ALI D Fraser MA EME TSYSTEM River · A linked management system proposal for the Fraser River estuary (Technical background report. Phase 2, ISSN 0713-2700) At head of title: Fraser

ALI MA

D EME TSYSTEM

TECHNICAL BACKGROUND REPORT - PHASE II

I+ Government of Canada

fli:;\ Province of ~ British Columbia

Fraser River

Estuary Study

Surrey, British Columbia March, 1982

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data

Wolfe, Larry Dennis Sturm, 1948-A linked management system proposal for the

Fraser River estuary

(Technical background report. Phase 2, ISSN 0713-2700)

At head of title: Fraser River Estuary Study. Prepared by L.D.S. Wolfe for the Management

Systems Sub-committee. ISBN 0-7719-8935-0

1. Fraser River estuary (B.C.) 2. Water resources development - British Columbia -Fraser River estuary. I. Canada. II. British Columbia. III. Fraser River Estuary Study (Canada). Management Systems Sub-committee. IV. Title. V. Series.

TC427.F7W642 333.91'6415'0971133 C82-092142-4

PREPARED BY :

L. D. S. WOLFE FRASER RIVER ESTUARY STUDY OFFICE

FOR THE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SUB-COMMITTEE

Sub-Committee Membership

F. Boyd (Chairman) D. Buchanan E. Karlsen W. T. Lane S. McLaren A. Riches M. Romaine T. Simmons J. Hill P. Ewert H. Dembicki (Observer) J. Vance (Observer)

Fisheries and Oceans Canada District of Coquitlam Ministry of Municipal Affairs Greater Vancouver Regional District Fraser River Harbour Commission Scott Paper Environment Canada Outdoor Recreation Council B. C. Packers Ministry of Agriculture and Food U.B.C. Planning School Fraser River Estuary Forum

FOREWORD

The Fraser River Estuary Study was a joint Federal-Provincial Study initiated in 1977 under agreement between Environment Canada and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. It's purpose was to develop a management program that will provide a way to guide future changes in the estuary so that it is preserved and protected as a natural resource while continuing to serve as a vital economic resource. The study was a multi-agency program of activity involving federal, provincial, municipal and regional agencies, industry and public interests.

STUDY AREA The study focussed on the land and water outside the boundary of the dykes between Kanaka Creek and the outlet of Pitt Lake in the east, the estuary drop-off in the west, Point Grey to the north, and the international bound­ary to the south. The study area also includes Boundary and Semiahmoo Bays.

STUDY ORGANIZATION The study was organized in two phases. Phase I produced an inventory of existing conditions and trends in the estuary and outlined a set of manage­ment proposals and strategies. Phase I was directed by a Federal-Provincial Steering Committee.

Phase II was concerned with the preparation of a management program for recommendation to the Study Council, the Federal Minister of Environment and the British Columbia Minister of Environment. Phase II has progressed under the direction of a Federal-Provincial Planning Committee composed of representatives of eleven government agencies and was carried out by a staff located in Surrey. The study office carried out analysis, research, planning and public involvement activities.

PHASE I. The first phase of the study produced a series of reports which describe the characteristics and prospects of land· use and transportation; water quality; habitat; and recreation. A report on the constitutional and legislative frameworks for estuary management and a summary report on proposals for the development of a management plan were also produced. Phase I was completed in 1978.

PHASE II. The second phase was initiated in 1979 and was completed in . March 1982. Issues and concerns identified by groups, organizations and

agencies representing all types of interests in the estuary, along with technical data have been used to prepare the proposals contained in, 'A Living River By The Door', A Proposed Management Program for the Fraser River Estuary. The proposals include a vision, policies, area plans, activity programs and a management system.

This report is one of a series of Phase II technical reports containing proposals and background data on management systems, information systems, area designation, referral systems, legal provisions, organizational options. In addition, a full report on the results of public involvement in Phase II pas been produced.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM. Throughout Phase II the public has been informed and involved in several ways. Citizens have monitored the study through the Fraser River Estuary Forum, an umbrella organization representing corrununity groups, industry, unions, environmental and recreational groups and academia. Information about the study's progress has been mailed to over 3,000 groups, agencies and individuals in the Lower Mainland in the form of newsletters, bulletins and plan documents.

~ series of personal interviews was conducted with the leaders of public groups and user interests. An estuary-wide public workshop was held in March 1981. In April and May 1981 a series of five public workshops were held to review the results of the Phase I reports. A series of seven corrununity workshopswereheld in November and December 1981 to review the draft manage­ment program proposals.

THE PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. The proposed management program for the Fraser River Estuary is a guide to government, industry and the public for working together to make decisions about the future use of the estuary.

The issues related to growth and change in the Fraser estuary are irrunensely complex. The estuary is located in a large and growing urban area, and is influenced by over 60 government agencies and many user groups from industry to recreation.

A management program for the estuary will be a complex set of goals and objectives, programs and plans that must be agreed to by all the govern­ments and users of the estuary if it is to be successful in guiding a healthy future. A management system consisting of structures, processes and procedures for management and for conflict resolution will provide the organizational basis for the management program.

We would like to acknowledge the contributions made to the study by the many concerned members of the public and industry. We would also like to acknowledge the diligence of the members of the study committees and task forces, representing many Federal, Provincial and local agencies.

STUDY COUNCIL

Honourable Stephen Rogers, B.C. Ministry of Environment Honourable John Roberts, Federal Minister of Environment

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Public Works Canada Fraser River Harbour Commission North F~aser Harbour Cormnission Port of Vancouver Ministry of Municipal Affairs Ministry of Industry and

Small Business Development Ministry of Environment (B.C.) Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing Greater Vancouver Regional

District CHAIRMAN: D.R. Hehn,

Ministry of Environment VICE CHAIRMAN: D.S. Lacate

Environment Canada

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ministry of Environment, 10334 - 152A Street, Surrey, B.C. V3R 7P8 Phone: 584 - 8822

STUDY OFFICE

Larry D.S. Wolfe, Program Coordinator

Robert D. Hobson, Senior Planning Officer

Cathy Harvey, Public Involvement Officer

Gary Reith, Information System Officer

John Higham, Planning Assistant

Kaye Melliship, Assistant Public Involvement Officer

Gwen McAllister, Office Manager

Laurie Brummitt, Office Assistant

] i

-· ...!,. ,

ry\,~ _; J ;,~nJ:j:·.

· i'TA":fr·~ o'' 17 'i ~., J., ' <'

: .' i si ~ nl,. \~~ I: > :Tct.i: srb 11_

.; J'~>fij 9,QO j

PREFACE

A major objective of Phase II of the Fraser River Estuary Study was the preparation of proposals for a Management System for interagency liaison and coordination with respect to estuary management. In late 1980, the Planning Committee of the Study ass'igned this work to its Management Systems Sub-Committee, The sub-Committee was responsible for reviewing the Management Systems alternatives for the Estuary and recommending proposals to the Planning Committee.

In completing its work, the Sub-Committee, and the Planning Committee, received a variety of reports and analys·es. Some of this material has been published separately in technical reports of the Study. This report is a synopsis and summary of the important threads of thought of the study concerning Management Systems together with a collation of relevant background material. This report, together with other technical studies·, provides background to the main report of the Study 'A.Living River oy tfi.e Doort - Proposals for a Management Program for the Fraser-River Estuary.~In particular, it relates-tO- Part 4 of that report "Estuary Management System - How the work gets done. 11 Part 4 is necessarily abridged in length due to the summary nature of the overall document. This report provides more detailed explanations. Appendices to the chapters provide analytic material with reference to the chapter. The report appendices provide descriptions of other estuary studies and case studies of the application of the management system proposed herein.

Larry D. s. Wolfe MSc MCIP MBA March 1982

_)()']' . ' ! 9IfT • 2

;:w;:r 2 00 v

...

I

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of this Report B. How the Work was Done

THE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE

Page

1

1 3

11

A. Today's Management Process Needs Improvement 11 B, There are Five Management Challenges 11

III CHOOSING AN ESTUARY MANAGEMEN'!' SYSTEM 28

IV

v

A. Today's System is not Considered Effective 28 B, A New Estuary Agency is not Considered 28

Desirable C. Linked Management System Alternative 29 D. Alternative Linked Management Systems 30 E. Evaluation of Linked Management Alternatives 31

A LINKED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL: THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM AND LEAD AGENCIES COMPONENT

A. Preparing the Ground B. An Organ:i;;:ta.tional Concept

A LINKED M..ANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL: THE SPECIAL PROCESSES COMPONENT

A. A Participation Process B. A Coordinated Referrals and Assessment

Process C. A Fraser Estuary Information System D. New Technology

44

44 45

63

63 64

66 67

VI A PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A LINKED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

73

VII BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

A. Answers the Management Challenges B. Simple to Implement C. Changes Operating Style D. Builds on Experience

Bibliography

75

75 75 75 76

147

I-1

I-2

II-1

II-2

II-3

II-4

III-1

III-2

III-3

III-4

III-5

IV-1

IV-2

V-1

V-2

V-3

A

B

LIST OF APPENDICES

Phase I Key Findings

Organizational Design

The Advantages and Challenge of an Estuary Plan and Process

Analytic Method

Public Concerns and Management Challenges

Analysis of Management Challenges, Policy and Practices Review, Process Development Consultant

Excerpts of Phase I Concerning Management Systems

A Graphic Explanation of the Three Linked Management System Alternatives

Public Evaluation of Linked Management Alternatives

Comparisons of Other Estuary Approaches

Management System Alternatives and Management Challenges

Estuary Management System

Connnittee Organization

Referrals Problem Assessment

Major Steps in a Proposed Enhanced Referrals Process for the Fraser Estuary

Referrals Enhancement - The Washington State Case

Review of Other Estuary and Coastal Zone Studies

Review of Case Studies

A-6

A-9

A-14

A-15

A-21

A-23

A-34

A-36

A-37

A-38

A-43

A-53

A-54

A-69

A-70

A-72

77

130

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This report describes and explains proposals of the Fraser River Estuary Study (Phase II) for a 'Linked Management System' for the Fraser River Estuary.

A linked management system provides a framework for interagency cooperation. It consists of organizational structures, processes and procedures for management and for conflict resolution. Its principal task is to provide an organizational basis for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program.

This report is a technical appendix to Part 4 of "A Uving RiveJt btj the Voo/1. 11

- A P!1.opo.oed Management P!1.og'1.am {Jo/1. the F!1.MeJt 7UveJt E.otua'1.1J." Part 4, entitled "Estuary Management System - How the Job gets done", comprises the major recommendations of Phase II of the Fraser River Estuary Study concerning an organizational process for managing the Estuary. Supplementary material is also found in the background technical reports listed below.

1. Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference for developing a Management Program are detailed in the Federal Provincial Fraser River Estuary Study Agreement, Phase II (October, 1979), Section 2:

SECTION 2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES

1. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a joint undertaking for a program to develop a Management Plan for the Fraser River Estuary through:

(a) organized dialogue among government, industry, and the public;

(b) organization of research and monitoring programs to support the Management Plan;

(c) the initiation of an area designation process to provide a basis for coordinated administration of the Estuary;

(d) the establishment of an information clearinghouse centered in the Vancouver region for the dissemination of infonnation relating to the development and use of land and water resources within the Estuary.

2. The Management Plan shall be developed pursuant to the following guidelines:

(a) the area to which the Management Plan shall apply is the Fraser River Estuary and those contiguous lands interrelated with the Estuary which may be affected by the Plan;

- 1 -

2. Phase II Studies

Phase II began with the proposals of Phase I. Clause 2,2(f) of the Phase II Agreement directed the Study to begin with Phase I proposals and to develop and expand these proposals, explore them with agencies and interested public interests.

Work on the development of a management system began with the formation of a Policy and Practices Review Task Force on May 12, 1980. After several months of discussion the task force was adjourned in August 28, 1980 without report. The work of the task force was reassigned to a new sub-committee - the Management Systems Sub-Committee on November 27, 1980. The sub-committee held its first meeting on December 10, 1980.

A second sub-committee, the Information Systems Sub-Committee (first established as the 11 Referral Systems Sub-Committee"), was organized at the same time to undertake a review of referral processes and prepare information components of the program.

Both groups have made significant contributions to the proposals presented in this report.

a. Background Studies

The feasibility and design of proposals under preparation was evaluated in detail in a series of reports prepared by staff and consultants. These reports are listed below:

o Ale.xandeJt, L. J. Le..gal P1tovl.t.ioY11.i {iO!t Unk.e..d Manage..me..nt (F.R.E.S.; 1981).

1 Wol(ie.., L. V .S. 0Jtganizational Op:tLoYl!.i (ioJt Unk.e..d Manage.me..n:t (F.R.E.S.; 198

1 Re...Lth, G. 1n6otunation SyJ.i:te.mJ.i Re..poJt:t (F.R.E.S.; 1982).

1 fvlc.Dougali, R. Re..6e.Jt!Lal SyJ.i:te..m.o P1te...oe..nfty U.oe..d in the.. F!tM e.!L Riv e!t E..o :tLLMIJ Co !Le.. A1te..a ( F . R . E . S . TJ9 8IT. -

, F.R.E.S., Age..nc.y Catalogue.. (in p!te..pattation)

Also taken into consideration was comment made at fourteen public meetings held in 1981. This public input is reported by the Study public involvement staff in the Re..J.iltlt.6 o(iPublic. Involve..me..nt. Preliminary results were reported to Study Committees during their deliberations. In the pages which follow, public comments are used to refine and test management systems proposals.

In addition to the above, the Study contracted with a process development consultant. The consultant researched the policies and procedures of estuary agencies and produced the organizational concepts reviewed with the public in the fall of 1981. The consultant developed matrices identi­fying user activities and their impacts, and, for agencies and their

- 2 -

(b) the needs of an expanding economy and the sensitivity and fragility of the Estuary's ecosystem are to be recognized;

(c) the need to provide a framework within which t.he problems, policies and options of affected agencies can be evaluated;

(d) the Management Plan shall be developed within the time set out in this Agreement;

(e) the Plan shall be designed for the continuous management of the area to which it applies, subject to changing needs and conditions;

(f) during the development of the Plan, the concepts and policy proposals of the Management Plan set out by the Fraser River Estuary Steering Committee in its Report of September, 1978, shall be expanded and developed through further studies and evaluations, and shall be explored with agencies and interested public bodies to. the extent that all or any appro­priate parts shall be capable of being put into effect prior to or upon termination of this Agreement.

B. HOW THE WORK WAS DONE

1. Phase I Conclusions

The general concept of a management program was proposed by the Phase I Steering Committee of the Fraser River Estuary Study. The Committee's re­commendations were detailed in its report, Phopo~a.lo fioh the Vevei..opmen.:t on an E~tu.MLJ Ma.na.gemen.:t Plan: Su.mmMy Repo~ ofi the Stee.JUng CommLt:tee (August, 1978) which describes the need for a "process plan", that is - a structure of committees and procedures for the preparation and implementation of a manage­ment plan. The principal elements of the Phase I concept were policies, area designation, and a "linking" of the separate operational plans of different agencies. Its organizational proposal was for: a constituency (government agencies and non-governmental organizations), a policy group (key agencies), and an estuary council (a small political group). It also proposed procedures for rationalized and coordinated research and for monitoring programs; a regional context for assessing development projects; an organized process for bringing together government agencies, public and business groups for mutual adjustment of goals and policies; an information clearinghouse for information exchange; and other processes.

The Federal Provincial Phase II Agreement (1979) directed the Study to develop and expand the Phase I proposals through further studies and evaluations and through exploration with agencies and interested public bodies.

The principal recommendations of Phase I are summarized in Appendix I-1 which is excerpted from the Phase I Key Findings and Recommendations (FRES, 197 8: 17-22).

3 -

mandates to manage user activities. Due to illness and personal reasons the consultant discontinued work at the end of 1981.

b. Major Conclusions of Phase II

The proposals contained in this report are for a simple and innovative concept of interagency cooperation.

The management context of the Fraser River Estuary is one where many decision makers are involved in making cooperative decisions. At times this has to be done on a basis of weak information and with considerable uncertainty about future events. In this situation, research into organiza­tional forms indicates that a non-hierarchical, lateral type of structure is advantageous. This would include joint programs, flexible agreements, information systems, and coordinated procedures. (See Appendix I-2). In Phase I this approach was described as a "process plan". Now in Phase II the mechanisms are referred to as a Linked Management System. Such a system offers a wide range of possible configurations. Several major elements are combined in the organizational measures proposed as follows:

• A management program designed to provide a set of common goals and action plans between governments, government agencies, and user interests;

• A policy committee to provide linkage between governments, estuary committees, and government agencies;

• A "key agency" group to provide a focus for cooperation between the major government agencies and to organize implementation of a management program;

• A program committee to provide an ongoing context for planning and for representation of user interests;

• A set of lead agencies to undertake a lead role in imple­menting common estuary policies;

• A process of preparing the ground for a management program by streamlining and rationalizing existing procedures and programs of agencies;

• A participation process to involve government agencies, user interests and others in estuary planning;

e A coordinated referrals and impact assessment process to link interagency decision making procedures in reference to specific projects;

e A Fraser Estuary Information System to encourage information exchange among agencies and with the public,

- 4 -

Our studies indicate that the above proposals are feasible and workable, from both a legal and organizational standpoint. Background reports referred to earlier give details and provide supplementary evaluation of the best approaches for implementation.

It is a major recommendation of, the Phase II work that the proposed system should be implemented in a gradual step-by-step process, with the full participation of those affected by the proposals. Such a process is seen as desirable and necessary to achieve commitment and full cooperation.

c. Benefits of the Phase II Proposals

The proposed system has several benefits. It addresses the major management challenges identified through our studies. It facilitates agreement on common goals and policies. It simplifies government administration and promotes better management of agency personnel, money and resources, while assuring accountability and improved infonnation exchange. In addition, the proposal is simple to implement as it involves existing powers of the Governments of Canada and British Columbia. It succeeds because it affords a change in operating style and builds on the experience of those agencies that have been managers of the estuary. Finally, as a result of its streamlining aspects and encouragement of cooperation between the sixty to seventy agencies holding mandates in the estuary, it reduces regulation and cuts red tape.

It is important to note that the proposal presented in this report should not be under estimated because it suggests simple solutions. It is not a .ota.tLl~ qLW proposal. On the contrary, it addresses an innovative and far­reaching approach to "tuning-up" the processes of government decision making and resultant action while retaining flexibility. Thus it can achieve concerted actions in the interests of both environmental and economic resources of the estuary.

- 5 -

APPENDIX I-1 PHASE I KEY FINDINGS

Excerpts from Fraser River Estuary Study, Key Findings and Recommendations (Victoria: August, 1978) pp. 17-22.

A MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ESTUARY

The Steering Committee has deliberated on these findings and endeavoured to assess their implications for the development of a management plan. Such a plan should be a "process-plan": one that is capable of adapting to new findings.

The approach taken must be broad to provide a better balancing of environmental and economic considerations. A "process-plan" can have many practical benefits especially by providing a framework for decision making. For example, it can provide a regional context for assessing development projects; it can guide and expedite many administrative decisions. It can also provide a basis for consistency in resolving conflicts.

The plan and associated process are proposed as the best way to lead to more rationalized and coordinated research and monitoring programs and improved communications between various government agencies. Finally, the plan would provide a vehicle for joint commitment by all levels of government to better long-term management of the estuary.

The "process-plan" is therefore an organized means of bringing together all government agencies, public and business groups with an interest in the estuary and determining a process for mutually adjusting their various management goals for the benefit of all. The first step in such a process would be to agree to certain management principles and policies. The Steering Committee therefore has advanced some proposed policy guidelines based on the phase I study findings. These proposals are put forward as the basis for intensive and broadly based dialogue before their adoption ... (Policy Guidelines are listed in the report.)

MANAGING THE PLAN

The natural system of the Fraser Estuary together with extensive use by man for industrial and port development presents a highly complex and diverse situation. This complexity is echoed institutionally - with a large number of agencies, organizations and interests involved in what happens in the estuary.

The Steering Committee has noted that some organizations have powerful and direct roles in estuary management. But no single agency can control the estuary. While the simple answer of a "single authority" is superficially appealing, it could not override the inherent diversity of interests and needs which exist. We are persuaded that dealing with and streamlining inter-juris­dictional complexity through joint consultation in developing and agreeing on a management plan as a framework for future use is a preferred approach. We believe the goal is mutual adjustment of policies and actions in accord with agreed management principles. This means explicitly agreeing upon a "negotiated order" and "linking" the separate operational plans of different agencies in a

A-6

coherent way. We also see the need for an ultimate level of decision which would be the responsibility of the elected politicians at the various levels of government. This is because value judgements will be required to resolve some issues where objective information is not adequately available.

The Steering Conunittee has offered for discussion an organizational concept comprising three inter-acting groups:

a "constituency" comprising a.11 government agencies and non-governmental groups that would meet at intervals to exchange views and understandings and to participate in task groups that may be established to resolve specific problems;

a "policy group" comprising the key agencies* with direct management powers and interests in the estuary. It will develop initiatives, explore means of reconciling conflicts, and make recommendations to the political level to which it is accountable. A well-known and capable figure outside government perhaps should be chosen to chair this group;

an "Estuary Council", a small political group bearing ultimate responsibi­lity and accountability for formalizing policies for the estuary.

These three parts of the total "organization" are proposed to be served in ways appropriate to each by a Coordinator and a small staff group or "secretariat". The Coordinator would provide the essential liaison between groups in facili­tating the plan development process which as noted must be evolved by intensive consultation on the proposed policy guidelines and to achieve linkage of separate smaller plans, It also involves working towards more formal "area designations" for various development, recreation and conservation uses along the many varying sections of the estuary shoreline. This Coordinator and staff secretariat are essential to the completion of the next phase: developing a management plan for the Fraser Estuary through extensive public participation and dialogue.

As a Steering Committee, we believe an estuary management plan that collates relevant parts of the various independent "plans" of the many agencies and links them, can work and have considerable positive effect.

THE STEPS AHEAD

The next step is to advance the development of the management plan through organizing dialogue on the proposed policy guidelines, organizational arrange­ments and general findings of the work groups. Before this can be undertaken,

* The Harbour Connnissions and Boards; FRHC, NFHC, NHB Canada Fisheries Canada Environment B. C. Environment B. C. Recreation and Conservation and Municipal Affairs Regional Districts; GVRD, CFV, DARD

A-7

we reconunend a short transition phase (no more than six months) to prepare the way for a full program of plan development and release all Phase I reports for public and agency review.

The main targets of the Transition Phase are:

to reach an agreement between British Columbia and Canada to proceed with Phase II;

prepare for the establishment of an information clearinghouse;

complete the Water Quality work and recommend an improved water quality monitoring system;

prepare for the area designation process;

review further present policies and practices, and prepare an inventory of referral processes;

initiate a process to priorize research and monitoring proposals to support development of a management ~lan.

Phase II, which might take a year or more would establish the main framework for the management plan leading to a Federal and Provincial Agreement to begin plan implementation. We have stressed that this Phase must be managed by a full-time Study Coordinator plus support staff.

The main targets of Phase II are:

to develop and reach agreement through dialogue on an estuary management plan, process and organization;

to reorganize existing research and monitoring programs to support the management plan;

to start-up an information clearinghouse;

to complete a first round of the area designation process.

Phase III would be plan implementation and plan refinement involving a number of action programs and establishment of a coordinated and policy-oriented research and monitoring program ...

A-8

APPENDIX I-2 ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN

Excerpts from Galbraith, Jay. Designing Complex Organizations (Reading, MASS.: Addison-Wesley, 1973), pp. 1-7.

The design of organization structures is an old topic which has passed through a number of stages of inquiry. The current stage, as usual, is characterized by a number of schools of thought. The author finds himself in a school labeled as contingency theory. This theory is based on two conclusions drawn primarily from large-scale empirical studies.

1. There is no one best way to organize.

2. Any way of organizing is not equally effective.

Thus we can observe a wide range of effective organizations but their differences are not random. The form of organization makes a difference. All of which suggests a new set of questions. On what factors does the choice of organization form depend? What are the characteristics of organizational contexts which appear to make a difference? •••

Lawrence and Lorsch's* proposition was that there are two considerations in the organization design problem. The first is to organize each subtask in a manner which facilitates the effective performance of that subtask. To the extent that subtasks vary in their predictability, different cognitive and emotional orientations will arise in the different structures. This aspect of the design problem is called dlnnenevz;t[aXJ..on.

The other aspect of the design problem is to provide for the in:tegn<Ltlon of the differentiated subtasks so as to achieve successful completion of the whole task. The appropriate way to achieve integration depends first upon the degree of differentiation, since the greater the differences between two subtasks the more difficult it is to achieve effective collaboration. Also the integration problem varies with the rate at which new products are being introduced. This approach would account for task predictability differences which exist between and within organizations.

* Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Onganiz<Ltlon and Envinonmen:t (Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1967).

The results of the study, carried out with ten organizations in three industries, strongly support the propositions. That is, the successful organizations had differentiated internal structures when the subtasks varied in predictability. They also adopted integrating mechanisms in proportion to the amount of differentiation and the amount of new product introduction. The study confirms again the proposition that the predictability of the task is a basic conditioning variable in the choice of organizational forms.

Several other studies could be added to the list but the results would be the same. All lead to the conclusion that the best way to organize is contingent upon the uncertainty and diversity of the basic task being performed by the organizational unit. What remains to be done is to explain why uncertainty should have such an effect and to relate uncertainty to the design policy variables.

A-10

CHAPTER II - THE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE

The management of the Fraser River estuary has been an important interest of government since the 1800's when the estuary was part of the fur trade terr­itory of "The Governor and Company of Adventurors of England Trading into Hudson's Bay''. In fact, it was a major concern of society centuries before the first Europeans arrived, for the estuary has always been a place to live and work, a food source, a transportation route.

Today management of the estuary is a complex process involving over sixty government agencies including port authorities, water quality agencies, habitat management agencies, municipalities, regionaf districts, resource agencies, transportation agencies and more. Each of these has responsibility for parts of the estuary, and each has its own approaches to managing its decisions and activities. Each has its own set of policies that may or may not be compatible with those of the others.

A. TODAY'S MANAGEMENT PROCESS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

There is a broad agreement among citizens and users of the estuary that there is a need to improve the present management system and to coordinate the planning processes of the various government agencies. Although among the various agencies there are many current management practices helping to keep the estuary healthy, nevertheless there is a general recognition of the need for improvement - as may be seen in the formation of the Study it­self. The Fraser River Estuary Study was established to prepare a manage­ment plan for the estuary and a process for continuous management respon­sive to changing needs and conditions.

The establishment of such a coordinated program would provide a shared vision for what the estuary should be like in the future. It would provide guidance to all users of the estuary for a cooperative endeavour to achieve common goals. Without such a management program, users would be left more to their separate interests. Thus, a shared vision of the estuary would improve the chance of achieving both the natural integrity of the estuary and its use as a social and economic resource. (see Appendix II-1)

B. THERE ARE FIVE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

The Fraser River Estuary Study has identified five management challenges that should be addressed by future management:

e Agree on a set of policy goals and objectives for the estuary.

e Simplify government administration in the estuary.

• Manage money, people and resources more effectively to provide better public services in the estuary.

- 11 -

e Assure accountability of all agencies to the management program.

e Provide useful and accurate information to decision makers and the public.

Background information and analysis is provided in Appendices II-2, II-3, and II-4.

1. Agree on Policy Goals and Objectives

Government agencies, public groups and individuals, industry and business groups, and other users differ widely in their basic objectives. These differences are reflected in conflicts between groups, agencies, users and citizens. Such conflicts result in the loss of opportunities to cooperate in achieving basic common objectives. If the goal of balance between urban and economic growth on the one hand and protection and conservatiGn of the natural environment in the other is to be achieved, agreement on goals is needed.

Government agencies, businessi~terests and the public affected by the manage­ment program - or asked to carry it out - are more likely to make a firm commitment to it if they are involved in its preparation. Continued involve­ment of all these groups, in developing and evaluating management goals and policies, should provide a general framework for the multitude of specific decisions and plans made yearly in the estuary. There are bound to be conflicts of interest 'when a new proposal for an action or develop­ment emerges, but, with a broad vision and agreed upon goals, it will be easier for groups to reach compromise and agreement on specific issues. Decisions may not be easier, but they may be wiser.

2. Simplify Government Administration

The present jurisdictional framework for managing the estuary is unnecess­arily complex. Because of the many agencies involved in a crowded metro­politan estuary port area, there are numerous divisions and branches both of federal and provincial ministries and of local government with estuary management responsiblities. Their activities and services may overlap and conflict. Agencies operate parallel approvals processes which complicate development,add costs to developers and confuse the public. It is also not unusual to find duplication of professional, technical and other services. The proposed management program could offer opportunities to achieve greater efficiency by sharing, delegating and coordinating overlapping responsibili­ties.

