Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An examination of the role of local government in coastal zone management: the case of Richmond, B.C. Pernu, James Victor 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0592.pdf [ 9.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087566.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087566-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087566-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087566-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087566-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087566-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087566-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087566-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087566.ris

Full Text

An Examination of The Role of Local Government in Coastal Zone Management:The Case of Richmond, B.C.byJames Victor PernuB.Sc., University of British Columbia, 1989A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember 1994© James Victor Pemu, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. it is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Deartment ofThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 5r-1f-!DE.6 (2/88)ABSTRACTAN EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT INCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT: THE CASE OF RICHMOND, B.C.The management of the coastal zone is a complex task facing all three levels of CanadianGovernment. While academic research and public attention tend to focus on federal andprovincial agencies, the role of local government has been left largely unexplored. This thesisexamines the role of local government in coastal zone management in British Columbia andevaluates local government’s contribution to the management of the coastal zone based on theperformance of local planning policies in the coastal community of Richmond, B.C.Coastal zone management (C.Z.M.) is a specialized subset of contemporary resourcemanagement models having three hierarchically integrated components representing biophysical,socio-economic and institutional subsystems. A literature review yielded many managementissues of which seven were selected to reflect the local government experience in C.Z.M. Theseven issues are: Habitat Conservation, Water Quality, Coastal Hazards, Public Access andAesthetics, Public Input, Water Dependency and Interjurisdictional Coordination.The evaluation of Richmond’s C.Z.M. policies was undertaken using a methodologysimilar to those employed by Rosentraub (1975) and Jessen et a!. (1983). A retrospectiveanalysis of Development Permit Application files processed between 1988 and 1991 wasemployed in the evaluation of existing policies contained within Richmond’s Official CommunityPlan.11While the exact extent of local responsibilities remains poorly defined by existinglegislation, local regulatory powers in C.Z.M. were determined to be nonetheless significant.The British Columbia Municipal Act provided a considerable amount of regulatory authority foreach of the seven coastal zone management issues, namely in the form of Zoning bylaws,Official Community Plan bylaws and Development Permits.The findings indicate that Richmond’s existing policies displayed limited effectivenessconcerning the management of C.Z.M. issues such as Habitat Conservation, Water Quality,Coastal Hazards and Interjurisdictional Coordination. However, the results also suggested thatlocal policies addressing coastal zone issues such as public access and aesthetics were effective.Furthermore, explicit policies for Water Dependency and Public Input were non existent.Several recommendations were made in this thesis. The first is an expanded recognitionof C.Z.M. as a local government concern and responsibility. Further recommendations includeincreased interjurisdictional involvement, greater public access to waterfront surroundingindustrial sites and discouraging the pressure to develop in the floodplain.111TABLE OF CONTENTSPageABSTRACT iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ivLIST OF FIGURES xLIST OF TABLES ,jjABBREVIATIONS xiiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS X1VCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION1.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Problem Statement 21.1.2 Objectives of Study 61.1.3 Organization 71.2 Scope of Study 81.2.1 The Coastal Zone Defined 81.2.2 Coastal Zone Management Defined 121.2.3 Sustainable Development and CoastalZone Management 151.3 Methodology 161.3.1 The Evaluative Framework and Evaluative Criteria 161.3.2 Case Study: Richmond, B.C. 181.4 Applicability of Study and Findings 191.5 Summary 20CHAPTER 2: A FRAMEWORK FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENTIN BRITISH COLUMBIA2.1 Introduction 212.1.1 Coastal Zone Management: Biophysical, Socio-Economicivand Institutional Components 212.2 The Biophysical Component 242.2.1 Physical and Hydrological Attributes 252.2.2 Inputs and Outputs 272.2.3 Coastal Zone Ecosystems 292.2.3.1 Producers 312.2.3.2 Consumers 312.2.3.3 Decomposers 342.2.3.4 Species Interactions 352.2.4 Key Considerations in the Urbanized Coastal Zone 372.2.4.1 Changes of Use 382.2.4.2 Misuse 392.2.4.3 Pollution 402.3 The Socio-Economic Component 412.3.1 Nearshore and Offshore Coastal Resource Uses 412.3.1.1 Fisheries and Mariculture 412.3.1.2 Energy and Petrochemicals 432.3.1.3 Transportation 442.3.2 Shoreland and Upland Coastal Resource Uses 452.3.2.1 Forestry 452.3.2.2 Mining 472.3.2.3 Agriculture 482.3.2.4 Tourism and Recreation 482.3.2.5 Urban Development 492.4 The Institutional Component 502.4.1 Ownership 522.4.2 Regulation 532.4.2.1 Federal Government 532.4.2.2 Provincial Government 552.4.2.3 Local Government 55V2.4.2.4 F.R.E.M.P. 582.4.2.5 An Overview of Canadian C.Z.M. 612.5 Summary 61CHAPTER 3: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ISSUES AN]) LOCALGOVERNMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY3.1 Coastal Zone Management Issues 633.2 Habitat Conservation 653.2.1 Habitat Conservation: Local Regulatory Authority 673.3 Water Quality 683.3.1 Water Quality: Local Regulatory Authority 723.4 Natural Coastal Hazards 743.4.1 Natural Coastal Hazards: Local Regulatory Authority 783.5 Public Access and Aesthetics 793.5.1 Public Access and Aesthetics: Local Regulatory Authority 833.6 Public Input 843.6.1 Public Input: Local Regulatory Authority 853.7 Water Dependent Activities 863.7.1 Water Dependent Activities: Local Regulatory Authority 893.8 Interjurisdictional Coordination 903.8.1 Interjurisdictional Coordination: Local RegulatoryAuthority 903.9 Summary 91CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY CONTEXT: RICHMOND, B.C.4.1 Introduction 924.2 Richmond B.C. ‘s Biophysical Context 924.3 Richmond B.C.’s Socio-Economic Context 994.3.1 History and Demographics 994.3.2 Local Economic Context 100vi4.4 Richmond, B.C.: Institutional Context 1014.4.1 Current Land Use Patterns 1034.5 Summary 106CHAPTER 5: THE EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK5.1 Introduction 1085.2 The Evaluative Framework: Background 1105.2.1 An Evaluative Methodology for the CaliforniaSouth Coast Regional Commission 1105.2.2 An Evaluative Methodology for Haldimand-Norfolk 1115.3 The Evaluative Framework 1125.3.1 Local Policies and C.Z.M. Issues: Richmond, B.C. 1135.4 Coastal Zone Management Issues: Policies andEvaluative Criteria 1165.4.1 General Evaluative Criteria 1185.4.2 Habitat Conservation 1195.4.3 Water Quality 1205.4.4 Natural Coastal Hazards 1215.4.5 Public Access and Aesthetics 1225.4.6 Public Input 1245.4.7 Water Dependency 1255.4.8 Interj urisdictional Coordination 1265.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Evaluative Methodology 1275.5.1 Comprehensiveness 1275.5.2 Consistency 1285.5.3 Clarity 1285.6 Summary 129CHAPTER 6: COASTAL POLICY EVALUATIONS: RICHMOND, B.C.6.1 Introduction 131vii6.2 General Evaluative Criteria: Results 1316.1.2 General Evaluative Criteria: Discussion and Evaluation 1406.3 Habitat Conservation: Results 1426.3.1 Habitat Conservation: Discussion and Evaluation 1456.4 Water Quality: Results 1486.4.1 Water Quality: Discussion and Evaluation 1506.5 Coastal Hazards: Results 1536.5.1 Coastal Hazards: Discussion and Evaluation 1566.6 Public Access and Aesthetics: Results 1586.6.1 Public Access and Aesthetics: Discussion and Evaluation 1596.7 Public Input: Results 1626.7.1 Public Input: Discussion and Evaluation 1626.8 Water Dependency: Results 1656.8.1 Water Dependency: Discussion and Evaluation 1686.9 Interjurisdictional Coordination: Results 1696.9.1 Interjurisdictional Coordination: Discussionand Evaluation 1706.10 Comments on the Data Used 1726.11 Summary 173CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS7.1 Summary of Findings 1777.2 Policy Recommendations 1797.3 Directions for Further Research 1827.4 Final Comments 183REFERENCES CITED 185APPENDIX A: Selected Federal Departments and Enabling C.Z.MviiiLegislation 202APPENDIX B: Selected Provincial Ministries and Enabling C.Z.M.Legislation 205APPENDIX C: Richmond Land Use Zones Summary 208APPENDIX D: Circulation of Development Applications 210ixLIST OF FIGURESFigure Page1.1 The Relationship Between Land-Use Decisions and the Coastal Zone 41.2 Typical Coastal Zone Profiles 91.3 Coastal Uplands: South Richmond, B.C. 101.4 Coastal Nearshore and Offshore: Garry Point (Richmond, B.C.) 101.5 A Rational Comprehensive Model for the Management of Coastal Zone Issues 142.1 A Comparison of Resource Management FrameworksA- Vertical Model 24B - Horizontal Model 242.2 Nutrient Imports and Exports in the Coastal Zone 302.3 The Pacific Flyway 332.4 Model for the Fraser River Delta Foodweb 362.5 Log Storage on the North Arm of the Fraser River: Richmond, B.C. 472.6 Local Regulatory Powers: A Hierarchical Relationship 583.1 (Figure deleted)3.2 Recycled Oil and Refuse on the North Arm of Fraser River: Richmond, B.C. 703.3 The 200 Year Floodplain in the Lower Mainland 773.4 View of Protective Dyke: Richmond, B.C. 783.5 Public Waterfront Access: Steveston, B.C. 803.6 Medium Density Housing Adjacent to Dyke: Steveston, B.C. 823.7 Commercial Development Adjacent to Dyke: North Richmond, B.C. 823.8 Water Dependent Activities: Steveston, B.C. 884.1 MapofRichmond,B.C. 944.2 Floodplain Exemption Boundary 974.3 The One-in-200 Year Flood Plain 994.4 Relative Proportion of Zoned Land in Richmond 1044.5 Richmond Foreshore Area Designations 1056.1 Magnitude of Development Permit and Rezoning Applications 133xLIST OF FIGURES CONTINUEDFigure Page6.2 Development Permit Application Decisions and Coastal Location 1386.3 Development Permit Application Decisions and E.S.A.’s 1446.4 Development Permit Application Decisions and the Coastal Floodplain 1556.5 Water Dependency and Proposed Developments 167xiLIST OF TABLESTable Page2.1 Factors Influencing the Coastal Zone 262.2 Ecosystem Types and Primary Productivity 282.3 Participating Agencies in the F.R.E.M.P. 592.4 Area Designation Definitions 603.1 Habitat Classifications for the Fraser River 663.2 Contaminant Loadings from Different Estuary Land Uses in the G.V.R.D. 723.3 Summary of Water Dependent Uses 874.1 The Structure of Local Government in Richmond, B.C. 1014.2 Jurisdictional Involvement in the Implementation of Richmond’sOfficial Community Plan 1025.1 Municipal Objectives and Policies Affecting Richmond’s Coastal Zone 1156.1 Development Permit and Rezoning Applications in Richmond 1326.2 Development Application by Type and Land Area 1346.3 Development Permit Application Completion Rate by Type 1356.4 Development Permit Applications and Coastal Location 1366.5 Length of Decision for Coastal Development Applications 1396.6 Development Permit Applications and E.S.A.’s 1436.7 Development Types and Coastal Zone Location 1496.8 Development Permit Applications and the Coastal Flood Plain 1546.9 Public Waterfront Access and Development Types 1586.10 Landscape Requirements for Development Permits 1596.11 Public Involvement in Development Permit Applications 1636.12 Water Dependency and Development Type 1666.13 Water Dependency and Coastal Zone Location 1666.14 Agencies Involved in Reviewing Permit Applications 1706.15 Summary of Results 1736.16 Summary of Policy Evaluation Findings 175xiiFREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONSB.O.D. Biochemical Oxygen DemandC.C.R.E.M. Canadian Council of Resource and Environment MinistersC.Z.M. Coastal Zone ManagementD.F.O. Department of Fisheries and OceansD.P. Development PermitD.P.P. Development Permit PanelE.S.A. Environmentally Sensitive AreaF.R.E.M.P. Fraser River Estuary Management ProgramF.R.E.S. Fraser River Estuary StudyM.H.W.H. Mean High Water MarkM.O.E.L.P. Ministry of Environment, Land and ParksM.O.L.C.S. Ministry of Labour and Consumer ServicesO.C.P. Official Community PlanP.E.P. Provincial Emergency ProgramM.O.T.H. Ministry of Transportation and Highwaysxii&ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am grateful to the many people who generously volunteered their time and effortstowards the preparation of this thesis. I am especially grateful to Tony Dorcey for hisconsiderable contribution to the development of the thesis. The constructive comments andunfailing support offered by Tony were vital to the completion of this study.I would like to thank Michael McPhee and Dr. Tim McDaniels for their valuedcomments and assistance with the preparation of the thesis. I am also indebted to AlexJamieson, David Brownlee, Frank Sciberra and David McClellan at the Richmond PlanningDepartment for their cooperation with the evaluation of Richmond’s planning policies undertakenin this thesis.Perhaps my greatest debt is owed to the people who assisted with word processing,revisions and personal support - thank you Louise, Mom and Dad.xivCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION“...Always the edge of the sea remains an elusive and indefinable boundaiy.”Carson 1955; p.1.1.1 IntroductionNowhere is the essence of the coast better captured than in Rachel Carson’s words. Thephysical, chemical and biological interactions that characterize the coastal zone are extremelycomplex, often ambiguous, and to the casual observer, sometimes profound (Petrillo and Grenell1985). It has been this very complexity which has complicated efforts to effectively manage thecoastal zone.British Columbia’s coastal zone is endowed with spectacular scenery, diverse andabundant wildlife and a wide array of resource opportunities. The interface between land andwater creates a complex and dynamic zone of biophysical processes unmatched by any othergeographical zone on earth (Bauer 1978). The coast of British Columbia is convoluted by manydeep 1ords which create a shoreline many thousands of kilometres long. The B.C. coast isfurther characterized by many islands which create areas of sheltered coastal waters. The B.C.coastline is also punctuated by many rivers and streams resulting in the formation of estuaries.Although occupying but a fraction of the coast, estuaries such as those found in BritishPage 1Columbia, are considered to be one of the most productive ecosystems in the world (Wilson1988; Begon et al. 1986). Further inland from the land-sea interface, the coastal uplands ofBritish Columbia still contain remnants of the dense temperate rainforests which once dominatedthis portion of the coast. The combination of climate, geophysical elements and biophysicalprocesses creates a coastal zone which is coveted by society for its intrinsic economic and noneconomic values. Forestry, mariculture, fisheries, tourism, transportation, recreation,agriculture and settlement are some of the opportunities available within coastal BritishColumbia.1.1.1 Problem Statement.Due to the host of opportunities provided by both land and sea, the coastal zone haswitnessed an ever increasing amount of settlement, recreation and industry over the past century.As the scale of human activity increased, competition over the coast’s endowments followed asmore and more people vied for the coast’s finite resources (Parkes 1980).In the United States where the pressures of urban development and human activities onthe coast are generally more intense than in Canada, the federal government adopted legislationintended to protect the coastal zone. The U.S. Department of the Interior argued before theU.S. Senate Committee on Commerce:“of the man-made threats to coastal environments described by the Council onEnvironmental Quality in itsfirst annual report, most have their origin in heavilypopulated land areas at or near the water’s edge. But others can be tracedfurther inland, where eventual impact upon the coastal environment is not soeasily recognized. Thus, while pressure becomes most intensive at the pointPage 2where land meets water, many cannot be alleviated without truly comprehensiveplanning.”(N.A.C. 1971)There are many human activities occurring within the domain of local (municipal andregional governments) authority that have a deleterious impact on the vital biophysical processesof the coastal zone. The basis of the local government’s authority within the context of CoastalZone Management is rooted in the ability to regulate land use. Activities such as waste disposaland housing development may also negatively impact a number of other activities that dependon the coast (Nassau-Suffolk 1976; F.R.E.M.P. 1990). Figure 1.1 illustrates the relationshipbetween land-use decisions (causal elements) and impacts on the coastal zone (environmentalconditions and affected activities).When combined with the battery of other inappropriate activities such as over-fishing andinsensitive logging methods within the realm of provincial and federal jurisdiction, it becomesincreasingly evident that aspects of the coastal zone, for example water quality, have beenseriously jeopardized. Current C.Z.M. approaches have had little success ameliorating theongoing episodes of conflict between competing interests in the coastal zone (Brower and Carol1984; Canada 1982; Harrison and Parkes 1983; Harrison and Kwamena 1980). Often,accusations of mismanagement have been directed towards local governments for their failureto fully consider the impact of land-use decisions on the coastal zone (Hildebrand 1989; Scott1981; Grote 1981).Page 3FIGURE 1.1The Relationship Between Land-use Decisions and the Coastal Zone.(Adapted from Nassau-Suffolk 1976)CAUSE-AND-EFFECT EXAMPLERELATIONSHIPCommunity Plans High Density Residential(g•n•rlt•a)Causal Elements Sewage(degrade.)Environmental Conditions Marine Water Quality(stressia)Changed Environmental Conditions Marine Wetlands(Impacts)AUectad Activities Finhishing 8 SheilflshingBritish Columbia, like other provinces involves senior (federal or provincial) and local(municipal or regional) levels of government in the management of the coastal zone. Under theBritish North America Act of 1867 and the more recent Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 theownership and regulation of the coastal zone has been essentially divided between the two seniorlevels of government. It is only by virtue of the Municipal Act, that the province of BritishColumbia has granted powers to regulate various urban matters, such as land use, to municipaland regional governments (B.C. 1979). Local governments authority to regulate land use issignificant considering that the small percentage of intensively used and densely settled coastalPage 4urban areas exhibit all of the resource management problems which could be anticipated in thecontext of the coastal zone (Hildebrand 1989).Whereas most of the regulatory power and much of the ownership in coastal zones hasbeen retained by senior governments, the bulk of the responsibility for implementation of coastalzone policies has been left to the local governments and their powers to regulate developmentimpacting the coastal zone (British Columbia 1987a; Brower and Carol 1984). Exercising theirregulatory authority over land use, local governments have a great deal of influence in whatHildebrand (1989) characterized as an ad hoc management approach which paradoxicallyattempted to develop and conserve many aspects of the coastal zone. The diversity that existsbetween the various municipalities and their approaches to coastal zone management makes themattractive from a policy analysis perspective as the municipalities themselves may serve as livinglaboratories for a vast number of different management approaches.An extensive review of the literature has revealed a serious lack of understandingregarding the role of local government in effective coastal zone management in Canada. Theimportance of recognizing the role of local governments in coastal management was establishedas one of the guiding principles of the Canadian approach to C.Z.M. at the Shore ManagementSymposium held in Victoria in 1978 (C.C.R.E.M. 1978). Yet, in spite of the conclusionsreached at the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Minister’s (C.C.R.E.M.) ShoreManagement Symposium, surprising little planning and management research attention hasfocused on local governments.Page 51.1.2 Objectives of Study.There are three basic objectives of this study. The first objective is to simply describethe management of the coast from the perspective of local government in British Columbia. Toobtain an accurate description of the role of local governments in C.Z.M. in British Columbiait is necessary to address the following:• What is C.Z.M. in B.C. stated in terms of biophysical, socio-economic andinstitutional characteristics?• What are the main coastal management issues which link local government to theoverall management of the coastal zone?• How are local governments empowered to act as managers of coastal zone issues?Having described the role of local government in the context of general coastal zonemanagement issues, the next step is the evaluation of local efforts (policies) affecting themanagement of coastal zone issues. Hence, the second objective of this study is to evaluate theperformance of local policies relevant to the management of coastal issues. Fulfillment of thisobjective required the development of an appropriate evaluative methodology and identificationof relevant local policies (for the case study community of Richmond, B.C.) affecting coastalzone management issues.The third objective of this study is to present policy recommendations that will improvethe management of coastal zone issues in the case study community of Richmond, B.C.Page 61.1.3 Organization.The thesis is presented in seven chapters. Chapter One serves as an introduction andbroadly defines the boundaries of this study. Chapter Two introduces a framework for coastalzone management which includes biophysical, socio-economic and institutional components. Thechapter identifies many of the coast’s biophysical characteristics, highlighting some of the moreimportant resource uses (stakeholders) and overviews current coastal zone managementarrangements in British Columbia. Chapter Three focuses specifically on coastal managementissues affecting local governments in British Columbia. The coastal management issues are;habitat conservation, water quality, natural coastal hazards, public access and aesthetics, publicinput, water dependent activities and interjurisdictional coordination. An inventory of regulatoryauthority granted to local governments through the B.C. Municipal Act is also presented in thischapter. Chapter Four presents a deeper examination of the case study community, Richmond,B.C. The evaluative methodology is developed in Chapter Five. This chapter includes thecoastal issue policies selected for evaluation and the evaluative criteria employed in the analysis.Chapter Six presents the results of the analysis of land use decisions and development pressuresas revealed through Development Permit and rezoning application files (1988 through 1991 ).Evaluation of Richmond’s policies affecting C.Z.M. are contained within this chapter. Thethesis concludes with Chapter Seven which summarizes the findings, presents policyrecommendations and suggests future directions for research.Page 71.2 Scope of Study1.2.1 The Coastal Zone Defined.The coastal zone consists of a land component and an adjacent water component with theecology of the land directly affecting the aquatic ecology and vice versa (Eekman 1975;Ketchum 1972). The water component of a coastal zone may be either fresh, salt or mixed freshand saltwater as is typically found in estuaries like that of the Fraser River. The typical coastalzone profile includes the following important features: the offshore, the nearshore or foreshore,the shorelands (including backshore and intertidal) and the coastal uplands (Eekman 1975;Sorensen er a!., 1984; and British Columbia 1987b). A diagrammatic representation of thecoastal zone and its main geophysical subdivisions is given by Figure 1.2. Photographicexamples are presented in Figures 1.3 and 1.4 which show the upland and nearshore/offshorecomponents of the coastal zone in Richmond, B.C.Past experience in both Canada and the United States has revealed that the determinationof coastal zone boundaries is a persistent problem in coastal management programmes.Reflecting this experience, a definition of the coastal zone has been adopted which stresses theinterdependent ecologies of coastal components of the land and the water. Hence, based onecological relationships, the coastal zone could vary considerably in width along the entire lengthof B.C. coast.Page 8FIGURE 1.2Cross Sections of Typical Coastal Zones.(Adapted from Gamble 1989)COASTAL UPLANDS SHORELANDS NEARSHORE OFFSHOREBack- Inter-shore tidalaIBlutlsLow TideCoastal DeltaLowTWPage 9Figure 1.3Coastal Uplands: South Richmond, B.C.Figure 1.4Coastal Shorelands, Nearshore and Offshore: Garry Point (Richmond, B.C.)Page 10Coastal zone boundaries and C.Z.M. have traditionally focused on the seaward side, thusneglecting the landward half of the coastal system. Commenting on the status of C.Z.M in theUnited Kingdom [Smith 1991:127, emphasis added], stated that:Mlandward boundaries are seldom considered, seaward ones always, for reasonsto do with the dynamic water column, national jurisdiction and respectiveadministrative limits ofland- and sea-based organizations. In the regionalizationof environmental management ... it is possible to view the coastal zone as aspecial case, defined by intensity of use andjuxtaposition of land and sea. Forboth urban and certain rural sea areas characterized by a high intensity of useconflicts and environmental impacts, together with a strong land influencegenerally, it may be worth extending land use planning seawards.Employing a coastal zone definition which is founded upon biophysical parameters, permits amore comprehensive management effort. Similar coastal zone definitions have been employedby Smith (1991); Gamble (1989); Eekman (1975) and Bauer (1978).From both functional and scientific viewpoints, the extent of the coastal zone variesaccording to the nature of the problem being addressed, hence, policies that regard the coastalzone in its broadest sense may be applied to an area which extends from the upper limits ofcoastal watersheds to the outer limits of ocean jurisdiction. Defining the coastal zone in sucha broad geographic sense presents some difficulties, not the least of which involve a multiplicityof government regulation and a highly complex ownership pattern (especially in the coastaluplands). Obviously, such an expansive boundary presents some serious jurisdictionaldifficulties for coastal zone policies. The difficulties inherent in coastal boundary definitionshave lead many to suggest that the ecological systems of the coastal zone are incompatible withcurrent political and administrative structures which were designed to serve societal needs (ProssPage 111980; Canada 1982; Johnston et a!. 1975; and Harrison and Kwamena 1980). From theperspective of the local government’s role in coastal zone management efforts, the most relevantcomponents of the coastal zone profile are the uplands, shorelands and to a lesser extent thenearshore. With local regulatory authority essentially confined to the landward and nearshorehalf of the coastal zone, discussion of local government’s role in C.Z.M. primarily centred onquestions of land use. However, the impacts of land use may be measurable in the nearshoreand offshore areas of the coastal zone.For the purposes of this thesis, the coastal zone is defined by the geomorphologicalfeatures represented in Figure 1.2. In the case of Richmond, B.C., a low topographical reliefhas created a community which is entirely situated within the coastal zone.1.2.2 Coastal Zone Management Defined.The term coastal zone management has many different pseudonyms in the body ofinternational literature. Thus, the phrase coastal zone management, has become essentiallyinterchangeable with other labels which, among others, include: Coastal zone planning, shorezone management, coastal resource management and integrated resource management.According to Hildebrand (1989), coastal zone management is described as having both aplanning component and a management component. The first component, planning, involvesan integrated process which specifies the means to balance environmental, social and economicconsiderations in order to achieve the optimum benefit. The planning approach is characterizedby a rational sequence of steps with numerous feedback loops. The second component is thePage 12management aspect itself. Management is a process of implementation for plans created in theplanning process. Figure 1.5 outlines a C.Z.M. model which has been modified in a mannerthat reflects the municipal management perspective. A framework for coastal zone managementin British Columbia will be developed over the course of the next two chapters. This willfurther clarify the Purpose (problem definition), Institutions and Planning aspects of theC.Z.M. model illustrated in Figure 1.5.Page 13FIGURE 1.5The Rational Comprehensive Model for the Management of Coast Zone Issues.(Adapted from Gamble 1989)PURPOSE INSTITUTIONS(Problem Definition) AgenciesWater Quality PUBLIC egleiaIonHabitatAccess a AestheticsHazardsCoastal DependencyPublic InputAgency CoordinationPUBLIC_D__________________PLANNINGI RECOMMENDATIONS IU B LI CIMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENTLeases ReviewsPermitsCompensation RevisionsMitigationMonitoringGiven that a stated objective of the thesis is to evaluate municipal policies affecting thecoastal zone, it is useful to clarify what poiicy represents. Pal (1987) defined policy as a courseof action or inaction by public (governmental) authorities to address a given problem orPage 14interrelated set of problems. For the purposes of this thesis, the ‘policies’ evaluated shallinclude explicit policies stated in the Official Community Plan (O.C.P.) that have a demonstratedrelevance to coastal zone management issues.1.2.3 Sustainable Development and Coastal Zone Management.Interest in reviving an integrated C.Z.M. approach has grown in recent years due to aresurgence of environmental concern generated by the popularity of the World Commission ofEnvironment and Development’s (1987) report, Our Common Future (Rueggeberg and Dorcey1991). This resurgent environmental movement introduced the world to what many saw as anew way of thinking, sustainable development. First popularized by the report, Our CommonFuture (W.C.E.D. 1987), sustainable development has operated as an objective in themanagement of environmentally significant areas in British Columbia such as old growth forestsand coastal estuaries (B.C. 1991). In spite of a lack of consensus on what sustainabledevelopment actually means, sustainable development has had a tremendous impact onmanagement policies for coastal areas.Although current trends reveal that sustainable development is becoming a familiar themein new coastal policies, sustainable development will remain peripheral to the subject matter ofthis thesis.Page 151.3 Methodology1.3.1 The Evaluative Framework and Evaluative Criteria.The evaluative methodology employed within this study was based on similar approachesused by Jessen et. al (1983) and Rosentraub (1975). Both studies utilized a retrospective landuse regulation survey to evaluate local C.Z.M. efforts. By modifying these two methodologies,a new evaluative approach was created which appears to be better organized and morecomprehensive than either Rosentraub’s or Jessen et a!. ‘s approaches.In order to facilitate the evaluation of local coastal zone management policies in anorganized manner, an evaluative framework of seven coastal zone issues was synthesized fromsources in C.Z.M. literature (Gamble 1989; C.C.R.E.M. 1978; Cote 1989; Kennett and McPhee1988). These key issues which are reflective of local concerns in the coastal zone arerepresented as follows:1. Habitat Conservation2. Water Quality3. Natural Coastal Hazards4. Public Access and Aesthetics5. Public Input6. Water Dependent Activities7. Interjurisdictional Coordination.Page 16The literature from which the seven coastal zone issues were drawn appears to be relativelyconsistent in the description of coastal concerns. Unfortunately, C.Z.M. sources often ignoredissues such as land use economics, political agendas and property rights which are alsoinfluential forces that exist in the process of C.Z.M. This study has also elected not to includesuch significant factors in its list of coastal zone issues. Part of the reason for not consideringthese other issues involves the difficulty in obtaining relevant information.Local policies relevant to these coastal issues are selected (from the Official CommunityPlan) for a case study evaluation of Richmond, B.C. It is crucial to note however, that theevaluations apply only to those policies that existed during the study time frame (1988 to 1991).In instances where no relevant policy exists, a description of land use trends and developmentpressure is provided with a view to assessing the need for a policy response. The methodologyallows for a greater resolution in evaluating exactly where, in terms of the many issues facingcoastal zones, local C.Z.M. policies have been effective or ineffective based on the case studyfindings.The evaluation of the municipal role in C.Z.M. is what Ritchie (1984) described as a‘semi-quantitative appraisal within the limits of existing knowledge.’ Reflecting this, thejudgement criteria for the empirically-based analysis are subjective. Results produced by theretrospective analysis of coastal land use regulation in Richmond were interpreted relative to theintent of the local C.Z.M. policies to yield an evaluation of policy performance. WherePage 17possible, ‘benchmark’ information such as zoned land supply and current land use patterns wereused to compare with observed development pressures and land use decisions.1.3.2 Case Study: Richmond. B.C.Richmond, British Columbia functions as a case study in the evaluation of municipal levelcoastal zone management policies and initiatives. Due to the wide range of coastal issuesexperienced by Richmond, it would be appropriate to utilize it as a representative case studyupon which conclusions concerning local input into C.Z.M. could be confidently based (McPhee,pers. comm. 1991).Another aspect which makes Richmond an attractive case study is the fact that it islocated within one of the best studied estuaries in Canada. Initiated in February, 1977 by thefederal Minister of Fisheries and Environment and the provincial Minister of Environment, theFraser River Estuary Study (F.R.E.S.) conducted detailed research into many aspects of theestuary. The purpose of the F.R.E.S. was to “develop a managementplan which recognized theimportance of the estuary both for human activities such as urban-industrial and portdevelopment, and for preservation of ecological integrity” (F.R.E.S.S.C. 1978: p.1). TheF.R.E.S. and other studies conducted in conjunction with it, have left a rich legacy ofunderstanding concerning the biophysical, economic and institutional attributes of this estuary.Page 181.4 Applicability of Study and Findings.The major emphasis of this thesis involves evaluating local government’s policiesaffecting the management of coastal issues which are a vital component of the overallmanagement of British Columbia’s coastal zone. The methodology employed was designed toevaluate existing local coastal zone management policies using explicit and implicit OfficialCommunity Plan Objective Statements as judgement criteria. In this study the methodology wasapplied to existing policies in the Official Community Plan of Richmond, B.C. Furthermore,the observed patterns of development pressures’ and land use decisions in this study were usefulin identifying an imminent need for a pertinent policy. Thus, the methodology proved to becapable of evaluating existing local policies and revealing the need for a policy where noneexisted previously.The evaluative framework’s list of seven coastal issues was compiled from a broad rangeof coastal zone management literature covering many other jurisdiction’s experiences withcoastal problems. Thus, without the need for major modification, the evaluative frameworkcould be applied to other evaluations of local government C.Z.M. policies.The findings from this thesis could be of general applicability to other situations owingto the universality of the issues and problems being faced by coastal jurisdictions. Of particular‘Development pressure is a relative term employed to describethe amount of development interest given by the number ofdevelopment permit applications.Page 19interest to other local governments would be the observed “effectiveness” of policies employedby Richmond.1.5 SummaryChapter One introduces the coast as a broadly conceived zone characterized by interactingaquatic and terrestrial ecologies. Within the context of this broad definition of the coastal zone,this study seeks to:1. Describe local government’s role in the management of the coast.2. Evaluate local policies affecting coastal issues through a case study of Richmond,B.C.3. Forward policy recommendations designed to improve local efforts, especially inRichmond, to manage coastal issues.The next chapter explores the coast in terms of biophysical, socio-economic andinstitutional dimensions in order to arrive at a clearer understanding of the position of localgovernment in Canadian coastal zone management.Page 20CHAPTER 2A FRAMEWORK FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA“Nowhere on the shore is the relation of a creature to its surrounding a matter of asingle cause and effect; each living thing is bound to its world by many threads, weaving theintricate design of the fabric of lz:fe.”Carson 1955. p.14.2.1 IntroductionIn order to facilitate a systematic review of the many forces and factors present withinBritish Columbia’s coastal zone, a framework shall be employed. This framework has beenderived from sources such as Brouwer (1987) and Dorcey (1986) and is presented in the specificcontext of the coastal zone.2.1.1 Coastal Zone Management: Biophysical, Socio-economlc and InstitutionalComponents.There are three components which constitute a management framework for the coastalzone. The components of this model are; the biophysical, the socio-economic and theinstitutional. Each component in the framework is characterized by a particular set of processes,subsystems, relationships and laws. This conceptual framework for the coastal zone forms thebasis upon which the process of management rests. Walters (1986: p.45) described managementmodels as “caricatures of nature against which to test and expand experience.” Hence,Page 21management frameworks have become indispensable for assisting decision-makers to understandthe nature of conflicts arising within the coastal zone and also to learn from the experience ofpast policies.Previous resource management approaches believed that biophysical, socio-economic andinstitutional components functioned virtually independently of one another. This perceptiontended to underline the existing beliefs that our socio-economic activities operated in whatevermanner they wished with the environment2serving merely as a source of raw materials and alimitless sink for wastes (Rees 1991; Rowe 1989; and Herfindahi and Kneese 1974). Thismanagement framework is termed the Horizontal Model Approach (Brouwer 1987). TheHorizontal Model Approach is characterized by the interaction between essentially isolatedmonodisciplinary components (see Figure 2. ib). Within this model, each component isconsidered equal with respect to conceptual contribution and operationalization. More recently,the Horizontal Model Approach has fallen out of favour with natural resource managementtheorists, largely due to severe criticism of the assumptions concerning the independence ofeconomics, social systems and the environment (Daly 1989; and Brouwer 1987).With the recent resurgence in environmental awareness, resource management approacheshave favoured the notion of an interdisciplinary and hierarchical approach (Hafkamp 1984;2Due to the wide array of terms used in the literature todescribe biophysical systems, terms such as environment, ecosystemand ecosphere shall be used interchangeably throughout this thesis.Page 22Dorcey 1991; and Walters 1986). Brouwer (1987) has termed this approach as the VerticalModel Approach (see figure 2. la). According to Brouwer (1987), the vertical model approachis preferable to the traditional horizontal model because it clearly recognizes a hierarchical andmutually dependent relationship between components in the framework. Authors such as Rees(1991), Daly and Cobb (1989) and Sadler (1990) would argue that the biophysical componentis the dominant system in the vertically organized management framework. Commenting on therelationship between biophysical and economic systems, Rees (1991: p.460, emphasis added)stated:“Thus, farfrom existing in splendid isolation, the human economy is and alwayshas been an inextricably integrated, completely contained, and wholly dependentsub-set of the ecosphere “.The position taken by authors such as Rees has its representation in the approach of thisthesis, particularly in the classification of coastal management issues which are dominated bybiophysical concerns. Since the Vertical Model is representative of contemporary resourcemanagement theory, it will be considered as the theoretical foundation for the analysis andevaluation presented in this study. Consequently, the importance of maintaining the integrityof biophysical systems shall figure heavily in the evaluative process.Page 23A Comparison of Resource Management Frameworks.(Adapted from Dorcey 1991)FIGURE 2.laThe Vertical Model.FIGURE 2.lbThe Horizontal Model.BIOPHYSIGALSYSTEM S2.2 The Biophysical ComponentIn the context of C.Z.M., the primary component is the biophysical component. Thiscomponent includes a vast number of biophysical processes. The degree of understanding of theprocesses which shape this component varies considerably. In spite of the vast quantity ofresearch conducted to date on the biophysical attributes of the coastal zone, the scope of this$0010-GMSEGONOMITUTIONALPage 24study dictates that only a cursory exploration shall be considered, touching briefly upon Physicaland Hydrological attributes, Coastal Zone Ecology and Key Considerations in the UrbanizedCoastal Zone (Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 respectively).2.2.1 Physical and Hydrological Attributes.The coastal zone generally consists of a land component and an adjacent ocean componentwith the ecology of the land directly affecting the aquatic ecology and vice versa (Bauer 1978;Eekman 1975; Ketchum 1972). British Columbia’s coastal zone is composed of the salinewaters of the Pacific Ocean and the freshwater of local drainage basins. An intermediate thirdwater system may be formed when the geomorphology and fresh water flow are sufficient tocreate an estuary. The complexity of estuaries is such that the management of estuaries hasemerged to become its own discipline (Day et. al. 1989; Wilson 1988; and McLusky 1989).Coastal estuaries exhibit a unique pattern of fresh and salt water mixing, called a salinity profilewhere the lower density, nutrient rich fresh water overlays the denser, nutrient poor oceanwater.The typical coastal zone is defined as having the following important features: theoffshore, the foreshore, the backshore and the uplands (refer back to Figure 1.2). Each of thesecoastal features or coastal subzones are characterized by a distinctive set of biophysical processesand ecologies. Factors such as wind, currents, tidal action, water temperature, water salinity,freshwater discharge and sediment load influence the floral and fauna! ecology within coastalPage 25zones (Church and Rubin 1970; Dorcey et a!. 1983; and Bauer 1978). Table 2.1 lists coastalzone factors and their influence on biophysical systems.FACTORWind and Wave ActionTABLE 2.1Factors Influencing the Coastal ZoneINFLUENCE ON COASTAL ZONEResponsible for accretion/erosion processes alongshorelines. Wind and wave activity also responsible fornutrient circulation within the water column.Affects dissolved oxygen concentration, stability of thewater column and physiological stress for intertidal floraand fauna.Water Salinity Affects distribution of salinity sensitive organisms Alsoaffects the salinity profiles of coastal estuanesFreshwater Discharge RateSediment Load Sedimcnt loads from land run-off and streams affects thedissolved oxygen concentration, turbidity, andphotosynthesis rates.Affects the salinity of coastal waters, especially nearsurface.The estuarine ecosystem is one which is locked between marine and riverineenvironments. Estuarine conditions allow for the formation of an ecosystem at the interfacebetween fresh and salt water creating a zone of tremendous biological productivity (refer toTable 2.2). The high biological productivity of the estuary is particularly impressive when oneconsiders that B.C. coastal estuaries only formed 10,000 years ago following the most recentWater TemperaturePage 26retreat of the Cordilleran ice sheet (Barker, 1974). This highly productive ecosystem is basedon solar penetration, frequent tidal flushing and nutrient trapping, organic and mineral leaching(Bauer, 1978).2.2.2 Inputs and Outputs.Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other critical constituents are continuously introducedinto the coastal zone from both the land and the ocean. The organic and inorganic matter thatnourishes the coastal zone is delivered by a number of different mechanisms which include:• ground water containing nutrients;• tidal flushing;• faecal deposition from animals and birds;• detritus deposition from land;• river and stream sediments;• wind carried organic matter;• marine detritus; and• plankton.All of these input and outputs to coastal biophysical systems are ‘naturally’ occurring in thathuman influence is not considered.Page 27TABLE 2.2Ecosystem Types and Primary Productivity(Source: Whittaker 1975; Begon et a!. 1986)ECOSYSTEM TYPE AREA NET PRIMARY(106KM2) PRODUCTIVITY tNORMALRANGETropical rainforest 17.0 1000-3500Tropical seasonal forest 7 5 1000-2500Temperate evergreen forest 5.0 600-2500Temperate deciduous forest 7 0 600-2500Boreal forest 12.0 400-2000Woodland and shrubland 8 5 250-1200Savanna 15.0 200-2000Temperate grassland 9 0 200-1500Tundra and alpine 8.0 10-400Desert and semidesert-shrub 18 0 10-250Extreme desert, rock, sand & ice 24.0 0-10Cultivated land 14.0 100-3500Swamp and marsh 2.0 800-3500Lake and stream 2 0 100-1500Total continental 149Open ocean 332.0 2-400Upwelling zones 0 4 400-1000Continental shelf 26.6 200-600Algal beds and reefs 0.6 500-4000Estuaries 1.4 200-3500Total marine 361Full total 510tPer Unit Area (gm2)Page 28Importation of organic and inorganic nutrients is very important to the overall function of thecoastal zone, especially estuaries (McLusky 1989; Postma 1988). In fact, estuarine systems areheavily subsidized in terms of nutrient imports from adjacent ecosystems (offshore and uplands)of the surrounding coastal zone (McLusky 1989).Organic and inorganic matter are exported out of the coastal zone when organisms thathave consumed food within the coastal zone migrate elsewhere. Harvesting organisms thatreside within the coastal zone such as crabs or shellfish would also constitute an exportation oforganic matter. Figure 2.2 gives a schematic representation of the flow (import and export) oforganic matter within the coastal zone. The influence of human activates in the input and outputof nutrients to coastal zone systems is addressed separately in sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.2.2.3 Coastal Zone Ecosystems.The underlying key to coastal ecosystems is the dynamic nature of the physicalcomponents of the coastal zone. Variations in the ecology of the coast exist in both spatial andtemporal dimensions. The complicated ecosystem structure observed in coastal zones and coastalestuaries reflects the dynamic and often unpredictable physicochemical factors.Page 29FIGURE 2.2Nutrient Imports and Exports in the Coastal Zone(Adapted from Reise 1985)IMPORT EXPORTRiver BirdsSediment AnimalsDetritus7_—LAND ( Coastal ZoneProduction )Marine FishDetritus CrabsPlankton ShrimpAn overview of coastal zone ecosystems is perhaps best achieved by consideringcommunity structure in terms of producers, consumers and decomposers. However, suchreductionism must be tempered with a note of caution. Ecosystems must be viewed as far morethan a collection of organisms. There exist a number of synergistic, facilitative and predatoryinteractions between organisms and species that further dictate what we observe as an ecosystem(Begon et a!. 1986).Page 302.2.3.1 ProducersThe category of producers includes those organisms capable of ‘fixing’ solar energy bymeans of photosynthesis. A portion of this ‘fixed’ energy is respired away by the organism andis lost from the community as respiratory heat. The remainder of ‘fixed’ energy may beconverted into new biomass.Submergent, emergent and riparian communities of the coastal zone each conthbute tothe production of new biomass through photosynthesis. Within emergent and ripariancommunities, there is a considerable array of plant species responsible for the photosyntheticproduction of biomass, including bog species such as salal and upland tree species such asWestern red cedar (Biggs and Hebda 1976; F.R.E.S. 1978)Producers within submergent coastal communities include phytoplankton (free driftingalgae), benthic algae and pelagic algae. In addition to algal species, submergent plant speciessuch as eelgrass (Zostera sp.) play an important role in biomass production (F.R.E.S. 1978).2.2.3.2 ConsumersThe solar energy assimilated by producers is the biomass upon which consumers feed.Due to reasons of economic and social concern, attention to the coastal zone’s consumer specieshas focused largely on fish and bird populations. British Columbia’s coast serves as, ‘nurseriesof the sea’ providing important breeding, rearing and feeding grounds for pelagic fish speciesat various intervals in their life cycle (Ducsik 1974). Levy et a!. (1979) and Healey (1982) havePage 31produced some conclusive evidence which suggests that coastal wetlands and estuarine habitatsare important temporary residences for juvenile salmon species. The coastal zone of the LowerMainland, for example, boasts an impressive list of fish species including all salmon species,herring, three spine stickleback, sturgeon, cod and sole (F.R.E.S. 1978).In addition to pelagic fish populations, several marine mammal species (including orcas)and hundreds of species of benthic invertebrates reside along British Columbia’s coast. F.R.E.S.(1978) reported over three hundred species of invertebrates. Commercially important speciessuch as Dungeness Crab, pink shrimp, butter clams and oysters are found in the LowerMainland’s coastal zone, however, harvesting restrictions are in effect as a result of coliformcontamination of local waters from urban and industrial sources (F.R.E.S. 1978).The coastal zone supports hundreds of species of waterbirds, songbirds, marshbirds, birdsof prey and game birds (F.R.E.S. 1978; Butler and Campbell 1987). The Fraser Estuarysupports the largest population of waterfowl in Canada (Taylor 1974) and is considered to bethe single most important aquatic bird habitat in the province (F.R.E.S. 1978). The LowerMainland region also hosts the second largest seagull population on the West Coast of NorthAmerica (F.R.E.S. 1978). The convergence of waterfowl from three continents to the LowerMainland and Vancouver Island make this region a significant stop on the Pacific Flyway (SeeFigure 2.3).Page 32Cl, C cp. CThe coastal zone is also utilized by terrestrial species such as sea otters,, muskrats, mink,raccoons and black bears (F.R.E.S. 1978; Kennett and McPhee 1988). These species exploitcoastal habitats for purposes of feeding and nesting (F.R.E.S. 1978).2.2.3.3 DecomposersDead biomass or necromass serves as the food source for a number of species classifiedas decomposers. The role of detritus in coastal estuaries is important because these ecosystemsare predominantly detritus-based (Dorcey et a!. 1983; Ward 1980). Aided by the highavailability of nutrients through the action of tidal flushing or land run-off (rivers and streams),decomposition by bacteria, zooplankton and other marine detritivores is relatively rapid(F.R.E.S. 1978). The process of decomposition is similar in the terrestrial component of thecoastal zone, however, the rate of decomposition is limited by the availability of nitrogen (Begoneta!. 1986).Page 342.2.3.4 Species InteractionsIn describing the general architecture of an estuarine food web, Dorcey et al. (1983)proposed a hierarchical community structure represented by:SUNLIGHT> PLANTS DETRITUS c>DETRITIVORES c CARNIVORESAn expansion of this basic model is given by Butler and Campbell (1987) which describes amodel foodweb for the Fraser River estuary (see Figure 2.4). The model proposed by Butlerand Campbell is also representative of the general structure of coastal ecosystems. The mostimportant observation to be made of this representation involves the intricate manner in whichorganisms from all components of the coastal zone (offshore, nearshore, backshore, intertidaland uplands) are connected.Page 35FIGURE 2.4Model for the Fraser River Delta Foodweb(Source: Butler and Campbell 1987:12)ffi.ctiSw&Iowe5ackblrds•to.Bonapart•Mew GulletcKiller WhalePage 362.2.4 Key Considerations in the Urbanized Coastal Zone,In the United States, the extent of urban development is reflected in the statistic that,although the coastal zone’s most productive region, the estuary, accounts for only 15 percent ofthe land area for coastal and Great Lakes states, it contains over 33 percent of the population(Ketchum, 1972). The situation is even more intense in California where over eighty percentof the state’s nearly 30 million people live within thirty miles of the coast (Boyd 1985). Thelevel of urban development in British Columbia is similar to that of California withapproximately half of the province’s population of three million concentrated in the Fraser Riverestuary alone. Notably, the majority of the B.C. coast is undeveloped. Ecologists estimate thattwo-thirds of the global marine populations spend a portion of their life in estuarine regions orare dependent upon other species that do (U.S. Council on Environmental Quality 1970). Soit would appear that human beings, as well as other species are drawn to the coastal zone.The upland component of the coastal zone has been subject to rapidly increasing demandsof housing, industry, transportation and recreation (Hildebrand 1989; British Columbia 1987a).Although the primary competitor for coastal upland habitat is housing (Ketchum 1972), researchdone in Atlantic Canada revealed that developed estuaries are subject to many different land uses(Beanlands 1983). The offshore activities such as fishing and petroleum development whichsatisfy the demands of coastal urban centres have often over-taxed the capacity of the coastalzone (Todd 1973; Canada 1985a).Page 37Coastal urban centres place various types of stresses on the coastal zone’s biophysicalcomponents and systems. Wilson (1988) has categorized human stresses on the coastal zoneunder headings of changes of use, misuse and pollution.2.2.4.1 Changes of UseIn response to different demands on the coast, physical changes such as residentialdevelopment or dredge-and-fill operations have initiated a physical, chemical and biologicalevolution of marine coastal systems (Wilson 1988). The construction of protective seawalls andalteration of land drainage patterns interferes with the input of organic nutrients into coastalwaters. Perhaps most importantly, changes in the coastal systems through human activity haveled to observed alterations throughout the entire coastal zone food web, particularly onherbivorous and piscivorous birds (Wilson 1988).Coastal land development practices are capable of producing substantial changes interrestrial coastal ecosystems. Unfortunately, the impacts associated with coastal habitatalteration due to land use development are usually detrimental in nature (F.R.E.S. 1978). Thedirect impacts of development may be interpreted in terms of the decreased nesting and foragingcapacity of the ecosystem. Factors associated with human activity such as increased predationfrom domestic animals and increased noise pollution exert a more subtle array of deleteriousimpacts on coastal ecosystems (F.R.E.S. 1978). The cumulative effects of many small impactssuch as urban encroachment are often not observable given the amount of ambient variability inPage 38the coastal zone. The complexity of the coastal zone could mask the indicators of drasticchanges in coastal ecology.Changes in use within the coastal zone have also increased the potential for damages dueto natural disasters. For example, the removal of native vegetation along coastal bluffs hasbeen shown to reduce slope stability (VanDine 1991).2.2.4.2 MisuseMisuse occurs where the intensity of human activity exceeds the natural capacity of thecoastal zone to accommodate such exploitation. Misuse within the coastal zone is much lessprevalent than change of use, and the identification of misuse of coastal resources is complicatedby the effect of pollution (Wilson 1988). The principal coastal resources to be over-exploitedare fish and shellfish (Wilson 1988). The decline in fish species, particularly migratory onessuch as salmon may be attributed to over-harvesting, however habitat destruction and bait speciesover-fishing may represent the most serious threats to commercial fish stocks (Wilson 1988;Simpson 1991). Fragile coastal habitats such as dunes and wetlands are coming under increasingpressure, particularly from leisure activities (Wilson 1988; F.R.E.S. 1978).Page 392.2.4.3 PollutionThe Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution offer thisdefinition for marine pollution:“The introduction by man, directly or indirectly, or substances or energy into themarine environment (including estuaries) resulting in such deleterious effects asharm to living resources, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activitiesincluding fishing, impairment of quality of use of sea water and reduction ofamenities”.(G.E.S.A.M.P., 1986)There are five basic classes of contaminants including: organic matter, petroleum products,heavy metals, organochlorines and radioactivity. Organic matter and petroleum products areregarded as the most abundant pollutants, however heavy metals, organochiorines and radioactivepollutants are often the most toxic and persistent in terms of biodegradation (Wilson 1988).Water pollution from sources such as municipal sewage, industrial effluent, agriculturalrun-off and acid precipitation is a major threat to the complex food webs that depend upon theaquatic component of the coastal zone. The vast majority of Biochemical Oxygen Demand(B.O.D.), faecal coliforms and trace metals originate from household and other non-industrialsources while radioactive and organochlorines tend to originate from industrial sources (Schreieretal. 1991).The toxic nature of some pollutants and the manner in which vast amounts of pollutionare introduced into coastal waters are often detrimental to the coastal zone. These detrimentalPage 40impacts may be localized at the end of a sewage outfall or extend far beyond the coastal zoneby the movement (export) of organisms that bio-accumulate toxins. Richmond’s location at themouth of the Fraser River is a significant factor in local water quality as it is subject to bothriver-borne pollutants introduced at points further up stream and ocean pollutants. In addition,two major sewage treatment facilities are located within and adjacent to Richmond’s municipalboundaries (lona and Annacis Island Sewage Treatment facilities respectively). A much smallerthird Sewage Treatment facility is located at Lulu Island in Richmond, B.C.2.3 The Socio-Economic ComponentCoastal resources are those naturally occurring resources and systems in the coastal zonethat are of value to humans or could be under plausible technological, economic or socialcircumstances (Dorcey 1986). In the intervening years since the arrival of Europeans in BritishColumbia in 1774, coastal resource exploitation has evolved considerably (Fisher 1977). Drivenby technological advance, exploitation of coastal resources has become more efficient, moreintense and has expanded to include an increased number of exploited resource types. Themotivation behind the exploitation of coastal resources is largely an economic one.2.3.1 Nearshore and Offshore Coastal Resource Uses.2.3.1.1 Fisheries and MaricultureBetween 1978 and 1983 the wholesale value of fish from British Columbia’s coastalcommercial fisheries sector averaged about five hundred million dollars annually (Dorcey 1986).From 1987 to 1989, the economic value of the B.C. salmon catch alone has averaged $540Page 41million (Henderson 1991). In addition to commercial fisheries, the salt water sport fisherieshave been valued at approximately one hundred and twenty miffion dollars (Dorcey 1986).The main species harvested in commercial fisheries include salmon, herring, halibut,other groundfish (including cod, flounder and snapper) and shellfish (including clams, oystersand crabs). Overwhelmingly, salmon is the single most important harvested fisheries resourcein British Columbia (Pearse 1982). In the early 1980’s, commercial and recreational salmoncatches totalled over twenty-three million salmon (Pearse 1982). Recently however, salmonpopulations in the province’s largest salmon-bearing river, the Fraser, have witnessed sharpincreases (Northcote and Burwash 1991). For pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon species, a three-fold increase in annual escapements to theFraser River Basin have been recorded (Northcote and Burwash 1991).Coastal estuaries and rivers such as the Fraser River system have been shown to becrucial to salmon stocks (Dorcey 1986; Kistritz 1978; Levy and Northcote 1982). These areasare coincident with several British Columbia communities and port/harbour facilities, thus thepotential for damage (due to water pollution for example) to offshore and nearshore fisheriesresources is very significant.In recent years, mariculture or fish farming has developed into a significant branch ofB.C. ‘s commercial fishery. Salmon, shellfish and trout are the main species harvested (Canada1990a). In 1990, production from B.C. fish farms is estimated at $95 miffion dollars (fifteenPage 42thousand tonnes) from over one hundred farms (Canada 1990a). Fish farm and shellfishoperations have located in the Campbell River/Desolation Sound region, the northwest coast ofVancouver Island and along the coast of Georgia Strait (Canada 1990a).The financial magnitude of fisheries and mariculture reveal the importance of thesecoastal resources to the provincial economy. However, for many small communities along thecoast of British Columbia, fisheries also represent the main source of income. The village ofSteveston (located within Richmond) derives much of its economic health to the commercial andsportsfishing fleet which operates from Steveston harbour.2.3.1.2 Energy and PetrochemicalsThe present extent of energy and petrochemical activity throughout coastal BritishColumbia is relatively limited (Dorcey 1986). Shipments of oil and gas products, coal and otherpetrochemicals occur along offshore and nearshore shipping routes. Major port facilities forthese products exist at Roberts Bank, Port Moody, Esquimalt, Bella Coola, Kitimat, PrinceRupert and Port Simpson (Canada 1978a).British Columbia’s energy requirements are largely filled by hydroelectric dam projects.Generally, hydroelectric dam projects have not had any significant impacts on major Pacificdrainages such as the Fraser River (Dorcey 1986). There have been a number of smallhydroelectric developments along coastal streams. An example of such a hydroelectric damPage 43exists on the Campbell River where the power derived from the dam serves primarily regionalneeds.The future prospects within this sector depend much on global economic fortunes,particularly oil prices. During the late seventies energy shortages prompted exploration for oiland natural gas off British Columbia’s coast (McPhee 1982). Perhaps a future energy crisis willre-kindle interest in the exploitation of offshore petrochemical resources.2.3.1.3 TransportationShipping activity throughout coastal British Columbia