PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE April 17, 2014
SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC
AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 9:00 a.m.
AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda
INVITED GUEST Chief Calvin Craigan, shíshálh Nation PART 1 (pages 1- 95) for pages 96 - 197 see PART 2, for pages 198 –306 see PART 3, for pages 307 – 385 see PART 4 PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 2. FortisBC, Bryan Balmer, Manager, System Integrity Programs and
Rob Bradbeer, Operations Manager, Vancouver Island North Regarding Pipeline Safety and Security
ANNEX A pp 1 – 7
3. Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No. 337.107 (Green for Saunders) i. Bear Bay Neighbours (Peter Robson) ii. James Green (Applicant/Agent)
ANNEX B pp 8 – 13
REPORTS 4. Woodfibre LNG Update
(Regional Planning Services) ANNEX C pp 14 – 37
5. BURNCO Environmental Assessment Update Regional Planning
ANNEX D pp 38 – 42
6. Proposed Changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act Regional Planning
ANNEX E pp 43 – 61
7. Keats Island Dog Control Alternative Approval Process Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX F pp 62 – 63
8. Bill 17 – 2014 Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act, 2014 (Sections Regarding Planning only)
Electoral Areas A to F (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX G pp 64 – 74
9. Bylaws 310.156, 310.157 and 337.109 Regarding Marihuana Production Facilities on all Land Use Zones that allow Agriculture (Areas A, B, D, E, F)
Electoral Areas A to F (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX H pp 75 – 95
Planning and Development Committee Agenda - Thursday, April 17, 2014 Page 2 of 3 PART 2 (pages 96 - 197) for pages 1 - 95 see PART 1, for pages 198 –306 see PART 3, for pages 307 – 385 see PART 4
10. Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No. 337.107 – Electoral Area A: Egmont/Pender Harbour (Green for Saunders) for Lot 32, D.L. 3681, Plan LMP21181
Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX I pp 96 – 152
11. Bylaw 675: Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX J pp 153 – 189
12. Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.180 (Hage for Lewis) (Area F)
Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX K pp 190 – 197
PART 3 (pages 198 - 306) for pages 1 – 95 see PART 1, for pages 96 – 197 see PART 2, for pages 307 – 385 see PART 4
13. Development Permit with a Variance No. A-34 (Mulligan for Belich)(Area A) Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX L pp 198 – 245
14. Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Application # E-38 for Subdivision (lot line adjustment) in the ALR by Andrews for Fawcett for Block E, Plan 5758 and Block 3 Plan 3877, both in DL 903 – Area E
Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX M pp 246 – 261
15. License of Occupation for Shellfish Aquaculture Site Expansion File 2408889 by Richard Fair on the bed of Telescope Passage, East of Hardy Island, Area A
Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX N pp 262 - 277
16. Hillside Monthly Report - April 9, 2014 Hillside
ANNEX O pp 278
17. BC Ocean Boating Tourism Association request for support Michael McLaughlin, Rural Futures
Economic Development
ANNEX P pp 279 – 292
18. Building Department Revenues March 2014 (Building Department)
ANNEX Q pp 293 – 296
19. Planning and Development Monthly Report March 2014 (Regional/Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX R pp 297 – 306
PART 4 (pages 307 – 385) for pages 1 – 95 see PART 1, for pages 96 – 197 see PART 2, for pages 198 – 306 see PART 3
20. Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes of March 19, 2014 (Regional Planning Services)
ANNEX S pp 307 – 312
21. Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of March 25, 2014 (Regional Planning Services)
ANNEX T pp 313 – 316
Planning and Development Committee Agenda - Thursday, April 17, 2014 Page 3 of 3 22. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of March 26, 2014
Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) ANNEX U pp 317 – 318
23. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of March 25, 2014 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX V pp 319 – 321
24. Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of March 31, 2014 Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX W pp 322
25. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of March 26, 2014 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX X pp 323 – 324
26. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of March 25, 2014 Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services)
ANNEX Y pp 325 – 326
IN CAMERA
That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Sections 90 (1) (a), (f), (g) and (i) of the Community Charter – “personal information about an identifiable individual”, “law enforcement..”, “litigation or potential litigation..” and “the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose”
ADJOURNMENT
COMMUNICATIONS 27. Ruth Simons, Howe Sound Community Forum, dated March 15, 2014
Regarding new Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) backgrounder and newsletter, Summary of the February 21, 2014 webinar, and copy of the Powerpoint presentation.
ANNEX Z pp 327 – 368
28. Kevin Washbrook, Director, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, dated March 20, 2014
Regarding response to Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s review of the proposed coal export terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks.
ANNEX AA pp 369 – 374
29. David C. Cox, dated March 23, 2014 Regarding Special Planning and Development Committee Meeting of March 21, 2014.
ANNEX BB pp 375
30. Deb Walters, Mayor, City of Pitt Meadows, dated April 2, 2014 Regarding Bylaw No. 2626, Medical Marihuana Zoning Text Amendment.
ANNEX CC pp 376 – 384
31. Brian Klassen, dated April 5, 2014 Regarding the issue of shipping containers on residential properties in Halfmoon Bay
ANNEX DD pp 385
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
Rockwood Lodge, Sechelt BC Wednesday March 19, 2014
Present: Mike Latimer (Chair), Brett McGillivray, Dianne Sanford, Susan Grayston, Marina Stjepovic, Nicol Warn, Sophie Hsia, Virginia Cullen, Julie Davidson, Mark Giltrow, Jennifer Passmore (Recording Secretary) SCRD Board Liaison Member: Frank Mauro Regrets: Paul van Poppelen CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA Recommendation No. 1 - Adoption of the Agenda That the Amended Agenda be adopted.
CARRIED REPORTS AND MINUTES Recommendation No. 2 - Adoption of the Minutes That the Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes of the January 22, 2014 meeting be adopted.
CARRIED That the Planning and Development Committee Minutes of the February 20, 2014 meeting be received. CARRIED
1
ANNEX S
307
Recommendation No. 3 - Receipt of Notes That the Natural Resources Advisory Committee Notes of March 10, 2014 and March 17, 2014 be received. CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS The Natural Resources Advisory Committee welcomed Frank Mauro to the meeting and each member of the committee introduced him/herself. Frank Mauro described his interest in attending Natural Resources Advisory Committee meetings. He intends to participate mostly as a listener, and by providing context in his capacity as Director for Area A as necessary. 3.1 California Energy Commission Report (for comment) In discussion of this item, the following points were noted.
- One of the criteria of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard is the requirement to develop a provincial, stand-alone endangered species act. NRAC does not see this occurring in the foreseeable future.
- The California Renewables Portfolio Standard is also limited to facilities producing 30MW or less. It is interesting that this is smaller than the threshold for triggering an Environmental Assessment process for BC Independent Power Producers, currently set at 50MW.
- British Columbian Independent Power Producers are typically contracted to sell their energy to BC Hydro.. All energy becomes one unit and it’s impossible to sell “IPP power only”. It is unclear how California would buy energy from BC, even if some of the run-of-river facilities met the Renewables Portfolio Standard.
- The report does not draw any parallels with British Columbia’s rules and regulations for Independent Power Producers.
- 38 of BC’s run-of-river Independent Power Producers presently qualify for Ecologo certification.
- This is an industry document and is not directly applicable to municipal planning and policy.
- The SCRD exercises some control over Independent Power Producers in the construction phase such as permitting for batch plants, etc. The
2308
SCRD also exercises some control in zoning for locations. It would be difficult for the SCRD to influence Run-of-River facilities with respect to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard.
The Natural Resources Advisory Committee would appreciate following the development of the Californian Renewables Portfolio Standard and the Province’s response. The Natural Resources Advisory Committee supports implementation of higher environmental standards for future Run-of-River projects. 3.2 Potential Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility at Port Mellon
(Electoral Area F) (for comment) Mike Latimer declined to comment on this issue due to potential conflict of interest arising from his role with Lehigh Hanson Materials and the Delta cement plant.. In discussion of this item the following points were noted:
- The authority of the SCRD is limited as the project is proposed to be located on Squamish Nation Indian Reserve land.
- The proposal highlights the need for the SCRD to develop a protocol agreement with the Squamish Nation.
- The proposal highlights the need for a comprehensive, strategic land-use plan for the Howe Sound area.
It is difficult for the Natural Resources Advisory Committee to comment specifically on the proposal given the limited information provided. However, the main questions and concerns of the Natural Resources Advisory Committee with respect to the proposal are:
- Where will the (highly) toxic ash be disposed? If it is disposed on-site, what effects will the ash have on groundwater and local ecology? If it is disposed off-site, how will it be transported and how will the dangers of transporting hazardous waste materials be mitigated?
- How many barge-loads of waste will be arriving in a given time-period? - Air quality is a very important concern and should be considered in
conjunction with other industrial activity in the area, including the Port Mellon pulp and paper mill, and the proposed LNG plant.
- Any construction of unloading facilities and/or docks should consider the conservation goals of the Hillside/Port Mellon Industrial Area OCP, which designates the foreshore site as a conservation area. This is especially important if there is Eelgrass and/or habitat for forage fish in the area.
Frank Mauro confirmed the following points:
3309
- The SCRD does not have control over building of docks but normally receives a referral for comment from FLNRO. He is not sure what the process is on Squamish Land.
- The Howe Sound Community Forum is petitioning the provincial government for a Cumulative Effects Framework for Howe Sound.
- The SCRD landfills do not take hazardous waste – and currently do not accept waste ash from the incinerators used at the Howe Sound pulp and paper mill, which is landfilled on-site.
- Currently the SCRD’s Guiding Principles for waste management does not allow for burning solid waste.
Recommendation No. 4 - Potential Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility at Port Mellon (Electoral Area F) (for comment) That the SCRD not support this project due to lack of pertinent information regarding project scope and due to the numerous potential deleterious effects, as noted in the Staff Report to NRAC. Specific concerns include: airshed sensitivity, distribution of harmful emissions (particulates, lead, furans, dioxins), management of waste prior to incineration, residuals management, leaching of toxins from waste material into ground water, increased marine traffic, unknown incinerator type/technology, carbon emissions, and cumulative effects in light of existing industrial activities. Recommendation No. 5 - Potential Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility at Port Mellon (Electoral Area F) (for comment) That environmental assessment processes be completed for the construction and implementation phases of project. Recommendation No. 6 - Potential Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility at Port Mellon (Electoral Area F) (for comment) That the SCRD Board direct staff to work with Metro Vancouver staff to arrange a public meeting in a suitable location/date/time and to assist with publicity. Recommendation No. 7 - Potential Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility at Port Mellon (Electoral Area F) (for comment) That the SCRD endeavors to engage in discussions with the Squamish Nation regarding the application of Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan.
4310
Recommendation No. 8 - Potential Metro Vancouver Waste-to-Energy Facility at Port Mellon (Electoral Area F) (for comment) That the project be considered as part of a comprehensive management plan for Howe Sound. 3.3 Woodfibre LNG and Eagle Mountain Gas Pipeline Update (for
information) In discussion of this item, the following concerns were noted:
- If the plant produces LNG using natural gas rather than electricity then carbon emissions will be high.
- Marine traffic in the Strait of Georgia is a significant source of air pollution. How will LNG tankers affect air quality? How might these effects be mitigated?
3.4 Salish Sea Coal Committee Delegation to the Board on Feb 27, 2014
(for information) In discussion of this item, the following concerns were noted:
- Coal dust sediments are deleterious to gill structures in fish and invertebrates.
- Coal dust will also eventually accumulate in intertidal zones. - Transportation of coal through inland waters remains a concern. - Conflict of interest of regulating body: Port Metro Vancouver’s role as
regulator and proponent of coal export is unresolved. - Stabilizers used to reduce the amount of coal dust dissipating from an
open barge may have harmful environmental effects. Information about potential toxicity is not available for some stabilizers - though common stabilizers such as latex and canola oil would be of limited concern.
3.5 Sunshine Coast Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (for
information) In discussion of this item, it was noted that the Action Plan and resulting land use policies and tools will be more likely to be adopted and applied by the SCRD if the SCRD is directly involved in the process of developing the plan.
5311
Recommendation No. 8 – Sunshine Coast Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (for information) That the SCRD continue to participate in and support the development of the Sunshine Coast Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. 3.6 ADD: License of Occupation for Shellfish Aquaculture Site
Expansion File 2408889 by Richard Fair on the bed of Telescope Passage, East of Hardy Island.
Decisions about individual applications for aquaculture development would be much easier if foreshore zoning were included in the OCP for Area A. Members of the Natural Resources Advisory Committee have concerns with the project including proximity to archeological sites, potential interference with recreational use and public access, potential destruction of foreshore habitat, lack of zoning, and intensifying commercial use in foreshore areas. Without further information with respect to the above concerns, it is difficult for the committee to recommend supporting the application. Shellfish aquaculture as proposed in this application is considered a relatively clean form of aquaculture and the Natural Resources Advisory Committee is not fundamentally opposed to this type of development. Recommendation No. 9 – ADD: License of Occupation for Shellfish Aquaculture Site Expansion File 2408889 by Richard Fair on the bed of Telescope Passage, East of Hardy Island. That the SCRD does not support the application at this time due to insufficient information. NEXT MEETING May 21, 2014 (7pm at Rockwood Lodge) ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Natural Resources Advisory Committee adjourned at 9:25
6312
Agricultural Advisory Committee March 25, 2014 3:30 pm Minutes of the meeting held in the Cedar Room of the Sunshine Coast Regional District Offices, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC
Present: Dale Peterson (Chair), Dawn Myers, Jon Bell, Gerald Rainville, Jade Bisson, Dennis Wilkinson, Dave Ryan, Katy Latham, Frank Roosen
Regrets: Margrett George, Martin Kiewitz Absent: Betty Hart, Peter Doig, Nicole Huska Also present: Rick Andrews for ALR No. E‐38 Darryl Youngman for MoTI #2014‐00555 Terry Youngman for MoTI #2014‐00555 Chris Zabec, Regional Agrologist, Agricultural Land Commission (via teleconference) Gregory Gebka, Planner David Rafael, Senior Planner
Diane Corbett, Recorder
Call to Order 3:31 pm 1. Agenda Adopted as amended. 2. Delegations
2.1 Rick Andrews regarding ALR Application No. E‐38 to redraw a lot line Mr. Rick Andrews, agent for the owner (Fawcett), explained that the ALR application was not a usual subdivision in that there would be the same number of lots resulting from the proposed subdivision, and the lots would become more usable. Mr. Andrews was concerned that the road allowance for West Reed Road not be taken by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, as land would be removed from the ALR. The Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission in the past had recommended putting Reed Road through; the Roberts Creek APC did not want to see West Reed Road go through. The Agricultural Land Commission did not want road allowance for West Reed removed from the ALR.
3. New Business 3.1 Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Application No. E‐38 for Subdivision (lot line
adjustment) in the ALR by Andrews for Fawcett for Block E, Plan 5758 and Block 3 Plan 3877, both in DL 903 (1624 Sunshine Coast Highway, Gibsons
Recommendation No. 1
That the Agricultural Advisory Committee concurs with the staff recommendation and has no concerns with the application.
ANNEX T
313
Sunshine Coast Regional District Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, March 25, 2014
2
3.2 Subdivision Application MoTI #2014‐00555 (Youngman, 706 Leek Road, Roberts Creek) Darryl Youngman and Terry Youngman were present to respond to inquiries about the application. Comments from members included: This has been going on for several years. It has gone to public meetings.
Everyone has said it is fine. Are the Youngmans aware of what is required to make farm gate? Staff noted the applicants were reviewing the covenants with lawyers. There is a requirement to provide a security credit or bond for performance, with a target to achieve Farm Class within a certain period, and to show they are actively farming. There is a covenant to have an area dedicated for farming, with no building on that.
Recommendation No. 2 That we accept the application as presented.
4. Reports and Minutes
4.1 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of January 28 and February 25, 2014 The meeting minutes of January 28 and February 25, 2014 were adopted.
4.2 Board Actions on Agricultural Issues Report
The staff report dated March 10, 2014 was received. Staff gave an update on the Food Policy Council, which has now been formed as a standalone committee under One Straw Society in order to be able to apply for funding.
Chris Zabec, ALC Regional Agrologist, joined the meeting at 4:15 via teleconference. 5. Business Arising From Minutes and Unfinished Business
5.1 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of January 28, 2014 Follow‐up on item 5.2: Staff advised that the Kwantlen Polytechnic University
research team on enterprise budgets in southwest BC was aware of the work on the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Plan and potential for initiating a Farmers Institute, and that there was a possibility they might hold a workshop this fall as part of or in addition to an AAC meeting.