3. Managing Money, People, and Resources Effectively

The visions, policies and goals of this management program will not happen automatically. For visions to become reality, the coordinated efforts of many agencies are required. Because of the diversity of funding arrange­ments and jurisdictional responsibilities, many agencies lack the ability to

- 12 -

implement their mandates without the assistance and cooperation of other agencies. At the same time, cooperation is necessary for the success of other public objectives which may not be part of specific mandates. Thus, the management program is a vehicle for combining agency efforts towards achieving the visions of the public for the estuary.

4. Assure that all agencies are accountable to the Management Program

Accountability for all government agencies involved is the only way to assure that all fulfill their commitments. Accountability means that government agencies carry out the policies decided in the political process. In a society with multiple objectives this means accomodating individual agency mandates to the wider public interest. It means greater openness and responsiveness to the wider public interest. It requires the ability of agencies to evaluate their performance in relation to the various parts of the management program. Greater accountability can be achieved in a number of ways, ranging from a central project registry, and information system to performance monitoring, enforcement, intergovernmental contracts or changes in administrative or legislated responsibility.

5. Provide Useful and Accurate Information

Information sharing. is essential to coordinated management. Decision makers need clear and accurate information to answer questions and make decisions. Is the proposed action consistent with estuary policy goals and objectives? How will the proposal affect other users or activities in the estuary? Is the proposal the only or best way to get the job done? How will this decision affect other decisions in the estuary?

Public groups and private industry need information to guide their actions, to identify how government decisions and natural processes affect their interests, and to satisfy man's need to understand his environment.

- 13 -

APPENDIX II-1

THE ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGE OF AN ESTUARY PLAN AND PROCESS

From: Steering Committee, Fraser River Estuary Study, Phase I. Proposals for the Development of an Estuary Management Plan: Summary Report of the Steering Committee. (Victoria~ August, 1978), Chapter 9.

"Summary of Advantages

The advantages we ~eek to gain through having an Estuary policy plan may be summarized as follows:

The plan and process will permit a better balancing of economic and environmental considerations in the Estuary through better understanding, better management of uncertainty and better decision-making based on recognition of all views.

A framework for decision-making will be put in place that provides

- an Estuary-wide context for decision. - a basis for judging aggregate, cumulative impacts of individual

decision. - a means of making consistent decisions in the resolution of conflict.

The plan and process will permit better and more efficient, effective and responsive decision-making and administration by agencies administ­ering policies in the Estuary at all levels of government.

Rationalized and better coordinated research and monitoring programs would be made possible through the development of the process and plan, and of the linkages between agencies that would thus be brought into being.

Finally, a plan and process provides both the opportunity and a vehicle for joint commitment· by·all levels of government to better 1-ong-term policy management in the Estuary, which is required to meet public expectations and to deal with the economic as well as ecological issues."

A-14

APPENDIX II-2

ANALYTIC METHOD

In an article by Englander, Feidmann and Hershman (1977)*, the methodology of 'program evaluation' was applied to estuary problem analysis. Using content analysis, Englander, et. al., analyzed statements of coastal problems expressed prior to passage of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Their sources included congressional hearings, major federal government reports, proceedings of selected government coastal zone conferences, selected state government documents and interviews of participants in the evolving U.S. coast zone management programs.

Englander, et. al., classified estuary management problems as (1) resource outcome problems (dissatisfactions with the natural resource state), and (2) organizational process problems (deficient characteristics or procedures that inhibit an organization from attaining its goals and objectives). A summary of the problems they found identified in their study is found in Figure No. 1. The organizational process problems can be compared with the management challenges noted in the text. The resource outcome problems can be compared with the trends identified in Part 2 of the Management Program Report.

Englander, et. al., use a program evaluation approach of tracing problems back to source causes. By treating the causes the usually futile practice of band-aiding symptoms is avoided. Often public policy focusses on symptoms. This frustrates public expectations and wastes public monies. Figure No. 2 shows examples from the Englander article of how this process works.

Using the analytical method suggested in the article, FRES staff undertook an analysis of the resource outcome problems, organizational process problems (management problems), and possible organizational responses to estuary problems. This work was discussed with several members of the Planning Committee and the results tabled with the Management Systems Sub-Committee (82 01 21). This analysis provides a route for identifying practical actions which might be accomplished by an estuary management program. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure No. 3 (a to d).

*From Englander, E., Feldmann, J. and Hershman, M. "Coastal Zone Problems: A Basis for Evaluation," Coastal Zone Management Journal Vol. 3, No. 3, 1977.

Al5

Predominant

Also Primary

Other

COASTAL ZONE PROBLEMS* identified in Englander article

Resource Outcome Problems

* Intense-use conflicts among competing uses. * Extensive environmental pollution. * Destruction of coastal habitat and degrading

of fish and wildlife resources,

* Increasing population growth with ~esidential, commercial, and industrial development pressures,

* Destructive dredging, filling, bulkheading. * Limited public access and recreational

opportunities

* Aesthetically displeasing development, * Damage to shoreline environment and development

from erosion and other natural phenomena. * Inadequate economic development. * Boating and navigation hazards,

A-16

Figure No. 1

Organizational Process Problems .,.

* Lack of coordination among public agencies. * Insufficient planning and regulatory authori * Inaufficient database and lack of informatio

decision making, * Little understanding or knowledge about coas

ecoaystem, * Resource decisions made primarily on the bas

of economic considerations to the exclusion ecological considerations.

I 'I

* La~k of clearly stated goals *Primitive analytical tools and predictive me.

logies * Lack of state and local government funds to i

manage the coastal zone adequately, ' *Dominance of short-term management over long[

planning. '

. * Co~plex, conflicting, and confusing laws. , * Litlfle. awareness or concern with coastal pro i * Lac~ 9f properly trained and educated manage,[

perqonnel, ; * Limited public participation in decision mak.l * Environmental regulations stifle economic e:1

ENGLANDER, et. al, PROGRAM EVALUATION

Figure l. Resource outcome problems often cited in the digest as the cause of further resource outcome problems.

Figure 2, Ceridn organizational problems Identified in the digest as leadin~ to, if not causing, further pr~cess problems,

A-17

Figure No. 2

Figure 3, Some organl.zational problems noted in the digest as the cnuse of !urther resource outcome problems,

A-18

! WATi'R t/UAUTY

FIGURE 3 - PROGRAM EVALUATION APPLIED TO THE FRASER RIVER ESTUARY CASE

Resource Issues

* Localized water quality problems; -build-ups of organic contaminants and heavy metals in sediments and biota -reduced D. Oxy. in side channels -leachates -upstream pollutants

* Effects on recreation agriculture, fisheries, habitat, etc.

