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:howesoundcommunityforum@gmail.com]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

CumulativeEffects@gov.bc.ca

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 ruth.simons@futureofhowesound.org 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 CumulativeEffects@gov.bc.ca

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