Follow‐up on Recommendation No. 2: The contract with AAP consultants has lapsed. Staff has undertaken revisions to the Agricultural Plan, working with the AAC and others in the community. The intent is to bring forward a more readable, concise, contextual executive summary and identify projects where the SCRD has a lead role.
Members expressed concern about the lack of guidance or lack of clarification of Agricultural Land Commission Regulations regarding breweries in the Agricultural Land Reserve.
314
Sunshine Coast Regional District Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, March 25, 2014
3
Recommendation No. 3 That the AAC request the Board ask the Agricultural Land Commission to advise on the topic of breweries in the Agricultural Land Reserve and the requirements around brewery production in the ALR.
5.2 Draft Agricultural Area Plan (AAP) Review Comments
Staff gave a presentation on proposed modifications to the draft Plan. Potential “pilot” or “seed” projects were considered and debated, and members brainstormed ways to proceed with projects. Staff outlined a timeline to develop a re‐drafted Plan and proposed to forward a re‐draft to the Planning and Development Committee in June or July.
A compilation of feedback on the AAP received from referral agencies is available from staff upon request. Staff invited members to submit photos of their farm operation for the AAP document, or contact staff to advise of a farm operation willing to participate in their farm operation being photographed.
Recommendation No. 4
That a subtitle is placed under the title on the front page of the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Area Plan as follows: “To increase food production on the Sunshine Coast”.
Points raised in discussion on the economy of farming on the coast included:
In terms of supplying food to local retail grocers, the issues are supply and continuity. There is a challenge in providing an adequate and consistent supply to the retailer in light of a number of factors:
o Farmers tend to be in business for themselves (it is an issue of scale of production).
o Food production year round in this locale can be challenging due to winter light conditions.
o Farmers need to be able to afford the wholesale price offered by the retailer, and need to be able to compete with the imported food price. If the retailer has a sale and the farmer cannot compete, the farmer would need to sell the surplus elsewhere, such as off‐coast.
Existing farmers would benefit from access to low interest or interest free loans/ financial assistance and other support to obtain infrastructure and address other costs, and to produce more food. Financial institutions should get onboard.
Need to educate around farmers’ institutes and cooperative farming. There is more demand than what local farmers can supply. Importance of consumer awareness and education on building a local food
system. If you can get the consumer to demand the product, that is half the battle. Need educated customers to be willing to buy. The basis of economic development is consumption not production.
5.2.4 “Implementation Body” – Staff explained that an Implementation Body would need to be set up to: advance, monitor, evaluate and adjust the Plan; set out scope
315
Sunshine Coast Regional District Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, March 25, 2014
4
of work for establishing baselines for key indicators; set out scope of work for market (supply and demand) analysis; and review and recommend funding options. There is an opportunity while drafting the Plan to provide some terms of reference or guidance as to its structure.
What have other areas done in terms of Implementation Bodies? Chris Zabec remarked that it was variable throughout the province. It depends on the landscape and what exists in terms of infrastructure in the region. The local government wants to maintain a key ownership of the Plan; some pieces may be farmed out to an economic development advisory body, farmers’ institutes. Action: (Members) Consider and bring ideas for the next meeting: Who might be the representatives of an Implementation Body? Who will it report to? What is the best organizational strategy for this Implementation Body?
Mr. Zabec left the meeting at 5:54 p.m.
5.3 Recommendation regarding Elk Nuisance Issue – Deferred to next agenda
5.4 Potential regulations for smaller medical marihuana operations ‐ Update
Staff reported that the board recently adopted bylaws to limit medical marijuana production to RU2 and RU3 zones. There was recognition of the need to look at smaller facilities. A staff report on this will be forwarded to the April Planning and Development Committee.
5.5 Medical Marihuana regulations on effluent control from a processing facility ‐ No update
6. New Business
6.1 Potential Metro Vancouver Waste‐to‐Energy Facility at Port Mellon (Electoral Area F) The Staff Report dated March 14, 2014 regarding Potential Metro Vancouver Waste‐to‐Energy Facility at Port Mellon (Electoral Area F) was received for information.
6.2 Discussion on proposed Metro Vancouver waste incineration and potential effects on
agriculture Jade Bisson voiced concerns regarding possible impacts on agriculture, particularly in terms of air quality, in the potential event of a waste incinerator site at Port Mellon. Jade noted that even where she lives in Elphinstone she often could smell the mill, located near the proposed incineration site. Discussion ensued.
Recommendation No. 5 That the Sunshine Coast Regional District, as part of reviewing the Metro Vancouver project, requests further information on potential impacts on agriculture.
7. Next Meeting April 22, 2014 at 3:30 pm Adjourned 6:15 pm
316
Area ‘A’ Minutes March 26, 2014
PAGE1OF2
AREA 'A' MINUTES
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT REFERRALS ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PENDER HARBOUR SECONDARY SCHOOL, LIBRARY ROOM, MADEIRA PARK
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014 AT 7:00PM
Present: G. Craig (Chair), D. Burnham, J. McOuat, C. McEachern, A. Skelley, J. Dickin, A.
Thomson, F. Mauro (Area A Director) and C. Patterson (Secretary). Regrets: L. Falk, G. McBain, J. Hall, G. Park, and R. Metcalfe. Guests: D. Mulligan (for Belich) and S. Hansen of the SCRD Planning Dept. CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 P.M. MINUTES 1. Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of February 26, 2014 2. Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of March 3, 2014 3. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of February 26, 2014 4. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of February 25, 2014 5. Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of February 25, 2014 6. Planning and Development Committee Minutes of February 20, 2014 7. Special Planning and Development Committee Hillside Minutes of February 21, 2014 Motion: Moved by A. Thomson and seconded by J. Dickin To adopt the Minutes of February 26, 2014 for Area 'A' and to accept the balance of the minutes with thanks. PASSED BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 8. Development Permit with a Variance A-34 (Mulligan for Belich) An environmental study which described the location of water courses through the property
was a guiding factor in designating the proposed position of the garage in this application. Concerns were raised regarding the large size of the garage design, whether it might potentially be used as a residence, and if a smaller size would negate the need for a variance. Notice to the Strata Council and neighbours would need to be given.
Resolution: Moved by C. McEachern and seconded by J. McOuat We have concerns with allowing intrusion into the Riparian set-back area, the discretionary nature of the building, along with the size of the structure. Should the set-back variance be approved, the Strata Council will need to be notified, as well as the
ANNEX U
317
Area ‘A’ Minutes March 26, 2014
PAGE2OF2
property's neighbours. Some assurances by way of a covenant on title be imposed so as to not be used as a living dwelling. 3 in Favour, 3 Opposed Chairman cast deciding vote: DEFEATED Motion: Moved by A. Skelley and seconded by A. Thomson This APC has concerns with the issue of the set-back variation requested, however approval is recommended subject to the property owners confirming that a satisfactory covenant will be entered into to ensure that an additional dwelling unit will not be created thereby, and the receipt of confirmation from the Strata Council and neighbouring freehold landowners that they do not oppose the proposed development. 3 in Favour, 3 Opposed Chairman cast deciding vote: PASSED
9. Subdivision Application MoTI #2014-00660 (Gordon for Wright)
Road access has never been formally applied for by an easement to Lot B. This application is for a lot line adjustment to allow Lot B access to Shark Lane without needing to cross through their neighbour's property. A portion of Lot A will now be part of Lot B. Remainder 9 is a completely separate Lot with it's own civic address.
Motion: Moved by C. McEachern and seconded by J. McOuat We approve this application as presented. PASSED
10. License of Occupation for Shellfish Aquaculture Site Expansion File 2408889 by Richard Fair on the bed of Telescope Passage, East of Hardy Island.
Concerns were raised with the number of residential buildings in the proposed area. Factors to consider would be notification of local residents that may be impacted by the License, how much infrastructure would be involved, could residents still be able to construct approved docks, are navigatable waters still being maintained, and is recreational shellfish harvesting still possible. This committee commends this type of industry and would like to see it be successful on the Sunshine Coast.
DIRECTORS REPORT:
Budget Round 3 is complete. Focus on Economic Development was discussed. Water meter tenders are being received at this time. Oyster Bay subdivision application from last meeting has been deferred. The Medical Marajuana bylaw is proceeding with an eye on developments in the
Courts. NEXT MEETING: 7:00 p.m. on April 30, 2014 at the Library of the Pender Harbour Secondary School, 13639 Sunshine Coast Highway ADJOURNMENT: motion to adjourn at 8:45 P.M. by A. Skelley
318
Halfmoon Bay APC Advisory Group Coopers Green, Halfmoon Bay, BC
MINUTES OF TUESDAY, March 25, 2014
Chair Joan Harvey Ex Officio member Garry Nohr Recording Secretary Katrina Walters
1. Call to Order
Joan Harvey, chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Alternate Director Brian Smith was in attendance.
2. Agenda Motion: That the agenda be accepted as printed.
Carried Unanimously
3. Minutes
Minutes from the following meetings were received for information: 3.1 Area B- Halfmoon Bay APC Minutes none. 3.2 Area A- Egmont/Pender Harbour APC Minutes of Feb 26, 2014. 3.3 Area D- Roberts Creek APC Minutes of March 3,2014. 3.4 Area E- Elphinstone APC Minutes of Feb 26, 2014. 3.5 Area F- West Howe Sound APC Minutes of Feb 25, 2014. 3.6 Natural Resource Advisory Committee Minutes none. 3.7 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of Feb 25, 2014. 3.8 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of Feb 20, 2014 and Special
Planning and Development Committee Hillside Minutes of February 21, 2014.
Motion: That the above Area B minutes be accepted as discussed and that all other minutes be received for information only.
Carried Unanimously
4. Business Arising from Minutes and Unfinished Business 1. Motion:
That for convenience to APC members, the group requests to resume mailing agendas through the local Sechelt mail system, instead of the current pick-up arrangement at the general store.
PRESENT Ray Moscrip Joan Harvey Brian Smith Lorne Campbell Alda Grames Len Pakulak
REGRETS Ron Kernohan Elise Rudland Jay Corman Wendy Pearson Eleanor Lenz Walter Powell
SCRD STAFF
GUESTS
1
ANNEX V
319
Carried Unanimously 2. Glad that members at the previous meeting brought up that if the SCRD is going to mention anything about money, it needs to be done in the right context. 3. Feel that it is important to hold scheduled meetings regardless of there being an item on the agenda so that deferred items for comment do not miss cut-off-dates. 4. Guide to Edge Planning: we missed giving comments because the last meeting was cancelled. 5. Proposed Bylaw Amendment to zone for Medical Marijuana Production Facilities: at the last meeting (January) we voted to accept the government proposal…we didn’t provide comments.
6. Draft Agricultural Area Plan:
-This document is too long, too complicated, and there were a lot of ‘wish lists’ items that would require significant funds to get going; it is really easy to run up funds fast. -Resent money being spent on a document that is useless. -Comment about wildlife management: if people want to have animals, they should be required to fence them. -If they are, in fact, going to adopt this agricultural plan, there needs to be a reference to it in the OCP document. 7. Overview of the role of APC members and members of the community during APC meetings: 1. The purpose of the APC is to advise the SCRD. 2. In situations of conflict, members are to abstain from discussion and voting. 3. Applicants are entitled to attend to listen to deliberations and present information if they initiate contact through the SCRD. Other interested parties may also request the opportunity to present information by contacting the SCRD Planning Department. Any public member can attend to hear deliberations.
5. New Business
5.1 Subdivision Application MoTI #2014-00528 (Macdonald)
Motion: that we take no exception to the proposed subdivision application Not seconded but commented upon:
APC Comments/Concerns: -Didn’t see that the Sechelt Indian band was involved: this site contains midden. Originally there was no culvert there. There is leakage and flooding at certain times and the result is that the midden ends up at Mercer's Marina. -It used to be a fish-bearing creek. -It would be good to take the culvert out and build a bridge. -Not opposed to subdividing the lot into two lots as opposed to three. With two lots, each lot would have access to the road and a self-contained septic drain field. Three lots would burden each lot with too many restrictions. -Lot C will have to come through his own drain field to access his property. -Regarding concerns for First Nations, the APC has to question why the SCRD checked ‘no’ to ‘Registered Archaeological Site’ on the bottom of page 42 of the agenda package. -Request that the application be sent to the Sechelt Nations for review.
2320
Motion: The APC requests that the SCRD query the archaeology claim (or lack of archaeological claim) as well as clarify the intention of item 3.c. on page 43. Carried by Majority
6. Directors Report:
Director Garry Nohr was unable to attend and give the director’s report.
7. APC Committee Discussions/Requests: 1. Motion: that Area B APC supports the hospital name change from St Mary’s to
Shishalh. Carried by Majority Comments: -Believe that by renaming something as significant as the hospital, it is a small gesture that will show the First Nations our understanding. -We could send a letter to Gary. -There was a letter in the newspaper saying that the name St Mary’s derived from the former hospital in Pender, and that it was not the name of the Residential School.
2. Concern that our recreational facilities have not only been expensive, but in most cases, there are deficiencies, necessary renovations, and law suits. As a tax payer, there is concern about paying multi-million dollars and what appears to be significantly higher prices…have to query the stewardship of taxpayer's money. Concerned about how expensive recreational facilities have been initially, and how much it has cost us to make further changes so that facilities are useable.
8. Next Meeting
Tuesday, April 22, 2014, 7 PM.
9. Adjournment 8:09 PM ________________________ ____________________ Joan Harvey Date HMB APC Chairs
3321
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ROBERTS CREEK (AREA D) ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 31, 2014, 7:00 PM Roberts Creek Reading Room, 1044 Roberts Creek Road
Area D Minutes March 31, 2014 Page 1 of 1
Present: Jeffrey Abbott, Bill Page (Chair), Heather Conn, Marion Jolicoeur, Brock O'Byrne, Dana Gregory and Denise Woodley Also Present: Donna Shugar (Director), Stina Hanson (SCRD Planning Technician), and Diedra Goodwin (Recording Secretary) Regrets: Barry Morrow and Gerald Rainville Delegations: Darryl and Terry Youngman and Tom Groom
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:05
2. MINUTES 2.1 Roberts Creek (Area D) Minutes of March 3, 2014, were accepted as circulated (BO/DW) M/S/Carried
2.2 The following minutes were received for information:
2.2.1 Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of February 26, 2014 2.2.2 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of February 26, 2014 2.2.3 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of February 25, 2014 2.2.4 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of February 25, 2014 2.2.5 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of February 20, 2014 2.2.6 Special Planning and Development Committee Hillside Minutes of February 21, 2014
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ELECTION
3. 1 Nominations were opened for Vice Chair. Denise Woodley was acclaimed as Vice Chair.
4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Subdivision Application MOTI #2014-00555 for Lot 1, Block E DL 905 Plan 17707 located at 706 Leek Road, Roberts Creek by Terry Youngman for Daryl Youngman. MOTION: The APC supports the subdivision, subject to compliance with Bylaw 310. (DG/BO) M/S/Carried
4.2 Subdivision Application MOTI #2014-00761 for Lot 12, Block G DL 809 Plan VAP7877 located at 1031 and 1019 Stephens Road, Roberts Creek by Thomas Groom MOTION: The APC supports the subdivision application, subject to compliance with Bylaw 310. (JA/DG) M/S/Carried
5. The Director's Report was received.
6. Next meeting scheduled for 7:00 PM, April 28, 2014 at Roberts Creek Library, 1044 Roberts Creek Rd.
7. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.
ANNEX W
322
Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of the meeting held at Frank West Hall, Elphinstone, BC
March 26, 2014
Present: Alison Sawyer, Co‐Chair Regrets: Elizabeth Nordlund, Co‐Chair Rod Moorcroft Jim Gurney Rob Bone Alan Colleypriest Bob Morris Patrick Fitzsimons Director: Lorne Lewis Lynda Chamberlin Alt. Director: Laurella Hay Absent: Graham Chapman Secretary: Diane Corbett Delegation: Rick Andrews for ALR #E‐38
Call to Order 7:00 pm Agenda Adopted as presented. Minutes 1. Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of February 26, 2014
MOTION (RM/RB): THAT the February 26, 2014 minutes be adopted as circulated.
Carried Unanimously
2. The following minutes were received for information: Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, February 26, 2014 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, February 26, 2014 West Howe Sound (Area F) Minutes of February 25, 2014 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, February 25, 2014 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, February 20, 2014 Special Planning and Development Committee Hillside Minutes, February 21, 2014
Unfinished Business 3. Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.181 (Hage for Boettcher, 1157
Grandview Road) The staff report dated March 13, 2014 regarding the withdrawal by the applicant of DVP application No. 310.181, reviewed at the last meeting, was received for information.