Management Issues

-Lack of an overall capital plan for water quality improvements. -Disagreements on capital investment sequences for W.Q. -Funding resources and investment responsibilities not balanced, -Lengthy lead times for W.Q. facilities development. -No institutionalized method of considering innovative solutions to W.Q. issues. -Research on 'functional' aspects of W.Q. not coordinated; unknown effects of some pollutants. -Social costs of W.Q. impacts not internalized; lack of incentives. -Tangled jurisdictions e.g., source control, enforcement. -Inconsistent W.Q. standards between agencies. -Uneven enforcement of existing regulations. -Lack of coordination in W.Q. sampling /monitoring. -Need for permit monitoring. -Lack of public knowledge and understanding of W.Q.

~~~~~~~~~~~---, I LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION

Resource Issues

*Land Use Demands: Fixed, new or increasing demands for space for 'economic' uses against limited supply. e.g.: port development, log handling & storage, airports, ferry facilities, marinas and docks, roads and bridges, urban growth, farming, utilities

* Loss of habitat, farmland, recreation sites.

Management Issues

-Fragmented planning; weak linka~e between estuary and upland planning, -Decisions impacting estuary from outside. -Little evaluation of alternative sites to accommodate demand outside estuary. -Major interagency/inter use conflicts. -Multiple decision bodies and decision procedures; jurisdictional overlapping and unclear. -High cost, delay, uncertainty in regulations; lengthy, complicated, multilateral approvals processing. -Inadequate assessment of project impacts ('Impacts' are defined to include all cate­gories of impact: economic, social, business, physical, environmental, affected interest, off-site, incre­mental, cumulative.) -Poor data base for decisions -Off site costs and excernalties of developments. -Affected interests not always identified/involved. -Economic benefits: tax base, port revenues, employment, exports, etc. See Also: Rec., W.Q., Hab.

Figure No.Jn

Possible Responses

-Coordinated capital planning for W.Q. improvements: sequencing, fundin~, joint ventures. -Early and adequate capital funding on a joint basis, -R&D and public involvement to identify, assess, and implement innovative W.Q. solutions (e.g., alternatives to landfills). -Coordinated research programs for functional W.O. research. -Review of use of incentive approaches to W.Q. management. -Simplified, streamlined jurisdictional assignments, -Agreement on joint W.Q. enforcement standards. -Consistent enforcement.

FRES Responses

-W,Q. Plan/Activity Programs: •joint capital plans • funding arrangements • review of incentive

approaches • agreement on standards •study of innovative

solutions -Research coordination

pt'ocess -Review of jurisdictional

assignments and procedures to streamline and rationalize

-Monitoring and enforcement coordination

-Estuary Information System: • education • information re permits,

research, monitoring. -Coordinated W.Q. surveillance, sampling, monitoring -Coordinated enforcement (delegated or team), -Public information and education.

Possible Responses

-Linked plans; coordinated planning. -Advanced land supply designation in most suitable areas. -Effective, stable land use control. -Political direction/linkage to political process. -Review and streamlining of procedures. -Coordinated project review. -Impact Assessment process. -Joint data/information gatherinP,. -Public involvement. -Interagency liaison & coordination

Fig••C~ No. 3b

FRES Responses

-Management Program •Joint policy goals

and objectives • Activity Programs •Area designation

-senior level policy linkage. -Conflict resolution process/ multi-lateral decision process.

-Joint referral and impact assessment

-Procedure review and streamlining

-Public Involvement -Estuary Information System

•Summary information •Process information

Resource Issues

*Loss of Habitat -fill for construction of port, industry, urban facilities -dredge spoil sites -dyking and fill for back upland development -borrow activities -leaching from fill -erosion -degradation of water quality -impacts of log storage -waste disposal/landfills

*Management of Habitat -enforcement; protection -conservation -enhancement

RECREATION

Resource Issues

*Limited public access and recreation opportunities vs increasing recreation demand

Management Issues

-Difficulty in identifying/ evaluating habitat -Inc~emental loss syndrome -Short term planning horizons -Problem of how to 'value' habitat -Incentives for conserving habitat -Lack of 'functional' knowledge on habitat -Research priorities not linked to management· decisions -Linkage/delegation between habitat managers -Difficulties in evaluating impacts of developments -Weak legal controls to protect many habitat sites -Habitat vs private property or riparian rights -~lixed success/limited experience with enhancement -Hidden losses unknown to enforcement agencies -Unnecessary losses due to development procedures

~<anasement Issues

-Unprotected/undesignated sites being taken for other uses. -Increasing costs of acquisition, development, and management. -Inadequate funding. -Friction with local residents, farmers, dyke management agencies, habitat, industrial users. -Upland/foreshore planning ignore recreation needs and opportunities for mixed use; failure to follow-up on multiple use opportunities. -Lack of public access to or along foreshore; closure of areas to public. -Loss of aesthetics. - Demand for 'developed' rec-reation: marinas, developed parks, designated fishing bars. -Recreation hazards and public safety. -Compatible use of dykes. -Setting priorities for recreation sites. -Exclusion of recreational agencies from approval/ allocation decision processes.

A-20

Figure No. )c

Possible Responses

-Improved methodologies for 'habitat planning' -Economic studies of role of habitat in economy and social system -Streamlined and improved referral/approval processes -Coordinated/delegated project review; improved review capacity -Long term legal tools for habitat protection/ management -Improved and coordinated research -Funding for land acquisition, restoration, enhancement -Review of incentive approaches to habitat protection -Experimental management

FRES Responses

-Development of a "habitat planning" approach (theory, methodology)

-Procedure review (streamlinin) improved effectiveness, coordination/delegation)

-Improved project review/ assessment capability -Funding Arrangements -L.T. designation mechanism -Research Coordination -Experimental Management

Figure No. )d

Possible Responses

-Acquisition priority plan. -Special funding for acquisition, -Expeditor to speed land transfers from senior government. -Funding for development and management. -Development of recreation user behaviour guidelines and rules. -Area closures to recreation. -Policing and enforcement. -Information and public education. -Incentives to developers to include recreation in plans. -Provision of special areas for active recreation. -Design guidelines for developments. -Area Designation and land use control. -Shared responsibility between levels of government via coordinated activity program.

FRES Responses

Activity Program • acquisition plan with

priorities • funding arrangements • user behaviour guidelines

and rules .incentives for mixed use

developments/design guidelines

.location study re active recreation

Area Designation/Land Use Control Mana~ement System •expediter/joint ventures •policing and enforcement

Estuary Information System • pub lie education •information

APPENDIX II-3

PUBLIC CONCERNS AND MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

At the public meetings held in Fall 1981 the public was asked to identify its concerns about the type of management system which might be created in the estuary. Despite some difficulty in evaluating the volume and complex­ity of material in a short item, the answers had several common and repeated concerns. These concerns generally agree with the identification of manage­ment challenges present in the draft Management Program (November 1981).

The following table lists. some of the major concerns identified, categor­ized according to the corresponding management challenge.

Public Concerns compared to Management Challenge

(1) Agree on Policy Goals and Objectives

- Concerns about translation of policies to actions. - Concern that the process will result in status quo only. - Concerns about how trade-offs are made and the need for a bargaining process and a 'fair fight'. . - Concern about how decisions are made concerning future demands on the Estuary. - Concern about geo,graphic scope of management program, especially need to address watershed planning needs, coastal planning needs, uplands and back-up lands. - Concern about permanent protection of habitat and recreation lands. - Concern about recognition of existing uses, upland owner rights, industry requirements, multiple use of the estuary.

(2) Simplify Government Administration in the Estuary

- Concern about too much government, too much complexity, cumbersome administration and jurisdiction. - Concern with need for delegation and streamlining. - Concern about moves to new system rather than evolving present system. - Concern that the number of agencies will make the process cumbersome. - Concern about mangement program adding to complexity rather than reducing and streamling.

(3) Manage money and Resources and People to Provide More Public Services in the Estuary •

. - Concern that the Management System will need new funding or no system will work. - Concern for need of permanent secretary to management process.

(4) Assure Accountability of all Agencies to the Management System

- Concern that the management system received direct political or senior level direction to coordinate, cooperate, and comply.

A-21

- Concern whether all agencies will change behaviour to subscribe to common agreements; concern that some agencies will opt out. - Concerned that accountability will not be achieved under linked manage­ment system. - Concern non-elected bureaucrats will be in charge (lack of trust in bureaucrats). - Concern about effective opportunities for public input and influence in the management system. - Concern about need to monitor and enforce performance of agencies. - Concern that senior government committees would 'trample' local inter-ests and that municipalities do not have effective input •. - Concern about breakdowns between management system and day-to-day managers in the field.

(5) Provide Useful and Accurate Information to Decision-Makers and the Public.

- Concern about openness and for not burying decisions deeply inside bureaucracy.

A-22

APPENDIX II-4

ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES, POLICY AND PRACTICES REVIEW,

PROCESS DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT

The Phase I Steering Committee proposed the establishment of a task group to undertake the following assignment:

"An overall analysis of existing policy and practice as revealed by the reports of the Work Groups, covering the various levels and agencies of government, to complete the identification of gaps, overlaps, jurisdic­tional probleIJls, etc ••. "

After the Policy and Practices Review Task Force was adjourned in August 1980, the task of policy and practices analysis was reassigned to a consultant. Due to delays in the establishment of a contract, and delays and illness of the consultant, the policies analysis report was not fully completed. How­ever, much of the analysis was completed and the table below provides a summary of this analysis. The work was used to assist in identifying the important management challenges.

Below is a detailed analysis of the Management Challenges outlined in the Management Program text.

Analysis of Management Challenge

(1) Agree on Policy Goals and Objectives

• General

- lack of common policy framework among many government agencies managing the estuary leads to inconsistencies in the policies of individual agencies.

- complicated interagency communications leads to uncertainty and causes agencies to overstate policies in an attempt to seek a bargaining position.

- some agencies are bound to departmental objectives that apply throughout B.C. and Canada which are not specifically related to the Fraser River Estuary.

• Water Quality Policies

- comprehensive set .of objectives for ambient water quality not established.

- certain types of pollutants not included in existing standards.

- some evidence indicates that water quality is declining for some parameters.

A-23

- monitoring the degree to which policy goals for ambient water quality are achieved is not assured.

- water quality impacts of drainage from upland areas not addressed.

- no direct charge for use of the Estuary to dispose of wastes.

- no incentives for development-oriented government agencies to support policies which would make users pay a larger share of maintaining water quality.

- interests of agencies which bear the cost of waste treatment and collection in conflict with agencies mandated to maintain water quality.

• Habitat Management Policies

- a need for compatibility between conservation areas defined by Area Designation (awetted side of dykes) and areas behind the dykes designated for urban development or industry.

- provincial policies have encouraged filling of floodplain areas.

- conflicts exist between policies to encourage wildfowl prod­uction and the viability of agricultural crop production.

- policies of agencies charged with maintenance of river channel depth and port development may createhannful impacts on habitat.

• Land Use and Transportation

- consistent set of specific guidelines to define water depend­ent land uses has not been developed.

- there is no ports strategy to rationalize west coast ports development.

- there is no policy linkage between a west coast port stategy, the long tenn supply of land for port development and the timing of port and industrial development.

(2) Simplify Government Administration in the Estuary

• Water Quality

- there are concerns that ambient and source discharge sampling is done by several agenices.

- water quality research is not coordinated leading to unstand­ardized sampling techniques, information overlaps and gaps.

A-24

- enforcement of discharges under the Fisheries Act is duplicated.

- many agencies are involved in the regulation ofdredgeate disposal.

• Habitat

- numerous agencies collect information independently.

(3) Manage Money, Resources and People to Provide More Public Services in the Estuary .•

• Water Quality

- need for more resources to implement priority water quality protection measures such as increased secondary treatment, hazardous waste handling, toxic waste disposal and separated storm water system discharges.

• Habitat

- need more resources for a habitat management program.

- need for "banking" of habitat.

- need to assess implications of public access on the costs of dyke maintenance,

• Recreation

- need for program to aquire key recreation sites on the estuary.

(4) Provide Useful and Accurate Information

• Water Quality

- need for integrated water quality information system.

- need for hot line on illegal discharges.

- information as to economic impact of various levels of water quality treatment and enforcement.

- need for information on the effect of boating and unregulated ship discharges.

- more resources for water quality monitoring of management.

- simplify referrals for water quality approval procedures.

A-·25

• Habitat

- need to include upland impacts on Fraser River Estuary in environmental impact statement process.

- need better understanding of habitat dynamics.

- need for hot line on bank modification/grounding.

- simplify referrals.

• Land Use and Transportation

- need for comprehensive land use development and management information system (e.g. Land use information system).

- need for overall information regarding port demand of future requirements.

- need better information on future demand water related industry, forest products industry.

(5) Assure Accountability

• Water Quality

- need to bring all industrial and municipal discharges under permit.

- difficulty preventing one-shot accidental or illegal discharges.

- pesticides still being evaluated.

need specific jurisdiction for water quality regulation of upland projects impacting estuary.

- limitations of FRES area i.e. water quality problems upstream.

- need to further simplify spill management.

• Habitat

- enforcement of illegal bank modification and dumping (e.g. hog fuel).

- regulate recreational access to sensitive habitat.

- habitat lands being administered by agencies without a con­servation mandate.

- jurisdictions not equal to habitat dynamics.

A-26

e Land Use and Transportation

- development guidelines for sites near estuary.

- one-stop shopping for developments.

- municipal regulation vs senior government programs.

- need administrative process for resolution.

jurisdictional split between Harbour Commissions and municip­alities for many Fraser River Estuary Study users.

- coordination amongst Harbour Commissions and National Harbours Board.

- Indian reserve development.

- Harbour Commissions jurisdiction over some ac ti vi ties I areas with primary environmental concerns e.g. habitat outside dyke and shipping discharge.

e Recreation

- consistent site recreational guidelines

- jurisdiction of access problems.

- dyke access and jurisdictional complexities.

A-27

CHAPTER III - CHOOSING AN ESTUARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

There are various ways in which the separate activities of estuary agencies might be linked.

A. TODAY'S SYSTEM IS NOT CONSIDERED EFFECTIVE

Today's management process is a complex arrangement of agency and user relationships involving over 60 agencies and numerous users. Phase I reports review the results of this system in terms of water quality, habitat, land use, tranportation and recreation. The reports examine the constitutional and jurisdictional arrangements, and policies and practices of management. On the basis of this work, Phase I of the Study rejected today's management process. Today's process was not considered as effective as a joint system that would link together the many agencies that have responsiblity for parts of the estuary.

B. A NEW ESTUARY AGENCY IS NOT CONSIDERED DESIRABLE

Phase I assessed the desirability of proposing a new estuary agency or conunission for managing the estuary. Phase I rejected this approach because such an approach would be very difficult to implement and would not ensure success (see.AppendixIII-1). The conclusions of Phase II concur with this analysis. The creation of a new estuary agency or conunission is not con­sidered desirable at this time. Such an alternative would have several drawbacks and would be likely to encounter some obs~acles:

• A new agency would require legislation that might be difficult - if not impossible - to bring about and could delay the management pro­gram. However, once a management program has been implemented, this legislation could be considered at a later date.

e It would be administratively difficult for one agency to oversee the varied management responsibilities of estuary management, especially for both conservation and development in the estuary.

• Today's multiple agency management process, once linked together would provide more points of access for the public than would a single agency.

e An estuary agency would not have authority to affect upland decisions which have a major effect on the estuary.

e There is no inherent reason why a single agency would more effect­ively realize public visions than a multiple agency system. In fact, single purpose agencies are subject to the same pressures as multiple agency systems.

The new agency approach was not considered desirable by the Phase II Planning Conunittee for the above reasons. The Study has considered a linked manage­ment system which is explained below.

- 28 -

C. LINKED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

The management system proposed in this report is designed to meet the chal­lenges identified in Chapter II above. Such a system is an agreed upon process by which all the separate government agencies with responsibilities in the Fraser estuary join together certain of their activities. This would ensure better planning, more streamlined government administration, better deployment of agency resources, better accountability and information sharing. Further, it would ensure greater effectiveness in implementing the public's visions for the estuary.

In a "linked system", management would continue to be entrusted to existing agencies which, to a large extent, would retain their present authority and responsibilities. However, instead of each operating separately, perhaps even in conflict with others, certain key agencies would be asked to cooper­ate in a joint process designed to improve on the present system but not to replace it. The principle in ved is to ensure that agencies work to­gether to achieve a common set of goals - the estuary management policies recommended in the Management Program Report.

1. Implementation of a Linked Management System

Central questions for political decision makers and citizens alike are -"Will il WoJt/2.? Will il be.. e..66e..ilive..?" A significant range of public groups and individuals has expressed concern about the potential effectiveness of a linked system. The Study believes that successful implementation is feasible and is capable of implementing estuary management polices. This conclusion is supported by technical reports of the Study.

A linked management system is legally feasible and possible to implement effectively under the Canadian legal system (Alexander L.J. Legal Options for Linked Management, Fraser River Estuary Study, 1981). Under the parlia­mentary system, there is extensive executive and cabinet power in the hands of government to commit their agencies to a set of Estuary Management Policies. Government orders are an effective and common approach to agency direction. As well, there is considerable scope for agreementonprocedures and action programs through a variety of legal instruments. New legislation is not necessary to implement linked management.

A linked management system is also organizationally feasible and can be organized to achieve coordination and commitment to a process of joint management (Wolfe, L.D.S. Organizational Options for Linked Management, 1981). To be successfully implemented on a scale such as that contemplated on the Fraser Estuary, a careful program of implementation should be under­taken. However, there is wide scope and variety to the organizational forms and processes which might be employed to implement such an approach. Over time, different organizational forms may be used to address new or different common problems.

- 29 -

Successful implementation of a linked system is feasible and is capable of implementing the Estuary Management Policies. However, the crucial ingredi­ent is the wle.l to make it happen. The meano are available.

D. ALTERNATIVE LINKED ¥.ANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The Fraser River Estuary Study identified three linked management system alternatives in its report A PubUc. Review WoJtk.book. on the Vtta6t Management Pttog1tam 601t the Ftta,oeJt RiveJt E~tua1ty - 'A L,tving RiveJt by the Voott' (Fall, 1981). These alternatives were developed by a process development consult­ant working with the Study. They are:

The Committee Approach

The Lead Agency Approach

The Council Approach

A graphic explanation is provided in Appendix III-2.

1. Alternative A - A Committee Approach

The comrnittee approach would essentially seek a voluntary consensus on an adv-L~oJty management program for those government agencies involved in estuary management. Linkage would be established by agreements between key federal and provincial agencies to participate in a'k.ey agenc.y c.omm,lttee made up of representatives from the estuary management level. The committee would be a forum for discussion and voluntary agreement on areas of overlap between agency responsibilities.

2. Alternative B - A Lead Agency Approach

The lead Agency approach would designate certain estuary agencies to take the lead in estuary decision making. These agencies woul~ make a mutual commitment to the estuary management program by means of interagency agree­ments or contracts. Agencies giving up job assignments to lead agencies would not be giving up their statutory authority and could step back in if need be. An example of a lead agency agreement now in place is the manage­ment agreements by which the ~linistry of Lands, Parks and Housing transfers leas:i.n:; management to the harbour commissions in areas where the river bed is prov­incially owned. The agreements designate one agency in each harbour to manage rather than two.

3. Alternative C - An Estuary Council of Governments

This approach would establish a Council of Estuary Governments by inter­governmen.tal agreement and executive orders. The council would be made up of senior officials of the governments involved. They would be delegated executive authority, consistent with prevailing statutes. The council as a whole would have the job of updating and adopting the management program,

- 30 -

overseeing estuary management activity, as well as of preparing and making submissions to their Ministers for budget approval, funding and staffing. Existing agencies would continue to manage the estuary and would jointly staff the council. However, some reorganization of these agencies might be required to more clearly delineate which parts of their organization deal with the estuary.

E. EVALUATION OF THE LINKED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

The three linked management alternatives were reviewed by the public at seven public meetings in the Fall of 1981. They were studied by the Manage­ment Systems Sub-committee, Planning Committee, Staff, and consultants. The three alternatives were evaluated against the experience of other estuary studies. Some of this analysis is presented in Appendices III-3, III-4, and III-5.

Public and agency opinion concerning the three alternatives is divided, with some still preferring the "new agency" approach and others looking for further information and examples. The alternatives are not necessarily clear cut. Each involves aspects of the others; each may be implemented in dif­ferent ways; each may be strong or weak depending on mandate and personnel.

The alternatives may be evaluated against the challenges they are intended to resolve.

1. The Committee Approach

The Committee option would provide a context for agreeing on common policy goals and objectives. However, agreements reached under the committee approach would be entirely advisory in nature. Conflicts or changes in policy would be referred to senior or political levels for resolution. A clear process or channel for conflict mediation would be required.

A committee approach could simplify present administration by agreeing to streamline procedures. However, committee processes involve time and re­sources to operate effectively.

A committee would be able to agree on the deployment of agency resources, people and money. Such agreement would be necessary for preparation of activity programs. However, in implementing joint programs, multilateral activity could generate inefficiences.

It is a common criticism of committees that it is hard to hold committees accountable for specific tasks. Committee activity is no guarantee that all issues will be dealt with. Accountability is a problem with committees.

A committee process, however, is generally more open and accountable if representation of outside interests is provided for. Further, committees tend to facilitate information exchange and therefore improve information sharing.

- J 1 -

2. The Lead Agency Approach

Lead agency contracts assume prior agreement on policy goals and objectives before agreements can be concluded. This approach is not conducive to joint goal setting unless lead agencies have conunitment to effective consultative processes. Conflicts, as with conunittees, would be referred to senior or political levels. In addition, however, any plan amendments or agreement interpretations must be referred to higher authorities, unless lead agencies have unilateral powers to act. In the latter case, agreement on policy is sacrificed.

Lead agency agreements, however, are.particularly valuable in the simplify­ing of government administrative processes. Where a lead agency is desig­nated, proponents and the public have a single agency to deal with. That agency liaises as necessary, but for the public there is a "one-stop" pro­cedure.

Because lead agencies reduce the number of agencies through delegation, the authority to act is more direct. Resources can be marshalled to solve problems, make decisions, resolve conflicts. However, where the lead agency lacks the appropriate resources - land, money, people - the lead agency is not able to meet its assigned responsibilities. There is no mechanism to internally shift resources among agencies under the lead agency approach. The lead agency approach requires a continuing evaluation of the distrib­ution of agency resources by governments. Such evaluation is a normal part of the budgetary process. A management program assists by identifying explicit objectives and priorities.

Accountability of lead agencies is enhanced by clear assignment of respons­ibilities. However, lead agencies tend to have independent power and there­by avoid accountability. Accountability is often assured by the reserved right of second agencies to step-in.

The reduced consultation between agencies resulting from the lead agency delegation results in less information exchange.

3. The Council Approach

Depending on what authority is delegated to a council, a council may have a clear ability to agree on policy goals and objectives for the estuary.

A council could directly manage people, money and other resources. However. ultimate budget decisions for capital items would not likely be delegated to a council. With a supporting or seconded staff element, the council would be able to reduce interagency 'corrunittee' work, thus saving time and staff overall.

The council would result in some accountability difficulties, as with the corrunittee"approach. A related problem arises in the questionofwhether council members should be accountable to their agencies or are administra­tively independent.

- 32 -

Councils, like committees, are a facilitator of information exchange and communication.

4. Summary

Each of the three linked management approaches have strengths and weaknesses. The choice of the 'right' system is not clear. The difficulty of this decision is reflected in public and agency comments with respect to the three alternatives.

A closer look at the alternatives suggest that the corrnnittee and council approaches are preferable for planning and representation. The lead agency approach is most effective for implementation.

The committee approach provides for joint participation in setting goals and policies. It allows for joint ventures in implementation of multi-agency programs. It provides for a more open process with better information exchange. It also provides a forum for agreement on leadagen~yassignments.

The lead agency approach, on the other hand, is an efficient and effective means for implementing many of the agreed committee policies. It provides for clear delegation and accountability. It simplifies the administration of policy. Simplification means greater access and less confusion for proponents and the public. It has potential problems of accountability and responsiveness which could be remedied by having lead agencies guided by a committee.

The analy.o-Ll c.ondude.o .:that a hyb!U..d al.:tvma:Uve -l6 p!r.e6eAable, with .:the c.ommi.:t.:tee app!r.oac.h beJ.ng employed 6oJr. planning and Jr.epJr.e.oen.:ta:Uon and .:the lead agenc.y app!r.oac.h 6oJr. implemen.:ta:Uon.

- 33 ~

APPENDIX III-1

EXCERPTS OF PHASE I CONCERNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

(FROM THE PHASE I SUMMARY REPORT)

Steering Committee, Phase I, Proposals for the Development of an Estuary Management Plan: Summary Report of the Steering Committee (Victoria 1978).

The Phase I Steering Committee, in its Summary Report, rejected the idea of a new agency or legislation to enforce an estuary management plan and process. Such a new agency would be an agency with wide regulatory powers and authority to override decisions of existing agencies.

:j:nstead, of a new agency, the Steering Committee sought "an organization and process that is not highly structured, that is flexible and adaptive, but that has an ultimate decision making body". (Phase I Summary Report, p. 102). "The eventual plan would likely be a 'linking' of several plans, each of which would remain under the jurisdiction of individual agencies. An estuary plan would likely be a collation of relevant parts - mutually accommodated of plans of various agencies of different levels of govern­ment. It would be a document setting out extracts, insofar as the Estuary was affected, of municipal zoning, the Lower Mainland Official Regional Plan, regional district strategies and programs, harbour authorities' policies, Highways Department proposals, and so forth." (p. 106)

The Phase I Steering Committee did, however, recommend a more limited liais­ingutiit with a coordinator, small staff, and an information clearinghouse.

The Steering Committee based its decision to reject a new agency on several concerns.

1. Legislation to create a new agency would delay implementation of a Management Plan for the Estuary.

" ••. any fundamental jursidictional restructuring would require maJor study and would mean that a number of years would pass before significant implemen­tation could be achieved. There may be merit in pursuing some rationaliza­tion of jurisdiction, but we (the Phase I Steering Committee) do not feel this should be done instead of what we propose." (p. 94)

2. Legislation or a new agency could be considered at a later date.

"While there may eventually be a need for legislation to permit plans to be coordinated among agencies or to implement certain aspects of Estuary management proposals, the need is not evident at this time ••. The way in which we propose plan development work be organized does not require legis­lation. This is an advantage, because it means that the organization can be started up with little delay ..•. As Steering Committee, we believe that

A-34

this kind of plan can work and that it will be time enough, if it does not work, to think of imposing a more stringent system •••. " (p. 106)

3. A new agency would not be a magic solution to the existing interjuris­dictional complexity.

"There is no magic solution to the Estuary's organizational problem, no easy answer that will reduce the complexity. There are very many private interests, many agencies and a range. of public concerns and aspirations (economic, social, ecological, communal, political) which are sometimes broad and general, sometimes localized or specific, rational, or extreme." (pp. 96-9 7)

4. A new agency solution is not a traditional Canadian approach to inter­governmental resource management.

"We (the Phase I Steering Committee) believe that constitutionally and by precedent, in Canada we do not tackle a multi-level, non-project-oriented problem by imposing a new agency on it. RealisticallY) we must recognize that way as a slow route to a solution, not a quick one. Taking it could delay effective actions by existing agencies." (p. 97)

5. A new agency could entail bureaucracy and rigid formalization of manage­ment.

"We (the Phase I Steering Committee) believe the problem of developing Estuary policy and a management plan is one of existing agencies. In 'this situation, a new bureaucracy will not help; this Committee does not recommend rigid formalization of all the linkages between agencies." (p. 97)

6. A new agency would be a management system based on coercion rather than on mutual adjustment and cooperation.

"As we (the Phase I Steering Committee) see it, the ultimate decisions of the Estuary council would not be 'enforced' through powers granted by legis­lation, but implemented by persuasion or by use of existing statutory auth­ority or other means of influencing decisons .•. Such a plan may appear to lack teeth, but it should in reality have considerable effect. The elements of individual agencies' plans contained in it will have been negotiated and developed by the policy group, with trade-offs determined by the Estuary council if necessary. It will have been based on broad consultation with the wider constituency. The plan will represent what has been agreed upon and intended, rather than what has been imposed unilaterally ..• We prefer such a plan because it can lead to positive accomplishments, whereas a regulatory plan can only act as a policeman." (p. 106)

A-JS

APPENDIX III-2

A GRAPHIC EXPLANATION OF THE THREE LINKED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

The three linked management alternatives identified in the Draft Management Program Workbook, "The Living River by the Door" (November, 1981) are typologies of management approaches which are all common in public manage­ment. These alternatives suggest three ways in which conflicts in overlap­ping jurisdiction can be resolved. A simple graphic approach can be used to show the differences between the alternative approaches. The jurisdic­tional responsibilities of agencies can be seen as a series of cones which overlap at the bottom where responsibilities overlap with those of other agencies. The figure below graphically demonstrates the differences between the Linked Management Alternatives.

Graphic Explanation of Linked Management Alternatives

COMMITTEE APPROACH

Side View Top View

LEAD AGENCY APPROACH

~ +

Assigned Responsibility

OR~. ~.I d Assigne

Responsibilities

COUNCIL APPROACH

"" ·+ Council Jurisdiction

A-36

PROS

CONS

APPENDIX III-3

PUBLIC EVALUATION OF LINKED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Public comments reflected a good comprehension of the difficulties in manag­ing estuary activities. The public comments were divided on which system might best manage the estuary. There was no clearly supported alternative, though the public identified a number of advantages and disadvantages of each. The lead agency approach is marginally preferred, with support also for a council approach. The table below provides a synopsis of public comment on the linked systems.

Public Evaluation of Linked Management System Approaches

ALTERNATIVE A The Cotmnittee Approach

- Good if clear public access included. - More workable if technical and political committees were final advisory board.

- Too advisory; weak approach; - Too cumbersome given the number of agencies which want to be involved; too many agencies; too many chiefs; too diffuse - Agencies lack commitments to joint committees (e.g.; T.P.C.s); agency committees will not take responsibility to make decisions. - Status quo; too attached to traditional approaches; no change to existing system - How will effective action be achieved? ; will not work - No point of public contact; how responsive to the public? - Success depends on a strong leader. - Who are they accountable to?

ALTERNATIVE B The Lead Agency Approach

-Highest support from public meetings. -Gives specific tasks to specific people; gives assurance that action will occur. -Direct hands-on approach; most direct approach. -Not excessively authoritative.

-Coordination a problem; too many intermediaries; too scattered -Baffling complexity -No one to arbitrate conflicts -Needs commitments to go beyond "paper" agreements -Needs commitment to increase staff and budget for estuary -Success depends on a strong leader -What happens if an agency opts out of the agreement process? -No point of public contact

A-37

ALTERNATIVE C The Council Approach

-Many felt this approach would be effective. -Best if it has a lot of power an, representation of local interests -Can improve public access for accountability.

-Should have senior civil servant. -Needs to be elected to be accountable -Too much government; too cumbers. -Too nebulous; ignorable -Breakdowns possible between counc and day to day managers -Too much "expert" authority rath· than coordinated -Too much delegation -No point of public contact; no means of public involvement -Would face lot of opposition fro· agencies

APPENDIX III-4

COMPARISONS OF OTHER ESTUARY APPROACHES

As part of the analysis of the various linked management approaches to estuary management the Study examined the estuary planning experience in British Columbia and the United States. A summary is provided in Table 8 below and more detailed notes in Appendix A at the end of this report.

The estuary programs studied show that the existing approaches include committees, lead agencies and councils and combinations of all three. The emphasis was on the lead agency approach with the Sooke, Ladysmith, COWAMP (Pennsylvania), Willamette, Washington State and Grays Harbour programs. Councils were established in the Columbia and Texas models. Grays Harbour and Cowichan each used a committee approach. San Francisco Bay was a commission approach. However, Washington State shows that a lead agency can be a referee for committee processes. Grays Harbour illustrates a committee planning approach implemented through a lead agency system. Clearly, there is some range for successful combinations of the three linked system alternatives.

TABLE NO. 8

COMPARISONS OF OTHER ESTUARY APPROACHES

British Columbia Estuary Studies

Study

Cowichan Estuary Study

Sooke Harbour Crown Foreshore Study

Management System Approach

Planning - A task force (committee) of government agencies. - A land use plan which focussed on allocation by designation areas and pol­icies. Activity programs for habitat enhancement, log management and flood control were also recommended.

Implementation - An Order-in-Council covers the areas and requires all dev­elopment proposals to meet the approval of the program coordinator (a member of staff of the B.C. Ministry of Environ­ment). Implementation of Activity Pro­grams has been assigned to lead agencies by agreement.

Planning - A planning task force advised the staff planner of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, which had authority for foreshore leasing and use decisions in the area. A conceptual multiple use plan was developed, trends analysed and inventories undertaken. All of those guided construction of a designation plan map. A single area of intense conflicts was addressed on a much larger scale area plan.

Implementation - Adoption of the plan as policy by the Ministry effectively implemented the plan as all foreshore leases must be granted by that Ministry.

A-3~

Results

- Development of Activity Programs are ongoing to refine the land use map, which in the interim is serving as a guide for decisions made by the Pro­gram Coordinator.

