghhr

Action 4 in Creating Our Future states that the GVRD will improve the environmental quality
of the region's receiving waters, tin ough the following opctatioaal policies:
o

&rslnta

Esq7edite and fast-track the implementation of the I.iquid Waste Management Acdon Plan.
Continue to participate in and support the Burrard Inlet Environment Improvement Action

~

Plan.
Continue to participate in and support the Fraser River Estuary Management Program.
~ Participate actively in the Fraser Basin Management Program.
Support efforts to restore the environmental quality of Howe Sound.
Action 16 smtes that the GVRD wili develop and implement a regional open space and nature
conservancy program, through the following policies:

, ~

rc I

anil I ts s

IIMLn~ ==-

I

I

-

'uu"

IlwllmlMI lul
-==
a(i»us::
1 a Bu
~

3 IQ

u

meegauilgf

I

I r' u
'

--'7'garcia

ii

u I

nn

I

I
i

~

~ I glll~l~Iuu
aruau
'ant(iles
~ uI~I~uuuSSSI

II

m

a— ——

ingL'uuhuau

I

m&&; ~;==

"-.—,II% I

e
a
a

Develop a major parks and open space plan, in conjunction ~vith municipalities, other.
regional districts and the Province.
Pursue the protection of wildlife sanctuaties, wetlands, and strategic areas in the Pacilic
Flyway, in conjunction with municipalities, the Province and Federal authories.
Examine ways to ensure fair treatment for municipalities which forego development in
order to provide regional open space.

Action 30 states that the GVRD will help to create a supportive and globally competitive
climate for economic change and growth with particular attention to transportation, tourism
and export-oriented business services and technology-based manufactured products.

pr~

Action 34 states that the GVRD will maintain and strengthen cooperative regional strategic
planning and decision-making
involving all levels of government, to pursue
Creating Our Future objectives.

~)

4.
Discussion
The Fraser River Estuary Managment Program
coordinates planning and
development in the Fraser River estuary. The Burrard Inlet Environmental Improvement
Action Plan (BIEAP) provides integrated environmental planning for Burrard Inlet. The
GVRD, the federal Departments of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans and the
.provincial lvfinistty of the Enviromnent are partners in both programs. Additional partners in
FREMP are the Fraser River and North Fraser Harbour Commissions, while the Port of
Vancouver is a partner in BIEAP.

The GVRD is a full partner in FREMp and BIEAp to realize Creating Our Future objectives
in the areas of receiving water quality, wetland and wildlife habitat protection, park and open
space planning, economic development, and coordinated decision-making and planning
processes.
FREMP is recognized internationally as. an 'e9Fectlve model for integrated estuary
management. FREMP has Eve major ongoing programs:

the Coordinated Project Review Process, which provides a "single-window" for investors
to.obtain reviews of proposed economic development projects tdfecting the estuary,
e the Estuary. Management Plan, which sets out general policy directions for how the
estuary will be managed in the future and the locations of various activities thus providing
the Irame of reference for the Coordinated Project Review Process and the Area
Designation Agreements,
v the Area Designation Agreements, through which compatibiTity of adjacent water and land
uses is achieved,
the Coordinated Environmental Quality Monitoring Program which is establishing baseline
information on the "health" of the estuary and providing information to more etfectively
target remedial actions, and
s the Public Education Strategy, which includes school programs and community group
involvement in environmental clean-ups.
~

JHI'55%
IP

5'll' I%/

l st 'I lIW

gg~ III 1511m

lliiii

g

i'll

nisi RIM I'Is%Ill

'8

fl 1st 81
I

I

i

ti i&av

gg Ig II
$ 11II II

1A
a

I

ll I
~

II msm i ski giM5+ttttgtr,

I@A u s~gs
I L%%11iui

~=

'Sll

ll~~ =

— ='='ll
s

—

—

—

~

These progratns are recognized as necessary elements of effective estuary management, are
mutually supportive, and have been developed through careful consideration of the needs of
the estuary, industry and various communities. The Environmental Review Committee, Water
and Land Use Committee and Water Quality Management Committee of FREMP, composed
of "sec'onded" government staff have the responsibility for most of these programs.
viith five major program areas:
BIEAP has a similar program structure to

~,

Burrard Enviromnental Review Committee
k Land and Water Vse Planning
Pollution Abatement
~
Site Remediation
~
Public Involvement
Differences from FREMP are due to the particular characteristics of Burrard Inlet.
An intergovenunental technical advisory committee on receiving waters would presumably
advise participating government agencies on the impact of various efBuents on the region's
receiving waters. This would require some degree of shared information on current water
quality. Consequently this proposed Committee might continue to support a coordinated
water quality monitoring program and research efforts to link water quality to overall
environmental quality and such concerns as salmon survival; these are ongoing programs in
FREMP and BIEAP,
This proposed committee might be iimilar to FREMP's Water Quality Management
Committee, extended to include Burrard hdet. The existing Water Quality Management
Committee is composed of funding agency representatives and is charged with articulating an
integrated approach to water quality management and developing an integrated water quality
monitoring program that produces policy-relevant information.
However, replacing FREMP and BIEAP with an intergovernmental technical advisory
committee strictly concerned with receiving water quality would:
k

k

~

~
~

k

I

R

":'

II ~ ~ ~

!