Delegation 4. Mr. Rick Andrews for Fawcett, ALR No. E‐38 (for 1624 Sunshine Coast Highway)
Mr. Rick Andrews, representing the owner and neighbor (Fawcett), described a plan to join two lots together and reconfigure the lot line to make the lots more usable.
ANNEX X
323
Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 26, 2014 2
Mr. Andrews voiced concern that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) not take road allowance for West Reed Road through the middle of the newly configured lots. He noted that Area E APC in the past had recommended that Reed Road should go through, along the top of the properties. The Roberts Creek APC did not want West Reed Road to go through. Mr. Andrews pointed out a subdivision to the east of the subject properties that was an example of a situation where MoTI did not take allowance for West Reed Road.
New Business 5. Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Application #E‐38 for Subdivision (lot line adjustment) in
the ALR by Andrews for Fawcett for Block E, Plan 5758 and Block 3 Plan 3877, both in DL 903 (1624 Sunshine Coast Highway, Gibsons, BC)
MOTION (RM/BM): That we approve the subdivision as shown, with the recommendation that West Reed Road dedication be dropped in favor of Reed Road. It seems like a sensible land use move. Carried Unanimously
6. Subdivision Application MoTI #2014‐00448 (Penonzek for Johnson and Penonzek) for Lot Z
DL 909 Plan LMP24780 at 1282 Sunnyside Road, Gibsons, BC
The application was discussed previously when the APC considered subdivision options. The APC had considered the current layout as more in keeping with the neighbourhood than other options presented. Some people on Sunnyside had been concerned about having more traffic, but a road dedication is required with subdivision. One member thought it would be really nice in there. Planning staff recommendations for conditions to incorporate into the MoTI Preliminary Layout Approval met with APC approval.
MOTION (BM/RB): That we agree with the subdivision application as presented. Carried Unanimously 7. Director's Report
Director Lewis commented on the following topics: Access from Poplars Trailer Park to Harry Road Budget items Gibsons pool BC Ferries issues
Next Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2014 Adjournment 8:06 pm
324
West Howe Sound (Area F) Advisory Planning Commission March 25, 2014 Minutes of the meeting at Eric Cardinall Hall, Shirley Macey Park, West Howe Sound, BC
PRESENT: Fred Gazeley, Co-‐Chair Bruce Wallis Mike Comerford, Co-‐Chair Judith Kenly Ian Winn, Co-‐Chair
DIRECTOR: Lee Turnbull REGRETS: Leonie Croy GUEST: Dave Brackett SECRETARY: Diane Corbett
1. Call to Order
Co-‐Chair Fred Gazeley called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
2. Agenda The agenda was adopted.
3. Minutes 3.1 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, February 25, 2014 3.2 Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, February 26, 2014 3.3 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, March 3, 2014 3.4 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, February 26, 2014 3.5 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, February 25, 2014 3.6 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, February 20, 2014 3.7 Special Planning and Development Committee Hillside Minutes, February 21,
2014
MOVED by Judith Kenly, SECONDED by Bruce Wallis, THAT the minutes noted above be received for information purposes.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED by Judith Kenly, SECONDED by Mike Comerford, THAT the West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2014 be approved with the following amendment: change date in header on page 1 to “February 25, 2014”.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOVED by Judith Kenly, SECONDED by Mike Comerford, THAT the West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission requests further information on the new Water Sustainability Act.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY It was noted member Charlie Collura had resigned due to schedule conflicts.
ANNEX Y
325
West Howe Sound (Area F) Advisory Planning Commission – March 25, 2014 Meeting Minutes
2
4. Unfinished Business and Business Arising from Minutes
4.1 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes of February 21, 2014
Director Turnbull responded to members’ inquiries about the February 21st meeting on economic development at Hillside Industrial Park and regional economic development. Director Turnbull commented that people move here because of the lifestyle and that economic development should not negatively impact that; technology-‐related businesses and advanced education were examples of low impact businesses. The challenges of development at Hillside were discussed.
4.2 Agricultural Area Plan Follow-‐Up
Agricultural development is an area that the SCRD Board considers an important aspect of economic development. The Board is looking for ideas that have potential to move forward and that people would be interested in. The Planner will be compiling submitted comments on the Agricultural Area Plan (AAP) into a report. Members concurred that water is an important issue to consider in regards to agriculture, and is a common theme in the feedback on the AAP from Advisory Planning Commissions, and that chickens should not be permitted in R1 zone in West Howe Sound/Area F due to the high density of residential development in that zone.
5. Director’s Report
Director Turnbull reported on the following items:
• We are looking for new members. • Howe Sound Community Forum • Incineration proposal of Metro Vancouver • Budget • Recycling • Woodfibre LNG proposal
6. Next Meeting
The next scheduled Area F Advisory Planning Commission meeting is on April 22, 2014 at 7:00 pm at Eric Cardinall Hall, Shirley Macey Park, 930 Chamberlin Road, West Howe Sound, BC.
7. Adjournment 8:15 p.m.
326
RECEIVEOAutumn Ruinat 7n14From: Sherry ReidSent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:18 PM
‘F AMNLSTRATIVE kTo: Autumn Ruinat CnrFFlCER _JSubject: FW: Feb. 21st Webinar Follow up - next steps
Attachments: 2U14-O7-21 CEAWebinar Presentation.pdf; CEF newsletter_edition 01_2014-02 (1).pdf; CEFOverview Report_2014-02-24 (1).pdf; Forum Feb. 2014 Webinar Report.pdf; QA followingHSCF meeting on 2014-01-14.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged
From: Howe Sound Community Forum [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: March-15-14 3:21 PMSubject: Feb. 21st Webinar Follow up - next steps
Dear Howe Sound Community Forum Members,
Please find attached the following:
• A new backgrounder and a newsletter on the Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF), just released by the Province— provided by Kai Elmauer, Director of Communications for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and NaturalResources (FLNRO)
• Summary of the February 21, 2014 webinar, including your questions, prepared by Facilitator Susan Abs. (TheFLNRO team will send a written version of the responses they provided during the webinar in the next couple ofweeks.) Questions and Answers from the January 14th Forum are also resent for your reference.
• A copy of the Powerpoint presentation delivered by Kai Elmauer during the webinar.
The Future of Howe Sound Society website has links to current and previousmaterials. http://futureofhowesou nd .or/cam paiqns/emerqinq-opportunity-for-howe-sou nd/
Future of Howe Sound Society is seeking indications of interest from communities, stakeholder groups and FirstNations to further explore the possible benefits of applying the Cumulative Effects Framework to HoweSound. There is a window of opportunity for 2014 and expressions of interest, which are not binding, can be sentby return to this email address or, infocfutureofhowesound.org.
The draft goals and agenda for the planned May 2, 2014 Forum Workshop on Vision and Values for Howe Sound revisedafter webinar will follow. The May 2nd Forum Workshop is planned for Friday May 2nd, 10:00- 4:00 p.m. at Totem Hall inSquamish. A co-host with Squamish Nation is needed to help cover costs of facilitation.
Thank you for your continued interest and once again thank you Islands Trust and the Local Trustees for their support inhosting the Webinar.
Ruth Simons 604 921-6564 778 834-4292 Assisting:
Howe Sound Community Forum Established in 2002
To provide aforum for local governments, Regional Districts and First Nations discussion to maintain andenhance the economic, environmental, cultural and social well being of the Howe Soundfor the benefit ofpresent andfuture generations.
1
ANNEX Z
327
Ad
dre
ssing C
um
ulative
Effects
in N
atura
l Re
sou
rce D
ecisio
n-M
akin
g
A Fra
me
wo
rk fo
r Su
ccess
CEF O
verview R
ep
ort Feb
ruary 2
014
328
329
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | iii
Table
of C
on
ten
ts
Table o
f Co
nte
nts .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... iii
Intro
du
ction
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Wh
at are Cu
mu
lative Effects? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Wh
y Do
We N
eed to
Co
nsid
er Cu
mu
lative Effects? ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Wh
at Will th
e Cu
mu
lative Effects Framew
ork A
chieve
? .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Co
mm
on
Un
derstan
din
g of th
e Cu
rrent C
on
ditio
n o
f Valu
es........................................................................................................ 2
Co
mm
on
Un
derstan
din
g of Tren
ds ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Op
en A
ccess to C
urren
t Info
rmatio
n o
n C
on
ditio
n an
d Tren
d o
f Key V
alues ............................................................................... 3
Inte
ragency C
ollab
oratio
n an
d R
eview
......................................................................................................................................... 4
Wh
at is requ
ired to
imp
lemen
t a Cu
mu
lative Effects Framew
ork? ............................................................................................................................. 5
Co
re Elemen
ts of th
e CEF ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Valu
es Fou
nd
ation
......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Assessm
ent .................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Decisio
n Su
pp
ort ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Mo
nito
ring ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Enab
ling Elem
ents o
f the C
EF ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Organ
ization
al Req
uirem
ents ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
Co
mm
un
ication
s and
Engagem
ent .............................................................................................................................................. 1
0
Po
licy and
Legislation
................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Linkages to
Oth
er Initiatives ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1
A R
oad
map
for P
hased
Imp
lemen
tation
..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Sum
mary ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
3
330
331
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 1
Intro
du
ction
British
Co
lum
bia h
as a wealth
of n
atural
resou
rces that p
rovid
e sub
stantial
econ
om
ic and
social b
enefits. Th
is po
ten
tial is clearly illu
strated b
y the in
creasing
nu
mb
er and
diversity o
f pro
po
sed activities
that th
e Pro
vince co
nsid
ers on
a daily b
asis. P
ote
ntial, h
ow
ever, can o
nly b
e realized if
the fu
ll range o
f resou
rce use im
pacts is
con
sidered
and
mu
ltiple d
eman
ds fo
r the
same lan
d b
ase are effectively man
aged to
su
stain b
enefits, m
ovin
g away fro
m a secto
r fo
cused
app
roach
and
tow
ards a m
ore
inte
grated fo
rm o
f resou
rce man
agemen
t.
Tod
ay’s resou
rce man
ager mu
st make
decisio
ns th
at sup
po
rt sustain
able
man
agemen
t and
the n
eed
s of m
any
differen
t users. Th
is requ
ires an
un
derstan
din
g of th
e curren
t and
histo
ric co
nd
ition
of p
riority valu
es, as well as
curren
t and
foresee
able fu
ture d
eman
ds
on
tho
se values.
The P
rovin
ce is imp
lemen
ting a C
um
ulative
Effects Framew
ork (C
EF) to en
han
ce th
e eco
no
mic an
d so
cial ben
efits derived
from
w
ise resou
rce use w
hile p
rovid
ing th
e o
pp
ortu
nity to
assist with
the go
al of
imp
rovin
g enviro
nm
ental o
utco
me
s.
The C
EF inclu
des p
olicy, p
roced
ures an
d
decisio
n su
pp
ort to
ols d
esigned
to im
pro
ve th
e assessmen
t and
man
agemen
t of cu
mu
-lative e
ffects in n
atural reso
urce d
ecision
-m
aking in
B.C
. It is a key elemen
t of
Integ
rated
Decisio
n-M
aking
and
the N
atural
Reso
urce Secto
r Transfo
rmatio
n. Th
e CEF is
inte
nd
ed to
sup
po
rt and
streamlin
e the
existing w
orkflo
ws rath
er than
rep
lace them
.
This d
ocu
men
t describ
es wh
y it is imp
ortan
t to
con
sider cu
mu
lative effects and
wh
at the
expected
ou
tcom
es and
ben
efits of
cum
ulative effects assessm
ent an
d
man
agemen
t are. It then
prese
nts th
e fram
ewo
rk, inclu
din
g the co
re elemen
ts of C
E assessm
ent an
d en
ablin
g elem
ents su
ch as
com
mu
nicatio
n an
d en
gagemen
t, and
lays o
ut a ro
adm
ap fo
r ph
ased im
plem
entatio
n.
Wh
at are C
um
ulative
Effects?
Cu
mu
lative effects are chan
ges to
econ
om
ic, enviro
nm
ental an
d so
cial values
caused
by th
e com
bin
ed effect o
f presen
t, p
ast and
reason
ably fo
reseeable actio
ns o
r even
ts. Actio
ns o
r events can
have
either
po
sitive or n
egative effects o
n valu
es.
Cu
mu
lative effects assessmen
t en
ables an
u
nd
erstand
ing o
f the co
nd
ition
of selected
valu
es and
estimates th
e chan
ging risk to
ach
ieving d
esired levels o
f con
ditio
n fo
r each
value b
eing assessed
.
Wh
y Do
We
Ne
ed to
Co
nsid
er C
um
ulative
Effects?
Cu
mu
lative effects can create real co
sts th
rou
gh u
nin
ten
ded
imp
acts to eco
no
mic,
enviro
nm
ental an
d so
cial values, o
nero
us
and
length
y perm
itting p
rocesses, co
nflicts
amo
ng ten
ure h
old
ers, and
requ
iremen
ts fo
r corrective actio
ns.
Mo
st auth
orizatio
ns an
d p
ermits are fo
r sm
all pro
jects that are n
ot cu
rrently
assessed
for cu
mu
lative effects and
u
nin
ten
ded
imp
acts can accu
mu
late. The
Enviro
nm
ental A
ssessmen
t Office co
nsid
ers cu
mu
lative effects in large p
rojects, b
ut
becau
se the d
eman
d fo
r access to n
atural
resou
rces is grow
ing rap
idly an
d th
e con
text
for n
ew d
evelop
men
t is beco
min
g mo
re co
mp
lex, there is an
acute n
eed
to
Figure
1. D
efin
ition
, Pro
ble
m, So
lutio
n, a
nd
Be
ne
fits.
332
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 2
efficiently an
d co
nsisten
tly assess the
imp
act of all p
rojects, sm
all and
large.
New
op
po
rtun
ities con
tinu
e to em
erge (e
.g., green en
ergy develo
pm
ent, ad
ventu
re to
urism
), marke
ts fluctu
ate dram
atically (e
.g., gas, lum
ber, go
ld), p
ub
lic expectatio
ns
con
tinu
e to evo
lve, and
regio
nal an
d glo
bal
pro
cesses are altering lan
dscap
es and
creatin
g un
certainty (e.g., m
ou
ntain
pin
e b
eetle, clim
ate chan
ge).
There is an
ob
ligation
, sup
po
rted b
y recent
cou
rt decisio
ns, to
con
sider cu
mu
lative im
pacts to
Ab
origin
al and
treaty rights
wh
en m
aking d
ecision
s arou
nd
reso
urce
use an
d allo
cation
.
The P
rovin
ce has in
itiated a n
um
ber o
f actio
ns to
imp
rove th
e con
sistency an
d
efficiency o
f cross-secto
r natu
ral resou
rce m
anagem
ent an
d d
ecision
-makin
g inclu
din
g:
The re
-alignm
ent o
f mo
st natu
ral reso
urce
min
istries to b
etter integrate
land
m
anagem
ent au
tho
rity (i.e., FLNR
O);
Develo
pin
g a coo
rdin
ated, ad
min
istrative an
d re
gulato
ry framew
ork an
d asso
ciated
system
s integratio
n fo
r resou
rce use
d
ecision
-makin
g, thro
ugh
an In
tegra
ted
Decisio
n-M
akin
g In
itiative
; and
,
Develo
pin
g a CE Fram
ewo
rk to in
tegrate
cum
ulative effects assessm
ent an
d
man
agemen
t into
existin
g bu
siness
pro
cesses and
decisio
n m
aking.
Wh
at Will th
e C
um
ulative
Effects Fram
ew
ork A
chie
ve?
Legal and
po
licy ob
jectives describ
e the
desired
ou
tcom
es society w
ants fo
r natu
ral reso
urce valu
es. The C
EF bu
ilds o
n th
ose
o
bjectives an
d e
nab
les man
agemen
t action
s th
at will m
aintain
or resto
re the co
nd
ition
o
f values co
nsiste
nt w
ith existin
g ob
jectives. It fu
rther p
rovid
es the o
rganizatio
nal
structu
res to e
nsu
re inte
ragency
collab
oratio
n o
n m
anagem
ent actio
ns, an
d
too
ls for o
pen
access to cu
mu
lative effects in
form
ation
for clien
ts, the p
ub
lic and
d
ecision
makers.