The Sooke plan guides ministry decision making.

Implications for Fraser Estua Stud

Refinement of early work through development of Cc

sensus Activity programs.

Implementation of the pl adoption into agency dee making criteria is propo as a method for linking plans and actions.

Study Management System Approach Results Implications for Fraser River Estuar Study

Ladysmith Crown Foreshore Planning Study

Planning - Same process as was followed for the Sooke Plan explained above.

Ladysmith plan guides Ministry decisions.

Implementation - Adoption of the plan as policy by the single Ministry respons­ible for foreshore use leases.

United States Estuary Studies

Washington State Coastal Zone Management (Washington)

Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan (Washington)

Planning A Lead Agency (Dept. of Ecology) was designated to provide overall procedural direction - Plan preparation by local committees Implementation - coordinated referrals and assessment used to implement management program through regu­latory permit system - appeals through a Shoreline Hearing Board - permit system management is delegated to local governments

Planning The GHEMP was prepared by a task force (committee) with voluntary membership - A multiple use land management plan was prepared which focussed on static use guidelines rather than activity programs. Area designation was used with a permitted use matrix. Implementation - implementation would occur on a lead agency basis. Agencies were to agree to incorporate the plan into their agency policies, - Task force maintained to under­take ongoing planning review and amendment procedures.

-------- -- ~frannins_ A M~iti-jur~d-i~io--~a1 (San Francisco) Commission established by law with Bay Area public representation. Plan included Conservation activity plans, partial area designa-and t ion, and amendment procedures Development - Support staff were hired to serve Commission the Commission

Implementation

Columbia River Estuary Regional Management Plan

- permit system managed by the Commission

Planning A council established by formal interagency agreement. An ongoing citizen committee was founded to advise the council. State guide­lines provided the framework for the development of regional policies

- Coastal Zone management programs are established and operating. - Shoreline Hearing Board has improved turnaround time on appeals

- Has not been legally imple­mented to date - Legal difficulties involved with implementation (EPA unable to participate in an area designation process, must review projects on case by case basis) - Despite legal problems some agencies have operated as if plan were legally in force. - This plan was a very early plan in U.S. and subsequent coastline legislation has profited from this early ex­perience.

Program operating and has accomplished the prime objective of slowing the filling of San Francisco Bay

Implemented under t-lashington State Shoreline Management Program. Not yet implemented in Oregon State.side.

(Oregon/ Washington) within 5 policy areas. Estuary divided

into 5 management areas and 54 manage­ment units within which generalized area designations and development/guidelines for uses were established. Activity programs were developed.

Two agencies opted not to join the Council. No funds available for implementation.

Implementation Implementation was through adoption into local plans. A separate information centre was established. A-39

- Coordinated referrals and approval system specifically aimed at Shorezone developments and serves as a mechanism to li agencies. - Suggests that municipal or t~

involvement is useful at the implementation stage emphasizi~ the importance of the role of local governments in plan implc mentation.

- Legal analysis of management program implementability needec at early date (cf. Alexander, l - Did manage to resolve conflir through agency negotiations during the Study process by face to face negotiation.

Definable objectives assisted in measuring success of the management plan; however, terms of reference were narrm·· -May be indication that new agencies are more feasible in dealing with single-purpose issues

Information centre has not been a success and indicates that most functions could have been developed without a separate centre. Fundin~ could have improved implementation. As full imple­mentation has not occurred ther, are no formal update and amendr.'.~ mechanisms and the original consensus is eroding.

Study

Texas Coastal Management Program (Texas)

COWANP/208 (Pennsylvania)

Willamette River Greenway Program (Oregon)

~!anagement System Results AE£roach

F.lanning A coordinating council was Unknown established with policy level membership of all key agencies. A citizen's advisory committee was formed. The council was to prepare a model for development proposal review, to devise standard data gathering methods and provide coordination of research, to review policies and practices of all coastal agencies and recommend policy priorities. Implementation

Planning - Planning for water quality management linked through adoption of regional water quality goals, objectives and policies. -Regional agency designated to have lead agency responsibility for planning coordination, plan evalua­tion, plan amendment procedures.

Implementation - responsibility for plan implementation designated to various ar.encies based on existing statutory authority. Some adjustments to existing laws recommended. - Information system recommended.

-New legislation enacted to specify a management framework for public agencies to achieve goals of the Greenway program and to coordinate agency policies Planning - the Department of Transportation (Parks) was designated as the Lead agency to coordinate the process of planning. Implementation - Local governments were delegated

lead agency authority within their area to implement land acquisition.

A-40

Plan has not been adopted but many agencies are responding to the Plan as if it were, eg., State of Pennsylvania passed Storm Water Management Act. -Counties providing planning assistance to municipalities for sewage plans based on recommendations of the Plan that called for use of innovative and alternative waste water management approaches. -New pricing structures to encourage water conservation

-Program implemented and operating but has been modified from a greenway along the entire riverway to clusters of natural and scenic areas at intermittent points along the river (aka "a string of pearls")

Implications for Fraser Rivet Estuary St~u~d~v~~~~~~~~

Coordination was perceived tc the major problem and ongoinQ policy deliberations were determined to be the best management method. Information flow was aided b~ central body, production of standard data-gathering techniques, development of a model for permit proposal reviews and direct links bet,.· all agencies and the universities.

- formal plan review and amendment procedures help establish accountability - lead agency approach for implementation similar to proposed management approach Fraser Estuary

-Program implemented because support at the political leve The importance of a vision i<. emphasized by this case. -Continued review and discuss of the vision for the Fraser River useful in generating constituency for the Managem, Plan

TABLE NO. lb

MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

KAHAGEHEHT f\IXCTIOM CURREHT ACTIVITIES IMPROVEMENTS RECOHMF.HDED PltoPOSED HEW ACTIVITIES

I. Pl&Ming/ • Official Regional Plan • FR.ES H.an•a••nt Prograa vith Pro1ruatn1 • Municipal Planning KanagGSGnt Syacem

• Agency Progr...tng • Activity Progruu • Harbour Plana * Other

2. Innovating • Univeni ty JteHarch • FEIS Research Liaieon • Agency Reaearch • Cithen Participation • Citiun Participation • Experience • Other

l. Or1anidn1 • FUS Cotmitteao * Better Unluaga needed (how swc.h. * n.ES United Kan.ageaent Syatam (lntara1~cy) vhe-ra1) CoordinaUn1 * "Si8')Ufy GoVilmaant Adainiatratton"

4. Jtesourci.na * Separate Agency ludgattna • Coordination of budget• to taak.a • Kan.ageaettt Proaraa

* :~:~~v~' ~,!!!!!people a Activity Prograaa

I

s. tafona.atioa/ * !xiatins Raferrala Syateaa * Provide uaaful and accurate * Eetuary lnfonutioa. Syatea Coamun.icatioa. intonation * leferrala !o.hanca&mlt

* Better coverage: * Simplify and link aourcu, etc. * "Provide u.u:ful inforw.ation"

6, DechiOft-uking • !xieting Agency Deciaioa Procedure• * Unkage * Kanageaea.t Proaraa vith ManageMa.t • Lagidated Proceduru • ~aier ace••• co public Syate• * Federal E.A.l.P. • Siaplify • Coordinated lafarrala and lapact * Provincial OIC 908 AsHa••nt

* Citizen Pardcipatioa Proceaa

7. Direct1111, Leading • Covernaant Funding of R.!S • Other * Kora vieible leadarahip rolH/ * Kt.nagaaant Syacam Kotivatiog Prograa.a poeitiona • Activity Progr ...

• Connectiona to political proceaae:a

8. Controlling/ • Public He.aring Procedure• of I • "~ Accountability" • Citizen Participation ProceH Accountability Agency Deciaion Procedure•

I • Progra• Review * Policy Comaittee • PerfoTIUnce Reviev Within Agenciea

9. Participation • Agency Public Involvement Prograu [ * Public Participation • Citizen Participation ProceH

A-41

...

APPENDIX Ill-4

MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Table No. I assesses where the Management Program provides support for the various management functions of a manage­ment system. Management research generally identifies various lists of management functions necessary for an effective management system, Table No. I demonstrates that the Management Program itself, if confirmed as a superordinate goal framework, would establish a basis for effective management. The work of a management system is made easier and more effective if supported by a clear, agreed upon plan. (See Wolfe, L.D.S., Chapter III, Organizational Options for Linked Management, Fraser River Estuary Study, 1981). Table No. 1 is in two parts: Table la illustrates where the draft management program addresses management functions and Table lb illustrates examples of proposed activities and how they accomplish management functions.

TABLE la

THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

I

HJ.HAC£HEHT PART l ... VlSlOH PART U - usms. PART r n - POLICIES PAAT IY - HAHAGEHEHT PAJtT V - ACTIVITY PLAHS IWCTIOOI TRENDS• OIALUl<CltS SYSTEHS/ESTIJARY All.A DESlQfATION

IMFOJU<ATIOH SYSTEH K>.HAC~T AREA PLAHS

I. Ph.nnln1 • Public input • knchNrk data • Joint policiee • Planning pro.cua * Action step• 1ynthe•hed eatabliahed agreed to created ! outlined

2. Innovating I * Publlc lnput generate• • Cootextual lnfluencea * Hev policie• • Proce•• for ongoing * Innovative planning I ldeu ldenctf ied agreed to innovation should be cons1dered

J. Or1.1nhing/ • Vblon iaplieo • Kanaseaent challenge• 1 • Joint policiea * Procea• fot ongoing I * Joint •«ion plan Coordlnulon coordination reported in Part IV j agreed to coordination develop1t12nt provided

I for .. Re•ourcing : • Vislon i~pliea * Funding probleaa * Reaourcing policie• * Proceu for funding * Joint funding •chedule•? / ruourcing prioritie• identified propoaed ln Activity coordination in Pert IV * Funding arrange.ent•

I Progra ..

5. InConution/ * C.0-Unication• * Inforw.Adon policie• * EstuHy tnforaadon * Identiflcuion of Comaunicationa infonaation probhM developed in Eatuery Sy•te• ducribed lnfonaAtion need•

identified in lnforaation Syeua Background Report

6. Do.claion-u.king * Vidon i•pUu * Dech ion-aaking * Clear, uplicit * Relation of H/S to * Action plan• •• • dechiona proble .. identified poUcie• existing ayateaa bash for dechion

in Pert IV

7. Leading, Directing, * Proaotin1 the Vision * Need a 1 concerna, * Clear, compelling * ProceH/rol•• for * Fir. plan• clear path Kotivatin1 direction• policiea leadenhlp for leader.hip

8. Controlling/ * Clear vldon * Bencha.ark data * Clear, aeaaurabla * PToceH of evaluation • Clear parfonunca criteria 1hould be Accowttability identified eatablhhed polici•• feedback, and revlev decided

9. Participation * Public vhiona * Record• of public * Agency and public * ProceH for agency and * PTI>c••• for agency ldentifhd input reviev of policiea public participation and public participatio

A-42

APPENDIX III-5

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

·The table below examines the three linked systems in terms of how they address the five management challenges identified earlier in this report. Again, this analysis confirms the divided opinion among the three alternatives. Each altern­ative has strengths and weaknesses.

CC»CPARISON OF LINKED MANAGEMENT SYSTD1 ALTEJlHATlVES AND HANAGEHE.H'T CHALL.P..NCES

IWWlD<Il!T IWU.lllli!l<f ALT!RJIATIVES CHALLENGES PROGRAM ITSELF Coaaittee Lead A•encv Council .. Agree on Polle)' - AgrHaant vould be - Asre•Mnt would be - Protocol agre&B&nta would - Agree-..nt proeeaa could be

Goab and accoeplbhed throuR}l &dvhory only. A conflict provtda COR11itment to eatu.ary incorporated in Council' a enabling Objec:tivH political level dachton• resolution or ..ct.tation poltci••~ agree .. nt, vith appeal to political

and aultibteral proceaa would be - Conflict reaolution approach level. endon ... nt of Kan.age.mt required at the political between lead agenciea would - Sollt8 legal probleM vith Program level be required. t119leaentation.

- Dllfieult to adapt plana to new iaauea or to 'interptet' agreo•nta.

2. Sl"l'lHy - Activity pror,n.u Would - Comdttee would dde1ata - Very good at reducing - Council would either talut on •>r Covu•naant eaaign rupondbiUthe b,. •araaeent to reduce duplicatioa. •tra.ealinin1, •••ign taeka. Adainiatratiotl efficiently. duplicatioa. aiaplifying. .. Cou.a.cU procoa• h•• potential to

- Cotiraitt .. proeHn hu beCOIM incafficient. potential to bec:oae ino!Ucient.

3, Kao.age people. ... Activity proaraae - Colllldttee approach would ... Le.M qenciea vould ban - Coua.cil would coordinate c:et'tain aoney, r•sout'cea would coordinate action provide locua of aandata to take acuoa. &etion plane. effectively plan.a. coordination of &etioa - Lead eganciaa aay need joint .. Co\Jl\.Cil pl'OCH8 hatl potential to

plan.a. actiOQ to uoaga effectively, bGCOllll inefficient. - eo-ittea proceaa haa potential to becoaa inefficient.

4. Auure .. Atlreff polJciea and • Po•db1e lo•a ot .., Claar n•ponaibiliUea .. PoHibl• lou of accountab111ty due Accouatability activity progrUlll provide accowtability due to group aHign.d to lead agenciea. to aroup reaponaibility,

a bench aark for reapoo.aibility. - Proceaa ruteded to keep - Can provide for reprHentation and IWU'l.8geaant proareaa. -c&n provide for repreatmta- le.ad qenciH accountabla, acceu for affected intereau.

tion and accHa of - Leaa repreHntation affected intereat. provided.

s. hovida uaaful - Separate !atuary - Coaaitteoa facilitate .. Reduced conaultation - Council facilitate• infon.adon and accurate Infora.acioa Syetea infora.ation exchange. betveen 1gencie1 thus allo exchange. infonu.tion provided for. infon.ation exchange.

A-43

CHAPTER IV - A LINKED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL:

THE COMMITTEE. SYSTEM AND LEAD AGENCIES COMPONENT

Legally and organizationally there are many ways to organize a system that combines the committee and lead agency approaches. be decided through intergovernmental discussion and agreement. illustrates one general way.

A. PREPARING THE GROUND

management Details would The following

Before any new management system is introduced, there are a number of steps which could be taken to prepare the ground .. These steps would improve the effectiveness of management quickly and could also smooth the way for an easier implementation of new management structures.

1. Streamlining Interagency Processes

The first step in improving management of the estuary would begin with a streamlining of existing interagency management processes. This work should begin before any reorganization of the present management system is started. Day-to-day management of the estuary would continue to be entrusted to the existing estuary agencies. Except where lead agency agreements rearrange responsibilities, existing agencies would to a large extent retain their present authority and responsibilities. However, interagency relations have evolved over time as a variety of issues have been addressed. There is considerable overlap, duplication and inefficiency in the present system.

2. Rationalization of Agency Jurisdictions

Another initiative to preparing the ground for introduction of a management system would be to untangle some of the complexity in existing jurisdictions. Some rationalization and streamlining of jurisdictions would serve to simplify management. By giving some agencies broader mandates for a wider range of issues in the estuary, the number of agencies involved in managing the estuary could be reduced. This could occur through lead agency delegation, protocol agreements or interlocking management. These approaches are described in technical reports of the study. Governments must decide how much reorganization is desirable "in their own houses".

3. Coordination of Referrals System

A major improvement to the existing management system could be achieved by the implementation of a coordinated referrals and assessment process. Pro­posals for such a process are described in Reith, G., Information Systems Report (F.R.E.S., 1982) and in summary form in Chapter V of this report. Such a system would link the twenty or so approval, referral and assessment processes into ~ coordinated system. Since referrals processes are one of the major processes for managing the estuary, this improvement alone would bring major benefits in terms of increased efficiency.

- 44 -

4. Improved Information Flows

Ano'ther initiative would be the introduction of an estuary information system. This proposal is also described in the Information Systems Report and Chapter V of this report. At present there are many agencies who collect information about estuary processes. There is some duplication of effort as different agencies collect the same types of information not knowing that such data has already been collected by another agency. In other cases agencies make decisions with little data, though other agencies have substantial inform­ation in their files. Since information is a raw material of decision-making, information sharing would greatly improve the quality of management decisions. It would also speed management decisions since it would eliminate unnecessary research and data gathering.

5. Implementation of the Management Program

The management program would itself be another major step toward improving the management of the estuary. A draft management program has been published as a separate report. Many agencies who have been working on the development of this management program have found that the information sharing, inter­agency discussions, and development of joint understanding with other agencies have improved their capability to manage in the estuary. This process of joint work should be continued with the preparation of activity programs and other joint projects. The management program document, as it evolves, should become a focus for cooperation between agencies. This focus on common goalswillachieve some of the benefits of improved management with or without a management system.

B. AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONCEPT

Organizational researchers have studied the performance of various organiz­ational structures in different situations. It has been found that certain organizational structures work well in certain circumstances but not in others. For example, a bureaucratic organization works well in a military or assembly line situation. It does not necessarily work well in a situation where creative problem solving and multiple decision makers are involved.

In a situation such as the Fraser River Estuary, where there are many decision makers who.have to make cooperative decisions on the basis of weak information· and considerable uncertainty about events in the future, a non­heirarchical situation is considered best. The best approach is to use 'lateral mechanisms' such as task forces, joint programs, flexible agree­ments, information systems and coordinated procedures. Crucial to the functioning of this type of management system is the establishment of a place for discussion and agreement on joint actions. Once actions are decided upon, it is then important to decide who will do the work. The system which will be described below establishes committees as a place to decide on what will be done. These committees will provide an opportunity for everyone to discuss and agree on policies. Once decisions are made and agreements concluded, there would be clear assignment of implementation

- 45 -

responsibilities either to task forces of lead agencies. The committee system would be strengthened by various special processes which would improve information and communications.

The organizational proposals recommended in this report comprise seven main elements:

A Committee System

• a policy committee • a key agency committee • a program committee

Lead Agencies

Special Processes

• a participation process • a coordinated referrals and assessment process • a Fraser Estuary Information System

The committee system and lead agencies are discussed in this chapter and special processes in Chapter VI. Each chapter describes a component of the proposed management system.

1. A Committee System

A three committee system is suggested for planning and representation in estuary management; a po-lley eommlttee of senior officials, a Qey ageney ghoup comprising major estuary management agencies, and a phogham eomm,lttee consisting of estuary level managers and user interests. (see Appendix IV-1)

Three main estuary committees would be organized to represent various interests and participate in ongoing planning activities. They would not replace existing agencies but would concentrate on tasks requiring cooper­ation between agencies.

a. A Policy Committee

The primary authority for public policy and decision-making in the Can­adian political system is by the elected officials of parliament and the legislature. An explicit means for maintaining contact between elected governments and the management system should be built into the system at the outset. A committee, formed at the most senior levels at govern­ment service, would be able to maintain contact with the political process, provide overall direction to the management process, negotiate or arbitrate conflicts unresolved at the management level, set prior­ities, ratify major planning decisions, convey directions from the political level to the program committee. It would also be able to

- 46 -

carry recommendations as necessary to governments where major political decisions are required. It would also have other senior level overview responsibilities and ensure responsiveness to public input. Such a committee would be important in assuring accountability.

This committee would be small in size. Its major role would be to represent federal and provincial governments in the estuary management system. The committee would agree on questions of budget for the manage­ment system, committee membership and terms of reference for major initiatives. In a sense it would be an executive committee of the system and a point of contact between the management system and the governments of Canada and British Columbia.

The terms of reference,membership and operation of the committee would be guided by agreements negotiated between the governments of Canada and British Columbia.

b. A Key Agency Group

A key agency group would be a management or operations committee formed at the estuary management level of government agencies. Its role would be to coordinate management activities in the estuary to implement the Estuary Management Program. The group would assume responsibility to implement common goals and policies agreed upon by estuary committees. Key agencies would take on the role of putting common policies into practice. The key agency group would assist with plan preparation, organize task forces to undertake joint projects and programs, and nominate and support lead agencies for implementation of estuary manage­ment functions.

The key agency group would also be involved through the Program Committee with planning. Planning, in part, involves deciding who can best carry out common policies, programs and projects. Some of these actions might best be implemented by joint task forces with specific tasks to perform. In other cases it would involve agreeing ,with lead agencies who would assume the responsibility for implementation. Coordination of implement­ation would best be accomplished by agreement among the agencies with the statutory powers to manage the estuary. A key agency committee would therefore be an appropriate body to coordinate work.

The key agency group would be small in size and would include only those agencies which have key management responsibilities in the estuary. Key agencies are agencies with significant statutory authority for managing estuary resources and the many day-to-day activities of the various users which affect these resources. Key agencies would normally be government agencies with the authority to either grant or assent to the issuance of a permit or approval. For example, Harbour Commissions grant leases for use of water lots on the river foreshore while the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans may allow or prevent developments or activities on the estuary. Local governments, agricultural agencies and Indian Bands

- 47 -

are also important as upland counterparts involved in estuary decisions. Each of these agencies also could be a lead agency in a given situation as described below.

Key agencies would be reinforced as the managers of the estuary. Auth­ority of these agencies would not be reduced, but rather strengthened, broadened and coordinated in the proposed management systems. These agencies become the focus for leadership and momentum in achieving coordinated management of the estuary. Theywould have the coordinating role in implementing the management program.

c. A Program Committee

The Program Committee would be a planning committee with primary purposes of organizing planning activity and providing for representation of agencies and user interests. To accomplish these purposes it would include both operational staff of government agencies as well as affected user interests.

The Program Committee would have planning, representation and other functions.

(1) Planning

Planning is a continuous process of adapting to the future. Cooper­ative management of the estuary involves ongoing review and form­ulation of goals, objectives, policies, and priorities. It also involves translation of planning activity into separate action agree­ments that say something about what government activities should occur and with what level of effort.

Planning also involves a determination of costs and agreement on expenditures to implement action recommendations. This may involve the development of public project proposals and presenting these proposals to governments for decision. It may also involve the study of program changes which involve minor or major government decisions. The activity programs described in the Management Program Report identify studies which could lead to such proposals. Planning also involves deciding who can best carry out policies, programs and projects, whether it be task forces or lead agencies. This function is coordinated by the Key Agency Group.

Planning also involves the monitoring of trends and events occuring in the estuary to determine if goals and programs are being met. Over time, some goals and programs will accomplish their purpose and become obsolete. These estuary committees would review and amend goals and programs as necessary. To ensure that obsolete reg­ulations do not accumulate on the books, a regular process of review should be agreed upon. This review should include sound criteria for determining the continued relevance and efficiency of all aspects of existing management.

- 48 -

(2) Representation

Because estuary decisions effect thousands of people directly or indirectly an important role of estuary committees is to represent people. However, because of numbers, not everyone can sit on an estuary committee. A respresentative approach is needed to enable discussion of issues. In practical terms this means the creation of 'seats' on the program conrrnittee and its sub-committees to include representatives of both key agencies and affected user interests. Key agencies would include representatives of the key agency group described above. User interests would include the forest industry, recreation and environmental groups, fishermen, labour and others. Finally, as necessary, the program committee would involve agencies or services. able to provide technical assistance or information needed to facilitate planning and decision-making.

(3) Other Functions

Committees are also effective for other management activities in the estuary. Committees are effective instruments for coordination of activities involving joint participation by several organizations. For example, some estuary projects or programs might best be imple­mented by a task force. Task forces or sub-conrrnittees could be organized by the Key Agency Group or Program Committee depending on the circumstances. Task forces would be given certain tasks to perform on behalf of other agencies. Operation of a coordinated referrals and assessment process is one example of a task which could best be managed by a committee working closely with a lead agency or agencies. Fraser River Estuary Information System, proposed later in this report, would also best be managed by a committee. Coordination of research and monitoring activities would also be effectively achieved by a committee approach. In many cases the studies undertaken to develop activity programs also described later in this report would best be performed by committees.

d. Committee Organization

We have described a committee system above consisting of a policy committee, key agency group and a program committee. Each committee needs an appropriate structure for membership, participation, voting processes, responsibilities.

The policy committee would make decisions by consensus since both Canada and British Columbia would need to concur to achieve agreements. The committee members would be appointed by the respective governments. The terms of reference of the committee would be spelled out by Federal­Provincial agreement.

The key agency group would be appointed on the basis of their key manage­ment role in estuary approval decisions. Voting procedures and group responsibilities would be decided by Federal-Provincial agreement.

- 49 -

The program committee would have adv-Uiony responsibilities and its role would be defined by policy committee directives. Its membership would be representative of the key agencies and key user interests in the estuary. While there are several ways in which a program committee could be organized, terms of reference should be carefully specified. These should define the relationship between the program committee and the activities of the key agencies group so that the relationship is clear between committee recommendations and lead agency follow-up.

It is also important in the relationship with key agencies to ensure that plans and input from other interests are considered in key agency actions. In return, the key agencies will be able to advise the pro­gram committee as to what is feasible given existing jurisdictions, responsibilities, and resources,

To maintain flexibility an adaptable enabling agreement could be designed to guide the program committee, amendable from time to time by the policy committee through supplemental agreements. These agreements could pro­gressively assign functions and responsibilities to the program committee as it gained more experience and effectiveness. This would allow the management program to be implemented in a progressive, incremental process, as recommended later.

The choice of committee procedures is left for detailed discussions be­tween the governments of Canada and British Columbia as they negotiate future estuary management arrangements. Suggested options are provided in the Appendices to this chapter.

2. Lead Agencies

Lead agencies are another component of the combined committee/lead agency approach. Lead agencies are government agencies chosen for the role of taking the lead for certain aspects of estuary management.

Role. Lead agencies would normally be agencies with substantial management responsibilities already in the exi.sting management system for the estuary. These agencies would take on an additional role to implement agreed policies and programs of the management system, in addition to their usual respons­ibilities given to them by government.

Specific tasks of lead agencies would vary. To assist estuary committees, lead agencies might undertake planning or other studies on behalf of committees. Lead agencies might be called upon to implement various compo­nents of activity programs, area designations, or area plans. As partici­pants in the estuary management program, lead agencies would review internal policies, guidelines and operating procedures to achieve consistency between the management program and agency policies. Lead agencies might also be asked to assign staff, facilities, equipment and other resources to joint projects. They might also assume responsibility for implementation of an 'interagency process, such as coordinated referrals and assessment procedures.

- 50 -

An existing example of a lead agency agreement is the management contract between the B.C. Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and the federal harbour commissions. The river bed in some areas is Provincially owned. However, the federal harbour commissions have substantial authority to determine end uses of these river areas, based on federal primacy of authority with respect to navigation. In order to avoid duplication, the harbour commissions and the Ministry have concluded agreements to assign responsibility for lease management to the harbour commissions. Similar lead agency agreements could be established for coordination of environmental enforcement, monitoring, recreation development, habitat management and other areas.

Lead Agency options. Lead agencies would be chosen by the Key Agency Group on the basis of current management responsibilities and jurisdiction and on the basis of resource management expertise and capability. Lead agencies may or may not be members of the Key Agency Group. Lead agencies may be chosen on the basis of geographic area (North Fraser, Boundary Bay, etc.), the resources to be managed (water quality, recreation, land use, habitat, trans­portation, other), or the type of management function (research, facilities development, habitat management, planning, etc.).

Because leadership in estuary management is focussed on the lead agency, the lead agency should be a government agency with substantial management respons­ibilities in the present system. It would normally have the authority to either grant, or assent to issuance of, a permit or approval. In order to streamline management of the estuary, an objective should be to focus or concentrate management roles in a few agencies. Therefore, candidates for lead agency status should first be sought from among the agencies with major roles in the present management processes. For example, harbour commissions are involved in most development activities in the river foreshore. They would be obvious candidates. Other major agencies would be the federal Department of Public Works, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the B.C. Ministry of Environment and others.

Delegation. Lead agencies would be chosen by the Key Agency Group and widened responsibilities would be delegated to thembymutual agreement. The estuary committees would essentially try to achieve a consensus on a management pro­gram or certain management tasks. Once these committee agreements are achieved, a decision as to the appropriate entity to do the work is made. This assignment would normally go to either a lead agency or task force. Lead agencies are preferred as a means of simplifying administration and establishing clear responsibility and authority to act.

Once a lead agency is chosen, other agencies would support them in fulfilling their responsibilities. Where lead agencies implement joint decisions, there is a need to agree on the work to be done. There is also a need to specify the relationships between lead agencies and other agencies and interests. There may be a need to review and reinforce the lead agency in its role, including allocation of increased money, manpower, or other resources.

- 51 -

Where conflicts arise, the Key Agency Group may serve the role of mediating and coordinating the processes between lead agencies and other agencies and interests. It is important that committees have an ongoing relationship with lead agencies to be sure that plans and input from other interests are considered in lead agency actions. On the other hand, the committees will depend on the information and advice of lead agencies, who can advise them on what is feasible given the existing jurisdictions, responsibilities, resources and practical constraints on government actions.

Lead agency assignments can be effected by various means. In some cases the primacy of a specific lead agency to act in certain circumstances could be specified in key agency minutes or other documents. Lead agencies might also become lead agencies through the negotiation of more formal 'protocol agreements'. These agreements are simply written interagency procedural guidelines which give details on the roles of different agencies in a certain area of management. There are numerous examples in government administration.

Lead agencies would use their existing authority to make and implement these protocol agreements. These agreements would specify the responsibilities, accountability and authority delegated to the lead agency. They would des­cribe what would be done and what procedures would be used.

Protocol agreements should also specify consultative procedures between lead agencies and other agencies. Agencies agreeing to "second agency" status would allow first action by the lead agency. However they would not necess­arily give up their existing prerogatives and could step back in if need be. For example, second agencies would want to be involved in major new policies or decisions. Second agencies would want to evaluate whether their responsibilities are affected by changes in direction. 1-lhere lead agency actions caused concerns to other agencies, the estuary committees become a forum for discussion and review.

Protocol agreements arearrimportant tool for streamlining government admin­istration and rationalizing agency jurisdictions. Protocol agreements can be established between pairs or groups of agencies which presently share responsibilities for some aspect of managing the estuary. Areas of overlap and duplication can be assigned to one agency. This one agency could be delegated to act as lead agency on behalf of the others. This practice would progressively streamline the estuary management system and add to the efficiency of government management.

Lead agencies are a powerful tool for estuary management. Lead agencies can streamline the power to act and help to ensure effective, efficient and prompt action. Lead agencies should be a primary focus for estuary manage­ment.

* * * In Chapter V, three special processes are reviewed which are one in sub­stance with proposals presented in this Chapter.

- 52 -

APPENDIX IV-1

ESTUARY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA GOVERNMENT OF B. C.

POLICY COMMITTEE

....

KEY AGENCY GROUP

LEfa~ AGENCIES TASK FORCES

A-53

USER INTERESTS

PROGRAM COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEES

APPENDIX IV-2 COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION

This appendix is a review of the options for committee organizational design. As part of the discussion of management systems options, the Management Systems Sub-Committee and Planning Committee discussed various configurations of committee organizational design. This appendix was prepared as a back­ground supplement to these discussions. Extensive background on committee organization is given in the Fraser River Estuary Study technical report on Organizational Options for Linked Management.

The role of deciding the specific design and arrangements of a committee system is the responsibility of the Governments of Canada and British Columbia in the review of the Phase II recommendations.

This report recorrnnends a management system consisting of three committees:

(1) A policy committee

(2) A key agency group

(3) A program committee

It also recommends(4) the use of lead agencies where possible for implementa­tion.

The above recommendations are supplemented by processes described later including:

(5) A participation process

(6) A coordinated referrals and impact assessment process, and

(7) A Fraser Estuary Information System

All of the above 'structures' collectively comprise a management system. These mechanisms would all be classified as lateral or peer-to-peer mechanisms. Lateral mechanisms are clearly preferred in situations involving high uncertainty, frequent change, poor information, and multiple decision-makers. Heirarchical systems simply cannot function effectively in these 'turbulent' management environments (Wolfe, 1981).

This section focusses on the estuary committee system. However, one should bear in mind that the committees are only part of the system. To understand how these components interact, several cases are appended to this report (See Appendix B) .

This section looks at the following pieces of a committee system:

• Committee Membership • Committee Participants • Committee Voting Processes

A-54

• Committee Authority • Committee Responsibilities

From these building blocks a suggested committee structure is proposed.

A. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Committee membership has a central role in affecting committee decisions. Committee members can influence committee decisions by discussion and voting. There are three options for each committee in terms of membership.

(1) Representational

A committee can be formed to represent the major interests affected by the decisions of the committee. In this case, affected interests would have a voting voice on committees.

(2) Decisional

A committee can comprise only the decision-makers with the legal authority to carry out decisions. In this case, affected interests would not sit on the committee.

(3) Mixed

A committee can mix representational and decisional roles in the same committee,

Each of these options must be reviewed in terms of:

(a) Organizational Constraints (eg. numbers and committee process should be manageable);

(b) Legal Constraints (eg. committees must not make ultra vires decisions; actions must be premised on and remain within committee terms of reference).