represents an important non-consumptive resource use within the coastal zone. Combined shipping for the entire provinceof British Columbia totalled over forty-two million metric tonnes of cargo in 1985 (Canada1985b). The Port of Vancouver alone shipped four million metric tonnes of petroleum productsin 1988 (Canada 1990b). In addition to industrial traffic, commercial passenger traffic and ferrytraffic utilize coastal waters, especially between Vancouver Island and the mainland. From 1970to 1980 there has been an annual increase of 16 percent in the volume of passenger cruises alongthe B.C. coast (Montgomery 1981).British Columbia’s coastal waters are also utilized as a vital transportation link forindustrial and commercial sectors of the economy. The ready access to coastal waters for thetransportation and storage of logs allows for the exploitation of remote coastal forest resourcesisolated from road or rail access (Dorcey 1986). Since the early 1980’s a shrinking coastalPage 44forest resource base and a shrinking market has seen a decreased use of coastal waters for thetransportation and storage of logs (British Columbia 1980). Within Richmond, transportationis a vital economic activity. Richmond is perhaps unique in that all parts of the coastal zone(uplands, shorelands, nearshore and offshore) seem to be involved in transportation activities.Major examples of transportation use within Richmond’s coastal zone include VancouverInternational Airport and the shipping and pleasure craft traffic along the North Arm and MainArm of the Fraser River.2.3.2 Shoreland and Upland Coastal Resource Uses.2.3.2.1 ForestryForestry in British Columbia began along the coast. Coastal tree species such as westernred cedar, hemlock, spruce and douglas fir that sustained B.C.’s forest industry since thenineteenth Century began to be replaced by species such as lodgepole pine and jack pine ofinterior forests. By 1972, interior forests usurped the coastal forest as the leading source oftimber in the province’s forest industry (B.C. 1980).In 1990, 78 million cubic metres of timber were cut on crown or private land in BritishColumbia (British Columbia 1991a). The forest industry in B.C. employs approximately100,000 workers (British Columbia 1991a). The value of forest products produced in B.C. was$11.2 billion in 1990 (British Columbia 199 la). The forest industry is the backbone of theprovincial economy, accounting for almost fifty percent of the value of provincial exports andPage 45manufacturing shipment (Dorcey 1986). A significant portion of forest industry jobs and timberresources are still located along B.C.’s coast.Coastal waters serve a very important role in the forestry sector. Coastal areas includingthe Fraser River Estuary are extensively utilized by the forest industry for log storage, logsorting, wood product transportation, and as a receptacle for waste products. Foreshore areasof the coastal zone are utilized as convenient and practical locations for industrial facilities suchas pulp and paper mills. Figure 2.5 portrays log storage activity in Richmond, B.C. on theNorth Arm of the Fraser River.Page 46Figure 2.5Log Storage on the North Arm of Fraser River: Richmond, B.C.2.3.2.2 MiningCoastal mines were important to the early development of the mining industry in theprovince, eventually much of the activity relocated further inland (Dorcey 1986). Regardlessof the actual location of the mine, more than 90 percent of mining production was shipped outvia tidewater (Price Waterhouse 1984)._I.1 6Page 472.3.2.3 AgricultureDue to a mild climate, coastal upland areas of British Columbia are often utilized foragriculture. A significant amount of agricultural activity is concentrated in the SouthWest cornerof the province in coastal river deltas. In the lower Fraser River region3, there is an estimated1, 949 farms representing $1.69 billion in farm capital (Schreier et a!. 1991). Although, themost intensive concentration of coastal agriculture is found in the lower mainland of BritishColumbia, the importance of the sector is nonetheless significant given the number of farms andlevel of investment. The significance of the agricultural sector to Richmond is reflected in localland use patterns in which nearly half of the available land base is allocated to agriculture(Richmond, 1989).2.3.2.4 Tourism and RecreationIn 1989, the number of non-resident visitors to British Columbia totalled 7.6 million(British Columbia 1991a). Research shows that visitors to the province are attracted to BritishColumbia’s scenic vistas and wild places (British Columbia 1991a). A large proportion ofprovincial tourism takes place on the coast (Dorcey 1986). Coastal-related activities such asfishing, kayaking, sailing, scuba diving, power boating, swimming and windsurfing are popularattractions for tourists.3This sample region encompasses the lower mainland of B.C.,extending eastward to Hope.Page 48Recently, recreation interest in the coastal zone, particularly in the Lower Mainland hasundergone sharp increases (G.V.R.D. 1987). The foreshore also provides the widest range ofrecreation opportunities found in the region (F.R.E.M.P., 1990). An expansion of foreshorerecreation opportunities would be an effective means of:• satisfying the increased recreation demand due to increased population;• meeting the specific recreation needs of an aging population;• achieving ecological protection of sensitive estuarine areas; and• building a stronger regional perception of the Fraser River estuary.Recreation demands in the Lower Mainland tend to focus on waterfront activities suchas visiting the beach, fishing and boating (G.V.R.D. 1987). The foreshore providesopportunities for these waterfront activities. The foreshore also holds potential for pedestrianpaths. Ozborn (1991) revealed that Richmond’s trails and dykes have the highest frequency ofuse of all cultural and recreation facilities in the community. The development of an extensivesystem of waterfront trails would satisfy the recreation needs of the older portion of thepopulation as well as protect ecologically sensitive areas from more damaging forms ofdevelopment.2.3.2.5 Urban DevelopmentThe historical pattern of settlement suggests that residential development concentrates onadjacent coastal uplands in proximity to the major employers, such as port facilities, fishPage 49processing plants and sawmills (Kennett and McPhee 1988). Many coastal communities withinBritish Columbia display a distinctive linear pattern of residential development with every homeseeking a water view lot. In the lower mainland, many waterfront industrial sites have beenredeveloped with higher density, commercial and residential development (Kennett and McPhee1988). The use of the coastal zone by urban development is not limited to land use, however.Industrial, residential, commercial and agricultural uses rely on the nearshore and offshorewaters of the coastal zone to serve as a receptacle for treated wastes4.2.4 The Institutional ComponentThe conflicts that have arisen over coastal resources have been described by Dorcey(1980) as a “war that society fights with itself as it seeks to both develop and conserve its coastalresources.” Key antagonists in this ‘war’ are found at the three levels of government (federal,provincial and local) as they exercise their regulatory powers in the management of the coastalzone. Dorcey’s description of the situation that exists within the coastal zone serves to underlinethe need for effective management of the coast. Increasingly, attention is focusing on localgovernments and their powers over land use regulation. This attention is extremely influentialin the continuing conflict among all levels of government, First Nations Peoples, industry andinterest groups over how best to manage the coastal zone (Simpson 1991).4some untreated sewage enters receiving waters due to heavyrainfall events and accidental shutdowns (Kennett and McPhee 1988).Page 50In Canada, the rights and responsibilities of government are rooted in the British NorthAmerica Act (1867). This Act established the fundamental division of rights and responsibilitiesbetween the federal and provincial levels of government. There are two features that are keyto the management of the coastal zone. The first is that the rights and responsibilities allocatedto each government are primarily exclusive. The second feature is that the provincial andfederal levels of government are permitted to delegate authority to a ‘subordinate body’ (Ince1984). The province of British Columbia has delegated some of its authority to a subordinatebody known as Municipal government through the Municipal Act (1979).Since the British North America Act, the division of federal and provincial powers hasbecome complicated by the new Constitution (1982), various accords and disputes (Dorcey1986). In fact, the situation has become so complex that nowhere within the coastal zone -upland, backshore, intertidal, nearshore or offshore - is there a clear undisputed basis for onegovernment to be the sole authority (Dorcey 1986).Who becomes involved in the management of coastal resources is to a large extentdetermined by the complex pattern of ownership and jurisdiction that exists within the coastalzone (Dorcey 1986). What follows is a brief examination of the fragmented nature of ownershipand regulatory jurisdiction present within the coastal zone.Page 512.4.1 OwnershipThe federal government has claimed ownership of the offshore component of BritishColumbia’s coastal zone. Since the prospect of offshore oil, gas and minerals, the provincialgovernment has challenged this federal claim (Dorcey 1986). The provincial government claimsownership of most upland, backshore and intertidal lands and all their resources (Dorcey 1986).The provincial government also contests ownership of nearshore and offshore resources (Dorcey1986).Local government has limited ownership in small parcels of coastal upland and coastalshoreland. Typically, municipally owned coastal land is utilized for uses such as infrastructureor parkland. Local governments in British Columbia do not claim ownership of any coastalresources.A significant portion of coastal upland and coastal backshore is privately owned, usuallyin what is called a fee simple interest. Crown foreshore leases are available for privateownership also (Roberts 1988). A portion of British Columbia’s coastal uplands and backshoreis owned (and governed) by First Nations peoples or is subject to land claims. Furthermore,the ownership of coastal zone resources (particularly fish) is disputed between First NationsPeoples and the federal government.Page 522.4.2 Regulation.The Canadian approach to C.Z.M. is premised on the adoption and coordination of anumber of environmental management policies by those agencies having responsibilities for thecoastal zone (Hildebrand 1989). An example of Canadian coastal zone policy is given by theD.F.O.’s recent policy for fish habitat management (Canada 1985a). Policies such as theD.F.O.’s are restricted to fit within narrow departmental mandates. The Canadian approach toC.Z.M. has been to employ the policies of the existing legislative framework in a piecemealmaimer in order to deal with coastal zone problems as they arise (Gamble 1989; DOE 1982; andDorcey 1983). The Canadian approach is far more decentralized than its American counterpartwhich has descended from federal legislation.A summary of selected federal and provincial agencies and enabling legislation ispresented in Appendix A and B respectively.2.4.2.1 Federal Government.Federal jurisdiction is perhaps clearest over the most seaward extent of the coastal zone.Fisheries, shipping, navigation, defense, harbours, international relations and communicationsare some of the nearshore and offshore activities that fall under federal jurisdiction (Dorcey1986). Federal agencies involved with the regulation of these activities include: HarbourCommissions, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, Energy, Mines andResources Canada and the Department of National Defense.Page 53Federal jurisdiction over activities occurring within the upland, backshore and intertidalportions of the coastal zone is more complicated. Agencies such as Public Works Canada,Environment Canada, Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans maybecome involved (according to their mandate as detailed by legislation) in matters such as fishhabitat protection or dyke maintenance. The federal government retains limited powersstemming from the, “peace, order and good government” clause of the Canadian Constitution(Sec. 5.9 1(a)) which create federal jurisdiction where air or water pollution transcend provincialor national boundaries (Thompson 1981).The Six Harbours Agreement passed by a federal Order-in-Council in 1924 grants the federalgovernment jurisdiction over submerged lands in the following B.C. harbours (Roberts, 1988):Victoria, Esquimalt, Port Alberni, Nanaimo, Burrard Inlet and the Fraser River. In addition tocontrol over these major harbours, the federal government has what Roberts (1988) describedas essentially “a fee simple interest” in fishing and recreational harbours under a special sectionof the Land Act. These federally controlled coastal harbours are administered by theDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans and also by the Oceans Small Craft Harbour Program.Other federal agencies involved with the administration of the submerged portion of the urbancoastal zone include: Environment Canada; Energy, Mines and Resources Canada; TransportCanada; the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and Public Works Canada (Dorcey,1986). Transport Canada and Public Works Canada are involved in the dredging of waterways,construction of protective breakwaters or jetties and repairing of most dykes throughout coastalBritish Columbia.Page 542.4.2.2 Provincial Government.Due to the provincial government’s ownership of most natural resources (Dorcey1986:43), provincial regulation appears to be spread throughout the coastal zone. The offshoreand nearshore aspects of the coastal zone generally fall under the regulatory domain of theprovincial Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (M.O.E.L.P.), the Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food (M.O.A.F.F.) and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways(M.O.T.H.). These provincial agencies are responsible for regulating activities such ascommercial and sports fisheries, marinas, water pollution and water transportation (Dorcey1986). Similarly, the upland and shoreland portions of the coastal zone fall under thejurisdiction of these agencies as well as the Ministry of Forests (M.O.F.), the Ministry ofTourism (M.O.T.), Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (M.O.A.F.F.), the Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing (M.O.M.A.R.H.) and the Ministry of Energy, Minesand Petroleum Resources (E.M.P.R.). These latter provincial agencies exercise theresponsibility of managing coastal resources such as forests, agriculture and minerals2.4.2.3 Local Government.It is recognized that local governments are in relatively weak positions when faced withconflicts between other levels of government (Dorcey 1986). However, the local level ofgovernment exercises a considerable amount of control in the field of land use regulation.Local governments are granted the authority through the Municipal Act to regulate theuse of land within the municipality or regional district. Land as defined in the Municipal ActPage 55“includes the surfaces of water”, hence municipalities have the ability to zone portions of theiraquatic coastal zone (B.C., 1979: Sec.1). In fact, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries andFood encourages coastal municipalities to exercise their zoning authority to protect valuableaquatic habitat from certain types of urban development (British Columbia 1987a). Theprovincial government has considered delegating control of submerged lands to localgovernments (Roberts, 1988). However, a similar experiment in the United States under theCoastal Zone Management Act of 1972 revealed that such a delegation of authority wasproblematic since local governments often lacked the financial resources to handle the increasedresponsibilities (Mogulof, 1975).The Municipal Act enables municipal governments to prepare Official Community Plans(O.C.P.) that detail policies and objectives for guiding land use decisions. Implementation ofthe O.C.P. ‘s intent is achieved through zoning bylaws which enforce regulations concerningaspects such as size, siting and type of development. In addition to zoning bylaws,municipalities are able to employ a powerful regulatory tool known as a Development Permitin order to implement specific policies contained within the O.C.P. Unlike zoning bylaws,Development Permits act as a more precise control over the nature and design of a proposeddevelopment on a site-specific basis. Development Permits also differ from zoning bylaws inthat they are unable to prohibit development.For areas designated in the O.C.P., Development Permits may be required as a meansto regulate aspects such as: development in hazard susceptible areas, natural water courses,Page 56development in areas of land above the natural boundary of streams, rivers, lakes or oceans toremain free of development and (as requested by M.O.E.L.P.), the planting of vegetation(British Columbia 1979: sec. 976(5)). Taken together, the O.C.P.’s, zoning bylaws andDevelopment Permits provide a considerable amount of municipal control over the use of coastalupland (Brownlee 1992). This study uses the information recorded in Development PermitApplication files to evaluate local initiatives in the management of coastal zone issues.Given that local regulatory authority within the coastal zone appears to reside primarilyin O.C.P’s, Zoning and Development Permits, it is worthwhile to consider the relationshipbetween each of these three key regulatory tools. Figure 2.6 portrays these regulatory powersin a hierarchical format. Viewed in this relative manner, the O.C.P. provides a community witha foundation of broad objectives and policies while Zoning and Development Permit provide forthe implementation of such policies at a more precise level.Page 57Figure 2.6Local Regulatory Powers: A Hierarchical Relationship2.4.2.4 F.R.E.M.P.A unique organizational arrangement exists in the Lower Mainland where theadministrative responsibility, normally carried out by separate agencies, is coordinated by asingle organization called the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (F.R.E.M.P.). TheF.R.E.M.P. offers a unique framework for involving key coastal agencies (see Table 2.3) to“work toward common goals and objectives” on an estuary wide basis (Kennett and McPhee1988).LEVEL OFREGULATORYCONTROLSITE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION‘‘7COMMUNITYWIDEOBJECTIVESPOLICIESPage 58TABLE 2.3Participating Agencies in F.R.E.M.P.1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.2. Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.3. Environment Canada.4. Fraser River Harbour Commission.5. North Fraser Harbour Commission.6. Greater Vancouver Regional District.The F.R.E.M.P. derives its administrative authority from the participating agencies whichcomprise its management executive. The F.R.E.M.P.’s jurisdiction extends upland to the crestof the dyke (McPhee 1991; Pers. Comm.). For the Township of Richmond which is completelysurrounded by dykes, the entire coast to the crest of the dyke is covered by the F.R.E.M.P.The F.R.E.M.P. plays a significant role in coordinating the planning and managementof the zone of land above and below the waterline. The planning and management of thisportion of the coastal zone is achieved through a process known as area designation. Similarto municipal zoning, area designations determine what uses are permissible within a given‘management unit’ (see Table 2.4). The area designations for the estuary’s 85 management unitswere developed by a task force of 15 agencies who are involved in the management of theestuary (McPhee, 1989). The purpose of the area designations was to “provide a mechanismfor accommodating economic growth while maintaining environmental quality in the estuary”Page 59while at the same time being flexible enough to respond to changing needs and conditions(McPhee 1989: pA2O6).TABLE 2.4AREA DESIGNATION DEFINITIONS(Source: F.R.E.M.P., 1991)CATEGORY ABBREV. DESCRIPTIONConservation C Habitat where the primary ‘use’ is the maintenance andenhancement of continued biological productivity.Conservation areas may be used for activities which donot impair the continued biological productivity of thearea.Log Storage L Primary use is for log storage consistent with theFraser River Estuary Management Program guidelinesfor log storage.Recreation! Park R Areas designated for public open space and recreation.Port/Terminal P Land and water with close proximity to navigationchannels, good land transportation connections andsufficient open space for upland development of theterminal. Land and water to be used for the berthingof vessels, the handling and storage of cargoes and/orpassengers, in or outbound.Industry I Land and water designated for industries which requirewater-borne transportation, surface use of the water oruse of submerged lands.Page 602.4.2.5 An Overview of Canadian C.Z.M.The Canadian approach to the management of the urbanized coastal zone is premised onthe adoption and coordination of a number of environmental management policies by thoseagencies having responsibilities in coastal urban areas (Hildebrand 1989). Unfortunately, thereality in Canadian C.Z.M. has been the piecemeal application of coastal policies to deal withproblems in urban coastal regions as they have arisen (Gamble 1989; Canada 1982; and Dorcey1983).Despite the numerous failings of Canada’s approach to C.Z.M., some contend that thecreation of coastal zone ‘super agencies’ similar to those found in the United States is not theanswer either (Sproule-Jones 1978). An improvement in British Columbia’s approach to C.Z.M.may be achieved by strengthening the existing decentralized linkages amongst resource agencies(Sproule-Jones 1978). Increasing the coordination among existing agencies may be more costeffective than creating coastal zone ‘super agencies’ modelled after American C.Z.M. programs.2.5 SummaryChapter Two explores a framework for coastal zone management in terms of biophysical,socio-economic and institutional elements. The discussion of the biophysical nature of thecoastal zone revealed a highly complex and interdependent set of relationships affecting coastalmorphology, biochemistry and ecosystems. The socio-economic component of the C.Z.M.framework identified the key resource uses of the coastal zone. The economic values associatedPage 61with these resources and the wide array of resource users suggest the coastal zone represents asignificant contribution to both provincial and local economies. The institutional aspect of theC.Z.M. framework described the complex regulatory relationships that exist between federal,provincial and local levels of government. The following chapter builds upon the frameworkfor C.Z.M. by further clarifying the role of local government in seven key coastal zonemanagement issues.Page 62CHAPTER 3Coastal Zone Management Issues and Local Govermuent Regulatory Authority3.1 Coastal Zone Management IssuesThe identification of coastal zone management issues often requires that the notion ofcommunity objectives and significant impacts be re-interpreted in a manner that reflects theintrinsic trans-boundary characteristics of coastal zone processes. Since the definition of thecoastal zone is based on the interdependent ecological relationships between terrestrial andaquatic systems, it follows that coastal zone issues shall contain a great deal of biophysicalcontent. The available literature offers a consistent and comprehensive survey of coastal zoneissues (Gamble 1989; C.C.R.E.M. 1978; Cote 1989; Kennett and McPhee 1988). These issueshave been organized into a list of seven as follows:1. Habitat Conservation;2. Water Quality;3. Natural Coastal Hazards;4. Public Access & Aesthetics;5. Public Input;6. Water Dependent Activities; and7. Interjurisdictional Coordination.These seven issues are representative of a number of values, problems and concerns encounteredthroughout the coastal zone management literature. Within this organizing list of issues, specificPage 63problems such as adequate boat moorage space or maintaining healthy populations of predatorybirds may be represented by one or more issues. The seven issues also provide a basis for theidentification of relevant local government (Richmond) policies to be later evaluated.One clear advantage in utilizing a broad scope of issues is that it facilitates an evaluationformat capable of assessing C.Z.M. efforts as a holistic, comprehensive and integratedendeavour which Hennessey and Robadue (1987) have described as the “trinity of ecosystemmanagement concepts”. Some would suggest that of the seven coastal zone issues presentedhere, certain issues should be ‘ranked’ or considered more important than others. The rankingof coastal zone issues relative to one another is not considered here because the evaluativemethodology (presented in Chapter Five) was not designed to permit quantitative comparisonsbetween coastal zone issues that ranking is intended to provide. The strength of this evaluativeapproach lies within its ability to compare results between the same C.Z.M. issues from separatestudies. This feature would be particularly useful for comparing between different municipalitiesin order to assess the performance of different C.Z.M. policies for evaluating the overalleffectiveness and impacts of new C.Z.M. policies by means of a ‘before and after’ analysis.Issues ranking is best regarded as the next step in the process of allocating planning andmanagement resources to the specific problems and opportunities identified from the findings ofthis study.Page 643.2 Habitat ConservationThe protection of sensitive and biologically productive areas such as coastal wetlands isa serious concern for coastal communities throughout Canada and the United States. There isa growing body of evidence to suggest that land use activities are very important factorsaffecting the health of B.C’s salmon stocks (Nassau-Suffolk 1976; Schreier et al. 1991 andSimpson 1991). Coastal upland areas are also vital to other wildlife such as species of migratorybirds, waterfowl and rare birds of prey (Butler et a!. 1990; Butler and Campbell 1987).Within the coastal zone of the Lower Mainland the Fraser River Estuary Study (F.R.E.S.1978) has identified ten major habitat zones. These habitat zones support numerous species,many of which are highly valued for their commercial, recreational and biological significance(see Table 3.1). The continued alienation of all types of coastal zone habitat ultimately affectsthe human activities (sport fishing, hunting, bird watching) that depend on these coastalresources. Often the impacts of habitat loss on human activities within the coastal zone aredifficult to predict or quantify (Nassau-Suffolk 1976).Page 65TABLE 3.1Habitat Classifications for the Fraser River Estuary(Source: F.R.E.S. 1978)MAJOR DOMINANT HABITATZONES VEGETATION CAPABILITYSandflats Benthic Algae Seals, Shellfish, Crabs, Shrimp, Salmon, ShorebirdsMudflats Benthic Algae Salmon, Seals, Crabs, Shrimp, ShorebirdsEelgrass Beds Eelgruss Salmon, Herring, Crabs. Waterfowl, RaptorsSalt Marsh Saitwort, Saltgrass, Axrowgrass Salmon, Raptors, ShorebirdsBulrush Marsh Buirushes Salmon, Waterfowl, Shorebirds, RaptorsCattail/Sedge Marsh Cattail, Sedge Salmon, Waterfowl, Shorebirds, Raptors,Freshwater Marsh Cattail, Sedge, Bulrush Salmon, Waterfowl, Shorebirds, Raptors, Otter, Mink,Muskrats, BeaverRiparian Wet Meadows, Trees, Shrubs Waterfowl, Otter, Muskrats, Mink, Beaver, SongbirdsBogs Spagnuin, Labrador Tea Waterfowl, Raptors, Shorebirds, Otter, Muskrats, Mink,Beaver, Bear, Deer, CoyotesAgricultural Lands Crops Waterfowl, ShorebirdsPage 66The conservation of critical natural habitat within municipal and regional politicalboundaries appears to have evolved much differently than that of provincial and federal levelhabitat conservation. Unlike senior levels of government which are able to set completeecosystems aside into ecological reserve status, local governments must work with habitats whichare, to varying degrees, already under a human influence. Often, local governments rely onother agencies (such as the Canadian Wildlife Service and B.C. Ministry of Environment, Landsand Parks) and special interest groups (such as Ducks Unlimited and the Western CanadaWilderness Committee) to provide information on environmentally significant areas withinmunicipal or regional boundaries. Despite information and funding limitations, local governmentshould not consider themselves wholly exempt from conservation efforts.3.2.1 Habitat Conservation: Local Government Regulatory AuthorityThe British Columbia Municipal Act (B.C. 1979) grants local governments the ability toprotect ecologically sensitive coastal habitat by either prohibiting development entirely throughzoning or by carefully controlling development so as to ameliorate negative impacts. Specificpowers granted to local governments to conserve important habitat are contained under sections963 (Zoning), 945 (Official Community Plans), 976 (Development Permits) and 952 (Rural LandUse Bylaws) of the B.C. Municipal Act.Local government’s regulation of land use includes “power to prohibit any use or usesin any zone or zones.” (B.C. 1979: Sec. 963 (3) and 952 (l)(b{ii})). For local governments,Page 67zoning is a powerful management tool which allows local government considerable control overboth the use and conservation of a finite coastal land supply.Local government powers under Section 945 relating to the content of OfficialCommunity Plans include the ability to place “restrictions on the use of land that is subject tohazardous conditions or that is environmentally sensitive to development.” (B.C. 1979: Sec. 945(2)(d)). The meaningfulness of policies and objectives that typically constitute an OfficialCommunity Plan (O.C.P.) is ensured by Section 949 (2) that states that subsequent bylaws(includes zoning) shall be consistent with the (O.C.P.).Similarly, the B.C. Municipal Act description of local government powers under Section976 regarding Development Permits includes the ability to “specify areas of land that arelocated above the natural boundary of streams, rivers, lakes or the ocean that shall remainfree of development.” (B.C. 1979: Sec. 976 (5)(d)). Thus, the Development Permit may beused as an effective regulatory device for protecting sensitive habitat in the landward portion ofthe coastal zone.3.3 Water QualityCoastal Communities have traditionally viewed the offshore as a receptacle for domesticand industrial waste water (Schreier, Brown and Hall 1991). In the lower Fraser sub-basin,treated municipal sewage is the largest source of B.O.D., faecal coliforms, suspended solids,nutrients (ammonia and phosphorus) and certain trace metals (copper and zinc). Urban stormPage 68water run-off containing significant quantities of suspended solids, dissolved solids, nutrients,hydrocarbons, coliform bacteria and trace metals further compromise coastal water quality(MacKenzie 1987). Poor water quality has been implicated as the cause of death in ‘duck kills’(Butler et a!. 1990) and ‘fish kills’ (Moore 1989) which have occurred repeatedly in the LowerMainland.Water quality is particularly critical to communities that depend on coastal waters as akey ingredient in their economic and recreational activities. Tourism, mariculture, fisheries,recreation and community aesthetics are impacted by poor water quality. Even propertydevelopment requires high water quality standards in order to insure the economic viability ofwaterfront projects (Epstein 1985). The risk to water quality through inappropriate land usepractices is illustrated by Figure 3.2 which shows the storage of recycled oil in deterioratingcontainers and other refuse on the dyke along the North Arm of the Fraser River in Richmond,B.C.Page 69Figure 3.2Recycled Oil and Refuse On North Arm of Fraser River: Richmond, B.C.There is considerable evidence to support the conclusion that the type and magnitude ofurban development has a direct impact on the quantity and quality of contaminants entering intocoastal zone waters (Nassau-Suffolk 1976, Ferguson and Hall 1979; Swain 1982; Barton 1978;Whipple et a!. 1974; Wanielista et al. 1977; Schreier et a!. 1991). Table 3.2 gives acomparison of land uses and their total contribution to coastal water pollution from theG.V.R.D. Although much attention has been focused on ‘point sources’ (emanating from aPage 70discrete source such as an outfall pipe) of urban contaminants, studies have shown that ‘non-point sources’ (emanating from dispersed sources such as wind deposition) constitute a largepercentage of the pollutant load entering a water system (Whipple et a!. 1974; Wanielista et at.1977). Barton (1978) has suggested that non-point urban water pollution is a greater waterquality threat than contamination from agricultural sources. In Richmond, British Columbia,it is estimated that the cumulative pollutant loading of storm water run off may equal one halfto two times the loading from the Annacis Island Sewage Treatment plant (Richmond 1985c).Given the magnitude of the ‘non-point’ pollution of coastal waters, discussion of localgovernment’s regulatory authority will focus primarily on regulatory powers capable ofaddressing this pollution source.Page 71TABLE 3.2Contaminant Loadings from Different Land Uses in the G.V.RD.