THB CORPORATION OF TBB CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM

ENVIRONMENTAL PROsIECIION COMMITTEE

Wednesday, October 5, 1994
Meetmg Room No. 2
2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coqnitlam, EC
5:00 p.rn.

PERSONNEL IN ATTENDANCE:

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

DEI!sius

CANADIAN lis13USTRY PACKAGING STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE

ITEM II:

FRASBR FOCUS - 1994
(For Committee's information)

l995/96 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL BUDGET

Nnh

ITEM IV:

FRASBR RIVER ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(For Committee's Information)

ITEM V:

OTHER BUSINESS

ji~BIII

+ ~~a
Nl

I

II%9NI

&55

jj')

IIVEL

1 IIWs

I%14 I

Ms'%I

Ijj

j

~ I ~ ~

~Ihllil Sit
jtss-: —: sj 'gll@i iij ai'Jj
I

I

I

j)g I)I Iisaii s.'.'.—

Rllli

Ijj

tt

syt s»aa mm

sass ssi

'

I

. Ss

s

s ~ Isslatlsl Its

N jsnss ss
I

s- —

=" Iljli ~ ~~ jsjtg! II! '@l% f/f/+@! .3+! ".==i

,asti»

assss~ plpl! sII !!I ": .:
I

I':

1

sjgj

-s~mss

at, — ~stsssaes~ai~s

.

'ssai

sssss tsnta

'' etta %LEisassssss K,",.

"
js:

-

— -

~ i

-'

i'

-

g jjj

ss &

~»s

"'as ness I@'— "= = 'ssjt(~8ltsl t it a(
'

—

TIIB CORPORATION OF THE Cf."Y OF PORT COQUITLAM
BNVIRONMENTAI. PRVHBCHON COMM ITIBE
MINUTES
A meeting of the Envhonmental Protection Committee was held in the Second Floor Meeting
Room, 2580 Shauglur.ssy Stmet, Port Coquitlant, Wednesday, October 5, 1994 at 5:00 p.m.

ln attendance were:

Councillor M. Gates, Chairman
J.E. Yip, P. Eng., Deputy City Engineer
C. Deakin, Engineering Secretary

The Minutes nf the Fnvirnnmental ProIection Committee Meeting held on Wednesday,
September 28, 1994 were considered, read and adopted.

Conunittee received this repon for information.
FRASHR FOCU~ 1994

ITEM IL

Comtnittee received this report for information.

ITEM IH=

1995/96 PROPOSES BNVIRONMENTAI. BUDGET

Committee reviewed snd discussed items for the proposed 1995/96 Environmental Budget.

~BR RIVER.+STUART MANAGEMENT PROQRA1If

ITEM IVI

Committee received this report for information.

FREMP Task Farce+ptitttLt
Committee received this report for information.

Pla&Shia
l SRlllg

Bnemv Strategy

~f

Ills

Committee received this report for information.

sw ISstai

[im~
Cont'd ...
a

I I

I

II

'-""l

IE

I

~

gg~t ~jaISI

~e~

gg~
I

I

Is I 1 1

LI

'

sam&

f

~ s Ie s

Ql I I

tl g hll
I

s

",

IN I II

I

I1 I ~

11s

aa ttg
am

~minutes of October S. 1995 Cont'd ...
Out of Realtt ttJDjgyttatti

Committee received this report for information.

Paint Stevratdslnn~
Coniniittee received tltls report for infomiation.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Counpdfor M. Gates
Comfnittee Chairman

JEY/cd
HQXE:

Minutes not read and adopted by the Committee until certified correct by the
Conunittee Chairman's signature.

CC:

Mayor aud Councillors
City Adtrunistrator
lgor Zahynacz, P. Eng., City Engineer
Michael Davies, P. Eng., Project Engineer
Auue T. Pynenburg, Project Technician

~~tat1WRMI I&I

in a Ml I'.I la

— —

I

I

il II li i.

's tie'a ia9I

~ ! .

i

I

I

)IIIIL siasiNsj iJ
"""2
""."-'iB xiii '$
I

~ 84
ti&'lt

t el

~

I

I

I

I I

Ill 5ll

IR egsyesilit NN

THE CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM

MEMORANDUM
TO;

Environmental Protection Committee

DATE: October 03, 1994.

FROM:

F. K. K. Cheung, P. Eng.

FILE Noi EPC

Project Engineer
SUBJECT: CANADIAN INDUSTRY PACKAGING STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE

RFCO1VPtIENDATIONi
That Committee receive this memorandum for information only.

l.

BACKGROIJND rtt COMME5XSJ
The Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI) is a funding initiative being put forward by a
coalition of industry sponsors prepared to provide financial support to B.C.'s municipal curbside and depot
recycling programs. In addition, the stewardship program is prepared to provide economic incentives for
responsible industries to reduce and reuse their packaging. The central idea of this proposal is that industry,
municipalities and consumers have a shared responsibility for managing packaging waste.

The principles of this proposal are that:
packaged goods industries, governments and consumers share responsibility for packaging stewardship;
recycling programs should be cost-effective, and the funding proposal environmentally responsible and
economically sustainable;
market-driven incentives are most effective in encouraging industry to reduce packaging, to use recyclable
packaging and to ensure market development, and in encouraging municipalities to establish and maintain
efficient recycl ing program;
recyc!ing solutions for packaging must be flexible and must fit in with other municipal multi-material waste
management programs in a manner that is cost-effective and minimizes environmental impact.

o
v
~

o

Through a levy system, brand owners of packaged products (i.e. goods that are packaged in glass bottles, cans,
paper and plastic, etc.) would provide municipalities with funds to support recycling of these materials. Industry
would also support pmgrams to strengthen markets and reduce municipal recycling costs. Municipalities would
be paid a specific amount per tonne based on the amount of qualifying packaging material collected.

[III~
All
~ awlmli I

Jfow it Ipovld 8'ork

/9$ 'l

f

Raising Funds - Brand owners in British Columbia would pay levies in two phases:

I

I~EEL

KII

Phase I (two-year transition)

g)
% ill]
I

- Pay a levy of $ 24 a tonne base on the weight of the final consumer packaging for products m&ld in the province
- During this phase, the true cost of handling and recycling each individual packaging type would be determined
on a material-specific basis. This information would be used to established the levy to be applied in Phase 2.

Rl'iiiel

~I
I

Cont'd~

I

jjjIj

OCT

lgg

—

- —

-- — —

~ w aII mHMH
am
INK

—

j

I~INPIRemavvIv i~ =

a™gsIsl~g

-" 1%)j,

Ij~jj NNllllÃllgji jjll~eaiiv Iij„
j

I

ttI I
II

I~~'

-"

-'='II4,-

I

@III

==ai

=

—

—:: HALI',,,''-.Ill sti=.s =-„,",„„;
le

I

—, —

"!"

"~I

Phase 2 (year three and beyond)
- Levies would be assessed on a material-specific basis.
- Objectives of the Phase 2 levy are:

to encourage source reduction;
to encourage greater capture of materials for reuse or recycling;
to minimize the cost of the system
to minimize overall environmental impact;
to ensure that each material is making a fair contribution to overall system funding.

~
~

a
o
~

Pavment tn Municinali ties

Phase l
- CIPSI proposed to pay municipalities a per tonne levy for all qualifying packaging materials.

Phase 2
- Municipalities would be paid for each packaging material, based on its true cost to be managed in the recycling

system.
Economic Instrument to Encourage Reduction and Reuse
- Members of the stewardship organization would be eligible to receive rebates of up to 50 per cent of their levy

based on the average rate at which the particular packaging material is collected and recycled in British
Columbia.

- The rebates encourage brand owners to develop markets for materials in order to increase the recycling rate.

Markets for Recovered Materials
- Funds designated for market develr pment would be used to finance:
new, improved or expanded uses for recycled packaging materials;
new or improved methods for processing or marketing these materials;

policies and programs which support increased demand for secondary materials;
projects aimed at increasing demand for recycled content in packaging;
opportunities to improve overall system efficiencies.

Partnership Roles and Responsibilities
Industry's Role:
- Raise the funds needed to make payments to municipalities and for market development activities.
- Conduct audits to ensure that members contribute the proper levies, and submit reports to the provincial

government outlining pmgress on its commitments.

,.m3
8 III Rl[
flu Is sll
~
SIS
egs III I.lip
='='= ——
ggi
MR Wl I%Inn

~

Cont'd.../3

~ CHILI

1 I

n. e&mac .

at

IK

i(i

8

I.... .':

—.:=.'.mal

tsssiwtm

gigygg; '"Bs

'

m

~II)

I

I

Imnllil

I

Ql
~m

%Is 0

id'ltti kith
aiwm a.:,:

'

!Iai nI I

!

llgsI%mll e

u s s s I%I iE
- — z tnumz= — =

Ii I&

''''

I

kga~ ==: ~ Sm —::: — - N@LilIIIIIIIII
~mws sr—

—

t

II

ll

I

—

—

~

—

—

Nl II
— -—

Provincial Government's Role:
- Asked to prepare and enforce a regulation requiring all who are responsible for introducing packaged products
to the marketplace to take action to divert that packaging from disposal, either through reuse or recycling.

Role of Municipalities:

- Asked to operate cost-effective and efficient recycling programs.
- Would be responsible, directly and indirectly, for:
e
~

o
~

collecting and processing final consumer packaging materials;
funding their share of the costs for cogecting and processing final consumer packaging materials
('unicipal share');
having representatives participate in the hlanagement Fontm which would establish the operating cost
standard and revenue factor;
having representatives participate in the Stewardship Council;
providing local education and promotion of the municipal multi-material recycling program.

Proposed Schedule
- Should negotiations begin immediately, CIPSI-B.C. would propose the following schedule for moving forward:
~

a
o
~

e

circulate draft agreement for public consultation in September,
promulgate regulations;
within three months, brand owners required to join the B.C. Stewardship Grganization or file their own
plans with the Ministry;
within nine months, municipalities become eligible for Phase l funding;
twenty seven months after Phase I begins, municipalities are eligible for Phase 2 funding.

h. K. K. Cheung, P. Eng.
Project Engineer
FKKCl
suachment

Itieg
~
s I I I a % I I aa. a s
I

II

"le I 5 8

~~

III I%!
aIiis IIII
I

gI~~

eP

ocr -5
Illgllu'"s"mg: III ll isa ilj I

~

''m

!

.=:'-'."-"." 'III
ts s J 4 s i s

h

tmlaaNQ

~/

-

"

,"«~gagss+~~& &iulsllmll
~

'-.

i

——

msI

I+i/~/
g51gI~
ggggg
mmt ~ II ~ I& ~ ~
mtml u 1%51 ~
I

'g/I/I/Pg .'.''IIII'a I
"

am

'" ~

III k

%W Niig l
'

e ~ &g g-,~

~

~

gm

r
ll

'''

t SSP

~---,

'

''at s

m ~

l (S

@I

I

'«lhllls-k — —~~~== 'si& ttmtIIII

~m ~sgtiau Bi%I Wl IIRI

l

THE CORPORATION OF THE
C1TY OF PORT COQU1TLAM

$ EP

&

boa p

DATE:

September 15, 1994

TO:

Jeff Yip, P. Eng,

ioqr

Deputy Engineer

FROM:

Owen Reimer-Pitt
Administration Dept.

RE:

ENCLOSED BROCfHJRES

Mayor Traboulay is refemng the enclosed brochures for your Environmental Protection
Committee.
Thank you.

I

i;

sta~
Is

n

a a m ag

I I

e

I

~

IjglHII
IilRML

s

I'llv

I'l

~

lips

'''~ s

I;~j
I

~ I

~

~is lee" as

ii~
I

.as

—

&

i

a

, ~ a,, as
~

Isl

II

sgl, j,Jliiii

~

a

i

I L

I

I IShg

II ~~~g',

p

~="

RILIMIII--,'"„~'--

h ~ ~mt,sg ~,;:
i

',;, „'

",:,:ijj

."SEiiiut&as.: —.S

j

gggg jlialt L

l5 Tl'$'j

~~Ã~seameaasselRll L'IIIIII

Drin

Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative

tL+ I+0+ K+ I
Sponsored by:

Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors (CCGD), Canadian Fmleralien of Independent Grocers (CFIG), Canadian Sofi
Assockulo (CSDA),
Grocery products ktanufacturcnt of Canada (GpidC), Enrironment and plastics Insutuu of Caned'a (Eplcn
Packaging Associanon sf Canada (pAC), and Retail Council o, Canada

September 8, 1994

Mayor Len Traboulay and Council
CITY OF PORT
2580 Shaughnessy
Port Coquitiam, B.C.
V3C 2A8

COQU~

~s

Dear Mr. Mayor and Council:

I[Illi/]

The Canadian Industry Packaging Stewardship Initiative (CIPSI) is a funding initiative being put
forward by a coalition of industry sponsors prepared to share responsibility for the care of our
environment.

Municipalities in British Columbia have been involved in the initiation, management, and
f'manctng of recycling programs for a long time. Industry acknowledges your leadership and
efforts in these areas and, through CIPSI, is offering to share with you the responsibility for
packaging stewardshi p..

Our proposal is attached to this letter. It builds on the recycling inf'rastructure that you have
already provided your community. We believe that the implementation of the CIPSI initiative
wig augment and greatly enhance the current recycling initiatives in the Province of British
Columbia.
The CIPSI initiative wilL
Reduce the overall use of packaging
Increase the number and amount of materials being recycled

o

g''~ztl ll

Facilitate the marketing of recyclable materials

», „-v pill

I

,

— ~

I

,=,",:;PAULIN

.=..;=.;.
I
t

)'lt I

pig-

I

Significantly reduce the waste stream to land fills

M

15 15 - 1188 W. Georgia Stree( Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4A2

OcT -5

g

'--.'-- 'R~I~Ãy

I

.'- '—::

-')s',. -—

„::::= iiI'~';=" ~ I I

I

8

....-.—::, e

s.-yt tuttut= —

~ ...~tstmk.t~:

e4

l-'e ~

IIII

'ts+~,~ '~,.—„;~II IIIII'

Significantly reduce the cost to local taxpayers and consumers of current and
alternate recycling initiatives

u

As this is a significant and comprehensive proposal, CIPSI is undertaking an extensive
consultation process with municipal governments in British Columbia to answer your concerns
and questions. We are confident this endeavour wiII provide an opportunity for us to learn from
each other ways in which we can work together to improve the environment.
We feel it is both necessary and beneficial to meet with you and members of your counciL This
is why, as part of our consultation process, we will be attendiug the UBCM Convention. At the
convention we will not only be making our technical extu:rts available to answer questions but
also in attendance will be several British Columbian business leaders. They will be at the UBCM
Convention to explain to you how the CIPSI fundiug initiative will work in your community.
We hope this will facilitate future dialogue leading to a mutually agreeable industry/municipal
waste reduction program throughout British Columbia,
Please contact CIPSI at 688-2505 to schedule a meeting during the Whistler Convention and
we will be happy to listen and respond to your questions.