A more subtle membership question concerns the role of the member. Does the member represent a specific agency or interest, or some wider community of interests (eg. the estuary, the public, the government etc.)? The question is whether committee members should rise above agency interests in the name of a holistic view of the estuary. Committee member roles can include any combination of the following:

(a) to monitor, review and comment on committee business from the agency or user interest perspective in order primarily to protect agency or user interests (agency then committee);

(b) to participate in a joint program, submerging separate agency identities to the overall committee purpose (committee then agency);

A-55

(c) to observe and note connnittee business (information only);

(d) to provide general advice and technical assistance to the committee (support);

(e) to fulfill orders to attend from superiors within the agency (compulsion).

Experience with interagency committees (eg. Regional District T.P.C.s) suggest that the member's role is defined by each member's agency. The same connnittee often has a range of members, each with a different perspective on his/her role. The same is perhaps true of the Estuary Study, Phase II. This is not beneficial to achieving agency agreements since expectations and commitment differ. Implementation plans should clarify the membership roles of all connnittee members and orient members thoroughly to the expectations concerning their roels.

B. COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS

In order to specify the type of member comprising each committee, it is useful to agree on the terminology used to define various classes of member. The following definitions are proposed. There is obviously some overlap among certain categories.

(1) Political Officials

The governments of Canada and British Columbia as represented by elected Ministers designated as responsible for the estuary management program.

(2) Senior Government Officials

The most senior levels of government service, including deputy ministers, regional director generals, assistant deputy ministers.

(3) Key Agencies

Key agencies are government agencies with significant approval or regulatory functions within the estuary. Candidates for key agency status include any agency which has statutory authority either (a) to grant or issue a significant permit or approval, or (b)- to assent to the granting or issuance of a significant permit or approval.

(4) Lead Agencies

Lead agencies are government agencies who have been delegated by mutual agreement to assume specified responsibilities to implement decisions of the management system. Formal delegation of lead agency status would be by way of interagency protocol agreement or Key Agency Group appointment

A-56

accepted by a lead agency. A lead agency may or may not be a key agency.

(5) Second Agencies

In many cases, lead agencies would receive responsibilities transferred to them from other agencies. An existing example is the transfer of lease management over provincial river bed to the federal harbour commissions from the B. C. Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. In these cases the second agency would agree to allow first right-of-action by the lead agency. However, second agencies might retain secondary statutory pre­rogatives to step in if need be. Further, second agencies may decide to retain a role in any major decisions of changes in policy.

(6) Support Offices

Support offices are government agencies or branches of government agencies which provide technical assistance, liaison, information or other management support to the management system.

(7) Local Governments and Indian Bands

Municipalities, regional districts and Indian Bands adjacent to the estuary represent a special class of government agencies.

(8) User Interests

User interests are loosely defined to include any organized association, government agency or interest group with a significant interest in the management of the estuary. User interests might include the forest industry, fishermen, labour, agriculture, recreation groups, environmental groups, community groups, academia and similar groups.

C. COMMITTEE VOTING PROCESSES

(1) Voting Procedures

The voting process of committee will make, may be considered:

(i) Consensus

a committee may largely determine the decisions a There are several common voting procedures which

A consensus is a general agreement, i.e., each member is either in agreement or not in strong disagreement with a committee decision. Unanimity is an extreme variation of consensus.

(ii) Fixed Percent Vote Voting arrangements can include simple majority votes, two-thirds votes, three-fourths votes, or similar variations.

A-57

(iii) Two Part Votes

In complex organizations, committee decisions may be made by two countings of votes, or votes of two different committees. For example, in the Canadian Parliament (House of Commons, Senate) and U.S. Congress (House of Representatives, Senate) two separate 'committees' vote. Amendment of a federal constitution usually may require, for example, a vote of 7 provinces representing 50 percent of the population and a vote of the federal legislative body or parliament.

(iv) Designated Voting

Designated voting is a seemingly complex but quite manageable voting process as used by regional district boards. At a single gathering, four separate boards may hold sequential meetings with separate memberships (Regional Board, Regional Hospital Board, Regional Water District Board, Regional Sewer and Drainage District Board). As the meeting progresses, the chairmanship changes and the eligible member­ship changes. This allows the Greater Vancouver Water District, for example, to include a non-GVRD municipality (eg. Langley)to "join" the organization for selected votes, yet be silent on other issues (regional planning).

A variation on the designated voting procedure is a rotating voting procedure. In this situation, some positions or 'seats' might rotate among a pool of representatives. For example, a municipal 'seat' might be occupied by the Surrey representative when Surrey issues are discussed and other representatives when the area of focus shifts to new municipalities. This procedure is complex and would require careful ground rules especially when issues are addressed which affect multiple areas.

(2) Other Considerations

In addition to voting procedures there are other options which may rela~e to a voting system.

Weighting

A major issue common to any voting process designs, and never really resolved to everyone's satisfaction, is the weights assigned to votes of each member. In some voting systems, some committee members are given more votes than other members due to larger size (eg. population). In the U.S. Senate, for example, Nevada, (the smallest state in population) has two votes, same as California. In the House of Representatives, on the other hand, the States have voting proportional to population. In the GVRD voting is proportional to population, however, some delegates have more votes (up to 5). In interagency voting committee membership could weight the voting and affect decisions. For example, if there were 10 agencies managing polliwogs and 5 managing balcksmiths, polliwogs may be expected to receive high priority in the voting. The existnece of 10 polliwogs and 5 blacksmith agencies may bear no relevance to the

A-58

priority of the resource, the necessary number of agencies, or any other factor relevant to the decision.

Ex Officio Status

Not all persons present at a meeting need have voting eligibility. The opportunity to observe, advise, comment and influence decisions can be applied to different committees in the system. The best choice depends on what decisions the management system has to make and what preferences and constraints face the management system designer.

Vetoes

A check and balance option in certain complex voting systems is the option of a committee decision or vote being passed, subject to a veto by a member (U.N. Security Council) or separate entity (U.S. President). Vetoes tend to be highly devisive and rarely used as a result. However, the threat of veto often encourages compromise.

A process of referral for review by higher authority can serve as a form of veto. In this case, implementation of committee decisions would be delayed pending appeal to a higher authority.

D. COMMITTEE AUTHORITY

A committee can have a range of authority to make or recommend decisions. The 'mandate' of a committee is an important component of the definition of a committee. For our purposes, we have defined three options in terms of conrrnittee authority.

(A) Advisory

A conrrnittee has no power to make and carry out decisions, but may make recommendations to appropriate decision-makers.

(B) Contractual

A conrrnittee is authorized to discuss, negotiate and agree on conrrnon policy directions and actions, subject to ratification if necessary, by executives of member agencies.

(C) Decision-Making

A conrrnittee has a mandate to make decisions binding on member agencies in certain defined interagency matters.

The boundaries are obviously grey in any conrrnittee between these options. An advisory committee would have decision making responsibilities in certain minor areas. A decision-making committee would be advisory in some situations or issues.

A-59

E. SUMMARY OF CATEGORIES

The following categories of structural design elements are summarized from earlier analysis:

Membership Options

(a) Representational (b)Decisional (c)Mixed

Participants

(l)Political Officials (2)Senior Government Officials (3)Key Agencies (4)Lead Agencies (5)Second Agencies (6)Support Offices

Voting Procedures

(i) Consensus (ii) Fixed Percent Vote (iii)Two part Vote (iv) Designated Voting

Authority

(A) Advisory (B) Contractural ( C) .Decision-Making

(?)Local Government and Indian Bands (8)User Interests

The table below is one possible arrangement or mix of arrangements which could be used to define the committee organizations proposed in this report.

COMMITTEES

Ministers

Policy Committee

Key Agency Group

Lead Agencies

Program Committees

Sub Committees

"/" means "or" ","means "and"

Membership Participants

b 1

b 2

b 3,7

b 3,4

c 3-8

c 3-8

Voting Options Authority

i c

i B/C

i/ii/iv B/C

N.A. B/C

i/ii/iii/iv A

i/ii A

Possible committee responsibilities are listed in section "F" following.

A-·60

F. COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES

The terms of reference or mandate of a committee defines the bounds of what it can consider and what actions it may take. Unless specifically author­ized by government, committees would have no authority to override the decisions of line agencies. This is consistent with the principle of the supremacy of parliament and written law. Therefore, the responsibilities defined for committees determine what committees become. The following responsibilities could be defined for estuary committees.

1. Policy Committee

- Establish other estuary committees, and via supplementary agreements, assign duties incrementally as system evolves;

- Agree on management system budget, membership, and terms of reference for major planning studies or implementation projects;

- Serve as a contact point for ratification of the management programs as necessary;

- Link the management system to the political process;

- Convey directions from the political level tp estuary committees;

- Carry recommendations from the estuary committees to the political level where major political decisions are required;

- Approve major compromises and trade-offs as necessary;

Assure accountability;

- Negotiate or arbitrate conflicts not resolved at the operational level;

- Assure responsiveness to public input;

- Hear representations from affected agencies or interest.

2. Key Agency Group and Lead Agencies

- Participation as part of the program committee;

- Undertake planning or other studies on behalf of other committees as necessary;

- Determination of costs and required initiatives to implement action plans (as part of planning process);

- Translation of overall planning activity into specific action plans;

A-61

- Agree to assume responsibility for implementation;

- Nomination of lead agencies to undertake implementation tasks;

- Agree to procedures for consultation and review of implementation;

- If possible, discussion and resolution of interagency disputes referred by lead agencies or agencies affected by lead agency actions;

- Assign staff, facilities, equipment and other resources to joint projects or programs;

- Review and amend agency policies, guidelines and operating procedures to compare with Management Program and through give and take achieve plan consistency;

- Coordinate approvals, referrals and assessment processes through agreed system.

3. Program Committee

- Represent significant user and agency interests affected by estuary decision­making;

- Research and preparation of background studies and technical reports;

- Via Sub-committees, review research reports for their implications for estuary management;

- Ongoing review and formulation of goals, policies, priorities and object­ives of the Management Program;

- Preparation of plans and plan amendments including the Management Program, Activity Programs etc.;

- Proposing area designations, land and resource guidelines, other policies;

- Via sub-committees, review and suggest improvements to the Fraser Estuary Information System.

A-62

CHAPTER V - A LINKED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROPOSAL :

THE SPECIAL PROCESSES COMPONENT

A linked management system should be flexible and adaptable. Conunittees and lead agencies as described in Chapter IV above are only part of the system. Equally important are special processes which are the basis for improved information and communication. Communication and information are essential parts of the system. Three special purpose processes are reconnnended:

• A peuttlc),pa;tlon pnoQeJ.:i~ - to enable interests to influence decisions that affect them;

• A Qooncllna:ted nefiennal..o and ~~v.:,~men.t pnoQeJ.:i~ to simplify and coordinate agency decision-making;

• A Fn~en E~tuaxy Infionma;tlon Sy~tem to serve as a contact point and information source for agencies, the public and special interests.

A. A PARTICIPATION PROCESS

It is important for a management system to provide opportunities for affected interests and agencies to discuss and comment on policies that affect them. This participation improves consensus acceptance and understanding. In view of the range of involvement - key and other agencies, local government, citizens, public groups, industry, special and affected interests - a variety of approaches is needed. These might include:

• Appointment of representatives to program committees;

• Design of management procedures for improved access;

• Development of the estuary information system to store, organize and disseminate information and sponsor discussion;

• Appointment of estuary advisory committees representing agencies, special interests and citizens;

• Sponsoring of public meetings to discuss estuary plans and issues;

• Preparation of guidelines for public participation in the management program and system.

These and other options are explored in the Repont on PubL[Q Involvement. Participation should be viewed flexibly, allowing for the needs of affected interests and the nature of the decisions. The best approach should be chosen for each situation.

- 63 -.

B. .·. COORDINATED REFERRALS AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Consultation between agencies in making government decisions is an accepted facet of interagency relations in Canada. The most common approach to consultation in today's management system is the use of referral and impact assessment procedures.

Referral systems circulate information for comment about applications for use or development of resources. A detailed review of referral systems used in the Fraser River Estuary is given in McDougall, R., Referral Systems Presently Used in the Fraser River Estuary Core Area (F.R.E.S., 1982). A successful referral system ensures fair and reasonable opportunities for agencies affected by decisions to identify these and comment on them.

Impact assessment procedures are occasionally used where more detailed assessment of economic, environmental, and social impacts is necessary or where some interests are specially affected. Impact assessment are usually undertaken according to some agreed procedure. Examples of impact assessment processes in the Fraser Estuary include the Order-in-Council 908 review process and the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP).

Another approach sometimes used for review of development or use proposals is the interdepartmental committee. These committees review and discuss proposals and form joint recommendations to decision-makers.

1. A Coordinated Process

A coordinated referrals and assessment process is recommended as a major element of the Fraser River Estuary Management System. A coordinated process would streamline and simplify existing referrals and approvals assessment processes. It would address all of the five management challenges identified earlier in this report. It would add a degree of certainty to a process that is now characterized by inconsistency, redundancy and gaps in information. Such a system would address several problems as follows:

• Poor quality of information on which to base project assessment decisions;

• Time lags and delays in processing of applications;

• Lack of opportunity for affected interests and agencies to make comment on agency decisions;

• Lack of coordination between the various referrals and assessment procedures used throughout the Fraser River Estuary.

These problems result in wastes of time, money and resources for agencies, proponents and the public. The proposed coordination of referrals and impact assessment processes can streamline and coordinate decision-making, make development application requirements more understandable, and

- 64 -

facilitate wider public awareness. The proposed referrals enhancement will not add complexity and delay to the mangement system, but rather will make several modest adjustments to existing referrals processes to improve their efficiency and effectiveness ..

2. How it Works

Details of the design of a coordinated or 'enhanced' referrals and assess­ment process are provided in G. Reith, Information Systems Report (F.R.E.S., 1982). This section is a summary only, and the reader is refer.red to the above report.

A coordinated referrals and assessment process would ations to key agencies within the estuary management ated process would be managed by a team of agencies. use a common application form, or 'prospectus'.

apply to all applic­system. The coordin-:.

These agencies would

The prospectus would be received in the first instance by an agency desig­nated as a lead agency. This agency would review the application, index and circulate it to other agencies in the system. The agency would review the application for consistency with its policy, policies of the manage­ment program and for the need for all permits and licences. The lead agency would then circulate the information in general terms to all agencies within the estuary. A common file number would be assigned as a common index for identifying the application. Any agency desiring further inform­ation concerning the application could then contact the lead agency, using the file number and receive additional information.

The referral system would be used to obtain the comments of referral agencies concerning the project. The lead agency, chosen for its significant role in the projects approval, would make an initial decision on the final disposition of the project. However, if it is determined that a more in­depth assessment 6f a proposal is required then the lead agency would take responsibility for initiating and arranging the assessment.

The Fraser Estu~ry Management System would serve as an appropriate vehicle for coordination of impact assessments. The current procedures under 0-I-C 908 or E.A.R.P. could be linked to the estuary management system in a contractual or administrative way. Further, estuary committees could serve as a forum for conflict resolution and the organization of research associated with project assessments.

In time, procedural and organizational elements of the proposed referrals enhancement could be upgraded to a more formal institutional arrangement. A development prospectus may be the first step in a common estuary devel­opment application form. The coordinated referrals process could be ex­panded into a special purpose application information centre, with computer linkages to all estuary management agencies. Other options which could easily be put in place include coordinated interagency public meetings, and coordinated appeals processes.

- 65 -

Several agencies have indicated substantial support for the principle of referrals coordination. Streamlined and coordinated referrals and assess­ment procedures have been used in other regions, and indicate that real benefits are possible with such a system for management agencies, developers and the public. A coordinated referrals and assessment process would be a major contribution to meeting the management challenges of the estuary. It would provide for simplicity, efficiency, certainty and openness.

C. A FRASER ESTUARY INFORMATION SYSTEM

A Fraser Estuary Information System (FEIS) is recommended in order to improve the flow of information to all participants in the estuary management system. Information is the raw material of decisions, and is needed by estuary managers, developers, research groups, educators, special interests and the general public.

The services of the FEIS fall under four basic categories as summarized below.

1. Library Services

There is a need for easy access on the part of all management system part­icipants to published information concerning the Fraser River Estuary. One component of an estuary information system would be the centralization of written information, reports and bibliographies relating to estuary and coastal zone management in general and the Fraser River Estuary in particular. Additional information services which could be provided include newspaper clippings services, data research and retrieval and similar services.

Library services could be located within the facilities of an existing institution, such as a library. In order for this to happen, it would be necessary to establish procedures between the library and agencies and organizations that generate information.

2. Contact and Referral Services

A useful service to participants in the management system would be a contact point for finding out about who manages what resources in the estuary and by what authority. Public meetings of Phase II indicated that there is intense public desire for a mechanism to provide a simple, yet comprehensive, descrip­tion of estuary management responsibilities. Developers, agencies, and the public desire a quick means of determining who to contact for what inform­ation or service. This need could be met with an estuary hot line, mapping of referrals processes, and agency catalogues.

3. Coordinate Research and Monitoring

There are numerous research projects being undertaken daily in the estuary by agencies, academic institutions and individuals. The estuary information system would not have the resources to undertake research or perform

- 66 -

monitoring functions. However, the FEIS could act as a bibliographic service depository for such information. The information system could produce a "State of the Estuary Report" which would be a summary of major environmental, economic, and social trends in the estuary. Information would be provided to the FEIS by exisitng agencies.

The coordination of research in the estuary was addressed in detail by A.H.J. Darcey and K.J. Hall in Setting Ecological Research Priorities for Management: The Art of the Impossible in the Fraser Estuary (Westwater Research Centre, 1981). This report has several useful ideas for coordinating research, and proposes a list of research proj~cts which could improve the information base for management of the estuary. This report should be considered by funding authorities.

4. Public Education and Assistance

There is a need to provide better information and learning opportunities for members of the public to understand estuary resource management problems. Estuary management often involves technical and complex subjects. In order for the public to make informed decisions concerning its resources, there is a need for programs which explain the ecology, economy and administration of the estuary.

D. NEW TECHNOLOGY

With the advent of the electronic age we are already seeing rapid advances in the technology of making information available to the public and these will accelerate in the next decade. Every effort should be make to employ this technology to make information more available.

The Canadian TELIVON Sy~tem linking television sets in homes, offices, and libraries with computerized information banks has already been launched and should be studied and a field trial established. TELIDON uses telephone lines (or optical cables or satellite transmission) to bring information to homes and offices in an interactive system. It is expected that this tech­nology will be widely available within the next· few years. The system could be available for use as part of FEIS in the near future.

Another new technology which could be used in both the public information system and the referral system is electronic mail. Electronic mail would allow maintenance of publicly accessible files for the information of the general public, and controlled access files on a host computer for the use of government referral agencies. Both libraries and the referral agencies would connect to an electronic mail system at will. Rapid dissemination of information from lead agencies to referral agencies would be possible and receipt of unwanted documents could be minimized, thereby enabling referral agencies to make better use of their limited resources. Ultimately, a file sorting capability would be made available to public users through the library so that interested parties could extract information according to their particular needs.

- 67 -

* * * The three special processes above are innovative in nature. The public involvement process used in Phase II has used the latest technology available for gathering input from a wide range of interest. This highly effective process has allowed a variety of modes of making input. The coordinated referrals and assessment process has been attempted on a modest scale else­where, however, the system proposed here would be a notable innovation in Canadian resource administration. The Fraser Estuary Information System is a further innovation of far reaching significance. Adding in the use of the latest technology, the interaction between the three processes will have a beneficial effect on estuary management. These processes are experimental in part, and may be a precedent for a major state in the evolution of govern­ment adminstration. Details of these proposals are provided in the technical reports of the Study.

- 68 -

APPENDIX V-1

REFERRALS PROBLEM ASSESSMENT

A description and analysis of existing referrals systems was completed by the Study. This work provides the basis for identifying some of the specific problems affecting referrals systems in the Fraser River Estuary. The following sources of information were used for this description and analysis:

a. review of phase I Study materials, b. case studies, c. interviews with agencies, developers, special interests and the

general public, d. questionnaires (relating to the referrals mapping project), e. review of referral enchancement projects undertaken in other areas

such as in the State of Washington, f. review of academic research.

A number of problems were identified with the existing referrals processes in the Fraser River Estuary:

a. lack of systematic processes for evaluating development impacts on an estuary-wide basis;

b. faulty, confused or incomplete communications among management agencies; c. overlapping and repetitive reviews; d. lack of input by citizens and affected interests; e. inadequate information to make comprehensive analysis; f. lack of lead time for reviewing proposals; g. lack of manpower and resources for reviewing proposals; h. lack of knowledge concerning the management framework of the Estuary

with confusion about who should do what, where and in which order; i. lack of knowledge of management framework of the Estuary by developers

leading to the initiation of development proposals at the wrong place or at the wrong time; .

j. lack of a mechanism to intercept and redirect development proposals that have been initiated at the wrong agency.

A-69

APPENDIX V-2

MAJOR STEPS IN A PROPOSED ENHANCED REFERRALS PROCESS

FOR THE FRASER ESTUARY

STEP ONE - PROJECT IS INITIATED

Proponent (applicant) contacts lead agency for advice and assistance in preparing an application;

Obvious errors or ommissions in the application are corrected to make the application receivable;

Lead agency assigns file number to the application and instructs the Central Project Registry (CPR) to start a file for the application (Note: the file number will be entered on all documents associated with this process no formal processing of the application would begin without this number).

STEP TWO - INTERNAL REVIEW BY LEAD AGENCY

Proponent submits a formal application to the lead agency, which reviews the application according to its own policies and policies of the Estuary Management Program;

Lead agency decides if it can accept the project;

If the lead agency accepts the project, the CPR is forwarded a summary description of the project; other agencies have 10 days to contact the CPR for project information and submit requests for application documents;

The lead agencies obtain requests for application documents from the CPR, and forwards these to the concerned agencies;

Agencies may respond to the lead agency, which has the option of granting final project approval to the proponent on requiring modifications to the project based on comments by the responding agencies.

STEP THREE - PROSPECTUS DEVELOPMENT AND REFERRALS

- If the lead agency decides that the project must be referred to other agencies for permits or approvals, the proponent is instructed to complete a Prospectus.

The lead agency identifies the appropriate permitting and approving agencies and instructs the proponent to apply to these agencies; the prop­onent must also submit the prospectus to all permitting and approving agencies with the file number attached.

Agencies that do not have permitting or approving authorities may request

A-70

project information from the lead agency by submitting a request to the Central Project Registry (this step has already taken place earlier in Step 2).

The lead agency assembles and reviews comments of all agencies. The project is either approved, rejected or submitted for an environmental impact assessment, depending on the nature of the responses by referral agencies.

The lead agency submits a summary of agency responses to the Central Project Registry.

A-71

APPENDIX V-3

REFERRALS ENHANCEMENT - THE WASHINGTON STATE CASE

The complex resource management problems facing the Fraser River Estuary are not unique. Case studies of estuary and resource mangement·programs initiated throughout Canada and the United States indicate the problems of coordination among agencies are. almost universal.

The case of Washington State's attempt to streamline and simplify various development review and approval processes provides an excellent example for the Fraser River Estuary. The referrals enhancement program implemented in the State has been called one of the most comprehensive and far-reaching of any in the United States.

In Washington State, legislation was.passed to provide developers the option of participating in a coordinated review and permitting process. This legislation, called the Environmental Co-ordination Procedures Act (1973,as amended) establishes a special purpose agency to serve as a central project application coordinator. This agency can act as the single point of entry into a development approval process: it identifies and submits information to agencies with permitting and approval responsibilities, assembles agency comments, facilitates joint public hearings if necessary, provides a package of responses to the developer, and facilitiates a coordinated appeal process. In effect, this system provides an optional 'one stop' application procedure for developers.

While the system of coordinated permits and approvals in the State of Wash­ington may not be directly applicable to the Fraser River Estuary, several features of the system are worth consideration. The optional master applic­ation offered by the system can form the basis of the development prospectus to be submitted along with development proposal documents for Fraser River Estuary Projects. This is a major step in upgrading the quality of inform­ation that is submitted along with a development proposal. The practice of providing development application information to developers is also of interest. The concept of the Central Project Registry, embodied with the referrals enhancement field trial, can act as a one stop centre for accurate and timely information about the permit and approvals processes associated with a particular proposal. In order for a Central Project Registry to serve the functions of the special purpose approval coordinating centres in Wash­ington, significant adjustments to existing agency policies and practices would be required.

The referrals enhancement system is operating successfully in the State of Washington now. According to several analyses of the system, developers are electing to use the optional approval and permitting coordination mechanisms provided by the Act.

A-72

CHAPTER VI - A PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

OF A LINKED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

A major conclusion of the current phase of the Fraser River Estuary Study is that .the app!toac.h U6 ed .to c.Jtea.te a Uvt.k.ed man.ag emevt..t J.i y.o.tem iJ.i aJ.i impoJt.tavt..t aJ.i .the de.oigvt. 06 .the J.iyJ.i.tem i:t6el6. An organizational system or process works best when people accept and support it. At the same time, few complex organizations have been successful and effective without a careful program for change.

Chapter II "The Development of Coordination" in L.D.S. Wolfe, Organizational Options for Linked Management (F.R.E.S., 1981) explores approaches for improving interorganizational cooperation. The reader is referred to the above report for a discussion of the principles outlined below.

The Study recommends the following guidelines for implementation of the Management System. In modifying the existing management system, the implem­entation group should:

VEVE LOPING LINKAGE

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

give continuous attention to evaluating and improving existing information systems and communication processes with a goal of improvement, including the use of new technologies;

• implement changes to existing structures and processes gradually and incrementally where possible to build support and avoid unnecessary disruption;

• focus changes on a manageable range of problems at any one time, making no attempt to move on a broad front to solve all issues at once;

• establish checkpoints to reevaluate and replan the implem­entation process in the expectation that a few false. starts, maneuvers, malfunctions, and reformulations are inevitable;

• at the same time, establish provisions to avoid loss of momentum or regression including focus on early successes, use of lock-in and automatic implementation provisions, and other procedures;

encourage development of mutual respect and good will by giving conscious attention to group process, training in group process and negotiating skills, use of problem­solving approaches, use of special facilitators and other methods;

- 73 -·

STRUCTURAL SUPPORT

e encourage mutual agreement by requ1r1ng near-consensus to approve decisions and using creativity, trade-off and compromise to achieve agreements;

e encourage mutual agreements by avoiding structures or processes which give one party or group unequal power to determine group decisions by unilateral actions;

e encourage mutual agreement by establishing compensating mechanisms, where possible, to enable balanced trade-offs;

• ensure that all entities affected by decisions are allowed opportunity to comment on draft decisions;

identify and remedy administrative and legal impediments to cooperation between agencies where necessary to achieve effective linkage;

e develop appropriate structural andorganizational arrange­ments to provide a structural context and administrative support for technical and managerial interaction and cooperation.

- 74 ~

CHAPTER VII - BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

The proposed system will achieve effective management of the estuary through a more direct and simple management system.

A. ANSWERS THE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

The proposed system answers each of the management challenges identified earlier::

e common goals and policies are decided in committees and the manage­ment program;

• government administration is simplified by lead agency assignments and coordinated referrals and assessment;

• money, people and resources are more effectively managed - by agree­ment on activity programs, area designation, and the management system;

• accountability is achieved through high level involvement of a policy committee, and through a more open information system and committee process;

• a Fraser River Estuary Information System provides for more useful and accurate information to estuary agencies and the public.

B. SIMPLE TO IMPLEMENT

An earlier section confirms that the proposed system is legally and organiz­ationally feasible. The proposed system does not require new legislation. The system can be implemented under existing legislation through orders-in­council, ministerial orders, intergovernmental and interagency agreements or similar government orders.

The proposed system need not be implemented en masse with the usual disloc­ations and confusion of major interdepartmental reorganizations. In fact, this report recommends a gradual, step-by-step implementation. The proposed system suggests a progressive, determined tune-up and enchancement of the existing system. As such it saves the strengths of the present system and improves on its shortfalls.

C. CHANGES OPERATING STYLE

The proposed system will work because it makes strategic changes which alter the operating style of the existing management system. Rather than isolated departments making separate decisions, the proposed system provides for liaison and consultation and joint mangagement. Rather than complexity -unnecessary complexity - the proposed system streamlines, simplifies and clarifies the system. Rather than suspicion growing out of lack of

- 75 -

information, understanding and involvement, the proposed system allows a new style of openness. The new operating style means more effective manage­ment.

These changes in operating style will require a modest amount of adjustment by existing agencies and the people involved. These adjustments are not expected to be difficult, and will be more than compensated for by the increased degree of satisfaction provided to the public and by the various efficiences achieved through adoption of the improved procedures. A major benefit that can also be expected is the reduction in conflict resulting from improvements in ways to resolve issues. The achievement of common goals and objectives today will motivate agencies to cooperate in the future in achieving new goals and to seek further ways to cooperate.

D. BUILDS ON EXPERIENCE

The existing management system has e~olved through a history of addressing past management challenges. Almost everyone accepts that the existing system needs to change. In facing the challenges ahead, this report concludes that a better management process would not occur through venturing into uncharted waters in a new vessel. The existing agencies have the experience, the legislation and the will to address the challenges ahead.

At the same time there is a need for new initiatives in interagency cooper­ation. This report proposes simple changes which can have major effects in meeting management challenges without establishing complicated systems and structures. The proposed system links existing processes to make them jointly more effective than they were individually. The proposed system delegates decision-making to the appropriate agencies and to the appropriate administratiYe levels of those agencies. It allows for the creation of problem-solving groups without establishing new agencies to add to the present list. In fact, it withdraws some existing agencies from the process as lead agencies are designated.

- 76 -

APPENDIX A

REVIEW OF OTHER ESTUARY AND COASTAL ZONE STUDIES

REVIEW OF OTHER ESTUARY AND COASTAL ZONE STUDIES

This Appendix will review the planning processes used for selected estuary and coastal zone studies in Canada and United States, The experiences of these studies provide valuable guidance for developing a management plan for the Fraser River Estuary. Chapter III of the Management System Report uses the lessons learned by other studies to develop proposals for the Fraser River Estuary.

A total of 10 estuary and coastal zone studies are presented, All of the studies are summarized with brief discuss·ion of the problems· addressed, the management system used to address the identified resource use problems, and the management plan adopted, Where evident, activity plans, public involvement programs and information systems· are discussed. For the more complex and large-scale estuary and. coastal studies of tlie United States, a supplemental section describing the planning process is presented.

SOOKE HARBOUR AND BASIN CROWN FORESHORE PLAN (British Columbia)

LADYSMITH HARBOUR CROWN FORESHORE PLAN (British Columbia)

COWICHAN TASK FORCE REPORT (British Columbia)

COAST.AL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN WASHINGTON STATE (Washington State)

GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN (Washington State)

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUA.RY REGIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (Oregon and Washington)

WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY PROGRAM (Oregon)

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (Califo:rnia)

TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (Texas}

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA (Pennsylvania)

