Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An assessment of the lower mainland crown land planning process Bloodoff, Peter Petrovich 1981

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 B58.pdf [ 6.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095156.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095156-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095156-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095156-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095156-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095156-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095156-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095156-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095156.ris

Full Text

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LOWER MAINLAND CROWN LAND PLANNING PROCESS by PETER PETROVICH BLOODOFF Diploma,. The Southern A l b e r t a I n s t i t u t e Of Technology, 1970 Diploma, Mount Royal C o l l e g e , 1972 A THESIS SU3MITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (the School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, l981 @ Peter P e t r o v i c h B l o o d o f f , 1981 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree - at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r referen c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . School of Community and Regional Planning The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 . i i ABSTRACT In B r i t i s h Columbia Crown land i s a v i t a l resource. Covering over 90 percent of the Pro v i n c e , these lands provide f o r a v a r i e t y of the r e s i d e n t s ' needs. With the expanding p o p u l a t i o n and further: development of our- resources, increased a t t e n t i o n i s being d i r e c t e d towards the use of these lands by a broad range of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s . In response, the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing (LPH), the steward of our un a l i e n a t e d Crown land resource, has developed a comprehensive planning program to a s s i s t in a l l o c a t i n g these lands t o t h e i r best use. Th i s t h e s i s seeks to evaluate the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Crown land p l a n n i n g process i n a r r i v i n g at a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s that are s o c i a l l y o p t i m a l . To t h i s end, two S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown land plans r e c e n t l y completed i n B r i t i s h Columbia's Lower Mainland Region are u t i l i z e d as case s t u d i e s . To augment the a n a l y s i s , a review of the e v o l u t i o n of Crown land a d m i n i s t r a t i o n in B.C. and an examination of the l e g i s l a t i v e base and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e through which the a l i e n a t i o n d e c i s i o n s are achieved are presented. Normative c r i t e r i a are u t i l i z e d to assess the p r o c e d u r a l elements of the Lower Mainland Crown land p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h approach i s based on the premise that a "good" plan n i n g system i s more l i k e l y to f a c i l i t a t e b e t t e r resource management d e c i s i o n s . I t i s p o s t u l a t e d that a "good" process i s one that p a r a l l e l s the normative elements embodied i n l i b e r a l democratic theory, s i n c e these are the fundamental values which determine what types of decision-making processes are a c c e p t a b l e i n our s o c i e t y . In l i g h t of t h i s , the ensuing four " i d e a l s " are u t i l i z e d to assess the p l a n n i n g process: 1. Representation of a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s i n the decision-making process 2. Adequacy of i n f o r m a t i o n 3. E f f e c t i v e n e s s of the process 4. E f f i c i e n c y of decision-making In a p p l y i n g the f o r e g o i n g c r i t e r i a to the case s t u d i e s s e v e r a l weaknesses were noted. The f o l l o w i n g recommendations are o f f e r e d to strengthen the ^program i n terms of the normative elements of the decision-making process, and i n l i g h t of t h e o r i e s of p o l i t i c a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behavior. Foremost, the planning processes d i d not provide an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a l l a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n d e r i v i n g the Crown land p l a n s . Excluded were the n o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s such as the general p u b l i c , the resource i n d u s t r i e s and the s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups. The i n c l u s i o n of these i n t e r e s t s , under the present system, i s at the d i s c r e t i o n of the r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f . To a l l e v i a t e t h i s major weakness i t i s suggested that p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n become a r e q u i r e d r a t h e r than a d i s c r e t i o n a r y element in the planning p r o c e s s . The