Alex Campbell
President, Thrifty Foods
Co-Chair CIPSI British Columbia

I NI

Bob Holt

President & CEO, Sun-Rype Products Ltd.
Co-Chair CIPSI British Columbia

IIIIIP@g

)IMMI

'l

'iisllg
QI151%

ijijt(l (

glJlssstta s t
]I%!Is: =

'fg

I'all1ilss

u mi

l

Kl g
/@!i. I
'~~
I

I

II

Cl

w

ll

&

—

~~~~

u~a
gy~a~gllggl@@!~I
~C'&~r
~

"

&

r

'

~R~Nam~jgaimg

i

1994

Easing stress on urban streams
Biologist Otto Lardier awzminss
Cougar Canyon Crssh, au
important urban struam that
supports coho ond ohunl sa?mou
in the midst of subdi visions tu
Surrey aud Bsfta.
habkat - and on the lish that spawn and

rear on the doorstep of homes and
indusoies.
"The Salmon River in Lmgley is
one of the most produaive coho
smums in B,C: the Harrison River alone
pmduces onoquaner of the Fraser's
chinook The Chil!iwack River is another
big producer of coho," says Otto laager

a biologist wnh the Fraser River A«don
Ran (FRAP), a six-year federal In!dadve
designed to improve the environmenud
health and fishuy resource of dds great
.

river. One of FRAPs prior?des is to lind

The lirst phase of the pro)ma brought
rogether representadves from all levels of
government and groups such as the Urban
Devdopment ktstkute, the Federation of B.C
hlatuialists and the Union of B.C.
Munidpaliues to gnd ways of working together
to Improve stewardship. This is designed to
lead to agreements between levels of
government, proposed changes to existing
legislation and improved cogeaion and sharing
of infonnadon on semidve habiuc
Up co now. DFO has uled to protect
habitat through the "referral process," in
which land devdopment proposals are
reviewed. Bans are subm!Iced by a developer
co the load munidpalxy. Where aquatic
habitat is alfecte4 the proposal is refenml to
DFO and B.C. Environment.
Buc there are limkations with the
'exisdng system, which is complot and ccady.
OAs:thb number of refeivals dimbs with dw
Pace of devdopment, the system is swooped
"rand there'are lenyhy ddaya As wdl, noc ag
".munopa?mes are part of the refuvds systent
.
De'idopment proposals are oken ar.
.:- advanced suqpu of pbnning and design when
they are revlevnxL Rulufred ranges or
" re)ecdonl cause considerable addidonal
-: expo'ue for both the developer and the
munidpalky. Most signifitundy for DFO, by the
'.Ome bu b?ologfux an. consbltuk the land ln
i:quesuonihas already been toned and its use

';.

embatded,,

better ways to safeguard
urban ureams in the face of spiraling

..

IIIIRINEIl

'.,

any of du Fluter River's richest
salmon sueams gow through che most heavi1y
popubted and fastestgrostng ana of the
basin. These small oi1xaaries dustered
becween Vancouver and Hope together
account for a staggering 50 per cent of the
Fraser's coho salmon stocks, 100 per cent of
ks dusii and slgnlgoult ixxoons of Its pink.
sockeye and chinook.
But increasing dmelopment and
urbanization are puuing severe stnus on i?us

.

$ :g )II~gl~i

I'lllIli! I
I I!B I '0
i

I+I et

Ocx)ans

far..

i'"'=:.,=„——
IA,',

gI+ iczL

I

I

I

I

rasa

II IIA iu z~mu z I II
AI I

I1 Ill ma

— Jl 5!

Ae ei g B gpss I

.

I

j!'B

'' Ills Kae m Ss lam

~

I

m

ig Iga

v',oppomrlbldes m piatect s rnsYiive gsh habnat
'ave'alr'eady been but

funker damage.

II I lt)mjjgll]

c

':.~n(d by thuoiunfdpzality. Many

things more dfeolvely?" Leger explains. The st
Intention is to pmvent, rather chan repair,:;:.

and Oceans

m FIIAhw

',:.

—I

~

"- eu"

Caner
=
,ySIISSI&u ~mui
~~

'l

—,-"

'm"IIjl g
I

"

——

izuzx

mriNJgllgl 8

3

BBFg,i(I

I

m II

I

ll -"..'.

'g

,%m

%

development.
Tha requires cooperaoon among
kxal, regional, provindal and fed eml
governmems. In one of several urban
in'madves, FRAP is co funding a pro)ace with
LC. Emtronment called Pannms in Proteaing
Aquadc and Riparian Resources (PPARR). FRAP has pmvided $ 18,000 so
"PPARR is looking at what we are doing
now co protect stmuns. What's working and
what's not working? And how can we do "..: .

IAIIgimI gnm
miiiu

i

mur uo aisn'mliIi

~

I

ili aajs,ajjiiijl mlliml mm BB

i B gg „" — —

-::

. —

~

~

mi au—

F~ER FOCUS
habiut protecuon,
provide direnion to
developers and ensure

pro-active, planning-

oriented approach that
would move dke . eview of
projects further ahead in the

consistency among
development projeus.
The Land

municipal planning and

approval process.
"DFO has to get

Development Guidelines can

also I elp land developers
idendfy problems before
dave!apment begins and
suggest solutions or
certain developments will
measures to prevent
affect water flow and to
egesta on fish
ensure there are proper
habitat
The use
and
fish
setbacks from streams,"
guidelines will help
of
the
Lunger suggests.
to avoid potentiagy cosdy
One alternative bing
requirements of
explored by PPARR is to
midgagon, restoration
retain
ro
aad
kefyre
aabdl
uisian
filter
considemtion
prcmde more
A aelland neor a Barmy
and compensadon.
eseeaa runoff before it flaiae into nearby Cougar Caayon Creek.
of stream protecrion and
The sveam
environmentally sensidve
measures
protecdon
areas in the drafdng of
promoted
documenu
vnq
be
outlined
in
both
fish
sveams
and
requirements of healrhy
Ofgcial Community Plans, long-range
sug
municipal
across
the
province.
targeting
process
land
development
outlines
the
habiutc
development goals and policies, so that less
land
oScials
as
well
as
and
elected
Olficial
how
zoning
and
and
shows
in
B.C.
emphasis need be placed on referrals.
development, amhitecmral and engineering
Community Plans can be used to protect fish
PPARR is also looking at making more
coinpanies. FRAP and KC Environment are
sensitive
environmentally
other
habinat
and
such
as
tools,
of
exisdng
effecdve use
planning
developing a training pmkage, including a
areas. It also demonstrates how to protect fish
zoning and bylaw provisions, to protect
slide show and workshop, to encourage
and habitat from the damaging egecu of land
habitat. This indudes density bonus zones,
these audiences to do their part in protecting
development.
used in mme munidpalities to create
involved eariier in plmning
to make sure screams are
procected, to say how

'egadve

incenmies for developers to protect habitat as
a condition for allowing higher density on the
remainder of a gita Another approach is a
"joint project review." in which senior and

These techniques include:
leaving untouched the vegetation
adjacent to streams that shade and

local govemmenr. stag mmc regularly to assess
prvzposals for a number of adjacent
municipalities.

limiting soil erosion and sedimentation

)
l,

Rq.~e

controlling the rate of runolf to
minimize Ructuadons in stream flow,
maintaining access for lish to upstream

~

habitac and

I=.,-: Ill

the B.C miniszries of Environment and

I

is $ 42,000.
Siitom Stewardship describes the

development can be found in the Land
Development Guidefines, a joint project by DFO
and B.C. Environment. A second prindng of
the guidelines and invoductory leaflet was
funded by FRAo last year. The document is
intended to set standards and expeuations for

rqunicipl Affairs. FRAP's conuibution to date

II S
l I. Sa IBII
sail

ar,msisi smml
aaaa laasl
gj im ~ 4 ii441I

preventing the discharge of deleterious
substances into streams.
More technical in(ormadon on site

~

emphasis. As such, FRAP recendy published
Stream Stavonfshipi A Guide for Planner and
evelepea in pannership with the Habitat
Acdon Plan, another Green Pbn program, and

l!

has already adopted such a bylaw. S

during and after consvucdon;

coundlor pbnnem engineers and private
developer of the need to protect aquatic
resources is a huge put of FRAivs urban

La ~tasaraaa~~

FRAP sudf also plan m presenc
municipal lmdeis with a modd environmenud
bylaw, which follows the Land Devebjv ient
Guidelines.
The District of North Vancouver
earn

protect habitac

Raising awareneu among municipal

I)P

Rsh habitat.

~

ag 4 i 4 SI W I

«m 4 r 'uaaSS'I

r~

RKv

i

-=. -Er
~

r&s ~

i

~ &mgl

Il -===-

14li

=:== ==so -

ursms,ewiimsr =

I

I

~

I

4 i &IIIS II

lllj.

I

I

Rl

il~

aiTI I

.':

—

I

am masj

i

I

=

1EI ~

«I I XSIB

k —;

„- -

sB~ iw i'amia ill lsavm ieaai amallSII
II@ a'
1ggj jFIIIS'I.

~

jg

Illjgri

=
1444am maaeaim

~

iilj I IIEj I

c.::..:.'li

'

"4444R~mjig~ummlbuitnqil
~
~ijj

g~ita~inai)-'

= —,.

=

.

"-

—

-sag g jg ISlgll tlgumta
.:=;11154 jlii 44i441

Action on
the FI asex

demonstration wateaheds and projeas with
First Nations.
The habitat resroration projeas
highlighted are but a few of the two dozen
underway this year, many depending on
coopemdon among sevend panies. Proteaing
and improving fish habimt is part of FRAIvs
goal co rebuild salmon popuhtions. So too is
the development by FRAP stalf, induding
Kaarina NcGrmey and Wayne Ssito. of a
comprehensive strategy to guide long term
management of ag Fraser salmon. Pishing
groups and sakehoiders are tieing consulted
for their iripuc
Sdence pnijects like that an che
Horsegy River are continuing to cogea data
thw are crucial to the elfecdve management of
the valuable Fraser Bshery resourco Nappin'g
and collecdon of daa on streuns and wedands
will be sapped up this year to help biolog'ms
protect crmcal habiat. And a strategy is being
developed to improve water quality in the
basin.
FRAP is the federal government's
response to concerns, from ddzens to
scientists, that.'the,Fraser River and ia
drainage basin 'are ac a cridcal point. A
burgeoning populauofl, expeaed to gnwii 50
per 'cent over~ non 20 yean, and growing
economic deyekipment intensify pressure on
che basin's environment. FRAP was bunched
to take acdon now before ic is too lato
Gtizens, as individuals or as memben
of corporadom and community groups. are
also stewanls of the Fiaseris resources. A
OFO communky adviser can provide
information on how co get involved in local
salmon enhan ament pmjeas and
Stmunkeepers, a program that trains and
supports ddzens in watershed conservation
arid restumbois 8

he Fraser River Aaion Plan
(FRAP) has passed the halfway mark of

io six-year program to improve the

iu'..4)
pe e

m 1 g I I II
I

I

R

jfj~tsj

~@@4@:':

j~I

ai a~all.

'I

—.- — m BeiBN
~ w iww

ll!IIII~ ';

i: —:-".Ail.'',"-',,Pi
jee Kambeiu, exuh side of Fraiei to
Boston Bar - 6660242 r. r"

I

ljiuni c

=

;

&I

."'

'lel e I a

'lb"'.-':";::,'-~c'ggS@25'.",

Oemonuer- Cental Irterio

vMIm

I„..."Kre Ji

hv

~r Nark johmon, Burrard„inlet and

[Busii iKLIL~'
II

~

I'u'anie

Illmiiq

tcrcft 2BIC'Zafrd'QZZzo.

i:„'00 Nile Home -',;534.95334

Roy Argue - Central Iris'enidr nonh

I00 Nile House - 56I-5533

',

Gary Taccogna - 5 nnkcrpos
coordinsmr - 666-3662

environmental health and productivity
of this rich and wdiuable watershed.
"Through FRAP, we have made
significant progress over the pasc three
years in restoring gsh habitat, improving
sdencific knowledge and developing
integrated plans to rebuild salmon
stocks and protea sensitive m earns
and wedands," says Al Lig, director of
the Fraser River Acdon Plan at the
Department of Rsheries and Oceans.
DFO biologsts, engineers and other
stafF work closely with colleagues at
Environment Canada to cany out this
joint federal iniriative. with each
depanment focusing on ia area of
expertise.
FRAP mmprises a multitude of
projeas dot together aim ro procecc
the Fraser basin for finure generations. Within
that visian are three main objecdvec co dean
up pobsion; to restore produalvity, induding
doubling the river's salmon populadons within
20 years; and to devdop a long-tenn
management program with ag sakeholders m
ensure die basin's smcunabiTity. The projeas
ascribed in Fraser Focus are examples of the
aaiviues underway from Ihe mourh of che
river to B.C's interior.
The urban inidadves led by FRAP
biolcqfst Otm Lunger demonsuace one of the
program's goals to improve cooperation
among federal. provincial and munidpal
governments and other scakeholdos to
safeguard the Frmer's resources. FRAP is also
forging pannemhips through the
multi-stakeholder Fraser Basin Nanagement
Board, provincial land-use planning,

I

c 1Ãjl

I

"-

mm

OCT —

== . Klf

I 'Ill%I
1%/

m I se

~

III

m Ili ~is ~ M euvl

iosi
-'-----..'
eI
~

sussiwaiins

I cue it tll

IIDBBI x

—

=

=.—

~

..

.. =-"'". -,.--„-- .,.",.
:;ajjl j I%jjlaljjmjjjmmiI- - -- .- ="' gljdjmjue"'
-"IINj]l l11
IB

I

ww

.:im

-=-':=-- — -—

'

i

j

-

~

— — Lj&IIWlllB
—
—
Mk
—

BBBai'I

',

—

IIg

'm'I

F~EE FOCUS
Krcgansion plans for rare slough
"Few areas remain of
this typical estuary habitue

where water moves in and
out freely. What usually
remains is a corridor of
river controlled by dikes,"
explains DFO biologist
Kevin Conlin, who helped

design the restoation. 'The

work will deepen pans of

II

I

II%

buai ii

RJIIR

the cndsdng slough and
extend it fuaher inland,
greatly increasing the habitat
2'he slough hubl tot being restored is on the coeatervc
and the number of fish that
flu eh of the nuturvd area at tha southern tits of
can use the area. Water
Burnulry'a /loodploln fbottom right).
gow in and out of the slough
will also be improved."
Work on the two-year project begins
Slough:
this summer. The installadon of culverts under
the dikes will allow fiy betcer access to the
a swamp,
slough, Conlin adds. Transplandng of sedge, a
a mcfddy place.
type of marsh plant, into the new habihat to
speed up revegeation will begin next year.
The sice, owned by the City of Bumaby,
is about I y hectares, of which 3.5 hectares, or
he dicdonary definition of a slough
20 per cent. is being developed into a
does not sound inviting, buc to a young salmon
continuous network of backwater slough
en route m the ocean an esuury slough is a
habitat, Bumaby is also conoibuting $ 50,000
choice place to rest and feed.
and incorpoaung the slough in hs plans to
A typiod esuury slough comprises
create a natural park at the site - viith tails,
bottomland forest vegetatio, marsh and
birdwat«hing and picnic areas.
mudllat — where the water driTts in and out
Also cooperating is the Nnrrh Fas r
with the tides. Salmon by migadng to sea like
Harbour Commission, conunuing a successful
the shallow, proteaed watea and the plentiful
insects chac develop among the maah.
Unfortunately, such Interddal sloughs have
become rare in the Faser estuary, a casuaky
m urban development and good~ennui
diMng.

three-way partnership forged last year in
another FRAP effort The partners rebuilr.
marshes and stabilized banks to protect
vegeation along a 520-meve stretch of
foreshore at Che western edge of the Bumaby
Fraser Foreshore Park The work improved an
estimated 5500 square meves of habitat for
salmon fly. Burnaby plans to develop a natural.
lint ar park along ihe western bank of its
goodplain, known as Big Bend, that will
connect the new slough habiat vdirh the
rebuilt marsh.
FRAP is expanding acdvides in the
estuary in recognition of its imponance to
salmon. About one billion salmon fry a year
migrate through the estuary on their way to
salt water - resting, feeding, hidae from
predators and acclimatizding to a ir trine
environment.
FRAP is also fundiqg a $ I 5,ll00 project
this year at Woods Island (near Vancouver

Incemauonal Airport) to connect an existing
slough with a newly developed slough This
will improve access by fish to both sloughs and

improve water flow through them
As well, $2',MO from FRAP and
funding from the Faser River Harbour
Commission is supporting a pilot projea in the
estuary near the city of New Westminster's
Sappecton Bar, between the Patullo and Port
Mann bridges. The project is cesdng the
feasibility of building up part of the area's
sandbar to create islands.

These islands, which would be buik in
partnership with indusuy using matuial from
pi vines dredging of the river, would be
developed as fish habitat through the planting
of uses and maah vegetation and the creaoon
of backwater sloughs. One island will be built
this bg and, if succeul'ul, industry may take
over the projea and build up to five mora ig

At the southern dp of the Bumaby
lloodplain. which bulges into the north arm of
the Frater estuaty, the Fraser River Action

IN$ 11$ Il,

~g

1

n» »

Plan is Pumng $ 50,000 into resroring one of
the last backwater sloughs in that part of the
river. It is one of more dun 20 fubiat
restoadon projects in 1994-95 under F RAP.

PttatP proyect ntongttucvcccby'e
foreiihore thol coill be llnhcd to the new
slough habitat by o shoreline cnulh.

ss

I

I

su I ~ \ ~
I

IIIIIII~]

gi--"

I

I

I

lpmlI'I~~~~C'~~~ei

I

IIII I 1m

&%%8+~g=— ',=,',,~sit~I Iljl I,ll If
I

R

II%11'P
uu usm

F~ER
FOCUS
4
Sharing water in
B.C.'s dry interior

O

B

uring the hob parched summers
on the Thompson Bateau in B.C.'s southern
interior, the sveams of the Nicola River
wacershed serve as a source of fmgadon
water for many farms and ranches. But this
irrigation often leaves lisle water in the
streams for lish.
Most Nicola Valley farmers and
rancheas use an openditch irrigation system,
in which large amounts of vvater are lost to
ground seepage and evaporation.
"Because of the huge losses, exua
wamr must be taken out of the streams in
order to get enouglf for imgtdon. And the
peak imgadon erne is in the driest monde of
August and September, when river water
levels are already low," explains lan Ross, one
of che DFO engfneus designing a FRAP
project to conserve vuter for gsh in one patt
of the Nicola watershed by helping to improve
the egiciency of imgadon.
The project's target is the potemially
producdve tributary of Gnichon Creek, which

joins the Nicol» River downstream of the
town of Merritc Critically low water flow
during the summer has been a long-sanding
problem in the Guichon ard hampers the
creek's ability to support fish. Aldiough
estimates indicate Guichon can support about
250 returning steelhead adults and l,200 coho
aduks, these fish runs have plunged in recent
ymrs, says DFO biologisr, Mel Sheng. The
creek could also provide good habitat for
chinook salmon and rainbow vous
'Somedmes adult chinook cannot get
Guichon
Creek to spawn in late August.
up
Coho. chinook and rainbow uout fry moving
dmvnstream in spring and summer get
suanded in the ditches and die," says Sheng,
noting that losses of young salmon have been a
concern for many years. The fry are swept
into the unscreened irrigation ditches or are
attracted to the quiec ditch habitat for rearing
and are unable to return to the creek
To combat this problem, FRAP is
conuibuting up to Saf00,000 this year to more
cSiciendy extract irrigation water from
Guichon Creek - within the volumes
pennittcvf by the existing water licences - and
retain sugicient water for spawning and rearing
gsh. One soludon being considered is to
replace two existing dishes with one enclosed

pipeline to bring imgation water to farms and
ranches growing hay crops on the Lower
Nicola indian Band territory to the east of the
creek The project involves working in
cooperadon with the Native band and B.C
Environment. Future ditch replacements likely
would involve pipelinm to land to the wes of

Guichon Creek.

A screen installed on the pipeline's
intake would prevent fry from being swept in
and lost. Access to the then unused ditches
would also be blockect The work, to begin
this fall, is expected to take orro m three
seasons to complete. Bf

FRAP is busy in the Nicola River

watershed. Other activities include:
A dsruonstruliou watershed
project iu which
community. based phumiug
ssslw to ausofaw feud uml
wafer.uss couflhiu FRAPis
prouiding supiuart uud funding
to the Nicolu Wussrehsd
Community Round Tub le - u
ciiiusus'furuafug group
repm muting oauyiug uaiurusls
sucl'a us ruawhbag, foreshy auad
pi mt Nufiorw - io conduct public
uassciugs, hfau u wufsrabed
coordinator uud sslublash u
wufsrsfwd resomue oeuirs.
Improuemsuf of bint umf fish
habitat ou ruuchss bondsriug
She Nicolu Riess ha purtusrship
wish Duchs Vidimfisd und
priuuis luudoumsru
Co-muuugeuwut prqfscfsby
Nufiue groups wader the
Aboriginal Flsfwafss Esrulegy.
These i ncluds efforts io impross
luabiiul, monitor cutclus uud
assess siuchs ou salmon-bearing
stnaums that ruu through
rsssrus lands.

II(
Ouichou Crech runs high during u uisit this aors'ng by DPO engineer Ed Woo fleft)
un d B.C. En ui ron ment biologist Er cue hfurich.

Oc7 -5
tel ln bl

laI]II -,

i

aaa

I[IIUIIR;.

0

~

u

Saau

2

emsll

j~ ms;
I

a

=——

snj s s

s '='='I
"mii
suau
l
a

/essa as ~ ssa '=:

~ K9
~

l1mi

'

-i~" =- -'!L
~

„—

a4

u a au a
I

I

lI

a~

its

I!Ill/
us
ta ~

lllkli

iiill
IIIII

~

umI'Il
Riiii

F~ER FOCUS

diverted most of the river's vrater flow for
electricity and cut off sodceye salmon from
their rearing habiat in Coquidam Lake.
Riverside dikes prevented fish from entering
cridcal habitat in channels olf the mainstem,
Gravel pit operation- along the river caused
heavy silmdon of the water,

hampering salmon egg and
fry survivaL Mining of the
river's own gravel 30 to 40
ymis ago avail coa lt soiia
s pavning beds.
"The Coquidam River
is one of the most degraded

niesms in the Lower
Mainland." says Matt Foy, a
DFO biologist who is leading
a second year of elforcs

ualer dm Frascr River
Acdon Ran m nutore lost
fish habitat on the Coquidam
lbver.

The river's pink,
sockeye and chinook salmon
fans afe exullcc But \Iuve

ee sdll small populations of
FiiaIW

I

iH II

',lm(

side-channc L

The FRAP project is deigned to

nxbinl lost habllat of die llvei s ITlalnstem
and to yve the river's scruggling fish a
mucboeeded boost, Foy explains. The habitat
improvements will also take advantage of an
agieemenc signed with BC Hydro that will

Ilia I ~ es nl
fx
jjjim
v

I'I!Iiji I lyj
B5
I

salmon fry a year. Bi

~

\

As part of'ail elfon co:eq'nnd habiat
of hydro Ib'ms, FRAP li'launching anew projea
Ihii year on'dnxhjoiienex Rivw.'As on dte
Coquidam Rive BC Hydro is a palmer, providing
suildent water llo cfrom the'Aloueue Dam for
the restored lnbiaii~sdmatdiljig FRAP widI
$ 30,000 in feuiirigx '.".'.

scenk rLver„whid&irise'I in Golden Esa
provindal park@0'k~keast ofVmcoinw, has, like
the Coquidam,'lortqfa,'fpckeye a'n'd chinook iuiu.
A hatchery mn by di'e Alouete'River Coivecdonal
Cence reierses chum„'mhc;neel'ead and

cuuhroat tmut smiolar,","„,4

"""iivg

hol

Sshlrig rivervln
catMtqng

ht3 helps install a

renter intake ctrnctMl,q rchtch
l and debris nihile
iniprccing scater /lom into a

mho, chum and steelhead
almon and cuuhnat and
rainbow tsout. The survival
of some of these stocks is thnhs in large pais
to the release of fry by a hatchey operated by
the Porc Coquitbm and District Hunting and
Mung Club and DFO's Salmoiiid Enhancement
Program

%IIII

the mainstem favoured by over-wintering
coho, winter losses of juveniles were high.
Therefore, rmtoring the channels and ponds is
expected to increase coho survival by about
5,000 smolts a year.
This adds m last year's construaion
under FRAP of two sldochannels vsth
adjoining ponds in a previously dry section of
the upper river. The work, in parmership with
BC Hydro, created about 11,000 sq. metres of
new habiat thac is expened to produce an
addidonal 5,200 coho smolts and 25,000 chum

"5'yi

unun acdvides have taken a toll
on the Coquidam River. Adam built in 1914

ensure the release of sufficient water from
the Coquidam Dam to protect the river's
remaining fish and habitat.
FRAP and BC Hydro have each
commived $ 30,000 in 1994-95, which will be
direaed ac two sites. On the east bank of die
river, near rhe River Springs housing
development, rehabilitadon of a blocked
channel leading from the river to a series of
ponds will increase spavming and rearing
habitat. The one kilometre channel has had
no water flow for about 30 yeais.
Residents are supporting the work,
with the River Springs strata community
conuibuting $ 8,000. The City of Coquitlam,
which has helped
move the project
forward, owns the
parkland through
which much of the
channel runs.
'"fhe channd
will be excavated and
a water intake
installed to open up
water gow and fish
access," explains Foy.
"Some new gravel
will be brought In to
improve spawning
beds. Hiding arms for
h y will be added by

";„'.,'he

Reclaiming
lost habitat

huge weedy debris
and vee smmps in
the channel and
ponds."
The other site is upstream at the
Upper Coquidam River Park, where a
sidechannel leading to a single pond receives
mainly seepage water. Work there is creating
more stable water Aows from dw river. This
is expeaed to increase the ar aunt of

avniable spawning and rearing habkat iw
about 10,000 square meires.
The habiat is of parucular value m

35IL000

sakiw'n'by
aduk,'chu

proiluce
adula,
as
''

9

'n
KC Hyd

«oho. who rear a full year in small streams
before heading out to sc. n da spring. Bui
since the Coquidam River had litde habiat olf

can~ sni,nfDBN'lniaalaa lgeII
~

Hl 4 lm % I B I 1 I 88 j I ce I I maim

-msemhaa IIIE

asia

iN Ia

~

I~a

gl 1 I jIj

I&

I~

mf %-—

'."I mii mmiuqggm~+(
I

(

jinnne'I'o:

I

uu

ERASER FOCUS
High-tech help for age-olgI rite
ith amazing determination to

survive, sockeye salmon populations in the
Horsegy River of B.C.'s interior are

rebounding at a remarkable pace But tint's
not without the help of fisherie biologists
applying old-fashioned hard work and new
combinations of high-tech experdse.
With airborne remote sensing tools,
some of the mystery locked in B.C.'s salmon
spawning rivers h unfolding. Napping and
monitoring fish Iebimt to estimate the
spawning potential of the river lm taken to
the air, literally adding another dimension to a
fisheries bioloaf It's job.
lan Williams, a fisheries biologist edith
0, is heading a team of blologiux and
remote sensing expercs in a research project
that focuses on the river's produaive capacity.
The project is funded under the Fraser River
Aaion Pian. The team includes Tom Brown

and Ray Lauzler, both DFO I" bimt biologists.
Kadya Bach. a Ph.D. student from Germany,
and Arthur Roberis, an assistant professor at
B,Cfs Simon Fraser University, are
contribunng their expertise in remote sensing
technology.
Williams suited working with salmon
in the Horsefly (part of the Quesnel River
system) 30 years ago. He has travelled the
river through time, lloating its surface in a
rubber boat, tramping irs shores in hip-waders
and now studying its depths with an infix-red
camera from a small aircraft. Stream waliu and
working a river by boat aren't necessarily
being abandoned, but research is moving away
from the two-dimensioral world of paper
maps to the three-dimensional world of
computers and a GIS.
GIS stands for Geographic Infoimation
System, which is bmically a "system for

entering, suxing, manipulating, analysing and
displaying geogaphic or spatial data."
It's this technology, combined with the
infra-red camera work for remote sensing that
Williams and his team are using on the
Horsefly.
Rebuilding the river's sockeye run to
previous high levels is fast becoming a reality.
In l 993, about 13 million sockeye swam back
to the Hoixegy to spawn. Three million of
these escaped the ccrnmercial, Naive and
sport fisheries to spawn and set the cycle for
future generations of sockeye. VYith those
numbers, the Horsefly produced over one-half
ofall the sockeye in the Fraser River system.
Williams believes the numbem can be even
greater.
"In 1909, a pproximatdy four million
sockeye returned to the Quesnel system,"
says Williams. "Then the l913 Hells Gate rock

Ground truthiugmeasuring the river
depth by tusnd is the /irxt
step iu mapping the
HorxsPy River by remote
ssussug tsshauivgy. Here,
nessamh team msmb r
Eatiya Bach, fram
Germany, msasunss Ivatsr
depths ut vus-metre
trw assets.

iiiii

lm

jjjj'Iljjjjjl

Il I @ B
mal lu s
i

)

I

III,

~

ILI I giitlii

OL'T

~ sm

e Iu I
~ um,
Ql 'emmllll

~;imgBIR
~ I I
II~I

Imsmg

11 1
~ g el

I

I

Hi

I

~ Il

~

-~ eu m me u e.
'I m

'I ie

s

u

'

I nljim
I

-5 $ gg
5%i

I llilkl
ii'I

a thai

I

I

j

tie
I'I

R FOCUS
the salmon runs in ihe
building efforts over the
ut still, by the early 40s
2,000 sockeye in the
on of evenrs put this run
the river blocked
the spawning grounds
rations buried the
gmvel with meves of
ve lower spawning
ed. In addition, fish
rc of the river suffered,
ways, from agricultural
People didn't think
vy equipment and
r, destroying importanc
necessary river bank
tocks. it is not enough
lowed to escape the

eater esca pements are
r is able to support
productivity depends. iii
spawning gravel
ng comes imo play in
pawning gravel is in the
se it. Aerial photos
fall's spawning w re

$ glwlgij

to geographic points on a map
enabling Williams to analyze the gravel the fish
were occupying and calculate the square

meves of spavming gravel.
Spawning grounds alone, though, don'
guarantee more saLmon. Water levels, winter
temperatures, rearing areas and flooding all
pby major parts in the life cycle.
'We know that water levels in certain
areas of this river drop in winter and when
they do, they could affect spavming success.
We need to know which areas are susceptible
to freezing. This may be a signifimm factor in
the river's productive capacity."
Another factor is die capacity of ne" *y
Quesnel lake to support juvenile sockeye,
which feed and grow in the lake for about one
year before migrating to sea.
Remote sensing is being cested for iis
e gccdveness in measuring the river's water

II'eferenced
I I

ass

I

ss

(
g IN!I II

IIMj (g
4 .

bl,',",",gll

l'':,frii1
~

'I

0i....

j

I

ill

depths. Aerial images produce
different rellemive values (degrees o(
light reflected off the water) for
different depths of water. The

methodology is bong developed at
the Remote Sensing Laboratory at
Simon Fraser University. The first
step was to hand measure water
depths across the river in one-metre
uanseczs. As a second step, aerial
photographs of this line were taken.
The hand-measured depths at each
meve were matrhed to the regeaive
value in the photo. A third part o( the
project was to photograph whole
seaions of the river and digitize the
images for computer use. At this
stage, computers can calculate water
depths using the reflerzive value given
to the images.
The team has also used
airborne imagery and years of data
collecdion to develop an adas of the
river showing ihe relationships among
fish distribution, fish densicy and
near-shore vegeration species.
k is hoped that che remote
sensing work being carried out on the
Horsefly River can be applied to rivers
elsewhere in B.C. The use of these
technologies has the potential to provide
fi heries managers and biologists with the
accurate and timely information so necessary
for making the dight decisions in this
environmenr

I

lan WifffaMn,.DFLLflshcrics biotodist,
heads ihe team inucstidatfnd thc
productius capacity of the Horsefly
Hiusr for socheys salmon.

Fraser River Action Plan
1220-555 West Hastings St.
Vancouver, BC
V6B 5G3
j

el&@

.

THE CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM

TO:

Environmental Protection Committee

DATE: September 14, 1994

FROM:

F. K. K. Cheung, P. Eng.
Project Engineer

FILE No: EPC

SUBJECT: 1995 - 1996 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL BUDGET

RECOMMENDATIONt
That Committee review and approve the 1995 - 1996 proposed Environmental Budget.

1.

BACKGROUND 8I

COMMENTS'he

Engineering Department is preparing the 1995 - 1996 proposed Engineering Budget, to be submitted at the
end of September to City Treasurer. Included in the Budget is the 1995'- 1996 proposed Environmental Budget
'which includes projects for a grass and leaf depot facility, composting ~tion, recycling station and Fraser Basin
cost share. 'It is recommended that Committee review and approve the 1995 - 1996 proposed Environmental
Budget.

F. K. K. Cheung, P. Eng,
Project Engineer

'lwliljlIR
I

Nn

liirsi&aaII I I3):

'Rl IIIII
i~ "«~gl'III

Yil
I]IIII
III'e le
~

lI I

I
I

OCT-5 $9$

ill
s1
~)

alsl
I IIIE

:

I

~

1

Igglll~e

5!I% ]1

II .

eeaelmel'e

I

~
eee le

~

alIIB Imll

est I ~ e~
liam mlmla I dele
as —~ -~ —
ee Ii~5

'ge I I I I

~
~

I

I&i

==mlnnemai%.'itr

ne ee e e Ml S
line tw'
I

~

I

I

I

SS

I

SI I1

1

tt a I'%1 ttms ~
.

ns~

e'M ~ I LES~

I

I

I

lee

D 4) )0
SC

0

O A

sC

0

Rr..t
3'ss

3

OKO~
U
0 -3
O

3

0)

o os

5

~g

o3U
O CO
0) 0

3

% O A

8$ I I

LI

)sc

C)

0

0

Cl

0

I
Ãyaaa

.

sa

4a

o

4

40

)) OI
o Oa

oo 0o
ooo

ooo
oooo
oooo
ooo
IO OI Vl

s)
0)

a
Pn
9 n
sa
4)
ts
4

4) Ol

OC

0
CS
0 C)

))
C

4) OI
4) O O

O OI

Q O

g

3'IIIII
Cl

iiihj]

44

4) )0
4) 4)

'0
0

D4) 4)

@III~ fhd
l

IlII,&g
I I I

III i

as s ~ a I II

O 4) 4)

0

)0

ooD

~oo

O 0 O

Cl

4

0)

'Cl

Ol

0

04)$
0
0

4 III IIRI

f'e'-"
"g
s
llalf
Sl 4 Is
0s
I%a

I

~ Ui

0

0 II

4I I II 4lm4ll11
ILII 4 Rl ll34
/ If

'l

I
I

I

4 hl Q

IIII cl'a

II.

aar3I4INkf3 3I~"'k
II ~

I Is

»I~ missa 5IIII%1 Ni I'fgW Il34e ill
I

I

«la ~ ) Rh '

la 3

I

~I

I

4 as

4 sl 0 04 Ia I
~

iZ

I

I I ~ I ~
I

4I

=;..9W Ia

-llhf Sfh

--'- III I
'44

x-n
/gal
nS'f"

C& CC

g~

f

n

B.

a
CC

OI

tll
CI

OOO
CI D

CC

h3
tn

O C

O

C

O
O

CII
CD
I

0

O

O

LFS lmi IRAQI
f,iiir, asei
1lmlll

O
'

CC

a

I

CD

CD
O CI C,

4

nl
D O
O O
CI

0

Q O

g 5'

4l CC
CI III

4l
u C CID

O

W CI O

gg

ll I'l
'

II

I=: =:
RR
IN II

I

I

Ijiii iPqg,

'll-

lml II il'I II I

ISMCS ~ iiec—

CIC

~ C

Ci rye I'pari.Coqui i.ram

1995 Budget

program Improvement Request

Request for Program Improvement

1lDeptr

Garbage cleanup proaram

. itic

Environmental Prnrorrinn

Description of Improvement

This program will provide residents with a one time opportunity to dispose of

their materials (ie white goods, bicycles, chairs, tables, etc)
This will reduce the overall. solid wastes and recyclable collection costs.
Residents would be requested to put out their materials at curbside one week prior
to their collection date. Restrictions on the si.ze of materials would be 'applied
to the regular garbage collection service.

Alteniatives':

Resources required 1
-provide an alternative for residents to reuse Personnel & bene6ts $ I S 000

advantages of approval

and recycle their recyclable materials.

.reduce overall solid wastes and recycling

Equipment

S

—

collection and disposal costs.

S

-proposed budget for two evenrs,
Spring and Pall.

].

gag

g INI ae5IMI
Ui INRI

-overall solid wastes and recyclable
collection
-cost will continue to increase

JIL...—

s ~ ~ aiiisnl 4N]gl
ip W'sa,
fz

g j Ni

Ilia I'llllli'IN

0

Contracted senrlces

sq

30,000

CAPITAL

S

0

$ 55$ non

Revenue generated.

Other funding

$

Other funding source

I

i ic

'0

S

To t aI

Imp)icattons of Denial r

~~

I

Materials & supplies

15,000

'&udget & Administration Committee recommendationr
I

.il ISO'

IIIIIIII it=

iiiilhl

Q» I pm
tsiar
Il)i tss
art
) fipll)r
&

i~a

(

s~'... pig /g
~l s'sliliN
„,'.l.",~ RNllis'~4r~ig faas
~,
4!:::-i

I'If!

~

:=:: ~alod

I

~a'

I

$

',;

Ils ~ ~ isseg

ii)="= 'ilHgllg =I. ~~s~aairm===':ml'I All1 1

l

I ~

~sass j

1695 Budget

.

City

o f

Port Coquiiiam
program Improvement Request

Request for Proaram Improvement
I

.tic

Comnostine Station — phase 1

IDcpt
p Fn irnr onr 1

prnr rico

Description of'mprovement:

'he

This program is the first phase of
composting station construction works.
This involves paving one-fourth of a one acre composting station, installing
catch basin and sanitary sewer, and constructing a roof cover for the station
This will provide an environmentally safe compositng area for the collected

grass and leaves.

Rvantages of approval

Resources required r
Personnel & henegts

0

disposal costs.

Equipment

0

-generate revenue from sale of composted
material to Parks and Recreation Department.

UtQitics

0

-reduce overall solid wastes collection and

I

Materials & supplies

Contracted services

To ta l

Implications of Dcnbd

I
I, ='"„liiii
(fige mlR
I~I rim

Ill!I'I!
$8

-overall solid wastes collection and
disposal costs will continue to increase.

—

j

j

jI~ seBiiiIIIas
Ilt I 41M
»Wiaal'jgjg
I

0

4 150,000

Other funding

--'mi

l,a

150,000

Revenue generated

ra&ah vv,//
Sla ~ ill

['
me— —

$

Other fundmg

so~

dlget & Administration Committee recommendattont

Qg -31994

1995 Budget

City

o f

Port Coquiiiam

6

p

i 'his
Reouest for Prosram Imorovement

.0c

Recvclinp Station
Description of improvement:

l++P~-

Environmental Protection

program will be set-up in conjunction with the grass and leaf depot facility
at the new Works Yard. The facility requires.the construction
of an access ramp
loc blocks, railings and paving. The facility also needs depot bins,
either
rental or purchase, for collection of their recyclables thereby, reducing
the

operational costs.
Items to recycle:

Alternatives

white goods, metals, batteries and exisiting recyclables.

ivanisges of approval:

-encourage residents to recycle their

recyclables.

-reduce overall solid waste collection and
dispogal costs.

im ~ e&".W

I

Iigi I

-overall solid waste collection and
disposal costs will continue to increase.

l

I

20,000

VtUiiies

9

0

Materialsfk supplies

5

75,000

Contracted services

5

25,000

I

IL1i I'I ini

lii

5

Other funding

i

i Ns I

Equipment

Revenue generated

g Igi sii sg Igi I
I

60 nnn

To ta i

fmislicanons of Denial

I

Resources required:
Pdrsonnei & henegts
$

(

,

jg / /

I

.'-::-,Rlll 'lil '1 1
I

1 tI I 1 ls
I

~

15

IIBudget dt Administration Committee recommendation:

Other funding source

$ 160.000
$

5

RIVER
FRASER
P
=;=
—

Estuary Managelnent Program

560 Queyside Drive

Suite 301,

¹w Wesisninsse, KC.
V3M 6G2
Phone (604) 525-1047
Pen (604) 525-3005

September 1994

Dear Stakeholder
Two items are enclosed for your infoanation and review

The FREMP 1993-94 Annual Report describes FREMP activities completed over the past year
and the ) 994-95 work plan. This "state of the Program" format provides a means for monitoring
the Program's progress from year to year.
The flyer highlights key features of eA Living Working River", an Estuary Management Plan for
the Fraser River which is now in the process of being adopted by the signatories of FREMP. The
Plan, which was developed in consultation with stakeholders, provides a framework for
integrating environmental protection and development in the estuary. Similar in scope and
purpose to a community plan for a municipality, the Plan outlines goals, principles, and policies
for integrated water and land use management of the estuary.
Tf, after reviewing the Annual Report and the Estuary Management Plan flyer, you have any

questions or comments about FREMP or any of the Program's key activities, please contact the
FREMP office.

The current FREMP agreement is now being extended until March 1996. Over the next 18
months, the Management Committee will be defining the focus and structure of a coordinated
management program for the estuary after 1996. A questionnaire is included on the reverse to
solicit your input to assist the Management Committee in defining coordinated management for
the estumy in the future. Please mail, fax or telephone your reply to the FREMP office at the
address and phone numbers noted at the top of the page.
Note: Please notify us if you wish to have your name removed from the FREMP mailing list.
Otherwise, your name will remain.
's i i)i g.
Iil:-=;;,.— g J
I iII!

I

!II=."- ~iiiI
OCT
n

gn a
e sse ~ I eeeW s

~e

se
— IK

-u IQ

Tllp, CORPORATION OF THE
CJTY OF PORT COQUJTLAM
MEMORANDUM

TO:

Environmental Protection Committee

FROM:

Anne T. Pynenburg

DATE: October 04, 1994

Project Technician
SUBJECT:

FREMP TASK FORCE OPTIONS - FOR FORMATIION ONLY

Attached is a copy of reports sent to Strategic Planning Committee, Sewerage & Drainage
Committee and Budget Committee and deals with the option to merge two govenunent bodiesFREMP and BIEAP (Burrard Inlet Environmental Program).

See page 5 for staff recommendations from G.V.R.D.
Also attached is a copy of FREMP 's . umual Report.

II.

y.yy

y

g

Project Technician
attach

gllgI
!!! ~ p Kw d aaa
1

ILI 4 I
I

II

II
ll il'M
4

I

4

it!

I

I

I

IM I

I

~ IW I I I

I I j

Ilmj)

Iilllhlll
P,.
~ad
SMla
QW.
Na ltd~a
grl, III lib

Bl

I.'R I

111

Il ilIR I

'll'111 l
,

I! II \'l I Il a

!1 ~
I dl

i

'1

'li I I'I

I

UI

OCT -5

1

III

P

llh

I

I:.:: a
[Q

P

I II I I

''

rvdi IHIIVI1 I
!
vt I n I 4 Id

I

I

I

I

-:

I'li~dn

gtlltll!I

I

';m aatm jilt ig Wl I ait ll

~

4

I

INK I vMvdl I

lg

!si8 44"

„.-- .4

~4 tall!a it
i

I
I

IIld!'IIV

~
II I

'

'

'

=

===-

'll

I

I

'=:=
lr

;~MI&P
1

II

~

I

I

d ~

~

!!It

$94

/Ill!I ~

I

!I

II

ta'%11 Iiaa',

Ia
al VVV

11

li"..'

daww

a

i;

Ilkviiai "I=

1

1

„

I I I

I

I

I

~

I

I

'I

,VV

I

I!a
IIVIV

1

W ~

'1 dd

..".

I

liiilg
Its%

I IPP s I i

,

)/IN&Illa'

f5IIII3
PPtt ttP

In the process of considering the proposed two-year extension of the FREMP agreement in
March 1994, the Strategic Planning Committee again considered the benefits of partial or
co.nplete merger. To underhne its dissatisfaction with the status quo, the Conunittee
recommended that the Board approve the extension of the agreement and simultaneously give
the necessary one year's notice of its intention to withdraw Rom both programs as of 31
March 1995. It was underwood that this notice period would give all of the parties to the two

I

I

Silk)
~

'II Is!alt
olla
I

II

I ~ IPP I 444

I'I IIRI

44!el

sm

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

8
xiii ill
'14iiilig
I

..m

jurisdictional boundaries. The GVRD was a founding member of BIEAP when it was
established under a five-year agreement among the parties in 1991. The GVRD became a
member of FREMP at the invitation of the other parties under a three-year agreement set up
in 1991. The FREMP agreement is being extended by the parties for a further two-year
period to 31 March 1996.

n spw sl4 I
44

I

-.— — IPI

P Pl

~I&'g

,'1

I

I

I

g0

I

I!Ill)[

~

)',,ll (If

OCT -J

f! il Il I! I [I'
I

~~ ~t

"NII
II IPIIIIf'I[ plPI

~

w lf

PPPPIPP4llllilmg}

P

Put~~ '""~'~ 44 a44
1

~~4

4

~

'(ggg [/554

'~
'-"~e4-= — %II~-:a =- ==:='-Wggn~--4

l;;=,;;,'-'=

tt ~ t(//ItJJ
.'t ~
I

t

44 ~

I

s!
'l
I

ILII

I!''