Co
mm
on
Un
de
rstand
ing o
f the
C
urre
nt C
on
ditio
n o
f Valu
es
A co
mm
on
un
derstan
din
g of th
e curren
t co
nd
ition
of valu
es is vital con
text fo
r reso
urce d
ecision
-makin
g, and
is a fou
nd
a-tio
nal req
uirem
ent fo
r cum
ulative
effects assessm
ent. W
hile
info
rmatio
n o
n th
e sp
atial zon
es and
ob
jectives for each
value
is typically availab
le tod
ay, info
rmatio
n
abo
ut th
e curren
t con
ditio
n as it relates to
o
bjectives is n
ot.
For valu
es that h
ave existing o
bjectives, th
e cu
rrent co
nd
ition
is assessed u
sing a risk
framew
ork th
at evaluates th
e risk of n
ot
meetin
g ob
jectives. Figure 2
illustrates
examp
les of an
assessmen
t’s ou
tpu
t map
s.
Risk ratin
gs for M
ule D
eer rep
resent th
e risk of n
ot
meetin
g ob
jectives estab
lished
for m
ule d
eer
un
gulate w
inter ran
ge u
nd
er the Fo
rest and
Ran
ge P
ractices Act.
Sedim
ent risk ratin
gs refer
to th
e risk of an
increased
am
ou
nt, freq
uen
cy or
du
ration
of sed
imen
t-gen
erating even
ts in a
catchm
ent, asso
ciated
with
resou
rce road
use.
Visu
al Qu
ality risk ratings
express th
e risk of n
ot
meetin
g existing V
isual
Qu
ality Ob
jectives estab
lished
un
der th
e Fo
rest and
Ran
ge P
ractices Act.
You
th u
nem
plo
ymen
t (1
5-2
4 years o
f age) is an
imp
ortan
t ind
icator
for so
cial and
econ
om
ic w
ell-bein
g and
pro
vides
imp
ortan
t con
text for
NR
S decisio
ns.
Figure
2. Exam
ple
s of o
utp
ut m
aps fro
m an
assessm
en
t of cu
rrent co
nd
ition
for se
lecte
d va
lue
s.
333
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 3
Figure
3. Exam
ple
of a re
po
rt card in
dicatin
g risk and
tren
d asso
ciated
with
seve
ral value
s.
Co
mm
on
Un
de
rstand
ing
of Tre
nd
s
Iden
tification
of tren
ds in
the co
nd
ition
of
values is a key co
mp
on
ent o
f a CEF. H
aving
kno
wled
ge of th
e past co
nd
ition
of a valu
e is n
eed
ed to
iden
tify the tren
d in
con
ditio
n
of a valu
e over tim
e. Forecastin
g futu
re d
evelop
men
t and
its imp
lication
s for valu
es is critical to
iden
tify risk, and
to d
evelop
strate
gies to m
itigate un
inten
ded
imp
acts. A
variety of to
ols can
be u
sed in
forecastin
g, fro
m e
xpert-b
ased p
rojectio
ns to
spatially
explicit sim
ulatio
n m
od
elling. In
general,
the least in
ten
sive meth
od
to gen
erate fo
recasts of su
fficient p
recision
and
co
nfid
ence w
ill be u
sed.
Op
en
Acce
ss to C
urre
nt
Info
rmatio
n o
n C
on
ditio
n an
d
Tren
d o
f Ke
y Valu
es
A key o
bjective o
f the C
EF is to b
ring
togeth
er and
pro
vide o
pen
access to
the
mo
st curren
t info
rmatio
n o
n th
e con
ditio
n
and
trend
of key valu
es. CE asse
ssmen
t rep
orts an
d asso
ciated m
aps w
ill be p
ub
licly availab
le, and
enab
le pro
po
nen
ts to p
re-
screen
their o
wn
pro
po
sed p
rojects an
d
prep
are perm
it app
lication
s that are align
ed
with
govern
men
t’s ob
jectives. The in
for-
matio
n w
ou
ld b
ecom
e integral to
the in
itial review
and
statusin
g of p
rop
osed
pro
jects an
d tran
saction
s by N
RS staff, an
d p
rovid
e co
mm
on
baselin
e info
rmatio
n fo
r Statuto
ry D
ecision
Makers to
con
sider an
d m
anage
risks associate
d w
ith
pro
po
sed p
rojects
and
auth
orizatio
ns.
First Natio
ns an
d
stakeho
lders can
also
use th
e info
rmatio
n
to m
on
itor th
e co
nd
ition
of valu
es in
their o
wn
areas of
inte
rest.
Figure
s 4 an
d 5
. Examp
le o
f a hyp
oth
etica
l "Valu
es
Scree
n". Th
e fo
otp
rint o
f a pro
po
sed
pro
ject (re
d)
is analyze
d w
ith re
spe
ct to its im
pact o
n M
ule
De
er
Un
gulate
Win
ter R
ange
. Co
lou
rs ind
icate th
e re
lative
man
agem
en
t risk; i.e., o
range
and
yello
w in
dicate
w
he
re o
bje
ctives are
no
t curre
ntly b
ein
g me
t, wh
ile
gree
n in
dicate
s wh
ere
the
y are. Th
e m
ap
pro
vide
s sp
atial info
rmatio
n, th
e d
iagram re
flects tre
nd
s.
334
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 4
Interage
ncy C
ollab
oratio
n
and
Re
view
Mitigatin
g imp
acts that are id
entified
thro
ugh
cu
mu
lative effects assessmen
t is mo
st effective if ad
dressed
collectively an
d co
nsisten
tly by all
agencies issu
ing au
tho
rization
s and
perm
its.
The b
est mech
anism
to en
sure in
teragen
cy co
ord
inatio
n is a regio
nal team
tasked w
ith
reviewin
g risks iden
tified in
a cum
ulative effects
assessmen
t. Such
a team w
ou
ld d
evelop
co
mm
on
guid
ance fo
r all statuto
ry decisio
n-
makers to
avoid
, min
imize, resto
re or o
ffset risks.
The in
teragen
cy review team
may id
entify an
d
make reco
mm
end
ation
s to ad
dress im
pacts
that can
no
t be ad
dresse
d ad
equ
ately at th
e p
roject level. Fo
r examp
le, it co
uld
recom
men
d:
to revise regu
lation
s or p
olicy th
at are co
nstrain
ing d
evelop
men
t un
nece
ssarily or in
a m
ann
er con
trary to so
cio-eco
no
mic go
als;
to d
evelop
requ
iremen
ts for n
ew o
r revised
ob
jectives to e
nsu
re sou
nd
stew
ardsh
ip o
f reso
urces; o
r
to co
nd
uct ad
ditio
nal an
alyses that
migh
t be req
uired
to b
etter characterize
sho
rt- or lo
ng-te
rm risks to
values, su
ch as
climate ch
ange, m
ou
ntain
pin
e bee
tle, or
glob
al trend
s in co
mm
od
ity markets.
Figure
6. Lin
king M
anage
me
nt to
Risk.
Skeen
a Vo
lcano
Ph
oto
: Jared H
ob
bs
So
uth
East BC
Ph
oto
: Kai Elm
auer
335
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 5
Figure
7. C
ore
Elem
en
ts of C
EF and
gen
eralize
d w
orkflo
w.
Wh
at is requ
ired to
imp
lem
ent a
Cu
mu
lative Effe
cts Frame
wo
rk?
Figure 7
and
the sectio
ns th
at follo
w d
escribe
the co
re elemen
ts of th
e CEF an
d p
rovid
e a gen
eral wo
rkflow
for th
e cu
mu
lative effects
assessmen
t pro
cess. Ad
ditio
nal elem
ents
that are n
ecessary for e
nab
ling e
ffective im
plem
entatio
n are also
describ
ed.
Co
re Ele
me
nts o
f the C
EF
Valu
es Fou
nd
ation
A first step
for im
plem
entin
g the C
EF is to
bu
ild th
e values fo
un
datio
n. Th
is inclu
des:
a) id
entifyin
g a prio
rity set o
f values an
d
associate
d o
bjectives;
b) co
nfirm
ing th
e meth
od
s for assessm
ent;
c) id
entifyin
g and
collatin
g data; an
d
d) co
nfirm
ing th
e app
rop
riate geograp
hic
areas for cu
mu
lative effects assessm
ent
and
repo
rting w
ithin
each
Regio
n.
a) Id
en
tifying a p
riority se
t of va
lue
s and
asso
ciated
ob
jective
s
Valu
es will b
e con
sistent acro
ss the p
rovin
ce, excep
t wh
ere region
al differen
ces warran
t variatio
n (e.g., d
ifferent p
riority fish
and
w
ildlife sp
ecies). The fo
llow
ing criteria are u
sed
to id
entify an
d p
rioritize valu
es selected
for
cum
ulative effects assessm
ent fo
r an in
itial p
hase o
f imp
lemen
tation
:
Valu
es that h
ave legal or p
olicy o
bjectives in
existin
g legislation
, land
use p
lans, o
r oth
er fo
rms o
f man
agemen
t directio
n.
Valu
es iden
tified in
strategic agreemen
ts with
First N
ation
s, or o
therw
ise iden
tified as
sup
po
rting an
Ab
origin
al or treaty righ
t.
Valu
es that can
be m
app
ed an
d h
ave ro
bu
st existin
g data.
This fo
cus d
oes n
ot su
ggest that th
e oth
er values
are no
t imp
ortan
t; rather, th
ey are add
ressed
thro
ugh
existin
g pro
ject review p
rocesses.
336
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 6
Valu
es
Co
mp
on
en
ts Existin
g Ob
jective
s
Fore
st Ecosyste
m B
iod
iversity
You
ng, m
ature an
d o
ld seral
forest rep
resen
tation
FR
PA
De
fault P
rovin
cial Old
Gro
wth
Ob
jectives FR
PA
/OG
AA
Land
Use O
bjective
s for o
ld, m
ature an
d
early seral fore
st repre
sentatio
n
Rip
arian Eco
system
s R
iparian
ecosystem
con
ditio
n
FRP
A &
OG
AA
Rip
arian O
bjective
s
Wate
r Qu
antity an
d Q
uality
Peak flo
w risk
Low
flow
risk Sed
imen
t risk
FRP
A &
OG
AA
Water O
bjectives
Draft P
rovin
cial Water O
bjective
s in W
ater Su
stainab
ility Act
BC
Water Q
uality G
uid
elines an
d W
ater Qu
ality O
bjectives
Air Q
uality
Airsh
ed co
nd
ition
Fed
eral Air Q
uality O
bjective
s
Prio
rity Fish an
d W
ildlife
Spe
cies
Grizzly b
ear po
pu
lation
M
ule d
eer hab
itat and
po
pu
lation
M
oo
se hab
itat C
aribo
u h
abitat
Fish h
abitat
Land
Use P
lan O
bjective
s / Grizzly b
ear recovery
strategy FR
PA
Un
gulate w
inter ran
ge ob
jectives Lan
d U
se Plan
ob
jectives
Sou
th P
eace No
rthern
Carib
ou
Imp
lemen
tation
Plan
Visu
al Qu
ality
Visu
al qu
ality FR
PA
/ LUO
Visu
al Qu
ality Ob
jectives
Cu
ltural H
eritage
Re
sou
rces
Cu
ltural h
eritage reso
urce co
nd
ition
FR
PA
/OG
AA
Ob
jectives fo
r Cu
ltural H
eritage Re
sou
rces
Re
sou
rce C
apab
ility Tim
ber h
arvestin
g land
base b
y level o
f con
straint
FRP
A Tim
ber O
bje
ctives Fo
rest Act O
bjective
s
Econ
om
ic We
llbe
ing
Cro
wn
reven
ue
s, investm
ent cap
ital, eco
no
mic d
iversity, labo
ur su
pp
ly/dem
and
Th
ere may n
ot b
e explicit legal o
r po
licy ob
jectives fo
r th
ese value
s the sam
e as tho
se value
s iden
tified ab
ove,
ho
wever b
est availab
le info
on
status an
d tren
d w
ill be
used
to p
rovid
e imp
ortan
t con
text for n
atural reso
urce
s d
ecision
-makin
g.
Social W
ellb
ein
g Em
plo
ymen
t, po
pu
lation
, inco
me,
edu
cation
, com
mu
nity p
articipatio
n
Table
1: In
itial V
alu
es. C
om
po
ne
nts an
d Existin
g Ob
jective
s
Initial valu
es reco
mm
end
ed fo
r the C
EF are id
entified
in Tab
le 1, ab
ove. V
alues sh
ou
ld
be as b
road
as po
ssible to
allow
the n
esting
of fin
e-scale valu
es with
in th
em, fo
r
examp
le, old
-grow
th d
epen
den
t species
sho
uld
be n
ested
un
der fo
rest ecosystem
b
iod
iversity. A
dd
ition
al values th
at do
n’t
meet th
ese criteria to
day, i.e., th
ere are no
existing o
bjectives o
r data to
sup
po
rt assessm
ent, b
ut are d
eemed
imp
ortan
t for
cum
ulative effects assessm
ent, m
ay be
inte
grated o
ver time.
337
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 7
b)
Co
nfirm
ing th
e m
eth
od
s for asse
ssme
nt
Clearly d
efinin
g and
do
cum
entin
g the
meth
od
s for asse
ssing th
e con
ditio
n an
d
trend
of e
ach valu
e is imp
ortan
t for
ensu
ring tran
sparen
cy, and
for en
ablin
g co
ntin
uo
us im
pro
vemen
t of asse
ssmen
t m
etho
ds o
ver time. K
ey steps fo
r defin
ing
assessmen
t meth
od
s for e
ach valu
e inclu
de:
collatin
g existing o
bjectives o
r oth
er relevan
t man
agemen
t directio
n;
iden
tifying m
anagem
ent targets an
d
triggers that are reco
mm
end
ed o
r ap
pro
ved as p
olicy d
irection
to trigger
defin
ed m
anagem
ent resp
on
ses; and
iden
tifying b
est available in
form
ation
(e.g scien
ce, exp
ert op
inio
n, lo
cal and
trad
ition
al kno
wled
ge) regardin
g the
po
ten
tial risk to a valu
e at differen
t levels o
f con
ditio
n, as n
eeded
to id
entify
man
agemen
t targets and
triggers.
iden
tifying co
mp
on
ents an
d in
dicato
rs fo
r assessing e
ach valu
e;
Ob
jectives that are cu
rrently e
stablish
ed in
legislatio
n o
r land
use p
lans typ
ically d
escribe a d
esired fu
ture co
nd
ition
for a
value, b
ut d
on
’t always p
rovid
e a m
easurab
le target con
ditio
n. Fo
r the
pu
rpo
se of cu
mu
lative effects assessmen
t,
it is necessary to
interp
ret a measu
rable
‘man
agemen
t target’ and
ideally o
ne o
r m
ore ‘m
anagem
ent triggers’ to
pro
vide
early warn
ing sign
als as risks increase, an
d
trigger app
rop
riate man
agemen
t respo
nses.
Iden
tification
of b
est available in
form
ation
an
d m
etho
ds fo
r assessmen
t can b
e un
der-
taken
by in
ternal staff w
ith th
e expertise in
each
value, an
d/o
r thro
ugh
exp
ert wo
rk-sh
op
s that e
nab
le collab
oratio
n w
ith First
Natio
ns, stake
ho
lders an
d o
ther extern
al ex p
erts.
Term
ino
logy
De
finitio
n
Valu
es
The th
ings th
at the p
eop
le and
govern
men
t of B
ritish C
olu
mb
ia care abo
ut an
d see
as imp
ortan
t fo
r assurin
g the in
tegrity an
d w
ell bein
g of th
e pro
vince’s p
eop
le and
com
mu
nities, eco
no
mies,
and
eco
logical system
s, as iden
tified
in existin
g legislation
, po
licy and
/or lan
d u
se plan
s, and
o
ther agreem
ents.
Ob
jective
s D
esired co
nd
ition
of valu
es ob
tained
from
existing legislatio
n, p
olicy an
d/o
r land
use p
lans, an
d
oth
er agreemen
ts. Ob
jectives may b
e describ
ed in
a qu
alitative or q
uan
titative man
ner.
Co
mp
on
en
ts A
ttribu
tes o
f the n
atural reso
urce system
that sh
ou
ld b
e measu
red, m
anaged
, and
main
tained
to
ensu
re the in
tegrity of valu
es.
Ind
icators
The m
etrics used
to m
easure an
d re
po
rt on
the co
nd
ition
and
trend
of a co
mp
on
ent an
d / o
r the
pro
cess(es) im
pactin
g a com
po
nen
t.
Man
agem
en
t Targets M
easurab
le levels of an
ind
icator th
at reflect a legal or p
olicy o
bjective.
Man
agem
en
t Triggers M
easurab
le levels of an
ind
icator th
at trigger a man
agemen
t action
.
Table
2. Te
rmin
olo
gy and
de
finitio
ns.