(Source: Ferguson and Hall 1979)LAND USEtcormiiirr HOUSING & ROADS COMMER. INDUS1’. AGRICULT. PARKSB.O.D. 9460 540 4160 176 431Nitrogen 646 48 287 117 146Phosphorus 274 10.7 87 4.2 16.4Faecal Coliforms 358 21.3 160 16.6 7.9Copper 3.24 0.9 7.1 0.2 0.48Iron 83.7 4.8 37.9 22.9 56Manganese 7.4 0.9 6.9 1.2 1.2Nickel 0.64 0.08 0.71 0.05 0.14Lead 20.6 1.2 8.7 0.18 0.66Zinc 2.6 1.4 9.7 0.18 1.17t All values in kg/day, except faecal coliforms which are in (number/day)*1Y’and Nitrogen and Phosphorus which are in total elements.3.3.1 Water Quality: Local Government Regulatory AuthorityUnder certain sections of the Municipal Act, local governments are granted considerableauthority over the regulation of land uses that impact coastal water quality. Zoning, OfficialCommunity Plans and Development Permits (B.C. 1979: Sec. 963, 945 and 976 respectively)represent some of the local powers that figure prominently in the current status of contaminantloadings enter coastal waters. Utilizing these regulatory powers, local governments are givenPage 72the ability to ameliorate some negative impacts of non-point contamination simply by requiringadequate buffers or setbacks to protect coastal waters from polluting uses. Further powersinclude the ability impose conditions on the timing of the construction phase which may beuseful in reducing sedimentationdue to runoff (B.C. 1979: Sec. 976 (2)(c)). The BritishColumbia Municipal Act also exempts “land and improvementsadapted or designed andexclusively used for the purpose ofabating pollution” from municipalproperty taxes (B.C. 1979:Sec. 398 (q.1)).Section 587 (a) of the B.C. Municipal Act grants local governments further powers toprotect coastal water quality. Local governments may adopt bylaws that “prohibit a person fromfouling, obstruction or impeding the flow of a stream, creek, waterway, watercourse,waterworks, ditch, drain or sewer, whether or not it is situated on private property, and mayprovide for the imposition of penalties for a contravention of these regulations.” Evidently, anumber of provisions exist withinthe B.C. Municipal Act grantinglocal governments regulatorypowers and responsibilities inprotecting coastal water quality. Section 976 of the B.C.Municipal Act relating to Development Permits is especially significant, allowing localgovernments a great deal of control over the overall design andsiting of development. Thesepowers offer local government many opportunities in the mitigation of deleterious water qualityimpacts due to development.The role of local government inestablishing and operating sewage treatment facilities isdescribed in Sections 330 and 611 of the B.C. Municipal Act. Although local governments arePage 73assigned authority in the area of ‘point-source’ water quality control, it is the impact of ‘non-point’ sources on coastal water quality that is under investigation in this study.3.4 Natural Coastal HazardsThe coastal zone is subject to a wide range of natural forces which often play key rolesin determining the physical appearance of the coast. Three forms of natural coastal hazards arediscussed: flooding, erosion/accretion and seismic activity. Of these three, flooding is the mostserious resulting in $177 million in damages throughout the province of B.C. (Hay 1991).There are three basic types of flooding originating from either atmospheric or geologic(seismic) sources: coastal, river and ‘local’. All three types of flooding may have an impact onthe coastal zone. River flooding is perhaps the most significant form of natural hazard facingthe case study community of Richmond, B.C.Coastal flooding is principally caused by seismic (resulting in a tsunami) or storm surgeevents although the susceptibility of coastal areas to these two hazards may vary greatlydepending upon location (Hay 1991). The potential for tsunami damage is related to type,frequency and location of seismic or landslide events, coupled with the potential of the adjacentwater body to sustain or enhance a tsunami event (Hay 1991). Storm surges are described asincreases in water levels exceeding levels normally associated with astronomical tides (Hay1991). Coastal flooding due to storm surges is caused by a combination of wind driving watersPage 74shoreward and a low pressure system which give rise to elevated sea levels. Coastal land formssuch as deltas, spits and backshore areas are most vulnerable to storm surge flooding.River floods are generally the result of either snow melt events or rainfall events (Hay1991). Snow melt events tend to occur in the late spring and the magnitude of such floodingis tied directly to the amount of winter snow pack. The coastal deltas of major river systemsmay experience flooding events lasting days or weeks while smaller coastal drainages typicallyexperience flooding events lasting only a few hours (Hay 1991).Flooding affecting the coastal zone caused by ‘local’ flooding is characterized by extremeprecipitation events and/or poor drainage capacity. Urbanized areas and agricultural areas aremost at risk to local flooding due to poor gravity drainage (Hay 1991).Foreshore erosion processes are a function of variables such as sediment supply, sedimentcharacter, oceanographic conditions of tides, waves , currents and the geomorphic character ofthe coastline (McConnell 1991). Additional factors affecting erosion processes include groundwater conditions, vegetative cover, land use, subsidence and freeze-thaw cycles. Shorelineerosion is subdivided into four categories based on the location of impact: beach/foreshoreerosion; upland/backshore erosion; local erosion around structures; and subtidal slope failures(McConnell 1991).Page 75Within the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, municipalities such as Surrey, NewWestminster, Burnaby, Maple Ridge, Delta, Coquitlam, Langley, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadowsand Richmond are located either partially or completely within the 200 Year Floodplain5.Richmond is the most populated Canadian community located entirely within a floodplain(Richmond 1985c). Figure 3.3 gives a map of the 200 Year Floodplain in the lower FraserRiver estuary. The dyke which is constructed to protect Richmond from flood events up to aone-in-200 year magnitude is pictured in Figure 3.4.5The 200 Year Floodplain refers the area of land that would becovered during a peak flood that has a probability of occurringonce in 200 years. The last one-in-200 year flood occurred in 1894(Kennett and McPhee, 1988).Page 76FIGURE 3.3The 200 Year Floodplain in the Lower Mainland.(Source: Kennett and McPhee 1988: 20)— Dykes built under the Fraser River Flood Control Program200 Year FloodplainPage 77Figure 3.4View of Protective Dyke: Richmond, B.C.3.4.1 Natural Coastal Hazards: Local Government Reulatorv AuthorityLocal regulatory powers regarding flood susceptible areas of the coastal zone include theability to designate such hazard6 prone areas, require developers of designated hazardsusceptible land to furnish reports written by certified engineers and specify setbacks fromwatercourses and bodies of water (B.C. 1979: Sec. 969, 734 (2), and 976 (5)(a) respectively).6Hazards specified in the Municipal Act include flooding, mudflows, debris flows, debris torrents, erosion, land slips,rockfalls, subsidence and avalanche.Page 78In addition, local governments may choose to utilize their basic zoning powers to “prohibit anyuse or uses from any zone or zones” (B.C. 1979: Sec. 963 (3)). Local regulatory powers aresomewhat diluted by section 969, subsections 3 and 6 of the B.C. Municipal Act which statesthat all local government bylaws are superseded by any order of the provincial Minister ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks (formerly Environment and Parks). However, local governmentare given the power under section 969 (7) of the Municipal Act to enforce “specification of theMinister of Environment [Lands] and Parks .... as though they were bylaws of the localgovernment”.The Municipal Act divides regulatory authority regarding hazard susceptible landsbetween local and provincial government. Some enforcement powers have be extended to localgovernment, however, the province retains absolute power to supersede local bylaws. Thedivision of powers concerning natural hazards within the Municipal Act points directly to theneed for an effective coordination of management efforts among the levels of government.3.5 Public Access and AestheticsMuch has been written about the need to reorient waterfront communities towards thewaterfront (Matthews and Hall 1988; Hall 1988; and Boyd 1985). Public access to thewaterfront either through direct contact with the water or through visual association is a keyelement in the success to urban waterfront projects (Hotson 1988; Ontario 1987). Given pastcommitments made by communities such as Vancouver and Richmond to providing a contiguouslinear waterfront park, the continued provision of public access is no doubt essential to the futurePage 79of these long term plans. Figure 3.5 gives an example of public access for a waterfrontcommercial project in Steveston (southwest Richmond).Figure 3.5Public Waterfront Access: Steveston, B.C.The urban coast is beginning to earn a more positive aesthetic image due to stricter localgovernmental controls over both the siting and appearance of new coastal developments.Developers also recognize the importance of well designed waterfront projects in terms of fiscalsuccess. Many coastal communities have witnessed a resurgence of interest in their waterfronts.—-—‘I.,qw’IL.. -IJfPage 80Examples of aesthetically positive and successful waterfront development differs from whatHotson (1988) refers to as a simple gentrification of the waterfront. In successful waterfrontdevelopments, current tenants of the waterfront are not necessarily displaced by newdevelopment. Moreover, Hotson (1988) identifies tree planting as the most importantlandscaping element affecting the aesthetic image of the waterfront.Examples of positive and negative aesthetic images for coastal zone developments inRichmond are pictured in Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7 respectively. In these contrasting examples,the effect of landscaping is clearly identifiable as a key factor in determining the overall aestheticimage of a given development.Page 81Figure 3.6Medium Density Housing Adjacent to Dyke: Steveston, B.C.Figure 3.7Commercial Development Adjacent to Dyke: North Richmond, B.C.Page 823.5.1 Public Access and Aesthetics: Local Government Regulatory AuthorityLocal governments may employ regulatory powers related to Zoning (B.C. 1979:Sec.963) and Development Permits (B.C. 1979: Sec.976) to provide public access to thewaterfront. Under Section 963 (zoning) of the B.C. Municipal Act, local governments mayregulate the use of land and the siting of buildings and structures within any given zone. Localgovernment may also use Sec. 976 (5(d)) of the B.C. Municipal Act to “specify areas of landthat are located above the natural boundary of streams, rivers, lakes or the ocean that shallremain free of development” as a means of creating public access corridors.Additional opportunities to increase public access to the waterfront derives from Section992 of the B.C. Municipal Act. Upon subdivision of land, the owner must provide a portionof land (or market value equivalent in cash) to the local government for use as parkiand. Thisportion of land (no less than five percent of the total) may then be dedicated for public use undersection 533 of the Municipal Act. Payment in lieu of land may also be used to purchase (in feesimple) property or easements providing access to the waterfront. Hence, subdivided landanywhere within a local government’s jurisdiction may by useful in securing a greater degreeof public access to the foreshore. It is certainly debatable as to whether or not a five percentgain in public access to the waterfront is worth a net loss of ninety-five percent elsewhere in thecoastal uplands for each parcel of subdivided and subsequently developed land.Page 83Section 976 of the B.C. Municipal Act grants local governments a considerable degreeof freedom in regulating development through the use of the Development Permit.Development Permits give local government the power to impose requirements “respecting thecharacter of the development including landscaping, and the siting, form, exterior design andfinish of buildings and structures.” (B.C. 1979: Sec. 976 (6)). Development Permits are onlyapplicable for areas and land uses designated by the local government. For example, the coastalcommunity of Campbell River has specified in its Official Community Plan that all developmenton foreshore properties and properties abutting watercourses entering the ocean are subject tothe controls and regulation of a Development Permit (Campbell River, 1991).3.6 Public InputThe role of public involvement in C.Z.M., as with any complex management issue, isrecognized as being a crucial link in the decision-making process (Harvey et a!. 1982; Ontario1987; Warren et al. 1972). A well organized public involvement program may greatly enhancethe established decision-making process and even provide a forum for addressing conflict(Harvey er a!. 1982). Often, it is the public through special interest groups that provide thegreatest amount of impetus for successful waterfront programs and activities (Ontario 1987).There are many forms of Public Input which Am stein represents as a continuum of publicpower in the decision-making process (Amstein 1969). No attempt is made in this thesis toidentify the most preferable form of public input in the process of C.Z.M. Rather, thePage 84methodology employed in this study is intended to measure the occurrence ofny form of publicinvolvement.3.6.1 Public Input: Local Government Regulatory AuthorityThe B.C. Municipal Act is specific in stating precisely when and how the public is to beincluded in local government decisions. Local governments are required to hold a public hearingto allow the public an opportunity to make representations respecting matters contained in aproposed community plan bylaw, rural land use bylaw or zoning bylaw (B.C. 1979: Sec. 956(1)). The public hearing format allows “all persons who believe that their interest in propertyis affected by the proposed bylaw” a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present writtensubmissions (B.C. 1979: Sec. 956 (3)). The Municipal Act forces local government toincorporate public hearings into the very structure of local decision making. In addition to apublic hearing requirement for sewage treatment plan bylaws, local governments may also berequired to seek the electors assent (through a plebiscite referendum) if there is a public petitionto do so (B.C. 1979: Sec. 330(2)).Public hearings for site-specific zoning applications often gain a great deal of publicattention (usually negative). In this format, public input is reactionary, and polarizes prodevelopment and anti-development lobbies. The public’s concern for issues such as the coastalzone is perhaps more effectively introduced into the local government agenda at public hearingsfor community plan bylaws. In this regard, the public is given an opportunity to fulfil a moreproactive role by influencing policy formulation of a community plan.Page 85A further measure for public input is contained within Section 955 of the B.C. MunicipalAi. This section allows local governments to establish an ‘Advisory Planning Commission’comprised of local residents to “advise council on all matters respecting land use, communityplanning or proposed bylaws and permits” (B.C. 1979: Sec. 955 (1)).In Richmond there exists a less formal arrangement for obtaining public input onDevelopment Permits known as a Development Permit Panel (D.P.P.). Unlike the specialadvisory committee described by Section 955 of the B.C. Municipal Act, the D.P.P. iscomprised of employees of the local government. The D.P.P. advertises Development Permitapplications and invites public comments on the proposed development.3.7 Water Dependent ActivitiesIn discussing approaches to coastal zone management Shapiro (1972) distinguishedbetween uses that are water dependent and those that are water related. Obviously, a thirdcategory of waterfront uses exists, that being those that are water independent. The definitionsupported by Shapiro (1972: p.16) for water dependent reads:all uses that cannot logically exist in any location but on the water...”[and]a use which requires frontage on navigable water to A) provide atransportation service to other industries or to the general public; and B) providefor construction, maintenance, storage and repair of watercraft.Page 86Cl)0 I••••.CD“CD)CDC)‘< C)r.CD :3 0- I:3CDCD..LCD-.Cl)CDCD—.—CD CD•••CD0jCD—1CD-CD0=‘1-—CD0:‘-I0CD—.CD0‘-C)CD•0.0CDCD•. :3o CD0CDCDC Cl)Cl)LI U CI2Cl)CD O I••••,0_0-t0,:3CDi.qC)CDCDo z0-0-C) :r.0Q1 liv CD csQ:3 CD CD.CD CD 0••—•_ CDC) =-02. =0—0... CD :3 0.CD fJ.-.-.CD0cc0 —C)—.0‘CDC)CD0- 11CD 00Figure 3.8Water Dependent Activities: Steveston, B.C.Conversely, water related uses are defined as those uses which have an economic, butnot physical dependence on the water (Shapiro 1977). Condominiums and restaurants are someof the uses that depend on a waterfront location for their economic survival. Water independentactivities are those which fail to meet the criteria that define water dependent or water related.ii Il iIiPage 88In most communities, increasing waterfront land values (driven by a shortage of desirablewaterfront land) have driven many water dependent activities from urban waterfronts. Manycoastal communities throughout Canada and the United States have witnessed a replacement ofwater dependent industries such as shipbuilding by residential and commercial uses (Gallagher1988; Wrenn 1983). Although these new waterfront tenants may be less of an ecological threatand also provide a greater range of waterfront activities, there are some concerns with this trend.One such concern is the impact to a community’s economic health if the working waterfront ispermanently replaced by condominiums and public markets (Gallagher 1988). Furthermore, theexperience with waterfront re-development in the United States indicates that such redevelopment has tended to exclude the needs of low income people, minorities, the elderly, thehandicapped and the young (United States, no date).3.7.1 Water Dependent Activities: Local Government Regulatory AuthorityUnder section 963 (Zoning) of the B.C. Municipal Act, local governments are grantedconsiderable freedom in determining the type of land use for waterfront property. Localgovernments may regulate the “use of land, buildings and structures” within all zones definedby the local government itself (B.C. 1979, Sec.963 (1)(C)). In effect, local governmentsdetermine not only the amount of land zoned for water dependent and water related uses but alsowhere these uses are to be located within the community.Page 893.8 Interjurisdictional CoordinationDue to the mixture of ownership and jurisdiction within coastal areas, coordinationamong agencies and their policies is necessary in order to properly manage the coastal zone(C.C.R.E.M. 1978; Hildebrand 1989). Much effort is wasted on coastal policies whichcontradict or duplicate policies administered by other agencies. The fragmentation of C.Z.M.authority at federal and provincial levels has made local governments reluctant to enter into thecomplex and often confrontational management melee (McClellan; pers. corn. 1992). Thisperception of a fragmented institutional response to C.Z.M. in British Columbia should underlinethe need for effective coordination of programs and policies among all three levels ofgovernment.3.8.1 Interjurisdictional Coordination: Local Government Regulatory AuthorityThe B.C. Municipal Act is vague regarding when and where inter-governmentalcoordination is required and the Municipal Act is silent regarding when and where intergovernmental coordination is advisable to improve the overall management of complex systemssuch as the coastal zone. At various junctures throughout the Municipal Act, other provincialagencies are identified as having joint or superseding authority in local regulatory matters. Inthe context of local government involvement in C.Z.M, the provincial government retains ameasure of authority including floodplain designations (B.C. 1979: Sec. 969 (3,6)); theprotection of fisheries (B.C. 1979: Sec. 976 (5)(e)) and the protection of water courses (B.C.1979: Sec. 976 (5)(c)). In addition to provincial agencies, federal agencies such as the D.F.O.possess powers which may supersede those of a local government.Page 90The effect of the fragmentation of jurisdiction even within the B.C. Municipal Act servesonly to underline the importance of a coordinated management effort as far as the coastal zoneis concerned. Nevertheless, the B.C. Municipal Act does grant local governments a great dealof regulatory capability in the form of Zoning, Development Permits and Official CommunityPlans. Where the B.C. Municipal Act is silent, the decision as to how a local governmentinteracts with the other agencies on individual C.Z.M. issues is often made by the localgovernment.3.9 SummaryChapter Three brought the relationship between the seven identified coastal zonemanagement issues and local governments into sharper focus. An analysis of the B.C.Municipal Act revealed that local governments are granted a significant amount of regulatoryauthority over land use in the coastal uplands, shorelands and nearshore. It was demonstratedthat this regulatory authority also empowered local governments to manage many aspects of theseven identified coastal zone issues. The analysis of the B.C. Municipal Act as the legal basisof local government powers in the management of coastal zone issues also revealed that ZoningBylaws, Official Community Plan Bylaws and Development Permits were prominent aspects ofthis regulatory authority. The following chapter investigates the case study communityRichmond in greater detail in order to provide specific information of the coastal zone issuesfacing that community. Richmond’s land use zoning patterns are also identified in the nextchapter as a necessary part of contextual analysis of the case study municipality.Page 91CHAPTER 4CASE STUDY CONTEXT: RICHMOND, B.C.4.1 IntroductionAn evaluation of local government policies affecting the management of identified coastalzone issues is undertaken using a case study format. Essential background information on thecase study community is presented in order to better understand the context in which anevaluation of local coastal zone policies was conducted. This information acts as a benchmarkto which results of the analysis of Development Permit Application files are compared to revealthe relative performance of specific policies.Discussion of case-specific details for Richmond and its coastal zone is organised in amanner reflective of the hierarchical model for a coastal zone management framework describedin Chapter Two. Consequently, Chapter Four is divided according to the biophysical, socioeconomic and institutional perspectives reflected in the coastal zone management framework.Though not specifically discussed here, aspects of biophysical, socio-political and economicsystems are assumed to be hierarchically integrated.4.2 Richmond, B.C.: Biophysical Context.The Township of Richmond is located in the southwest corner of British Columbia andis situated on several islands of the Fraser River delta (refer Figure 4.1). The main island, LuluIsland was formed through the gradual process of river borne sediment deposition which startedPage 92following the retreat of the last Pleistocene glaciation episode 11,000 years ago. Approximatelyfour thousand years ago Lulu Island attained its current land size (A.I.M. Consultants 1984).Geological evidence suggests that the channels of the Fraser River which surround present dayRichmond have remained relatively stable, perhaps due to the evolution of the delta in the deepwaters of Georgia Strait (Blunden 1975).Page 93FIGURE 4.1Map of Richmond, British ColumbiaPage 94Richmond is situated on the western edge of the Fraser River delta. From the SturgeonBanks to the Duck, Barber and Woodward Island group complex, all stages of delta landscapedevelopment are represented (Richmond 1986). Habitat types still in existence in Richmond’scoastal zone include bog ecosystems, riparian communities, intertidal brackish/freshwater marshand intertidal sand and mudflats (F.R.E.S. 1978). These habitat zones support a number ofharvested species such as salmon and waterfowl.Several hydrological and climatological features have combined to create a coastalestuarine ecosystem which is impressively diverse and biologically productive. The Fraser RiverEstuary Study reported that primary productivity in the Fraser River estuarine ecosystems werehigh compared to other estuarine productivity values found in the literature (F.R.E.S. 1978).Prior to the construction of the many kilometres of dykes and seawalls which protect it,Richmond’s former state was that of a “featureless, insect infested and dank” series of shrubcovered islands separated by wide shoaling waterways (Blunden, 1975). Consequently, manyof present day Richmond’s biophysical features are the result of human alterations (F.R.E.S.1978). One may only speculate as to how fisheries resources and biological productivity havebeen affected given that the F.R.E.S. (1978) reported that cumulative small scale urbandevelopments within intertidal foreshore and riverine marsh areas can have significant negativeimpacts.Page 95Richmond is almost entirely situated within the Fraser River flood plain. Complementingthe protective dykes, a method of controlling development within floodplains was instituted bythe provincial and federal levels of government through the Floodplain Mapping Program whichcommenced in 1987 (Environment Canada 1991). As a consequence of this program and aprevious program called the Fraser River Flood Control Program, a Flood Plain Exemptboundary has been created that circumscribes areas within Richmond which do not requireministerial approval for rezoning applications (Richmond 1985a). This exemption boundaryincludes most urbanized areas in Richmond because the restrictions were not retroactive to preexisting development (see Figure 4.2). Development in areas outside the Floodplain ExemptionBoundary do not require approval from the provincial government.Page 96FIGURE 4.2The Floodplain Exemption Boundary(Source: Richmond 1985)[I\\i FLOOD PLAINEXEMPTION BOUNDARYnauticol miles• Canoe_______,. •,PassPage 97In spite of the attempts to control floodplain development through the use of a FloodplainExemption Boundary, exempt areas are by no means completely safe from a one-in-200 Yearflood event. However the fact that exempt areas are generally located inland provides somedegree of flood protection (Sharma 1992: Pers. comm.). Most of the literature indicates thatall of Richmond’s land area behind the dykes are at risk to a one-in-200 Year flood event(Pearson 1972; Kennett and McPhee 1988; Smith 1991). Figure 4.3 shows the area ofRichmond affected by a one-in-200 Year flood event. Since the last major flood occurred in1948, many of the newer residents of Richmond have little perception of the flood risk (Pearson1972).Page 98FIGURE 4.3The One-In-200 Year Floodplain(Source: Kennett and McPhee 1988: 20)4.3 Richmond, B.C.: Socio-economic Context4.3.1 History and Demographics.Richmond was incorporated in 1879 at which time most of the thirty homes which housedRichmond’s entire population were clustered along the South Arm of the Fraser near Steveston.Since 1879 Richmond has grown to a community of 122,106 people (G.V.R.D. 1991). Duringthe intervening years, Richmond’s economic dependence on fishing and agriculture hasdiminished, being gradually replaced by transportation and manufacturing.Page 99The most dominant feature of Richmond’s demographic profile is the aging ‘baby boom’generation born in the 1950’s (Richmond 1986). Cohort-survival models predict that the averageage of Richmond residents will increase from thirty (in 1980) to over 50 by the year 2001(Richmond 1986; British Columbia 1991b). The number of so-called baby boomers inRichmond is expected to more than double in the next 20 years. This demographic feature willcontinue to have an impact on housing, health care services, retail spending and recreationwithin the local community.4.3.2 Local Economic Context.Richmond serves an important regional and provincial role as a major transportation hubanchored by the Vancouver International Airport. Due to the presence of the airport, Richmondis often referred to as, “Canada’s Gateway to the Pacific” (G.V.R.D. 1991). Future growth inRichmond’s economy is expected to be in the commercial services, trade and light industrialsectors, largely as a spinoff of the scheduled expansion of Vancouver International Airport(G.V.R.D. 1991).Richmond’s economy also relies heavily on agriculture, tourism and fishing. As thepopulation and economy continue to expand, the resulting demand for land to facilitate homes,industry and parks is expected to generate considerable conflict with the preservation of theagricultural land base and environmentally sensitive areas (E.S.A.’s) within Richmond.Page 1004.4 Richmond, B.C.: Institutional ContextMuch like their federal and provincial counterparts, local governments divide powers andresponsibilities between various departments. In Richmond, there are twelve major departmentsinvolved in managing local government affairs (see Table 4. 