While none of the above estuary or coastal studies is exactly comparable to Fraser River Estuary Study, many similar uroblems and issues can be seen. The importance of public support and the 'Vision' is illustrated by the Willamette River Greenway Program. Li:tck of public. input is observed to hinder planning programs (Grays Harbor Estuary }1anagement Plan). For some studies, such as CREST, the purely advisory nature of the plan is perceived to hinder implementation. Experiences in Texas and Pennsylvania show that many resource management problems result from duplication of agency efforts and a lack of coordination The successful San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission shows the importance of using quantified objectives to manage coastal zone resources. CREST and COWAMP 208 emphasize the need for an information system to aid management decision making. The need for a coordinated referral and assessment

- 77 -

process to review development proposal is addressed by the coastal zone ,management efforts in Washington State. Puolic involvement in the management program is seen to oe a common feature in most of the studies. In some, such as COWAMP 208, the importance of establishing a firm plan amendment process is stressed.

The management program for the Fraser River Estuary Study has learned from these prolHems. It has responded oy advocating a management process that:

• has a clear and compelling Vision, developed by user groups and the public at large;

• develops a strong commitment for action by· agencies;

o has an on-going public involvement program;

e uses a coordinated referrals process;

• establishes an information system;

• sets the framework for developing measurable res·ource management objectives; and has a plan amendment process.

- 78 ~

SOOKE HARBOUR AND BASIN CROWN FORESHORE PLAN (British Columbia)

Prepared by John Higham (FRES)

I SUMMARY

The Sooke Harbour and Basin Crown Foreshore Plan was developed to allow the sole agency acting in foreshore planning for the area, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, to make future foreshore lease decisions on a more holis­tic basis. The plan itself is basically a management tool for the Ministry to facilitate the fulfillment of its mandate for allocation and management of unalienated Crown lands in the study area.

Policy Areas

As a Ministerial document, the plan was initially guided by the Ministry's mandate, the planning principles of the Ministry and the goal of the plan­ning program section of the Ministry. Seven areas of plan objectives were explicitly developed for Sooke and these were: efficient foreshore admin­istration, environmental protection, employment opportunities, recreation, conflict resolution, compatible uses and maritime character. Development policies were created for each of the eleven designations employed by the plan and specific policies for one area plan were also developed.

Management System

The Sooke Harbour plan is basically a single agency plan. The extent of implementation is adoption of the plan by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing as an aid to management decision-making. This includes recognition of the land and water use plan and its associated designation definitions, permitted uses and designation policies.

Management Plan

Based on Ministerial guidelines and input from the public, other government agencies, a resource inventory and a trends analysis, the ad hoc task force prepared a conceptual plan which guided development of a designation plan. The designation plan employed a 3 designation first level hierarchy of designations and a second level of eleven designations. A permitted use matrix denotes the nature of conditions attached to a use under each desig­nation. Specific policies for each designation were formulated and the designation system then applied to a plan map.

One section of the study area was addressed by a detailed area plan in order to resolve intense conflicts within a small area.

Public Involvement

Various public interests were consulted through meetings with ·community associations and a final open house/workshop. Existing leaseholders were

- 79 -

contacted through a mailed questionnaire and several on-site visits. Numerous telephone interviews were also conducted.

Information System

No information program was developed, however, information is available through the Ministry's regional office in Victoria.

(For additional information contact the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Regional Operations Division, Vancouver Island Region).

- 80 -

LADYSMITH HARBOUR CROWN FORESHORE PLAN (British Columbia)

Prepared by John Higham (FRES)

I SUMMARY

The Ladysmith Harbour Crown Foreshore Plan was initiated by the B.C. Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing in order to create a guide for the Ministry's management, allocation and development decisions within the study area.

The Ladysmith Study followed closely the process successfully used by the Ministry in the earlier completion of the Sooke Harbour and Basin Study. The plan is also of the same status as it represents management policy for the Ministry within the study area for a period of 5 years. After this time there will be a comprehensive review.

Policy Areas

Internal Ministry policies and goals along with an analysis of existing foreshore uses and conflicts provided direction for general plan objectives. Planning objectives were also established for each major use of the harbour. Specific policies for all 10 designations including permitted uses and management guidelines were constructed.

Management System

The plan represents one Ministry's policy on foreshore management for the study area for the next 5 years and can be considered as an internal agency plan. However, it does provide explicit guidance to users and other government agencies as to what the key management agency's position on most management issues will be.

Management Plan

A step by step process whereby each step provided guidance for the next, led to a land use plan incorporating a designation system that contains permitted uses and management guidelines for each designation. The designations were: Mariculture, Commercial Recreation, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial, Log Storage, General Development, Conservation and Environmental Protection, Public Recreation, Navigation. The context from which this was ultimately derived can be characterized as follows:

- 81 -

Ministerial Mandate

~ Program Goals

i General Plan Objectives

J, Resource Data Analysis

Existing ute Analysis

-lt . Trend Analysis

J, Planning Objectives by Use

J, Conceptual Plan

t Designation System

Although no specific activity programs were developed the designation map does note priority areas to be removed from log storage by 1983. Also, planning objectiveiii.nrovided the context for the concept ulan for each use.

Public Involvement

A representative group of local public interests called the Ladysmith Harbour Management Advisory Connnittee aided the task force during the study. For any amendment public discussion is to be the responsibility of the proponent, but if the amendment requires rezoning by local government then the public hearing provisions of the Municipal Act will apply.

(For additional information contact the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, Regional Operations Division, Vancouver Island Region).

- 82 -

COWICHAN TASK FORCE REPORT (British Columbia)

Prepared by John Higham (FRES)

I SUMMARY

Policy Areas

The Cowichan Estuary Plan focussed on land use and habitat issues. Policies outside of the land use plan were not developed. The land use plan contains policies for restricted areas, conservancy zones and potential development zones.

Management System

A single coordinator was appointed by the B.C. Ministry of Environment to oversee implementation of the plan. A lead agency system of implement.;.. ation was established with Fisheries and Oceans Canada taking the lead role in habitat enhancement (which includes a log management program), the Cowichan Valley Regional District leading in land use planning and the Water Management Branch overseeing the flood control program.

Management Plan

The pith of the report is a set of designation policies and the resulting land use plan. Each designation is addressed by a general policy, definition, set of conditions attached to use and rationale for the designation.

The land use plan embodies several other aspects not yet complete including a log management plan, habitat enhancement and recreational features enhance­ment.

Activity Plans

Four separate log management scenarios were developed but agreement on one could not be achieved. Resolution of a log management program is a key factor to successful implementation of the overall program. In addition, a program for enhancement of natural and recreational features is under discussion. A flood control program is developed and work on a total habitat enhancement program is ongoing.

Public Involvement

Early in the planning process the 20 member task force held public meetings with affected interests and at that time people were offered the opportunity of future in-camera meetings. It appears several interests took advantage of this to convey their interests. The task force discovered there had been little input from commercial interests and subsequently conducted a separate interview process with that sector.

- 83 -

Information System

The implementation coordinator works out of a 'store front' office in Duncan and is readily available for public contact however, no separate information or ongoing public involvement programs have been set up. The office issues a public update on implementation and a sample is attached.

The following newsletter provides details of the program.

- 84 -

UPDATE ARE YOU INTERESTED?

UPDATE is published to report progress on the Cowichan Estuary Plan Implementation program. It is hoped that this newsletter will stim­ulate discussions, questions and feedback necessary for effective public involvement.

Feedback and requests for inf onnation should be sent to:

G. K. Lambertsen, Coordinator, Cowichan Estuary Plan Implementation, Ministry of Environnent, 507-238 Governnent Street, Duncan, British Colunbia. V9L 1A5 746-6183, local 251

~ntact the same off ice to 'iWDATE mailing list . I ABOUT THE PROGRAM

be added to the

In May of 1981, the Honourable Stephen Rogers, Minister of Environment and Chairman of the Environment and Land Use Committee of Cabinet, announced the appointment of a Coordinator, Ken lambertsen, to implement the recoornenda­tions of the 1980 Cowichan Estuary Task Force Report. Ken lambertsen is a biologist with the Ministry of Environnent's Assessment Branch.

The Coordinator has the following terms of reference:

1. To negotiate with, advise, and report progress to agencies within each level of governnent and to the public on matters relating to the Implementation program;

2. To negotiate with 1 ancl01<'!1ers and lease­holders of the estuarv in order to achieve, in particular, a final design llf an acceptable log crnnagement rrogram l or the estLk1ry, as "e 11 as t n pn>ceL>d \Vi Lh other n"' 1 cvanl n 'L'o1mr.rrlat i 0ns:

Cowichan Estuary Plan implementation

Number l November 1981

3. To explain and foster the intent of the Task Force recoornendations as necessary;

4. To recomnend a lead agency for acting upon specific recoornendations and to. rronitor progress with each recomnendation;

5. To amend as appropriate and administer the mandatory environnental impact assessment requirements of Order-in­Council 3339/77.

COORDINATOR'S ROLE

More generally, the Coordinator is to work closely with all involved parties toward a cooperative and timely implementation of the land use plan and recomnendations in the Cowichan Estuary Task Force Report. Also, if recomnendations are brought forth which are not contained in the Task Force Report l::ut do have merit, consideration is to be given to how such recomnendations could be implemented.

The Cowichan Estuary Task Force Repcirt is the product of lengthy and labourious efforts by 20 individuals and organizations that in­fluence decisions and actions affecting the Cowichan Estuary. A single Coordinator to implement the Task Force recomnendations is a departure f ran the task force approach and in this respect is a first. The same nunber of people and organizations still rrust be consulted l::ut, under the Implementation program, this is done on an one-to-one basis or in small groups.

Coordinating the efforts of the many people exercising their respective responsibilities, insofar as these efforts affect the Cowichan Estuary, is another fundamentally important function of the Implementation program. The need for a central and consistent focus for coordination is another reason 1.ihv the approach for a single Coordinator.has been adopted for the Cowichan Estuary.

m Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment

It has never been intended that the Coordinator usurp the authority of those who already have the responsibility to decide and act upon necessary steps toward implementing an accept­able land use pattern for the estuary. Rather, the Coordinator's role is, as the title indicates, to coordinate, to facilitate, to persuade and prod and sanetimes, to mediate as required in order to further the Implementation program.

LEAD AGENCIES

There are three niain thrusts involved with the Cowichan Estuary Plan Implementation program. These are: I. habitat enhancement, 2. land use planning and 3. flood control. Three governnent agencies have agreed to take a leading role in working closely with the Coordinator on the Implementation program.

1. FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA is the lead agency for habitat enhancement, which includes the implementation of a log management program. Dennis Brock, Area l'13nager, South Coast Division is the main contact. Much of the technical details associated with implementing habitat enhancement projects and a log management scheme are being arranged by Federal Fisheries through Dennis Brock, in concert with the activites of Ken lambertsen on these matters.

2. Implementing an acceptable land use plan for the estuary will be ultimately based on local governnent planning and zoning. As rrost of the Cowichan Estuary is within the jurisdiction of the Regional District, the cn./ICHAN VALLEY REGIONAL DI~'TRICT has agreed to be lead agency for land use planning. Ron Smith, CVRD Director of Planning, is the main contact and will work toward coordinating the necessary planning activities and zoning considera­tions with the Dis~rict of North Cowichan, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and other involved parties. Revision of the Official Coommi ty Plan and Settlement Plan to reflect the rec01TTTICndat ions of the Task Force Report is to be given high priority for CVRD planning work in 1982.

3. The WATER MANAGEl1EITT BRANG! of the Ministry of Environnent through Aubrey Brown, senior hydraulic engineer, has agreed to oversee the technical aspects of the flood control program. The flcxxl control proposals in the Task Force Report require detailed engineering analyses, cost esitmates and consultation on scheduling construction works before being implemented. The Water l'13nagement Branch has been preparing an overall flood control engineering plan and schedule for the flood control proposals based on floodplain maps recently published by the Ministry of Environnent. The anntmt of work involved in implementing the flood control proposals will entail considerable time and expense as well as extensive consultation with all involved parties.

SOME NOT-SO-OBVIOUS PROGRESS

The need for cooperation has been repeatedly stressed in relation to the Implementation program. Cooperation arrongst many, whose aims are often divergent, cannot be taken for granted. Certainly, the Cowichan Estuary is an area where cooperation has been conspiciously lacking.

Over the past 6 rronths, the Coordinator held meetings with: Cowic.lian Valley Regional District, District of North Cowichan Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Cowicha~ Indian Band, Doman Industries, l'13cMillan Bloedel, B.C. Forest Products, City of Duncan, Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Water ~.anagement Branch, CN Rail, L&K Lumber, N. Dinsdale, A. Blackley, Cowichan Valley Econanic Development Carrni­ssion, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, Ministry of Forests, Falt Towing, Environment C',anada, and several others.

Out of all these meetings has emerged a willingness on the part of each contact to participate and cooperate, without excep­tion. lhis continuing spirit of cooperation is progn.•ss that cannot be underrated.

LAND DEDICATION BY DOMAN

Deman Industries Ltd. has offered to dedicate to the Province about 17 acres of its property seaward of their millsite and seaward of the dyke bordering the fann to the north of the mi 11. TWo parcels are involved, both being valuable intertidal marsh habitat. In addi­tion to providing assurance that the marsh land will not be developed for industrial purposes, the dedication represents a major step forward in implementing the land use plan proposed in the Cowichart Estuary Task Force Rep:>rt.

The parcel fronting the mill (Section 12, Range 3, Cowichan District) consists of approximately 3.6 acres. The area seaward of that parcel is owned by CN Rail, part of Lot 160. The second parcel is in front of the

cxifann (Section 13) consists of approximately 0'113.4 acres.

Dana.n's offer was made during a meeting in June between Ken Lambertsen, Herb Doolan and Joe Frunento. One of the points raised during that first meeting concerned the impression by several people that Danan Industries intended to expand their Cowichan Sawmill by filling marsh land seaward of the present site. It was in this context that the offer to dedicate that land was made. In a subsequent letter formally conveying the land dedication offer, Joe Frunento stated: ''We dedicate this piece of land to reassure all people concerned that Deman Industries does not have, nor has ever had, any intention of using this property for industrial purposes."

The only conditions made by IK>man for the land dedication are that no hunting be pennitted in proximity to the mill site, that no upland acces~ to ~he land will be permitted through the m111 site and that Dornan be permitted to salvage logs fr011 the dedicated land. The land survey and legal conveyance arrangements were to be undertaken by the Province.

A l c>ga 1 survey has been completed by the ~linistry of Lands, Parks and Housing. Land conveyance arrangel!X'nls are nearing c011pletion. A request for a zoning amendment also has been sul:xnitted to the District of North Cowichan.

The zoning amendment would change the present zoning over the dedicated parcels to that of "Public Use". The zoning amendment request is presently under consideration by North Cowichan's Technical Planning Corrmittee.

In response to concerns raised that erosion of the tip of ~lariner's Island has been occurring due to log booms being towed into the millpond, Doman Industries agreed to install a row of closely spaced pilings. The pilings are to be placed fr011 the access channel approach to and around the tip of the island to prevent log booms fr011 further damaging the tip. This offer was followed up shortly afterward with a request for pennission under Order-in-Council 3339 to install the piling protection.

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL 3339

The mandatory envirorrnental impact assessment (EIA) requirements of Order-in-Council 3339 came into effect in November, 1977. During preparation of the Cowichan Estuary Task Force Report, the Order provided an effective measure for ensuring activities proposed in the estuary incorporated appropriate envir­onmental safeguards if they were to proceed. Order-in-Council 3339 also performs the same function in supporting the Cowichan Estuary Plan Implementation program.

Since the Implementation program corrnenced, four proposals requiring approval under Order-in-Council 3339 have been handled. TWo dyke repair proposals, one by N. Dinsdale and the other by A. Blackley, were given conditional approval. A proposal by MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. to provide rock protection fr011 erosion of the haul road in the tenninal area also was granted conditional approval. The proposed pili.1g installation by Deman Indus­tries Ltd. to protect the tip of Mariner's Island was granted conditional approval and is the only one of these proposed activities which has yet to be c011pleted.

Each of the above proposals are relatively straightforward tn...Oertciking« involving only minor, short tenn environmental impacts confined to the irrrnediate vicinity of the proposal's location. Because of this, an

£1A fr011 each proponent was not requested. Rather, the Order-in-Council 3339 Envir­orrnental Assessment Conmittee, consisting of individuals with the necessary expertise to review each proposal, assessed the envir­onmental implications of each proposal. It was on the basis of their fio:lings ao:I rec011mendations contained in the Conmittee's report that the coo:litions for approval of each proposal were set.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

For other programs similar to the Implementa­tion program, a structured approach to public involvement has often been adopted. While such approaches {for example, the formation of public advisory groups) provide a more defined forum for public involvement, it is the same structured and defined framework that can sometimes constrain opportunities for public involvement.

At this point in the Implementation program, an open approach is being taken for public involvement. This relies heavily on the initiative by individuals and public groups to become involved in the Implementation program. While risking assertions that such an approach is too loosely defined canpared to other examples, such an approach is less confining of opportlll1ities that can arise and is more readily responsive to identified needs or demand for public involvement.

Organized public interest groups, such as the Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society ao:I others, are already well established. Certain individuals have already expressed an interest in being involved in the Implementation program and, as have members of the Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society {CEPSl, have offered meaningful input and advice to the Coordinator. It is hoped the UPDATE will foster the continuation and expansion of such public involvement.

A recent example of public involvement by initiative relates to Carol ~lontgomery, a CEPS Director, coning forth with a proposal to enhance the recreational opportunities of the Cowichan Estt~ry (a Task Force Report rccamicndation). With the assistance of the

Volunteer Bureau's Jerry Rothstein and the support of the Coordinator ai1d CllRD's Ron Smith, a proposal has been developed to improve access to ao:I awareness of the recreational opportunities of the Cowichan Estuary. Carol Montgomery has several other ideas for improving public awareness and involvement in the Cowichan Estuary. The thought, time and effort devoted by Carol on her ideas is a highly c011mendable example of initiative and public involvement.

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN WASHINGTON STATE (Washington State)

Prepared by Larry Wolfe (FRES)

The Washington State Coastal Zone Manag'ement Programs are not a single study or program but a framework for management set in legislation. The State of Washington has one of the most advanced programs for shoreline and estuary management in the United States as well as extensive experience.

Policy Areas

Land Use, Conservation.

Management System

The Washington system uses a combined lead agency/committee approach to simplify management. Local governments (counties, municipalities, port commissions) are designated to prepare Coastal Zone Management Programs. State review and approval is coordinated by the Department of Ecology which serves as a lead agency for review and approval.

Management Plans

Local governments are required to prepare 'Shoreline Management Programs' which consists of a shoreline planning program and a regulatory permit system.

Public Involvement

Public involvement is a required feature to plan preparation. It is managed through appointed citizen advisory committees and public meetings.

Information Systems

No special information systems were created.

Status

Several State Coastal Zone Management Programs are established and operating.

II DETAILS

A. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The Shoreline Management Act of 1971

The Shoreline Management Act is the key statute in Washington State shore­line management. It is considered the most comprehensive shoreline statute

- 87 ~

in the United States (1976). The Shoreline Management Act establishes a comprehensive control program for management of shorelines with a strong emphasis on a balance between conservation and use of shorelines. Its purpose explicitly includes the "fostering of all reasonable and appropriate uses".

The Shoreline Management Act establishes two processes (see Figure 1):

- a planning program (Shoreline Master Programs)

- a regulatory permit system

Both processes are delegated to local governments under State guidance.

1. Shoreline Master Programs

The planning program consists of a comprehensive shoreline inventory and a Shoreline M.as ter Program for regulation of shoreline uses.

The shoreline inventory identifies generalized ownership patterns, existing uses and shoreline characteristics.

The master program is "essentially a comprehensive land use plan with a distinct environmental orientation". It includes basic goals and objectives and a land designation system. Master programs are prepared in conformity to State guidelines and are subject to review and approval by the State Department of Ecology.

Shoreline Master Programs are mandatory and the Department of Ecology is authorized to prepare inventories where local governments decline or refuse to do so.

Grant funding is available from the Department to assist local governments in preparing inventories and master programs.

The Shoreline Management Act requires preference to be given to shoreline dependent uses, such as water-dependent industry.

The Department of Ecology Guidelines for preparation of Master Programs set forth a categorization of four general environmental types: natural, conservancy, rural, urban. These categories result in "the superimposition of an overall environmental class over local planning and zoning along shore­lines". Completion of a comprehensive shoreline inventory was a required prerequisite to designation. Designation was also required to fit into area wide plans. A public involvement process was a required step.

The Department of Ecology guidelines also specified policies to serve as a basis for Shoreline Master Programs. These policies codified state-wide policies for shoreline uses such as agricultural practices, breakwaters, dredging, land fill, marinas, recreation and shoreline protection.

-· 88 -

The Department of Ecology guidelines also specify _ development guidelines for development and use activities.

The planning process for preparation of a Shoreline Master Program begins with a shoreline inventory.

The second phase involves the formulation of goals and policies in close cooperation with a citizens advisory committee.

The third phase involves the preparation of shoreline designations and use regulations by citizens and planners.

Public involvement is required in the Act. Citizen advisory connnittees are appointed by local governments as a vehicle for citizen participation. They are selected to represent a diverse range of interests and to assist with the formulation of the management programs and public meetings.

State review, coordinated by the Department of Ecology, is done by a task force consisting of state and federal agency representatives. The State is given 90 days to review the Shoreline Master Programs, and after its decision is reached the local government has 90 days to amend its program. In certain cases, the Department of Ecology can directly change the Shore­line Master Program.

2. Shoreline Regulatory Process

The Shoreline Management Programs are administered by a permit system for all 'substantial' developments. The system is administered locally.

Between the permit approval and the start of development, the Department of Ecology has the opportunity to appeal to the "Shoreline Hearings Board" which serves as an arbitrator. Procedures are established for the appeal process.

The Shorelines Hearing Board has a nationally recognized record of success especially in quick turnaround on appeals. It has a membership with credible expertise and efficient operating procedures.

B. OTHER STATE LEGISLATION

1. State Environmental Policy Act of 1971

The overall purpose of State Enviromental Policy Act (SEPA) was to ensure better coordination and cooperation among local state and federal agencies. State Enviromental Policy Act has the effect of generating better inform­ation for decision-making. State Environmental Policy Act was modeled on the Federal NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). The Washington State Department of Ecology is responsible for managing the Act.

State Environmental Policy Act requires the preparation of a statement of

- 89 -

Figure 1

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Planning Process

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

* Shoreline Inventory Completed.

* Citizens Advisory Committees appointed, public meetings held.

* Area-Wide Goals and Shoreline Policy Statements are developed.

* Environmental characteristics of shoreline defined. * Shoreline use regulations and designations defined.

Regulatory Process

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

* Application submitted, notices posted, comments from public are received.

* Local Government decision.

* Applicant may appeal denial, State may appeal approval. * Shoreline Hearings Board decision: approval or denial.

* Applicant or State may appeal to Superior Court.

- 90 -

environmental effect of actions which significantly affect the environment (an Environmental Impact Statement or EIS), including the effect of state legislation.

A state agency is declared a "lead agency" with the responsibility for deciding if an EIS is needed. The lead agency is then responsible for preparation of the EIS when needed. The Department of Ecology oversees preparation. The choice of the lead agency depends on the type of proposed action involved.

Local governments were required in 1974 to incorporate the SEPA process into their policies and procedures. All state agencies were given a time limit to conform.

A detailed procedure was established with respect to a public hearing, inform­ation gathering and review. The SEPA review could result in changes to the project proposal and/or mitigation of adverse impacts.

2. The Environmental Coordination Procedures Act of 1973

The Environmental Coordination Procedures Act (ECPA) assists shoreline manage­ment by giving the State a procedural process for linking the great number and variety of agency programs together.

A key feature of the new process is an optional procedure whereby an appli­cant may submit a master application to the Department of Ecology requesting the issuance of all necessary permits prior to development. The master application is optional, not mandatory for the applicant, but must be carried out by the agencies. The Department of Environment refers the master appli­cation to other state agencies who indicate interest or non-interest in the application. They also indicate if a public hearing is in the public interest. There is a 15 day limit for agency reply and a non-reply prevents future denial of a permit.

Local governments are also required to comply unless the application is certified as in conformance with local regulations. Local governments are required to supply applications and assist applicants in their preparation of application.

Over 30 permits are covered by the legislation.

3. Department of Ecology Legislation of 1970

In 1970, the State unde~took a major reorganization which established a Department of Ecology. The legislation consolidated all environmental legislation under this one department. This eliminated much redundancy-and conflict among departments. The Department of Ecology is the single most important agency in the Washington Coastal Management program. It is a preeminent lead agency for the State in this field.

- 91 -

One feature of note is the establishment of a blue ribbon citizens advisory group known as the Washington State Ecological Commission - reporting direct­ly to the Department's Director. The Commission consists of seven citizens chosen to represent various regions of the state as well as special interests (agriculture, industry, labour, fisheries, at large). The Commission may hold hearings concerning general citizen concerns in the State.

C. FEDERAL LEGISLATION

1. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

The primary purpose of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is to encourage cooperation between the local, state and federal governments in the develop­ment of shoreline use programs in the coastal zone. It is designed to support state and local legislation and efforts.

The CZMA is adminstered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The CZMA has two main features: funding and federal consistency.

Planning grants are available from the GCZM to State and local authorities to develop coastal zone policies, criteria and mechanisms for management of coastal areas.

In addition, once a State Management Program is approved by the OCZM, all federal projects and permitting frameworks must conform to the State's approval management program. Federal activities .must conform "to the maximum extent practicable •.• ". Federal permits.and financial assistance are contingent on State concurrence.

2. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, is a centerpiece to U.S. environmental legislation. Its main feature is the requirement of Environmental Impact Statements for significant federal developments affecting the environment. EISs are pre­pared by "lead agencies" and "cooperating agencies". In Washington the liaison state agency is the Department of Ecology.

Management Plans

A land designation framework was established with 8 categories and a per­mitted use matrix. Policies were developed hierarchically for the overall estuary, designation categories, 8 Planning Areas, and 44 Management Areas. Guidelines and standards were proposed for various uses.

Public Involvement

The Task Force limited membership to government agencies while non-govern­mental interests were excluded. There is fear of court action against the legality of the Plan due to lack of public input.

- 92 -

Information Systems

No special information systems were designed. Existing agencies are avail­able to provide information.

Study Area

See Map attached.

Starting Date

Late 1975

Status

The draft plan was completed in 1978 and has not been ratified. Legal problems with implementability are being studied.

GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN (Washington State)

Prepared by Larry Wolfe (FRES)

I SUMMARY

Policy Areas

Land Use, Habitat Preservation

Management System

A committee or 'Task Force' was used, relying on voluntary agreement of participating agencies. The Task Force was assisted by consultants in a facilitative and research role. Implementation would be through plan guide­lines being incorporated into separate plans of each agency having jurisdiction.

- 93 -

II DETAILS

A. LEGISLATION

1. Shoreline Management Act (State of Washington)

The Shoreline Management Act requires local governments to develop Shoreline Management Programs according to state guidelines. It is administered by Washington State Department of Ecology.

2. Coastal Zone Management Act (Federal)

The Coastal Zone Management Act provides for grants to State and local govern­ments to facilitate planning and interagency coordination. The CZMA requires that once a management program has been formulated and approved by the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management then all Federal projects must conform "to the maximum extent practicable".

3. Other State Statutes

State Environmental Policy Act: The State Environmental Policy Act requires interagency coordination to promote social, economic, and environmental goals. It requires impact statements, with associated review processes. It is based on a "lead agency" concept.

Forest Practices Act

Hydraulic Projects_fpproval Law

4. Other Federal Acts

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act

Clean Water Act

B. PLAN PREPARATION

1. Objectives

The objective of the Study was to prepare a land and water use plan for "management of the estuary for multiple use". Special policies were adopted for habitat restoration and marsh creation. Use guidelines, bankline treat­ment, water area configuration, water quality and hydraulics, fish and wild­life, vegetation aggregates and minerals, economic base, use character, recreation, resource harvesting, navigation and structures and fills.

-· 94 -

The plan was primarily a multiple use land management plan and tended to focus on static use guidelines rather than activities, eg. transportation, recreation management (other than site designation), habitat management (other than site designation) and water quality (other than maintaining flows).

2. Organization

The lead agency for Grays Harbo~ Estuary Management Study was the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. A Task Force was organized consisting of:

Local:

State:

Cities of Aberdeen, Hoquiam, Westport, Ocean Shores, Grays Harbor Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission

Departments of Ecology, Game, Fisheries, Natural Resources

Federal: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, Corps. of Engineers.

A team of consultants provided technical and facilitative assistance.

The Task Force excluded public and non-governmental representatives from its membership. The CZM Act requires full participation of all interested parties, public and private, in the development of CZMP's. The lack of public participation in the GHEM Plan process jeopardizes its status (Evans, et al, 1980: 45).

3. Planning Process

The Grays Harbor process included five steps:

- Gathering information for an Estuary Data Base;

- Estuary Planning to prepare a first draft Estuary Management Plan;

- Review of Draft by Estuary Task Force;

- Revision of Management Plan to prepare the Final Draft of the Estuary Management Plan;

- Public review, hearings, and endorsement by local, State, and Federal agencies.

The plan formulation process of the GHEMP Study was explicitly both a planning and bargaining process. A neutral consultant identified ground rules and facilitated the bargaining process. Decisions were made by trade offs and concensus.

- 95 -

Area designation was the main focus of the work. Policies were developed on a highly site specific basis.

Public involvement was essentiallynon-existentwith no public meetings and membership of the Task Force excluding public groups.

The GHEMP encountered many problems due to its pioneering nature as a U.S. estuary study. The traditional planning approach was coupled with a bargain­ing approach to resolve conflicts which were beyond technical answers. Since the bargaining process was a closed process, those left out have no commit­ment to the Plan. In addition, when agency personnel changes, new managers may not be socialized to the same level and could undercut the plan by new management actions. Also, the lack of training in negotiation skills caused some roughness to the negotiations.

Various steps have been suggested to improve bargaining, eg. training in negotiation skills; neutral third party consultants as mediators; a flexible, phased implementation process with check points; and "a feedback and monitor­ing system to check progress, document agreements reached, and audit the process" (Evans, eta al, 1980: 100).

4. Funding

Planning grants were received from the Washington State Department of Ecology under Shoreline Management Act and Office of Coastal Zone Management under Coastal Zone Management Act. The Study budget provided for employment of Montagne-Bierly Associates as consultants.

C. THE PLAN DOCUMENT

The Plan Document contains two types of content:

- Management goals, guidelines and policies;

- Agreements on specific issues and projects within the Plan Area.

It was felt that agreement on policies was not possible without agreement on how policies would affect certain projects.

The framework of the Plan is hierarchical with three levels of policy.

- There is an overall "Estuary Management Goal" established for the entire estuary. It prescribes a "balanced" approach with "management of the estuary for multiple uses". General policies for the estuary are derived from that goal. Definitions of the Management (Designation) categories are given. There are general Policies for bankline erosion control, bankline straight­ening and standard uses. There is also a Special Implementation Policy regarding habitat restoration and marsh creation.

- 96 -

- Policies are also prescribed for the 8 planning areas (I-VIII). These sections discuss the area character, major committed uses, major existing and potential conflicts, planning area assets (benefits), planning area guidelines and development guidelines. These guidelines cover banklines, water areas, water quality, hydraulics, fish and wildlife, vegetation and aggregates and minerals. Development guidelines relate to the economic base, use character, recreation, resource harvesting, navigation and structures and fills.

- Detailed special policies are proposed for.the 44 Man~gement Uni7s~ ~hich are sub-units of Planning Areas, These sections deal with the definition of "permitted activities" which are a fine tuning of the permitted use matrix. Management objectives and special conditions are included.

D. IMPLEMENTATION

The Management Plan would be implemented by the agencies which agreed to it. Each agency would incorporate the relevant parts of the plan within their regulations and procedures.

The Task Force will continue to operate to undertake ongoing planning, review and amendment processes.

Annual reviews were to be held to review development and permit activities and suggest amendments for administrative purposes or to clarify the plan. Five year review~ were planned to review substantial changes.

The Plan amendment process is organized pursuant to the Washington State Shoreline Management Program. Where amendments are proposed by individuals, corporations, or special interest groups, the process calls for the Task Force to provide review and comment only to the local government involved. Comments would relate to the conformity with the Plan, evaluation of altern­ative areas for the permitted use, evaluation of the effects and servicing implications.