Ih

remove the "single-window" project review processes that are a significant positive
feature of FREMP and BIEAP resulting in significant additional costs and uncertainty for
investors, environmental groups, government agencies and communities,
result in the loss of valuable work completed to prepare the Fraser River Estuary
Management Plan and the certainty it provides to investors, environmental groups,
communities and others,
result in the loss of Area Designation Agreements as a mechanism for coordinating upland
and foreshore uses,
result in the loss of the public communication and education programs of BIEAP and
FREMP that provide a "single window" for community groups and others interested in
knowing what is going on in the estuary or the inlet and that encourage broad public
appreciation of the estuary and the inlet,
reduce the ability of the GVRB to pursue Creating Our Future objectives as they relate to.
the estuary without significant additional effort and costs to establish new partnerships,
and
.

IB
, tlInIa! Ia
!

I

i! I

!

e! I'I!Ii! 'glN

f[g 3 I!limb!'! $
,&a &~ iilg,)3

f

OCT 26

,i1'al gw u gl

~
M,
g/)El
!

II!!!! !!! Illllg Il

!I!a

!

5Ia ''

~

tk !kk~~

-~ ~ ~"
1~

~

k!re

&kkss!k='=

..QIa nll1

~,

a! IL.
I I 1I I I! I sl I

%~I!Wlk
o

!S

mlalallRlk WIa kIksIatlll
k!

~8! ~ Q g W
N

a'Rrijim--

=

"

—-- -

«»!, l g

~ c!s!

'.-; s s e

uu

!.

~,

I

~

E,.—:::
= ---"R!
1 IRAQI ! !!
.

I

I

I

8!

! ~

I»

$95

- - - 5 WISW lt
I

»» s k! ~ saglgl

e

require the GVRD to allocate signi6cant staff and other support resources to provide
secretariat support to the committee.

Finally, it is unlikely that the other partners in FREMP and BIEAP would support replacement
of these coordinating programs with a narrowly focused technical advisory committee
coordinated by the GVRD. A Task Force is reviewing the merger of FREMP and BIEAP. It
will be reporting on merger options in early July.

Ootions
The Strategic Planning Committee may:
5.

(a) Receive this report for information. This is the rec'ommended option.
(b) Recommend that the Strategic Planning Committee further investigate the option to
replace the Fraser River Estuary Management Program and Burrard Inlet Environmental
Action Program with a Receiving Waters Technical Advisory Committee, coordinated and
supported by the GVRD, and that the Strategic Planning Committee direct statf to
develop a detailed study outline for consideration.

Financial Imolications
The GVRD's contribution to FREMP and BIEAP,is $ 100,000 and $ 80,000 per year,
respectively. The cost to the GVRD of supportirig and coordinating a Receiving Waters
Technical Advisory Committee and further, of establishing new partnerships to pursue the
Board's other policy objectives with respect to the estuary, has not been established. This
could be estimated in a follow-up study if the Strategic Planning Committee wishes to pursue
the establishment of a Receiving Waters Technical Advisory Committee.
6.

)RRM
'(Jg

I

7.
Member Municioalities
Member municipalities are involved in FREMP throhgh the Water and Land Use Committee.
They are not directly represented in BIEAP. Municipalities could be represented on the
Receiving Waters Technical Advisory Committee.

Intern overnmental
The subject of this report.
8,

St

I

t'Illlltgg

tlS Ill llig

g
I

5SIi8 Ill uI ))

)Jll sI aiiii

Communications/Education
Both FREMP and BIEAP have pubhc communications arid education programs. Replacing
FREMP and BIEAP with a Receiving Waters Technical Advisory Committee would result in
the loss of these prognuns.
9.

I 8 I II Ills,

P'11

la Rulg)

a

I

isa IRIRS III

)IIII

III'

SI
h
I L

mlle

i

IIRI ~ 1%I

iltsao

1

'

. % 11

'I ~

» ~ 1I::

111

1 1

IlI
'I SII '—

W1SUII la

~ 11 IRSR MISR

Rim
I

1

I

1

ac

— 1R hiR

Il'I Imt;

'll ll IIIlsR 8g ntJi =
~

Sltsmi

I

~

QRi

~

N

18m

Staff Recommendations
That the Strategic Planning Conunittee receive "Establishing a Receiving Waters Technical
Advisoty Committee for Greater Vancouver", dated August 30, 1994, for information.
10.