338
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 8
c) Id
en
tifying an
d co
llating th
e d
ata re
qu
ired
for asse
ssme
nt
Two
types o
f info
rmatio
n are req
uired
to
sup
po
rt cum
ulative effects assessm
ent:
qu
antitative d
ata to su
pp
ort th
e assessm
ent o
f selecte
d valu
es; and
co
ntextu
al info
rmatio
n th
at pro
vides in
sight
into
bro
ad so
cial, econ
om
ic and
en
viron
men
tal trend
s.
Info
rmatio
n to
assess th
e curren
t, past an
d
po
ten
tial futu
re con
ditio
n o
f each
value is
inte
rprete
d fro
m existin
g inven
tory
info
rmatio
n an
d fro
m d
ata collecte
d
thro
ugh
existin
g mo
nito
ring p
rogram
s. Exam
ples o
f inven
tories in
clud
e V
egetation
R
esou
rce Inven
tory, e
cosyste
m m
app
ing,
ow
nersh
ip an
d ten
ures in
form
ation
, hab
itat cap
ability an
d su
itability m
app
ing. Exam
ples
of m
on
itorin
g pro
grams in
clud
e FREP
, wate
r q
uality m
on
itorin
g, visual q
uality,
bio
dive
rsity, riparian
and
cultu
ral heritage
resou
rce value m
on
itorin
g. Site level m
on
itorin
g data is p
articularly im
po
rtant fo
r valid
ating an
d im
pro
ving m
od
els for
inte
rpretin
g the co
nd
ition
of valu
es from
b
road
inven
tory in
form
ation
.
Co
ntextu
al info
rmatio
n ab
ou
t bro
ad so
cial, eco
no
mic an
d e
nviro
nm
ental tren
ds can
in
clud
e marke
t pro
jection
s for e
ach
econ
om
ic sector, in
dicato
rs of so
cial and
eco
no
mic w
ellbein
g, and
climate ch
ange
pro
jection
s.
To su
pp
ort C
E assessm
ent fo
r any given
area, th
e best availab
le info
rmatio
n n
eed
s to
be id
entified
and
collated
, and
p
roced
ures fo
r perio
dic u
pd
ate o
f values
datasets co
nfirm
ed. R
ecom
men
ded
action
s to
add
ress key gaps o
r limitatio
ns in
existing
data id
entified
thro
ugh
dem
on
stration
p
rojects are id
entified
in th
e Actio
n P
lan.
d)
De
finin
g the
geo
graph
ic scale at w
hich
a cu
mu
lative e
ffects asse
ssme
nt is co
nd
ucted
Cu
mu
lative effects assessmen
ts can b
e co
nd
ucte
d an
d re
po
rted
at differen
t geo
graph
ic scales – rangin
g from
a watersh
ed
to a lan
dscap
e to a su
b-regio
n o
r regio
n. Th
e geo
graph
ic area selected fo
r CE assessm
ent
can vary d
epen
din
g up
on
the valu
es to b
e assesse
d an
d th
e natu
re of in
du
strial d
evelop
men
t in th
e area. Ho
wever, a sin
gle su
b-regio
nal scale assessm
ent is co
nsid
ered
the m
ost co
st-effective app
roach
for
perio
dically evalu
ating th
e cum
ulative effects
of all p
rop
osed
pro
jects and
activities. Existin
g Natu
ral Reso
urce D
istricts or
Strategic Land
Use P
lann
ing areas are
generally co
nsid
ered th
e mo
st effective ad
min
istrative un
its for th
is.
Assessm
en
t
Bro
ad-scale cu
mu
lative effects assessmen
ts u
se existing d
ata for a d
efined
geograp
hic
area to id
entify th
e curren
t con
ditio
n o
f valu
es relative to o
bjectives, an
d to
iden
tify cu
rrent an
d em
erging risks b
ased o
n
foresee
able activities an
d tren
ds
info
rmatio
n.
The assessm
ent o
f current con
ditio
n is
fou
nd
ation
al, and
pro
vides an
ind
ication
of
the cu
rrent level o
f risk to ach
ieving stated
o
bjectives fo
r each valu
e. Histo
ric imp
acts fro
m h
um
an an
d n
atural d
isturb
ances are
con
sidered
and
factored
into
the
assessmen
t of cu
rrent level o
f risk. This
assessmen
t alon
e can p
rovid
e valuab
le co
ntext fo
r ind
ividu
al resou
rce decisio
ns.
An
assessm
ent o
f foreseea
ble fu
ture
con
ditio
n th
en co
nsid
ers the p
oten
tial cu
mu
lative effects of all reaso
nab
ly fo
reseeab
le activities in th
e near te
rm. Th
is can
range fro
m a q
ualitative, exp
ert assessm
ent o
f existin
g trend
s info
rmatio
n to
a q
uan
titative assessmen
t of th
e imp
acts of
foresee
able activities at a selected
po
int in
tim
e in th
e futu
re. This assessm
ent is critical
for id
entifyin
g emergin
g issues o
r risk, and
for
triggering p
roactive m
itigation
measu
res to
add
ress adverse cu
mu
lative effects.
339
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 9
In so
me
cases an assessm
ent o
f lon
ger term
scen
ario
s of reso
urce d
evelop
men
t and
n
atural d
isturb
ances, an
d o
ther clim
ate ch
ange
-ind
uced
eco
logical ch
anges, m
ay be
requ
ired to
sup
po
rt strategic p
lann
ing an
d
decisio
n-m
aking fo
r a selected
area. Futu
re sce
nario
s may b
e qu
alitatively assessed, o
r u
se q
uan
titative mo
dellin
g too
ls.
De
cision
Sup
po
rt
To effectively su
pp
ort d
ecision
-makin
g, th
e resu
lts of cu
mu
lative effects assessmen
t n
eed
to b
e synth
esized an
d m
ade e
asily accessib
le and
un
derstan
dab
le for key
clients, in
clud
ing d
ecision
-makers, staff,
develo
pm
ent p
rop
on
ents an
d First N
ation
s.
In co
nju
nctio
n w
ith th
e Integ
rated
Spa
tial
an
d System
s Strateg
y for Integ
rated
D
ecision
Ma
king
, wo
rk is un
derw
ay to
iden
tify the ap
pro
priate
too
l(s) to p
rovid
e o
pen
access to C
E assessmen
t info
rmatio
n
to clien
ts, decisio
n-m
akers an
d th
e pu
blic,
and
to en
able e
ffective integratio
n o
f CE
assessmen
t info
rmatio
n in
to d
ecision
-m
aking p
rocesses. Th
e too
l(s) to ad
dress
these
requ
iremen
ts are inten
ded
to p
rovid
e easy acce
ss to th
e follo
win
g info
rmatio
n
(at min
imu
m):
map
ped
locatio
n o
f key values b
eing
mo
nito
red an
d assesse
d fo
r cum
ulative
effects;
curren
t con
ditio
n an
d tren
d fo
r these
valu
es, reflected
in ‘risk m
aps’ fo
r each
value an
d in
tabu
lar data; an
d
relevant o
bjectives, m
etho
ds an
d
assum
ptio
ns u
sed in
the assessm
ent o
f valu
es.
A vital asp
ect of d
ecision
sup
po
rt for C
EF im
plem
entatio
n is th
e need
for co
mm
on
reco
mm
end
ation
s and
strategies fo
r Statu
tory D
ecision
Makers to
add
ress cu
mu
lative effects and
com
mo
n
app
roach
es to m
itigating im
pacts.
Develo
pin
g the stru
ctures n
eed
ed to
su
pp
ort th
is are a prio
rity of th
e CEF, an
d
are describ
ed in
the n
ext section
.
Mo
nito
ring
Reso
urce m
on
itorin
g and
inven
tory
info
rmatio
n are fu
nd
amen
tal to th
e CEF,
and
the q
uality an
d e
ffectiveness o
f cu
mu
lative effects assessmen
t is high
ly d
epen
den
t up
on
the q
uality an
d cu
rrency o
f th
e data availab
le for assessm
ent in
each
area. This is n
ot ab
ou
t creating a C
EF sp
ecific mo
nito
ring p
rogram
; rather,
existing m
on
itorin
g pro
grams w
ill be
leveraged to
mo
nito
r com
plian
ce, im
plem
entatio
n an
d effectiven
ess to
sup
po
rt CEF im
plem
entatio
n. O
f critical im
po
rtance w
ill be lin
kages to th
e new
N
atural R
esou
rce Sector in
tegrated
m
on
itorin
g app
roach
.
Enab
ling Ele
me
nts o
f the
CEF
Organ
ization
al Re
qu
irem
ents
Imp
lemen
ting a su
ccessful C
EF is abo
ut fu
lly in
tegratin
g cum
ulative effects assessm
ent
and
man
agemen
t into
bu
siness p
rocesses
for th
e Natu
ral Reso
urce Secto
r.
Ke
y roles an
d resp
on
sibilities fo
r CEF
imp
lemen
tation
inclu
de:
strategic lead
ership
at the D
irector level in
each
Regio
n o
f FLNR
O an
d in
the
Steward
ship
and
Ecosystem
Divisio
ns o
f FLN
RO
and
Mo
E respectively;
staff respo
nsib
le for co
ord
inatin
g CE
assessmen
ts in e
ach regio
n, an
d fo
r p
rogram
coo
rdin
ation
at the d
ivision
al level;
sub
ject matte
r experts / cu
stod
ians fo
r each
value to
defin
e meth
od
s for
assessmen
t, review assessm
ent resu
lts and
su
pp
ort co
ntin
uo
us im
pro
vemen
t;
geosp
atial and
assessmen
t expertise
to
un
dertake d
ata collatio
n, an
alysis and
m
anagem
ent;
com
mu
nicatio
ns an
d en
gagemen
t exp
ertise, and
sho
rt-term reso
urcin
g co
mp
lete ou
tstand
ing p
olicy an
alysis.
Succe
ssful im
plem
entatio
n also
requ
ires in
teragen
cy collab
oratio
n. In
teragen
cy te
ams o
f sen
ior reso
urce m
anagers n
eed
to
be id
entified
for each
Regio
n, u
sing e
xisting
340
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 1
0
structu
res wh
ere po
ssible, an
d taske
d w
ith
a man
date fo
r overseein
g CEF im
plem
ent-
tation
, reviewin
g assessmen
ts and
d
evelop
ing gu
idan
ce for statu
tory d
ecision
m
akers to avo
id, m
inim
ize, restore o
r o
ffset imp
acts.
At th
e pro
vincial level, a stee
ring co
mm
ittee
com
prised
of th
e strategic lead
s (region
al an
d p
rovin
cial), and
oth
er key reso
urce
man
agers inte
gral to ch
amp
ion
ing an
d
resou
rcing im
plem
entatio
n acro
ss the N
RS
sector, w
ill be im
po
rtant fo
r en
ablin
g d
esired levels o
f con
sisten
cy and
effectiven
ess in im
plem
entatio
n acro
ss th
e Pro
vince.
Wh
ile the e
stablish
me
nt o
f govern
men
t ro
les and
resp
on
sibilities is an
initial p
riority
for C
EF imp
lemen
tation
, the id
entificatio
n
of p
ote
ntial ro
les and
respo
nsib
ilities for
extern
al organ
ization
s will b
e vital for
successfu
l imp
lemen
tation
over th
e lon
g-te
rm. O
pp
ortu
nities fo
r increased
co
llabo
ration
and
partn
ership
with
First N
ation
s, ind
ustry an
d o
ther e
xternal p
arties w
ill con
tinu
e to b
e exp
lored
- particu
larly in
the areas o
f mo
nito
ring an
d d
ata collectio
n.
Co
mm
un
ication
s and
En
gagem
en
t
Co
mm
un
ication
and
engagem
ent w
ith
natu
ral resou
rce sector staff an
d d
ecision
makers as w
ell as external stakeh
old
ers, the
p
ub
lic and
First Natio
ns is fu
nd
amen
tal to
effective imp
lemen
tation
of th
e CEF.
Engagem
ent activities to
date
have co
nfirm
ed
a high
level of su
pp
ort fo
r a CEF, an
d
significan
t inte
rest in fu
rthe
r en
gagemen
t an
d co
llabo
ration
in its d
evelop
men
t and
im
plem
entatio
n.
Extensio
n an
d train
ing fo
r natu
ral resou
rce staff w
ill be a p
riority fo
r initial
imp
lemen
tation
of th
e CEF. C
on
tinu
ed
en
gagemen
t with
First Natio
ns an
d
stakeho
lders w
ill a critical part o
f:
th
e evaluatio
n o
f existin
g CEF o
peratio
nal
trials;
th
e develo
pm
ent o
f pro
vincial p
olicy,
stand
ards an
d p
roced
ures fo
r assessmen
t an
d G
IS systems an
d to
ols; an
d,
th
e perio
dic assessm
ent o
f each b
road
scale area.
Po
licy and
Legislatio
n
Initial im
plem
entatio
n o
f a CEF can
mo
ve fo
rward
in th
e sho
rt term, w
itho
ut m
ajor
legislative or regu
latory ch
anges. H
ow
ever, th
ere is a need
for ad
ditio
nal p
olicy an
alysis an
d d
evelop
men
t to su
pp
ort effective an
d
imp
lemen
tation
in th
e lon
g term, in
clud
ing a
com
mo
n set o
f measu
rable o
bjectives fo
r all secto
rs, and
new
or am
end
ed regu
lation
to
add
ress curren
t regu
latory b
arriers.
Mo
un
tain C
arib
ou
P
ho
to: Jared
Ho
bb
s
341
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 1
1
Linkage
s to O
the
r Initiatives
The C
EF is intricately lin
ked
with
a nu
mb
er o
f oth
er curren
t and
emergin
g initiatives
across th
e natu
ral resou
rce secto
r.
NR
S Transfo
rmatio
n an
d In
tegrate
d
De
cision
Makin
g (IDM
): Th
e assessmen
t and
man
agemen
t of
cum
ulative effects is an
integral p
art of
the visio
n fo
r IDM
. Co
llabo
ration
is o
ngo
ing to
ensu
re that th
e requ
iremen
ts fo
r CEF im
plem
entatio
n are in
tegrated
in
to th
e too
ls, systems, p
rocess an
d
legislation
curren
tly un
der d
evelop
men
t as p
art of th
e NR
S Transfo
rmatio
n
Initiative th
at will en
able ID
M.
Land
and
Re
sou
rce Plan
nin
g: P
lann
ing an
d C
E assessmen
t are intricate
ly lin
ked
. The C
EF is bu
ilt on
the fo
un
datio
n
of valu
es and
ob
jectives iden
tified
thro
ugh
existin
g land
use p
lans, an
d w
ill p
rovid
e an im
po
rtant m
echan
ism fo
r assessin
g the co
nd
ition
of valu
es relative to
plan
ob
jectives. Bro
ad scale C
E assess-m
ent m
ay iden
tify geograp
hic areas an
d
values th
at are a prio
rity for fu
rther
plan
nin
g at strategic or tactical levels, to
id
entify so
lutio
ns to
iden
tified risks an
d
info
rm trad
e-o
ff decisio
ns th
at are re
qu
ired.
Re
sou
rce O
bje
ctives:
Co
mm
on
, measu
rable o
bjectives are co
re to
an effective C
EF. Reco
mm
end
ation
s for
new
or revised
ob
jectives to su
pp
ort C
E assessm
ent sh
ou
ld b
e con
sidered
in th
e p
roject u
nd
erway to
review cu
rrent
reso
urce o
bjectives an
d co
nsid
er o
pp
ortu
nities fo
r an im
pro
ved o
bjectives
framew
ork to
sup
po
rt integrated
d
ecision
-makin
g.
Inte
grated
Re
sou
rce M
on
itorin
g. Th
e qu
ality and
curren
cy of availab
le data
are critical for th
e qu
ality and
effectiven
ess of cu
mu
lative effects
assessmen
t. The C
EF do
es no
t requ
ire the
initiatio
n o
f a new
mo
nito
ring p
rogram
; rath
er the re
qu
iremen
ts for assessin
g cu
mu
lative effects will fo
rm a key
com
po
nen
t of n
atural reso
urce secto
r m
on
itorin
g and
kno
wled
ge man
agemen
t. Th
e CEF p
roject w
orks clo
sely with
the
NR
S Inte
grated M
on
itorin
g Initiative to
en
sure th
e qu
ality and
curren
cy req
uirem
ents fo
r data fo
r cum
ulative
effects assessmen
t are met.