N. Evans, M.J. Hershman, G.V. Blomberg and W.B. Lawrence. Predictability - Planning and Conflict Resolution in Grays ington (Seattle: University of Washington, 1980).

- 97 -

The Search for Harbor Wash-

'.

BA>' . f7

WASHINGTot.J

STATE

UPSTREAM CONflNUATION OF CHEHALIS RIVER

l100UJAM RIVER )

W15HlfAH RIVER·

Wo;(u;AM ABE:ROEEN

N

~

J<ILOM[T(RS 0 l I I ' ' I ' 0 2

MILES

- 98 -

6

Thund~• bird Moltl Silt

I 4

COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY REGIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (Oregon and Washington)

Prepared by John Higham (FRES)

I SUMMARY

Policy Areas

Economic Development, Resource Protection, Estuary Uses, Estuary Activities, Intergovernmental Coordination and Public Education.

Management System

A task force approach was employed relying on voluntary agreement of parti-cipating agencies . Implementation was through incorporation of the Estuary

Management Plan into local government plans and subsequent review and approval by the senior governments. In addition, the task force was established as a continuing advisory and coordinating body.

Management Plan

Oregon State Planning Goals and the Washington State Shoreline Management Act provided the context for the development of estuary management goals. The goals guided the development of regional policies for the above noted five policy areas, which in turn provided the framework for a land and water use plan utilizing generalized designations and development guidelines for specific uses within five management areas and 54 sub-areas.

Two activity programs were developed. One addressed Habitat Restoration and Mitigation and the other resulted in a Dredged Material Management Plan. Land and water use plans were developed for each of 5 management areas. The five area plans were later analyzed to determine whether estuary wide require­ments had been met.

Public Involvement

The task force limited membership to local government and port agencies. Committees with broad public and private interests were established to deal with management area plans for specific topics. Public involvement during the study was required under state law and provision was made in the plan for an ongoing advisory committee of public representatives and public partici­pation in any review and amendment process.

Information System

The task force has established and operates an information centre. It also liaises withthe Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission which is overseeing a $6,000,000 data development program for the estuary.

- 99 -

Location of the Study Area

The Estuary of the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon States was studied.

Starting Date

The Program was initiated by discussions of local governments leading to an inter-state agreement in 1975.

Relationship to other Programs

The Program is intimately related to the Washington State Shoreline Manage­ment Act and the Oregon State Conservation and Development Commission.

January 1975 - June 1979 Washington State $125,000 Oregon State 299,040 Local 123,371

$547,421

II DETAILS

A. PLAN PREPARATION

1. Objectives

The objectives were given in the CREST Goals:

- improve and diversify the economy of the area;

- reconcile conflicting uses of estuarine resources;

- protect and enhance natural resource values of the estuary;

- improve estuarine resource management through intergovernment communication and coordination at local, state and federal levels;

- increase public understanding of the natural value of the estuary and its usefulness to people.

2. Organization

The Columbia River Estuary Study ·Task Force was formed to develop a manage­ment plan. The task force consisted of a total of 10 representatives from local government and port authorities. Representation from the two states was evenly divided.

- 100 -

The CREST Council, as it became known, maintained a support staff of two oceanographers, a fisheries biologist and a land-use planner. The support staff was responsible for organizing a variety of working committees which addressed either specific topics, such as dredging and dredge disposal, or the whole plan within the context of a management area. These committees included public representatives. In Oregon, existing city and county citizen involvement committees were also involved in plan development. Public meetings were held to review draft policies, plans and implementation measures. CREST staff also made presentations on draft plan material to interested organizations, and utilized the news media, radio talk shows and public questionnaires to promote communication about the study.

The CREST Council was the policy and decison-making body of the Columbia River Estuary Study. The rights, duties and procedures of the Council were set out in an interagency agreement signed in September 1976. One section of the agreement noted "decisions of the Council which involve recommendations for planning studies or the implementations of plans which involve agreements between member agencies shall require an affirmative majority vote of the representatives from the member agencies of CREST including an affirmative vote by Delegates or Alternates who represent the affected member agency or agencies".

2. Conflict Resolution

Early in the study major conflicts were identified which were often worked out through discussions with the parties involved. The study process con­tained a conflict resolution period which brought together the conflicting interests. In some instances the conflicts were harder to resolve and in several planning areas intensive day long conflict resolution seminars were held. A final seminar addressed the regional balance of development and preservation. Major conflicts that could not be resolved were then directed to the CREST Council which made a final decision, generally in favour of what the local jurisdiction desired. If these decisions were not accepted and interest continued to pursue them, the ultimate decision would rest with the State governments. Both Oregon and Washington review the local plans before approving them and also have responsibility for shoreline management program amendments.

3. Plan Preparation

The plan was guided by goals developed in five policy areas: economic dev­elopment, resource protection, estuary uses, estuary activities, and inter­governmental coordination and public education. The regional policies provided a framework for a general classification system for land and water uses and formation of development standards for specific estuarine uses.

The estuary area included all aquatic areas and shorelands within 200 feet from the 3 mile-offshore limit to the easterly boundary of Clatsop County. All tributary streams and associated shorelands up to the head of tidal influence were also part of the study area. This large area was then divided

- 101 -

into 5 planning areas. Local committees consisting of public and private interests then developed a land and water use plan for each of their areas.

The CREST study also undertook two regional activity studies leading to a Dredged Material Management Plan and a Restoration and Mitigation Plan. Implementation of these plans was to be achieved through local government mechanisms wherever possible.

4. Authority of the Plan

The Columbia River Estuary Regional Management Plan is only an expression of the opinions of the CREST Council on estuarine management issues. The plan has no legal authority except as implemented by local governments. Local governments in Oregon had already produced Local Comprehensive Plans and these were to be revised to reflect the CREST plan. In Washington State, a similar procedure of amending local Shoreline Management Master Programs was followed. In both instances the local plans are subject to State approval within the context of the total coastal programs and these in turn, are approved by the Federal government within the guidelines of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Approval and adoption by the senior levels of govern­ment ensures that their actions will be consistent with local plans.

5. Review and Amendment

The management plan makes explicit provisions for a review and amendment process. At a two year interval the local plans are to be reviewed by local governments and any proposed changes would be the subject of public and agency meetings.

At a six year interval a major plan review is to be held. This would include a systematic review of policies, regulations, plans and new information. All interests are to be used to effect this review. Provision is also made for unscheduled reviews and these would basically follow the formula for the biennial review regarding public notice and process.

6. Interagency Coordination

A major problem identified early in the CREST program was the confusion, unnecessary delays and frustration resulting from overlapping regulatory responsibilities. This was particularly acute at the local level where technical staff support was often lacking. In response to this an Implemen­tation Committee studied the problem of coordination and recommended that the Columbia River Estuary Study Task Force be reestablished to facilitate intergovernmental coordination. The group was reestablished on July 1, 1979 with the following general purposes;

- to provide continued planning assistance;

- review existing plans and recommended methods for coordination of those plans with the Columbia River Estuary Plan;

- 102 -

- provide technical information and assistance to member agencies;

- liaise with the Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission regarding local research needs and act as a pipeline to convey the results;

- evaluate development proposals and report results to the affected juris­dictions;

- coordinate all government levels in research, regulation, impact assess­ment, plan review and updates; organize and conduct meetings in the interest of management.

- establish and operate an information centre.

- 103 -

WILLIAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY PROGRAM (Oregon)

Prepared by Larry Wolfe (FRES)

lo SUMMARY

Policy Areas

Recreation, Scenic features

Management System

The program was initiated by an executive order of the Governor's office. A task force did a three month study which resulted in a legislative pro­posal which was later approved. The State Department of Transportation acted as a lead agency to coordinate implementation which is carried out by local governnents.

Management Plan

The manageirent plan was organized in order to establish a system of parks along the river to provide for recreation.

Public Involvement

Public groups were responsible for the original impetus behind the plan. Development of local plan components required public involvement.

Information System

The State Land Conservation and Development Commission and local governments provide brochures and a newsletter on the program.

Initiation

The program.was established in 1967 by the State government as a fulfillment of election commitments.

Funding

Funding was shared (50 % federal, 25% state, 25% local) •

. I I. DETAILS

A. PLAN PREPARATION

L Objectives

The objectives of the program were stated as follows:

- 104 -

"To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette Rivero

The purposes of the greenway are to be accomplished through extensive farm use, floodplain set back, and other zoningo Except as provided by law, lands, or interest therein, will only be acquired on a 'willing seller 1 ba­siso The intent of the Greenway Program is to keep the majority of the land along the river in private ownership, while protecting the public's right to this enjoyment o"

Zo Background Study

This program was somewhat rushed in that there was little study before its adoption in 19670 A Task Force was commissioned by the State Governor and legislation was prepared and passed all within 18 monthso What occurred is a concept which seems to have caught on at the political level and taken off without a major studyo The concept was popularized in an election campaigno

3. Organization

There were a couple of structures which were utilized in achieving the Greenway Programo Initially, it was merely stated that a greenway should be established and the local authorities would have primary responsibility. It then transpired that these authorities, without more legislative support, were not capable of carrying out the Greenway Program. The response was further State legislation, a State Policy Statement and finally special management by a , :tate ,gency so that the Greenway Program could get under­way o The State Policy tatement laid out the way in which local government was to be involved in the establishment of the greenway. This process involved:

- interim management guidelines for areas within 150 feet of the low water mark establishing w.:hat uses either may not change or required special per­mission for changey

- preparation of local comprehensive plans and ordinances to govern manage­ment within the greenway. Local governments were required by a State Planning Policy Goa,l 15 to prepare plans which would set out appropriate uses for the greenway area and to specify areas which may be acquired for public use;

- a requirement that all State policies be in conformance with the local plans developed.

4. Public Involvement

In the plan setting and review process public involvement is a requirement. Plans are to be reviewed by the state .agency on a continuing basis with

- 105 -

new budget appropriations every two years. It is expected that the plans may well be amended as time passes.

B. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The WRGP is being implemented. Local county comprehensive plans have been prepared. The chances for successful implementation seem quite good in that the programrequire~0n1y a small proportion of the greenway land to be act­ually purchased for public use and leaves most of the authority to plan for the greenway at the local level, while providing that level with some measure of senior government financing and powers of expropriation.

C. LESSONS LEARNED

This program deals with a delicate area of public policy since it deals with the use of private property next to a public shoreline resource. Essen­tially a program to appropriate this resource for public use was put in place with very little study. The major lesson may be that a vision may be more compelling than a lot of technical research in actually getting policies implemented.

The legislation has been in place long enough to have gone through a revision. The initial concept was for the local government to implement the State policy. After six years of experience with the program between 1967 and 1973 it became apparent that the local governments did not have enough di~ rection did not have sufficient power without the ability to expropriate and had limited funding to even pay their 25% of any purchase price. The re­vision to the legislation in 1973 involved State leadership in setting land use along the banks of the river and gave more power to the municipalities. The goal of the continuous greenbelt was downgraded to a "String of Pearls" since this was obviously more practical to achieve. The municipalities were allowed to use their normal expropriation powers to acquire recreation lands. The State Planning Policy Goal 15, is quite detailed in its description of a management framework for the public agencies to achieve the greenway and lays out specific measures for implementation.

No new agency was established to create the greenway. The existing State agencies were given the mandate to see that the initial policies were carried out and other agencies were directed by State legislation to make sure that their plans were consistent with the Greenway policy. In this sense it is rather like a lead agency concept. The lesson here is that the mere state­ment of a policy is not sufficient for ensuring successful implementation. The agencies which have to implement the policy must be given clear direction on what is expected of them and procedures to follow are helpful.

NOTE: The Greenway Plan dealt primarily with recreation and aesthetics. Water Qualtiy has been a concern since the 1920's. Note the timing of water quality improvement on the attached timeline.

- 106 -

Willamette River, Oregon

Time Line

1806

1927

1938

1939

1941

1944-51

1949-57

Lewis & Clark discover the Willamette River

Portland City Club describes Willamette water quality as "ugly and filthy". Survey finds 49% of citizens favour action to control water pollution.

Legislature passes "The Water Purification and Prevention of Pol­lution Act of 1938"; Governor vetoes. Citizens vote an initiative petition to repass Act over veto.

Under new Act, the Oregon State Sanitary Authority is set up to establish water quality standards, set up a statewide water quality control program, and be a watchdog. Municipalities were given first attention.

World War II starts for the U.S.A.

City of Portland begins move to primary treatment.

Willametfii municipalities complete moves to primary treatment.

1952 Sanitary Authority orders mills to reduce sulphite effluents.

1958 Sanitary Authority orders conununities with agricultural processing to move to secondary treatment.

1960 City of Portland upgrades sewage treatment systems.

1964 Sanitary Authority orders mills to install primary processing of effluents.

1967 Sanitary Authority orders mills to install secondary processing of effluents.

1969 Water Quality on Willamette reaches 5.0 p.p.m. dissolved oxygen, up from 0.5 p.p.m. in 1927.

1966 During election campaign, University of Oregon Dean Karl Unthank proposes a Willamette River Greenway; A Willamette River Greenway Association forms to support concept; both Governor candidates endorse concept.

1967 Governor Tom McCall elected; Governor establishes Task Force; 3 months later the Task Force proposes new shoreline recreation legislation; 3 months later Legislature passes Act.

- 107 -

1973 The Willamette River Greenway Act of 1973, a substantial revision of the -1967 Act, is passed by the Legislature. This Act calls for a comprehensive land use plan. Department of Transportation named as Lead Agency.

- 108 -

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (California).

Prepared by John Higham (FRES)

I SUMMARY

Policy Areas

The Commission identified 20 major issues in the Bay and outlined a set of policies for each. A primary concern was the regulation of fill activity in the Bay.

Management System

A new agency was created - the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Develop­ment Commission - consisting of federal, state and local governme?t repre­sentatives as well as members of the public. The SFBCDC was charged with developing a plan and overseeing development on the Bay through the use of a permit system.

Management Plan

Program objectives were stated in the enabling legislation as were the decision criteria to be employed when considering a permit. Regulation through permits is the basis of management of the Bay, along with a map noting allocated sites for several priority uses. The Commission has approved the adoption of 3 special area plans within the Bay plan since its inception.

Public Involvement

Seven of the 27 member Commission are appointed from the general public. Five are appointed by the Governor and one by each House in the Legislature. In addition public hearings are required for any major permit application and for plan amendment.

Information System

Although not addressed specifically in the documents available it is presumed that the Connnission provides some information services to the public.

Current Status

Legislation setting up ongoing management and studies occurred in 1965. Legislative acceptance of the Bay plan came in 1969.

Relationship to other Programs

The Bay Area Plan has been adopted into the California Coastal Program and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

- 109 -

Initiation

Public concern in the early 1960's led to the formation of a Study Commission which returned proposals for a Bay Conservation and Development Commission with interim permit powers and a mandate to produce a plan for the Bay. The McAteer-Petris Act establishing the Commission, was passed in 1965.

II DETAILS

A. PLAN PREPARATION

1. Objectives

The objectives of the program were given the enabling legislation and were generally to monitor and regulate, through a permitting system, the develop­ment of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline.

2. Plan Preparation Process

A study undertaken by the Corps of Engineers in 1959 outlined the rate and extent of filling that had occurred in the Bay. This report led to early protests to halt further filling of the Bay by several prominent Berkeley residents. An additional study in 1963, The Future of San Francisco Bay, detailed the extent of filling and provided a great deal of evidence for further citizen actions.

In 1964 as a result of citizen pressure, the San Francisco Bay Conservation Study Commission was established. The Commission held public hearings around the Bay and produced recommendations for a body to be established with interim permit powers and a mandate to develop a comprehensive plan for the Bay. The result was the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the interim BCDC.

3. Organization

The McAteer-Petris Act detailed membership and the nature of the Commission. There was a wide range of interests represented on the 27 member Commission, from federal, state and local government as well as members from the public at large. The Commission maintains a support staff of about 30 people con­sisting of two major divisions, planning and permitting.

The Commission'splanning section generated the original Bay plan and is now charged with overseeing its reevaluation.

The Commission's permitting section oversees the permit application process, providing information on each major proposal to the Commission which makes the decision to grant, deny or alter the permit application.

The BCDC staff also have direct access to three outside bodies which allows consultation with outside expertise. A Design Review Board (consisting of

- 110 -

an urban planner, two architects, an engineer and a landscape architect) provides professional expertise on questions of public access. An Engineer­ing Criteria Review Board consisting of prominent Bay area engineers, gives expertise in structural soundness and safety which allows design flexibility as no regulatory set of rules could. The BCDC staff also have direct access to legal help through the office of the State Attorney-General.

The Bay plan was developed between 1965 and 1969 with close cooperation be­tween staff and the Commission.

Commission members were appointed in 1965 and so helped decide on the work to be pursued by staff and consultants during development of the plan. The Commission itself held numerous public hearings and obtained the public's views first hand. The Connnissiou always worked as a complete unit and did not break into sub-committees, thus keeping all members involved with all facets of the plan and enabling consensus to result on most issues.

4. The Plan Document

The Bay plan consists of a summary of the Commission's findings on 20 major issues. Each issue is followed by Commission policies. A set of maps indicate where certain priority uses will be allowed. The priority uses identified are ports, water-related industry, airports, wildlife refuges and water-related recreation. Many areas of the Bay are not allocated for these primary uses and it is Commission policy to permit any use so long as it conforms to policies, the plan and the law. Many laws affect the development of the Bay but the law commonly ref erred to is the enabling legislation of BCDC. This piece of legislation defines the program's objectives in oper­ational terms. Within the BCDC's areas of jurisdiction, the Bay and a 100' strip..ofshoreland, further filling should be limited to 1) clearly required water-oriented uses, 2) improving public acc-ess and 3) improving shoreline appearance.

Under such strict guidanc~ BCDC developed strong policies regarding filling of the Bay and so the Bay plan is commonly thought of as very successful. Results have shown the rate of fill to have been slowed by a factor of 37 since BCDC began.

C. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission was established as a perm­anent body by the State Legislature in 1969. It was assigned responsibility for overseeing development applications and reevaluating the plan when necessary. Its functions were very similar to that of the interim BCDC. The structure of the Commission, staff and r.eview b.oards remained basically the same.

Public input to Commission decisions was assured through the 7 full-fledged public members on the Commission and the requirements for public hearings on all major permit applications and plan amendments. Decisions by the

- 111 -

Commission are made by voting and two different sets of administrative rules apply. On permit proposals a simple majority is necessary for a decision but the two federal representatives do not have a vote on permits. Plan amend­ments require 2/3 approval of the. whole Commission.

Permits are divided into major and minor categories. A minor permit does not involve fill and can be dealt with by the Executive Director. When a major permit is filed the Commission must give public notice of it and wait at least 28 days before holding a public hearing on the matter. A vote will be taken two weeks after the hearing. These are Commission regulations in response to the statutory requirement that any permit must be acted upon with­in 90 days or the proposal is automatically approved.

The enabling legislation contains provision for plan amendments including those that are:

- so essential to public health or safety as to justify approval even though not consistent with the provisions of the San Francisco Bay Plan or

- of such a scale as to be of importance to the public in the entire Bay area.

Thus a plan amendment which is in conflict with the plan must be of compel­ling substance to overide the original plan. A more common amendment is one which is generally consistent with the objectives of the Bay plan. An example of this are ·the ; Special Area Plans which have been adopted for three areas of the Bay.

D. EXPERIENCE

The Bay area plan has operated for well over a decade and has been considered a success in both operational and administrative terms. As noted previously the strong legislated lead for an end to filling allowed strong policies to be developed and resulted in an abrupt halt to filling. The Commission also developed requirements for mitigation of lost wetland when a permit was approved and has a record of creating more wetland than it has allowed to be lost.

The objectives of BCDC were very narrow in comparison to most estuary and coastal plans as filling was considered the main problem. Recognition of priority uses was given early in development of the Bay area plan. However, later Commission activity focused on proof of the need for an activity, its water dependency and efficiency of design. These were assessed before a permit was allowed in terms of amount of fill necessary and the degree of public access granted.

The administrative effectiveness of BCDC has been traced to the close his~ torical relationship of the Commissioners to staff and public opinion, as well as to the clear direction given in enabling legislation. The legislation clearly outlined goals and objectives of the Commission and established the bounds of decision criteria within which its members were to work.

- 112 -

The San Francisco Bay Plan has since been adopted (under a Special Area Plan status) into the California Coastal Commission's Plan. It should be noted that the State's coastal program was closely modelled on the earlier exper­iences and successes BCDC, and indeed many of the same personnel were seconded for the task of constructing the California Coastal Commission.

- 113 -

TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (Texas)

Prepared by John Higham (FRES)

The Texas Coastal Management Program is an attempt to create a coordinated policy program for the 2500 miles of Texas coastline on the Gulf of Mexico.

I SUMMARY

Policy Areas

The TCMP was empowered to review all policies dealing with coastal zone resources.

lfanagement System

Management analysis focussed on 4 management alternatives and one recommended system. The latter was a Council approach with one voting member from each agency with decision making powers in the coastal area on the Council. The representative must come from the board or commission level of the agency.

Management Plan

The problem was perceived to be one of coordination and it was felt the Council would provide effective policy-level communication. The Council was also to coordinate information gathering, storage and linkages as well as producing a model for reviewing development proposals.

Public Involvement

Public involvement was entrusted to a 15 member advisory committee.

Information System

Part of the Council's duties was to create and operate a State data system that would be linked between the State agencies and the universities, and would be readily accessible to all who wished to use it.

Initiation

The TCMP was initiated in 1976 with the tabling of a draft program with the legislature in that year. The study was requested by the Governor's office in order to improve the state's coastal management process. The program is intended to be incorporated in the Federal Coastal Zone Program. Funding was shared between the state and federal governments.

- 114 -

II DETAILS

A. PLAN PREPARATION

1. Objectives

Objectives of the Texas Coastal Management Program were, through interagency cooperation and extensive public participation, to develop and recommend to the governor and legislature:

- an improved and flexible policy-making process which will ensure a continuing balance among future economic, environmental and social needs along the coast, and

- the steps for implementing such a process.

2. Organization

The General Land Office of Texas was the lead agency in the study and the services of a consulting firm were used extensively. In addition, public involvement occurred through a program advisory committee, letters to program staff and a series of 10 public hearings held to review the draft management recommendations. Four management alternatives for coastal zone management were studied.

a. Management Alternatives

(1) The Coordinating Council

A Council would represent all agencies affected significantly by a coastal program and which have decision-making authority in the coastal zone. The Council would divide the coast into management units on a biophysical basis and issue statements on uses to be permitted within the units. The Council would also be responsible for setting priorities in areas or matters of more than local concern. This type of management would provide guidelines under which existing regional agencies would develop comprehensive plans for their shoreline areas. The Council would also develop and implement a permit system. A proposal could be vetoed at the regional level and the proponent can then appeal to the Council and then, if again denied, could proceed through the courts.

(2) Designated Agency

One agency. would be designated to administer the plan and be given the power and funding to implement it. The designated agency would produce statements on permissible uses within the coastal area and establish priority uses in areas of more than local concern. Counties would implement county-wide plans within the guidelines established by the designated agency. Amendments to the county

- 115 -

plans would require the approval of the designated coastal agency. The permit system would be devised and operated by the agency but the counties would retain a veto over proposals in their area.

(3) Coastal Commission

Commissioners would be appointed by the Governor and would be representative of a wide range of coastal interests including the public at large. The Commission would be charged with overseeing the coast through planning, guidelines, project review and veto. Implementation of the plan would occur through the development of regional plans by existing regional agencies under guidelines issued by the Commission. Amendment of regional plans would require the approval of the· Commission. The Commission's sole purpose would be. construction of the plan, overseeing its implement­ation and enforcement.

(4) New Agency

A new State agency would consolidate the power of numerous agencies and/or segments of others, in respect to natural resource manage­ment. This would effectively remove those agencies from the resource management process. The new agency would decide on permissible uses and set priority uses for areas. It would also determine the minimum standards for the types and levels of development it would allow. Initial public input would be obtained through advisory committees. Regional resource districts would be formed and have the initial say on development permit applications with an appeal to the new agency and finally, the courts. The agency would require environmental impact statements be filed with it on any major devel­opment application. Statutory authority to intervene when local standards were not obeyed would also be granted to the agency.

b. Evaluation

The four management alternatives were given a preliminary evaluation under several criteria including: political feasibility, resource management effectiveness, accountability, efficiency in operating a one-stop permit system, and coordination. The draft management program presented to the State Legislature noted evaluation criteria to be used in the final evaluation were as follows:

- Human well-being should be the first concern of the government in balancing resource use with continuing coastal resource productivity.

- Private property rights should be protected.

- Improved coastal management should help solve problems not adequately met by present public or private actions.

- 116 -

- Where market allocation of resources works satisfactorily, it should continue without undue governmental intervention.

- Insofar as possible, the current coastal management policies and practices that have proved successful should be retained.

- Some general policy priorities for coastal management exist, but there should be a systematic way to review and recommend priorities,

-Coastal management should be fair. The various considerations applied in governmental decision-making on coastal resources and activities should be identified, and decisions should be based on rational stand­ards.

- A systematic and flexible activity-assessment process is needed to allow the state's agencies to exercise their present authority properly and to avoid arbitrary decisions.

- Decisions must take into account overriding state or national concerns, and a flexible management process will be needed to allow for changes in these concerns.

- The preferences and priorities of local citizens should be considered, and whenever possible, decisions should be made at a local level of government.

- The coastal management process and governmental decison-makers should be accountable to the public.

- Coastal management should be visible and understandable to the people. There must be effective means for the public to be informed about and comment on the workings of the coastal management process.

- Coastal management should be cost-effective. It should make better use of existing governmental expenditures and strive to avoid new, higher costs in government by focussing efforts on highest priority needs and reducing duplication.

- Finally, Texas' coastal program should satisfy requirements under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. A federally approved program will be able to extend state authority over most federal activities within the state's coastal management area. Approval will also mean federal matching funds will be available to help implement the program.

c. Proposed Management Structure

Prior to the study of ed a state called the Environment (ICNRE).

coastal 1Ilanagement systems for Texas there exist­Interagency Council on Natural Resources and the It was composed of the executive directors and

- 117 -

elected heads of the State agencies responsible for resource management and chaired by a representative of the Governor. The ICNRE was respon­sible for the coordination of State activities in the coastal zone. Although there was some debate about its effectiveness it appears the following general statements could be made about its performance:

- The effectiveness is determined largely by the strength and persist­ence of the leadership exerted by the governor or his designated chair­man.

- The principal role has been to improve communication among agencies. The council has no authority to require cooperation and coordination.

- Typically, the council's meetings are spent in broad discussion and condemnation of federal intrusions into state affairs, establishing committees to study issues, and scheduling subsequent meetings of the council or its subcommittees.

- Member agencies generally pay little attention to the council.

- Few executive directors attend council meetings and significant program or policy differences between or among agencies are seldom discussed.

Analysis of Texas' coastal programs concluded that the problem was not a lack of coastal management policies but a failure to support those policies through funding, performance reviews and coordinating efforts. Analyzingmanagementalternatives in light of the identified problem and on the basis of the criteria noted earlier, it was decided to build upon the existing structure of the ICNRE.

The recommended management alternative would see the ICNRE transformed into a policy-level council known as the Natural Resources Council (NRC) to review and propose policies, priorities and activiti~s for the state's coastal program. This transformation would require representation at the policy level of all agencies with decision-making authority in the coastal area. Each agency would have only one voting member. There would also be non-voting members from the Energy Advisory Council, Attorney General's office and Legislative Budget Board.

The NRG would be chaired by a representative of the Governor's office, The Governor would also appoint a 15 person citizen's advisory panel. Representation on the panel would balance economic, social, environ­mental and regional interests. Staff services for the panel would be provided by staff of the NRG.

The Natural Resources Council would be designed so as to automatically dissolve after four years unless the legislature determines it has been effective and decides to continue its operation. Such a feature would serve to provide an incentive for an effective program and allow an easy way to dispose of the organization if it proves ineffective.

- 118 -

The NRC would be charged with several other tasks in addition to policy deliberation and coordination. These include: the identifica­tion of information needs and overseeing the construction of standard data-gathering procedures and storage systems; developing a computer­ized link between all university and state data banks; development of a model activity-assessment process for permit applications; provide information on coastal hazards; review state policies on coastal areas and wetlands; recommend means of ensuring adequate fresh water inflows to estuaries; liaise with and monitor all Federal agencies through existing State-Federal arrangements.

- 119 -

COW.AMP 208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA (Pennsylvania State)

Prepared by Gary Reith (FRES)

I SUMMARY

In 1975 the State of Pennsylvania's Comprehensive Water Quality Management Program was merged with the federal Public Law 500-72, section 208 water quality management program. The resulting planning process resulted in the preparation of a draft water quality management plan, completed for public review and formal hearings in 1978.

Planning Approach

A policy advisory committee (PAC) consisting of state, regional and local agencies was established as a basic requirement of the 208 program. This committee was responsible for making water quality recommendations to the joint lead agencies, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Committee. A technical advisory committee provided assistance to PAC. It analyzed technical issues and the policy implications of these issues. A study Advisory Committee provided policy guidance with a local perspective.

Man~gement System

Three basic management alternatives were evaluated: no change to existing institutional arrangements for managing water quality; modification and adjustment of agency responsibilities; development of a new management structure. An analysis of the existing agency authority and activities of water quality management activities, along with an analysis of public input, indicated that lack of coordination among agencies was the most significant management problem. For that reason the recommended institutional framework for the management system was a modification of existing agency responsibil­ities to include and specify ongoing management, monitoring and enforcement functions. Within the framework of agency responsibility, a vast number of technical, problem specific policies were also identified and evaluated according to legal compliance, and a systematic study of the tradeoffs be­tween the monetary and non-monetary costs and effectiveness of alternative systems.

Public Involvement

Active public involvement is mandated by law. Local interests had direct input into the Policy Advisory Committee through Forums of locally elected officials and spec.ial interests also provided input into the Study Advisory Committee. The public also participated in Alternative Environmental Futures workshops as a means of developing regional policies for resource management at an early stage in the plan development.

- 120 -

Information System

A comprehensive water quality information system was recommended as an analysis of the large existing database showed much information was out­dated and several serious errors existed.

II DETAILS

A. WATER QUALITY PLANNING IN PENNSYLVANIA

1. Introduction

Since 1970 the U.S. Congress has enacted several Acts addressing environ­mental and resource management problems which have impacted planning approaches. These Acts ((Rivers and Harbours and Flood Control Act), 1970 (PL 91-511), National Environmental Policy Act, 1969 (PL91-190), Water Pollution Control Act, 1972) (PL92-SOO)) mandate that complex resource planning activities be based on systems analysis and have a regional resource unit as opposed to a political boundary orientation. Some programs initiated by the above Acts are:

- Environmental Protection Agency: 208 Program; The purpose of·this program is to organize and monitor the management of regulatory programs for treatment systems in urbanized watersheds.