11.
Committee Comments
The Techndal Advisory Committee considered the proposal to establish a receiving waters
technical advisory committee at its meeting of June 17, 1994. The Committee did not
consider the proposal advisable for the reasons outlined in the report but supported effotts to
remove duplication between PREMP and BIEAP where it would lead to cost savings.
12.

Committee Recommendation

13.

Board Decision

NavI213.DOC

I

g~,)~ ll

Ill gssii'slS
[@jill ÃI
i

".::! Ill

NRiism tusI
IKKilllgm)f

liiii@i
Is

illiii

iili Jt I

P, tlI
a Ii
4

g444

&

S SI f'

OCT 2 c
44

I

'.'2i's aaSS4pg

4IHI

44 i%I ~

.—: —
m44
Im.k&lta
~~~suig~g+
——
ISsai
i

&mrna',,"

4 444444

—

—

I

-

—

— '.'-'-

ttt

I

~

II)'& ii SIR"
4S 4 4.
i s

44

~

S

~

iljmi it4S4~ii

's!+I &44

~4 ''
ii)~s

" '%1 a 0
kS44
I

~

,';,'

3

I

,",

I I

44

~/

,'ms:==::

ill MS !! kmimmlS

$9ti

~4~4444sili4rtf ms (xiii
=.:=.:I

18~ pt "==-"- ssg
Riml

~~

B4

a!rance

Greafer Vancouver if egionaiDisfricf

rchphonc (444S 4SSa99 7S

4SSO lungcvny Bvncaby Brrach Co Jam bra, Canada YSS( 4GB

Socoad or b(cnorovcr ll, JSrh b7oor. 472o ydndcvay Bnracby B C. (cnra Bna Ccnnal Boclcrand)

Strategic Planning Committee Agenda
7 September 1994
To:

Strategic Planning Committee

Prom:

Ken Cameron, Manager, Strategic Planning

Date:

31 August 1994

Re:

Approval of 1995 Prograbn Objectives for Strategic Planning

Each annual budget process begins with a set of program objectives for the year. Attached is
a memorandum to the Regional Manager that reviews progress to date on the 1994 objectives
and proposes 1995 objectives.
These objectives will form the basis for the preparation of the 1995 Program and Provisional
Budget, which will be placed before the Committee for initial consideration at its October
meeting.

RECOMMENDATfON
That the Strategic Planning Committee approve the proposed 1995 Program Objectives for
Strategic Planning.

JS In 4sgglgij

Qn nina Il

e'-'.I
arva~
I

i,

J

Jg Jlgjjif gi

/ij wbah'uPslgj
II gt Jgel, I II
fiji~a'~ It
I

'l

1

@ ——

BIJI
Sign:.=—

i

tttge IgJIJ
iona ~
IJJ PI

~

Hc ~

oran -.

)jjjamwgg

lgllj--"9m'~ ng
9

~ In a! nn a
aI I

,
I

I

IInhnIKI

e.'lllc
b,~anni

ln

-"- ~aflh ab n Snl
nc

n nb nntg

I4 g
I I

CT 2 6 SVt

nnn99

9ni gl lc Inst n
==

n KK

anna

,,
I I

~nh Bnnb I " all
- " ~,
- nI n
BI

I

ah n.

~t

t

I

I

~

I

~

an
~

gJg

815
ggrllua
hgt tssg
ii ai
1

efforts of the GVRD and rts members to nwntam and enhance hvabrhty and envrronmental
quality. Two key themes in 1994 are the positive interrelationships among Creating Our
Future's obiectives in air quality, transportation and hmd use and the financial benefits of
growth to attain Creatimg Our Future goals; The Department has been involved in
the District's initiatives in long-range finandal planning and in mandate and
issues.

intergov~

A progress report on Creating Our Future implementation will be produced this fall.

OCT 2 6 tgg~

2.

Coordinate the review and refinement of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and
Transport 2021 Reports.

A major effort was made in the first half of 1994 to support the review of the proposals referred
by the Board to municipalities and other groups and to analyse and process the results. This
culminated in the series of decision taken by the Board on 29 Tune 1994 to approve the vast
majority of the policies contained in these reports and to establish a process for addressing the

four major outstanding issues (growth targets, economic implementation strategy, rapid transit
phasing and financial and institutional arrangements for transportation). Continuing intensive
effort is being made to meet the target of December 1994 set by the Board for completion of the
necessaty work to resolve these issues and permit the Board to consider a timetable and approach
to the conclusion of the approval process.
3.

Establish the framework for implementation of regional plans.

The Department also provided support for the consideration of the Procedural Resolution for the
Preparation, Adoption and Implementation of a Regional Strategic Plan which was approved in
principle by the Board in 1993 and referred to member municipalities for comment. The Board
gave final approval to the resolution in May 1994.
The principles of consensus and partnership reflected in the Resolution are the basis for the
District's participation in the effort by the hfinistiy of Municipal Affairs to draft growth
management legislation for consideration by the Legislature in 1995.