Pro
po
sed
Wate
r Sustain
ability A
ct. Th
e CEF w
ill be in
tegral to
sup
po
rting
the p
rop
osed
Wa
ter Susta
ina
bility A
ct, sp
ecifically the P
rovin
cial Wate
r O
bjectives an
d su
pp
ort fo
r the d
evelop
-m
ent o
f Watersh
ed Su
stainab
ility Plan
s.
Enviro
nm
en
tal Mitigatio
n P
olicy:
Info
rmatio
n fro
m th
e CEF aro
un
d th
e cu
rrent co
nd
ition
and
trend
of valu
es relative to
ob
jectives will allo
w d
ecision
m
akers to id
entify risks th
at can b
e ad
dressed
thro
ugh
mitigatio
n an
d th
e level o
f mitigatio
n req
uired
. Wh
ere m
itigation
is requ
ired, th
e En
viron
men
tal M
itigation
Po
licy will p
rovid
e pro
po
nen
ts an
d d
ecision
make
rs with
a con
sisten
t ap
pro
ach to
the ap
plicatio
n o
f mitigatio
n.
Clim
ate Ch
ange A
dap
tation
. C
E assessmen
t and
climate
chan
ge ad
aptatio
n sh
are similar go
als for
sustain
able n
atural re
sou
rces/values an
d
info
rmed
natu
ral resou
rce decisio
ns th
at avo
id u
nd
esired im
pacts to
values. Effo
rts to
sup
po
rt climate ch
ange ad
aptatio
n,
especially su
b-regio
nal assessm
ents o
f the
imp
acts of clim
ate chan
ge on
eco
systems
and
resou
rce values, w
ill be vital
info
rmatio
n to
sup
po
rt CE assessm
ents at
all levels. Bro
ad-scale cu
mu
lative effects
assessmen
ts of fo
reseeable fu
ture
con
ditio
n an
d lo
nger-te
rm scen
arios w
ill p
rovid
e a form
al mech
anism
for
con
siderin
g bo
th th
e sho
rt- and
lon
g-term
im
pacts o
f climate ch
ange o
n reso
urce
values, as w
ell as the in
teractive effects o
f clim
ate chan
ge and
natu
ral resou
rce d
evelop
men
t on
resou
rce values.
342
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 1
2
A R
oad
map
for
Ph
ased Im
ple
me
ntatio
n
On
ce it is fully im
plem
ented
, the C
EF will
enab
le perio
dic assessm
ent an
d m
anagem
ent
of cu
mu
lative effects in each
bro
ad scale
area, as a regular p
art of n
atural reso
urce
sector b
usin
ess. Imp
lemen
tation
will n
ot
hap
pen
overn
ight h
ow
ever. Rath
er, it will b
e a few
year jou
rney to
re-align
reso
urcin
g and
d
evelop
the o
rganizatio
nal cap
acity, po
licy, an
d an
alytical too
ls requ
ired fo
r effective im
plem
entatio
n.
A p
hased
app
roach
is necessary to
balan
ce th
e nee
d fo
r sho
rt-term
imp
lemen
tation
fo
cused
on
values an
d areas o
f high
est p
riority, w
ith th
e nee
d fo
r region
al, p
rovin
cial, and
exte
rnal co
llabo
ration
to
develo
p p
rovin
cial stand
ards, p
olicy an
d to
ols
for co
nsisten
t and
effective imp
lemen
tation
o
ver the lo
ng-term
.
The in
itial ph
ase of im
plem
entatio
n (A
pril
20
14
to M
arch 2
01
6) w
ill be fo
cused
on
the
follo
win
g:
co
mp
leting an
d evalu
ating cu
rrent C
EF o
peratio
nal trials, an
d su
pp
ortin
g im
plem
entatio
n in
decisio
n-m
aking in
th
ese areas;
co
mp
leting C
E assessmen
ts curren
tly u
nd
erway o
r pro
po
sed in
oth
er prio
rity areas acro
ss the p
rovin
ce;
d
evelop
ing th
e values fo
un
datio
n fo
r a co
re set o
f values acro
ss the p
rovin
ce;
d
evelop
ing p
rovin
cial and
region
al stan
dard
s and
pro
cedu
res for assessm
ent;
estab
lishin
g organ
ization
al capacity, ro
les an
d re
spo
nsib
ilities;
co
nfirm
ing to
ols fo
r data m
anagem
ent,
access an
d an
alysis, as part o
f NR
S tran
sform
ation
;
co
mp
leting p
olicy an
alysis and
reco
mm
end
ation
s for regu
latory
amen
dm
ent; an
d
en
gaging w
ith First N
ation
s and
stakeh
old
ers for th
e evaluatio
n o
f existing
trials and
the im
plem
entatio
n o
f the
pro
vincial fram
ewo
rk.
In th
e secon
d p
hase o
f imp
lemen
tation
, from
A
pril 2
016
on
ward
s, the fram
ewo
rk will b
e exp
and
ed to
all region
s of th
e pro
vince.
Perio
dic C
E assessmen
ts will kee
p th
e in
form
ation
up
dated
. With
capacity, to
ols an
d
resou
rcing in
place C
E assessmen
t info
rmatio
n
will b
e a regular e
lemen
t of d
ecision
-makin
g in
the N
atural R
esou
rce Sector.
343
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
Page | 1
3
Sum
mary
The C
um
ulative Effects Fram
ew
ork p
rovid
es a m
ajor ad
vance fo
r inte
grated reso
urce
man
ageme
nt in
British
Co
lum
bia an
d is a
fun
dam
en
tal elem
en
t of In
tegra
ted D
ecision
-M
akin
g fo
r the N
atural R
esou
rce Sector. T
he
CEF su
pp
orts n
atural reso
urce d
ecision
-m
akers with
the kn
ow
ledge n
ecessary to
make w
ell info
rme
d d
ecision
s and
achieve
sustain
able reso
urce m
anagem
en
t. R
eso
urce m
anagers w
ill have a b
etter
un
derstan
din
g of th
e con
ditio
n o
f prio
rity valu
es and
an estim
ate of th
e chan
ging risk to
ach
ieving th
e ob
jectives for e
ach valu
e bein
g assessed
. Regio
nal, in
ter-agen
cy com
mitte
es are ke
y to im
plem
en
ting th
e frame
wo
rk and
w
ill pro
vide ad
vice and
recom
men
datio
ns to
su
pp
ort d
ecision
-makers.
This w
ill result in
bette
r en
viron
me
ntal
ou
tcom
es an
d in
creased eco
no
mic an
d so
cial b
enefits fo
r com
mu
nities an
d th
e pro
vince.
Page | 1
3
Ad
dre
ssin
g C
um
ula
tive
Effe
cts
in N
atu
ral R
eso
urc
e D
ecis
ion
-Makin
g:
A F
ram
ew
ork
for S
uccess
For m
ore
info
rmatio
n p
lease
con
tact C
um
ulative
Effects@
gov.b
c.ca
344
CE Newsletter Issue 01 – February 2014
Page | 1
What is the Cumulative Effects Framework?
The Framework includes policy, procedures
and tools that will enable periodic
assessment of cumulative effects at a broad,
strategic scale—rather than on a project-by-
project basis. Cumulative effects
assessments indicate the current condition
and trend of a select set of environmental,
social and economic values in relation to
existing management objectives. Resulting
maps and reports provide a consistent
foundation for natural resource clients and
decision-makers to ensure new resource
development proposals are aligned with
government’s objectives.
The framework supports the management
of cumulative effects by establishing inter-
agency accountability for reviewing the
assessments and identifying mitigation
actions to address emerging risks.
Why the Province Wants a Cumulative Effects Framework
The Cumulative Effects Framework is a key
component of the province’s vision for
integrated resource management and
decision-making. The framework provides a
balanced approach where cumulative effects
are assessed and managed and supports the
province’s goals to develop B.C.’s land and
resources in a sustainable manner.
By providing clients with ‘up front’ access to
better information on the baseline condition
of key values and clear expectations for
project assessment and mitigation, individual
resource development project reviews will
cost less and can be completed faster. By
assessing values of interest to First Nations,
the Framework can provide better
information regarding potential impacts to
Aboriginal and treaty rights and make
consultation processes more effective.
I S S U E
MONTH YEAR
00
news
The Province has been developing a new approach and tools for assessing and
managing cumulative effects in B.C.—known as the Cumulative Effects Framework.
Under the joint leadership of the Ministries of Environment and Forests, Lands and
Natural Resource Operations, the framework approach was defined, tested in
regional demonstration projects and evaluated to assess the implications of
provincial implementation. Phased implementation of the framework will begin in
Spring 2014.
Phased Implementation of the Cumulative Effects Framework Begins
ISS
UE
February
2014 01
In this issue
What is the Cumulative Effects Framework? 1
Why the Province wants a CE Framework 1
CE 101: Procedures for assessment and management 2
Initial values for CE assessment 2
A focus on broad scale assessment 3
Open access to CE information 3
A roadmap for the phased implementation 4
Teaming up to address CE 4
Cumulative effects are changes to economic, environmental and social values on the landscape caused by the combined effect of present, past and reasonably foreseeable human actions or natural events.
345
CE Newsletter Issue 01 – February 2014
Page | 2
CEF 101: Procedures for Assessment and Management
The Cumulative Effects Framework identifies consistent procedures for
assessing and managing cumulative effects in each assessment area.
They are as follows:
1. Define Values
A strategic set of values are
defined (see list below), existing
management objectives for each
value are identified and methods
for assessment are confirmed and
documented.
2. Assemble Data
Data related to all natural
resource uses are assembled to
assess the current condition of
the identified values. Information
is updated regularly and shared
with government staff, First
Nations, communities, and
industry stakeholders.
3. Identify Trends
Important economic, social and
environmental trends are
identified, including the likely
future impacts on values.
4. Assess & Report
A cumulative effects assessment of all
identified values is completed using
the best available data and trends
information. The assessment
compares the condition of each value
to existing management objectives
both now and in the foreseeable
future. Government is taking a lead in
the assessment and will solicit input
from First Nations, communities and
industry stakeholders.
5. Review & Recommend
An interagency team reviews the
cumulative effects assessment report
and may develop recommendations
for mitigating emerging risks at the
operational level (e.g. permit
conditions) or strategic level (e.g.
further analysis, strategic planning,
revise or set new objectives).
Assessment reports and mitigation
strategies are provided to statutory
decision makers and clients to
provide a consistent foundation
for decision making on resource
development projects.
Initial Values for Cumulative Effects Assessment
An initial set of provincially consistent values for cumulative effects assessment have been identified based on insights from
demonstration projects. Key criteria guiding the selection of values included existing legal or policy management
objectives, relevance for Aboriginal and treaty rights, and data availability. Fish and wildlife species will continue to be
confirmed for each region, with priority given to species with legal management objectives and recovery strategies, and
species that are important for supporting Aboriginal and treaty rights, such as hunting, fishing and trapping.
Forest Ecosystem Biodiversity Visual Quality Economic Wellbeing
Riparian Condition Cultural Heritage Community Wellbeing
Water Quality and Quantity Fish and Wildlife Resource Capability (e.g. Timber)
Air Quality
346
CE Newsletter Issue 01 – February 2014
Page | 3
A Focus on Broad Scale Assessment
The Cumulative Effects Framework proposes broad
scale assessment units that are largely aligned with
strategic land use planning areas as the basis for
periodic assessment, reporting, and management
of cumulative effects.
Government, industry and academia agree that
cumulative effects are most effectively addressed
at a broad, sub-regional scale. Impacts from
development and natural processes interact in
complex ways and, over time, seemingly marginal and
localized effects can accumulate and have unintended
consequences at a landscape level. Understanding the
condition and trend of values more broadly is vital to
determine the signficance of site-level impacts, and to
support effective management.
Broad-scale assessment makes good business sense as well. By proactively assessing cumulative effects at a broad scale,
better information on baseline conditions and expectations for project assessment and mitigation can be provided up
front to all clients, reducing the time spent reviewing individual projects.
“Our view is that the main focus of Cumulative Impact Assessment should be regional,
with efforts directed to how best to deal with risk and uncertainty
using clearly articulated and measurable objectives.”
BC Business Council, Environment and Energy Bulletin, Vol. 4, #6, Nov 2012
Open Access to Cumulative Effects Information
Access to information on the condition and trend
of values will be provided in cumulative effects
assessment reports, maps for each value and
spatial data linked to client interfaces such as
FrontCounter BC.
The NorthEast Water Tool (NEWT) is a good example
of a tool that gives public access to up-to-date
information on the condition of one value —
water quantity. For more details visit
http://geoweb.bcogc.ca/apps/newt
Preliminary CE
Assessment Units
Water Quantity –
Current Allocation
North East Water Tool
0% 3% 6% 9% 12%
347
CE Newsletter Issue 01 – February 2014
Page | 4
Coming up
CEF Implementation Plans Work is currently underway to confirm plans for provincial and regional implementation starting in 2014/15. More information will be shared soon.
Communications and Engagement Further information and opportunities for input and engagement will be confirmed soon.
This is the first in a series of regular updates on implementing the cumulative effects framework. How did we do?
We welcome your feedback. Please email us at
Teaming up to Address Cumulative Effects
An initial priority for the Cumulative Effects Framework implementation
is to establish the roles and responsibilities across government’s natural
resource sector agencies. This will make assessing and managing
cumulative effects a regular part of government’s business procedures
supporting integrated decision-making.
Equally important is the need for effective engagement with First
Nations and stakeholders — who have indicated strong support for the
need for a cumulative effects framework. Engagement will be a key part
of trial evaluation and developing provincial standards and tools and in
the periodic assessment of each broad scale area. The Ministries of
Environment and Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations are
exploring partnership opportunities — particularly for collaborating in
monitoring and data collection.
A Roadmap for the Phased Implementation
When it is fully implemented, the
framework will allow assessment and
management of cumulative effects as a
regular part of business for
government’s natural resource sector
agencies. Implementation will take a
few years to re-align resources and
develop the organizational capacity,
policy and analytical tools required to
become fully effective.
A phased approach is necessary to
balance the need for short-term
implementation focused on values and
areas of highest priority, with
the need for collaboration to develop
provincial standards, policy and tools
for consistent and effective
implementation over the long-term.
348
1
HOWE SOUND COMMUNITY FORUM
WEBINAR - hosted by the Islands Trust
Provincial Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) & Planning for May 2014 Workshop on Vision & Values
February 21, 2014, 9:30-11:30
PARTICIPANTS: 40 participants, including local government officials and staff from 10 communities, and community organizations as observers.
ORGANIZERS: Aleksandra Brzozowski, Jan Hagedorn, Kate-Louise Stamford, David Beeston, with support from Ruth Simons, Future of Howe Sound Society, and the participation of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO), including Kai Elmaur, Communications Coordinator for the CEF project team and Jeff Juthans, Land and Resource Specialist for FLNRO South Coast Region.
GOAL: To learn more about the B.C. Government’s “Cumulative Effects Framework” (CEF) being proposed as a management planning tool for Howe Sound, and begin to design a productive and focused Vision and Values Workshop on May 2nd, 2014.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To allow B.C. Government staff to present more information on the CEF, share responses to key
Forum questions and comments from the January meeting and answer additional questions. 2. To provide comments on a draft outline for a Forum “Vision and Values” workshop in May.
CONTEXT FOR THE WEBINAR: On January 14th, the Forum spent most of its time hearing about the Provincial Government response to the Forum’s request to senior governments for comprehensive land and marine planning for Howe Sound. MLA Jordan Sturdy and staff of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) presented the BC Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF) as a possible tool for Forum consideration. See the meeting summary here: http://futureofhowesound.org/campaigns/howesoundfuture/howesoundfuture/ After the meeting, all questions raised by participants were sent to the FLNRO team, who then prepared a “Forum CEF Q & A Part 1” document outlining Provincial responses to the questions. FLNRO also sent a report to the Forum on how the CEF is being used in North-eastern BC. At the February 21st webinar, Kai Elmauer of FLNRO did a presentation clarifying aspects of the CEF, with a focus on the questions raised at the January meeting. Forum members then had another opportunity to ask questions and hear responses. These questions are summarized on page 2 below, along with a several questions from the January meeting that still need clarification.
At the January meeting, Forum members also agreed that a useful next step would be to hold a “Visions and Values Workshop” to show continued local government commitment and leadership, and to support their request for senior government collaboration and resources for Howe Sound management planning in fiscal year 2013/14. The aim of the May 2014 workshop is to identify common vision and values as a foundation for further collaboration, possibly using the CEF and other tools. Workshop discussions will build on the results of the April 2013 “Future of Howe Sound Forum”, and other planning and management initiative in the area. Draft workshop Goals and Objectives were presented at the webinar for Forum feedback, revised in response to suggestions, and are listed on page 4 below, along with a very draft agenda. Please send additional feedback to [email protected] by March 24th, 2014.