~~~N~,I'"-'-'=".",,'Nii.

-

II IIIPI

U

4

II

I

=-

t

II
I

II ~

:I II ~ I

a

... Il PP W

I

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

3,

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

continue to participate in and support the Burrard Inlet Environmental Improvement
Action Plan;
continue to participate in and support the Fraser River Estuary Management Program;
participate actively in the Fraser Basin Management Program;
support efforts to restore the environmental quality of Howe Sound.

Discussion

4.

Attached as Appendix A is 4 memorandum from the Management Conunittees to the senior
representatives of the parties to the two agreements containing the
concerning the Task Force report. Appendix B is the Executive Summary
of the Task Force Report. Copies of the full report are available from Ken Cameron,
Strategic Planning, at 432-6379.

Committees'ecommendations

'anager,

The Management Committees suggest that immediate attention be given to the sttucture(s)
for integrated resource management for Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River Estuary for the
period following expiry of the current agreements on 31 March 1996. In the period prior to
that date the feasibility of some of the integration options is limited by the fact that they would
require amendments to the agreements that might be resisted by some of the parties and
would, in any case, be diBicult to achieve in the relatively short time period the agreements
have left to run, The Management Committees recommend that the parties consider changes
that can be made without amending the agreements, including the integration of the
Management Committees, the sta6'organizations and the project registries of the two
organizations. The Task Force report includes 4 gnancial analysis prepared by a management
consultant that shows that the dollar savings that might be achieved by integration are quite
small - in the order of $ 35,000 in a combined budget of $ 1 million shared among seven

~~Pit
m Pmiai~

I ~

II 41! Isa
~I
14 ~
I

1IR IR

I

I

parties.

flmll

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

l%f
lkjP.Whl'l

1IPIL

jllill I! )
1 II I'%

44 III

I

11 I I P N

~'

8 I i!I

~

mt I

i'115"

,,': -'',1111

4 4

IS'l II 414riii II
I

I

I

~
~

Q

4441'
4411 I II ~ !44 u

I

I

sl

'I

*

I

III m 4 ~ I 4 I
~ II
~
414!i

I

4lil IIII

llew

I

I

4

'41llel

~

44 II
4441~,. "
4 P'

—.'441 pp 4

'' '44

'.

I

41 4 ~14

w

~ I

44 ISI ~

I

411

IPP I

II

41 ~ I

I

4 411

: F43!I

1

I

have been proceeding through the policy-making process without any apparent consideration
of their impact on the coordination of water quality management programs in Butrard In! et or
the Fraser River Estuary.

I

(P1illill

::::::

(~

I

9 I KP

a ~I l

I I I

t91
fl I I lg $

I
I

I

$

a!

II I

,j~iiiiil (

6f

I.:,.„...,a
I

IP P ~ PP
IP P

OC&

-& @94

I

JRllhllk

I

1III11

i

'II PIII I
~

P =

.—

.=

-P!P!PI ln laa

=

I

i Clll P! Pl

I9 i

!PP ~ RMH IP

Pill lP P

ll1 f

'L
II

P

I

.MI

.

Ill!

I

I

1

II/ 1l

.l1

I'I
P

mt II '

II

~

I

II

I

PI

With literally billions of dollars at stake in the resolution of these iss
reservations about where the GVRD's limited professional resource
The issue was brought sharply uito focus in the consideration of FRE
Management Plan, which required intensive negotiations to produce
the parties. As a result, an efFort is being made to develop "'an integra
quality management" in the Fraser River Estuary by 1995, a process
GVRD's Stage 2 Liquid Management Planning process. If all of th
to agreement on such an approach, the result would provide major b
resources of the region and the interests of its residents and commu
Board would have to consider the benefits of continuing its involvem
their current or revised forms, beyond 1996.

It is evident from the above discussion that the GVRD derives signi
benefit from its involvement in BIEAP and FREMP and in whatever
the termination of the present agreements. It is equally evident that
v ould be better served by integration of some if not all of the activi
some reasonable time I'rame. In this regard, it is worth noting that t
integration are minimal and that the continued involvement and comnu
participants is essentiaL
5.

Qpttion

(a)

The Board could reject the recommendations of the Manage
would be contrary to the Board's interests and to its previou

(b)

The Board could accept the recommendations of the Manag
agree to withdraw its notice of termination if the other partie
recommended option.

6.

Financial Imolications

The GVRD's annual contributions to BIEAP and FREMP amount t
the Strategic Planning budget.
7.

Member Municipalitii.s

Member municipalities in the FREMP area participate directly in the
BIEAP programs provide opportunities for participation by municipahties in its area.
8.

ICOSI

Interaovernmental

&I I

BIEAP and FREMP are intergovernmental programs.

NI11i'I%HI

.

illi'IIII
I

8i 1 ~ 1
I

Iasl s a li
~

r

aa I I

i.
,

„s i

lwfill

I

!~!:-1-..-;-„=. ml 'rl wl
Jl

'

.':'l
"':',:;
~
—-

ill ems Ir =

llii lr

tel~~

ISIS rl

I

~

1 ~ 4$

I

1

I

~ a

1%

IS S
~ IS

I

g

i Sl
r~

ii 1

I

II

5

SI1 IIL

s I! Ill li li
Il1 1

I

I

I

~

I S

I ~

~

I

I I

I

%

mmunications and education programs that are documented
programs are coordinated with GVRD programs where
tival).

g Committee recommend that the Board approve the
s and urge the other parties in BFEAP and FREMP to
B1EAP and FREMP agreements commence'immediately to
for program mandate(s) and organizational structure(s) for
e management in Burrard inlet and the Fraser River Estuary,
parately, for the period following the conclusion of the
FREMP agreements on 31 March 1996.

prior to 31 March 1996, the parties to the BIEAP and
s:

and members of the BlEAP Steering Committee, the
ation Committee and the FREMP Management Committee
ment Committee comprised of a representative f'rom each
two agreements and co-chaired by Environment Canada
Envirorunent, Lands and Parks;

llllmlSSIN

continue the policy and technical activities of BiEAP and FREMP as currently
bring implemented, but direct the Management Committee(s) to identify and
implement opportunity for enhanced effectiveness through cross-fe tilization of
ideas between the two programs;

II
IS I

consolidate the BIEAP Program Coordinator's Once and the FREMP
secretariat into one stafF organization reporting to the Management
Committee(s), but maintain tbe two program of6ces until such time as the
parties determine that combu~lg the offices will advance the objectives of the
programs and the interests of lhe parties; and

I

Ii81II,
I~IS
~
I~ I

II I 5

Ii! FJ

4 tl

I

1

isa~ la
I

II

I

flsl1I I

g II,L'l

:

I

Iiijl

Rll

continue to maintain separate environmental review processes, but directing
the Management Committee(s) to consider establishing a single project
registry.