The organization review of the Strategic Planning Department proposed in the 1994 objectives
was not funded in the budget process.

The Department continued to be deeply involved in improving the links between the Board's
Creating Our Future and strategic planning pohcies and the activities of other regional initiatives
such as the Praser River Estuary Management Program, the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action
Program, the Fraser Basin Management Program, the Georgia Basin Initiative, the B.C. Round
Table on Environment and Ec- nomy, the B.C. Energy Council and the Commission on Resources
and Environment.

t'ai

By the end of 1994, the Department will identify opportunities for pilot partnership agreements
with entities whose cooperation is critical to the implementation of the GVRD's regional plans.

IliR II%K- — eis

'jjjIsaiIl Wk
s~lli~ &Ni

-"= B'.„

ltiklmtlm'I'jlI

l

===='IWIIIINI~1~11g~s'

Ng&g~'..~z Ig Igmfsstssiptsmtmial~isMIad
m
yge h s se
g II I g a e
~

"

~

l lI

lg

g

[

ass

I

I

~ r

~s

s as

i

~~
I

Investigate the social, economic and financial implications ef regional plans.
The social implications of the Livable Region Strategy and Transport 2021 have been addressed
through research on comparative housing costs and future housing needs and through a review of
the strategy proposals'y the Technical Advisory Committee's Social Issues Committee. In
addition, further work will be undertaken this faH on the complete communities policies which will
include social aspects. Consideration of the financial and economic implications is part of the
purpose of the Economic Implementation Strategy being prepared as a result of the Board's 29
June 1994 decisions on the Proposals.
5.

Continue to improve regional information, modeling and forecasting services

'fhe new Geographic Information System has been brought on line in 1994. It is being loaded
with a wide range of land use and other information and is being used for analytical work such as
the status of Green Zone lands protection and the population growth aspects of the liquid waste
cost allocation study. A demonstration of the capabilities of this new resource is being arranged
for the Strategic Planning Committee this fall.

Data from the 1992 Travel Survey are continuing to be analysed and applied to the Department's
transportation modeling capability. A Trip Diary Survey wiH be conducted in November 1994 as
a key step in developing a long-awaited PM Peak and 24-Hour modeling capability.
PROPOSED l 995 OMKCTIVKS
Program planning for 1995 must be based upon two assumptions:
«That the outstanding issues concerning the Livable Region Strategy and Transport 2021
Proposals will be resolved so that the Board can confirm its policies in an adopted Regional
Strategic Plan;
~
That the Province will introduce legislative amendments that will affect the conduct of
regional planning and the scope and effect of regional plans.
If these assumptions prove correct, the Strategic Planning program can move strongly into
implementation partnerships while maintaining the Creating Qur Future policy fiamework and
continuing to improve its knowledge base.
1.

JI,
m
$ t u u ts ufat

ts

~

i

se

&

1

s«« ~ Iggl

== wr

sine,tfi
«

~a

Coordinate Creating Our Future implementation and renewal.

The Department will continue to play its role as the focal point for the coordinated
implementation of the vision, goals and objectives of Creating Our Future. This policy
statement wifi mark its fifih anniversary in 1995, which suggests the need to consider a
comprehensive review and update to confirm the overall direction and to update the policies in the
light of progress made in implementation and any shifts in the priorities of local government and
the public at large. A review process should be designed in late 1995 for implementation as part
of the 1996 program and budget for Strategic Planning.

OPT 2 6 59$
s

le==.,
gfii~nlil
IIII''

~

.-"aPee

ublic awareness and knowledge of the Regional Strategic

of the Livable Region Strategic Plan. such as the expansion of
ent measures, wiB require substantial public support. The 1995
will continue efforts to maintain snd expand public awareness of
ed through implementation of the Strategy snd the knowledge of
through their own actions. The program will focus on the critical
rowth managemeut legislation.
legislative proposals will require careful review and analysis to
proach to regional planning developed by the Board. After the
lative form, transitional measures made need to be considered to