349
2
WEBINAR AGENDA TIME TOPIC
9:30-9:40 Welcome & Opening
9:40 – 10:20 CEA Framework: Presentation and Q & A - Forum members’ response
10:20-10:35 Draft Outline for May Forum Workshop: Presentation & Feedback
10:35-11:10 Additional time for questions & discussion of Next Steps
WEBINAR QUESTIONS – GROUPED BY TOPIC
The FLNRO team will outline provincial responses to the more technical questions below in a “Forum CEF Q and A – Part 2”, to be sent later in March. Questions on process and how the CEF might be used in Howe Sound will be addressed during further discussions between FLNRO and the Forum.
A. Impacts of a CEA on decision-making?
How will decisions be made differently after a CEA process is completed – at provincial, regional and municipal levels?
Is there a legislative component to a CEA? What legislative outcomes could come as a result of the CEA information, e.g., could it be to preserve and protect certain areas in Howe Sound? Could it be used as a basis for zoning for tourism, industry, conservation?
What impacts could a CEA have on current development initiatives in Howe Sound, particularly plans to log two new woodlots on Gambier and proposals for a gravel mine at McNab, a possible garbage incinerator and an LNG operation at Woodfibre?
Could the goal of creating a marine and land management plan be realized through the CEA process? (Is this a replacement for an LRMP?)
B. What’s included in the CEA process?
What are the opportunities for creating new objectives that aren’t included within current provincial legal policy objectives?
How are species and ecosystems at risk (SEAR) incorporated into a CEA? This is a federal government program with provincial and regional implications.
What is the value that captures local interests in a CEA, i.e., the people who live in this place – Howe Sound? (Activities in Howe Sound affects people – these affected people, local governments and First Nations have “Primacy of Place”.)
Can we see any results from the pilot projects, including any marine data? Are there specific time frames for the assessment process?
Is there a reasonable amount of time that stakeholders can expect the assessment will take? (Timing is key so we can be proactive not reactive to proposed activities and land use decisions.)
Once the CEA is developed and being reviewed, what roles are possible for the Forum (collective of elected officials representing the local interests of citizens) and the public?
C. How are values treated in a CEA?
In terms of environmental values, who is responsible for pulling together baseline studies/information to show the current status of any species or ecosystem?
Who decides what species or ecosystems to “value”? Is there a draft list of marine values that the province is working with? NOTE:
The Sea to Sky Habitat Atlas ( 2003/04) has an excellent baseline of environmental data for Howe Sound http://cmnbc.ca - includes Provincial & Federal data plus local government and community based information.
Are values in the assessment weighted, e.g., is a biodiversity value, or a threatened species value,
350
3
considered equal to a water quality, visual quality or employment value? In generating these “heat maps”, is each overlapping value considered to have a value of 1? If this is the case, is there a way for regions to suggest that some values are greater than others?
This CEA framework sample is organized from a resource extraction point of view; would it be useful to organize it from a parks, conservation or recreation point of view?
Additional questions from January Forum meeting that still need to be addressed during future discussions between FLNRO and the Forum.
How will the CEA be resourced? Who makes the [eventual] decisions? It’s an assessment but who decides [on each step] within
the CEA process? The process may include public consultation but what if identified local/regional values are not
“in synch” with provincial and federal policies/directions? What are the science and research components of a CEA, if any?
What quantitative methods are used for analysis? How is research funded as part of a CEA?
What is done to monitor and evaluate the results of the CEA?
351
4
HOWE SOUND COMMUNITY FORUM
Vision and Values Workshop – May 2, 2014, 10:00 – 4:00 pm
DRAFT AGENDA #2, March 13, 2014 – revised based on February feedback
GOAL: To identify a common vision, goals and values to be used as the foundation for a focused management planning process for Howe Sound.
OBJECTIVES:
1. To review the values listed in the Provincial Cumulative Effects Framework (CEF), and suggest how they can be adapted to the Howe Sound context.
2. To review information on vision, values and goals found in existing policies and plans of organizations represented on the Forum as the basis for outlining a common vision and values for management planning in Howe Sound (based on a short compendium prepared in advance).
3. To identify information from other regional initiatives that can also be used to create the above vision, values and goals (e.g., Sea to Sky LRMP, April 2013 Future of Howe Sound Forum, research initiatives).
4. To decide if the Forum will formally commit to participation in a “Cumulative Effects Assessment” (CEA) for Howe Sound, to be conducted within the B.C. Government CEF, and if so, identify how the workshop results will feed into the CEA. [If not, what other tool could be used?]
5. To identify next steps in the process: What? Who? When? Funding options?
DRAFT AGENDA – 10:00 am – 4:00 pm
TOPIC ACTIVITY
Introduction First Nations Welcome & Opening Prayer
Participant introductions
Review of workshop goal, objectives and format
BC Cumulative Effects Framework: role of vision and values
Presentation on BC Government’s CEA Framework: current status
Interactive session/Discussion – small groups, then large?
Forum Organizations: vision and values in policies and plans
Presentation on vision and values in current policies/plans that are relevant to Howe Sound management planning
Interactive session/Discussion – small groups, then large?
Other Area Initiatives: vision and values information
Future of Howe Sound Forum April 2013 & other (Howe Sound Aquatic Forum, DSF, etc.)
Discussion – small groups, then large?
Forum decision on CEA participation
Presentation on BC CEA Framework: list of values and steps
Discussion and decision
Next Steps Workshop Report received by Forum members
Possible governance? collaborative structures/processes
352
Page | 1
Questions and Answers about the potential value of applying a Cumulative Effects (CE) Assessment for Howe Sound
What is the desired outcome of a CE assessment?
The primary outcome of a CE assessment is a common understanding of the current and potential future condition of values. The common understanding serves as vital context for resource decision-making. While information on the spatial zones and objectives for some values (i.e. old growth, visual quality) exists today, information on the condition relative to objectives is not available. The CE assessment provides an opportunity to have an informed discussion and come to a shared understanding of what government, First Nations and stakeholders see as emerging opportunities and risks on the landscape.
How does this process provide governments with information for informed processes & decisions?
Once fully implemented, assessments will be periodically completed for each area, and reviewed by interagency teams, tasked with identifying emerging risks and potential mitigation actions. Assessment reports and recommendations for mitigation will be provided to all Statutory Decision Makers and publicly available, i.e. for clients to consider in applications.
Is there an opportunity to come to consensus on shared values before using the tool?
The next step in exploring the opportunity to apply a CE assessment in Howe Sound would be to identify what values are of interest for Howe Sound and compare this with the values that have been assessed to date in the piloting phase of the provincial framework, as well as priority regional values and availability of associated datasets.
353
Page | 2
What are the provincial CE values and how are they weighted?
The provincial framework does not rank or weigh values. Rather it provides an integrated and consistent picture of the condition of economic, social and environmental values in the assessed areas. In order to identify an initial set of provincially constistent values for the implementation of the framework the following selection criteria have been used: values that have legal or policy objectives in existing legislation, land use plans, or other forms of management direction; values identified in strategic agreements with First Nations, or otherwise identified as supporting an Aboriginal or treaty right; values that can be mapped and have robust existing data. Values should be as broad as possible to allow the nesting of fine-scale values within them (e.g., old-growth dependent species should be nested under forest ecosystem biodiversity). Additional values that don’t meet these criteria today (e.g. there are no existing objectives or data to support assessment) but are deemed important for cumulative effects assessment, may be integrated over time. The following table shows the selected values, example indicators and sources with existing objectives.
Values Indicators Existing Objectives Forest Ecosystem Biodiversity
Young, mature and old seral forest representation
FRPA Default Provincial Old Growth Objectives FRPA/OGAA Land Use Objectives for old, mature and early seral forest representation
Riparian Ecosystems Riparian ecosystem condition FRPA & OGAA Riparian Objectives Water Quantity and Quality Peak flow risk
Low flow risk Sediment risk
FRPA & OGAA Water Objectives Draft Provincial Water Objectives in Water Sustainability Act BC Water Quality Guidelines and Water Quality Objectives
Air Quality Airshed condition Federal Air Quality Objectives Priority Fish and Wildlife Species
Grizzly bear population Mule deer habitat and population Moose habitat Caribou habitat Fish habitat
Land Use Plan Objectives / Grizzly bear recovery strategy FRPA Ungulate winter range objectives Land Use Plan objectives South Peace Northern Caribou Implementation Plan
Visual Quality Visual quality FRPA / LUO Visual Quality Objectives Cultural Heritage Resources Cultural heritage resource condition FRPA/OGAA Objectives for Cultural Heritage
Resources Resource Capability Timber harvesting land base by level
of constraint FRPA Timber Objectives Forest Act Objectives
Economic Wellbeing Crown revenues, investment capital, economic diversity, labour supply/demand
There may not be explicit legal or policy objectives for these values the same as those values identified above, however best available info on status and trend will be used to provide important context for natural resources decision-making.
Social Wellbeing Employment, population, income, education, community participation
354
Page | 3
Beyond assessing condition and trend of values, how could a CE assessment help in healing the environment?
The idea of managing cumulative effects is to proactively identify any risk to values in order to support dialogue and decisions that ensure values remain in good conditions, and to return values to a good condition if they have been compromised. The proposition is that with better pro-active management of cumulative effects opportunities for sustainable economic development can be utilized without compromising environmental objectives. There is a range of options to reduce development footprint such as sub-regional mitigation strategies that apply to all industry that have impact whatever sector they come from, better upfront information for proponents to enhance design of projects or show alternative locations with less risk, and more clarity on the existing risk and opportunities on the landscape.
Can the CE assessment provide a foundation for further planning efforts?
There is a strong link between planning and the CEF, with the outcomes of each approach informing the other. For one the CEF builds on the foundation of values and existing legal and policy objectives. Vice versa CEF can identify present condition and future trends and risks to the priority values and thereby inform decision makers about the need to make strategic decisions, i.e. the broad scale CE assessment may identify geographic areas and values that are a priority for further planning at strategic or tactical levels, to identify solutions to identified risks and inform trade-off decisions that are required.
Given the interest of stakeholders, three regional districts, and multiple jurisdictions in Howe Sound - who might be involved in the collaboration?
If an interest to pursue a CE assessment in Howe Sound is confirmed the specific roles and responsibilities would have to be defined. In principle the CEF promotes meaningful engagement with governments, First Nations, industry, stakeholders, partners, and clients. The interest from partners, stakeholders, First Nations and local governments and the jurisdictional responsibilities for marine and coastal areas will provide some guidance about who should be involved. For more information please contact [email protected]
355
Cu
mu
lative Effects Framew
ork fo
r BC
Web
inar fo
r the H
ow
e Sou
nd
Co
mm
un
ity Foru
m
Febru
ary 20
, 20
14
Kai Elm
auer, C
EF Pro
ject Co
ord
inato
r and
Ou
treach Sp
ecialist
Min
istry of Fo
rests, Land
s, and
Natu
ral Reso
urce O
peratio
ns
356
Co
nten
t –
Based
on
qu
estion
s we h
eard
C
E framew
ork an
d C
E assessmen
t – wh
at is relevant fo
r Ho
we So
un
d?
B
ou
nd
aries - is it feasible to
assess cum
ulative effects in
Ho
we So
un
d?
Ju
risdictio
ns - w
ho
cou
ld/sh
ou
ld b
e invo
lved?
W
hat w
ou
ld b
e the ro
les and
respo
nsib
ilities for everyo
ne in
volved
?
=W
ou
ld an
assessm
en
t of cu
mu
lative effe
cts be
of valu
e fo
r Ho
we
Sou
nd
?
Fro
m co
mm
itmen
t to actio
n – w
hat n
ext steps co
uld
be taken
to start th
is?
357
Cu
mu
lative Effects – P
rob
lem an
d So
lutio
n
Cum
ula
tive e
ffects
asse
ssment a
nd
ma
na
gem
ent a
s an
inte
gra
l part o
f
‘Inte
gra
ted D
ecisio
n-
Ma
kin
g’ fo
r the n
atu
ral
reso
urce
secto
r
“ch
anges to
enviro
nm
enta
l, socia
l
and e
conom
ic valu
es
cause
d b
y th
e co
mbin
ed
effe
ct of p
ast, p
rese
nt
and p
ropose
d
activ
ities a
nd e
vents”
Consid
erin
g o
nly
pro
ject
or se
ctor sp
ecific e
ffects
of n
atu
ral re
source
develo
pm
ent a
llow
s
unin
tended im
pacts to
accu
mula
te o
ver tim
e
Bette
r outco
mes fo
r
valu
es, m
ore
efficie
nt,
transp
are
nt a
nd
consiste
nt d
ecisio
n-
ma
kin
g
Defin
ition
Pro
ble
m
Solu
tion
Ben
efit
358
1.
Bro
ad Scale
CE A
ssessm
ent
-land
use p
lann
ing su
b-regio
ns
-pe
riod
ic assessm
en
t (3-7
years)
2.
Co
mm
on
value
s (all secto
rs) -en
viron
men
tal, social, eco
no
mic
-pro
vincial (co
re set) & regio
nal
3
.A
ssessm
en
t relative
to o
bje
ctives
-curren
t con
ditio
n an
d p
oten
tial futu
re
4
.O
pe
n acce
ss to C
EA d
ata (map
s, rep
orts)
-com
mo
n b
aseline
for all clien
ts , SDM
’s -b
etter up
fron
t info
for ap
plicatio
ns
5
.P
roce
ss for M
anagin
g CE
- region
al interagen
cy review &
directio
n fo
r mitigatio
n
CE Fram
ewo
rk - Su
pp
ortin
g CE A
ssessmen
t
359
Bo
un
daries – Is it feasib
le to
assess CE in
Ho
we So
un
d?
Ad
min
istrative un
it
Valu
eV
alue
V
alue
Valu
e
360
Crite
ria for Se
lection
Existing O
bjectives (Legal &
Policy)
Su
pp
ort fo
r Ab
origin
al/Treaty Righ
t
C
oarse
filter/represen
ts ne
sted valu
es
Sp
atially map
pab
le
A
vailable d
ata
Initial V
alue
s •
Forest B
iod
iversity (old
& m
ature se
ral)
•R
iparian
Co
nd
ition
•W
ater Qu
antity an
d Q
uality
•A
ir Qu
ality
•C
ultu
ral Heritage
•V
isual Q
uality
•R
esou
rce Cap
ability (e.g. tim
ber)
•Eco
no
mic W
ellbein
g
•So
cial Wellb
eing
•P
riority Fish
and
Wild
life Species
(e.g. caribo
u, m
ule d
eer, mo
ose,
marten
, grizzly bear)
•M
arin
e valu
es TBC
Initial V
alues
361
7
Assessm
ent relative to
existin
g ob
jective
s for valu
es
Assessm
ent o
f
•C
urre
nt co
nd
ition
•P
ote
ntial fu
ture
con
ditio
n
- forese
eable
futu
re (5-1
0 years)
- lon
g-term sce
nario
s (50
-10
0 years) – as n
eed
ed
CE A
ssessmen
t
362
8
Examp
le Assessm
ent R
esult
Risk M
app
ing &
Trend
s
Risk to
Valu
e
High
Mo
d-H
igh
Low
-Mo
d
Low
Mo
derate
Grizzly B
ear Mo
rtality Risk 2
01
2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Year: 20
02
Year: 2
01
2
Year: 20
22
% Sub-pop Unit with Road Density above recovery plan guideline
Grizzly B
ear Po
pu
lation
- Mo
rtality Risk O
tter
Sim
ilkam
een
Tulam
een
363
Socio
-Econ
om
ic Valu
es
Econ
om
ic We
llbe
ing
•Em
plo
ymen
t •
Labo
ur D
eman
d
•Lab
ou
r Sup
ply
•Eco
no
mic D
iversity •
Reven
ue
to C
row
n
•Fin
ancial C
apital
•In
frastructu
re Cap
ital
Social W
ellb
ein
g •
Pop
ulatio
n - C
han
ge & C
om
po
sition
•
Edu
cation
Attain
men
t •
Emp
loym
ent
•Fam
ily Inco
me
•
Ho
usin
g •
Co
mm
un
ity Participatio
n
•C
om
mu
nity So
cial-Ecolo
gical Econ
om
y
364
Valu
es &
O
bje
ctives
CE A
ssessm
en
t
De
cision
Su
pp
ort
Wh
at are roles an
d
respo
nsib
ilities?
W
hat valu
es are assessed
?
W
hat are co
nd
ition
& tren
d?
W
hat d
oes it m
ean to
us?