%ll

I

SWII

155

I

i'lll— =,'

Illllill

I i51$ 'lj

1515l1'f'I

/Il H,'

1I Ll

75iial',
I

'IIs
I I

JI11jj

isgjs
: — — g ISRS87e II

I'I ~

~

'",t!Ill

'

w

a,

':'

~

S FI

lsILL

Pj gj~ IijiÃIR Sf
'=' '= "8!'ll,', ~Nu
IIMI

'a

' igiii 1st

II

sll'

II el) IRI

r

~~~SAIS ~ 'IILa'"
'

I~I

I!I I II I JNI

sou I c 6 '
~

'

I s I sI ja S gg I m
I

I

I

I I

tu tSN 1 K =

9 II II lmllll IR

II"-~ I
I

1

I

I

I

I

lj)
a&

libel

Rg 5
~ 99~)
'

ii

Nl

C

I%i;,,;;,=.
I

pit'ill,

I

I

/

e

Im 414
IN 14

ll Ie

I

~

Ii ill

j

I

I jljjj

IPi

I

/

j

I

1 i

.;,. '=
I

9 19 49 ~ I

I)5:,;
I
g9

I

.NIK

~'99ijgjai,Ilia

Sa 9W
~

I

I

iiiig ~~%'=:

~

9
41 Lw

ii

91

91

IIIII II

ll %III ml 199li 481
RW I 4

—

e I 44

~

e

+m
9119&~~am~
Bh

s

iEIB

W 1I St L LE IJ I A

TO:

Senior Representatives of the Parties
Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program
Fraser River Estuary Management Program

FROM:

3Ianagement Committees
Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program
Fraser River Estuary Management Program

DATE:

24 August 1994

RE:

REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON FREMP/BIEAP OPTIONS

Attached is a copy of this report. After consideration of the report, the Management
Committees have decided to make the following recommendations:
1.
That the parties to BIEAP and FREMP agreements commence immediately to
prepare proposals for program inandate(s) and organizationai structure(s) for integrated
resource management in Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River Estuary, either jointly or
separately, for the period following the conclusion of the BIEAP and FREMP agreements

on 31 March 1996.
2.
That, in the period prior to 31 March 1996, the parties to the BIEAP and FREMP

agreements consider:
merging the activities and members of the BIEAP Steering Committee, the
(a)
BIEAP Implementation Committee and the FREMP Management Committee into a joint
hfanagement Committee comprised of a representative from each of the parties to the two
agreements aad co-chaired by Environment Canada and the Ministry of Environment,

Lands and Parks;

continuing the policy and technical activities of BIEAP and FREMP as
(b)
currently being implemented, but directing the Management Committee(s) to identify and
implement opportunity for enhanced effectiveness through cross-fertilization of ideas
between the two programs;
consolidating the BIEAP Program Coordinator's Office and the FREMP
(c)
secretariat into one staff'organization reporting to the Management Committee(s), but
maintaining the two program offices until such dime as the parties determine that
combining the offices will advance the objectives of the programs and the interests of thc

/@II IR lStgm(

libel

parties; and

(d) continuing to maintain separate environmental review processes, but
directing the Ihlanagement Committee(s) to consider establishing a single project registry.

ii~i~

3

III I
I

I

II

IS ~

X=—:

Il $ l
I

III

:

.4%e'
&

~ 8 I llalil

Its s lslle:-:

jlha

I ' ~
III I'S

I

I

4 J

I

"isll"

~ F%NI RL

I ~

I

9:- '-

I III C
. i&still, I

-'alwsa

iill!1S tttIt
a ~ Iim S i'll
~
~ ~,I
II

I

II ~ I

'C

I ~

~

'

~'g»isgglS

"e

Rap«re of Ikr Task porno on Operon«for rhe'raerr River Eernari hdanogamrnr program and
eka Bsrrard later Environmrnrsi Arri«a Program

APPeIIdiX 8

EXE~ Sl.&fMARV
The Fraser River Eematy Management Program (FREMP - established in 1985) and the Burrard
Inlet EnvironmenL1 Action Program (BIEAP - established in 1991) are joint efforts created by
agencies and deparunents of government with clear interests in water-based resource management
and economic deva!opment in their respective parts of the Greater Vancouver region. The two
programs operate under management committees comprised of representatives of the sponsoring
organizations, (Enssronment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Ministry of
Environment, Lands'and Parks, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the North Fraser and
Fraser River Harbour Commissions (for FREMP) and the Vancouver Port Corporation (for
BIEAP)).
The Task Force was established by the management committees in February 1994 to evaluate the
potential for organizational changes that would produce better resource management from the
programs at the same or lower cost. The review was prompted by an interest in achieving more
efficient, effective administration and by the need to consider organizational requirements for
resource management in the Lower Mainland in the context of emerging broader initiatives such
as the Fraser Basin Management Program and the Georgia Basin Inititiative.
The activities of the two programs were evaluated according to the following categories: policy
and technical actiMties, project review activities and support activities. The policy and technical
activities of the programs, while simiiar in general intent, are quite different iht their approach to
the provision of efFective resource management in the Estuary and Inlet. The project review
activities are similar in function but rely upon different personnel with different expqitise in their
review of applications for development. The support activities are simiiar4n function but reflect
different emphases, with the FREMP activities stronger in program management and techtiicaj
support and the BIEAP activities stronger in public communications, public education and public
involvement.

A reMew of the programs in relation to the needs of their customers revealed that the programs
provide a wide range of government agencies with an opportunity to coordinate their activities,
including the pursuit of sustainable economic development. In providing this function, the
programs also provide a point of contact and influence for a diversity of non-govenunent
business, environmental and general public interests.

I)its &m~

14111 sn ~

f

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

as

jiIktI';;;alai—.a~
I~I

Rllj¹i@jejjl
gl'jIIP1RltllMII

ill'

III 1

I

l

~)

I~L'-='',=:
II

I

'II

~»"

ll I f
'I ~

II ~

I'gll

aa:

a%I Slim

--

e»l enifee
~

I

le

I

I ~

—

=

—

-

. « I ea I

'ma ~ Ss . —

.
I

I

nil. 1411

m am I

I

~

'I

I II

hl

I

I

I

e

I

I I

n 44 PQWI n

I

I

~

= i~ j 0 III"'&iim;.;

el ll
I I

on ~

I

I

~

I
I

ss Ia
- — --: «le
ligiii
seel I egl III ~ sl'
l~~
~ l»l lel » ~ ~ 4 Ie I IW ~

gKeeele e

I

Ie
I

'I41»loll ""

i Ir ~ ~ " ~
Nh in»a
I

I

s I el ls

II4

t

-"' -'Ililg"

»sl

~

u

I

I

I

Il

~

~

Is aj

s s~ I
I I

II

«

~

i/

gmm ee nl

I

II

II'atglll ILkll IIII

Management prograoi aint
Report o/thr rath Force on Opn'ons/or the Frarcr River Estuary
program
Action
Eavironmeinal
thc Barrcrtt micr

The management and administrative
long as they serve sparate policy and technical progratns.
support activities vzuld be strengthened by being merged.
administrative changes could be made
An analysis of the ~cut agreements established that many
authority of the management committees without
by agreement of the parties or under the
would require amendments (and
amending the agreestents. Changes beyond these which
and technical activities,
therefore the consent of all parties) include any merger of policy
arrangements.
integration of budgets and changes to financial administration
their policy and technical activities would
The report conclude that merger of the programs or of
would not be supported by al! of the parties
require amendmeni- to the existing agreements which
period of time the agreements have left to
and be diIBcult to achieve during the relatively short
management structure that should be in
run. It would be more Buitful to focus on the resource
of the agreements in early 1996.
place for the Inlet aad the Estuary aBer the expiry
"
three changes that could be consider Ab y
Within the terms cithe existing agreements, there are
committees, merger of the staBs, and creation
the arties. These are: merger of the management
the two project review processe .
of a single project registry to support the continuation ofmore
signigcant benefit would be
if any savings could be achieved by these measures; the
activities. More significant (but still modest)
improved management and performance of existing
one location, but these gains cou Id only
savings could be azained by consolidating the offices in
to customers and to the water resources
be made at the expense of other values such as proximity
the agreements.
which are important to some if not all of the parties to
themselves

options was conducted by a management
A revdew of the Bcancial implications tsf the program
from merging activities are so limited
consultant. It corduded that the potential financial savings
options.
that they should rot be a major factor in considering various
amendments to the existing agreements are
The report concludes that options that require
for the parties to determine what
robabl not work pursuing. The more important need is
agreements expire in Merch 1996,. In thee
structure(s) should be in place when the current
management committees, the administrative
meantime, the panies should consider integrating the
stalf and the project registries of the two organizations.
R

lit agliiil

I

Rl Ra a .
I

Pi, tj Iflf

IR'I RR IIS! I
II

fli RIIII I

llhhli.l

] HIWSlil
I

1!

t~ll iuiegl
IKii iSJILis'Ii im
n Imari i

Iiin im ii
fatfh „,

IIII'III Il ICI
NI,I15II l',
tI IRIK

sI c

l% I gi! t a i

'is i Iliiit e i

1

f

"+ tv'I eg
I i%I

~

1

I

'C't
1

I

-s eh

Vanconver if egional Disfricl
Bcrnaby. Brhlch Colocnbla. Canada VSI/dOB

Bnaonric Pbnodng

~

Tchphonc (6662 622-627$

lowerll, dnhyloor, 6720Klngcnoy Bnrnaby S C. (cnrcrPon Ccnnnlsonhcarce

Strategic Planning Committee Agenda
7 September 1994

g Committee
lhfanager
annulg

Greater Vancouver Receiving Waters Technical Advisory

stablishing a permanent, intergovernmental Receiving Waters

er Vancouver.

he Strategic Planning Committee recommended that the Board
aly Management Prognnn agreement for one year on the
River Estuary Management Program and the Burrard Inlet
will be merged in one year. In the discussion, it was
IEAP might be replaced by a technical, permanent,
o advise on issues related to the region's receiving waters.
orted by the GVRD with participation from the senior
in the FREMP and BIEAP programs. The Strategic
stbdf to investigate the feasibiTity of this option and report back

'volved

states that the GVRD will improve the environmental quality
through the following operational policies:
unplementation of the Liquid Waste Management Action Plan.
d support the Burrard Inlet Environment Improvement Action
Plan.

Continue to participate in and support the Fraser River Estuary Management Program.
Participate actively in the Fraser Basin Management Program.
Support efforts to restore the environmental quality of Howe Sound.
~

n

Action 16 states that the GVRD will develop and implement a regional open space and nature
conservancy program, through the following policies:

I¹

SS l.—;;

I;=.=,.::
IS m "

Dkg II 'i'~::::

'': -j

lb~
S,l
D
1bcbm
~

1$

evelop a major parks and open space plan, in conjunction viith municipalities, other.
gional districts and the Provhtce.
rsue the protection of wildlife sanctuaries, wetlands, and strategic areas in the Pacific
yway, in conjunction with municipalities, the Province and Federal authories.
amine ways to ensure fair treatment for municipalities which forego development in
er to provide regional open space.

30 states that the GVRD will help to create a supportive and globally competitive
for economic change and growth with particular attention to transportation, tourism

xport-oriented business services and technology-based manufactured products.

34 states that the GVRD will maintain and strengthen cooperative regional strategic
g and decision-making processes, involving all levels of government, to pursue
g Our Future objectives.
Discussion
raser River Estuary Managment Program {FREMP) coordinates planning arid
ment in the Fraser River estuary. The Burrard Inlet Environmental Improvement
Plan (BIEAP) provides integrated environmental planning for Burrard Inlet. The
the federal Departments of the Environment and Fisheries and Oceans and the
cial Ministry of the Environment are partners in both programs. Additional partners in
MP are the Fraser River and North Fraser Harbour Commissions, while the Port of
Vancouver is a partner in BIEAP.
The GVRD is a full partner in
and BIEAP to realize Creating Our Future objectives
m the areas of receiving water quality, wetland and wildlife habitat protection, park and open
space planning, economic development, and coordinated decision-making and plamthtg
processes.

~

FREMP is recognized internationally as an effective model for integrated estuary
management. FREMP has five major ongoing programs:

e

Illl6niii)i

i'll~~,

lk,'644lha
ual '"
ui

g1I

66

K a
2

I 6 I

s

I

wa a
nial

66%II

I a+

,Iiiiiiig

1

IIIIsl
Ui
~

$

g)

~
%klw~

'0 HI itllrgg~
61 $

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

';

ja a'~"se

6~

~

55

ll
-::''' — +~6III II116) (g Pf™ss ~jl hg mia~aiaama
—

aa m a& au uL—

~l~
~M
I

5%Ma
IMAM

',! —

.0f ~

ag61
s~
— —-

~

.,=— ~aat~iI

~ SIIR I S

~m
115lm

Committee, extended to include Burrard Ildet. The existing Water Quality Management
Committee is composed of funding agency representatives and is charged with articulating an
integrated approach to water quality management and developing an integrated water quality
monitoring program that produces policy-relevant information.

a/j,

"l(l libel'i'
pi I~ eI,
II I6 I'I
,I '1 Sml I
I

I

IN
I II

However, replacing FREMP and BIEAP with an intergovernmental technical advisory
committee strictly concerned wish receiving water quality would:
~ remove the "single-window" project review processes that are a signitlcant positive
and BIEAP resulting in signiTl cant additional costs and uncertainty for
feature of
investors, environmental groups, government agencies and communities,
result in the loss of valuable work completed to prepare the Fraser River Estuary
Management Plan and the certainty it provides to investors, environmental groups,
communities and others,
~ result in the loss of Area Designation Agreements as a mechanism for coordinating upland
and foreshore uses,
a result in the loss of the public communication and education programs of BIEAP and
FREMP that provide a "single window" for community groups and others interested in
knowing what is going 'on in the estuary or the inlet and that encourage broad public
appreciation of the estuary and the inlet,
a reduce the ability of the GVRD to pursue Creating Our Future objectives as they relate to
the estuary without signigcant additiomd effort and costs to establish new partnerships,
and

II

I

I

ocT

I

I
I

I

I I

I

I

6 IS,

~

I

IS I
I

/ji
-,—

I

~

iI
.

~

~ I'IIB 41,';
Isl S
~

i

I

I

IIIam lt S$ 5, =
4

I

lijlgmltij159 Nl Igni

S

I

mll S II
6IS II II

llliAI
jRIWIII m

SLISIII II

ljmj'I

I

Jig III

II

I

I

'g 411 J
el I

L
S

4~K
-5

IS

II

Iml sius a
lllli Plgllj

~

,

II

W

I

I

III li

I

f11

S

I

a

require the GVRD to allocate signiScant stabf and other support resources to provide
secretariat support to the committee.

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

Options
The Strategic Planning Committee may:
5.

(a) Receive this report for information. This is the reconunended option.

(b) Recommend that the Strategic Planning Comnuttee further investigate the option to
replace the Fraser River Estuary Management Program and Burrard Inlet Environmental
Action Program with a Receiving Waters Technical Advisory Committee, coordinated snd
supported by the GVRD, and that the Strategic Planning Committee direct stalf to
develop a detailed study outline for consideration.
6.

,I('I IIH

&

IU, Ibm
Iib

I

III

Kill Ii

I

g

5L III1i~g
I

Ill I

IIIII err,

mr

8

/rl II

II

Eiyanciab Imnlications

The GVRD's contribution to FREMP and BIEAP is $ 100,000 and N0,000 per year,
respectively, The cost to the GVRD of supporting and coordinating a Receiving Waters
Technical Advisory Committee and further, of establishing new partnerships to pursue the
Board's other policy objectives with respect to the estuary, has not been established. This
could be estimated iri a follow-up study if the Strategic Planning Committee wishes to pursue
the establishment oF a Receiving Waters Technical Advisory Committee.

m R h e ee

~

III II I IF

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

I

~I

Lr

'111

y

IIII mr 'ere

Intereovernmentab
The subject oF this report.
8.

Ill

III'
I

I

I

,l

I

Nb
I'

I

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

/b I lbb

Il ÃI
F
i II H
I

I

I

1

I

I

I

1 II'l
Ia

I

I

II

I

I ~

I

I

I

I'bill
I

IIII

I

~
~ ~

11 II I I

g

Ii
aiiI i
IS PU S
U

T

I

I

IIf IIII I

ill Il!

II
Jmll
IP
'
~ Sl

lA ii!,'

U ~ ~

I Sll IS

I

I

R .

I fPil, I
II II'I Ili
'll I '

I

~

I

II.

g

I

i! i li

hl
I

II

I

II

I

II

'

I

I

~

III I

OCT

ii gii Se Pell
l

;$ /II'

I

g

ISrps s I

lP

ll

:= '~ ~ IR.''"
I' Plf

~ l r

SD I ~

I

ISI
P

II

'\ J
Ll
11
I I R.
I

~

Ul

I

I'

g

-5 $94

I

~I

'f il i

!
I

Ilail

I

I

Tlat the Strategic Planning Committee approve the proposed 1995 Program Objectives for
Strategic Planning.

'bjj
»

I I
I

I

t

I

I

'I

a
I

~

I

b

Ink l
I

RE:

1995 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FOR STRATEGIC PLANMNG

In 198$, the goal of the Development Services Department (now the Strategic Planning
Department) was established as follows:

To facilitate planning and decision-making that will encourage prosperity, a dean
environment and high overaB livability at the lowest possible public cost.
Each

since then we have established program objectives as the basis for the preparation of

year
'he Department's
annual work program and budget. This memorandum reviews the progress
made on the 1994 objectives and it proposes objectives for 1995.

REVIEW OF 1994 OIUECTIVES
The foHowing is a list of the 1994 objectives set out in my memo to you of 30 August 1993,
together with a commentary on what has been achieved and is likely to be achieved in 1994.

I.

Coordinate Creating Our Future implementation

The department tracks the implementation of Creating Our Future as the overall vision for the
etforts of the GVRD and its members to maintain and enhance livability and environmental
quality, Two key themes in 1994 are the positive inten'elationships among Creating Our

Future's objectives in air quality, transportation and land use and the financial benefits of
managing growth to attain Creating Our Future goals. The Department has been involved in
the District's initiatives in long-range financial planning and in mandate and intergovernmental
issues.

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

2.

Coordinate the review and refinement of the Livable Region Strategic Pla&- an
Transport 2021 Reports.

A major effort was made in the first half of 1994 to support the review of the proposals re
by the Board to municipalities and other groups and to analyse and process the resuits,
culminated in the series of decision taken by the Board on 29 June 1994 to approve th
majority of the policies contained in these reports and to establish a process for addressi
four major outstanding issues (growth targets, economic implementation strategy, rapid
phasing and financial and institutional arrangements for transportation). Continuing int
effort is being made to meet the target of December 1994 set by the Board for completion
necessary work to resolve these issues and penrdt the Board to consider a timetable and app
to the conclusion of the approval process.
3.

Establish the framework for implementation of regional plans.

The Department also provided support for the consideration of the Procedural Resolution
Preparation, Adoption and Implementation of a Regional Strategic Plan which was appro
principle by the Board in 1993 and referred to member municipalities for comment. The
gave Snal approval to the resolution in May 1994.
The principles of consensus and partnership reflected in the Resolution are the basis
District's participation in the effort by the Ministry of Municipal Aifairs to draft
management legislation for consideration by the Legislature in 1995.
The organization review of the Strategic Planning Department proposed in the 1994 obj
was not funded in the budget process.
The Department continued to be deeply involved in improving the links between the B
Creating Our Future and strategic plaiuung policies and the activities of other regional ini
such as the Fiaser River Estuary Management Prograni, the Burrard Inlet Environmental
Program, the Fraser Basin Management Program, the Georgia Basin Initiative, the B.C.
Table on Environment and Economy, the B.C. Energy Council and the Commission on Reso
and Environment.

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

s all
1

'
I

s

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

Data from the 1992 Travel Survey are continuing to be analysed and applied to the Department's
transportation modeling capability. A Trip Diary Survey will be conducted in November 1994 as
a key step in developing a long-awaited PM Peak and 24-Hour modeling capability.

PROPOSED 1995 OMECTIVES
Program planning for 1995 must be based upon two assumptions:
o That the outstanding issues concerning the Livable Region Strategy and Transport 2021
Proposals will bc resolved so that the Board can confirm its policies in an adopted Regional
Strategic Plan;
~ That the Province will introduce legislative amendments that will alfect the conduct of
regional planning and the scope and effect of regional plans.
If these assumptions prove correct, the Strategic Planning program can move strongly into
implementation partnerships while maintaining the Creating Our Future policy fiamework and
continuing to improve its knowledge base.

1.

Coordinate Creating Our Future implementation and renewal.

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

of the 1996 program and budget for Strategic Planning.

2.

Finalize adoption of the Livable Region Strategic Plan.

In December 1994, the Board will determine the approach and timetable for further stages in the
need to
adoption process for the Livable Region Strategic Plan. At a minimum, there will be a
there
and
may be
review,
etc.)
provincial
hearing,
support the formal stages in the process (pubfic
provincial
under
plan
an
adopted
of
status
a need to address as yet unknown issues such as the
growth management legislation.
3.

Establish a stable transportation planning and implementation process.

for
It is expected that all or part of the work on a financisl and institutional Iramework
will be a
transportation wifi extend into 1995 before it is concluded. Within this framework, there
capital
management,
demand
transportation
need to develop and establish arrangements for
service
in
transit
of
public
and
deliivery
planning for transportation and the structure for planning
the regioii.
4.

~M isRI

Develop strategic implementation partnerships.

to provide
An early start will be made on the development of prototypical partnership agreements
would
Examples
entities.
implementation
Plan
and
key
the links between the Regional Strategic
include:
could be
~ sn agreement or agreements to protect key lands in the Green Zone, which
adjacent
Commission,
concluded with one or more agencies such as the Agricultural Land
regional districts, PREMP or BIEAP;
model partnership agreements with municipalities - say, one with a municipality whose growth
would be significantly above trend in the Regional Strategic Plan and one with a municipality
whose growth would be sigrdficantly below trend;
of
a an agreement with the Ministry of Employment and Investment on thc development
infrastructure within the region; and/or
e an agreement with a federal creation such as the Vancouver International Airport Authority.

i,l

ISISI II

5.

II I I a~i~ij

In 1995, policy
The Livable Region Strategic Plan provides a broad policy &amework.
are critical to the
development work will focus on amplification and demonstration of policies that
the development of
success of the Strategy. These include transportation demand management,
This work may proceed
complete communities and an economic implementation strategy.
partners and Board
the
key
involving
through the establishment oF specific task forces
representation.

i
IIISSs w 'u
I

IWRI M I

Il

I

Amplify and demonstrate critical strategic policies.

i=')
'ai IBM

%C

I

Ii

IIII

I

Isl

I'

I ~

ll

I

I

I I

I

I

i 'P

I

ti

~

Kl

~

~I
Ii

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

II

~

v

L, I,I
IH I II'

N'

I
I

4 I

I I
I I ,':.
I I
I

L.

Silial

al ~

IJ
I

I~

I

sI

Maintain and expand public awareness and knowledge of the Regional Strategic
Plan.

6.

Implementation of many aspects of the Livable Region Strategic Plan, such as the expansion of
transportation demand ntanagement measures, wi!I require substantial public support. The 1995
awareness of
public communications program will continue efforts to maintain and expand public
of
knowledge
the
and
of
the
Strategy
implementation
the benegts that can be achieved through
cr!tical
the
viiII
focus
on
The
program
how individuals may contribute through their own actions.
strategic policies.

Respond to provincial growth management legislation.

7.

Provincial growth management legislative proposals will require careful review and analysis to
ensure they will facilitate the approacn to regional planning developed by the Board. After the
to
proposals have beati put in legislative form, transitional measures made need to be considered
arrangements.
new
the
under
allow the Board's strategic planning activities and plan to operate

Continue to develop and apply our knowledge hase.

$.

Preparation of the Livable Region Strategy and Transport 2021 Proposals has stimulated a rapid
increase in the development and use of the Department's data, modeliing and forecasting tools.
With the digestion of recent major acquisitions such as the GIS system and the 1992 Travel
Survey Data now nearing completion, there is an opportunity to use these resources to expand
our knowledge about the region and to increase access to that knowledge by member
communities and others.
II 5'8 llIP7g@

SI isluasl
Isa ss at/

',seclaICBIsaoc

~tll

=.::.

e csee ~

sais

e

I

I

Ilj

sl 4111

il all I

»I'c:

I

I

II

I

I

I I I L I!4
I

!IIII'litilll
Is
I

jt

OcT -5 $ 94

I!;

pl

I

"

see

II Ilii ea as,

I

I

I

~I

I

~

I

Wl

uttl 5 ell tgg

I

Ia '

limiiiall sss ~ 'ssiltU

—

aail

II, IIII

lit '

'

I !'!!!

a

ill'IJ.,
I

~

I

I

I ta

I

e

g saic Sei

lees l U
I

ae:~ i

I

a~~ U

~

'

I

~ I ~

:"%I

I

IS I

THE CORPORATION OF THE
CI'I'Y UF PORT COQUITLAM

DATE: October 04, 1994

TO:

Environmental Protection Committee

FROM:

Anne T. Pynenburg
Project Technician

SUB JECT:

OUT-OF-REGION DISPOSAL SITES -GVRD- FOR INFORMATION ONLY

Attached is a copy of a report for the G.V.R.D. regarding their Solid Waste Management PlanStage 2. The report deals with the consideration of out-of-region disposal sites to service the
Lower Mainland as a possible long-term option.
Four proposals have been submitted to the G.V.R.D. for consideration as sites. See Contents for
companies that submitted proposals. The bulk of the report deals with a proposal submitted by
BHP Minerals Canada Ltd.

Anne T. Pynenburg
Project Technician
attach

~g~ ~g
H

jii! N!
44 I IP 14

III'-;;=.-i

I IIW 41!

I

I

Il 'l 4 rs sol I
II
[! g! I IIRll
l

II 4 I4

I'
~

I'

OCT

P
=all ~

4 Ms a mnl ~ $ stas am
I

II

IP

P —

a I I II
I

I

n

I

I

I

III

I

I4 ' -41 ~

14

~ I
~

.4
4 14 I 4
I II

I

~

%41

~

Ifg

It

I Mal I

%$

II S

''I

4

II

ill/

!= ~ III I lll1$ '!! $

4
&

~

I

~II I
i

4

4

I

I

III ~' Iata'illl I 4IIlI
I

44

's

I

I

-5 199II

I

I

I

I

ti„,,;, -,:: 'll III!

— 'im lii„

Gif 8 9

Solid Waste Management Pla n 8 tag
SUPPcrfitlti 80egmeittetic
Volume II.. AddltieI7fel. Studies
Qat-ef-Hegiee BIspcsel:
—

.

Greater Vancouver Regional District
BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks
Environment Canada

sasilll)l
Hill;
Fngineering, Ltd.
in eeeooianon with

~ aa ws aa s,
s

as

p

Concord Environrnsntai

I

Inr a! Ii1illlirittai
I I

rss a

I

I

I I I

in

April 1994

I

wss!lIli

-11

Ihiiri, II it I!tiki
In!sr

I

II

I

-5 tgtj4

I,'„,''",-',,,

— j'amiln'—
a
~

s

Ise Inl I la l ~ KP C I '9
I

VII''
inenii
svHI I

I

-"

.elean 'aw

"'" wars'

w s sanetii lite

, s

i

''~ 'isi smt.I sa'ms '~
s

~

~
I

I

ss

~ II
is

'"as nnBI r

ln'

I'

I

I

I

I

i

ill s

as& ~

s

s

~

'' a!II lis wi~~

ae!e

=

il

g'III Ilail

'I!'.!'s

i

OCT

'= sfltlI III F
9 ~ el!I gd ICO '

inn e ~ a '— =
.

-

—

~

s

~ s

',,

~

oae

s

nn mila~a. i lae

~,

~

Solid Waste Management Plan

GVRD

—

Stage 2

.Bupporfieg BociIrnepfafieiiIfolume I/; Additional.8tirdies