arming activities snd plan to operate under the new arrangements.

apply our knowledge base.
n Strategy and Transport 2021 Proposals lus stimulated a rapid
use of the Department's data, modefing snd forecasting tools.
major acquisitions such as the GIS system snd the 1992 Travel
etion, there is an opportunity to use these resources to expand
on and to increase access to that knowledge by member

ll%

ll'N/j

4'I'
il.! II

I

RI!4! 4! 4[!

Ilk ill,I
!144!

gil IIS l

~148

I

L

IIPS I I

iill I 8

h

I

JIIL IR!
I li4I

OCT 2 6 094

'P
~ I Iee

'll
IIIII

4I
a I le

hl

II45 44 Ii

51'jlR
8, IQ

!4

III

I

p

~

44

I

R 4 Ieeeae

I

4

I

~~ele

~

~g

emu

'!lP

f/' ~ Sg P (
Rl

il
il

lle

e,.— Slh
4I Il ~ ".":
.

%441'::::- -- a e

l1

II I4

igggPI ji eiil W
Il

lf col II gJ
eeaeel mal

e ~

ee a m

II I

8 ee

—'.',:" alljlel jei

„I 8&I=

I.:

a

a IJI IIII I-—

jl

gg

DRAFT

Submission to the British Columbia Ener

The Comments of the C'reater Vancouver Regional Di

PLANNING 7OOA Y FOR
&fERCY STRA TEC Y FOR 8RITISH COL

TOMORROl4'N

jeiJ
August 30, 1994

t i~III

illnl,
~

Rs

gP tR

Ssssss J R I'1 I
Ilst IIII

IN!ill)l

% I illll
'll I III
I

iR

I

IaI

IIII IIPI
II 'II'll

III

RS

~ IS SR SIS
I

~f

OCT26

ltsrlIS~p Rl

~ I

s mm mw

1SS
~ 'i

I

SSJ

SS I

I

'

MlIII¹-

JRIESISII'R 4

'III II/g lip@lip I'iI,I
I
ISIII,
~:1& s Ill
I

I

I
I

SaRte

~

rs

Iill
=tiff lit.
Jl

aI

, I1 'RS „

1

"I

'
I

I

I

e

I

Ill ill[i[I

11'

g',

rell

III lIIIi 1I
Rl,ital tS
Pl l w tip

II r

I

~

~Ig

l II

I

J IS

ai/
'

tSU I

liiR~Rtl

collection and

,'I III

II11II II
I

'I'iII
I

l

Rl I

Il

ila

R

I II

S

'

'R
I

i Sgc l

ill H I
1 NI&~= ..= =..;;= — aP t
KIIRNgaaa e
—

h

I

I

al NS

cs I

Ik

i'IIa

$

I IIII Ill

llJI II 1
l

II I

~
al

If

lla iII a
I

S 1 I I I I! R
I

Ii ~ ~ iia I

~ nggiiiii::

I

—

—

~' 'al

me m
"&

fllml

~

I

me,pe, ehNIN

l

t

.—,

'Xllaa:

N'9
'l»i

iitt

~ a ~ NN

'!

mNeN

II

gI Nlaaal'll
~

=

I''j II/Oi'
IS 'Ilit I
I ~ I la
N

Ill Ii

~

~

~ e

I

~I

Iaaee 'aN Ne
J

,

N

p e

= =
."

Naa

i

l

e

IN% ill 1
a

" l ll

I

':ia iNIg II
~ II I

e~

N

All regional strategic planning initiatives by the GVRD are undertaken

according to the principles of livability, conservation, and sustainability. The
vision statement, Creating Our Future 1993, presents a set of 36 steps
which outline the creation of a metropolitan region that combines
economic vitality with the highest standards of livability and environmental
quality. Creating Our Future specifies the principles, policies, and actions
necessary to realize the vision.
The principles of conservation and sustainability are incorporated in
planning for the provision of physical services in the region, through the
Liquid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste Management Plan,
and in planning for the control of regional air pollution, through the Draft
Air Quality Management Plan.
Following the direction of Creating Our Future, the GVRD has developed a
coordinated regional land use and transportation plan called the Livable
Region Strategy. This strategy is intended to provide the Greater
Vancouver region with ways to accommodate another million residents by
the year 2021 while maintaining the current quality of life for new and
existing residents. The Livable Region Strategy seeks to manage population
and employment growth through the negotiation of growth targets in each
subregion of the GVRD (and in neighbouriing subregions in other regional
districts). The strategy also promotes the conservation of agricultural and
recreation lands through the creation of "green zones" where urban
development is limited or forbidden, and supports the development of a
hierarchy of "town centres" where local growth in each subregion may be
focused.

i/I

The transportation component of the Livable Region Strategy is drawn from
the Transport 2021 Long-Range Transportauon Plan for Oreater. Vancouver.
The British Columbia Energy Council draft energy strategy parallels many of
the recommendations of Transport 2021, particularly with respect to the use
of transportation demand management, roadway toils, parking fees and
mahagement, and the provision of viable transportation alternatives to the
slngleoccu pant automobile.

44 44%8!

5 II 5%
I

I

5I IIRÃ

i

ln general, there are many similarities and commonalities between the regional
planning initiatives of the GVRD and the draft energy strategy of the British