1). The departments of Planning,Parks and Leisure Services and Permits and Licenses contribute greatly to the management ofissues affecting Richmond’s coastal zone.TABLE 4.1THE STRUCTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN RICHMOND, B.C.Department ResponsibilitiesCivic Properties Civic Building Services.Computer Services Computer Systems and 0 1 S SystemEngineering Roads, Sanitary Sewers, Watermains, Traffic Controland Recycling.Equal Opportunities Equal Opportunities and AccessHealth Environmental Health, Community Care and Home CareFacilities.Permits and Licences Bylaw Enforcement, Permits, Licenses and BuildingInspection.Personnel Employee RelationsPlanning Community Planning, Development Applications andZoning.Purchasing Civic AcquisitionsTaxation Property Tax Collection.Public Works Construction of Civic Projects Roads and SidewalksPage 101Within the context of C.Z.M., Richmond exists within a regulatory structure whichincludes a number of federal, provincial and regional agencies. Richmond’s Official CommunityPlan acknowledges this with a policy commitment to work with key agencies in the pursuit ofcommunity objectives (see Table 4.2). A greater commitment to inter-agency coordination isfelt to be a necessary step forward in alleviating some of the redundancies and conflict presentin this complex administrative structure (Richmond 1989).TABLE 4.2Jurisdictional Involvement in the Implementationof Richmond’s Official Community Plan(Source: Richmond 1989)AGENCY TASKNorth Fraser Harbour Review proposed foreshore and marine uses on North ArmCommission of Fraser River.Fraser River Harbour Review proposed foreshore and marine uses on mainstem ofCommission Fraser River.Department of Fisheries Involved in sensitive foreshore development issues affectingand Oceans fisheries.B. C. Ministry of Involved in air, water and fish and wildlife issues.EnvironmentFraser River Estuary Involvement in developing environ mental policies throughoutManagement Program the Fraser Estuary.Heritage Conservation Establishes heritage conservation programmes, important toBranch/Heritage Trust preservation of historic waterfronts like Steveston.Greater Vancouver Involved with regional transportation, services andRegional District environmental issues such as park dedication and regional airquality.Page 1024.4.1 Current Land Use Patterns.The provision of ‘zoning’ powers within the B.C. Municipal Act (B.C. 1979:Sec 973)grant local governments a great deal of regulatory authority over many aspects of coastal uplandsand shorelands. The manner in which ‘zoning’ authority has been used in the past is oftenvisible in current observed patterns of land use. Furthermore, these patterns of land use aredirectly linked to specific coastal issues (Nassau-Suffolk 1976; N.A.C. 1971).A portrait of current patterns of land use in Richmond is given in Figure 4.4 whichpresents the relative proportions of zoned land supply. In 1985, the three dominant land usesin Richmond were Agricultural (49.1 percent), Residential (26.4 percent) and Industrial (17.4percent). This portrait of land use in Richmond reveals much about the character of community(agricultural and residential) as well as previous zoning policies. As the total area of Richmondis finite, zoning changes in land use are only at the ‘expense’ of other uses, however some ofthis pressure on the land may be relieved through increases in density. Historically, agriculturehas given way to residential and industrial development pressures.In addition to the policies and objectives included in Richmond’s O.C.P., there exists acontractual agreement with the various participating parties which comprise the Fraser RiverEstuary Management Program (F.R.E.M.P 1991). This non-binding agreement is intended toserve three important functions. First, it is intended to document and confirm the understandingof Area Designations for the Fraser River estuary. Second, the agreement is intended to describePage 103measures to resolve associated barriers to consensus. Third, the agreement provides aframework for helping to coordinate the administrative procedures.Figure 4.4Relative Proportion of Zoned Land in Richmond(Source: Richmind 1989: p.25)Agricultural49.1%Industrial17.4%Open Space5.3%Commercial1.8%Residential26.4%Page 104A closer examination of the F.R.E.M.P Area Designations agreement provided someinsight into allocated land use patterns for the waterfront portion of Richmond’s coastal zone.A pie chart depicting Richmond’s Designated waterfront land supply reveals the relativeproportion of designated uses for waterfront land (see Figure 4.5). Individually, ConservationFigure 4.5Richmond Foreshore Area Designations(Source: Richmond 1990)Log Storage 18%Recreation 5%Port 6%Conservation 37%Undetermined 1%Urban 9%Industry 24%Calculated for Lulu and Sea Island only.Page 105was the largest designated waterfront use at 39.7 percent, however Industrial-type uses (LogStorage, Port and Industry) combined to account for 44.2 percent of designated waterfront.Interestingly, the seven foreshore land designations do not correspond very precisely toRichmond’s thirty four zoning categories.In contrast to Richmond’s overall zoned land supply which is dominated by agriculturaland residential uses (refer back to Figure 4.4), Richmond’s waterfront appears to be reservedprimarily for industry and conservation, two uses which are often considered incompatible. Thecurrent land use patterns revealed in Figures 4.4 (Zoned Land Supply) and 4.5 (DesignatedWaterfront Land Supply) reflect past policies and decisions which have seen the concentrationof industry along the waterfront and the location of housing and commercial activities furtherinland. Perhaps the Richmond/ F.R.E.M.P. Foreshore Area Designation Agreement (Richmond1990) attempts to offset the industrialized waterfront character of Richmond with a nearly equalquantity of designated conservation areas. Regardless, Richmond is left with a legacy of zonedland uses along its waterfront which will undoubtedly have continued impacts in areas such ascoastal zone water quality.4.5 SummaryAn analysis of land use patterns in Richmond revealed two important features. Firstly,land use in Richmond is predominantly agricultural and residential in character. Secondly,waterfront land use is predominantly allocated for industrial and conservation purposes.Richmond represents a broad spectrum of issues facing Canadian coastal communities (McPheePage 106pers. corn. 1991). Frorn the commercial fishing fleet harboured at Steveston to the waterfrontcornmercial development at Fraser Point, this municipality is home to many coastal related landuses. Although located further inland, agricultural activity in Richrnond has a demonstratedimpact on the coastal zone particularly in areas such as water quality (Ferguson and Hall 1979).The combination of uses that depend and affect the coast make Richmond an excellent modelupon which to base an evaluation of local coastal zone policies.Page 107CHAPTER 5The Evaluative Framework5.1 IntroductionA review of the literature revealed that evaluative methodologies intendedfor local coastal zone management (C.Z.M.) programs were uncommon. The argument has beenmade that the infrequency of C.Z.M. program evaluation in Canada is due to the rarity of bonafide C.Z.M. programs at any level of government (Jessen et. a!. 1983). Due to the absence ofmeaningful or consistent evaluative criteria most of the evaluative frameworks offered by othersources in the literature were considered inappropriate for evaluating municipal coastal zonepolicies. The desired evaluative methodology would have to be capable of incorporatinginformation relevant to the local government’s role in C.Z.M.Coastal zones typify information problems which are similar to elements ofEnvironmental Impact Assessment (E.I.A.). Evaluative methodologies based on E.I.A. whenapplied to coastal zone issues have tended to rely heavily on quantitative and empiricalknowledge (Ritchie 1984). The main difficulty with specific quantitative data is encounteredwhen one attempts to make macro-scale generalizations based on micro-scale data (Hennesseyand Robadue 1987). Furthermore, quantitative information concerning critical aspects of thecoastal zone, such as physicochemical processes or trophic relationships may not be readilyavailable, limiting the applicability of this type of evaluative methodology to case studies wherea considerable body of research knowledge already exists. The natural complexity that coastalPage 108zones possess has been problematic from an analytical perspective also (Hennessey and Robadue1987). The coastal zone features which are perhaps the most vexing to impact analysis studiesare:• Coastal ecosystems are connected in a selective fashion (McLusky 1989).• The impacts of events is not uniform on coastal ecology (Hennessey andRobadue 1987).• Dramatic changes in ecosystem behaviour is normal, and many of thesechanges are beyond our ability to predict (Picker 1963).• Variability rather than stability is the characteristic of coastal zoneswhich allows them to adjust and therefore persist (Hennessey andRobadue 1987).Given the difficulties inherent in a highly quantitative evaluative approach similar to thatof E.I.A., it follows that an evaluation of the local C.Z.M. policies must reflect the existing,quantitative information while at the same time be cognizant of the limitations in suchknowledge. Ritchie (1984) describes the evaluative framework for the coastal zone as a:“...semi-quantitative appraisal within the limits of existing knowledge and aqualitative estimation which must be more than mere opinion but should be basedon comparative judgement.”In the specific context of evaluating policy performance at the local level of government, theevaluative method must also take into account the limitations placed on the local governmentsPage 109with respect to their jurisdictional authority. This final point is especially important whenconsidering any policy recommendation suggested by the results of the study.5.2 The Evaluative Framework: BackgroundThe evaluation of local policies relevant to the management of the coastal zone of BritishColumbia is based on methodologies employed by Rosentraub (1975) and Jessen et al. (1983).Each of these studies produced a detailed examination of the roles served by regional levels ofgovernment in the management of the coastal zone. Although Rosentraub and Jessen et al.utilize similar approaches, the manner in which the results are used for evaluative purposes issomewhat different.5.2.1 An Evaluative Methodology for the California South Coast RegionalCommissionRosentraub (1975) examined coastal policy development and evaluation of the SouthCoast Regional Commission in Southern California. His methodology examined manyparameters associated with the regulation of coastal zone development including: location, sizeof development, present use of the land, construction costs, type of development and reviewprocedure utilized. Together, these parameters constituted the foundation of Rosentraub’sexamination of the South Coast Regional Commission’s role in the management of a highlyurbanized coast. The relevance of Rosentraub’s study to C.Z.M. policy came in the context ofagency self-evaluation. Rosentraub’s methodology was designed to provide the necessaryPage 110information for local agencies to evaluate the performance of their own C.Z.M. policies byanalyzing the net result of day to day activities and decisions.5.2.2 An Evaluative Methodology for Haldimand-NorfolkJessen et a!. (1983) reviewed development applications as a method of evaluating theeffect of local land use decisions on the coastal zone. Building on Rosentraub’s methodology,Jessen et. a!. (1983) expanded their examination to include parameters such as inter-agencyinvolvement, coastal hazard susceptibility, and length of the decision-making process. UnlikeRosentraub, Jessen et a!. ‘s results were used to provide an external evaluation of theperformance of coastal land-use policies (existing and inferred).Rosentraub (1975) and Jessen et. a!. (1983) employed a retrospective survey techniqueon land use regulation in order to draw conclusions concerning the relative effectiveness of locallevel policies designed to address the various management issues of the coastal zone. Oneadvantage in using such a retrospective survey of development within the coastal zone is that itprovides an empirical record of municipal actions and land-use decisions. Thus, depending uponthe type of information sought and the manner in which it is analyzed, it is possible to examinemany different facets of local C.Z.M. ranging from inter-agency involvement to developmentpressures in coastal floodplains as both Rosentraub (1975) and Jessen et al. (1983) demonstratedin their respective studies.Page 1115.3 The Evaluative FrameworkThe evaluative framework consists of three basic components describing basic C.Z.M.issues, the policies that are to be evaluated, and criteria required to facilitate the evaluation.These three components are similar to those described by Schaenman (1975) for evaluating landuse impacts.The management issues for the urban coastal zone have been described in Chapter Threealong with the regulatory powers available to local governments to these issues. The sevencoastal zone management issues are:• Habitat Conservation;• Water Quality;• Natural Coastal Hazards;• Public Access and Aesthetics;• Public Input;• Water Dependency; and• Interjurisdictional Coordination.The policies and measurement criteria necessary to produce an evaluation are given in thefollowing sections.Page 1125.3.1 Local Policies and C.Z.M Issues: Richmond. B.C.Richmond’s current Official Community Plan (Bylaw 5400) states that the municipalitymust begin to fulfil a “stronger role in protecting Richmond’s natural resources” (Richmond1989). Often the impetus for policy formation is acknowledgement of a current or futureproblem or concern. Less frequently, policies are created to maintain desirable situations. Inthe case of Richmond, British Columbia, the local government has acknowledged the importanceof ecological resource protection through a number of current and previous policy statements.Many of these local policies are consistent with the principles of C.Z.M. Richmond’s OfficialCommunity Plan (O.C.P.) does not provide for a separate C.Z.M. program but it does containa number of objective statements, five of which are considered central to seven key issues forurban coastal zones. Objective statements within Richmond’s current O.C.P. and its predecessor(Bylaw 4700) address the following issues:• Habitat Protection;• Water Quality;• Waste Management;• Natural Hazard Planning;• Improved Urban Design (Access and Aesthetics); and• InterjurisdictionalPolicies for the planning and management of its coastal areas have developed from theseobjective statements. The various policies are assumed to be consistent with the intent of thesePage 113community objectives. Moreover, the evaluation of a given policy may be determined by howwell it serves its objective,Table 5.1 lists the seven coastal zone management issues and the relevant communityobjectives and planning policies given by Richmond’s (1986b) Official Community Plan Bylaw4700. The policies selected for evaluation were considered to be the most relevant to C.Z.M.The time frame over which land use data was collected (1988 to 1991) is coincident with theadoption of the policies contained with the O.C.P. Bylaw 4700 was rescinded on April 3, 1989,replaced by an updated O.C.P. (Bylaw 5400) but the policies contained therein were identical.In effect, the evaluation of Richmond’s C.Z.M. policies is somewhat historical in that theperformance of policies in effect between 1988 and 1991 is considered. In 1991, numerousamendments to Richmond’s O.C.P. Bylaw 5400 were added providing more regulatory clout tothe O.C.P. policies (Brownlee 1994: pers. comm).Page 114TABLE 5.1Municipal Objectives and Policies Affecting Richmond’s Coastal Zone(Source: Richmond 1986b)Coastal ZoneIssueObjectiveStatementPolicies to be EvaluatedHabitatConservation“To Protect Our Acquire threatened sensitive natural areas.Natural Habitats” Use Development Permits to mitigate the effects ofdevelopment near environmentally sensitive areas.Encourage development in areas which are notexempt from floodplain regulations to be constructedin a manner which will provide protection fromflood hazard.Water N/A NIADependencyInterjurisdictionalCoordination(Implicit) Support the F.R.E.M.P.Coastal “To Protect LifeHazards and Property fromFloods”Public Input (Implicit) N/APage 1155.4 C.Z.M. Issues: Policies and Evaluative CriteriaThe information necessary to conduct a case study evaluation of local government policiesaffecting the overall management of the coastal zone was derived from information containedwithin municipal Development Permit Applications and, to a lesser extent, Rezoning Applicationfiles. Consistent with the discussion of local regulatory powers in Chapter Three, CommunityPlans, Zoning and Development Permits were identified as local government’s main tools inexercising its planning and management authority within a larger coastal zone managementframework containing many regulating agencies. The Development Permit (B.C. 1979: Sec.976) is of particular interest from an evaluative standpoint as it permits local governments aconsiderable degree of control over many elements development on a case-by-case basis. It isoften at the level of the Development Permit where local governments must ensure that policiescontained within Official Community Plans are respected.Development Permits are required for most forms of development, including multipleresidential, commercial and industrial, in most areas of Richmond (Richmond 1986b). Thedefinition of Development Permit areas means that most development proposals (except singlefamily residential developments) require Development Permits. In addition, Richmond requiresjj proposed developments located within designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas (E.S.A. ‘s)to submit Development Permit applications (Richmond 1986: Schedule 1). Thus, most of thedevelopment pressure affecting C.Z.M. issues appeared to be covered by Development Permits.Page 116Another argument for selecting Development Permit Files as an appropriate source ofinformation in the evaluation of local C.Z.M. policies involves richness of the data containedwithin these files. Information regarding location, zoning type, site and building design andeven external agency contact was contained within these files. Given that the scope of the sevencoastal zone management issues range from site specific (Public Access, Aesthetics) to broaderland use (Water Quality, Water Dependency) concerns, Development Permit files appear to fulfilthe informational requirements rather conveniently. It is important to note that the informationcontained within Development Permit Application files rather than the Development Permitsthemselves are the subject of investigation.The use of detailed, site-specific information contained within Development PermitApplications Files to produce an evaluation of community-wide policies has certain limitations.These include problems in extrapolating conclusions for large-scale issues using small-scale dataand the representiveness of the measurements selected for the policy analysis. However, thecumulative use of this site-specific information is one useful proxi measurement upon whichpolicy may be evaluated.The selection of appropriate evaluative criteria involved several considerations. First,the necessary information for each criteria had to be readily available for collection andmeasurement. Second, the data necessary to analyze each criteria had to be free of large gapsand have sufficient sample sizes to allow confidence in the analysis. Third, and mostPage 117importantly, the evaluative criteria must be able to provide accurate and useful insight into thecoastal zone issue it was designed to evaluate.The empirical information was generated from a consecutive four year survey (1988 to1991) of Development Permit and Rezoning application files in Richmond. A four year timeframe was selected because it yielded a manageable database (249 Development Permitapplication files and 522 Rezoning application files) from which to work. Development Permitand rezoning application data prior to 1988 were not considered due to the immense difficultyinvolved in retrieving the files from storage. Development Permit and Rezoning application filesafter 1991 were not considered as most were pending completion.5.4.1 General Evaluative Criteria.A number of general evaluative criteria were included as a way to address issues whichseemed to be less specific to the coastal zone and linked more closely to local managementprocesses themselves. The criteria are: length of decision-making, magnitude of DevelopmentPermit and Rezoning applications and completion rates for applications.A number of general evaluation criteria are included in the overall examination of localpolicy effectiveness in C.Z.M. The criteria provide essential information which describesoverall trends in coastal land use patterns for Richmond. Specifically, these criteria measure themagnitude of development pressure, the nature of development pressure as indicated by generallands use categories (multiple residential, commercial, industrial, mixed, other etc.),Page 118Development Permit processing times and approval rates for Development Permit applications.Where applicable, the results from these general evaluative criteria are used for comparisonpurposes in conjunction with policy specific evaluations for each of the other seven coastal zonemanagement issues.5.4.2 Habitat Conservation.Policies: •Acquire threatened sensitive areas(Richmond 1986: p.37)• Use Development Permits to mitigate the effects of development nearenvironmentally sensitive areas.(Richmond 1986: pL37)Richmond’s habitat policies are intended to protect natural habitats. The above policiesrepresent both proactive (acquiring E.S.A.’s) and reactive (mitigation) planning approaches.These policies have the potential to be very effective in achieving the objective of protectingnatural habitat.The evaluation of Richmond’s policies regarding habitat conservation is permitted throughthe analysis of development pressures occurring within areas designated as being environmentallysignificant (Richmond, 1986b). A key aspect in this analysis is the rate of success (completion)for development applications within and outside E.S.A. ‘s.Page 119The analysis of development pressures and land use decisions affecting E.S.A. ‘s shouldresolve questions of how well E.S.A.’s have been protected in Richmond during the four yearsurvey period. The information generated in the analysis will be capable of addressing thisquestion of E.S.A. protection on a community-wide level.5.4.3 Water quality.Policy: •Discourage water polluting industries from locating along thesloughs and estuaries.(Richmond 1986: p.38).Richmond’s water quality policies are intended to fulfil the objective of maintaining andimproving water quality. This particular policy is interesting from the C.Z.M. perspective asit appears to contradict past land use policies which have promoted the widespreadindustrialization of Richmond’s foreshore. This policy is potentially very effective in controllingthe spread of contaminants from non point sources. A key assumption in this evaluation is thatcertain uses such as industrial uses are more polluting than others and that proximity is agoverning factor in the net amount and concentration of contaminants entering a body of watervia ground water transport, wind transport and accidental spillage (Ferguson and Hall, 1979;Swain, 1982; Barton, 198; Whipple et al. 1974; Wanielista et a!. 1977). These sources ofcoastal water pollution are usually not addressed by existing waste collection and treatmentinfrastructure. Water quality policies in Richmond regarding ‘point-source’ waste managementare not considered in this study.Page 120The evaluation of Richmond’s policy concerning water quality was permitted through ananalysis of development pressure (by land use type) as a function of distance from the shoreline.Through this type of analysis, it is possible to determine the tendency of industry to locate closeto the estuary and sloughs in Richmond. The analysis of development pressures should addressthe question of whether or not potentially polluting industrial uses continue to locate along thesloughs and waterfront as is observed in current land use patterns in Richmond (refer to Figure4.5).5.4.4 Natural Coastal Hazards.Policy: •Encourage development in areas which are not exempt fromfloodplain regulations to be constructed in a manner which willprovide protection from flood hazard.(Richmond 1986: p.40).Richmond’s coastal hazard policy is intended to protect life and property from floods.The effectiveness of the policy encouraging construction practices that provides flood protection(also referred to as flood proofing) is ultimately limited by the amount of development takingplace in high risk areas of Richmond - these areas closest to the river (Sharma, Pers. Comm).Although flood proofing may reduce some of the risks due to flooding, these risks may not beeliminated entirely.Page 121The evaluation of Richmond coastal flood hazard policy was permitted through theanalysis of development patterns within and outside defined floodplain boundaries. Thesignificance of the floodplain exemption boundary from an analytical perspective is that itprovides an identifiable division between higher and lower risk areas within Richmond basedessentially on the proximity to the Fraser River. Hence, those areas closer to the River (outsidethe Floodplain Exemption Boundary) are believed to be at greater risk to floods (Sharma, 1992Pers. comm.). This additional layer of regulation constitutes a tighter level of control overdevelopment in the floodplain. Of particular interest to the evaluation was the rate of successfor development proposals in areas exempted from provincial approval versus those in areasrequiring provincial approval prior to development. The evaluation of this coastal zonemanagement policy differs from the evaluation of other policies in that it is based primarily onan assessment of flood risk due to land use patterns. The analysis of land use patterns withinthe Richmond floodplain is intended to address the question of whether or not life and propertyis protected from floods.5.4.5 Public Access & Aesthetics.Policy: Public access •Promote a safe pedestrian environment.(Richmond 1986b: p.33)•Support the continuing implementation of the RichmondTrails Plan(Richmond 1986b:p.51).Page 122Aesthetics •Maintain signcant views from roads, thewaterfront and public open spaces.(Richmond 1986b: p.45)Richmond’s policies regarding public access to the waterfront are complementary to thelong term commitment to realizing a continuous public trail system along the dyke.Guaranteeing public access to the waterfront is an important element in what Richmondperceives as a safe pedestrian environment. Richmond amended it’s most recent OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw 5400 in late 1991 with a development guideline that states:“Public access to the waterfrontfor the purpose ofrecreation or education shouldbe designed into eachforeshore development in a manner which is consistent withthe natural values of the site”.This new policy guideline clearly states that public access to the waterfront is to be included indevelopments. The evaluation of the two policies may be used later as a way to assess theimpact of the addition of the 1991 design guideline on waterfront development (Bylaw 5746).The evaluation of the public access policy for Richmond was permitted through theanalysis of site plans (contained within Development Permit files) for foreshore developmentproposals. Only site plans with clearly marked public right-of-ways were counted as havingpublic access. The provision of public access was also analyzed with respect to developmenttype. The key question of this analysis was how often public access was permitted for foreshoredevelopments.Page 123Richmond’s policy regarding aesthetics is intended to fulfil the goal of good urbandesign. Although the criteria governing aesthetics and good urban design are highly subjective,it is nonetheless worthwhile to consider the ‘maintenance of views’ as an essential element ofcoastal zone aesthetics. Landscaping constituted the minimum level of aesthetic considerationtowards the objective of view maintenance. From a practical standpoint, the presence or absenceof landscaping was the only measurable criterion for aesthetics. Hence, the evaluation ofaesthetics in C.Z.M. was based on the occurrence of landscaping for development proposals.The analysis of landscaping requirements for Development Permit Proposals was intended toprovide insight into whether or not Richmond was addressing the aesthetics issue in the coastalzone.5.4.6 Public Input.Policy: •NoneAlthough the commitment to effective public input into the municipal decision workingprocess is not explicit in Richmond’s O.C.P. a public input policy is, however, implied by theclosing sentence of the O.C.P. which reads;“The planning process must be on going so that the plan can continue toreflect the values of the community.(Richmond 1989; P.70).That the planning process is to reflect community values seems to suggest Richmond’sacceptance of public involvement at various phases of decision-making. However, it isimportant to recall that public hearings are requirements of the Municipal Act for the adoptionPage 124of the O.C.P. and Zoning bylaws. Public consultation for Development Permits is left to thediscretion of local governments.An evaluation of the public input dimension (olicy not explicit) focuses on theoccurrence of public consultation (facilitated through Development Permit Panels) fordevelopment proposals over the four year study frame. The occurrence of public input was alsoconsidered as a function of development type. Lacking a definitive public input policynecessitates that the evaluation of this aspect of C.Z.M. remain essentially descriptive.5.4.7 Water Dependency.Policy: •NoneRichmond’s O.C.P. does not contain a specific policy regarding water dependency. Theabsence of such a policy may be indicate that the issue has not yet been perceived by Richmondas being a concern. Zoning patterns and F.R.E.M.P. foreshore area designations are defactopolicies affecting the coastal zone management issue of water dependency for they govern theprovision of land supply for water dependent, water related and water independent uses.As with the evaluation of the public input dimension of C.Z.M., the analysis of waterdependency issues is essentially descriptive rather than evaluative. A description of trends inforeshore land uses and water dependent activities was permitted through an analysis of the‘level of dependency’ (categorized as either water dependent, water related or water independent)Page 125as a function of development type and coastal location. This analysis will permit an empiricalassessment of the relative demand for foreshore land in Richmond by water dependent and waterrelated activities.5.4.8 Interjurisdictional Coordination.Policy: •Support the Fraser River Estuary Management Program(Richmond 1986b: p.138)Richmond’s policy to support the F.R.E.M.P. serves an implicit objective of ensuringeffective interjurisdictional coordination, particularly for issues involving many layers ofgovernment. The issue of interjurisdictional coordination is especially crucial in C.Z.M. dueto the amount of jurisdictional overlap accompanying many of the other management issues,notably, water quality. Richmond’s policy of support for the F.R.E.M.P. is a potentially veryeffective means of realizing a high level of interjurisdictional coordination. This is possiblethrough the F.R.E.M.P. ‘s multi-agency composition which provides a framework for agreementamong management agencies operating within the estuary (refer to Section 2.3.2.4). However,as it exists presently, coordination with the F.R.E.M.P. is limited to all developments affectingland seaward from the dyke crest (Jamieson 1994 pers. comm.).Richmond’s policy concerning interjurisdictional coordination was addressed by ananalysis of the occurrence of contact with other local, provincial and federal agencies, includingthe F.R.E.M.P.. Contact was confirmed by the presence of written or faxed correspondencePage 126directly between the municipality and the other agency. Written records of telephoneconversations were also included. Contact facilitated by an intermediate (such as letterssubsequently forwarded to another agency) was not included. Casual observation revealed thatoccurrence of this form of third party ‘coordination’ appeared infrequently in DevelopmentPermit files. This analysis should help answer questions on the extent of interjurisdictionalcoordination for Development Permit applications in Richmond.5.