00t-OI-Region Oisposal
.

.:

Greater Vancouver Regional Oistrict
BC Ministry cf Environment, Lands and Parks
Environment Canada

HILL
Fngineenng, L
in association with

Concord Environmental
Astil 1994

IE

I

elan la

I

'ilt!

arri(

!,,'',ti

';,'
.".es.'sa lta,'" —
'+sr
''la 'apnaw::,Ill,
fnnalE n
~
lit /

a Ia IIE

—

i

':.'Rta a.".

I

I

I

~
I

I

I"n'

IE,,
I

I

I

nw

':.
IJ

— san tl Illa I

I

Ir'I sEI c

"-in

'
—

~

—

.. —

"

~

I

~

I

I

!

!ill l

I

h

ttrllWIB.'a,',',::
~

iii,, n,

14'Iti! a I ln.

'''

.-- en IRR5RRII %hit = '=:==:.:*"=-- —:~cl~nE RlilRn''"'
R Ig llnEIEn====.="El Inn= — --. ~E
—

--,~

.

l

i

t tRn, ~

'::

''

~

=

—

"N Rgli

ll /f!QIR jtg itggl

~

.;.I~l
~EE

~

ia ]as hag~
i

4

nw

.~

Il

r~
I

'Rii

Iiiisil

4

~it&

~il
~

p

4liliila
=~I@I

~I ~

.

IM

IIII

)II

lit~
Nm&
118tWWlr

,

:8 II

Contents

II'IIII

Section
Background
Objectives
Methodology

ILee 4.'~ Ie

Ktil

4%I 4

.

'!P ,j ll j

Illlll

l,i 14

I

'j l'..:'.:
I

Ij

I el

II.I

'Iti

"'"

I 14)ill

I

'

5

'341

IIIIlkll!

figure

IIll Lf I

el il I

4-3

I

rl'I! I

'-1

Ill ii

5-1

ill

III'

'5-f

', 5-'1

II;flfilf

5A

II itii

.'5-.4

IPI

I

'I'

OCT

-5 yg

4
I

44

.I%i

II4I

alee

I

I

2

Map

4

I

Islllirs

42

References
Appendix'B. List of Contacts

1-1

I

I'II'Il

4-1

&

lie:,'

I

I!

I'P,

'-2

i

I'e

tiIIRQ
k@IRI

,

4-1
4kt

Proponent
Disposal Sits
Transfer and Transportation
Environmental Suitability
Appendix A.

~ I I

IIIIIIP

.3-2
3-3
3-3

Project Description

. 4

,

.

Waste'Management of Washington, inc.

I~

III'l '
"II

3;1
3-1

Environmental Suitability

8

2-1

'-1
2r3
2-4
2-5

Proponent
Disposal Site
Transfer and Transportation

I

IIIIIII

.

2-.2

Village of Cache Creek and Wastech Services, Ltd.
Project Description

.=

i Ii

i

4 .

:

Continental Environmental Systems, Ltd..
Project Description
Proponent
Disposal Site
Transfer and Transportation
Environmental,Suitability

3

11LI I II I!

~1

1-1

Project Description
Proponent
Disposal Site
Transfer and Transportation
Environmental Suitability

;@==-==')

~il

'

BHP Minerals Canada, Ltd;

2

NIII

1-1
1-1

introduction

e ~

"Ill

Beckgroun'd
/

/III

g Wt el II

11~1llg
,

]Pl LIIR'N

Ng

'll I

'(

f

III IItu I III I

The purpose of this report is to identify and document unsolicited proposals for out-ofregion'disposal of residual wastes received by the GVRD. The'documentation of the
proposals includes an assessment of the environinental suitability of each site.

i

I

jii i4 I II% I

I

gi't

I

III

I'

KSIQ I

I

'

li

JJllaa I

I

l

I

eui&iiitii ii'!

'I
'! ll

I

!

1

~ I I

I

t '

'III

ti

lr

CII

rl

Methodology

LI/I, 3(

IL!1! l il

Telephone interviews were conducted with each proponent to ask follow-up questions a'nd .
request additional written information'with respect to their proposal Each propoad
on the basis of the proposals received, the results of the telephone interviews,
supplementary documentation provided by proponents, and other infonuation gathered for
purpose of, the Stage 2 evaluations. The major topics addressed for each site mclude
the following:

',
'.-:

tI

Air impacts

I

Iele l)

Il'R
I II

Project desciipdon
Proponent
Disposal site
Transfer and transportation
Environmental

~

l

I1IIt II

11K

I

~I

" I l

suitability of each project is ba'sed on an assessment. of the following

I

I'
I

Ilili'I

I

I

issues:
I

eI 5

I!SKI'I

suitability'he'environmental

Sia

ObjectIvee

'he

Ill

L

85 3 (I

is'ocumented

~$

Four unsolicited proposals for out-of-region disposal of the GVRD's residual solid wastes
have been submitted to the GVRD to date. Figure 1-1 shows the locations of the proposed out-of-'region landfill sites and the transportation corridors 'accessing each site. The
technical, evaluations of solid waste options in'Stage 2 of the GVRD Solid Waste'anagement Plan Review (SWMPR) considers out-of-region disposal as a possible long-term
option. If Stage 2 should indicate a need for and recoiumend'a new or expanded landfill
outside the GVRD Plan area, a call for propcsals for landftB sites may be issued.

.

I

tke
reg

'g
0

I

i

pl

Sl m%1

'iRIHII
M a 11 11

!

giiii ia
I IL's
,paeJRII

In reviewing the proposals, the level of detad submtued by organtzauon
ingly,'a'proposal discased in a high level of detail should not be constru
to one discussed. in less detaiL Consistent with the terms of reference fo
degree to which we have been able to cross check vendor-supplied informs
None of the 'sites were visited by CH2M HILL project team personnel fo
this report.

References of t'ocuments reviewed for this analysis are included in Ap
of contacts made during this study is provided in. Appendix B.

tl'I

4

ait
pu
sl
~

I

II

I

All ~

alai.i
Ill! lI al
11 I

% I I

III

I

il

'II Ii ll
i

I

I
I

ill'tl
I
III 'I'

~

I
~

~ I

eatouata3a

~

~I

of Gut-ot-Region

Facffltfea

~

~~ R&mm
=-@i%@
(

@jI!

SSI I

I 4

Section 2

BHP Minerals Canada, Ltd.

,,ljll
@

Project Description
BHP Minerals Canada, Ltd. (BHP), has been researching alternative closure plans for its
Island Copper Mine on northern Vancouver Island. which is scheduled to close in 1996
with depletion of the ore body after 25 years of operation. The company proposes to
determine the feasibility of using the open pit as a municipal solid waste landfill. A
feasibiTity study will identify potential sources and volumes of waste froin the. Georgia
Strait Basin, including Greater Vancouver and the Puget Sound region in, Washington
State.
.

I

IIIS sl m
~

7

I

@

In order to be viable, the landfill operation will require. a substantial volume of the solid
waste produced in the GVRD (approximately 625,000 tonnes per.year rainbuum). According to BHP representatives, several regional disuicts and at least one Washington
. county have expressed interest in using the system, but these jurisdictions are generally
waiting for further developments prior to making any firm commitm'ants. The feasibility;
accepting less than the 625',000 tonnes per year has not been'studied in detaB, but may

'IILIIIIIII

i''ill'I

l

IjjII iiII
IjI a Ii,fj
««

S SS1%

jI Ial
IjIII
Sl'Sl..
j

(I I«i jil

j

j!!
I

jSS

lgj

I

«

I

«

I

I

I
j

«

I

~'

5

fi i

II

—::is~el

rm

I

,

Mi

II

I

—

IS 7

I

mt II

suj
—

I

~

Ii

a

be part of the pending feasibility study.
.

BHP plans to apply for. a landfill permit from «tbe Ministry'f Environmept,. Lands; and
Parks (MOELP) after conducting a feasibility study for the projeci The feasibiTity
be conducted after expressions of sufficient interest'in the proposal by potential
customers. BHP intends to be included in the Solid Waste Management Plans of mgional
districts associated with the'roposed landfill prior to applying. for a Waste Management
Permit. The tituing to commence application is currently'ependent on solid waste,man-'
agement planning in the'province, but BHP hopes to begin. the application process in

wiII'ontinue
early'994.

I IS I I ~ I I

study'ould

l

'of

I I IS 7 lg
ep

Mining operations in the pit will 'terminate in early.1995 and milling of stockpiles.
until the end of 1995. BHP estimates the landfill could be operational in less.
than 2 years from date of project and awariL The g'reatest unknown IS the time 'necessary,
for per'nutting and approvals. Site preparation will require as little as 6 months, with a
somewhat longer lead'time for acquiring a container vessel(s).At this tiine, the proponents anticipate that waste would be loaded into standard shipping ',
containers at existing transfer stations and trucked to an ocean shipping.terminal.'t thetenninal. waste would be loaded onto ships ami transported by barge or roll-on/roll-off.
vessel through the Strait of Juan de Puca or the Strait of Georgia to northern Vancouver

OCT

II««

I««aI«SS'

I

I

I 7«7

I

«

II

.

-.'7.1$

Island. Future studies will include emergency planning and safeiy regulations proposed by
the Canadian Coast Guard, along v ith all the socio-economic and technical studies necessary for securing permits.
All project financing will be provided by BHP, and the operation will be self-supporung.
The business relationship between the Mount Waddington Regional District (MWKD),
BHP,'nd the GVRD (and any other agencies involved) would be based on each speciTic
request for proposal and negotiated to arrange a mutually satisfa'ctory agieement.

Proponent
BHP owns and operates Island Copper Mine, )4)cilometres south of Port Hardy on the
north 'end of Vancouver Island. The mine employs 560 people, which is about 20 percent
of the population of Port Hardy. They have been operating the mine for 23 years and
have an international reputation for expertise in pit dewatering systems, ground and
stormwater collection systems, and slope stability engineering. The company is a whollyowned subsidiary of the Bro'ken Hills Pmprietary Company Limited of Melbobme, Aus,tralia, which is Australia's largest company in the resource extraction'industry. The
company has $ 21.4 billion (CDN) in assets, employs approximately 49,000 people in 50
countries, and has 201,000 shareholders in more than 80 countries. The mine'delivers
typically 250,000 tons of copper concentrate to smelters in Asia arid 4,600 to'ns of
iuolybdenum concentrate to Europe and South America every year.
In exploring the feasibility of development and operation of a residual solid waste 'man-

agement facility at Island Copper Mine, BHP has wodted with a.number of companies
and in'dividuals with expertise in landfill design, leachate and gas treatment, transportation,
and hydrogeology and geology. They have also assembled a grou'p of advisors with wide
range of expertise for the purpose of reviewing and assessing project developinent'and
operation,
BHP has retained specialists to provide iinprovements and innovations in the collection,
handling, processing, and disposal of waste and resource recovery. Specialists have'lso .
been responsible foi the preliminary landfill'design. They'have also cominissioned
studies of leachate treatment to provide data for.use in tm'atment.plant design'and
for use in the development of landfill gas treatment systems for the pmposed lahdftII.
BHP has also commissioned studies of marine route and vessel selectioh for the facility
and for design of appropriate port facilities.,

'.'etailed

Other consultants have been involved in the erivironmental monitoring and practices of
Island Copper Mine as well as in the geological and hydrogeological assessments mquired
for the niining operation and the proposed disposal facility.

I

'3 ~

~ ~

I

gSSI ~ UU
~

I

~ U U U

I

I'l
it cist jl!
~

I Ii
I

I

i

i

Ui

III'gna
~

l

I I

W

~"

IVI

I'l

[ ll I I IIII I' /i
I
~ II UIIU II t
II
I

IUi'
!

U Ii

I& Ii

lllllW Ii iilIt

fj]

Il"i llkll I I I)

The pit has a history of pit slope failure, which will continue for ihe remainder of the.
'mine life and after closure. The mine operators have developed techniques for coping
with such failure'during active mining, and siinilar techniques can be appiied for ongoing
operations as a municipal solid waste facility. Slope failures are a natural occurrence in
mining and do not normally hinder operations or pose a threat to operating personnel., It
is expected that some flauening of the mine walls will occur over time and the main
effect will only be some loss of volume for landfilL A great deal of seismic study data is
available for the pit and would be used during a i'easibility study if and when it is
performed.

.

The conceptual design of the landfill was develoned to ensure conformance with the Draft
BC Landfill Criteria (not final at the time of design), and on proposed US Subtitle D
standards. The design of the landfill includes'a leachate and stonnwater management
system. Waste deposition would be within bedrock where permeability is low, and the
water table is more than 300 metres above the initial placement of waste. This would
provide a natural barrier to leachate migration and runoff. Hydraulic systems pump the
water up and out of the pit. Iniual estimates of leachate, volumes are 190 to l,900 cubic

'

ocT -~ eA
I ~ ~ II

mine pit. Container ships are presently available for sale. or lease on the,international
market, or they would be built for the project.. Them are two possible shipping routes
from the GVRD to the facility:
o

~

Western route: Around the south tip of Vancbuver Islind, throu'gh the
Strait of Juan de Fuca.'nd then on to Quatsino Sound'nd Rupert Inlet
Eastern route: Through the Strait of Georgia dn'the eas't'side of Vancouver,
Island to Port McNed

From the western route, containers would be transferred to specially equipped dumping .
chassis for transport to the tipping face. From Port McNeil the containers would be transferred ta dumping chassis, transported by truck, and taken to'he tipping face.
would be shipped back to the GVRD transfer stations. If the eastern route to
the facility were used, parts of an industrial road from Port McNeil to the Iandfi!I may
need to be upgraded. There are suitable shipping facilities at both ends of the pmposed
that would require minimal upgrading.

'.

Empty'ontainers

'oute

Although specific proposals have not yet been submitted, there have ixen expressions of
interest fmm local forest industries and fisheries representatives for backhaul
.

off developments are not
based on BHP ownership arid
ssels, container terminals,
It is assumed that
ould.be chartered or 'contracted.
antity of wastes.

'quipment.

herever it is most economical
ve maintenance shop facilities at
ible extent.

IIIty

AIr Impacts
generated during
The main air impacts associated with the project would result from gas to the facility.:.
waste
of
decomposition of refuse in the landfill and from trinsportatioh
to the requirements of
BHP plans to install a gas collection system that'ould conform
recover(:d for industrial applicathe BC Landfill Criteria. Gas would be either flared or
includ'ed in the other
'ons. Gas would be generated at a more rapid rate than the sites will
speed-up decompoproposals, because the relatively high annual rainfall (1,918 mm) is in a remote area, an tl
The site
:idon because of a high moisture content of the refuse..
should have relatively. minor
noise)
air einissions from landfill gas and operations (dust,
local impacts.
.

more fuel efficient 'than
As a mode of transport, the barge is generally recognized as
l980). However, the
transport by rail or by trttck (U.S. Department of Transportatioii,
the western mute to.the facihty.
facility is about 550 kilometres from the GVRD using

Water Impacts

i tuva a I i i I I

K I Ill

If iII

'Igli,l'I

a
tila
~»

mi,gij )

[ii

I

I

I'8

IP~'t
IK:

i

5 Njj,

»
1

I

greater than the other propoThe water impacts at the landfill are likely to be somewhat However, systems are
the site.
sals, again because of the relatively high rainfall at
that collects in the.pit, and any
water
of
already in place to manage the high voluine
of the pit for ueaunent. Since
s'otmwater or leachate would be collected and pumped out
th'e pit, only into the pit..Except
the'pit is'below sea level there will be no runoff out of
that could be contaminated with
for Rupert Inlet, there are no surface water bodies nearby treatment facilities.
'leachate if it were to escape the confines of the pit or the

»l I ~

or filling the pit with solid waste, capping and flooding with salt water then fresh water.

A fresh water lake would become acidic according to MEM officials, and would require
ongoing treatment if it were to be used for any purpose. The closure and reclamation
process has been undenvay for five years now, with the landfill proposal being part of the
plan for just the past year. The MEM holds an'extensive 'reclamation b'ond which BHP
will get back upon final closure and reclamation of the mine. Whether or not the landfifl
option is considered as patt of the reclaination is still undecided. Neither the MEM nor
the MOELP have dealt with similar'roposed mine closure/landfill systems in the province
to date.

Conformance with the BC Landfill Criteria will take an interpretation by MOELP because
of 'the unusual nature of the site'. When questioned about the proposed landfill closure,
plans and the need for stratification, of salt and'fresh wa'ter, both MEM and MOELP representatives agreed w'ith the need for prevetition of acid productio'n.in the pit if it were
flooded. Also, at this very preliminary etage, they could see no problem with capping a
landfill with ihe available waste mck before flooding.

Local Acceptabilaty
To determine whether there was support for the project. locally, the cunceptbal proposal.

~m~
II'II/I

w'as first aired and discussed in the MWRD. Subsequent, to these dis'cussions, the pro-.
posal was disclosed to a wider public audience and communicated to government
agencies. To.further ensure that all parte of the community are given an.opportumty to be
heard, BHP, in conjunction with the MWRD'has established a Local Advisory. Round
Table to discuss the issues raised by the proposal. If the project proceeds to,a feasibility
study the committee will continue to act as a communication cooddor to the various, inter-.

1

.

est gfoups

During a telephone conversation or; October 22,'993,'he Village of Port l.aidy
indicated that there!tas been little 'response to the proposal thus far because the
feasibility study has not yet started. He said that some opposition may'ccur from resi-:
iri Coal Harbour who have already voiced some concerns (they are the,closest cornmunity to the inine). He sees there being g neral support fiwm the communifles in the
area (Employment after mine closure is a main issue in the ates.)'

'fl Iii

goal II

t

I

I

I

I

During a telephone conversation on October 25, 1993, an Economic Developi'neat Offieer .
with the MWRD stated that community opuiions about the proposal a'ppear to'e split
depending on whether the resident's focus is economic'or environmetttaL 'he stated
hss been some opposition to the project on envimnmental grounds from residents in ..

Ilm
Sl Isl ~

4 I

rtsa= "=

=%f'I
fji

ni aiiS

ll ill e
II

llh

II

u tt
~181

Rm

.

that'here

I

Clerk-'reasurer

'ents

= smiiigl

I~:,~i

~

~igimmamaim II

auaal im ~.

2-7

BHP Minerals Canada, Ltd.
.

Quatsino, Sontula, Coal Harbour, and Holberg, but that there has been general support
based on economic issues everywhere else in the district.

Discussions with MEM and MOELP personnel responsible for regulatory activities at
Island Copper Mine indicate that the small communities on and near Rupert Inlet that are
directly associated with the mine will voice some concern regarding the impact of the
prop'osed transportation traffic. Both repiesentatives of the Ministries offered opinions
that more residents are likely to support the project than resist its impleinentauo. A.
representative from MOELP suggested that BHP would not mquire a Waste Management
Permit as all landfill operations have in tlie past, but rather will require an operadng certilicate according to the new provincial solid waste management planning, process.

'ot

.

The BHP Pmposal to the GYRD included letters of support for proceeding with a feasibility study.for the landfill from seven jurisdictions snd organizations and a letter from the
Quatsino Residents'rganization indicating their opposition to development of the
facility.

Gther Environmental lmpaote
BHP has been monitoring the environment suirounding the mine sine'e 1969. Cuiiently, a
staff of five full-time scientists and. technologists are engaged in both oceanographic and
terrestrial monitoring. Biological oceanographic sampling results'ate available in BHP's
Annual Environmental Assessment report, which is submitted to BC Environment. A salmon rearing facility exists 6 kilometres from the site in Holberg Inlet; and the inihe
most of the wildlife species common to northern Vancouver Island..

.

.

area'upports

In a written cortuspondence dated I'Jovember 8, 1993, BHP stated that ".it is unlikely that
the landftII operation will sigiuficantly impact the status of wildlife present'.y existing
around the inining operation." Terrestrial resources will'not be impacted any more iha'n.
they already have with the open pit mining operation. The proposed landfill site is
'
already a sizable pit in which all activity would be hidden fmm outside view. arui since
there are no villages next to the pit the proximity of the proposed landfill should;not be a
problem. Our limited inquiries did not reveal any cultural or historic resources of significance that would be affected by the current mining operation or the proposed landfill;
This is not to ssy thiere is no Native Indian cultural significance associated with the site..

&

I

lg lm imil

j~g

I

Ig Isll li15

.III'I

g'"

,Q
I

I'l

The socioeconoinic benefits of the project could be significant by presrrvin'g the jobs of
many local residents, who othetwise would probably'be forced to leave the ama onc'e the
mine was closed.

I i

i i it

ajjI

//
f

-==X=

ocT -5 %tie
Imii ju

I~ ~

JIM~

J

sruaajj~=

2-8

Supporting Documetttation-Out-ot-Regiori Disposal

Conferrnance with BC Landfill Criteria
BHP plans for the facility to conform to the BC Landrttl Criteria. We did not uncover
any evidence that the facility would not be able to conform, though the unique nature of
the facility will require MOELP to use judgement in. determining whether the facility. will
satisfy the intent of the Criteria.

'Iwnaalgla

sca100222IWp

accommodate Bnssh .
Columbia's current annual
mnniclpal solid waste productton for about f50 years.
BHP proposes I o collect
methane gas fram the tend.
fill. Methane could be produced in sufficient quantity
to serve the energy require.
ments of indpstrtes or settle-

its propoml as a way oi
turning an abandoned mine
into a community asset.
They stated ewt a weil
engineered tandfrtt could

The iyorrh Idand Hound Table reqriesrs.

Public Renew'aand Comments

replace dozens of substan.
This jiecument is tfie drsfi repon of the Norih Island
dard tandfitls up and down
Table asiohli eh ed to idantify
environmental, economic'and social issues related to Round
the coast and this would
ore of interest or concern to North island residents. thc BHP Landfill Proposal rrhich
result in a net environmental
menls.
benefit. BHP believes their
Residents are asked to'submit iheir comments in writing
open pit can be developed
by September 15, 1994. All
comnrents will be reviewed by the Aound Table prior
The proposed project would for municipal soitd vvaste
to completion of the final vewion of
Ihe report. Please wm1 or fez Io:
require Ihe cortstructlori of a disposal without causing
transfer station and contain- pollution of ctr or water
klr, Patrick Moore, Facilitator, North Island Bound
and
Table, 101 — H95 West Pender
er terminal at the mouth of
that it would pmnde a steady Street, Vsncouvcfi 5 C.",V6E tA9 Telephone. 659 7500 Facsimile: 669
0028
the Fraser River, a cortainer base of employment for resln addition to this puhlicsiiotr, the following msierial will
lermlnat on the North island, Idents of the area.
b.
«vailohlc
for
review on the
premises
et
Ihe locations,listed below;
container vessels to transport the waste to the North
After the community meetAound Table Ra(et'anai1994, Memonindum of
Isisftd, tfucits to lraltsport
Undersmnding, Aound Table kfinutes,
ings it became apparent
project prospectuil,-'Aatii(51993, Major project Review
the waste across the North
that there was not a conbland Copper Mingz 1992 Envimnmental Assesnnent process, B.C. Landfill Criieriza
island. and numerous facil ~
Soil
Slopes (Bj Ff ad)ay)LWatcr quality monitoring of Reporh Dceizn of Rock and/or
sensu in the North island
Qua ter no Sound (f. Homal, Mine elo
ties at the mine sile itself.
euro pion R. Horne)l Review of likely consequences following
contmunittas ss Io tha benAnbertsoa), Sdu'thwaR pushhack pmject (R B. Rehenson, 8. s large eardmuske (A.hf.
BHP estimates that capital
efits of BHP's proposal.
Findlsy, K. 0'kana)in
Summary of CVRD'StmtEgic Recommendations, Scope of Work
costs wyl be about $ 75 mil- Opinions ranged from
(Emcon). Leschoie
Treatment Siudtm'(B.C, Re'search), Tourism Inrpacw - Pteliminary
lion and that about I 00
Assessment (C.
enthusiasm to outnght
AspinaB);Press clipplagserdirect Nbs would be created oppodtion to the proposaL
on the North Island,
The mcdha reported these
INFORMATION CENTRESt
Public Llbrames
different views and tho BHP
Post Offrccsr
During the months of
Port Hardy
proposal became the subHarbour
Port McNerB.
Februarg March and April
toot ol public controversy. In
Winter Horhour .
Port Alice
f093, BHP conducted a
pa rticuiar, tho Ouatslno Task
Alert Bsy
series of community meet.
Quatvfno Te k
Forco wss organized by resHolherg
Owen Hansen
ings during which they preide nts of Ouatsino to mobiSointuls
Teh 949-7960
sented their proposal and
ae pubic opinion against

N,
Idyll ill)
mrg

~

K)453

'oal

re ~ ~ t

~ja

I

'm'!

I

~ I

~

Form~

pmtja~a
)mi i xiii
a EI I g/!N

I'i'ima(il
III m Imw~g

iii

s INNt9

J!5,!~! ijl
IB

)

:,", ' 'I a $ %

m
I
~

!

-

Ii

t

I

eitl''

I fjfaiEMS~g=m:= '„~5

.,

'w
at

et Stw

-:: -"

'

tI

--

gag L

Miam~a — — == --.--.-maae%8il

—

'V

N) g

~

SISMEIE —,
I

I 53 III

I ~

~ ~ ~ tz

R

I

I 5

I

IB I I

jt NISI rtzra~
'

I a Ki i a haa, l~ a e m
I

ms»',» ~ „a",'=zm'.S:6;mB Mlilm i(4 yjf~ =
mr
laa
IIM~ ''',:. mr m'p'll
gg
~

l

m ~jt

BI 6f

I 5
I

smlls&-~~mmaiajisqaaam,(%II~~~.~

Mgs

tat

I

=

Ig

g g g jJ Ii g gg
I

—

II

r

M

l Ij

g is I H I I H I 5

I,'Ail Mg

I

"

5

...

I

'g

'ECH
--~; —,:mmmlgRBRHjtl
gmj g
~

%1@

I

,

'In Febn
of the F
s Beld t

ales in

al

and the

e
through petiins and publications.

The pur

was tc I
with lan

I e Nnrffi

ogle

agemer
stander
SiIBS, tc

Island Rerir«l

stations
ters, ani
Ws/5 ifi
n August 1993. BHP

methani

iproached the elected
reclors of the Mount
addington Regional
strict with a proposal to
.Iabl eh 8 Iccal advisory
mmiltee composed of the
rious interests, sectors
d communities dn the
Iith Island. BHP proposed
fund the advisory process
determine the enuronsntal, economic and
cist concerns of local reents. They proposed that
5 Regional District Board
oose Ihe members of Ihe
Ivisory commitfee and
ilennine the terms of
erence for the committee.
this way it
clear
Il although BHP was
widing the funding they
d no control over who
is appointed to the comtlee or the topics to be
icos

Used fcf
The grot

Researc
rata ned
diJCtihg I

ious lane
iiixesiig
ment opi
During tl.
May mac
Table d s.
issues in
mation th

presental
The conc
81858 dls
mein ther

woae

1993, BHP
d the kit. Waddington
gional Distnct signed a
:morandum of Under.
ind ng to estabksh a local
vrsoiy committee 5 was
reed thais would be no
OBridikile of IBXPS'fer
ids and BHP would pa,
ths process. The comttee would be composed
15 volunteer members
iresenllng a broad range
nterests and opinions.
:slings would be open to
i public and the midis. A
ifessional tacilitator was
gaged. It v as ag eed
stings would take place
inthly and the committee
uld determine its own
snda and procedure.

Tfie Rof

1993. At that meeting the
membeis agreed the committee vould operate by a

OCI

)f

~

s first meeting of the

nmittee took place in
A Hardy on october 9,

!

1

5

j

consensus process similar
to the B.C Round Table
on the Environment and
Economy It was agreed
the first order of business
was to develop 8 Bst of
issues lor consideration by
the committee

OICPB

'mlw

t was ao
pror;ess tt
Island Roi
one part c
that vne lu
the BHP p
Island Roi
authonty I
approve lt
requ re arr
fl wss agri
Round Tai
and anicul
carne and
concerns I

ir;f, .

c

Ic, BHP, ai

'i',fRPB:",lbl'RB';N

'overnmer

ri

It

I

were largely devoted to
presentations by experts
in geology, water qualxy,
posution, landfis design,
and methane gas utitifation
The primary frcus of d acus

!

was also

Round Tab
the resouro
ties to give
many of tb
Csl Bild Scf
proposal. T
be addi'855
advances t
fultfeasib It

'riff'qffp 'Nitxxbgejl"Qljb9%'vrgfghix'riq

the proposal. In October
1993, the members of the
Round Table were conducted on a tour of the mine
site. The November 1993
and January 1995 meetings

lf

I

f

n 8~9

Dunng Ihe second meeting
on October 29-30, 1993,
Ihe members agreed the
comm Bee should be
named "The North island
ROund Table". A list of 15
issues (since expanded to
i BI was arnved at atter considerable disc«saon. It was
agreed Ih's est covered the
significant environmental,
eccnomic anc social aspects
of the BHP proposal.

The Round Table agreed
on a work plan that would
focus inrtialiy on information
gathering m order to gam a
bette, understar.ding of the
tachfilcal Issues suffoufidfrIg

1 lend

5

sion was on the two most
complex technical issues,

the phySiCal integrity Of Ihe
open pit snot water quality
and marwgement.

lmi Phl 111

m

F=! ~,SI1
5'I!!lllii!!!1 ~-I

I

~ 5~8—
~

(9~~%AD

8

II";;,= =--;-=::=.-.;;,-„-"'-'~~1+exw
~~~~~@I(re%
I(F FI%i