Coiumbia Energy CounciL Some of these similarities are: the underlying prindples
of conservation and sustainability; the concern for air quality and the prevention of
urban sprawl; the dedication to public consultation and participation; and the
realization that partnerships between jurisdictions can produce common solutions
to shared problems.

iiiif
(

RR I ifi'

fll g
Illljll

il'I 'ill

~ I4. 4 I I4

LMII

]IIR II hl

I

$

444
~

W III

Ill I hi 5

44

I

~

I

ala ilit n

ll

'

Ig

I

I

I I1kti

I

i

'ra
i

ta 4%le
'll IIXII
I II R I
-"..! 4 Will
ml ~
ti
4

1!IIiII 'a i

4I

I

'

I

RLl)l.f

II

i I

t4 ul1

4 .'4 ~
I

PHIFI

4 Ia I I'

liiii a

el 4
I

~

I

4 ~ III ISr4% I

4

Rllgi n~i&44 I4444 — I

I

E

Iiill II ill lt'
4

Il

4
%I

I

I

4

4

I

~ ~

14

I

~

Ill
1st.',

i

Ii
Ial

~

I It% I 14
'I

I

I

I

4

III 44 rm m- .

Ie

4

I

I

al Ii
al
Li

."

I

Igl ~

a,a ae'Iillll

I aa
IIII

aa ~ I Mgi

I

I II ~
I a''

!Il'I'

s

pic 3

I'I ('ll /l%hfaj
[

Iggi'gi I

g

11I IIII
'

I

~ I

II

I

I ]

agaamm

'a

'a

lllta

a I

N II sa

asm m~

Iig,l llil g I iiaia

ag'... ».s

ld f
~ ss

"~ ss4aa

IIR lj[

'ries~"-'-I=.

8 IHPsill
a

'slgg lag

l

~

'

III

s

g(

5 sss s ~ II,

las

sI R

111 aa

~a ls

s

~,

»:'!4il

I

g ii i«ias I

ts of a strategic

of municipal

institutional
enls.

ill

It III,II

.Bi III
LIP

RSRSI

S

l

i%

Jl'El
4 ll

II

HiS Ell
ES

Pt

lIII S»'

111%1 I

='::

SN

/fm
=

II

~af a
,i fRlftESRRIR1t44
I

lILti..;
I I

I

~

IIII Elf I lf

j

I

Pl

TIIIRSSF
EE I

I

I

~E I

I

EE4 I

I4E

~ SS

~SSESR::a ——

R SERI
I

ttl4

'I '

'
I

tl

I

R IP

IIhs.--

IfilÃ

~

I I

"'Itt

ff Ii
Ifl

Rl.l

1 f11
s ~ Sl
I

.~=
'L tiiiii

i1fmif I

~f

11

I I

'Ilifl I I

jll SEE RR i
REI Rilt
El
ffi

4% Ill

ll4l4lt hl

F:E

RR

lllrli

'.

I

I

I

I

ss I l S S 4 l 1 i f l ff

APPENDIX: CGMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON SPECIFIC ELEMENTS DF THE
DRAFT ENERGY STRATEGY

SDPPoRT FoR ELEMENTs QF THE DRAFT ENERGY sTRATEGY

The GVRD agrees with many elements of the draft energy strategy. Some of these
elements are listed beiow in the following three categories: (a) general principles;
(b) energy and municipal planning; and, (c) energy and transportation.
refer to relevant passages of the draft energy strategy.)

(Page'umbers

General Principles

A.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District supports the following assertions:

The scope of energy planning should be broadened to include land use and
transportation considerations (pp. 1, 5-6).
~
The concept of integrated resource management is sound, and should be
applied both as a general energy planning pi'inciple (p. 2) and as a
consideration in transportation planning (p. 27).
e Sustainable energy consumption is enhanced through the use of nearby sources
which conform to the definition of a sustainable or transitional resource (p. 2).
~
Public consultation and public participadon are requisite features of any
modern planning initiative (pp. 2-3, 53).
a Broad policy initiatives are required to bridge between narrow jurisdictional
domains (p. 2).
e The objective of 'greenhouse gas reduction (pp. 8-13) is shared
by the GVRD.
~
Higher charges for energy consumption should be applied directly to
sustainahle energy soluuons (pp. 2, 18-1 9).
~

Energy and Municipal Planning

B.

a

e

Lf i/1~

Igl II ~ I a lsai
I

I

asiiitiiiSII
„Igglili iimi

GVRD supports the Coundl's advocacy of incentivebased ratemaking (p. 47).
Particularly, utilities should not profit directly from the extension of gdids to
undeveloped areas of the urban fringe, since this would lead those utilities to
sanction urban sprawL
The general prindples behind the promotion of urban villages (pp. 21-22) are
laudable. The GVRD promotes complete communities and town centres with a
broader mix of housing, a more complete range of local services, better
pedestrian and bicycle drculation systems, and better public transit service than
typical postwar bedroom suburbs.

aliis'i]
II IRSI llgj
!

')'Ni i.i I
'

~

IIT

J

iaiil PIII
aaiiiill
I

!iii aiii r:!
llal .I ~ W% I
1% fr'i I

'l

$
i

I

I

I

III ) ) I(

til'.."I :

Mr""
I

tlaa-.: =

I

i

i

IIIIRI RQ

WlullQ'Rl

i

I

'R

+AS 'l
I

li

a e rl

I

I

I

!

I

~

I'

Si II

I

;,a! I

I

RI

~

I

ll I

5

~ %P

c::,
II~MI '

~I

I

SII$ 3

'2

Su

II

I

I
ala ~
sl'egi a

~l

SCT 2 I
Ml IMP ill

I1(I"

a ,'1%
a

i'l

~
II

I ul44%8
— —

li ~ II4

a s Ml

~ ea

in,sig
—
~

'IRL, ~ ~ ~.l:

a M al

"2)IISI
I Rill

J

g II

igg

.I ~ ilia N

Energy and Transportation