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Evaluative MethodologyIn describing a ‘systematic approach’ towards measuring land use impacts, Schaenman(1976) identified three attributes which were considered essential to any such evaluation:comprehensiveness, consistency and clarity. The methodology developed from approaches firstapplied to coastal management involving local governments in California by Rosentraub (1975)and in Ontario by Jessen et. al. (1983) demonstrated attractiveness of such an approach in termsof Schaenman’s three key attributes. The strengths and weaknesses of this study’smethodological approach were assessed on the basis of three criteria; comprehensiveness,consistency and clarity.5.5.1 Comprehensiveness:Sources in the C.Z.M. literature such as C.C.R.E.M (1978) and Gamble (1989) haveprovided the bulk of the groundwork for development of the comprehensive list of coastal zoneissues used as a evaluative framework for this study. The evaluative framework employed bythis study succeeds in addressing a full array of values and concerns affecting the biophysical,Page 127socio-political and economic fabric of the coastal zone. Although the methodology succeeds inoffering a very comprehensive or broadly based analysis, the methodology has made sacrificesin terms of the ‘depth’ or detail of analysis. Thus, individual problems and concerns may bemasked through their inclusion under broad category headings.5.5.2 Consistency:The evaluation of resource management approaches is often complicated by inconsistentevaluative methods (Schaenman 1976). Consistency among evaluative methods is crucialbecause the evaluative outcome is often heavily influenced by the type of data collected(measurement parameters). The general principles of the methodology employed in this studyhave remained fairly consistent with it predecessors (Rosentraub 1975; Jessen et. a!. 1983) andhas the potential to be consistent with future evaluations of local government C.Z.M. policiesbecause it is based on the same land use information acquired by municipal and regionalgovernments when processing development and rezoning applications. Barring major changesin land use regulation authority, this methodology could remain useful for local coastal zonepolicy evaluations for many years. In this capacity, the methodology could be a powerful toolfor analyzing the long term effectiveness of C.Z.M. policies or assessing the performance ofnew policies relative to earlier policies.5.5.3 Clarity:Schaenman (1976) describes the clarity of an evaluative approach as a function of themeaningfulness and ease of interpretation of the results. The methodology is appealing since itPage 128is not encumbered by highly technical measurements and jargon which Schaenman (1976) feltoften impaired the clarity of a methodology. The methodology produces quantitative resultsdescribing land use and development pressures which may easily be used to track theperformance of specific land use policies.However, it is also at the level of clarity where the methodology exhibits its mainweaknesses in interpreting the results. The difficulties were encountered in reaching definitiveconclusions based on the results of the evaluation may be attributed to the complex nature of themanagement issues and management process. Although, the methodology provides plausibleconclusions based on empirical results, the methodology is unable to provide any detailed insighton site-specific impacts on the coastal zone. Hence, the methodology is viewed as a somewhat‘blunt’ analytical tool which is capable of assessing local C.Z.M. policies on a community widebasis.5.6 SummaryModifying Rosentraub and Jessen et. a!. ‘s methodology by incorporating a logical andcomprehensive evaluative coastal zone issues framework has resulted in an improvedmethodology for evaluating local policies affecting the coastal zone. Regarded in the specificcontext of local level C.Z.M., the methodology has shown itself capable of producing acomprehensive, consistent and clear evaluation of local policy impact on a community-widebasis. However, the methodology presents certain limitations in providing definitive conclusionsfor evaluating local policies affecting the coastal zone.Page 129A review of Richmond’s O.C.P. Bylaw 4700 revealed a number of policies closelyrelated to the management of identified coastal zone issues. The C.Z.M. issues waterdependency and public input were not represented by policy in Richmond’s O.C.P. Theevaluation of existing (and absent) policies based on the criteria developed in this chapter ispresented in the following chapter.Page 130CHAPTER 6COASTAL POLICY EVALUATIONS: RIChMOND, B.C.6.1 IntroductionWhat follows is a presentation of the analysis results for the evaluation of coastal zonepolicies. For convenience, the results and discussion are presented concurrently for each coastalissue. This chapter commences with a discussion of general evaluative criteria and ends witha summary of key findings.6.2 General Evaluative Criteria: ResultsAn analysis of the nature and magnitude of Development Permit applications, timerequired to process applications, the status (completed, closed or pending) of DevelopmentPermit applications according to proposed use and the spatial location of Development Permitapplication was conducted in order to provide information on the overall scope and efficiencyof the land use regulation process in Richmond from 1988 to 1991.The municipality of Richmond received 249 Development Permit applications and 522rezoning applications from January, 1988 to December, 1991 (Refer to Table 6.1). The averagerate of completion (approval by council.jiçj Development Permit issued) for Development Permitapplications was 63.05 percent, slightly higher than the rate of completion for rezoningapplications which was 58.05 percent. Development Permit applications were closed (rejectedPage 131by council or withdrawn by applicant) at a more frequent rate than for rezoning (21.29 percentversus 32.18 percent). The balance of rezoning and Development Permit applications wereclassified as pending7since they were still involved in the application process. For much of thesubsequent analysis of landuse patterns and development pressure, files classified as pending areignored.TABLE 6.1Development Permit and Rezoning Applications in RichmondDevelopment Permits Rezoningyj NO. COMPLETE CLOSED PENDING NO. COMPLETE CLOSED PENDING1988 124 75.00% 23.39% 1.61% 248 63.31% 34.68% 2.02%1989 63 52.38% 30.16% 17.46% 141 50.35% 41.84% 7.8%1990 43 51.16% 11.63% 37.21% 57 57.89% 22.81% 19.30%1991 19 47.37% 0.0% 52.63% ‘ 76 55.26% 13.16% 31.58%TOTAL 249 63.05% 21.29% 15.66% j 522 58.05% 32.18% 9.77%Figure 6.1 is a graph of the total number of Development Permits and rezoningapplications processed by the Richmond Planning Department from 1988 to 1991. This graphshows a clear downward trend in the numbers of rezoning and Development Permit applications,although a modest rebound in the numbers of rezoning applications was observed for 1991.7Application files were considered pending even if they weregiven council approval but delayed issuance of final permits due tosubsequent conditions such as legal or financial complications.Page 132I C CAPPLICATIONS300250200150100 50 01988198919901991YEARDEVELOPMENTPERMITSREZONINGSNearly half (49.8 percent) of the total number of Development Permit applications werefor multiple residential uses. The next largest land use category was commercial accounting for31.3 percent of the total number of applications. Table 6.2 displays the calculated relativefrequencies for the various land use categories. The results presented in Table 6.2 also revealedthat Development Permit applications involved over 2,286,134 square metres (2.286 squarekilometres) of land. This amount represents approximately less than 1.5 percent of Richmondtotal land area of 168.1 square kilometres.TABLE 6.2Development Applications by Type and Land AreaPROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA m2 NUMBER PERCENTMultiple Residential 1,027,670.0 124 49.8Industrial 273,087.1 17 6.8Mixed- Commer./Indust. 1,748.0 1 0.4Mixed- Res./Recr. 52,079.0 1 0.4Public Utility 95.0 1 0.4TOTAL t 2,286,134.0 249 100t Area information was unavailable for 26 Development Permit Application files.Page 134The results of a comparison of the status of Development Permit applications (completed,closed or pending) are presented in Table 6.3. The results revealed a fairly clear pattern ofdecisions for Development Permit proposals. In general, Development Permits were completed(approved) at a rate three times more frequently than closed (rejected or withdrawn byapplicant). These results were consistent between proposed development types.TABLE 6.3Development Permit Application Completion Rate by TypePROPOSED COMPLETED CLOSED PENDINGDEVELOPMENT # (%) II (%) # (%)Multiple Residential 84 (67.74) 21 (16.94) 19 (15.32)Commercial 46 (58 97) 21 (26 92) 1 1 (14 11)Industrial 11 (64.71) 4 (23.53) 2 (11.76)Mixed- Comm IRes 6 (50 0) 3 (25 0) 3 (25 0)Mixed- Comm./Ind. 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)Mixed- Comm IRecr 1 (100 0) 0 (0 0) 0 (00)Mixed- Res./Recr. 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)Public Utifity 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)Other 5 (41 67) 3 (25 0) 4 (33 33)TOTAL 157 (63.05) 53 (21.29) 39 (15.66)The spacial location of development within the coastal zone was calculated on the basisof the minimum distance of the proposed development site to the Mean High Water MarkPage 135+4- C) CD C) C) p 0r H O—Vi©—::.—O:00C—00:00ViVi00CD C CD C O C p 0 C) C0’ C U’C- CDCD0app :.CCD 0CD-.LCDZCCDC\-+t%)dCD1.-iC-CD•cj CC) CDCDC)CD•,t-t•0.40•%0‘•D00I_4.-0CDI Vi00The results of a comparison of the status (completed, closed or pending) of DevelopmentPermit applications in relation to coastal zone location are presented in Figure 6.2. The resultsrevealed that applications occurring adjacent, within 100 metres and 100 to 250 metres from theM.H.W.M. had noticeably lower completion rates and noticeably higher closed rates comparedto the rate of Development Permit applications located at distances greater than 250 metres fromthe M.H.W.M.Page 13780 60 40PERCENTAdjacent<lOOml00-250m250-500m500-l000m>l000mDISTANCETOHIDETIDEMARK2000CompletedClosedPendingThe length of application processing time is summarized in Table 6.5. The overall meanfor Development Permits was calculated to be 50.67 weeks. Considerable variability wasobserved in the recorded maximums and minimums for application processing times. Notably,industrial Development Permit applications appeared to be processed on average in fifteen weeksless time than all other Development Permit applications. Pending applications represented 15.7percent of the total number of applications and were not included in the calculation of mean,maximum or minimum processing times.TABLE 6.5Length of Decision for Coastal Development ApplicationsMIXED- RES./REC. 114.0 114 114 0PUBLIC UTILiTY 31.0 31 31 0OTI-IER 35 75 85 3 4OVERALL MEAN 50.67 102.30 35.4 39DEVELOPMENT MEAN DECISION TIME MAXIMUM TIME MINIMUM TIME PENDINGTYPE (weeks) (weeks) (weeks) #MULTIPLE RESID. 49.67 154 2 19CCiEINDUSTRIAL 35.93 166 7 2:Ii’1 JCEt) $.::;:::;:::::::::::_::_:_:_:::36.:—:—MIXED- COMM./IND. 58.0 58 58 0Page 1396.2.1 General Evaluative Criteria: DiscussionThe four year survey of land use patterns in Richmond provided information necessaryto evaluate aspects of local participation in the multi layered management of coastal issues. Asindicated by Development Permit application records, multiple residential and commercialdevelopments are the prevalent land use proposals, both in terms of numbers of applications andin terms of land area. Certainly, the development pressures witnessed in the 1988 to 1991survey of Development Permit applications indicated no shifts away from Richmond’s residentialcharacter, however, the magnitude of commercial development pressure appears relativelyintense considering that 1.8 percent of Richmond is zoned for commercial uses (refer back tofigure 4.4). A continuation of this pattern of development may result in a particular set ofeffects on the biophysical, social and economic facets of Richmond’s coastal zone, some ofwhich may be undesirable. For example, the predominance of residential and commercialgrowth in Richmond will induce a relative shift in the composition and amount of municipalsewage entering coastal waters due to the fact that these two land uses generate large amountsof B.O.D. and faecal coliforms (Hall 1979; Swain 1982). The resulting impacts on land, waterquality and environmental quality may eventually lead to lost economic and recreationalopportunities.The absolute location of development proposals relative to the mean high water markindicated a relatively low level of development pressure on waterfront land. A large number ofDevelopment Permit proposals occurring within 100 metres of the M.H.W.M. appeared to beconcentrated in the Steveston area of Richmond (data not shown). Although it is not uncommonPage 140in coastal B.C. communities for there to be a low level of development pressure on waterfrontland (Hall, 1988), the situation observed in the Steveston area may be repeated in other areasalong the Richmond shoreline.Overall, Development Permit applications located within 250 metres of the M.H.W.M.experienced a lower ‘success rate’ compared to applications for development located furtherinland. The presence of the dyke, the designation of Richmond’s foreshore as EnvironmentallySensitive (Richmond, 1991) or intended for conservation (F.R.E.M.P. 1991) may havecontributed to a stricter development regulation for the foreshore. These aspects of land useregulation may explain the lower rate of success experienced by water front developmentproposals. The empirical evidence suggests that Richmond’s land use mechanisms such asE.S.A. designations may contribute to the protection of foreshore E.S.A.’s through a netreduction in the number of successful development applications.The analysis of processing time for Development Permit applications revealedconsiderable variations. All development proposal types experienced processing times far inexcess of the turnover time of nine to thirteen weeks as suggested by the Richmond PlanningDepartment (Richmond, no date). These long processing times are probably the result of thelarge number of applications received in 1988 would have undoubtably taxed the resources ofthe Richmond Planning Department. The data also revealed a number of very long processingtimes which may have skewed the mean processing times recorded in this analysis. The effectPage 141of these long processing times was offset by the presence of short processing times whichoccurred with a frequency similar to that of the long processing times.Interestingly, the fastest processing times were observed for industrial and ‘other’proposals which were processed approximately fifteen weeks sooner than all other DevelopmentPermit applications. Upon further investigation it was determined that these two categoriestended to locate close to E.S.A.’s, adjacent to the foreshore or outside the floodplain exemptboundary.6.3 Habitat Conservation: ResultsThe nature of development pressure on designated E.S.A. ‘s was carefully analyzed usinginformation available from Development Permit applications. The results presented in Table 6.6reveal that 29 of 249 (11.6 percent) Development Permit applications were located in E.S.A. ‘s.Further investigations revealed that commercial and industrial land uses accounted for themajority (62.1 percent) of the development pressures in E.S.A. ‘s. Moreover, at least half (52.9percent) of the total number of Development Permits considered as industrial uses were locatedwithin E.S.A.’s.Page 142c—.p_C)tn C-,>CDCDCD:C)Zq.CDC-,I-.CC)C-’CDCñ-,-‘•-•C-.<‘CDI,J‘C-EC--C-,CD-0a,-pt-C’,CDCDC-••.ç)CDN_,•tngp0•CD0Cø 0CtJ,CDCD-t0%E:-+-‘-C)Vi•1:;.0-0oIrdrmmmC-3rOr-3z-<—0—00ViC’—0—000%0%.I.0%••C’C’0-•CC--o00000NNP1’)0t’)L.)-)0000C——4tP C’..%O0.jC——000%—WCVi0—-.C’Vi0’7’P°°N‘900..Vi%0‘000--.—0C’CVi000L’3t’3.—•00000—-—WVi::L’.)‘0...%0d I CC I0 S. C (126.3.1 Habitat Conservation: Discussion and EvaluationTwo policies that Richmond has created to protect its natural environment involve the useof Development Permits to mitigate negative ecological impacts of development and acquisitionof threatened sensitive areas. The empirical evidence revealed two key findings regarding thenature of development pressure within E.S.A.’s and the rate of success for developmentproposals located within E.S.A.’s. The four year survey of development proposals revealed that11.7 percent of all development proposals were located wholly or partially within designatedE.S.A. ‘s. Of this 11.7 percent, industrial and commercial developments represented themajority of proposals located within E.S.A. ‘s. Industrial developments in particular stood outas being more likely to locate within E.S.A.’s, having more than half of the proposals in thatland use category located there. The observed tendency for industrial development proposed andto a lesser extent commercial and ‘other’ development proposals, to locate within E.S.A. iscause for concern given the generally accepted notion of incompatibility with industrial sites andnatural spaces (Canada 1978b).With recent adoption of Schedule B to Bylaw 5746 which protects E.S.A. ‘s (Richmond,1991), Richmond is faced with confronting a clear precedent with the preferred location ofindustrial development near environmentally sensitive areas. Schedule B to Bylaw 5746unfortunately takes effect after the time frame of the data collected for this analysis, thereforeit would be inappropriate to comment on the impact of this significant policy development.General guideline 3, to Schedule B, Bylaw 5746 states that:Page 145“Potentially polluting activities should be set back and buffered from naturalareas. Soil should be protected from pollution or spills including run offfrompavement.”(Richmond, 1991).The observed relationship between industrial uses and E.S.A.’s reinforces the need for a policyresponse such as Schedule B of Bylaw 5746. Further investigation is needed to determinewhether the policy (if properly enforced) is sufficient to protect natural areas from the magnitudeand type of development pressure as witnessed from 1988 to 1991.The value of including an analysis of completion rates for development applicationslocated inside and outside designated E.S.A. ‘s is two fold. Firstly, the comparison ofdevelopment application completion rates answers the question of whether or not E.S.A.’s posedany barrier to the development recorded on the survey period. The results indicate that therewere no significant differences between E.S.A. and non-E.S.A. development applications. Thisresult was somewhat unexpected as mitigative efforts - those described by existing policies wouldlikely entail additional costs to the developer, thereby increasing the chances of the proponentwithdrawing the development proposal. This comparison serves the secondary function ofproviding the necessary benchmark information to evaluate the impact of new environmentalprotection policies (such as Schedule B to Bylaw 5746) or the development industry. TheE.S.A. policies in effect between 1988 and 1991 in Richmond had no recorded impact ondevelopment based on the rate of approval of development permits. The effect on new E.S.A.policies and guidelines in Richmond may be monitored using this baseline information.Page 146Since the findings suggest that Development Permits and E.S.A. designations presentedfew if any obstacles to the observed development pressure in Richmond and that industrial usestend to locate adjacent to E.S.A. ‘s raises questions of the effectiveness of past policies regardingenvironmental protection.In late 1991, Richmond amended its current O.C.P. Bylaw 5400 with the adoption ofBylaw 5746 which seeks to prevent the gradual loss of productive and important habitat todevelopment through the general guideline of,“As far as is practicable, there should be no net loss of natural habitat whendevelopment occurs”.(Richmond 1991).This NO NET LOSS principle is similar to the D.F.O.’s guiding principle of habitatconservation which strives to balance unavoidable habitat loss with habitat replacement on aproject-by-project basis (Canada 1986). Criticisms of No Net Loss and remedial mitigation havebeen raised by Bella (1979:79) who contended that “natural ecosystems cannot simply bereplaced by a succession ofconstruction projects [remedial mitigation], even jf they are good”.Similarly, Brownlee’s (1992) analysis of the application of no-net-loss policy identified concernshaving to do with the complexity and length of negotiation required to reach agreement betweenthe development proponent and the conservation authorities. Regardless, the results of thisanalysis reveal that prior to the adoption of a NO NET LOSS policy, the existing habitatprotection policies were essentially ineffective as barriers to development in E.S.A.’s. WhilePage 147Bylaw 5746 has its limitations, it is an important step in the right direction (Jamieson, 1992).A future comparison of the effect of this new policy on land use patterns to the results generatedby this study may be an effective way of evaluating the effectiveness of Bylaw 5746.6.4 Water Quality: ResultsThe spatial location of development proposals within the coastal zone was calculated foreach land use category and the results presented in Table 6.7. The majority of DevelopmentPermit applications, 59.3 percent were observed to be located at least 1000 metres from theM.H.W.M. Commercial and industrial land use applications were the most frequent types ofwaterfront development, accounting for 68.0 percent of all proposals located adjacent or within100 metres of the M.H.W.M. Commercial proposals located adjacent to the M.H.W.M. wereobserved to be 7.9 percent of all commercial land use applications processed in the four yearsurvey period. The land use category ‘other’ also displayed an affinity for waterfront locationswith 16.7 percent of all development proposals within this category being located adjacent to theM.H.W.M. Industrial proposals were observed to have the greatest tendency to locate adjacentto the M.H.W.M. with 23.5 percent of all industrial Development Permit applications locatingthere.Page 148TABLE 6.7Development Type and Coastal Zone LocationCoastal Zone LocationDEVELOPMENT Adjacent to 100 to 250 to 500 to 1000 m orTYPE ADJACENT 100 m 250 m 500 m 1000 m more1• MULTIPLE RES 1 2 4 7 10 99INDUSTRIAL 4 2 2 1 2 6MIXED- COMM./IND. 0 0 0 0 0 1MIXED- RES./RECR. 0 0 0 0 0 1PUBLIC UTILITY 0 1 0 0 0 0::.:.:.:TOTAL 13 12 22 21 32 146t Missing locational information for one Development Permit Application in thiscategory.Missing locational information for two Development Permit Applications in thiscategory.Analysis of Development Permit applications revealed that industrial proposals locatedwithin 250 metres of the M.H.W.M. were rejected or withdrawn at rate of 25 percent (analysisnot presented). Although this rate of application closure is comparable to the average of 27.66Page 149percent observed for Development Permits located within 250 metres of the M.H.W.M. (referto Table 6.3).6.4.1 Water quality: Discussion and EvaluationAs mentioned in previous sections, the location of development proposal types is areflection of Richmond’s zoning patterns. However, the magnitude of development pressureis a function of social and economic conditions beyond the control of local government.Approximately one third of all commercial and one half of all industrial proposals located within250 metres of the M.H.W.M. The close proximity of industrial and commercial land uses tocoastal waters is problematic in terms of the introduction of ‘non-point’ pollutants into the water.In addition to providing a shorter distance for pollutants to travel to contaminate coastal waters,the development of the foreshore eliminates vegetated riparian zones which are a valuable assetin moderating the spread of pollutants via run-off and wind (Phillips 1989; Canada 1978b).In light of these findings, Richmond’s policy of discouraging water polluting industriesfrom locating along the estuary sloughs appears to be ineffective as the waterfront and municipalzoning continues to attract industrial development. The results do not provide information onthe exact nature of water pollution resulting from each proposed industrial use. Additionally,the evaluation of the policy must be viewed in light of the fact that it conflicts with Richmond’szoning bylaw and the F.R.E.M.P. Area Designation agreement which allocate much of thewaterfront to industrial uses. It is likely that elements of Richmond zoning bylaw arePage 150confounding the results making a fair evaluation of the water quality policy difficult. Therefore,the ineffectiveness of this policy is only ‘apparent’.In further examining the effectiveness of Richmond’s policy of discouraging waterpolluting industries from locating close to bodies of water, it is useful to reflect on the resultspresented in Figure 6.2 comparing rates of Development Permit application approval and denialwhich revealed generally showed lower approval rates for proposals located close to theM.H.W.M. Industrial Development Permit applications located along the waterfront experienceda slightly lower rate of rejection/withdrawal (closure) compared to average values for other landuse categories. Evidently, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that industry, pollutingor not, is being discouraged from locating along the estuary. In 1989, Richmond amended itszoning Bylaw which restricted heavy industry from locating along the waterfront. Anotherimportant aspect of this zoning bylaw amendment is that it prohibits open storage of industrialgoods. The analysis unfortunately, does not recognise the impact of this zoning bylawamendment.Although the water quality policy neglects to consider water polluting commercial uses,the results showed a significant level of commercial development pressure along the waterfront.A comparison with the foreshore Area Designations of the Richmond/F.R.E.M.P. agreementindicated that nine percent of the foreshore is intended for water related urban/commercialactivities. With commercial development proposals accounting for nearly half of the foreshoredevelopment pressure, the implications for coastal water quality should not be ignored. ThoughPage 151the overall toxicity of commercial non-point water pollution may be less than that from industrialsites, the public perception of poor water quality may be far greater due to the occurrence ofvisible pollution such as litter.The observed tendency for industrial development to locate close to Richmond’swaterfront and the apparent ineffectiveness of Richmond’s existing water quality protectionpolicy raises important questions concerning the long term suitability of the waterfront foractivities such as recreation and swimming. The Royal Commission on the Future of theToronto Waterfront concluded that, due to an aging population, pressure to develop thewaterfront’s large recreation potential will continue to increase (Reid et al. 1987). Preservinga suitable level (and public perception) of water quality will ensure that future demands uponthe coast are not forsaken.In 1991, Richmond adopted Bylaw 5746, amending its current Official Community Planwith special development guidelines for foreshore areas. These development guidelines areintended to complement the water quality policy which has been in existence since 1986 withlimited success. The guidelines protecting water quality reads:“Water quality and natural drainage systems should be protected by leavingstream banks intact and by not altering natural slopes and existing vegetation “.(Richmond 1991).andPage 152“Foreshore developments should dedicate or preserve a natural vegetated stripwithin the first 30m above the high water mark of the Fraser River and estualy,except where access is essential for water transportation or public use”(Richmond 1991).Unlike the water quality policy which was in place during the survey period of this analysis,these development guidelines are specific regulatory tools which may be more easily enforced.Unfortunately, the impact of these new development guidelines on water quality managementefforts may only be assessed through future studies.6.5 Coastal Hazards: ResultsThe tendency of Development Permit applications to be located outside the Flood PlainExemption boundary was calculated and the results presented in Table 6.8. The RichmondPlanning Department processed thirty-eight development proposals which were located outsideof the Flood Plain Exemption boundary. This represented 15.3 percent of all DevelopmentPermit applications. Commercial uses represented the single largest group of non-Flood PlainExempt land uses (34.2 percent). Although industrial land uses only accounted for 21.0 percentof non-Exempt development proposals (third most frequent after commercial and residential landuses), these proposals represented nearly half (47.1 percent) of the total number of industrialDevelopment Permit applications processed by Richmond between 1988 and 1991.Page 153TABLE 6.8Development Permit Applications and the Coastal Flood PlainFlood Plain ExemptCOMPLETE CLOSED PENDINGMultiple Res. 9 55.5% 11.1% 33.3% 115 68.7% 17.4% 13.9%Industrial 8 62.5% 25.0% 12.5% 9 66.7% 22.2% 11.1%Mixed-Comiullnd 0 0% 0% 0% 1 100.0% 0% 0%Mixed-ReslRecr 1 100.0% 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0%Recreation...... .:.:.:.:.:.. :.:.:... 2 .:.:.:.:50.0%:;:.:. ... .....50.0%..,............,..0%...............,.................Public Utility 0 0% 0% 0% 1 1 100.0% 0% 0%%:;:.:.:.:.::::::.::::TOTAL 38 60.5% 18.4% 21.1% 211 63.5% 21.8% 14.7%Figure 6.4 displays a comparison of the status (completed, closed or pending) ofDevelopment Permit applications inside and outside of exempt areas of the RichmondFloodplain. Development Permit applications were completed and closed with approximatelyequal probability regardless of location within or outside designated Flood Plain boundaries.DEVELOPMENTTYPEFloodNo. COMPLETEPlainCLOSED PENDING: No.Mixed-Comrn/Recr 1 100.0% 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0%Page 154PERCENT70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0COMPLETEDCLOSEDPENDINGDEVELOPMENTPERMITAPPLICATIONScMFLOODPLAINFLOODPLAINEXEMPT6.5.1 Coastal Hazards: Discussion and EvaluationThe type of development occurring outside the Floodplain Exempt Boundary over thefour year survey period was predominantly commercial and industrial in nature. The fact thatnearly half of all industrial development proposals located outside Floodplain exempt boundariessuggests that current zoning and land value patterns are attractive to this form of development.Although residential development has avoided development outside of floodplain exemptboundaries (7.8 percent of residential proposals occurred outside the floodplain exemptboundary) the risk in terms of property damage to industrial and commercial sites is no lesssevere. A recent analysis of remedial expenses incurred as a result of major floods throughoutBritish Columbia over a three year span form 1989 to 1991, has shown that the average dollaramount for commercial and industrial claims was 44.8 percent higher than private property(residential) claims (Pernu, 1992).Development within flood prone areas (outside the Flood Plain Exempt boundary) raisessome serious questions concerning the role of public agencies in the regulation hazard proneareas. The Federal Emergency Program (E.P.C.) and the Provincial Emergency Program(P.E.P.) are both committed to providing funding for remedial efforts, hence floodplaindevelopment is publicly subsidized (Pearson, 1972; Sharma, 1992; pers. comm). Althoughmeasures may be taken to mitigate some of the damage caused to structures through floodproofing techniques (F.E.M.A. 1987), damage to the public infrastructure associated withdevelopment such as roads and telecommunications is also high. For example, between 1989Page 156and 1991, major floods in the province have resulted in $38,478,511.00 in remedial expenses,of which 90.33 percent was directed to municipal and provincial government for repairs topublic infrastructure such as road repairs, bridge replacement and river bank stabilization (Pernu,1992). Past experience with the costs involved with flood damage should force municipalgovernments to consider carefully the logic of piecemeal development within flood prone areasfor such development necessitates the provision of infrastructure which has proven to be verycostly to repair following flooding. Even with the current system of dyking and discharge,Richmond is not considered floodproof (Richmond 1989). Thus, a continuation of gradualdevelopment in higher risk areas within Richmond (outside the Floodplain Exempt Boundary)may actually undermine perceptions of flood hazard and increase pressure to develop within thefloodplain.Unfortunately, a direct evaluation of Richmond’s policy of encouraging flood proofingin construction is not possible. However, the analysis yields important information concerninggeneral suitability of the policy as a means of protecting life and property from floods. Firstly,the analysis clearly demonstrates that areas outside floodplain exemption boundaries are subjectto significant development pressure and that these development proposals are approved at ratessimilar to proposals within exempt areas. Secondly, the predominance of industrial andcommercial development means potentially higher economic damages (compared to residentialuses) if a major flood event occurs. As a preventative measure, Richmond flood policies arenot a very effective tool, especially given the nature of development pressures already occurringin higher flood risk areas of Richmond.Page 1576.6 Public Access & Aesthetics: ResultsProvision of public access to the waterfront was observed to occur in development siteplans at a rate of 38.46 percent (see Table 6.9). For completed Development Permitapplications, only half contained public waterfront access. Industrial development proposalswere noted for failing to include a public access path to the waterfront in any of the proposalplans.TABLE 6.9Public Waterfront Access and Development TypesDEVELOPMENT ACCESS ACCESS NOT tNOTTYPE PROVIDED PROVIDED APPLICABLEMULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 1 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (50.0%)INDUSTRIAL 0 (0.0%) 3 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%)TOTAL 5 (38.46%) 5 (38.46%) 3 (23.08%)t Development Permits that were either Closed or still Pending Completion wereclassified as Not Applicable for the purpose of this analysis.Table 6.10 displays the results of an analysis of the requirement for site landscaping.The overall number of developments not requiring site landscaping was observed to be quite lowat 3.66 percent. The results also revealed a clear trend in less site landscaping for developmentsPage 158located closer to the waterfront. The highest rate for no landscape requirement was observedfor development proposals which were located adjacent to the M.H.W.M.TABLE 6.10Landscape Requirements for Development Permit Applicationst DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE NO LANDSCAPE NOTLOCATION REQUIREMENT % REQUIREMENT % APPLICABLE %ADJACENT 46.15 15.38 38.4658.33100 to 250m 59.09 13.64 27.27500 to 1000 m 59.38 0 40.63AVERAGE 69.51 % 3.66 % 26.83 %t Location information missing for three Development Permit Applications.6.6.1 Public Access & Aesthetics: Discussion and EvaluationThe results reveal that industrial foreshore development was the main contributor to alowered incidence of public waterfront access. One possible explanation for this finding involvesthe issue of public safety if a public access corridor were provided through a potentiallydangerous industrial site. However, public safety should not be perceived as intrinsicallyincompatible with public access for such corridors may be designed with issues of safety inmind. In fact, waterfront industrial sites such as harbours often function as recreation magnets,drawing curious onlookers to the waterfront (F.R.E.M.P. 1990; Hotson 1988). RichmondPage 159should endeavour to capitalize upon this phenomena by maximizing public access to its dynamicwaterfront.Public access to the waterfront was observed only half of the approved DevelopmentPermit applications. This amount of access seems far below what authors such as Hotson (1988)and Kerr et a!. (1981) have implied as adequate for a community. Both sources concluded thatmaximization of water front access was a necessary step towards realising all waterfrontopportunities. Since the range of passive recreation opportunities found along the waterfront ishigher than those found elsewhere within a community (F.R.E.M.P. 1990), a continuation ofwaterfront development which fails to provide adequate public access may eliminate a numberof recreation opportunities.Evaluating Richmond’s existing policies (refer to Section 5.3.1) revealed that only fiftypercent of Development Permit proposals contained public waterfront access in site plans forIn spite of a small sample size, the findings suggest that these two policies have not beenespecially effective; particularly in the case of industrial proposals. Bylaw 5746 amended toRichmond’s current O.C.P. (Bylaw 5400) attempts to add some ‘regulatory teeth’ to the policyof supporting the Richmond Trails Plan and promoting a safe pedestrian environment which haveoperated with little real success since 1986. The design guideline in Bylaw 5746 ensuring publicaccess to the waterfront is perhaps the clear legislation needed to make the two O.C.P. policiesfunction properly. The question of the performance of public access policies should also bePage 160revisited in the future to determine if the regulations contained with Bylaw 5746 are effectivefrom the perspective of this C.Z.M. issue.Landscape requirements for development proposals revealed a clear association of fewerlandscape requirements for development within 250 metres of M.H.W.M. Industhal proposals(analysis not included) constituted the majority of proposals not requiring the minimum level ofaesthetic attention as provided by site landscaping. This pattern of landscaping requirement isperhaps a visual indication of the phenomenon of a community which has lost its intimacy withthe waterfront (Hall 1988).Richmond’s policy of maintaining significant views is at a minimum, served by imposingminimum standards for site landscaping. Observing that less than one percent of developmentproposals located further than 500 metres from the M.H.W.M. contained no landscapingrequirements, begs the question why over 15 percent of foreshore development within 500metres of the M.H.W.M. had no landscaping requirements? The overall effectiveness ofRichmond’s view maintenance policy (in terms of landscaping only) is exemplary. However,the findings indicate a less favourable outcome for areas closer to the waterfront. A consistentapplication of site landscaping would render Richmond’s overall view maintenance policy moreeffective and strengthen its role in coastal zone aesthetics.Page 1616.7 Public Input: ResultsPublic involvement as indicated by the recorded occurrence of public hearings orDevelopment Permit Panels (DP.P. ‘s) within Development Permit application files wasmeasured and the results presented in Table 6.11. All but two Development Permit applications(0.8 percent) were subject to some form of public review. A significant portion of DevelopmentPermit files (43 of 249) are recorded as missing observations due to a recording error.Observations appearing as not applicable (N/A) in Table 6.11 correspond to Development Permitapplications that were closed before a public hearing or Development Permit Panel wasarranged. Of the 134 completed, 15 closed and 24 pending Development Permit applicationsrecorded, 98.9 percent were reviewed by the public through either public hearings orDevelopment Permit Panels.6.7.1 Public Input: Discussion and EvaluationIn the absence of a clear policy concerning the issue of public involvement in local landuse regulation in the coastal zone, a policy evaluation is not possible. Instead a descriptiveassessment of the current condition of public input into coastal land use decisions is presentedwith a view to identifying needs (if any) for a local policy response in Richmond.Page 162TABLE 6.11Public Involvement in Development Permit ApplicationsPROPOSED tPUBLIC NO PUBLIC N/A MISSINGDEVELOPMENT INPUT INPUT OBSERVATION(S)Multiple Residential 89 0 11 24Comniercia1...... .....:Industrial 11 0 4 2Mixed- Comm.IInd. 1 0 0 0Mixed- Res./Recr. 1 0 0 0Recreation 1 1Public Utility 1 0 0 0Other .. . . :.: . . 0TOTAL 173 2 31 43tPublic Input includes Public Hearings and/or Development Permit Panels (D.P.P.).The foregoing analysis of public involvement in the Development Permit applicationreview process indicated a very high rate of occurrence of public input. However, the high rateof public involvement says little of the meaningfulness of this involvement in land use decisions(represented by Development Permits). According to Arnstein (1969), public participation canhave no effect on the decision if it serves only to inform or consult, for the public cannotmonitor the effect of its advice on the decision. For Arnstein, participation must involve thesharing of power in the decision-making process. The current approach to public participationPage 163through special committees (in Richmond, Development Permit Panels) or public hearings isrepresentative of what Parenteau (1988) described as an administrative response to the public’sexpectations in participation. As such, Richmond’s public involvement approach probably fallsshort of what Arnstein considers as indicative of citizen power in her ‘ladder of citizenparticipation’.Public participation is generally distinguished from the planning stage and orientedtowards the decision-malcing stage (Parenteau 1988). Similarly in Richmond’s approach topublic involvement in decision concerning the coastal zone, all of the focus seems to favour thefinal decisions. If the point of public participation is simply to enlighten the final decision-makerthen the public must place considerable faith in a select few (namely planners and municipalcouncil) to competently address community interests in the planning stage. In a 1984 article,Reed commented that there is considerable mistrust and dissatisfaction with government’s abilityto respond to the public’s needs. Many would argue that Canadian’s mistrust of government hasintensified since 1984.The findings revealed a consistent level of public involvement for Development Permitfiles. This suggests, at least superficially, that an adequate method of including public valuesis built into the land use regulation process for Richmond. The methodology, however, isincapable of addressing the more important question of how meaningful the public input(facilitated by Development Permit Panels) is for each development proposal occurringthroughout Richmond’s coastal zone.Page 1646.8 Water Dependency: ResultsTo facilitate a complete analysis of foreshore land use patterns and water dependentactivities, development proposals were classified as one of either water dependent, water relatedor water independent categories. The classification of uses is based on the criteria anddefinitions contained within section 3.7 and Table 3.3. The necessary information was obtainedfrom the Development Permit application files and business licences which provided a detaileddescription of the commercial nature of the development.Table 6.12 displays the results of an analysis of water dependency for DevelopmentPermit applications processed by Richmond from 1988 to 1991. The results indicate that thevast majority (94.76 percent) of development proposals are represented by the water independentcategory. The remainder of development proposals were either considered water dependent(2.01 percent) or water related (3.23 percent). Water dependent Development Permit applicationaccounted for 16.67 percent of all ‘other’ land use proposals. The majority (62.5 percent) ofdevelopment proposals classified as water related were commercial uses.A closer examination of water dependency and foreshore coastal showed that 62.86percent of all development proposals located within 200 metres of the M.H.W.M. wereclassified as water independent (Figure 6.5). The results presented in Table 6.13 reveal that30.77 percent of development proposals located adjacent to the M.H.W.M. were classified aswater dependent. Water related uses also represented 30.77 percent of the development proposallocated adjacent to the M.H.W.M.Page 165TABLE 6.12Water Dependency and Development TypeDEVELOPMENTTYPEWATER DEPENDENTDEV. PERMITSWATER RELATEDDEV. PERMITSWATER INDEPENDENTDEV. PERMITSMULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 121 (98.37%)MIXED- COMM.IIND. 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%)MIXED- RES.IREC. 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%)PUBLIC uriiiry 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%)TOTAL 5 (2.01%) 8 (3.23%) 235 (94.76%)t Missing one observation in the Multiple Residential category.TABLE 6.13Water Dependency and Coastal Zone LocationDISTANCE TOifiGH TIDE MARKWATER DEPENDENTAPPLICATIONSWATER RELATED WATER INDEPENDENTAPPLICATIONS APPLICATIONSADJACENT 4 (30.77%) 4 (30.77%) 5 (38.46%)TOTAL 5 (14.29%) 8 (22.86%) 22 (62 .86%)Page 166WATERINDEPENDENT63%WATERDEPENDENT14%uI0WATERRELATED23%PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENTS6.8.1 Water Dependency: Discussion and EvaluationThe results presented in Figure 6.5 revealed a fairly obvious pattern of non-dependentwaterfront development proposals located within 200 metres of the M.H.W.M. Marinas,waterfront restaurants and marine related manufacturing and repair are some of the activitiesrepresented by the 14 percent of proposals classified as ‘water dependent’ (data not presented).Ketchum (1972) stated that an ‘assigning of priority’ should be granted to uses that depend onsome biophysical, socio-cultural or economic attribute of the coastal zone. The observation thatthe largest proportion of proposals located adjacent to the M.H.W.M. are water independent usesraises the question about appropriateness of waterfront land allocation patterns within Richmond.The total number of development proposals classified as water dependent and waterrelated was lower than initially expected of a municipality totally surrounded by water. Onlythirteen of two hundred and forty-nine (5.2 percent) development proposals were considered aseither water related or water dependent. This may help explain why the issue of waterdependency for foreshore uses has attracted little policy attention from Richmond. Theopportunity for future water related and water dependent projects such as recreation or housingwill be constrained by existing and proposed water independent industrial, agricultural andtransportation uses (Richmond 1986). The potential for conflict between water dependant andwater independent uses is no doubt certain if observed patterns in foreshore land use continuein Richmond.Page 168In the absence of a clear policy recognizing the necessity of balancing water dependent/related foreshore land uses with other uses, the finding should be regarded as a description offoreshore land use demand and a prediction of possible conflict in the future. A continuationof observed foreshore land use patterns in Richmond suggests the need for proactive policiesregarding water dependency.The issue of water dependency has emerged as a double-edged sword in many coastalcommunities, particularly where aesthetics, public access and environmental quality is concerned(Whidden and Carr 1988). A mixed-use concept to waterfront development combined with aconcomitant acknowledgement of the importance of the other six coastal issues should providethe basic formula for balancing coastal demands.6.9 Interjurisdictional Coordination: ResultsInterjurisdictional involvement was found to occur in 8.43 percent of Development Permitapplications (see Table 6.14). The Inspector of Dykes and Water Management Branch, bothagencies of the provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (M.O.E.L.P.), were eachinvolved in 1.606 percent of Development Permit applications. The M.O.E.L.P. was the mostinvolved provincial ministry, involved in 11 (4.42 percent) of 249 Development Permitapplications processed by Richmond between 1988 and 1991.Page 169TABLE 6.14Agencies Involved in Reviewing Development Permit ApplicationsAGENCY NUMBERTownship of RichmondWater Management, M.O.E.L.P. 4 1.606Ministry of Transportation and Highways 3 1 205Water Management, M.O.E.L.P. 3 1.205Liquor Control Board, M 0 L C S 2 0 803F.R.E.M.P. 2 0.8036.9.1 Interjurisdictional Coordination: Discussion and EvaluationThe measurement of the occurrence of direct involvement with other agencies during theprocessing of Development Permit applications revealed a surprisingly low involvement rate of8.43 percent. The low rate of outside contact observed in this analysis is misleading as muchPERCENTFraser River Harbour CommissionVancouver International Airport 1 0.402New Westminster 1 0.402Agricultural Land Commission 1 0.402Total 21 8.43Page 170of the contact with the F.R.E.M.P. is not recorded in Development Permit application files(Jamieson 1994, Pers. Comm.). Contact with the F.R.E.M.P. is only in cases wheredevelopment affects land seaward from the dyke crest. The results produced by this analysisreveal the incidence of outside agency contact for Development Permit application landward ofthe dyke crest.Richmond policy of supporting F.R.E.M.P. constitutes a clear commitment to pursue anefficient and effective relationship (coordination) with other agencies since the purpose of theF.R.E.M.P. is to “work toward common goals and objectives” on an estuary wide basis(Kennett and McPhee 1988). The findings suggest that at the level of land use regulationthrough Development Permits, the magnitude of coordination with other agencies is very small.The results may be accepted as empirical proof of what Dorcey referred to as the ‘myth ofinteragency cooperation’ in resource management (Dorcey 1987). The low rate of contact withoutside agencies, especially the F.R.E.M.P., for Development Permit proposals affectingE.S.A. ‘s landward from the dykes indicates that the interjurisdictional coordination ends at thedyke. Given the low rate of interagency cooperation for development landward from the dyke,Richmond’s policy of supporting the F.R.E.M.P. does not appear to be implemented on anestuary wide basis.A great deal of emphasis is placed on expanding the amount of agency coordination asa means to effectively implement policies in the coastal zone’s complex jurisdictionalenvironment (Jacobs and Williams, 1982). Although analysis revealed a low rate of inter-agencyPage 171contact in Richmond Development Permit application files, the methodology provides no insightsinto whether the observed levels of contact are actually adequate or why the levels of interagencycontact are so low to begin with. Furthermore, one must accept certain limitations in equatingthe review of Development Permit Applications with bonafide interjurisdictional coordination.One possible explanation for the infrequency of interagency contact is that Richmond ‘filters’the Development Permit applications, forwarding certain proposals warranting extra attentionto the appropriate outside agencies. The main criticism with this approach is that the leadagency (in this particular case, the Richmond Planning Department) determines unilaterally whothe stakeholders are. Perhaps a more desirable alternative for determining when Richmondsolicits input from other government agencies, particularly through F.R.E.M.P., would involvethe establishment of clear guidelines a priori in conjunction with key external agencies.6.10 Conmients on the Data UsedEvery reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the analysis provided.However, it is possible that errors have been introduced into the data through incorrect datarecording or entry on the part of the author. In addition, the nature of data was such that incertain instances, discussion of the results was not attempted due to the infrequency ofobservations (small sample size) where there were less than five observations per variable.Statistical analysis of variance as a test of significance for the results was not attempted due tothe presence of small sample sizes.Page 1726.11 SummaryThe four year survey of Development Permit applications and rezoning produced some•noteworthy findings concerning land use regulation and the evaluation of policy performance inRichmond’s coastal zone. The highlights of the analysis are summarized in Table 6.15.IssueHabitat ConservationKey FindingsApproximately one out of ten D.P. ‘s were located in anE.S.A.No difference in completion rates for D.P. ‘s located in anE.S.A.Industrial development most likely to locate in E.S.A.’s.Approximately one out of seven D.P. ‘s was located outsidefloodplain exemption boundaries.No difference in rate of completion for D.P. proposals.Industrial and commercial uses most likely to locate outsidefloodplain exempt areas.TABLE 6.15Summary of ResultsNatural HazardsWater Quality Relatively little development pressure close to waterfront butindustrial uses more common on waterfrOnt.Interjurisdictional Coordination with other coastal zone regulatory agencies wasCoordination infrequent.General Evaluative Residentnl and Commercial development were thei iteria predominant aspects of the development pressureApplication processing time found to be lengthy, averagingabout fifty weeksPage 173The analysis of Development Permit application files permitted an evaluation of specificpolicies created by Richmond to address certain issues or problems present within thecommunity. It was discovered that many of the issues represented by statements of objectiveor policy within Richmond’s Official Community Plan corresponded directly to issues describedin C.Z.M. literature, most notably C.C.R.E.M. (1978) and Gamble (1989). The summary offindings for the policy evaluations is presented in Table 6.16.Page 174TABLE 6.16Sununary of Policy Evaluation FindingsC.Z.M. issueHabitatConservationLocal Policy (Abridged)Acquire threatenedsensitive areas.Use D.P. ‘s to mitigatenegative environmentalimpacts.Policy EvaluationAcquisition policy effectiveness waslimited by its abilities to offset high rate ofdevelopment.Effectiveness of policy was limited by lackof specific development controls.Policy has low effectiveness as it is unableto address magnitude of floodplaindevelopment.Public Access Promote a pedestrian Moderate effectiveness as public access toenvironment & support waterfront observed for half the proposalsRichmond Trails PlanAesthetics High effectiveness but landscapeMaintain significant views requirements less frequent forform waterfront developments closer to M H W MPublic Input N/A High rate of public contribution. Policyresponse not recommended.Water N/A Majority of foreshore development notDependency water dependent. Policy response isrecommended.Interjuris- Support the F.R.E.M.P. Limited policy effectiveness landward ofdictional dyke.CoordinationInterjurisdictional Coordination, coastal hazards and habitat conservation are the threeareas of C.Z.M. where Richmond’s policies appear to be the least effective. In addition,analysis conducted on water dependency and foreshore development pressure suggest a possiblefuture need for a specific policy to address the issue of water dependent foreshore land uses.Coastal Encourage flood-proofingHazards for development outsideFloodplain Exempt areas.Page 175Richmond’s policies concerning the coastal zone issues of public access and waterquality, raised some questions given the moderate performance of these policies. The findingsindicate that local policies addressing aesthetics and public input were highly effective. In theinstance of aesthetics it was concluded that a stricter enforcement of landscape requirements wasneeded to make the overall performance of the policy more consistent throughout Richmond’scoastal uplands.Conclusions based on the analysis presented in this chapter, policy recommendations andopportunities for further research will be discussed in the following chapter.Page 176CHAPTER 7CONCLUSIONS7.1 Summary of the FindingsA review of the British Columbia Municipal Act revealed that a considerable amount ofregulatory authority relevant to C.Z.M. has been delegated to local governments. The BritishColumbia Municipal Act provides local governments with regulatory authority for all but oneof the seven coastal zone management issues identified in the thesis. The B.C. Municipal Actis vague regarding when and where interjurisdictional involvement is required or recommended.Official Community Plan bylaws, Zoning bylaws and Development Permits were identified assome of the most useful regulatory devices available to local governments for the purposes ofmanaging the shoreland and upland segments of the coastal zone.The foregoing evaluation of Richmond’s policy contribution to the management of thecoastal zone was based on a land use survey methodology similar to that of Rosentraub (1975)and Jessen et al. (1983). The results observed in development patterns and land use decisionsdemonstrated that most of Richmond’s policies which were intended to address certain coastalissues have had little measurable effect on the status quo of development. The relativeperformance of Richmond policies affecting C.Z.M. is important since it is assumed that thesepolicies have guided development and have been essential components of two OfficialCommunity Plans (Bylaw 4700 and 5400). The findings also suggest that from the point of viewPage 177of C.Z.M. in Richmond, land use regulation has favoured development probably at the expenseof environmentally sensitive habitat and water quality.The results of this study also revealed some successful aspects of Richmond’s efforts inC.Z.M. Richmond’s coastal aesthetics policy appears to have operated effectively overalldespite a noticeable drop in the occurrence of landscaping requirements for developments locatedclosest to the foreshore. The analysis of public input for Development Permit proposals revealeda consistent level of public input through Development Permit Panels. For this C.Z.M. issue,it appears that local governments are far more likely to involve the community in day to daydecision versus their provincial and federal counterparts.Richmond’s overall policy performance in addressing each of the seven coastal zoneissues of this evaluation may be far from exemplary but this may be largely due to the overallunfamiliarity with C.Z.M. at the local level of government. If anything, this research hasaccomplished its primary objective by simply describing C.Z.M. in terms of a responsibilitywhich faces many municipalities in British Columbia.At the end of the time frame of this analysis, Richmond adopted a Bylaw (5746)amending its current Official Community Plan (Bylaw 5400). Within this bylaw are a numberof specific regulatory guidelines and development requirements which have the potential ofimproving the performance of the policies evaluated in this thesis. As the findings suggest, priorPage 178to the adoption of Bylaw 5746, Richmond policies appeared to have little effect on the overallmanagement of the coastal zone.7.2 Policy RecommendationsOne of the strengths of the evaluative methodology employed in this study is that it iscomprehensive and it subdivides its analysis on the basis of C.Z.M. issues. Thus, a number ofrecommendations may be suggested to improve the local management of coastal issues whichhave not been adequately addressed by existing policies in Richmond.The evaluation of Richmond’s C.Z.M. policies and the recommendations suggested toimprove the management of the coastal zone may be of interest to other local governmentssharing similar coastal zone concerns. The evaluation of an array of policies affecting thecoastal zone may demonstrate the general effectiveness of such policies to other localgovernments. As the findings suggest, the overall effectiveness of policies contained withinRichmond’s Official Community Plan (Bylaw 4700) have serious limitations when there are nospecific regulatory requirements to enforce the intentions of the policy.First and foremost of the recommendations suggested to improve Richmond’s role inC.Z.M. is a policy recognition of Richmond’s role and responsibility in C.Z.M. The recentlyadopted Bylaw 5746 amendment to Richmond’s Official Community Plan specifies designregulation for foreshore developments. As it stands, Bylaw 5746 comes close to recognisingRichmond’s role in C.Z.M. Bylaw 5746 should go one step further in recognizing that thePage 179community is located within the coastal zone (as defined in this thesis) and that protection ofRichmond’s natural environment necessitates a positive local contribution to C.Z.M.Steps to improve Richmond’s policy performance in the field of habitat conservation havebeen taken with the adoption of Bylaw 5746 which includes guidelines regulating developmentin E.S.A. ‘s. This Bylaw certainly enhances the potential of the policy to mitigate the negativeimpacts of development on the environment. The findings of this study suggest that E.S.A. ‘sare experiencing a significant amount of development pressure from industrial proposals. A reexamination of current zoning in E.S.A. ‘s is recommended as another way of avoidingenvironmental damages and costly mitigative measures for incompatible uses.In order to protect coastal water quality, Richmond must improve the performance of itspolicy of discouraging water polluting industrial uses from locating close to the waterfront.Mitigative measures such as those contained within Bylaw 5746 may indirectly function as a‘discouragement’ to potential development, but as with the protection of E.S.A.’s, a revision ofcurrent zoning patterns to ensure that incompatible uses are avoided might be preferable to theexpensive mitigative approach.The results identified the need for expanding interjurisdictional contact, particularly fordevelopment proposals affecting E.S.A.’s and outside floodplain exemption boundaries. It isrecommended that all Development Permit applications located within E.S.A.’s and outsidefloodplain exempt boundaries be circulated to F.R.E.M.P. or other agencies such as M.O.E.L.P.Page 180The results revealed that the provision of public waterfront access in industrialDevelopment Permits was non-existent, thus a stronger and more effective policy response isnecessary. The measures taken by Bylaw 5746 requiring all foreshore development proposalsto provide public waterfront access appear to be an adequate policy response.The magnitude of floodplain development suggests that a highly effective policy ensuringthat all development in floodplain exempt areas is built to floodproof standards. Therequirements of floodproof construction standards imposed on all developments located insidethe Floodplain Exemption Boundary should be extended to encompass all developments.The analysis of water dependency and foreshore land use in Richmond pointed to theneed for a clear policy recognizing the importance of allocating a sufficient supply of foreshoreland for water dependent and water related uses. The effectiveness of such a policy might beenhanced through the creation of a foreshore zoning category that recognizes water dependencyas a requisite attribute.These policy recommendations, in conjunction with the newly adopted Bylaw 5746 couldvastly improve Richmond’s policies affecting the overall management of coastal zone. A criticalstep is the recognition that the local level of government is fully capable of assuming a proactiverole in C.Z.M. through its authority in land use regulation.Page 1817.3 Directions for Further ResearchThe case study of Richmond, British columbia provided an empirically based evaluationof existing policies affecting the management of various issues within the coastal zone. InDecember of 1991, at the end of the review of data used in this study, the Township ofRichmond amended its Official Community Plan with Bylaw 5746. It is anticipated that thedevelopment guidelines contained within this bylaw will have a positive impact on theperformance of the policies evaluated in this thesis as well as on the overall management of thecoastal zone. The logical next step would be to employ the methodology developed in this thesisto assess the effect of the new guidelines in Bylaw 5746 based on a four year survey ofDevelopment Permit Applications (from 1992 to 1996 for example). The result of the futureanalysis could be compared to the results produced in this study to yield an evaluation of policyperformance in Richmond. It will be interesting to see if the Bylaw 5746 amendments aresufficient to uphold the intent of the O.C.P. policies, especially given the observed magnitudeof development pressure.As an evaluative instrument, the methodology appeared to be fairly blunt. Although itwas able to address a wide breadth of C.Z.M. issues in sufficient detail, the methodologyfrequently failed to provide insight into the reasons why a given policy fell short of the desiredregulatory effect. Factors such as a lack of specific regulatory requirements or an inconsistentenforcement of policy principles may also be affecting the results. The ‘resolution’ of thismethodology could be further enhanced simply by increasing the number of criteria used in theanalysis. Other options for further research include expanding the list of coastal managementPage 182issues to include such factors as land use economics or political influences. The seven coastalzone issues developed in this thesis could be also examined using a detailed analysis of a singlecoastal zone development as demonstrated by Brownlee’s (1992) study of Bridgepoint Marketin Richmond, B.C.7.4 Final CommentsThroughout this study, the character of the coastal zone has been portrayed in thelanguage of Rachel Carson as the meeting place of the elements and people. This thesis alsoconsidered the coastal zone as a diverse and bountiful living system characterized bycompromise, conflict and eternal change. It is within this reality that people assume theresponsibility of stewardship for the coast’s resources. Perhaps at the forefront of thecompromise, conflict and eternal change are local governments who must make decisions on aday-to-day basis concerning the use of a major segment of the coastal zone: land. Themagnitude of local responsibility in the management of the coast is further underlined by thecomplexity and severity of land use impacts throughout a coastal zone unfettered by politicalboundaries.The municipality of Richmond exemplifies many of the problems that exist in the coastalzone. The challenge facing Richmond is to seek ways to resolve conflicts arising from the urbanuse of the coastal zone. Mirroring the characteristics of the coastal zone, local managementefforts are full of compromise, conflict and change. A sense of urgency is felt becausePage 183Richmond must resolve the conflicts that exist between biophysical, socio-political and economicconcerns with a limited land area currently subject to intense development pressures.Richmond’s coat-of-arms is graced by the words Child of the Fraser. A recognition ofresponsibilities in its role as manager of the coastal zone and the adoption of appropriate C.Z.M.policies will insure that Richmond, as a Child of the Fraser, will mature properly.Page 184REFERENCES CITEDArnstein, S.R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the AmericanInstitute of Planners. July: 2 16-224.Barker, M.L. 1974. “Water Resources and Related Land Uses: Strait of Georgia-Puget SoundBasin”. Ottawa. Department of the Environment, Lands Directorate. Geographical PaperNo.65.Barton, K. 1978. “The Other Water Pollution.” Environment. 