I

1511(l(1 Q FF(F IIII

~

OCT

laa5)1 ~ Tma ssl!
——

AIR I

IIIB Iimsaaea'1IB

Ft.issa 'Ftl((

l

198 Bll IIF
Fs

I

I

5 I

g~~
~8 8

g Bl

I

5

5 8 II

-5 SN

I

(B! Rill
(9,1 I

5

— -. I%a&I

x

l~

m

ax mac(

Fg,; „"(l,fili

5;,~~-.!(0 &R=-- ~~15).,';..—

/IS'I

ps'(

'n February 1991 members

tral to any declsloii'on
Pmp Nku ..".I,';cf7

of the Round Table went on

a field trip to visfi landfill

sites in Washington Stafe
and the Lower Mainland,
The purpose of the field trip

was to famifiarize members
with landfill design and man-

The subject of "trust" i
common to many disc
alone. Some member
more comfortable ther
ers In trusting compsn
and goverrlments to ki
the pubac interest lri m

The group also visited B.C.
Research where scientists
retained by BHP were conducting toxicity tests an various lsndfifi leachates snd
investigating leachate treatment options.

Soma members aie di:
trustful of the motives I
Ihe prk ate !tactor wnik
ers believe the private
tor often serves the pu
interest heber ihan goi
ment-run enterprfse. 9
membsm think there is
enough government re
ton lo control pr«ate ir
eats while others belisv
there 6 already too mu
government regulation.
These differences carts
cannot be resolved by:
small committee on nor
em Vancouver Island,

agement, to contrast substandard sites with welf-run
sites. to visit waste transfer
stations arid Iscycling cBOters, and to observe various
ways ln whbh fend(ifi
methane is incinerated or
uced for Industrial purposes.

issues ln fight of the fnformafion they gathered during
presentations and tfefd tnps.
The concerns raised duifng
these discussions are the
main theme of this report.

The Rafa of the North
ZRanri Raund Table

I

!

«o most

lis Ues,
'i ty C I the

by BHP. In addition, it Is
the Round Table's understanding that if BHP does

decide to go ahead with the
project there will be a formal
federal provincial Major
Project Review Process or
fis equivalent. This was confirmed In e letter ot July 5.
1993, to M. C. Hslvorsen of
Qualsfno from Anne
Edwards, Minister of Energy,
Mines aod Petroleum .

Resources end John
Cashore. then Minister of
Environment, Lands and
Perks.

t was agreed early In the
process that the North
The role of the North Island
island Round Table fs cnly
Round Table fn the process
one part of a larger process of reviewing tile BHP prothat wfil judge the merits of
posal can be summed up as
the BHP proposal. The North tollows:
Island Round Table hes no
aulhonty to appxwe or d 6'To bring togetherrepresen
approve the project or to
tal«es of varous internals
require amerdments to it.
on the North Island to disIt was agreed the role of the
cuss the implications of Ihe
Round Tabfq Is lo Identify
BHP proposal,
and articulate bcsl concerns end to rnake those
'To Identify Issues reb!Bd to
I'oilcwns kriowil to thB pub. dw proposal and to state
lic, BHP, and afi levels of
the concerns nf the Round
gov'ernment.
Table members.
It wes also Bg reed the
Round Table does not have
the resources or the expertise to give 8 Ifnal opinion on
many of the complex te&nlc81 Bird BCOIBI Bspscis of the
proposal. Tfwse Issues wfil .
be addressed if Ihe project

geola

paid fur

prionty, or perspective
among members 'of jhji
Round Table'.

kite 8 feirfsed ediliofl of this
mpori.

The Round Table did not
'To provkfe a document thai attempt to reach
consensus
sums up the concerhs of .
on whether or nol the BHP
Wsh these general poin
Round Table inembws
prcjsct should go ahead.
mind the following are Ii
so BHP, the public and the
Firsfiy, there Is not yet,
issues and concerns ra
government agencies that'
enoujjh (ormatiori to make
judge ih'eixbbcsjjf ilacgjf „ 'b'defirritkw7udgment; secctearidetailed expjessloh ol ondly, the Round Table fs
local concerns.
il '.
not authorized to make this
I)
deqsion. Whfie it Is fair to
say there Is a range of opln- 1, riflarnaliaa
lccuaa Dfscarcari and jha fons an the merits
or demerCans'ance af fhe Round
Its ol the proposal, there ere
Tobfe bfiambars

'he

Cunng the March, April, and
May rneelings the Round
Table discussed the 15

x Blrkenhead llj explains 9 C. Research leechsle feels

lii

I

tWO dlSlfhCI VIB Vs.

he members of the
I. Those who are opposed
Round Table are aware
to Ihe proposal and who
onty two existing elterns
he Round Table rnbmbers require a greater degree of
proposals for the open I
hed many hours ol discusasswance than they now
when tha mine ceases c
sion durlrig which there wbs enjoy, particularly about
ation in 1995. The first ii
efi opportlxfib to raise ariz
erasronmental concerns.
plan to flood the open p
and es Issues related to tha
with seawater capped v
proposal. The Round Table
2.Those who would approve fresh water to make e le
operates by consensus so
of tha project, provided il is
The second Is to use Ihr
Ihere are no votes, only
possible to demonstrate
for a landfifi lo dispose c
indicafions of,agreement or
that il would not cause
municipal solid waste.
whwa there is not Bgn!8unacceptable environmental
ment, discussion Until Ihe,
damage.
There ero no presently
hetUre cf the dlssgrfwmbllj
known economic benefi,
ls clear.
While ihese two points of
from flooding the pk wfit
view sometimes seem poles water. There are no swi&
The mwnbers of the Round
eparl it is ImportBnt to recenvlronmantal concerns
To gather Information about Table realize there may be
ognize they share slmfiar
raised by this option
the pmposal end about
olherlssues snd concerns
concerra. Evwyone agrees
feleiscl ISSUBS SUCh 88 racy.
than those expressed lii this the environment must not
Therawould be significs
cling, landfill design, elr and
mport. They invite pubfio
ba dBrllaged by lha projeCt
water pollution, fisherles,
comment on the issues
and that there ars signiToant
tourism. job creacon. etc.
raised In the report and wiy
environmental concerns,
other subjects that maybe
Everyone Bgrees Ihe social
determine where there Is of interest lo the members.
arxl ecanomic well-being or
Bsrlieril arid whsfe thefe
New information or conNorth Island residents Is
differences of opfnion,
cerns will be incorporated
importenl 6no must be
ceqo

T

I jlmh%

n"

"=S N4.

I

I%

g

Imj~ )!~='.— -, = /g
=Bj~l
z

&AI

gg~!,

ggg~mslWRI'll

Bj

Sllfifib..—

another party unless directed lo do so bt governmeht.

ops(stion (and eny other
Industries establ shed on the
sita) would.be under the
jwlsdiction of Port Hardy or
of the Regional District of
Mount Waddington.

If BHPwsre'to self alt'or part
,of its interest in 8 entgt oper.
ation it will retalr ils obliga-

P
noi lo go
d «IBRIW landfiU pro
I or If govarhmsht
!es against the propos
sn the pit will be aoodd turned fnto a lake.

tion to.control posutlon

caused by ths mine afterThe
mine end the proposed fsnda 3. Coaarnmant
fis would be separate opera-.
Regula(ion.
tions and (a( under separate.
sets o%18 dlctfohs and fag
„

F

ulatfons. Sofce nlsnlbss of
the ROUrld Table afe COll-; „
hwe,was considerable
cemed thsf It will be dikeuft disgussfon on the subject;.—
to determfne whether snme,:, .obwhere INs proposal fits
future environmental impact:7 'Jn,tliepystejh of
government

'Isldlal(arr

I

duetolhelegacyof1(lel .

Iegufatjhg Waste 0rlglhaflrig.
outsldri British Columbia,

Some mambers were con.
cerned it would be Ikgicuit
to regufato the landsll proiect because it fs 8 pnvata
business rather than 8 publicly run operation. Dibs.
members fait it would be
preferable to have a private
business regulated by government es this would avoid
any congct of Interest
caused by government
itself.

rfe'gufatfon It was agreed 1

RAle

regulations and Inspection

tke v

procedxes must be

~

required that guarantee no
toxic or hazardous waste
comas to the Nohh Island.
This coukl include inspections «here Ihe waste was

n ane oi to the landfill opera.",.
tlon(AB membshi agreed ',, „.,

CUIIS

Ing a
porta

loaded into containers for
shrpmenl as well as inspection at the site during fend(sang operations.

mlnlnl

Aa members agreed that
any revision to the type of

lmpac
Some
Iowan

ft wa.

Ccst I
may t

COStS

comewhaRr

't)isljkpfxevsl,ls

IedUO

ment
memt
genen
fill ces

ed 10

I

BHP L

'ire

T

be por
Iflg SSI
COSt P

an ecc
Btlch.

!'Thept
.the lss
adopti
should
on ecc

thatth
aggres

A

SIB "gt
rig hth

comptl

'tal

IifllW

nomi

ding

waste allowed under a land.
Altntembers agreed thee *.. fal permit must be sub(sot to
end Jisjofvea munlct-„ muat te an ePProved olofuff pubic Isrriew.
kg!!lug
this concern,should be '„. "- dr
WUsglotvjj,'provincial ihd .. sunj plan in place before
resolved before any appto(edersf interests. These
the
project
proceeds.
The
regulation.:"
vsls are given (or the landfill. Indude
3. Tha I paar,afda
government agendas dosurs plan must contain
Involved In lend use, mining, 'provisions for premature
Prolaez on r ha a3 Ra ".
ouiid Table recognizes When the Island Copper
waste management, envf.
closbg of the landfill In the
hreinment-tO-gOVerha
wes established In the ronment fisheries energy
event of unforeseen circum'Iegosalions Undalway early 1370'6 the eras occuand transportation.
stances. The Inlent of this
ih the Treaty
pied bv the mB end other
requirement
is to make cerhs provincial government
Usskxl may IBsuft ih
buildings was added to the
It was agreed local Interests
tain the residents of the
has sst 8 bagel to fedUOS
ir of ownership snd
Municipality of Port Hardy fn must be represented on any North Island
are not left with municipal waste by UOR by
Xion'o'ver some Srds order to pnwlde a
prcperty
federal-ptovlriclsl revbw of
en economic or environthe year 2000. Some mem.
Rrst NBUons,
tex base for the commugity, the peJfet Und that Iha
mentd llabllly after closure
bale Bre COIICBhled that the
The open pit was not Includ- RaglonBI Distrlci gmfemment of
the landfill.
avaifablsty of such 8 lwge n i
es en obligatkin under ed in this area snd is part of must play e continuing
role
landfill wi( reduce edorts to
ital Ieglskttit r tc
Are" C of the Regional
in arty landfia development
reduce, reuse and recycle
i the mine site and
District of Mount Waddingat the she.
4. Ragulatia of Qaa(ay municipal
solid waste. They
Ire there Is no poauton. Aa the area occupied
Control of Inaama g
are
concerned that the BHP
used from water
by tha mine ls Crown Lehd
Iyaare
There I6 concern about how
project
might
ba used as an
g through lhe mire
presently held under mfneml the lan dgl proposal frls Into
excuse to relax the Goss
iis responsibility has z lease by BHP.
the Regional Dlstrbt's wes:e
target on the basis of costs
I limk and wfs be
management planning .
I members ars con
to the taxpayer. Other memxf ~posting of
AU membws agreed that If
process, Would the landfiy, cerred about Ihe possibiisy bers felt
that scclaty's
3
Rant to
Ihe Isndl( operation goes
be pail of the Regional
of hazardous or toxic waste resolve to become more
ey foreseeable anvil ehsBd 3 Wal bs OGCBSBSIT 10 District'of Mount
either ace ldenlsay or fnterlegcient
by adopting the 3,
imparts after the Ie. olve the issle of local
Waddington's waste mern
tionally entering the landfril,
Rs would not be reduced by
dosed. BHP cannot jurisdiction on the she. At
sgarzleftt plan'7 How woUld
Some members were parths!Sfldfaf peJSCI
ts res poftslbgiti'h to issue Is whether the landS
the project tit into the plans
ticularly concerned eteut
orssen!B proposed the
I opereson would be
3 by,BHP as a prh ate
ls'6 subJect to govern.

w,

BHP

mem

AU members agreed that

'egulayng

Ian rsa(p and

of other Regional Distrbls
thar were sending their
waste to thn landhs'I

'jxesld

mantel

are d3

I

Bm not

(]~IIRM
ljll

iljll

Razz(sr Wiig

8 SI

R

Iliis&q

'::--=-"'-'. ""

I» o

6 „pl!pash d azaqwhILDatgsfras«(JUY'8
.Beblej&o
cjtka(II'(tgaetrukzaavs!Gre!

u

I WWIRI

i

ISJB(

wRWRWSS wh
SSWSWSRRM
i!

Ii

i!

II

ii

ii

II

iI

i!.

i!

i!

Illllhllg

3

II

II

i!

II

PEN

1855

INI

IMSIRN

!

LR 'I55

)I III I!!
mal
'ary 33

Ijjjjjjj jjj i~

=~

~

S

~ 'g~

Sill'55~

~~a P$

I

.

i

I

Ig

g I IRl

~ite
- —

-"8— — —

~~

!

$

-'-:"-'- iy jiiijjil II'I!'ill/A»!3
IJ:::-==:;—
J ...-.----„.; -„, .. ~,.-:"= ".'We:jjys ir .'
J

~jHI8

j!

I!

- = -'
—

==::Hamjl'!J!!!ghli i'I'! ii Ii =
I

~

Ij'l

—,;-gjgFIJ!!!'!."

"DIR ~ 8 —

—-

—

~ga

—

~

~BIIISWRLg~tmswve

~

~m

sfiflg,
ia.

at
bcA

)AO

;le
)Ad.

BHP befievss, and scnl
membem agree, that the
scale of the landfill operation wlfi make fi more sco
~ nomical to conduct recycling programs than the
current system by providing 8 means of trans- .
ponafion tc markets.

h

8

z

P

y
was placed between th
and the inlet.
Most committee rnemb
agreed if there vrm an s
quake of such a magnit
there would bs mucli rr

VIBS

for
PBC.

lt ves agreed that the

cost of waste disposal
may be 8 faeor in determining the project's
Impact on the 3 Rs.
Some members fait that
lowering current disposal
costs could result In
reduced efforts to implement the 3 Rs. Other
members fell that savings
generated by lower landbfi costs cauld be diverted to lsomllng Pfogl'Bills

st
of

lbs.
is ri
I

I

I Io

xe

bsy
BHP,
BA

)StS

iem-

3

.

dby

The members agreed ii
was virtually no pcssibl
of 8 tidal wave reachihfi
the mine site due to ths
constrleion of Oustslfk

'e

economb calculations.

Afi members agree that fiie

3 Rs should be supported

Ing servfces et the lowest

! by regulabon and that the

cost possible tc achieve
an econcmicsfiy Bable aper

OHP project should be
designsd to encourage
recyclng programs and to
provlde the pubfic with Informatlon end resourciis to.
these programs.

Btio)1.

~

'

NBA'OWS. r

ound Table nlmbem al Hidden Vaffey LendNin Washington Sfale

The Round Table discussec
theissue of whethe the
adoption cf 3 Rs programs
should ba based primarily

6. Trade end
Tr ruPerssrien of

on economic mascnlng cr
that they shoukf be pumued
aggresswely because they
are "gocd in their own
right, This rliscussion fs 8
complre one that involves
ccnside, stion of env'ronmenlal ard social costs the
ere difficult to measure and
sre not Included in the usual

g. Water QrjrjfIIylani
Management.

modifies regarding trade
not contamlnatecf with toxic
snd transportation'I" This
or hazardous,materials.
quesfion Is rebvant beccuse
some Iurlsdicliore and.
interest groups have adopt- 7.. Tyre Physical Iruegrv'ry
of'/i e Open Pu.
od policies to restrict transport of waste across jqrisdieional boundaries.
Most members agreed
In prlndple there should
he Round Table heed a
dNsrence betwsenx,
number o( presentations
munldpal waste and other
from experts an ths physical
ccmmodxfes regarding reg- Integnty of the open pit. It
ulation of trade end transwas agreed that Ihe rcok
It was recognized walls cf the pit ars stable
that many commodities in
snd lhst there Is litfie lillfil .
trade, audi as industrial
hood of fractures developchemimls, are much more. ing ih the rack that could
hazardous than municipal.
aflow,leachate to escape.
waste. Afi members felt that The members are particularthe main issue Is to,ensure
ly concerned about the coninst tne munbfpe waste Is . crete sluny wall'n'the
qulh side ol the pit toweds
the sea. Thb cluny wall was
swift to limp water.out'of
the ply so.that 'oie from the
south wall of the pit could '...
be extmcted. Maintenance
of the Integrity oi ths sluny
wall would be Aecessey jf A

be'o
that'upport

'y.

lil wxh seawater.,

BHP befievss they should
be permitted to offer lsndfifi-

nant .

ce

serious damage cause

.Sanfi Bxxfingotfil

'.

ind.