C.

Many of the transportation-related elements of the draft energy strategy (pp. 24-32)
are consistent in several important respects with those of Transport 2021, the
recently completed long-range transportation strategy for the Lower Mainland.
~

o

e

~

Generally, both strategies agree that long-range transportation planning should
be done at the regional level (pp. 24, 27), that road-building is no longer an
appropriate solution to transportation problems (p. 26), and that singleoccupant vehicle trip reduction is a preferable solution (pp. 26, 28).
Further, both strategies propose similar methods of'accomplishing a reduction
in the amount of vehicle travel, such as tolls (p. 28), high-occupancy vehicle
projects (p. 28), the management of regional traffic congestion at bridgeheads
(p. 27), and improved community-based public transit services (p. 29).
Additionally, several elements of the draft energy strategy are consistent with
the policy recommendations of the Regional Bicycle Task Force (approved by
the GVRD Board of Directors in 1993), such as the promotion of improvements
to the connection between bicycles and public transit (p. 29) and the systemwide improvement of bicycle access and safety (p. 30). Particularly useful is the
identification of an appropriate funding source (p. 30) for bicycle safety
improvements.
Finally, GVRD supports the draft energy strategy suggestions for working
partnerships between agencies in endeavours such as demonstration projects
(p. 28) and vehicle buying groups (p. 31).

succcsyioNs Foa ttc-zvALL!ATtoN
There are a few elements of the draft energy strategy which should be revaluated
for content or emphasis. The comments below are offered as constructive criticism
toward the creation of a more effective energy strategy.

w! 511$
III IKiÃNaiia

o

The lack of explicit consideration of a strategic role for urban regions in energy
planning is unfortunate. Without promotion by all levels of local government,
the application of energy planning principles to land use and transportation
planning will not be realized. The mandate of the Energy Council must be
taken up by more proponents than the B.C. Utilities Commission and the
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (pp. 2, 54).

e

The draft energy strategy's land use comments (pp. 21-22), and particularly the
videotape distributed with the draft, rely too much on the "neo-traditional"
school of town planning. The benefits of increased intensity of land use, of
mixed-use neighbourhoods, and of alternative transportation network strategies
are accepted. It is not clear, however, that "neo-traditional" town planning is
the sole or best mi-ihod of deriving these benefits. Despite its philosophical
strengths, "neo-traditional" development has been almost exclusively a suburban
or exurban form of development. The true choice should not be between two
competing forms of fringe development (of which the "neo-traditional" is
admittedly superior), but between fringe development and the redevelopment
of existing urban areas.
Page 6

I

a sn 8 i

lgsiaa mniig (
11II8 !5 II% I
IH:s=

I

I.ag ~ I INN

.II

'

~

ll

~ ~ ~ "'.II 5 tlNIIL!NRP
I mme

aK

f

f

IN;
0N
1

/I isssm

sgg i I tt I W Is

i

sNiin)

~ INg /

e

asissi

N

'%S 11 ls ti s

'!!NII=,:=
I!II

..(lorn~a~

~g

fjgiffi

&

— —.

a a eligi Na a
=

a!I'N

)I Igludlg
ll .I I',IIIIII

i

III I% IT(&

~~

~,, ..

h

e

I,,

qg ai ~

e

~:

i

i

'

i

~, i/)(j(JR
.

on of a sustainable energy supply (pp. 2, 7) is weakened by the
nerality of its second component (" acceptable environmental, social,
cultural impacts"). This raises the questions of how acceptability is
ed and by whom. These questions are at the core of the debate
nability. Since the draft energy strategy is so clearly presented as a
e" energy strategy, this component of the definition should be
One approach to defining acceptability would be to say that no net
mpacts should occur beyond the biophysical region in which the
sed.
pt of requiring public transit or bicycle access improvements as part
oadway improvements (p. 24) is laudable, but should not be
o one requirement only nor to arterial roadways only. The restriction
ments to either bicycle or public transit networks (but not both) may
n unhealthy competition between proponents of these two modes.
limitation of improvements to arterial roadways only would
ly restdict the range of potential improvements, particularly for
essibility (e.g., such a policy would adversely afreet a current and