W
hat co
uld
be
do
ne?
Everyo
ne m
akes
info
rmed
de
cision
s
365
From
Assessm
ent
to M
anagem
ent
Risk to
Valu
e /
Me
eting O
bje
ctives
High
Low
Po
ssible
Man
agem
en
t / M
itigative A
ction
s
• Ap
ply b
est practices /
Streamlin
e decisio
n-m
aking
• Strategic d
irection
- N
ew / revised
ob
jectives - Strategic p
lann
ing
• C
om
mo
n p
ermit co
nd
ition
s • M
itigation
Plan
• R
esearch/ in
vento
ry
Man
agem
en
t A
pp
roach
Flexible
Inte
nsive
366
Valu
es &
O
bje
ctives
CE A
ssessm
en
t
De
cision
Su
pp
ort
Wh
at next step
s co
uld
be taken
?
367
Co
ntact
Email: C
um
ulative
Effects@
gov.b
c.ca Le
ah M
alkinso
n, P
roje
ct Man
ager, M
FLNR
O
Leah.M
alkinso
n@
gov.b
c.ca K
ai Elmau
er, P
roje
ct Co
ord
inato
r, MFLN
RO
K
ai.Elmau
er@go
v.bc.ca
368
Sherry Reid
From:Sent:To:Subject:Attachments:
Good afternoon,
p I.Kevin Washbrook <kevin.washbrookvtacc.org>March-20-14713PM CHIEF ADMINIS] 9VESCRD General Inquiries FFiCresponse to recently announced review of ES Docks/Texada èoal project —
VFPA March 20 2014 Response to new ES Docks Review.pdf -
For your information, please find attached a response to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s recentlyannounced new review of the proposed coal export terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks. The letter is signed bynumerous community and NGO groups and has been copied to local, regional, provincial and federalrepresentatives. The signatories look forward to provincial and regional government action on this issue.
Sincerely,
Kevin Washbrook
Director, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change
http://vtacc.org
@ClirnateVoters
On Facebook: Voters Taking Action on Climate Change
4
1
ANNEX AA
369
‘‘ f’ riC)L.
March20, 2014 MAR 26 2014
To: ChL IkUMN[S] ATIVEVFPA CEO Robm Silvester QELq _
VFPA Board President Craig NeeserVFPA Project Review Committee, Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Transfer Coal Facility
On Wednesday February 1 9th media reported that Vancouver Fraser Port Authority was adding newassessment requirements to Fraser Surrey Dock’s coal terminal proposal prior to making a decisionon the project. indicate that the Port Authority has declined to share details in writing ofthese requirements with the media or the public.
On Friday February 21st the CMHO for Fraser Health was quoted in the media as saying he was notconsulted on the development of these new requirements. He also expressed concern that the PortAuthority has indicated there will be no opportunity for Health Authorities to provide feedback onthis latest round of study before the Port makes a final decision on the coal terminal proposal atFraser Surrey Docks.
We share the CMHO’s concern that this latest evaluation ofthe Fraser Surrey Docks coal terminalproposal lacks transparency, as did the earlier environmental impact assessment (ETA) of the project.We agree that the Health Authorities, along with independent experts, local governments and thepublic, should all be able to provide feedback on the results of this new research prior to a decisionon the project. Any decision made without further public review will lack credibility. We writetoday to encourage you to reconsider your position on this matter.
We also write to highlight concerns that do not appear to have been addressed in your latestannounced review of the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal. We urge you to consider these concerns inyour current review of the proposal. They include, but are not limited to:1
Geographic scope of assessment
• there is no indication that the Port Authority has required additional assessment of potentialimpacts associated with the movement of coal by barge down the Fraser River and in theStrait of Georgia, nor impacts associated with the handling and loading of coal on TexadaTsland, even though these movements have potential to harm salmon, oysters and otherharvested aquatic species, and despite concerns identified in the comments submitted inresponse to the Fraser Surrey Docks ETA by the Sunshine Coast Regional District, City ofRichmond, Fraser Riverkeepers and Andre Soboiewski;
• it is not clear from media reports if the new requirements include thorough assessment ofimpacts associated with the movement of coal by rail through White Rock, Crescent Beach,and Delta, even though this shortcoming was repeatedly flagged in comments delivered to theport in response to the Fraser Surrey Docks project ETA;
1 For example, some of the other concerns raised during the EIA process that do not appear to have beenaddressed in the Port Authority’s latest announcement include: 1) potential coal storage on barges and in rail carsat Fraser Surrey Docks if wind speeds prevent barge travel on the Fraser and in the Georgia Strait; 2) storm watermanagement; 3) impacts related to the full build out of the site, and ambiguity surrounding the lifespan of theproject; and 4) emergency vehicle access and response times in Crescent Beach if coal trains are blocking access.
370
• there is no indication the Port is evaluating the cumulative impact of coal export expansionproposals at Neptune Terminals in North Vancouver (despite requests for further study ofhealth impacts from the cities of Burnaby and North Vancouver), Westshore Terminals inDelta, and Fraser Surrey Docks in Surrey, nor is there any indication the Port is consideringpotential future expansion in coal exports from Fraser Surrey Docks once the Massey Tunnelis removed.
The Port Authority’s assessment still fails to capture the full cumulative and geographic scope ofpotential impacts associated with coal export expansion, even though the Port’s approval of coalexport projects would generate impacts over a large area of Southwestern BC. We urge you tocorrect this deficiency and provide all regional communities exposed to increased levels of coalexports with the same level of impact assessment.
Noise impacts
As you are aware, experts who provided commentary to the Port Authority on the Fraser SurreyDocks ETA were critical of its failure to adequately assess noise impacts, citing shortcomings inscope, inadequate collection of baseline data, and unsophisticated analysis. In his commentary to thePort Authority, Professor Brauer from the UBC School ofPopulation and Public Health describedwhy it is important that noise impact assessment be done correctly:
The superficial assessment of [noise] in the ETA does not adequately acknowledge the serioushealth impacts related to community noise exposure. Noise is recognized as contributing toincreased cardiovascular mortality, typically associated through heart attacks. Indeed, ourown studies in the BC Lower Mainland have demonstrated associations between typicallevels of community noise with deaths from heart disease and with low birthweightpregnancies. These impacts are as severe and exposures as widespread as those related to airpollution yet unlike the treatment for air pollution the ETA contained no modeling of noiseexposures and no noise measurements were provided.
Media coverage of the Port Authority’s recent announcement provides no indication that potentialnoise impacts are going to receive adequate attention during the current review phase. Thecommentary from consultant Robert Rattle provides addition detail on shortcomings in the EIA’sanalysis ofnoise impacts and suggestions for their improvement. We urge you to review allcommentaries provided on potential noise impacts in response to the Fraser Surrey Docks ETA and toincorporate their recommendations into your current review process.
Climate impacts of expanded thermal coal exports
One of the most significant impacts associated with expanded thermal coal exports is theircontribution to climate change. There is a solid scientific consensus that carbon emissions must beurgently and sharply reduced to avoid a dangerous and unstable increase in global averagetemperature. On March 17th 2014 the American Association for the Advancement of Science releaseda report, Wat Know, which summed up our situation quite bluntly:
“We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentiallyirreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.”
371
The Port Authority has made statements that indicate it understands that climate change is a seriousconcern requiring urgent action. However, with regard to coal exports, the Port Authority insists thatits only responsibility is to facilitate trade and that concerns about the climate impacts of this tradeare outside its jurisdiction. We find no supporting basis in the Port’s Letters Patent for statementssuggesting such limits to authority, nor is this position consistent with the federal TransportMinister’s statements that power to make project approval decisions rest entirely with the Port.
Finally, we draw the Port Authority’s attention to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in SumasEnergy 22. Tn that case, the court upheld the National Energy Board’s authority to consider theimpacts of extra-jurisdictional air pollution in making a permitting decision for a transmission line inCanada that would provide connection to a natural gas fired power plant in the United States. Thiscase opens up the possibility for other federal decision-makers, such as the Port Authority, toconsider environmental impacts that originate abroad — including both global impacts arising fromgreenhouse gas emissions, and impacts in British Columbia associated with the trans-ocean transportand deposition ofpollutants (i.e. mercury) released during coal combustion at the export destination.
We suggest that Port Authority staff, by acknowledging the risks posed by climate change, and theurgent need to reduce the emissions that cause this problem, also have a moral obligation to considerthese impacts in their decision. It is morally unacceptable to try to evade responsibility for this issueby arguing that if our region does not export this coal, some other region will.
We ask that you carefully reconsider the scope of your jurisdictional authority and concomitantresponsibilities, as well as your ethical obligations to the public on this issue.
Who determines acceptable levels of risk for our communities?Several expert commentators were critical of the EJA for its unsupported assumptions aboutacceptable levels of community risk. In particular, experts critiqued the flawed assumption that thereis a “threshold’ below which no health impacts occur from exposure to particulate matter andcarcinogens. Professor Brauer again (emphasis in italics added):
I participated in the formulation of global air quality guidelines for the World HealthOrganization (WHO) and was a member of the subgroup that drafted the particulate matterguidelines. It is explicitly stated in the documentation for these guidelines that for particulatematter (PM2.5 and PM1O), a “safe” level or concentration as which health impacts do notoccur amongst the population has not yet been identified, and WHO recommends “continualminimization ofpopulation exposures and improvements in air quality It should also benoted that the same inaccuracy in the ETA applies to the emission of carcinogenic substancesas part of the proposed project. For human carcinogens, regulatoiy agenciesfollow thecurrent understanding ofcarcinogenesis which suggests no safe level ofexposure whichwarrants minimizing exposures to as low as reasonably achievable.
In his conrrients, Dr Chris Caristen, Chair of Occupational and Environmental Lung Disease at UBC,reinforces Professor Brauer’s concerns (emphasis in italics added):
it would seem a very ‘high bar’ indeed to justify any additional output of particulate matterinto the airshed. Specflcally, on what basis can the EIA conclude, on page 143, that the
2 Sumas Energy 2 Inc. v Canada (National Energy Board), [2005] FCA 377, [2006] 1 F.C.R. 456, [2005] F.C.i. No. 1895[Sumas Energy 2].
372
levels predicted (putting asidefor the moment the potentialfor errors in modeling) “ifachieved, are consideredprotective ofhealth effects in the generalpublic, includingforsensitive sub-populations?
it is dfJIcult to defend the position that there will be no adverse health effects resultantfrom the Project. Rather it is a question ofhow much health effect (not quantified by the EL4because instead it seems to suggest no adverse effects) and to what extent the community iswilling to accept such adverse effects resultantfrom the project. Specffically, page 145suggests that the Project “will not result in unacceptable health risks” but what in fact isacceptable (to this community)?
The Port Authority has indicated that there will be no external review of the additional study it hasrequested from Fraser Surrey Docks, that there will be no further public comment period, and thatresults will not be provided to public agencies for their consideration. To answer Dr CarLsten’squestion, it seems clear that the Port has decided that it alone will determine what level of risk fromexposure to pollutants is acceptable to our communities. We reject that decision.
As you are aware, many people in Southwestern BC uestion whether the Port Authority prioritizesthe public interest when evaluating coal export expansion proposals. It will not be seen as credible ifPort Authority staff make a determination on acceptable levels of community risk from the FraserSurrey Docks/Texada Island coal terminal project without consultation with public health leaders.
In order that you fulfill your federal mandate to operate in the public interest with broad support, weask you to correct the above noted deficiencies in your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks coalterminal project. In particular, we urge you to work closely with our Health Authorities, local andregional governments in evaluating the risks associated with this proposal.
We look forward to your response to this letter.
Sincerely,
Kevin Washbrook and Kathryn Harrison for Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, VancouverPaula Williams for Communities and Coal, SurreyAndrew Murray for New Westminster Environmental Partners, New WestminsterCaroleAnn Leishman for Pebble in the Pond Environmental Society, Powell RiverDonald Gordon, for Coal Dust Free Salish Sea, Lasqueti IslandRic Bills, Salish Sea Coal Committee, Lower Sunshine CoastEoghan Moriarty, Coal Export Facts, Delta
Copied to:
Dr Patricia Daly, Chief Medical Health Officer, Vancouver Coastal HealthDr Paul Martiquet, Medical Health Officer, Sunshine Coast, Vancouver Coastal HealthDr Paul Van Buynder, ChiefMedical Health Officer, Fraser Health Authority
Provincial Health Officer Perry Kendall
Premier Christy ClarkProvincial Health Minister Terry Lake
373
Provincial Environment Minister Mary PolakProvincial Education Minister Peter FassbenderProvincial Transportation Minister Todd Stone -
Provincial Mining Minister Bill Bennett
Board of Directors, Metro VancouverBoard of Directors, Sunshine Coast Regional DistrictBoard of Directors, Islands Trust
Mayor and Council White RockMayor and Council SurreyMayor and Council DeltaMayor and Council New WestminsterMayor and Council BurnabyMayor and Council RichmondMayor and Council LangleyMayor and Council VancouverMayor and Council North VancouverMayor and Council Powell River
Sechelt First Nation
MLA Stephanie CadieuxMLA Gordon HoggMLA Marvin HuntMLA Scott HamiltonMLA Bruce RalstonMLA Harry BainsMLA Sue HammellMLA Judy DarcyMLA Vicki HuntingtonM.LA Linda ReidMLA Raj ChouhanMLA Kathy ConiganMLA Richard LeeMLA Shane SimpsonMLA Nancy YamamotoMLA Spencer Chandra HerbertMLA Nicolas SimonsMLA Andrew Weaver
MP Russ HiebertMP Jasbir SandhuMP Jinny SimsMP Kerry-Lynne FindlayMP Peter JulianMP Fin DonnellyMP Kennedy StewartMP Andrew Saxton
374
F crD 10677 Wood Bay Heights RdCEVED Halfmoon Bay, BC VON 1Y2
2 6 2014 23 March 2014
CHAIRMemo To: Frank Mauro, Garry Nohr, Donna Shugar, Lorne Lewis, Ir- ‘ )fllA
Lee Ann Turnbul[--— -
L VI
Re: Special Planning and Development Committee MeetingMarch 21st Horst Applications _•
Thank you for the meeting of March 21st and the opportunity to express our opinions. Iapologize for leaving the meeting at 11 .45am but I had a prior commitment.
I am pleased the Committee members plan to do a site visit at the Horst propertybecause you will also be able to see the work in progress on the bog. I have lived at theabove address since 1998 and Mr. Horst has been working on this project all this time.No one seems to know what the plan is or if there is one. It is an eyesore to theresidents and to anyone else who lives or visits the Sunshine Coast. We have to listen tohim using machinery every day through the Summer months. We would be more tolerantif there was an end day in sight.
You will also be able to see old boats and trucks parked next to the gas facility which isanother eyesore that we have to look at. You will see the proximity of this parking area tothe concrete boat launch hence people’s suspicions that he is trying to sneak in a dryland marina.
As regards the concrete boat launch, I was surprised Fortis has the right to givepermission for concrete paving over the high pressure pipeline and into the ocean. If thedecision is made to remove the concrete boat launch then please have a qualifiedcontractor do the work rather than Mr. Horst, after all we are dealing with a high pressurepipeline.
Depending on the date of your visit and the tides you may or may not see that thecurrent illegal dock has sunk and the ramp is all twisted. As agreed at the meeting Mr.Horst has until April to remove the sunken dock. If the decision is made to allow himto construct a wooden dock of approximately 480 sq.ft. for personal and summer usethen something more than a verbal promise by Mr. Horst should be required to ensurethat the dock would be pulled out of the water in the off season. I also believe thatquestions should be asked about the proposed size of the dock if it really is for personaluse. Perhaps a compromise would be to leave the concrete boat launch in place but todeny the approval of a floating dock.Finally back to DVP 31 0.179: staff has recommended Option 2. I would prefer Option 4and failing that Option 3. Options 2 and I would send the wrong message and setprecedents.Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
David C. Cox.
ANNEX BB
375
ANNEX CC
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
From: Brian Klassen [
Sent: April-05-14 11:15 AM To: SCRD General Inquiries
Subject: HMB OCP
Hi Gary, We met a while ago with my neighbours about our road (Rutherford) re-surfacing. With the Halfmoon Bay OCP meeting coming up, I’m wondering if the issue/banning of shipping containers in residential properties could be adopted. At the very least, a time limit or required screening requirements for these unsightly steel boxes. https://www.google.ca/#q=BC+regulations+against+shipping+containers+on+residential+properties&start=10 Sincerely, Brian 5719 Rutherford Road, Halfmoon Bay, B.C. V0N 1Y2 ph: e-mail:
ANNEX DD
385