- U.S. Water Resources Council: Level B Basin Programs; These programs are comprehensive resource planning efforts conducted at the river basin level. This includes the analysis of functional relationships among various plan­ning areas: navigation, water supply, recreation, erosion and sedimentation fish and wildlife.

2. Relationship of 208 Area Plans to other Water Quality Planning Programs

Section 208 of the Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1972 establishes requirements for managing all types of water pollu~ion. The goal of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The objective is to attain water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for recreation on the water to be achieved by July 1, 1983. The objectives are to be met by establishing area wide waste treatment management planning processes to implement and assure adequate control of pollutant sources.

The Environmental Protection Agency has initiated three types of studies under this Act, including 208 Area Plans. The most general plan is the 303e Basin plan which may be used to delineate 208 areawide boundaries. At an operational level 201 Facilities Plans deal with the identification, evaluation, design and cost analysis of specific planning areas. Facilities Plans may be a recommendation of a 208 area wide plan, however, where severe and immediate water quality problems exist, one or more 201

- 121 -

facilities plans may be developed simultaneously with the 208 study. Facilities plans may also be initiated under the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537).

3. COW.AMP 208 Water Quality Management Plan - South Eastern Pennsylvania

Name of Program:

COW.AMP/208 Water Quality Management Plan for Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Location of Study:

Located in the Delaware River Basin section of southeastern Pennsylvania, thearea encompasses 3,520 square miles, with 1970 population ~f 4.3 million.

Starting Date:

July 1, 1975.

Current Status:

Under review.

Relationship to Other Programs:

a. To other 208 Areawide Planning Efforts

Six 208 planning programs exist in the four state area adjacent to Southeastern_-~ Pennsylvania.

b. To Level B Basin Planning

The Delaware River Basin Commission conducted a Level B study for the Delaware Basin. Level B is amulti-objective study of water supply and quality, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, navigation and economic development. The COW.AMP 208 study is incorporated as the water quality element of the Level B Program.

c. Coastal Zone Management

The Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Resources (DER) has been designated for coastal zone planning in Pennsylvania under the federal law (PL 92:-583). DVRPC, the agency assigned COW.AMP 208 is a consultant to DER and, similar to the Level B program, contributes to the water quality elements of the CZM studies.

d. State Water Plan

The State DER provides guidelines for water supply, for water quality criteria for streams and for preservation of wild and scenic streams. COW.AMP 208 provides the water quality management component to the state water plan.

- 122 -

e. To 201 and Act 537 Facilities Plan

There are several 201 Facilities Plans in the 208 Study Area involving S.E. Pennsylvania. Some 201 Plans had already been initiated and were accepted as a constraint in the 208 planning process. Newly started 201 Plans are provided with COWAMP 208 information on which to base investigations. In the future, 201 and Act 537 sewage facility plans will be vehicles for implementing COWAMP 208 recommendations.

B. COWAMP/208: PLAN PREPARATION

1. Objectives

The objective of COWAMP 208 was the development of a regional waste treat­ment manageme~t plan to protect ground and surface water from pollution.

2. Committee Structure (see Table 1)

Fourteen bodies were established to advise on water quality planning. The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) is required by 208 regulations. The Tech­nical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of water quality experts, and the Study Advisory Committee (SAC), a citizen board with four sub-committees, assists PAC. Seven County Forums were also developed to advise the PAC.

a. PAC Functions

Functions of PAC were:

(1) identify and priorize water quality problems in relation to other area and state-wide objectives;

(2) assist in intermi; planning decisions;

(3) communicate with study area constituents;

(4) coordinate '208 work with ongoing planning activities;

(5) select recommended plan.

b. TAC Functions

(1) review 208 work plan;

(2) comment on design parameters and planning techniques and methodologies;

(3) advise on innovative wastewater management;

(4) review technical and institutional plans.

- 123 ~

TABLE 1 COWAMP/208 COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

DVRPC PA DEPARTMENT OF BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

""' ---r---For 5-County POLICY ADVISORY

For Berks and Schuylkill Counties DVRPC Region COMMITTEE (PAC)

,~

TECHNICAL ADVISORY STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) COMMITTEE (SAC) ,_

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL/ SUBCOMMITTEE DISCHARGES DISCHARGES CONSERVATION/

SUBCOMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE PUBLIC SUB-COMMITTEE

COUNTY FORUMS

BERKS f BUCKS 1 I CHESTER I I DELAWARE I I MONTGOMERY I I PHILIADELPHIA I I SCHUYLKILL

c, SAC Functions

(1) identify planning goals and objectives and problems;

(2) identify environmentally fragile areas

(3) review water quality management alternatives

(4) make recommendations on the Water Quality Plan

d. County Forums

An advisory body of county and municipal officials and local interests. These groups met once quarterly to review policy aspects of the 208 planning program from a local perspective.

C. STUDY PROCESS

1. How Were Final Decisions Made

Decisions were made at the Policy Advisory Committee level.

- Preliminary alternatives for control of pollution sources developed and discussed with committees and at County Forums.

- These preliminary alternatives were submitted to committees and forums and all county and municipal governments for review.

- Two rounds of county forums were held to discuss the alternatives with the public and receive public comment.

- The SAC and TAC met and prepared recommendations for PAC.

- PAC met three times to review the recommendations.

Selected recommendations were sent to DVRPC Board for review.

- Staff directed to prepare draft report for public review.

- Staff detailed the policy recommendations for joint review with PAC,

- Draft Report submitted 'for public review and formal public hearings.

2. Area Designation

Some problems and policies had an areal element · (ie. recommendations for special sewage facility studies was based on criteria such as areas with high water table or existing sewer malfunctions). No designation of areas for specific uses was employed.

- 125 -

3. Public Involvement

Public participation in the COWAMP/208 process is mandated by law. There was significant opportunityforpublic involvement in all phases of the Planning process.

- The structure of the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was weighted with Municipal and County Interests. County Forums had direct input to PAC.

- The SAC identified planning goals and objectives. SAC was comprised of local interests, including special interest groups and industry.

In addition, there were many public symposia and presentations along with a periodic newsletter and active media campaign.

4. Problem Resolutions

In early meetings with County agricultural interests, observations of problems of agricultural pollution sources was presented without supporting technical information of a site specific nature. This created apprehension among agricultural interests that stringent controls would be imposed on farming practices based on atypical farming statistics. As a result of this encounter, County agricultural interests became opposed to the COWAMP 208 program.

To address the problems in communication the program implemented a conflict resolution process. First a mediating agency familiar with agricultural needs and activities was convened meetings with farming interests, local officials, COWAMP 208 staff and the Department of Environmental Resources. It was agreed that technical information on agricultural run off would be gathered and discussed with agricultural interests prior to decisions being proposed or made. This process resulted in substantive input from the agricultural community. The agricultural community affirmed support for the 208 planning program and expressed a commitment to continued involvement. Ultimately, the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the Study Advisory Committee evolved.

5. Coordination

Coordination throughout the plan development phase was governed by a defined study process. Ongoing coordination functions were assigned to regional planning agencies, which were responsible for sponsoring ongoing coordinating committees to provide a continuing forum to identify and resolve policy issues and interagency conflicts.

6. Plan Amendment Process

- Local municipal, county, DVRPC, state or federal government agencies, citizen or special interest groups, or any interested person may request Plan amendment.

- 126 -

- All amendment requests must be submitted to the respective county or city planning agency. A copy 0.f the request is fi],ed with PVRPC.

- The request includes appropriate documentation to support the need for an amendment.

- Upon receipt of the request, the county or city and the DVRPC staff, jointly or separately, reviews:

(i) The latest data concerning the area in question.

(ii) Any additional data or justification provided by member governments, or other agencies.

(iiD The impact of the proposed change on plan policies or population and employment goals, and on the functional plans.

- The county, city, or DVRPC staff, as appropriate, may meet with the party requesting an amendment to attempt to resolve any differences in the documented data and seek any additional information in order that staff can prepare a report for Board consideration,

- When a report has been prepared, the Board is apprised of the request so that the need for a public hearing on it can be considered.

- After the hearings, the documented facts and a record of the public hearing are presented along with staff recommendations to the appropriate technical and citizens' advisory committees and to PCC for the purpose of formulating final recommendations to the Board.

- Changes to Plans are submitted within 90 days of the public hearing to the DVRPC Board for action. The Board can take whatever action it .considers appropriate.

D. IMPLEMENTATION

The plan had not been implemented as of July, 1981; however, there will be an implementation phase in the near future.

Implementation and plan evaluation has been incorporated into the proposed management structure.

Six major federal and state laws support plan implementation.

The proposed plan relies on the existing statutory framework. Some revisions are recommended to the rules and regulations of State agencies. Although existing statutory authority may be sufficient to implement some of the programs, it is suggested that in several areas, such as stormwater manage­ment, new and more explicit.legislation be written and to provide necessary funding. Municipalities have a central role in the management program; new

127 -

regulations and ordinances woul.d be n.eeded to implement certain programs. However, i:nunicipalities have the authority to adopt the recommended\ ordinances.

E. KEY FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS

l; Information System Needed

An information system is recommended to provide interfaces between many special purpose data systems. This information system would use data obtained by other agencies. The goal is to integrate all relevant water quality information into a confederation of systems. It is anticipated that the information system would improve the effectiveness of the monitoring system and provide integrated data for an annual water quality assessment.

2. Duplication a Problem

The study determined that the area had water quality management institutions with sufficient legal authority to carry out the necessary functions. The key problem identified with the institutional framework was duplication and lack of coordination. Therefore, the basic thrust of the plan was to specify which agencies would be responsible for what water quality manage­ment functions. A strategy for implementation was developed. Coordinative mechanisms were established to provide a means of ensuring that agencies would perform their appointed management functions.

3. Goals and Objectives Specified

Goals and objectives were based on the legal requirements of major laws, such as PL 92-500, and on local inputL These goals were restated in terms of general problem statements and was addressed by one or more policy state­ments. Programs were then recommended to implement the policy statements. Each program provided technical alternatives. The current status of program, the program priority and the statutory authority to perform the program were specified. Finally, the water quality management plan was divided into five major sections in which all of the policies and programs were sorted.

4. Management System Evaluation Process Considered Necessary

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission was designated to prepare annual assessments of water quality and I.pollution control efforts based on data developed by the recommended monitoring system. The annual assessment would include:

- the status of water quality in streams;

- current status of at-point source control compliance;

- trends in non-point source controls;

- 128 -

- development trends which may pose potential water quality problems; and

- status of plan implementation.

- 129 -

APPENDIX B

REVIEW OF CASE STUDIES

APPENDIX B

REVIEW OF CASE STUDIES

In order to clarify how the proposed management structure might work and to aid in refinement of components of the managment system, study staff were directed to develop some scenarios of management decisions and apply the proposed management program to them. Four scenarios that drew on existing issues in the estuary were developed and four totally imaginary scenarios were also created. It was felt such a mixture allowed participants to see how past management problems could have been dealt with and how potential future issues could be handled.

A total of eight management program case studies were presented to the Management Systems Sub-committee in the course of the refinement of the draft management systems work. The case studies as amended by the sub­committee and edited for clarification are presented in the following pages.

NOTE: THE CASES WHICH FOLLOW ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT RECO:tv!MENDATIONS OF POLICY OR PROCESS FOR THE ISSUES INVOLVED.

- 130 -

I. GOLDEAGLE MARINA

A. BACKGROUND

A development proposal requiring multiple agency approvals.

1. Description

A private developer with development option from the B.C. Development Corporation wanted to construct boat storage, construction and testing facilities at south end.of Tilbury Island.

2. Potential Impacts

- creation of jobs - provision of recreation benefits - provision of moorage - encroachment on dykes - habitat destruction (with mitigation proposed) - dredging - wastewater disposal - hydraulic modification - runoff of industrial wastes

3. Status

- P.roposal has been terminated

4. Agencies Involved

- B.C.D.C. (land owner) - Fraser River Harbour Commission - Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Habitat Protection Branch) - Public Works Canada - Municipality of Delta - Environment Canada:

Environment Protection Service Canadian Wildlife Service Inland Waters Directorate

- B.C. Ministry of Environment (Fish and Wildlife Branch)

5. Significant Aspects of the Case

?roponent applied to various agencies independently and did not follow a coordinated process - EPS suggesteda.Federal Regional Screening and Coordinating Committee meeting be held to provide for committee approach - Habitat mitigation included in the proposal

- 131 -

B. HOW THE LINKED PROCESS MIGHT HANDLE THE PROPOSAL

1. Planning Phase - The Management Program

- Part II identified increased recreation dema.nd as an issue. Marina demand not noted. - .Part III private recreation facilities demand not identified in policies. - Part V, identifies an Activity Program for Recreation Development. - Second Draft Area Designation Map identifies slough area as "Conservation".

2. Project Review

- Applicant would apply to a single lead agency filing a "prospectus" with full information on the project. - Lead agency would undertake a Pi;-eliminary Review to evaluate:

(i) consistency with Lead Agency policies; (ii) consistency with the Estuary Management Program; (iiD type of permits needed (if consistent under (i) and (ii)):

- Lead Agency advises applicant to apply for appropriate permits; - Lead Agency refers application through Coordinated Referrals Process; - Referral agency may request Impact Review. Key Agency Committee meets to discuss need for an impact assessment or other procedure; - Impact assessment is undertaken; - Key Agency Committee or Lead Agency approves/disallows application.

3. Other Actions

- FEIS records statistical information and updates TELIDON~~roject files; - Program Committee reviews Management Program where deficient and updates Parts II, III and V as necessary with recommendations approved by Policy Committee.

*NOTE: TELIDON is used here and in the other case studies as one option for storing and presenting information. Other options, including a manual file could serve the same function.

- 132 -

II SPETIFORE HOUSING PROPOSAL

A. BACKGROUND

A development proposal requiring multiple approvals; involvement of B.C. Cabinet; upland issue.

1. Description

A private landowner applied to remove land from ALR, change ORP, and change zoning to create housing in Delta.

2. Potential Impacts

- creation of housing - generation of cross-river traffic - loss of farmland - urban development in south Delta - acquisitionof park/recreation land - development adjacent to habitat - potential dyke road

3. Status

- Land removed from ALR by ELUC - GVRD decides not to change ORP from Agriculture designation - Land recently sold and new owner has expressed residential development aspirations

4. Agencies Involved

- Municipality of Delta - GVRD Planning Department and Parks Department - Agricultural Land Commission - B.C. Ministry of Agriculture - B.C. Government: ELUC - Special Interest Groups

S. Significant Aspects of Case

- Dominant agencies are the upland and provincial agencies - Estuary affected by proximity in terms of water quality and negative habitat impacts and positive recreation impacts - Secondary impacts (eg. drainage, transportation servicing) would directly affect estuary

B. HOW THE LINKED PROCESS MIGHT HANDLE THE PROPOSAL

1. Planning Phase - The Management Program

- 133 -

- Part II identifies trends including population growth, increased recreation and housing demand, and habitat and water quality. - Part III supports continued agriculture adjacent to estuary and supports recreation development. - Part V limits area designation to outside the dyke. - Part V Habitat Management and Recreation Development Activity Programs would indirectly treat project.

2. Project Review

- Because this project is mostly upland in nature, the major applications to develop would possibly not go to the Coordinated Referrals Process.

- However, as part of the cooperative process, the Regional District could refer development applications through Coordinated Referrals Process to obtain agency comments. In this case the Estuary Management Program and Coordinated Referrals and Assessment Process are advisory to the upland jurisdiction. (The upland jurisdiction could previously have agreed to participate by referring certain plan changes within an agreed area to the Estuary Management System, and a reverse agreement would also have been made).

3. Other Actions

- FEIS records statistical information and updates TELIDON project files - Program Committee reviews Management Program for possible mitigation and adaptation strategies. Management Program is updated as necessary.

~ 134 -

III ANNACIS BRIDGE CROSSING

A. BACKGROUND

A Provincial Government sponsored proposal.

1. Description

The B.C. Government made a decision to build a bridge across the Fraser at Annacis Island.

2. Potential Impacts

- new transportation to areas south of the Fraser - upland connector roads - conflicts with residents on feeder roads - loss of foreshore habitat - loss of farmland - effects on Burns Bog - regional urbanization pattern changes - increased transportation demand - impact on archaeological sites - effects on ALRT location

3. Status

Project approved by B.C. Government Orders

4. Agencies Involved

- B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways - Greater Vancouver Regional District - Municipalities of Delt~, Surrey, New Westminster and Burnaby - B.C. Agriculture Land Commission - Fraser River Harbour Commission - Public Works Canada - Heritage Conservation Branch - Urban Transit Authority - Coast Guard (Navigable Waters Protection Act)

5. Significant Aspects of Case

- Decision was a government decision - Major impetus for decision was upland (not estuary) related - Major impacts on both upland and estuary

B. HOW THE LINKED MANAGEMENT PROCESS MIGHT HANDLE THE PROPOSAL

1. Planning Phase - The Management Program

- 135 -

- Part II identifies the economic and population factors which would lead to demand for bridge crossings. Trend data is not detailed enough to answer where and when. Trend data cannot forecast political decisions.

- Part III has no policies for bridge crossings, but does have policies concerning foreshore habitat, agricultural land~ etc. Policies do suggest that land transportation systems (eg. feeder roads) should only be on water side of dyke where this results in lesser impacts than upland locations. - Part V Activity Programs do not address bridge crossings. Bridges are conditionally permitted in several designation categories provided they do not conflict with principal use (which they almost always would).

~. Project Review

- The B.C. Government decides to build a bridge and consults with Federal counter-part. - B.C. and Canada agree to approve project without Management Systems review. - Policy Committee is instructed to amend the Management Program as necessary. - Policy Committee issues terms of reference to Program Committee for plan review with deadlines. - Policy Committee receives Program Committee recommendations and approves amendments. - Proponent agency makes application for necessary approvals of estuary agencies. - Prospectus is circulated through Coordinated Referrals Process - Policy Committee decides whether impact assessment is needed - Comments of Coordinated Assessment and Referrals Process are used for de~ign and mitigation by proponent agency.

3. Other Actions

- FEISrecords statistical data and update TELIDON files - Program Committee reviews Management Program for possible mitigation and adaptation strategies - Management Program is updated as necessary

- 136 -

IV STEVESTON DREDGEATE DISPOSAL

A. BACKGROUND

Federal agency with a service responsibility (dredging) seeks land for disposal of dredge spoil.

1. Description

Having the ongoing responsibility for maintaining navigation in shipping channels, Public Works Canada initiated a process for determining alternative dredgeate disposal sites in the Estuary. The disposal of dredgeate at the Garry Point location had become infeasible due toe transfer of ownership and the uncertain acceptability of future dredgeate disposal operations. Public Works Canada proposed that Gilbert Beach off Steveston Island be designated as the dredgeate disposal site.

2. Potential Impacts

- locating of needed dredge spoil sites facilitation of channel maintenance activity

- loss of fish habitat - channel modifications - reduction of beach access - adverse impacts to channel flushing - unknown hydrologic modifications dovmstream

3. Status

Unresolved. Federal Regional Screening and Coordinating Committee (RSCC) evaluated numerous alternative sites throughout the outer portions of the Estuary. Six sites were determined to be acceptable or acceptable with conditions. The ore 908 Committee looked at one of the alternative sites -Albion Dyke, located on the outer estuary. This was to be an interim disposal site. The committee issued conditional approval with provisions for monitoring during and after the disposal process. Public Works is reviewing the alternatives and may decide to pursue the Steveston site. If so, it is possible that the EARP process may be initiated.

4. Agencies Involved

- Public Works Canada (proponent) - Fraser River Harbour Commission - Municipality of Richmond - Agricultural Land Commission - RSCC Committee - Environment Canada:

- Environmental Protection Service - Canadian Wildlife Service - Atmospheric Environment Service

- 137 -

- Fisheries and Oceans Canada - B.C. Ministry of Environment:

- Assessment Branch (OIC 908 Assessment Panel) - Fish and Wildlife Branch

- Municipality of Delta - Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing

5. Significant Aspects of the Case

- Both RSCC and OIC 908 reviews ongoing simultaneously - Committee approaches produced forum for j ~int agency consultations which participating agencies judged to be effective mechanisms for making decisions. - Some agencies perceived that Public Works Canada e:x:pected preferential treatment as a sister agency.

B. HOW THE LINKED SYSTEM MIGHT HANDLE THIS PROPOSAL

1. Planning

- Part II identifies trends, eg., water quality, habitat, port development, However, the continued need for dredge spoil sites is not identified. - Part III Estuary policies do not directly address dredging, however, habitat policies apply. - Part V - an Activity Program is proposed for "Dredging, Dyking and Drainage" with spoil disposal siting as one objective.

2. Project Review

- Proponent Agency identifies need for dredge spoil sites, - Proponent Agency meets with Program Committee to review adequacy of DD & D Activity Program (assuming it has been completed). - Based on a priority role identified in the Activity Program, a site search is initiated to identify and evaluate alternative sites. - A site is agreed on by the Program Committee and recommended to the Key Agency Group. - Activity Program is amended if necessary. - Proponent Agency refers proposal through Coordinated Referrals Process, with the lead agency identified on the basis of the proposed location of the disposal site. - Impact Assessments are undertaken if necessary or if required and mitigation strategy adopted.

3. Other Actions

- FEIS records statistical information and updates TELIDON project files.

- 138 -·

V LOG STORAGE LEASE APPLICATION EXAMPLE: MAIN ARM

A. BACKGROUND

1. Description

A proposal to store log booms on the wetted foreshore along the Main Arm of the river.

2. Potential Impacts

- provision of additional area for log storage - habitat loss - maintenance dredging - leachates and debris from logs - bank protection - accretion

3. Status N/A

4. Agencies Involved

- upland owner (for riparian consent) - Fraser River Harbour Commission - Transport Canada (Coast Guard) - Environment Canada - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

5. Significant Aspects of the Case

- Fraser River Harbour Commission relies on federal environmental agencies to identify environmental constraints

Harbour Commissions will not refuse leases with riparian consent - no log storage plan in place identifying suitable sites

B. HOW THE LINKED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MIGHT HANDLE THE PROPOSAL

1. Planning Phase - The ~lanagement Program

- Part II notes that the coastal timber harvest is approaching the maximum level of sustained yield, that no substantial change in foreshore log storage is foreseen, and that grounding of booms is a major environmental concern.

Part III states that proposals for change of existing uses, such as the reduction of log storage or additional occupation or alteration of the foreshore, be assessed to determine ec0nomic, social and environmental impacts. - Part V identifies a Log Storage and Handling Activity Program including future needs, suitable areas and conditions of use.

- l jt) -

- The Area Designation Report identifies major log storage areas but permits log storage elsewhere subject to conditions.

2. Project Review

- Applicant would apply to a single lead agency filing a "prospectus" with full information on the project. - Lead agency would undertake a Preliminary Review to evaluate:

(i) consistency with Lead Agency policies (ii) consistency with the Estuary Management Program (iii) if preliminary approval given then:

- Lead Agency advises applicant to apply for the appropriate permits - Lead Agency also refers application through Coordinated Referrals Process unless application is for lease renewal in which case it would only be referred in designated "Conservation" areas on the refined Area Designation Map. - Referee agencies may request additional information on the proposal. Lead agency supplies the additional information and notifies the Central Project Registry of all agencies indicating interest. - Referral agency may request impact review. Key Agency Committee meets to discuss need for an impact assessment or other procedure. - Impact assessment is undertaken - Key Agency Committee or Lead Agency approves/disallows application.

3. Other Actions

- FEIS records statistical information and updates TELIDON project files - Program Committee reviews Management Program where deficient and updates Parts II, III and V as necessary with recommendations approved by Policy Committee.

- 140 -

VI SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLE: SMALL DOCK RECONSTRUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

1. Description

An application to replace a portion of an existing dock at a commercial marina in Deas Slough.

2. Potential Impacts

- Public safety as old dock and pilings are becoming unsafe - Removal of debris that accumulates as the old wood rots - Retention of moorage space

3. Status - N/A

4. Agencies Involved

- Fraser River Harbour Commission - Municipality of Delta - Fisheries and Oceans, Small Craft Harbours Branch

5. Significant Aspects of the Case

- Routine small scale project, basically one of maintenance - Will not add to cumulative impacts of estuary development - No anticipated offsite impacts

B. HOW THE LINKED SYSTEM MIGHT HANDLE THIS PROPOSAL

1. Planning Phase - The Management Program

- Part II does not refer to marina sites in the estuary. - The Area Designation Plan identifies suitable small craft moorage sites in the estuary, including the site in Deas Slough. - Part III indicates the need for environmental design in all projects. - Part V recommends a Recreation Activity program to, assess recreational resources and provide and protect suitable sites.

2. Project Review

- Applicant would apply to a single lead agency filing a "prospectus" with full information on the project. - Lead agency would undertake a Preliminary Review to evaluate:

(i) (ii) (iii)

consistency with Lead Agency policies consistency with the Estuary Management Program if preliminary approval given then:

- 141 -

- Lead Agency advises applicant to apply for the appropriate permits; - Lead Agency also refers application through Coordinated Referrals Process unless application is for lease renewal in which case it would only be referred in designated "Conservation" areas on the refined Area Designation Map; - Referee agencies may request additional information on the proposal. Lead agency supplies the additional information and notifies the Central Project Registry of all agencies indicating interest; - Referral agency may request impact review. Key Agency Committee meets to discuss need for an impact assessment or other procedure; - Impact assessment is undertaken; - Key Agency Committee or Lead Agency approves/disallows application.

3. Other Actions

- FEIS records statistical information and updates TELIDON project files - Program Committee reviews Management Program where deficient and updates Parts II, III and V as necessary with recommendations approved by Policy Committee.

- 142 -

VII IONA OUTFALL UPGRADING EXAMPLE

A. BACKGROUND

1. Description

Due to a court ruling the Iona Outfall must be upgraded. Two primary methods of achieving this have been identified, the imposition of secondary treatment or extending the pipe o~er the foreshore so the effluent is discharged into deeper water.

2. Potential Impacts

Alternative A (secondary treatment)

- overall lowered Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) - increased aesthetics - additional upland required for treatment plant and sludge disposal - high capital cost - high level of contaminants in sludge - without associated source control program secondary treatment methods are possibly endangered by contaminants

Alternative B (pipe extension)

- lower BOD in foreshore - increased aesthetics - lower capital cost - uncertain dispersal effects

3. Status

These and other options being studied by government agencies.

4. Agencies Involved (probable)

- Greater Vancouver Regional District: - Sewage and Drainage District - Parks Department

- B.C. Ministry of Environment - Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Environmental Protection Service - Public interest groups

5. Significant Aspects of the Case

- Current effluent is degrading Sturgeon Banks - Area proposed for recreation use - Sturgeon Bank is significant area for fish and wildlife - major management decision must be made as the courts have oEd~red it and the decision could effect many resources,particularly fisheries and recreation

- 143 -

- major capital expenditure would be required for secondary treatment and associated source control program.

B. HOW THE LINKED SYSTEM MIGHT HANDLE THIS PROPOSAL

1. Planning Phase - The Management Program

- Part II notes Water Quality is a concern of all parties - Part III proposes upgrading but leaves both options open for implementation - Part III links upgrading to source control program - The Program Committee would agree on a set of water quality standards - Part V recommends a Water Quality Plan to agree on standards - Part V recommends a Waste Management Activity Program which would achieve (among other things):

(i) agreement on a preferred upgrading option (ii) agreement on timing (iii) budgets and cost allocation to agencies (iv) linkage to the estuary research program (v) linkage to the coordinated referral program and impact assessment process

2. Project Review

- Once the Water Quality Plan and Waste Management Activity Program are in place any upgrading proposal would be routed through the normal coordinated referral procedure. - Proposals would have to be subject to the Estuary Management Program, including agreed interagency'Water Quality Plan and the Waste Management Activity Program. - If the Key Agency Group could not agree on an implementation option at Iona the evaluation of alternatives would be submitted to the Policy Committee for resolution. - If the Key Agency Group disagreed with aspects of the Management Program bearing on this decision, then a request to alter the Program would be considered by the Program Committee.

- 144 -

FORESHORE HABITAT ENCHANCEMENT EXAMPLE

A BACKGROUND

1. Description

As part of a mitigation program a portion of the foreshore a4j~cent to Westham Island has been proposed as the site for a habitat enhancement project.

2. Potential Impacts

- Replacement of habitat lost through development - Increase in fish and wildlife usage of the area - Local farms subject to increased crop loss due to increased:numbers of waterfowl - Possible delay in development of original proposal that required the institution of a habitat mitigation project prior to proceeding with development. - Uncertain effects on foreshore hydrology

3. Status N/A

4. Agencies Involved

- Private upland owners - Ministry of Agriculture and Food - Agricultural Land Commission - B.C. Ministry of Environment:

- Assessment Branch (for OIC 908) - Fish and Wildlife Branch

- Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Coast Guard (Navigable Waters Protection Act) - Delta Municipality - Public Works Canada

5. Significant

- Upland impacts from a water side project - Implementation of habitat mitigation program - Recognition of externalities of project

B, HOW THE LINKED SYSTEM MIGHT HANDLE THIS PROPOSAL

1. Planning Phase - The Management Program

- Part III (revised) states that 11measures to establish new habitat resources through artificial means be pursued and·demonstration projects implemented to test the effectiveness of various methods of establishing new habitat as opportunities arise.

- 145 -

- Part III goals and objectives also states •.. "That caution be taken to ensure, where possible that habitat compensation projects are successfully commenced before projects requiring habitat loss are commenced". - Part III also recognizes potential upland impacts of such a project .... "That programs be developed and implemented to assess the effects of habitat enchancement projects on agriculture and the need for and appropriate­ness of mitigation be considered". - The Habitat Activity Program should identify suitable enhancement sites. - Research on habitat enchancement would be encouraged as part of a coordinated research program for the estuary.

2. Project Review

- The project would be referred to a single lead agency filing a prospectus with full information on the project. - The proposal would be assessed through the coordinated referral process. - If the proposal was inconsistent with the habitat activity program or the designation plan, a plan amendment would be required through the program committee. - The program committee would provide a forum for affected interests to demand modification of the project of mitigation for externalities; both municipalities and riparian interests would be represented on the program committee.

- 146 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PHASE I REPORTS

Dunn, Michael W. Constitutional and Legislative Frameworks. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study .. August, 1978.

Habitat Work Group. Habitat. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. August, 1978.

Land Use and Transportation Work Group. Land Use and Transportation. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. August, 1978.

Recreation Work Group. Recreation. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. August, 1978.

Steering Conunittee. Key Findings and Recommendations (Sununary of Proposals for the Deve~opment of an Estuary Management Plan). Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. August, 1978.

Steering Committee. Summary. (Proposals for the Development of an Estuary Management Plan). Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. August, 1978.

Water Quality Work Group. Water Quality - Interim Report. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. August, 1978.

~ater Quality Work Group. Water Quality - Summary Report. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. December, 1979.

WATER QUALITY BACKGROUND REPORTS

Atwater, J.W. Impact of Landfills. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. April, 1980.

Cain, R.T.; Clark, M.J.R. and Zorkin, N.R. Trace Organic Constituents in Discharges. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. March, 1980.

Cain, R.T. and Swain, L.G. Municipal Effluents. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. December, 1980.

Churchland, L.M. Microbial Water Quality, 1970-1977. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. January, 1980.

Drinnan, R.W. and Clark, M.J.R. Water Chemistry, 1970-1978. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. December 1980.

Ferguson, K.D. and Hall, K.J. River Estuary Study.

Stormwater Discharges. Victoria: Fraser December, 1979.

~ 147

Garrett, C.L. Toxic Organic Contaminants. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. March, 1980.

Singleton, H.J. Acute Toxicity of Effluents. Victoria~ Fraser River Estuary Study. December, 1980.

Stancil, D.E. Aquatic Biota and Sediments. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. December, 1980.

Swain, L.G. Industrial Effluents. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. December, 1980 0

Swain, L.G. and Alexander, L.J. Boundary Bay. Victoria: Fraser River Estuary Study. June, 1981.

PHASE II REPORTS

Alexander, L.J. Some Legal Provisions for Implementation of a Linked Management System in the Fraser River Estuary. Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. May, 1981.

reprinted:

Alexander, L.J. Legal Provisions for Linked Management. Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. March, 1982.

Ar-aa Designation Task Force. First Draft Report of the Area Designation Task Force to the Fraser River F.stuary Planning Committee. Van€ouver: Fraser River Estuary Study. May, 1981.

Area Designation Task Forceo Final Draft Report of the Area Designation Task Force to the Fraser River Estuary Planning Committee. Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. February, 1982.

Area Designation Task Force. Report of the Area Designation Task Force. Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. March, 1982.

Fraser River Estuary Study Planning Cammi ttee. "A Living River by the Door", A Public Review Workbook on the Draft Management Program for the Fraser River Estuary. Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. November, 198la

Fraser River Estuary Study Planning Conunittee. "A Living River by the Door", A Proposed Management Program for the Fraser River Estuary. Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. March,. 1982.

Harvey, C.A. (ed.). Results of Public Involvement Program. Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. March, 1982.

- 148 -

Information Systems Sub-Conunitteeo Gary Reith (edo)o The Information Systems Reporto Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. March,

19820

McDougall, RoDo Referrals Systems Presently Used in the Fraser River Estuary Core Area. Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study. March, 19820

Management Systems Sub-Conunitteeo Larry Wolfe (edo) o A Linked Management System Proposal for the Fraser River Estuaryo Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Study a March, 19820

Wolfe, LoDoSo Organizational Options for Linked Managemento Surrey: Fraser River Estuary Studyo March, 19820

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Parsons, MoRo frµs_er a_iy_e~ Est~aJ:::.¥ Heritage Resource Inventoryo Victoria: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Serviceso March, 19820

Ward, Peggyo Explore the Fraser Estuary! Vancouver: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada. 19800

- 149 -