sful strategy in the City of Vancouver of promoting bicycle
nts to secondary streets). A better policy, promoted by both the
the BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways, would be to
planning for alternative modes is done automatically to a required
any transportation planning process (a strategy very similar to that
or municipal energy planning).
pplication of development cost charges to financing public transit
ts (p. 29) could result in an inequitable distribution of social costs.
ts would pay for a benefit to the entire community of existing
potentially more equitable method of financing public transit
ts (and general services) is through property taxes, a method used
adian jurisdictions outside BC.
NTS OF THE DRAFT ENERGY STRATEGY

duding the review process with respect to several elements of the
strategy. No specific position is taken by GVRD with respect to these

elements.
~

Why is energy production from municipal solid waste not recommended for
exploitation as even a "transitional" energy source? Admittedly, it would be
better if such waste were not produced — but it is, and will be for the
foreseeable future. Methane collection from landfills is recognized by the
Council as an exception to its general view, but the incineration of municipal
solid waste should not be ruled out. These energy sources could be rendered
unfeasible by environmental standards (i.e., if dangerous air pollution is
unavoidable), but there would appear to be a practical case for consideding
such projects on their merits.

Page 7

O(T P c I()(

ataaa

i

e'~

'a

—

—

$

~~ia~scaatt aaa a

as broadly as proposed

), the principles
Why then are they
to the
945 of the Municipal
ered to.

ow significantly more
dispersal of employment
w a concern in regional
ematic precisely
Perhaps the views
ese more current
ral aw'areness about the
mendation (p. 30) that

alteration of travel
a program of such

provements which are
ment of the current
mple, major
and trails, in the
d-of-nip services at
bicycle access

andards to address the

be added to the
may not be the best
ernment context.
sing the broad planning
cused instrument will be

mill
IIII'J I]I

"===.!
lane~a ieI I!ii
1555 sees

t sea imssg
i

CW

Kv atHVl&IC

IYOOC

Ilgme
iim milI
sss

~

Pjis Hsl

I

imii

RslR Pd 'w a /
I

14m~'n'/f I [Ilm)IH[~:~%II'PI)-'™.=-:

—;

'-g astI/I II I liliII»~ ialait"
I

-c-I~ imSiigis a ~ s

WM~tsssguanlllm~ll~)5

.

~

a"'==

~~

~

ealh,~ ~

THE CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF PORT COQUITLA'VI

TO:

Environmental Protection Committee

FROM;

Anne T. Pynenburg
Project Technician

SUBJECT:

COMPOST PUPPKT SHOW - FOR INFORMATION ONLY

DATE: October 25, 1994

Attached is a copy of a poster sent by Allison MacKinnon of Canadian Folk Puppets advertising
a "Compost Puppet Show" currently touring on Vancouver Island.

The show explains the Why7 What7 and How7 of composting through the ure of puppets. The
show is geared towards elementary school age children.

A copy of the poster and cover letter has been sent to the Superintendent for School District ¹43.

Anne T. Pynenburg
Project Technician

attach

iiir'pa|mern

)

".=,-='5

o

Ill@I 115 j

~!mll'

ullnm

'

=,===

,—. saljllIR~'"

'I~==—

~ R!5-::.,- '~~l),~a~~
~~ —

" — ~/llRlatsllsllulls~g~g~ its

= -—

~.=— ,:::

~a~l~iii

m

i~it

—

~g~( gQ
'

CANiOijA: —.i;-pip-,-,-f&Oig)&b S
Ij

,

hwGHuEERI¹

(604) 277 — 9ti7
ipA X 2 7 3 —,5 7 4'7

Tc

Dear

I

EFO+

I

your writeup in the Richmond local news and
taking the liberty of sending you the enclosed
poster of our puppet show . Ne are appearing
for over 2500 school children in Victoria Provincial
Museum over Halloween. This is sponsored by the
Greater Victoria Regional District Recycling. The
saw

am

cost of

our.

performance is very reasonable and we
to answer any enquiries by phoning

would be pleased
(604 I 277-9177

Signed

.

gu.= 7g~
Allison

MacKinnon

Canadian Folk Puppets

J

liaiNIII

IRIII
ISI
IIHII R

IIILIW I4144
I

I

I I H II I I4 I

P. S.
I enclose a set of our popular
trading cards.
which the children
seem to love... They are yours with

my

compliments

~

~
&

&am

li

IIIII.I1

/JU// ST////S jU///

]III%

'-*

IIIIII II'

T//f/R jUN'

less

///'TO YO//// ////j//Ts ".
I

NNRtt

LDI!IE Dt ENNfE HI'%CHRIS ODWlE ""NRNOOMAN

|Vl

I

I

//////CE /////J S///U

IONG

I

I

II

Presented by The Canadian Foll: Puppets

Is'

I

ill l
I

~Ij

I

PIlPl tR FRAN ODWtE

S
I

WHERE

I

I

Jl I IIs'I
) 0

1I

and

Selb

I I
I

I

WHEN

I

si

'

i

i

I

I

,,I

IS I

I

I

I

IS I ~
I

ss