20:12-20.Bauer, W. 1978. “The Geohydraulic System as a Basis for Shore Management.” paper presentedat the Shore Zone Symposium, Victoria, B.C.: Oct. 4-5, 1978.Beanlands, G.E. 1983. “Land Use Pressures on Coastal Estuaries in Atlantic Canada.” CoastalZone Management Journal, Vol. 11, Nos 1-2: 117-132.Begon, M., J. L. Harper and C. R. Townsend. (eds.). 1986. Ecology: Individuals. Populations.and communities. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Bella, D. 1979. “Marsh Creation and Restoration- A New Horizon for Necessary EstuarineActivities?” Conference Proceeding of Coastal Zone Management Today and Tomorrowheld at Gleneden Beach, Ore. Vol. 4, pp.77-9.Biggs, W.G. and R. Hepda. 1976. “Discover Burns Bog-Delta, British Columbia.” Vancouver,B.C.: The University of British Columbia, Department of Botany.Blunden, R. H. 1975. The Urban Geology of Richmond. British Columbia. Vancouver, B. C.:University of British Columbia, Geological Sciences Department.Boyd, W. M. 1985. “Coastal Regulation: Assuring Access to California’s Coast” in Petrillo, 3.E. and P. Grenell, (eds.). 1985. The Urban Edge: Where the City Meets the Sea. LosAltos: William Kaufmann Inc.Page 185British Columbia. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1991a. “Sustainable Landand Water Use.”British Columbia. Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, Planning and StatisticsDivision. 199 lb. “Population Extrapolation for Organizational Planning with Less Error(P.E.O.P.L.E.).” Victoria, B.C.British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Ministry of Municipal Affairs.1987a. “Local Government Planning for Coastal Finfish Aquaculture and Development”Victoria.British Columbia. Ministry of Environment and Parks. Water Management Branch. 198Th.“Coastal Environment and Coastal Construction: Elevations and Setbacks for Flood andErosion Prone Areas.” by B. J. Holden. Victoria, B. C.: unpublished.British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, 1980. “Forest and Range Resource Analysis Report.”Victoria, British Columbia: Information Services Branch.British Columbia. 1979. Municipal Act. R.S.B.C. Chapter 290.Brouwer, F. 1987. Integrated Environmental Modelling: Design and Tools. InternationalInstitute for Applied Systems Analysis. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus NijhoffPublishers.Brower, D. J. and D. S. Carol. 1984. Coastal Zone Management as Land Use Planning.Washington, D.C.: The National Planning Association.Brownlee, D.C. 1994. Interview with the author, March 18, 1994.Brownlee, D.C. 1992. “Bridgepoint Market: An Application Of No Net Loss.” Vancouver,B.C.: University of British Columbia. Unpublished Master’s thesis.Page 186Butler, R. W. and R. W. Campbell. 1987. “The Birds of the Fraser River Delta: Populations,Ecology and International Significance.” Ottawa, Ont.: Canadian Wildlife ServicesOccasional Paper No. 65.Butler, R. W.; A. Breault; T. M. Sullivan and D. L. Dunbar. 1990. “Population Estimates andSeasonal Distribution of Birds Around Boundary Bay, British Columbia.: Delta, B.C.:Canadian Wildlife Services.Campbell River. 1991. “Campbell River’s Official Community Plan.” Bylaw No. 1915.Canada. Environment Canada, Flood Damage Reduction Program. 1991. “Floodplain MappingProgram: An Essential Step for Reducing Flood Damage.” Victoria, B.C: QueensPrinters.Canada. Agriculture Canada, Emergency Management Division. 1990a. “A Review of the AgriFood System in British Columbia and the Evaluation of the Emergency ResponseCapability.” Report prepared by View West Marketing, Victoria, B.C.Canada. Public Review Panel on Tanker Safety and Marine Spills Response Capability 1990b.“Protecting Our Waters.”Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fish Habitat Management Branch. 1986. “Policyfor the Management of Fish Habitat.” Ottawa, Ont.Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1985a. “Proposed Policy and Procedures for FishHabitat Management”. Ottawa.Canada. Statistics Canada, Surface and Marine Transport Section. 1985b. Coastwise ShippingStatistics: 1985. Minister of Supply and Services: Ottawa, Ont.Canada. Department of Environment. 1982 “The Development of a DOE Strategy for ShoreZone Planning” Discussion Paper. Dartmouth.Page 187Canada. Fisheries and Environment, Working Group on West Coast deepwater Oil Ports,1978a. “Potential Pacific Coast Oil Ports: A comparative Environmental RiskAnalysis.” Vancouver, B.C.Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Habitat Protection Division. 1978b. “Guidelinesfor Land Development and Protection of the Aquatic Environment.” Vancouver, B.C.:Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report No. 807.Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers (C.C.R.E.M.). 1978. “ShoreManagement Symposium.” Proceedings. Victoria, B.C. October 5 and 6, 1978.Carson, R., 1955. The Edge of the Sea. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, Signet Books.Church, I. R. and D. S. Rubin. 1970. An Ecological Review of Our Southwestern Shores.Burnaby, B.C.: The Greater Vancouver Regional District.Cote, R. P. 1989. “The Many Dimensions of Marine Environmental Quality.” Paper preparedfor the Water Resources Committee.Daly, H. 1989. “Sustainable Development: From Concept and Theory Towards OperationalPrinciples.” (Hoover Institution Conference). Manuscript prepared for Populations andDevelopment Review.Daly, H. and J. Cobb, 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy TowardCommunity, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.Day, J.W.; C.A.S. Hall; W.M. Kemp and A.Y. Vanez-Aranciba. 1989. Estuarine Ecology.New York, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Dorcey, A. H. J. 1983. “Coastal Management as a Bargaining Process”. Coastal ManagementJournal, Vol.11., Nos. 1-2. pp.13-40Page 188Dorcey, A. H. J. 1986. Bargaining in the Governance of Pacific Coastal Resources: Researchand Reform. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre.Dorcey, A.H.J. 1987. “The Myth of Interagency Cooperation in Water ResourcesManagement”. Canadian Water Resources Journal. Vol. 12, No. 2, P.17-26.Dorcey, A. H. J. 1991. “Towards Agreement on Sustainable Development in WaterManagement” in Dorcey A. H. J. (ed.). 1991 Perspectives on Sustainable Developmentin Water Management. Westwater Research Centre. Vancouver, B.C.Dorcey, A. H. J., K. J. Hall, D. A. Levy and I. Yesaki. 1983. Estuarine Habitat Management:A Prospectus for Tilbury Slough. Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater Research Centre.Ducsik, D.W. 1974. “Teaching Coastal Zone Management: An Introductory Subject.”Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Report No. MITSG75-1.Eekman, G. C. D., 1975 “Coastal Zone Planning” paper presented at the Islands Trust Seminar.Victoria, British Columbia: June, 1975.Epstein, P. 1985. “Making the Numbers Work: Financing Waterfront Restoration in an Age ofAusterity.” in Petrillo, J. E. and P. Grenell. (eds.). 1985. The Urban Edge. Los Altos,CA.: The California State Coastal Conservancy.F.E.M.A. (Federal Emergency Management Program). 1987. “Retrofitting Flood-proneResidential Structures.” Washington, D.C.Ferguson, K.D. and K.J. Hall. 1979. “Fraser River Estuary Study- Water Quality: StormwaterDischarge.” Vancouver, B.C. :Environment Canada.Fisher, R. 1977. “Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia 1774-1890.” Vancouver; University of British Columbia Press.Page 189F.R.E.M.P. (Fraser River Estuary Management Program). 1991. “Statement of Intent(Richmond)- Area Designations.”F.R.E.M.P. (Fraser River Estuary Management Program), Recreation Activity Work Group.1990. “Proposed Recreation Plan.” New Westminster, B.C.F.R.E.S. (Fraser River Estuary Study). 1978. “Fraser River Estuary Study: Habitat.” Victoria,B.C.F.R.E.S.S.C. (Fraser River Estuary Study Steering Committee), 1978. “Fraser River EstuaryStudy: Key Findings and Recommendations.”. Victoria, B.C.Gallagher, C. 1988. “The Working Waterfront.” in Shaw, J. R. (ed.). 1988. Small HarbourDevelopment in British Columbia: A Regional Forum on Waterfront Development.Proceeding of a conference held Dec., 1988. Sooke, B.C.Gamble, D. G. 1989. “An Evaluation of the British Columbia Approach to Coastal ZoneManagement” Burnaby: Simon Fraser University. Unpublished Master’s thesis.G.E.S.A.M.P. (Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution), 1986.“Environmental Capacity: An Approach to Marine Pollution Prevention”. G.E.S.A.M.P.report No.20.G.V.R.D. (Greater Vancouver Regional District), Development Services. 1991. “GreaterVancouver Key Facts.” Burnaby, B.C.G.V.R.D. (Greater Vancouver Regional District). 1990. “Creating Our Future: Steps to a MoreLivable Region.” Burnaby, B.C.G.V.R.D. (Greater Vancouver Regional District), Parks Department. 1987. “Park UseEstimates.”. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Parks Department, Burnaby, BritishColumbia.Page 190Grote, L. 1981. “Coastal Conservation and Development: Balancing Local and StatewideInterests” in Scott, S. (ed.) Coastal Conservation: Essays on Experiments in Governance.Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies.Hagen, M. E. 1990. “Agricultural Runoff Contamination in the Fraser River Estuary.” reportprepared for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program.Hall, C. J. 1988. “Campbell River Waterfront Development: A Municipal Perspve.”inShaw, J. R. (ed.). 1988. Small Harbour Development in British Columbia: A RegionalForum on Waterfront Development. Proceeding of a conference held Dec., 1988. Sooke,B.C.Harris P. and F. A. Kwamena, 1980 “Coastal Management in Canada” in B. Mitchell and W.R. D. Sewell (eds.). Canadian Resource Policies: Problems and Prospects.Harrison, P. and J.G.M. Parkes. 1983. “Coastal Zone Management in Canada”. Coastal ZoneManagement Journal, Volume 11, Nos 1-2. pp.13-40.Harvey, C.; K. Melliship and N. C. Toner. 1982. “Results of Public Involvement.” Fraser RiverEstuary Study- Phase II.Hay, D. 1991. “The Flood Hazard” paper presented at Geologic Hazards ‘91 Symposium.Vancouver, British Columbia.Healey, M.C. 1982. “Juvenile pacific Salmon in Estuaries: The Life Support System.” V.S.Kennedy (ed.) in Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press pp.315-341.Heikoff, J. M. 1981 (Chapter VII) in Scott, S. (ed.). Coastal Conservation: Essays onExperiments in Governance. Berkeley, California: Institute of Governmental Studies.Henderson, M. A. 1991. “Sustainable Development of the Pacific Salmon Resources in theFraser River Basin.”. in Dorcey A. H. J. (ed.). 1991 Perspectives on SustainableDevelopment in Water Management. Westwater Research Centre. Vancouver, B.C.Page 191Hennessey, T. M. and D. D. Robadue. 1987. “Lessons From the Experiment in EstuarineGovernance: Establishing Evaluative Criteria”. Oceans 87. Proceedings. The Ocean-An International Workplace. Vol. 5. pp. 1685-1690.Herfindahl, 0. and A. Kneese. 1974. Economic Theory of Natural Resources. Columbus,Ohio: Charles E. Menu.Higham, J. W. 1987. “Offshore Resource Management in British Columbia: A Evaluation.”Simon Fraser University. Burnaby, B.C.: unpublished master’s thesis.Hildebrand, L. P., 1989. Canada’s Experience with Coastal Zone Management. Halifax: TheOceans Institute of Canada.Hotson, N. 1988. “Principles and Approaches to Waterfront Development.” in Shaw, J. R.(ed.). 1988. Small Harbour Development in British Columbia: A Regional Forum onWaterfront Development. Proceeding of a conference held Dec., 1988. Sooke, B.C.Ince, J. 1984. Environmental Law: British Columbia Handbook 1984.Jacobs, H. and P. Williams. 1982. “Recurring Policy Issues in Water-Based RecreationManagement.” Canadian Water Resource Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3:1-10.Jamieson, A. 1994. Conversation with author, 15 April, 1994.Jamieson, A. 1992. “Environmentally Sensitive Area Protection in Richmond, B.C. Canada.”Jessen, S.; J.C. Day and J.G. Nelson. 1983. “Assessing Land-Use Regulations in CoastalWetlands: The Case of Long Point Area, Lake Erie, Ontario.” Coastal ZoneManagement Journal, Vol. 11, Nos 2-3. pp 91-115.Johnston, D. M., A. P. Pross, I, McDougall and N. G. Dale. 1975. “Coastal Zone: Frameworkfor Management in Atlantic Canada”. Commissioned by the Inland Waters Directorate,Environment Canada by the Institute of Public Affairs. Halifax: Daihousie University.Page 192Kennett, K. and M. W. McPhee. 1988. “The Fraser River Estuary: An Overview of ChangingConditions.” New Westminster, B.C. Fraser River Estuary Management Program.Ketchum, B. H. (ed.), 1972. “The Water’s Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone.”Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Kerr, K.; W. Waters and M. de Grace. 1981. “Waterfront Access- Vancouver East.”Unpublished report prepared for the BurrardView/Wall Street Residents Association.Kistritz, R.U. 1978. “An Ecological Evaluation of the Fraser Estuary Tidal Marshes: The Roleof Detritus and the Cycling of Elements.” Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater Research Centre.Krebs, C.J. 1972. Ecology. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Levy, D.A. and T.G. Northcote. 1982. “Juvenile salmon residency in a marsh area of the FraserRiver Estuary.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 39:270-276.Levy, D.A., T.G. Northcote and G.J. Birch. 1971. “Juvenile Salmon Utilization of TidalChannels in the Fraser River Estuary, British Columbia.” Vancouver, B.C. WestwaterResearch Centre. Technical Report No. 23.MacKenzie, F.B., 1987. “Urbanization and the Hydrological Regime.” Canadian Bulletin ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2 15:277-293.Matthews, W. and C. J. Hall. 1988. “Harbourfront Revitalization: Campbell River, BritishColumbia.” in Goodwin, R. (ed.). 1988. Waterfront Revitalization for SmallerCommunities. Seattle, WA.: College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences.McClellan, D. Conversation with author July 6th, 1992.McClusky, D. S. 1981. The Estuarine Ecosystem. Glasgow: Blackie and Son Limited.Page 193McClusky, D. S. 1989. The Estuarine Ecosystem. Second Edition. Glasgow: Blackie and SonLimited.McConnell, D. 1991. “Shoreline Erosion in British Columbia.” Workshop Proceeding ofGeologic Hazards ‘91.McPhee, M. 1982. “Offshore Oil and Gas in Canada: West Coast Environmental, Social andEconomic Issues.” Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre, The University of BritishColumbia.McPhee, M. W. Conversation with author. 6 November 1991.Mogulof,M. B., 1975. Saving the Coast: California’s Experiment in Intergovernmental Land UseControl. Lexington: Lexington Books.Montgomery, G. 1981. “An Evaluation of the Tourism Potential of the Cruise Ship Industryof British Columbia.” Victoria, Canada - British Columbia TIDSA study.Moore, B. 1989. “Partner or Policeman: It’s Your Choice.” In South Coastal Dairy EducationAssociation, 21st Annual Dairy Producers’ Short Course, Proceedings, February 14 and15, 1989. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. p. 41-52.N.A.C. (National Association of Countries), 1971. “Coastal Zone Management.”Hearings before the Sub-committee on Oceans and Atmosphere of the Committee oncommerce, U.S. Senate, 92nd Congress, 1st Session May 5, 6 and 11. pp 115-116.Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1976. “Integration of Regional Land Use Planningand Coastal Zone Science: A Guide Book for Planners.” Prepared for the ResearchDepartment of Housing and Urban Development, Contract #H-2050R.Northcote T.G. and M.D. Burwash. 1991. “Fish and Fish Habitats of the Fraser River Basin.”in Dorcey A.H.J. and Griggs J.R. (eds.). 1991. Water in Sustainable Development:Page 194Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Westwater Research Centre.:Vancouver, B.C.Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1987. Urban Waterfronts: Planning and Development.Toronto.Ozborn, L. 1991. “Demand for Outdoor Recreation in the Lower Mainland.” Burnaby, B.C.:Greater Vancouver Regional District.Pal, L. A., 1987. Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Toronto: Methuen Publications.Parenteau, R. 1988. “Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Malcing.”Parkes, J. G. M., 1980. “Canada’s Shore Zone Program: Moving to Meet the Challenge of aDynamic Environment.”, in R. J. McCalla (ed.). Coastal Studies in CanadianGeography. No. 4 Canadian Association of Geographer’s Annual Conference, Montreal,Quebec. Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, N. S.Pearse, P.H. 1982. Turning the Tide: A New Policy for Canada’s Pacific Fisheries. FinalReport of the Commission of Pacific Fisheries Policy. Ottawa, Ont. : Supply and ServicesCanada.Pearson, N. 1972. “Development Pressures in the Floodplain.” Unpublished.Pemu, J.V. 1992. “British Columbia Floods: Analysis of Allocation and Expenditures (Order-InCouncil Events 1989 to 1991).” Background report prepared for the ProvincialEmergency Program. Unpublished.Petrillo, J. E. and P. Grenell, (eds.). 1985. The Urban Edge: Where the City Meets the Sea.Los Altos: William Kaufmann Inc.Phillips, J.D. 1989. “Effects of Buffer Zones on Estuarine and Riparian Land Use in EasternNorth Carolina.” Southeastern Geographer, Vol. 29, No. 2 pp. 136-149.Page 195Postma, H. 1988. “Tidal Flat Areas, in Jansson, B-O”. in H. Postma (ed.). Coastal-OffshoreEcosystem Interactions. Berlin.:Springer-Verlag. pp.102-121.Price Waterhouse and Co. 1984. “Report on the Mining Industry’s Performance in B.C. in1983.” Vancouver, B.C. Draft report prepared for the Mining Association of B.C.Pross, A. P. 1980. “The Coastal Zone Management Agenda: Putting the Issues on the PublicAgenda” in Dwiveda 0. P. (ed.). Resources and the Environment: Policy Perspectivesfor Canada.Reed, M. 1984. “Citizen Participation and Public Hearings: Evaluating Northern Experiences.”Cornett Occasional Papers No. 4, Department of Geography, University of Victoria,Victoria, B.C.Rees, W., 1991. “The Ecological Basis for Sustainable Development in the Fraser Basin.” inDorcey A. H. J. (ed.). 1991 Perspectives on Sustainable Development in WaterManagement. Westwater Research Centre. Vancouver, B.C.Reid, R.; R. Lockhart and B. Woodburn. 1990. “A Green Strategy for the Greater TorontoWaterfront.” Discussion paper prepared for The Royal Commission on the Future of theToronto Waterfront.Reise, K. 1985. Tidal Flat Ecology- An Experimental Approach. Heidelberg.: Springer-Verlag.Richardson, D. K. 1976. The Cost of Environmental Protection: Regulating HousingDevelopment in the Coastal Zone. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University ofNew Jersey.Richmond. 1991. “Special Guidelines for Foreshores”. Bylaw 5746 amendment to Bylaw 5400December 9, 1991.Richmond. Planning Department, 1990. “Appendix B. Fraser River Estuary ManagementProgram Area Designations”.Page 196Richmond. 1989. “The Richmond Official Community Plan. Bylaw 5400.11 Adopted April 3,1989.Richmond. Planning Department. 1986a. “Community Profile.”Richmond 1986b. “The Richmond Official Community Plan”. Bylaw No.4700. AdoptedDecember 27, 1986.Richmond. Planning Department, 1985a. Map of Flood Plain Exempt BoundaryRichmond. Planning Department, 1985b. Untitled.Richmond. Planning Department, 1985c. “Official Community Plan”. Issue Paper No.6.Environment: Air and Water Quality.Richmond. Planning Department, 1983. Untitled.Richmond. No date. “Circulation of Development Applications.”Ricker, W.E. 1963. “Big effects from small causes: Two examples from fish populationdynamics”. Journal ofFish Resources Board of Canada 2O:pp 257-264.Ritchie, W. 1984. “Physical Environmental Assessment: Some Particular Problems of theCoastal Zone.” in B.D. Clark; R. Bisset; A. Gilad and P. Tomlinson (eds.). Perspectiveson Environmental Impact Assessment. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.Roberts, G. 1988. “Crown Foreshore Administration and the Relationship to Local Government”in Shaw, J. R. (ed.). Small Harbours Development in British Columbia: A RegionalForum on Waterfront Development. Proceedings of a Conference held December, 1988.Sooke, B. C.Page 197Rosentraub, M.S. 1975. “Coastal Policy Development and Self-Evaluating Agencies: InformationUtilization and the South Coast Regional Commission.” Los Angeles, Ca.: SouthernCalifornia University SeaGrant Program Thesis/Dissertation Series No. USCSG-TD-01-75.Rowe, S. 1989. “Implications of the Brundtland Commission Report for Canadian ForestManagement.” The Forestry Chronicle, February 1989: 5-7.Rueggeberg, H. I. and A. H. 3, Dorcey. 1991. “Governance of Aquatic Resources in the FraserRiver Basin” in Dorcey, A. H. I. and 3. R. Griggs (eds.). Water in SustainableDevelopment: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver:Westwater Research Centre.Sadler, B. 1990. “Sustainable Development and Water Resource Management.” AlternativesVol. 17 No. 3.Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1977. “Manual for Management of the Coastal Aquatic Zone.”Seattle, Wa.: Prepared for State of Washington Department of Ecology. Contract No.77-079.Schaenman, P. 5. 1976. “Using An Impact Measurement System to Evaluate LandDevelopment”. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.Schreier, H.; S. 3. Brown and K. J. Hall. 1991. “The Land-Water Interface in the Fraser RiverBasin” in Dorcey, A. H. J. and 3. R. Griggs (eds.). Water in Sustainable Development:Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver: WestwaterResearch Centre.Scott, S. “Coastal Planning in California: A Progress Report” in Scott, S. (ed.) CoastalConservation: Essays on Experiments in Governance. Berkeley: Institute ofGovernmental Studies.Sharma, K. Environment Canada, Flood Damage Reduction Program. Conversation with authorSeptember 24, 1992.Page 198Simpson, S. 1991. “Breeding Disaster.” The Vancouver Sun, December 30, 1991.Smith, H.D. 1991. “The Present and Future of Coastal Management in the UK”. Land UsePolicy, Volume 8, Number 2.Smith, S.E. 1991. “Floodplain Management in the Fraser Basin.” in Dorcey A. H. J. (ed.).1991 Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management. WestwaterResearch Centre. Vancouver, B.C.Sorensen, 3. C., S. T. McCreary and M. 3. Hershman. 1984. “Institutional arrangements forManagement of Coastal Resources”. Prepared by Research Planning Institute Inc. forNational Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Agency forInternational Development, Renewable Resources Information Series. CoastalManagement Publication No.1. Columbia, South Carolina.Sproule-Jones, M. 1978. “Coordinating Canada’s Shore Management Agencies” Paper presentedat the Shore Management Symposium, Victoria.Swain, L. G. 1980. “Fraser River Estuary Study - Water Quality: Industrial Effluent.” Victoria,B.C.: Ministry of Environment.Taylor, E.W. 1974. “The Vancouver International Airport Expansion Proposals and PossibleImpact on Wildlife of the Fraser River Estuary.” Delta, B.C.: Canadian WildlifeService.Thompson, A.R. 1981. “Environmental Regulation in Canada: An Assessment of theRegulatory Process.” Vancouver, B.C.” Westwater Research Centre.Teal, J.M.; D.L. Jameson and R.G. Bader. 1972. “Living Resources.” in B.H. Ketchum (ed.).The Water’s Edge: Critical Problems of the Coastal Zone. Cambridge, Mass.: The MITPress.Todd, C. 1973. “The Coastal Zone: Problems with Man’s Uses”. Santa Monica: The RandCorporation.Page 199United States. Department of the Interior. (no date). Urban Waterfront Revitalization: The Roleof Recreation and Heritage. Washington, D.C.United States. 1969. “Our Nation and the Sea” Report of the Commission on Marine Science,Engineering and Resources. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.VanDine, D.F. 1991. “Low Magnitude/High Frequency Mass Movements” in Geologic Hazards‘91, Workshop Proceedings.Walters, C. 3. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. International Institute forApplied Systems Analysis. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan Publishing Co.Wanielista, M.P., Y.A. Yousef and W.L. McLellon. 1977. “Non-point source effects of waterquality.” Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation. 49:441-451.Ward, P. 1980. Explore the Fraser Estuary! Document prepared for the Lands Directorate ofEnvironment Canada.Warren, R.; R. Bish; L.E. Craine and M.L. Moss. 1972. “Allocating Coastal Resources: Tradeoff and Rationing Processes.” in Ketchum, B. H. (ed.), 1972. The Water’s Edge: CriticalProblems of the Coastal Zone. Cambridge: MIT Press.Whidden, C. and P. Carr. 1988. “Revitalizing Port Angeles’ Waterfront: Successful Planningand Urban Design.” in Goodwin, R. (ed.). 1988. Waterfront Revitalization for SmallerCommunities. Seattle, WA.: College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences.Whipple, W., J.V. Hunter and S.L. Yu. 1974. “Unrecorded Pollution from Urban Runoff.”Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation. 46:873-885.Whittaker, R. H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. 2nd Edition. London, U.K. :Macmillan.Wilson, J.A. 1988. The Biology of Estuarine Management. London.: Croom Helm Ltd.Page 200Wrenn, D.M. 1983. Urban Waterfront Development. Washington, Ma. Urban Land Institute.World Commission on Environment and Development (W.C.E.D.). 1987. Our Common Future.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Zube, E.H. 1980. Environmental Evaluation: Perception and Public Policy. Belmont, Calif.:Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Page 201APPENDIX ASELECTED FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND ENABLING C.Z.M. LEGISLATION(Adapted from Gamble 1989).Department Federal Branch Enabling LegislationFisheries Act• Regulation of catch taken in commercial,sport and native fisheries.• Field Services • Protection of fish and fish habitat.Branch• Fisheries and Oceans Fisheries and Oceans Advisory CouncilResearch Council Research Act• Research and development programs.• Small Craft Fishing and Recreational Harbours ActHarbours Branch • Management and maintenance of harbourfacilities.Environment • Environmental Fisheries ActCanada Protection • Regulation of activities which may result inthe deposit of deleterious substances.Ocean Dumping Control Act• Regulation of deliberate disposal ofsubstances from ships, aircrafts, or platforms.• Inland Waters and Canada Water ActLands • Regulation of effluent standards and jointfederal-provincial projects.Fisheries andOceans• Habitat ManagementBranchPage 202Energy, Mines, • Canada Oil and Gas Canada Oil and Gas Actand Resources Lands Administration • Management of federal interests in oil, gas,and mineral exploration, production anddevelopment.Oil and Gas Production and ConservationAct• Management of exploration and drilling forthe production, conservation, processing, andtransportation of oil and gas.Transport • Canadian Coast Navigable Waters Protection ActCanada Guard • Regulation of navigation interferences in,upon, over, under, through, or across anynavigable water.Canada Shipping Act• Prohibits the pollution of all Canadianwaters from ships except where discharge isdue to damage or leakage from a ship as aresult of stranding, collision, or foundering.• Harbours and Ports Public 1-larbours and Ports Facilities Act• Management of designated public harboursand ports including Esquimalt, Victoria,Alberni, New Westminster, and BurrardInlet.• Prohibits anyone encumbering the water orshore, endangering or obstructing navigation,or depositing anything on the shore or in thewater that might damage vessels or property.• Canada Ports Canada Ports Corporation ActCorporation • Management of nationally significant portsincluding Halifax, St. John, Chicoutimi,Quebec, Trois Riviers, Montreal, PrinceRupert, and Vancouver.l-larboiir Commissions Act• Management of designated harbours,including Fraser, North Fraser, Nanaimo,Port Alberni.• HarbourCommissionsPage 203• Canada Transport 1ai1wav ActCommission • Authorizes any railway company to takeand appropriate unalienated crown lands as isnecessaryPublic Works Public Works ActCanada • Management and maintenance of all federaldams, hydraulic works, harbours, and piers.Page 204APPENDIX BSELECTED PROVINCIAL MINISTRIES AND ENABLING C.Z.M. LEGISLATION(Adapted from Gamble 1989).Enabling LegislationLand Act• Powers to sell, lease, grant right-of-ways,or issue licenses-to-occupy crown land.• Planning and Environment and Land Use ActAssessment • Establishes Environment and Land UseBranch Committee with broad authority for thepreservation and maintenance of the naturalenvironment.Environment Management Act• Requirement of an environmental impactassessment for any work which couldsubstantially change the quality of air, land,or water.• Establishes the Environmental AppealBoard.Waste Management Act• Prohibits discharge or disposal of wasteswithout a permit, approval, or order ofregulations.• Wildlife Branch Wildlife Act• Regulation and management of freshwaterfish culture.Provincial Ministry BranchEnvironment, Landsand Parks• Lands Branch• WasteManagementBranchPage 205• Parks and Park ActOutdoor • Management of all matters concerningRecreation parks and recreation areas.• Parks Program Ecological Reserves ActBranch, Ecological • Establishment of reserves for ecologicalResuves Program significance and scientific and preservationpurposesAgriculture, • Commercial Fisheries ActFisheries and Food Fisheries Branch • Regulation of safe and orderly growing,cultivation, and distribution of oysters,clams, and other shellfish.health • omrnumty Health ActHealth Services • Regulation of domestic water supplies andBranch systems which are potential public healthh9.zirdsTransportation and • Geotechnical high way ActHighways and Materials • Establishes setbacks along public roadsBranch from which buildings and other structuresmay be placed.Land Titles Act• Geological hazard investigations ofproposed subdivisions in unincorporatedareas.Municipal Affairs, • Islands Trust Islands TrustRecreation and • Make recommendations for thehousing acquisition, use and disposition of landsituated within the trust areaPage 206• Development Local Services ActServices Branch • Establishment of local community plansand rural land use bylaws in unincorporatedareas.Municipal Act• Authorizes municipalities and regionaldistricts to make bylaws regulating theoperation of businesses within respectivejurisdictions for protecting the public, orpreventing or minimizing nuisances.Land Titles Act• Geological hazard investigation ofproposed subdivisions in municipalities.Page 207APPENDIX CRICHMOND LAND USE ZONES SUMMARYSPECIFIC ZONE ABBREVIATION *GENEPL LAND USESingle-Family Housing District Ri ResidentialTownhouse District R2Townhouse & Apartment District R3High Density Residential District R4Two-Family Housing District R5Agricultural District AG1 AgriculturalGolf Course District AG2Roadside Stand (Class C) District RSCAgripark District AG3Local Commercial District Cl Commercial andNeighbourhood Commercial District C2 Multiple UseCommunity commercial District C3Steveston Commercial (2-storey) District C4Steveston Commercial (3-storey) District C5Automobile-Oriented Commercial District C6Downtown Commercial District C7Gas Station District GiService Station District G2Neighbourhood Pub District NHPAutomotive Park District AUPBotanical Garden District 1 BG1Botanical Garden District 2 BG2Industrial District Ii IndustrialLight Industrial District 12Business Park Industrial District 13Limited Industrial Retail District 14Industrial Storage District 15Airport District AIRPage 208RICHMOND LAND USE ZONES SUMMARY CONTINUEDSPECIFIC ZONE ABBREVIATION *GE]JEPAL LAND USESchool & Public Use District SPU ‘Other’Assembly District ASYRecreational Vehicle Park District RVPHealth Care Facilities District HCFMarina District 1 MA1Marina District 2 MA2* General Land use categories correspond to those employed in C.Z.M. analysis.Page 209APPENDIX DCIRCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONSREZONING DEVELOPMENT PERMITCOMMUNITY PLANNING AREA PLANNINGPERMITS DESIGNUTILITIES/TRANSPORTATION PERMITSFIRE UTILITIES/TRANSPORTATIONLEISURE FIREHEALTH (only if unsewered)R.C.M.P.C.M.H.C.Page 210

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087566/manifest

Comment

Related Items