Alp* if

HP,believes,.dassd
existing tachnobygf Brld
expebaxe, tliat liirdgt ls
ste snd add rock drain:

can be successfufiyp s

.F

In 8 leachate treatment p

Suoh treatment would t
needed to renoye hesv
metals and ammonia tc
levels thBI Bfs rvÃttoxfc
fish snd meet environm

Mrmfe'l
ee Were.
mrs'ortafion.
~

r.

Round Tab'e considared the question, 'Should
municipal waste be treated
dgerenfiy from other com-

North Dump

fall

StsAdB)dS
I

Aft Round Tabl'e mamba

Bre concerned about Is!

of water quality snd wat
management in relatioi
the landfifi pmposali Thi
parficularly true',for 'wats

'...

,

sleidlilt Were tOifroCeed,. -"

that leacties through,thi
waste eid must, be, pun
to the surface, tieatefis
discharged to the sae
There Is abo 8 concern

the continuing dlscharg
'ater
that bsejmeS eCi
I

fled as It drains through

.
.II

I

SSRRS

4%11&a

III, O
m~ ='"=I'i illl
I

NIT j 8 m
i

I

i

—.--

I

I

I

I

g

smell

'

waste In the landfill wou~ld
the passibfillyct buoyant
,, items not yet covered wjlbn

oncern for

on the marine envlronrn
parficuleebrl flsh and 8
't
I

"'lmi lli

s

I

N

'ith seawater et such 8 rate mantel review of the prc

8,

~

— I ~ ~ NIIBSILiimgm

'

gl

.

''

'''IIIIII

''

.

Bl ~
BI]II
&„~„'Ikh;
.

i i

'

'"'' ".'' ''"

'jLII lkjh ''-

''
'iga
~ "='—
-- —:,...
~

ias'8 rmimNMZIII
— —

'

'

---

'

~a~A=
'-MjIIII 8
—

fifilS Ifi

III

't

Some m embers befieve that 13. Trnnvpoworion
trlbUled Oqusey Brrlorlg thlr
Routes and FacigrM . population. For example, If
a conte incr termirlel on the
Nonh 1st and would attract
the trucking of waste creatother fre Ight such as
ed e safety risk, traNc conri,
seafood , speclsfiy pulp,
gestion problems or exce.ere are cc mmercial
wood p roductB, end facyJ.he BHP proposal Involve! sive noise, these Impacts
operations fri RupeA
Oleblem alsrlals. The conthe construction ol 8 c'oil-i
would afiect'some people
Inlet and the Marble Rarer
,'feiner sh ips would be
'.
more than others.
.
has the largest run of
All msmbew'agreed that,: ':, 'returning.'empty so there
and loading of murifclpslr
The members c; the Round
Chinook Talmon In Qualsino smlssions from inciqeiktlonR 'meir be a posslblfity'of
waste at the mouth of the
Table agreed that any federSound: There isa commer- or burnt f 0 of methane mush 'hick;lw UUAU olhrx corn.
Fraser River. Qontelnew r
al.provincial review of the
cial saln'on farm about ten
air quality tequirfn fid;1 rmo'dities
would be loaded onto
project must include e thorkilometers from the mine
ments end r'nusjpse tha;
barges or ships for transport ough study of social
site. Rupert Inlet and
bast available cbnlrol tectiSome m embers are ranto the North fsland.
impacts. There should be
Holberg Inlet have the
j'-. cerned t hat the landpl pro-.. Containers could also M
hofogy (BACfj;rr
particular reference to lhe
potendat to support addifeet mlg ht harm other Indus- picked up at communltws
distribution cf those Impacts
tional aquaculture opsratoes, pBrtl cularly'tourism
between Vancouver end the among the residents of the
10r Empfpyffurnirarrrf ike" 'end fish in g . Fo r tourism th e
Uonak .
North island.
North Island.
Enon'cmy.
concerh kT the percepSome members are conUon that the exhtavw of a
BHV ingasy proposed two
cerned that the long time
'large Isndlifi might deter
14. Pvrceprion nnd
i
options fo," the shipping
„, .
scale of tte project (150hoiegy.
people from visiting the
rolrte from VBEIOCUvrx All
500 years) makes it diNcuk
Hp estimates that 100
North lsiand. For fisrling the
Round Table members
'predict
to
tiie
direct jobs, 50 at the site
corlcern Is for the quality of
agreed that if waste is to bs
of the project on
and 40 In wcetg BAd
wakrr'discharged from Uw
shipped to the North Isbnd
water quality.
trwls pet, would be created Nndfill into!he sea.
It should came up the Ins!de brome members of the
on the North Island by the
passage and not up the
Round Table ere concerned
landfifi project, based on a
In order to gather Infemawast coast slid through
Uwt the public Image of the
9. Methane generedes
design capadly of2000
tlon on the Impact oflandfifis Quatslno Narrows.
North Island will be dfmlnnnd fifm.
tonnes per day. Qther'jobs
on tourism BHp conducted
Ishlld 8 IherB Is 8 major
~ vl I:t'v
would be rvteted al the
a prefimlnwy review of the
would be necessary lo
landfill located at lhe mine
southern shiPP in 9 terminal . Situation et Cache Qeek.
build e container terminal on sae and that this may cause
'The cache creeli lande
at transfer stadons, end on
North Island end to
a'reduwlod1h todnsm. Cyler~
U landli lie generate
carrying the waste.. openedin 1959 snd
transfer the waste containrrembers point to the fact
methane ges. Ths methane
receives municipal waste
ers by truck from the east
tlwt moat major popufafion
Is created by anaerobic bac- The Round Table did not
fnxn Ihe Greater Ysncou rer
coast to the landfill alla on
centers neve lcndfifa fn iheir
tarte that digest the orgenb. attempt detailed csloula-'egional District. It cen
Rupert Inlet. BHP is Study.
vlcNity snd In the somewhat
porgori of the waste. Water t iona of ths Indirect job cre- aduafiy be seen Irom the
Ing e number of potongal
comparable case of the
.
''helps
raseto speedup the
BUon from the project but
highway passing through
locations for tte shipping
Cecrs Crfiek Isndfifi'8 ere
!
tfon so a landfill on
ths members agree that the town.
terminal,
tas bean Ao pefcehrsd
North Island would be effec- ratio could be slmfier.to the
Impact'on tourism.
'tdfkgj pnxluclng methane.
present minfng operagon. In . BHP conducted Interviews
Some members we conOther Words the WnNUI Prc-', 'vrrfiti the mayer and tWO rarcemed that sdlfitlonsl ship
Soma members are conrll operators are ndw
feet could replace about
mhr mayors ol Cache Creek tralfic up lhs IAslds passage cemed the pmject would
':roofotlen mqulrsd to cofiecs
one-fiflh of the present
Snd with the Presklent of
mlgM cause problems fcv
effect ihe way residents of
methane prodieed es it N, dire'ct'arkl Indirect jobs'geni the Cache Creek Member
fishers and recreational
the North Island percehe
fkunmable and la also 8. '„crated by the mirie.'". '
of Commiirce. They all
boslers,
Qrhlrr mefTlbsw EBII themsehrss and that It
"' "
,'powerfUIgreenhoussgss. Fl "„' '
ilgreedthatlhelandlillhad
lhe additk nsl ship tragc
would impact ths Identhy of
Affercbllecfionmethane'N- .E;"
.,Onwiadveluablejobqhad
(about CAS strip suety 30
I
the North Island In 8 nega'11
Spfnmtgcehomfc
egherihdneraledorburned,,
provldedbadlyneedod
hours) would not make a
tive (ashton. Giber members
fmPeerPevfgee
for energy production..':.': .
funds from properly texas
significant dsference.
believe U ths project fs a
Nee Elm
and rayaltieS. Bnd had nO
bsneN to society and sets a
'
'HP migmates the pro..
.
negathre environmental
AU memtww ageed that 8
good example for others 8
':posstflwidlifiwifigenerale,v..'h
"impactsrelatedtotourfsm.
would
be
preferabe
5 the
should result In s poshlve
~ .- '"".'.
ths equhNlenl of'30 to 40T "
.
trucking route across the
Impact an the fdenfiiy of the,
"nwgavnitts ofmethwle '.,
believes the larxNU
!Afi members of tbe Round
Nrxih Island wore not on the North Island,
pmject could be jhe core'.,Tebljis'greed th'at Einy ieder- main paved highway.
";srtergiUTNs N
amourttkgenklgytn ielitioh";prbject that wrjuld Btlraclh": ';al provfhclal revlevi of the
PefTAccess Eo
I to thetwgijpdf the North,, bthsi Igfihustdjw ic gie site.','PjrfPcsg shbuld require
jydslrjnrp.'pdrfiHmly cog-'","',I ".; Recycfiftg lndiislrles far-",.~," 'doited examination ol any. 13. Secfaf lmpeviv
'PiiiNleSrabdtfihfi 0 megWJ!itlS„ojenmOdfglkrgeoff 88Pfrnnpy . POUUlbla ne'gathip'eCOnamiC
'eledifcal 'e'nergy et prth»:::, pepml ifxgfihxfitjhgP i',
lfiljwds'ofpbfi'jilcject.
t. Tha methare.gorjld bei'beCane eiitabl Sjtwjrj jrt thgi
, used,to produce elrwtdcityk, jste.gethfihljfrohithtrfajtdRound Table die-.:
r: Jhe~hwmbers of the'-.... - ......t
at the'alto part of whlchn .l
cussed e number of Issues
rxwldgidvlp the ene(gyl' '
Round Table agreed thai
"
woisd bii used to run thb j-. 'aqrjimjjengifirf Naia Birds I)
raeted to social fmpecls, In they had been given fair
ypUmpstiiiid other equwmenl otfx'fygduhfrljw,.";qhPe:.."~ k—
particular the fact that these I.access to Intonnalfon on
'-" -'Rata wc"."" 0"
T'and'P'orl of'which could Uc
would not be dis-'BHP pioposal. The Round
j

sokt ofi the site. U would be
possible to build e pipeline
from the site to Coal
Harbour, New Quatsino
Vifiege, or Port Hardy to
make use of methane for,

I

Tabfr
tUITrt

proc
Infon

can
The

healing,'".,; „,

ISSUE

,'ainer.terminalfortrsnsfer

'eet

Ow'ly

disci

up a

~

.

clafiy

matir

'.

wos
ISSUE

st an
rema
Rour
work

'ey

j

8

Aem
wrth

~PE

'ene

scca
BHP'he

king-term'mpacts

'essels

;

,

6'hu

will b
Oh th

JeEIU/ille
mani
Roun
.Easier

ke'sis
t&hfi,p

lb.

ths:

:

.

"fill
,

,

UNcinti"

~

'..:, ':
':,:

.

":
.,
.:;,,'
.":
'.'-"
.

E

-':

8HP

'3.
'nyermellon.

l';v';

-T""

X

I

the R
ITEUSt

eratlo
emm
In rev
The c
Alerts
Table
CUsly

proux
shout
in sny
reviev
It fs tl

IhS R
provfr'equlr

Hi/'cr
Ihe--'mpads

P i

I

.1

.

,

1 I I'

F

was;

Revle

WOUIC

ronrnl

SCCI8f

lect. x

Bjjl

WIW

~

jlii

l1E Bl

III Ii"I
ET

~

I

e 18
I

jg

maw j BL

~~'g
E

PUP'IIIBIP

g

-

—

—,

N¹m

,.

ni iiri ifi iwsl

Er

''

Njjfi

~

I

jg

Erc

...

~gine

~~:rmreem

'',,,
~E

''
jj

UI

''''

.

pi B,

-- -

NNEIEEI

rle II

I

jipI~UM'gramra~

r

c

-'. $94

~

rmp,',1,

jjliI llplpjljpi lip jlpj

lsew qf! O'Il'~Ilk%~.

I

-:-',e

Table gives them an opportunity lo participate in a
stern
process that is fair and
iofooned ahd in which they

can raise

concerns.
'he Roundlheir
Table agreed

Patrick Moore, Facilitator
Maria MacDonald, Secretary

early in its work that any

issue that had already been
discussed could be brought
'up
again at any timo, espe,
oally il there was ne» informalioh on the subJect. It
also agreed that new
issues cor ld be rritroducad
tine The agenda
,
'emains open so lheg ss the
Round Table cont nues to

Member

'as
I

I

Organization, coinmunity or sector

Michael Derry
Gerry.Calder
Elizabeth Fmst
j
Donnu Gross
work.
Gwen
Hanseri
All menbers are concerned
w th s e need to provide the
Scott Jlariis
general public with better
Brian Kay
access to hformatioo about
BHP's proposal and about
Jori Math'esoni- "
ihe Round Table's work. It
Kerry McGourlick
was agreed that this report
"
will be widely dkstobutsd
! Dave McKinnon

,

i

1

1

'.

i

1

1

an the North Istsnd and that
there vsg be a period of time,
dusng which pubic comment will be received The
Round Table w I consider
revieog the report on Ihe
basis of informatroh ahd
concerns ra sed during

Sian'bLenh'ah
Rick Milligan
Sopliie Moore
Norns Prince

thts P eriod.

I

Id. IVI
R

Dick Robertson

r I TrrIrI

'gfl

III

& I

I

fl

jlUSIIJM 3 g

i!

f

I

the

f

i

It its:
~weeps

i

'ssessment of the environ-

mental impacts as well as
speoficasohs for costs ahd
'ngineeaog BHPhasagreed
,

I

the project report will

,

I

,

address all the eaves aod
concern: raced by members of ihe Round Table.

j

.....:

!

lect repen as required by
Stage i,of the Malar Protect
Revew Process Tha prolect
, report will g»e a de'.sited

Ihe Round Table that the
provinoal government will
requre a Malor Project
Review ol the proposal thai
would include study of ehvi
ronmen tat, econom c snd
. ocial impacts of the proled. As members of the

)st
's,

mtf

I I Iggg g '!Ill

;

,

It is the understanding of

r ~

c
I I::..r

If BHP deodes lo proceed
with tre prolecl lhe hoxt
oeior step wouid te a pro-

I

ravtaw.

I!IIIII.LIIf
8'If--li'IWigj
-aliilt ll
mmi

the Rcuhd Table's work
must tie laken into coosderalioh by BHP artd by gov
ernmerit ascribes involved
in rr!viewihg the project.
The concerns raised by
members of the Round
Table me lb taken sere
ously by Ihe federal aod

prouooal governments ahd
should be tuay addressed
in ehy federal.prownoal

——

949-7443
949-6326

'hat

Illlil!'=~I
I a .=3

949-7189
949-6548
949-7001

Round Table support this
requirement.

,

members agreed Ihat

illjjij1llj

Telephone
974-5855
949-6245
288-3313
973.2029
949-7960
949-9433
949-6911
956-3610
956-4446
284-6201

Alett Bay Council; Fisheries sector
Qnatsino Band; First Nations interests
Wint'er Harbour'atepayers Association
Sointula residents; Fisheries sector
Quatsino Task Force
Resoriice planner, Kwakiutl District Council
Opeiiiting Eiigineeis Vnion, Labo'ur sector
Rhgibnal Ecohcmic Development Coinmission
Port,'McNcill Foie'slry sector
Pc'rt 'Alicg; Noith Island Sportsmens Association
Port Ha'rdy Couii'cil Mt. rWaddingion
Regional Diotrict
Pots Hanly'coiiomic Development Committee
Poit Hardy Recyclin'g Society
Coal Harbour; Mt. Waddington Region Solid
TVaste Manageme'nt Committee
BHP Minerals Cannda Ltd. — Project Proponent

Does rfre
r

I

I

689-7500 Vancouver

i~eIIs

"~

tB st Ia

"

8 il IIWIIBlvjllg llgate~til r~
'

——

I

~

aa ess

it: 'e

'"'' '---

v

-'- as

jBitssm

g

IImaae sasa
IBM'
-msiamg~~~IK~I ts!IWIRjlR. '"~gJN1kllhtgamitaajggtgMgt

g

/glajjj I

I

sl

BC's Emjironmentol Assessment,

.

'

'rocess: Hoss UIoes''t SgodcP

7PB/s 8/8 UNNS PCSslb/8
sfagss b fha 6rlvlrwl/hards/
asseswnenl procass/ epolf-

cOUon lo ensum 5 fs complete

.

rmirwoshgev m onwvws

8/8 spedeed I/1 8 draft 18gu/6

Sshes a ProJect Comrmttse.
The application is placad on
the Project Reglslm within 7
daym The puNL has e speclfled time Pe/v d t30-60 daysl lo
mmmenl on tl.s spplcation.

f/on.

Sioga 1/ /jpplicat jow
The 61st slap Is for the proponent lo submit an spplbation
for a prcjam spprovw cenNcate to the ExecuUve Drrector
ol Ne Environmental Assess.
melt ONce. The Execusve
Dksmor ws screan lhe eppa-

v

8

the,

p~evt Rapan RG

-:

commmee an/Uy/bethe pro.
Nwsqoo/jtml fcixmptere me' BN iapcjf, conudsrmg
jrs/mtjT'ejikmane'iin / I.comments'lacuvsd. Basmt on

um'/tsjct

!

6111 ~ I
I

g

i'ima lmqallls ll
I

II

JI

)jju
$

'',

-.'-'I III

~akhwusuam~t

to

5'-".

='.iil~
-=
„, -:-.

5 uw Iroueueus'IOUI/kea puMa,
unman rmv/auo tm set aj UUs
hesrklg, they hsuji jtm d/alt '
one'. Folbwktg Ihe hwulng; tlm
terms of rafwwice, wt /eh
Board sutxnks Us mpmt Onb.
wm/Id Bpocttj Na Issues Io %Ioconulmfldalkms to csblrlsl.
bs sdd/Oesad Omf nmy Iflckufo Csbkud Nlan docldes wlthN
8 remxfermnt Umt SUSclib mw
45 days, «bather to issue or
nas errd oxnsee be eonudmbse to Issue a p/ojem
osd Ot the howbg. The diag ~ splxov6I cordfk'468. CBki/Nn's
ol reference ere NNlt lo
fm6cns tor decjskNI efld onfar
the epplbenl end Ihe BoarcL
ol uw Cabinet are Sled cn Ihe
by Cabinet, are issued. The
'
snd sre Sled on the Roject
pmjem Regisuy, The projecl
proJect ls now Oulhodzed le
Registry for puMc Iouew.
epmoval Derncele iind any
proceed.
Ccnlfllaflt 8 8/8 NIVNad Ofl tha
associated pormlts. If ordered

',,

.tlmmiimNISI I

=""

shonly Iharsahar.

'he tolls ume lor a nwmu Ivn
s/ege mv/aw, inc/udhg INNND
uofl end IOPD/t 8/Spomtm by
No pxlporlsrlt. wgbfl sjrpnm

!

Orahieimsotreferer'OOGTNrms I

WClr==tQ~
77nve /s no prrv set Onetne UN
pub/c hewerg pnmssa It Is

!

I

=::

The Ministers must make 6
decision wkhlrl 45 days and
Siva watlan Isesohs for their
dad sion whbh ara placed on
ths project Registry.

Calfofl Ofld IBCOlnhmldeucnB
(

and lfosnsas', comkfe/sd ccrcumlrsb wkh the
rsvklw msy be issuad wNh Ih
project approval cermcate or

'ermits

Ths MNUSISIB ISVknv Ule OPPS

/ jII jIIBiit ss

I.

issue 6 prelect approval ca rtfU
cele. At this stage, Iha Mnlslers
msy decide to send Ihe pxlact
for e pubic review by the Envi
rcnmsntsl Assessment Board.

'emls

II

th/6 evsluaUDn Ihe project
Committae makes 8 mcom.
mendatkm to the Mlnlslws
whether 6 project approval car
Igcste shoukl be Issued. The
pfoject laimrl ro/kxv is to be
pbiad wjimn 70 days.

meptstobacoiiskkuadbylhe
8/cjam commmso. Rwpmjact

77m amount oi Nna Iakon/or

.

Rl

with the project commiuea,
Iha e/SCUIIVG Dkactmmvkh//6
the repon to determine
whether It has met tha prcjact
n!part specNcalkms. 6 it Is
Occecaed for revklw, it Is Sled .
On Ula P/DJSCI Raglsln',Tba
piibijc and ouwr egencfas tmve
up to 50 days to submk corn.

'orn

dfsk spaCNC85cflaa/8 than,
sndued, Nad on Um project
Regbuy 8/id proykfed to
'
proponent.

Tw

S

o'agree o/urgency of the proponent The prepemllon of e
lho/ough arid o/rlpnlhe//8/ve
p/Diect nlpmt can take fhe pro.
ponent som N f 5 monms.

'hose

lor s perkxlol \5 3D days. Tlw

t l

p/tljscl proceadf/rg fo furfhar
rav/sw, dBpwldrlg orl fha coal-

""~smn

':z lj

NNBT

n

"

o/a'w

6 projem report ls requested
d/ah specificafohs Sre develDumi by the prcjxA comntuee,
l
spacukuUons wa
placed In um project Rag isuy
8/ld lafs//Od lo Iha p/Dp(xumt,
ether government agencms
and Rrst Imdans end made
'vakable fc pubic comment
N

E,

Most projacfs, however, will
tks/y procsad tD fho mtyecl
report phase.

Tho ap/Nca//on rev/ew wa take
e /arty or 4 5 5 monms /or e

pkssy ot Ne pmjecr. 5 ra possbm/or rwetlvefy smbht-for-

make a decision end

p/WN/y of fne p/oject. snd

Repovt Prspa ation

llIIIJ'su

Sma imumof30daysto

wwd p/cjac/s lo OB Sumovst
vt uvr wci or me uppfbsom
phase (wi /bin 3.5 montnsj

give wrlltGn raasons for their
daCIBIO/I.

such /ecmrs as Ne evruahuty
of relevNnl /nfomrallon, com-

The project nupovt
d/tfj ttoojum

'l,i„i';.:

lf the Project Com
mmee racommends refamu to
the Ministers at this stage. this
recommendation Is forwarded
to 5% M hister of Bivfro/vl/wit,
Lends and Perks wxl the
Responsltxe Minister who have

The Project Commigee reviews
Ihe applcatkNI end con Iders
comm ant 8 from the public and
0th sr Ihto/as ted SUB rlc kls.
Based on Ibis review, the

Stage Ef .,

Ni'.".-

KC

Project Commh/ee
either recommends
to me two Mkystws
Ihal Iha project be
Bpprovnd w rsjaciad,
Or nx',UOSIB 8 daiallsd
pfcjoct rept'rt f/0/h
the prnponent.

end acceptable lor review. An
ppimauon fee wll be charged
for orl accepted Sup lcauon.
If the epplcotlon ls accepted.
the Executive Director estab-

cet/c/I, p/qkmt repo/I 18v/sw
8/rd 8 BDG/lfhawe/g. MDS/
projlmts my go through /he

',
s„','o
n

nxlg/Nl lalklmlad Ihst e PD.
Amf whkyt rrwst pramod

@--

""'

-'iimm

——

jjNSUIJ/SSBIIEjkdomoo

ravem 755lstska IJJBypkm
/Im/ufwkl fora/loco/Ixlktle 86

~pago. 5,

--- —

':

N

illllsE

'
m~d
Sm Nm 6

BHP Minerals Canada Ltd
Island Copper Mine
P.O. eon 370
Port Hardy, B.C. Canada VON 2PO
Telephone (804( 040-8328
Facsimile (804) 0404t080

BHP

r

Minerals

Enclosed please find:

l. A copy of the first report of the North Island Round TableBHP Landfill Proposal.
2. A copy of an extract from Volume 2 of the Greater Vancouver
Solid Waste Management Plan: Additional Studies Out-of-Region
Disposal. This extract describes the BHP landfill proposal as of

the date of publication.
For further information, please contact:
Mr. Craig P. Aspinall

Mr, R.B. (Dick) Robertson

Project Manager
BHP Minerals Canada Ltd.
P.O. Box 370
.Port Hardy, B.C. VON 2PO
TeL 949-6326 Fax 949-8130

I

Public Relations
Craig Aspinall & Associates Ltd.
¹302 - 1226 Homer Street

Vancouver, B.C, V6B 275
TeL 682-6301 Fax 684-6819

III
L'l l WI'

aim
Il
I sii
law
~ Rs ala

c'f

I /a M
i

err

p

l(IIHa'""-—

I

seslll

e~

rt M

lsiI ~IRWI IR ji

t

~lb Ill IIRI III

Ill --lf fI

Rl! 1 Ill

$

'-;

.„"=-==-".. I 5 ...,1~8 —
=; .scam'HN~
"=. '".',8(tiilm'll
''
"'g $
=Qmg l[I(I]rill~

s~~M~ji',~ I~:-=,

II,,',~ ~'

QCl -5 $ 94

111'iII'~...,

I

r

l

gs~ -"
I
119~(I~% IlII i== 'aaas
—

((Ill

~+I!% Ia™

-

-

'~st'

-- — -=

~

=

I

'' -

~

-

-.- -- —
—

-"

-@M~I ~g~I~&tra(k~iarmmes(tI~ III'-

"

i

THE CORPORATION OF THE
CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM

DATE: October 04, 1994

TO:

Environmental Protection Committee

FROM:

Anne T. Pynenburg
Project Technician

SUB JECT:

ENERGY STRATEGY DRAFF - COMMENTS FROM GVRD - FOR
FORMATION ONLY

Attached is a copy of conunents on the Energy Strategy for B.C. submitted by G.V.R.D.
The G.V.R.D. makes the following recommendations:
The RC Energy Council should re-e»amine the benefits of a strategic dimension for energy
planning in urban regions.

Energy planning should be recommended as a component not only of municipal plans, but also
of a regional strategic services,.processes, and plans.
Energy planning should be recommended as a consideration in any institutional framework for
the management of growth in urban regions.

The draft energy strategy should be amended to include these elements.

~

Anne T. Pynenburg
Project Technician

saa ststsl
t

I

I

ISSRI

attach

Pglll I
~mimi

'

I

~

I I

si LII

A~

I ~ &ilIiII I

OCT

%IS&I &u ISS II

'I
&a

14 Il&SSSSSI

~ 4!Iml'5 NNI'I&llllgli%
-—

''44'&l &S

is

It

~

~ Stlu! &I!

4,'

—

4 i~~

::: --:: --„p.l,t,': -=
~
Ia!~hllSW~!

a&

~ ~

s&a

-i aa IIIW

!

I ii

41
~I

I'.;;; tissu,& lm))illa',-„,-„~!

ss

Sl 4
S&411'I a&a&s 1

ai &a t s

=

-=== =:===

'""

'S 4
I

~

-5%4

SI~

'&a I &u '—

SS
S&4 S

SI ~ 114

l S i.

~ 4~

4

Sin&is

, SSSSSS I

~

I

a

!iS
i ~

! 44

4 i

ill tg&&%18 I

'",,, gII%.1 1 fl

,mss i r=!
I II

ii saaiiaIRI lgm

4
. ~

mitE

Submission to the British Columbia Enerav Council

The Comments of the Greater Vancouver Regional District on

PLANNING TOOAV FOR 7OMORROl45 ENERGV:
N ENERGY STRA TEGV FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA (Graft)

August 30, f 994

'~RNII

~St

11

SIRIItI

Iii I iiijji

j'it

ilgwu

ass

%31

fil

jII

OCT

0 E.c
gal ~ 111
I

I
f

IA

II

I'/

i~ty~gygglfg Iltgs
'

'

":

.

.'..„-'=''

I~MIiiIISIS1. ~!"',

II

~OSIRSge~ WIW g
ii I,i~g

sil ~ isa

=
l

— -- — =-

j,

— —

—

eral~

Ii~, ~t--, -

... -!
—

IRNe

s

„'=- i~,~55gggmil

ssai~

'-

II

Iia~~ul

."-

''--''

.'=~

— =gi
Stt=
i

~7
~4

—

-'.

~ Sis aesaj ew

=:="

— — ==

—

l~lSRI5%es~

INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft energy strategy of the
British Columbia Energy Council. This review presents the comments and
recommendations of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) toward the
revision of the draft energy strategy.
The review is in four sections. The first section presents an overview of the GVRD
experience related to energy issues. The second presents GVRD comments on the
general approach of the draft energy strategy. The third contains recommendations
to the British Columbia Energy Council. The final section is an appendix containing
detailed comments and questions on specific elements of the draft energy strategy.
C)VERVlEVV: ENERGY AND THE GREATER VANCOUVER REG)ONAL U)STRICT

The Greater Vancouver Regional District promotes the principles of energy
sustainability and conservation throughout all of its diverse corporate
activities. The GVRD pursues energy conservation as a corporate objective,
and is a designated PowerSmart organization. This objective is pursued
through such in-house activities as the use of energywfficient lighting
systems, organization-wide recycling programs, the fuel-efficient operauon
of the GVRD vehide tleet, the involvement in the Provincial Fuel-Smart
Program, the adoption and use of the Environmental Procurement Policy,
and the institution of a permanent employee committee to address energy
and environment issues.
The GVRD is already examining the potential of local power production
through the installation of a generator at the Cleveland Dam. This principle
(using local power sources) is advanced through an existing program for the
collection and use of landfill gases (methane) for power generation.

@~a@Nl

Ill-',—-.-.-=.,-'jll„""'9
I

i."',.".',!!.;, aiVi~ygqi'~~
m
)IIII

li iI

~

'!
'~m s iii

s

—;.=.=;,-; —,!Stsi(g,'„';.::.
H

ll~

.,~~'imi

'

II!I i

i".sr: .
i

j~g

IggR!,:gi-,lee'lsgl(I)

ggI

~~ ~ w~)~lm~- '~gjggjj~ R +
~a ~

I4)

—

--

j~~[g

All regional strategic planning initiatives by the GVRD are undertaken

according to the principles of livability, conservation, and sustainability. The
vision statemer Creating Our Future 1993, presents a set of 36 steps
which outline the creation of a metropolitan region that combines
economic vitality with the highest standards of livability and environmental
quality. Creating Our FuturespecifIes the priInciples, policies, and actions
necessary to realize the vision.
The principles of conservation and sustainability are incorporated in
planning for the provision of physical services in the region, through the
Liquid Waste Management Plan and the Solid Waste Management Plan,
and in plannmg for the control of regional air pollution, through the Draft
Air Quality Management Plan.

Following the direction of Creating Our Future Ihe GVRD has developed a
coordinated regional land use and transportation plan called the Livable
Region Strategy. This strategy is intended to provide the Greater
Vancouver region vvith ways to accommodate another million residents by
the year 2021 while maintaining the current quality of life for new and
existing residents. The Livable Region Strategy seeks to manage population
and employInent grOWth through the negotiadion of growth targets in each
subregion of the CVRD (and in neighbouring subregions in other regional
districts). The strategy also promotes the conservation of agricultural and
recreation lands through the creation of "green zones" where urban
development is limited or forbidden, and supports the development of a
hierarchy of "town ce..: s'here local growth in each subregion may be

focused.
The transportation component of the Livable Region Strategy is drawn from
the Transport 2021 lang-Range Transportation Plan For Greater Vancouver.
The British Columbia Energy Council draft energy strategy parallels many of
the recommendations of Transport 202'l, particuiarly with respect to the use
of transportation demand management, roadway tolls, parking fees and
management, and the provision of viable transportation alternatives to the

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

~mR'I
Illi k
,fV
'iaaiI

-- 'I
~

I 'll Slllg

jmi 811111II Il
li

Il lII I
Page 2

III IOI III I s I!
ski III I / II
I

hm"-

.

) II 1llll~

~II ~~jj
wlggI~I$$5RI arrI

~%MR
:-~:==~~i!

~~m

i'~'''''

.".!!~t Ill gg'jgg

ocr~IIII

WI

L!

Rig

j

0 5 IIIIII

n
g~ipaIIr.".."..".'lg~~jjfIIIiiIi'I
g

~i@ gSIIIS Llhl gI E&

COMMENTS: STRATEGIC ENERGY PLAIVNING IN URBAN REGIONS
As discussed in the draft energy strategy (p. 6), "energy planning harmonizes with
other areas of planning." Just as the Energy Council has recognized that the
methods of sustainable energy planning will have collateral benefits for other areas
of community planning, so the GVRD has recognized that sensible land use and
transportation planning will have energy conservation benefits. The two
approaches are complementary, p oceeding from opposite directions to the shared

core of sustainable development.
It is therefore surprising that the Energy Council has made no provision or
recommendation toward energy planning at the strategic level for Greater
Vancouver or any other urban region in the province. The draft energy strategy has
properly identified roles for municipalities and for the provincial government, but
does not include any identification of a strategic dimension in urban regions. There
are three main arguments for such an inclusion.

First, energy supply is a strategic regional resource akin to water, air, land, human

capital, and financial capital. The waste of strategic resources produces social costs
(ineftlciencies and inequities) and environmental costs (pollution). The member
municipalities of the GVRD have recognized the necessity of together 'addressing
the protection and enhancement of these resources through a regional strategic
planning process. Energy conservation and sustainability objectives should be part
of this process.

Second, energy is not widely understood to be a critical issue for local
governments. Part of the task of the Energy Council (or its successors) will be to
convince local governments to change this view. Discussion of these issues at the
regional level promises a mechanism to increase the profile of local government
energy planning, and provides a long-range focus for what will certainly be a
gradual process of mutual education and government'al change.
Third, energy considerations must be drawn into the core of the discussion
regarding the management of growth in the rapidly changing urban regions of the
province, such as the Lower Mainland, southern Vancouver island, Nanaimo, and
the Okanagan. Almost three-quarters of all British Columbians live in these four
fast-growing urban areas, and the provincial government is currently examining new
methods of empowering urban regions to deal with growth and change. Any
enhanced institugional framework for growth management should be able to deal
with energy planning.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The British Columbia Energy Council should re-examine the benefits
of a strategic
dimension for ene'rgy planning in urban regions.
Energy planning should be recommended as a component not only of
municipal
plans, but also of regional strategic services, processes, and plans.
Energy planning should be recommended as a consideration in any institutional
framework for the management of growth in urban regions.

The draft energy strategy should be amended to include these

elements.

APPENDIX: COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Ohl SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE
l3RAFT ENERGY STRATEGY

SUPPQRT FoR ELEstENTS oF THE DRAFT ENERGY sTRATEGY

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

Genepal Principles

The Greater Vancouver Regional District supports the following assertions:
The scope of energy planning should be broadened to include land use and
transportation considerations (pp. 1, 54I).
The concept of integrated resource management is sound, and should be
applied both as a general energy planning principle (p. 2) and as a
consideration in transportation planning (p. 27).
Sustainable energy consumption is enhanced through the use of nearby sources
which conform to the definition of a sustainable or transitional resource (p. 2).
Public consultation and public participation are requisite features of any
modern planning initiative (pp. 2-3, 53).
Broad policy initiatives are required to bridge between narrow judisdictional
domains (p. 2).
GVRD.
The objective of 'greenhouse gas reduction (pp. 8-1 3) is shared by the
Higher charges for energy consumption should be applied directly to
sustainable energy solutions (pp. 2, 18-19).

p

p

~

~

p

~

p

Energy and Municipal Planning

B.

47).
GVRD supports the Coundl's advocacy of incentive-based ratemaking (p.
to
of
grids
extension
the
from
directly
not
should
progt
utilities
Particularly,
to
undeveloped areas of the urban fringe, since this would lead those utilities

p

IIII
mll

sanction urban sprawl.
(pp. 21-22) are
The general pr!nciples behind the promotion of urban villages
'."':,
centres with a
and
communities
laudable. The GVRD promotes complete
better
services,
iocal
of
range
complete
more
broader mix of housing, a
than
pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems, and better public transit service
typical postwar bedroom suburbs.

p

~

Smii

)III"

o
Page

3

g SIP/
O'')illl, k)leirSR SR a Spi
==
i)ill!)S~s-"'--"
5
SUI S
miepp s=.

p p

» .

-' 'tgj R mm m —, -, r .::

I

eiiK
il ii
II

I

pe

pi pea
.

pp

I

'%

I

&

ippS

~

e'

e

= ~Higll
I

I

I

I

e.le

ASSI IS 8 I E-:= =
i pp i 'i iSS tS tgiSE EE p
—
I g"
,

I

I

I

C.

Energy and Transportation

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

~

o

o

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

SUGGESTIONS FOR RE-EVALUATION

There are a few elements of the draft energy strategy which should be reevaluated
for content or emphasis. The comments below are offered as constructive criticism
toward the creation of a more effective energy strategy.
e

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

~

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

Iig ., ~,

ua '
B

Iasi

e

The definition of a sustainable energy supply (pp. 2, 7) is weakened by the
extreme generality of its second component (" acceptable environmental, social,
health and cultural impacts" ). This raises the questions of how acceptability is
to be defined and by whom. These questions are at the core of the debate
over sustainability. Since the draft energy strategy is so clearly presented as a
"sustainable" energy strategy, this component of the definition should be
clarified. One approach to defining acceptability would be to say that no net
negative impacts should occur beyond the biophysical region in which the
energy is used.

e

The concept of requiring public transit or bicycle access improvements as part
of arterial roadway improvements (p. 24) is laudable, but should not be
restricted to one requirement only nor to arterial roadways only. The restriction
of improvements to either bicycle or public transit networks (but not both) may
reinforce an unhealthy competition between proponents of these two modes.
Further, the limitation of improvements to arterial roadways only would
unnecessarily restrict the range of potential improvements, particularly for
bicycle accessibility (e.g., such a policy would adversely affect a current and
very successful strategy in the City of Vancouver of promoting bicycle
improvements to secondary streets). A better policy, promoted by both the
GVRD and the BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways, would be to
ensure that planning for alternative modes is done automatically to a required
stanilard in any transportation planning process (a strategy very similar to that
proposed for municipal energy planning}.

e

Finally, the application of development cost charges to financing public transit
improvements (p. 29) could result in an inequitable distribution of social costs.

New residents would pay for a benefit to the entire community of existing
residents. A potengially more equitable method of financing public transit
improvements (and general services) is through property taxes, a method used
in many Canadian jurisdictions outside BC.
QUESTiONS ABOUT EIEMENTS OF THE DRAFT ENERGY STRATEGY

Questions arose during the review process with respect to several elements of the
draft energy strategy. No specific position is taken by GVRD with respect to these
elements.

I
l65'
RKll llm

~

IIILII f1
I (sA ~ ii iii

MIIN ilIt

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

IIIIi I Biil
]tBIirii grill
Hl 41 (I

I

5%I

'I

I

I

I

simlii
))Ssi

'

MII

e s u rtBI ', j

'CT
Page

5!!I
IIg4i,"I,Lih'(

4I

s

8 1 IK

~l list
~

=-==
icy == marii4415 I! liI =.—
.=;
—..
4 ~ IKss
MM Sll
w err

%M5

ii ilBRB(gg

I I'SING
ii

R R'.:

eaggaii 44gtIi

I ~ I ~ sr l(
I

I

s $ $ al I

~~

~

I

I

III ~

~

RBi

Iw

arri ira

wi II i %~ .

*'(l: ==

i\

ra

~

Is "social costing" exact and rigorous enough to be used as broadly as proposed
in Section 11 of the draft energy strategy!

~

if applied appropriately (i.e., in existing urbanized areas), the principles
underlying "neo-traditional" town planning are sound. Why then are they
presented only as views of the council and not applied to the
recommendations? The inclusion of "energy" in Section 945 of the Municipal
Act (p. 24) will not ensure that these principles are adhered to.

e

Suburban areas in most major metropolitan areas are now significantly more
complex than "low-density and single-use sprawl." The dispersal of employment
sites throughout metropolitan areas, for example, is now a concern in regional
transportation planning. Suburban areas are now problematic precisely
because they are no longer simple "bedroom suburbs." Perhaps the views
expressed in the draft energy strategy should reflect these more current
planning concerns.

s

GO GREEN is a public relations strategy for raising general awareness about the
environmental issues related to urban travel. The recommendadion (p. 30) that
the program be evaluated to determine its effect on the alteration of travel
behaviour may reflect overly ambitious expectations for a program of such
limited scope.

~

Why recommend (p. 29) only those bicycle network improvements which are
related to safetyf Concern about safety is only one element of the current
transportation network that dissuades cycling. For example, major
improvements also need to be made in access to roads and trails, in the
availability of secure storage, and in the provision of end-of-trip services at
destinations. Why not recommend more wide4anging bicycle access
improvements, and allow planning and development standards to address the
safety issue?

e

Finally, the recommendation (p. 24) states that "energy" be added to the

,@II

~

s I I $ 8%a fig l
I i re M aai ial
I

I

Municipal Act's officia community plan section, which may not be the best
vehicle for introducing energy planning to the local government context.
Official community plans are general documents expressing the broad planning
goals for a community or local area. Perhaps a more focused instrument will be
needed for energy planning implementation.

)'II+

H.LI(j

IIRsri raIeRI
!

~RSI s

I I

1I

~

I

~EIgim
CVNAICINCINIUKIC RN DOC

IIIieii"
F j L'.
'~I,",
—
~
..II
s

I

I

Page tt
iI

s ls I

I~ssllp

ii

mmmaa~

A

Tyy

l g

Project Techttician

attach

R

gggkll

7E

5~ N

"l 'gjJ
I1

I

I

Imam

II

fltglIy
I

i!'IllI Iggirgr
I

jjm

iNi'll'="mta
II 5 I

ge .as@BI
g

P. 82

rdlng the above this
bls for the Paint
subject to Philip

concerns detailed

t bs scheduled for
are expected to be
ze the Impact on
rIbutlon of drop-off

sed drop-off center
and traffic to arrive

s chosen will bs

e host munloipallty
specific Polls'lion
ore and issue an
$5
Insurance cerdffcate in our name with the GVRD,GVS&DD, host municipally and
facility operator as named Insureds, as detailed In ths attached lndemnlljcagon and
po

'-!il

Insurance Agreement.

financial

511IRtasls
(

(!I

Ill I

I lit.

Ths Gvs&DD must not incur any cost for providing the sits for the Paint Drop.Gff. All
additional costs Incurred by the District and its site operators as s result of the Paint
DropuDff program shall be fully reimbursed by Phlllp Environmental.

III

pl
lll uII5
asllsll
I

SEP-22-1994

I
1 "Ij vi/
m ~
R

IL

I

'

~ Ml I RN I 5 i I

15 I 83

436 6B11

p

~ ~fry

OCT

-5 1N

Wllll(

g'jjggI4 SNS/II /
a a 8%111 f
Ml III II% b/
m

mi a a I

SEP-22-i994

m

iSI m

4% 691 1

j

OCT

fP))
I'IIRfk~~i

-S iS04

@

I

~+~ 54am '~~
m

NiysiR~F'NN'l~

I

P

4

3i

)Pj)P&m4~&~ISII@$

@e~~ m+ZZI4, iQ[Pjg jim 1Si

I:++@&

89-22 — I 994 ISl82

436 6611

GVPO SOLID I44STE DEPT

P. 89

Ill/TOMOBILE LIABILITY

3.

For each vehicle used in the project and regulated by the Insurance IMotor Vehiclei
similar legislation, a Standard Owner"s Automobile Policy provided by the
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (AUTOPLAN) with Third Party Legal
Liability Limits of not less than $ 2,000,000.
ISiqt Or

4.

~DEbiQRQU4DVERABE

The Second Party shell tile with the (Corporation/District) prior to the commencement
of work, certified copies of all policiss and endorsements required by this Section 8,
Including APV 47 (Autopian Certificate). The Second Party and ail Subcontractors
shall also file with the (Corporation/District) evidence of the renewal of each policy at
least fifteen (15) days prior to ths expiry date of the policy.
5.

CANCELLATION

Each policy required by this Section 8 shall be endorsed as follows:

'NOTICE
It ls hereby understood and agreed that this policy will not bs cancelled, reduced,
materially altered or amended without the insurer giving at least thirty (30) days prior
written notice by registered ma(l to ths (Corporation/District) snd all insureds."

5.

QQgR INSURANCE

The Second Party and each Subcontractor shalt provide at their own cost any
additional Insurance which they are required by law to provide or which they consider
necessary, such as but not In any way restricted to marine, aviation and professional
liability risks.

7.

~i==;==~SR

I

If the Second Party or any Subcontractor fails to obtain or maintain Insurance as
required heretofore, or If ths (Corporation/District) doss not approve any insurance
policy or policies submitted to the (Corporation/District) and the Second Party or any
Subcontractor thereafter does not meet the requirements of the (Corporation/District),
ths (Corporation/District) shall have the right:o place and maintain such insurance
itself and the cost thereof shall bs payable by the Second Party to ths
(Corporation/District) on demand, or the (Corporation/District) may deduct the cost
thereof from any monies which are dus, or may become due, ths Second Party.

8.

,—.;=."„iijill

FAILURE TO MEET INSURANCE f)E()UIREMENTS

INDEMNITY NOT RESTRICTED BY INSURANCE

The provisions for Insurance shown above shall not in any way limit the indemnity
granted by the Second Party to the Indemnified Parties eisswhers in this sedion.

48lll IS

l

pg mt till

I

SEP-22-1994

l%,1

jisajl'l jlj,
I

88

15l84

4SS 6911

449.22-1994 16862

g

436 6611

OVRO SOLSD WASTE DEPT

SIPREE!PIENT

These conditions are hereby agreed to by the Seoond Party, as undersigned!

NAME AND ADDRESS

SIGNATURE
SIGNING OFFICER AND T!TLE

84

)I

I I IRIIS'I
88 PSIPS A

( gt Wl I I I tj
I

III

4

aIP
t

I

1

l

1

I!Rtl

'--'"ilflj
IJlitij 'j
IRSI! Ilhl
,'P94 I le II
Al I lrl
II I I I lj

I/

Ilml

15

I

lli JR%II J kl

I

jlii I J l

tiiI4ti

''il1i'

I I I'a l

ii'l'cT

SEP-22-1994 15: 84

436 6814

I I

IPr Slil
Pltl
I I

I

I

.

8

RPA8 S ~
4 ~ - '.—

~I

41188 '

l

—

I

N

4'll I

A 8

I
i

IAI

~

8

I'

Ill'el I
48i
l

~ ~ Pl

'.'' 6 !Ill

llr

I

Ii
8

'115'

~

!

... "

8'„» l,l
I

Il

I I 8

I

~

—-

+1 981

l

I

I

Pl

ill ~

Ii

rl
~ I 88

24 A ~

1

J

~

I ~ ~

t I PI

A

I

8
8

'I

8

~!

II II I'—

l'l 8 Ia'A II

~

88

188841 1

s /f4

I

III

ll.

.. !!ll

« -~ IIISJ II
~