generation of adequate i n f o r m a t i o n f o r use i n the planning processes appeared to be c o n s t r a i n e d by the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' lack of knowledge r e g a r d i n g the breadth of the planning program and the extent of t h e i r involvement. I t i s i v suggested that a greater e f f o r t by the LPH M i n i s t r y to promote t h e i r p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s may a l l e v i a t e t h i s s i t u a t i o n . At present, the LPH M i n i s t r y i s c o n c e n t r a t i n g i t s e f f o r t s on developing a r e a - s p e c i f i c Crown land plans throughout the P r o v i n c e . The net r e s u l t of t h i s emphasis i s that broader r e g i o n a l or p r o v i n c i a l "needs" are not recognized and are perhaps being traded away under t h i s s t r u c t u r e . In l i g h t of t h i s i t i s suggested that the LPH M i n i s t r y p l a c e a g r e a t e r emphasis on p r e p a r i n g s u b - r e g i o n a l and r e g i o n a l Crown land p l a n s . The present a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e of the M i n i s t r y , as p e r c e i v e d from w i t h i n , i n h i b i t s open communication between r e g i o n a l and headquarters' p l a n n i n g s t a f f . To a l l e v i a t e t h i s i t i s suggested that a f u l l - t i m e person be appointed to l i a i s e between the two groups. Perhaps the most important o b s e r v a t i o n that may be drawn from t h i s r e s e a r c h i s that B.C.'s P r o v i n c i a l p l a n n i n g environment i s , at best, " t u r b u l e n t " . In the end, the a b i l i t y of the LPH p l a n n i n g program to s u r v i v e w i l l depend upon i t s c a p a c i t y to adapt to e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e s . V TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I -- INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE 1 THE PROBLEM 2 STUDY OBJECTIVES .5 CHAPTER II -- CROWN LAND PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 6 THE EVOLUTION OF CROWN LAND PLANNING 7 The New Landlords 8 A New M i n i s t r y Is Created .... 13 THE LEGISLATED MANDATE 15 R e l a t i o n to Other L e g i s l a t i o n 17 THE ORGANI ZATIONAL STRUCTURE . 19 THE CROWN LAND PLANNING PROGRAM 22 I n i t i a t i o n 25 Formulation 27 Adoption 29 Implementation 30 The Record Thus Far 32 CHAPTER III — METHODOLOGY 33 EVALUATING THE CROWN LAND PLANNING PROGRAM 33 Normative C r i t e r i a 37 DATA SOURCES 39 CHAPTER IV -- A THEORETICAL OVERVIEW 42 PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY 43 PROBLEMS IN DESIGNING AN OPTIMAL SYSTEM 46 The Bounded R a t i o n a l i t y Problem 47 v i The I n f l u e n c e Of Pe r c e p t i o n s And A t t i t u d e s 48 The Representation Problem • ••• 49 The Information Problem . . 51 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK REVIEWED 53 CHAPTER V -- ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE STUDIES 55 THE UPPER LILLOOET. PLANNING PROCESS 56 THE LANG CREEK PLANNING PROCESS 62 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE STUDIES 66 REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS 67 Range of Represented I n t e r e s t s 67 Stages of Representation 73 ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION . 7 6 A l t e r n a t i v e s and A f f e c t e d I n t e r e s t s . . .. 77 Information Q u a l i t y and Quantity 80 Communication of A l t e r n a t i v e s and Information 81 EFFECTIVENESS 84 A b i l i t y to Reach D e c i s i o n s 84 A b i l i t y to Implement D e c i s i o n s 86 Value of the D e c i s i o n 88 The Upper L i l l o o e t S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan 89 The Lang Creek S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan 91 EFFICIENCY 95 E f f i c i e n t Use of Time and Resources 96 D u p l i c a t i o n of Tasks 97 CHAPTER VI -- PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANNING - A BROADER PERSPECTIVE 99 DESIGNATION OF PROVINCIAL FORESTS 99 STRATEGIC PLANNING 102 v i i THE PLANNING ACT . 105 CHAPTER VII -- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 110 CONCLUSIONS 111 IMPROVING THE PLANNING PROCESS 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED 124 APPENDIX I — Interview Schedule ...130 APPENDIX II — Chronologies of Correspondence and Meetings 134 APPENDIX III. — Task Force P a r t i c i p a n t s 148 APPENDIX IV — Executive Summaries ....153 v i i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE I P r o v i n c i a l Agencies A f f e c t e d by Crown Land Plans 69 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE'1 — M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Plan (June, 1980) .....20 FIGURE 2 — T y p i c a l Regional S t r u c t u r e 21 FIGURE 3 -- Crown Land Planning H i e r a r c h y 26 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thi s t h e s i s marks the achievement of a long awaited personal g o a l . For t h i s , I express a deep sense of g r a t i t u d e to Brahm Wiesman for f i r s t , p r o v i d i n g me with the o p p o r t u n i t y and second, g u i d i n g me through the innumerable h u r d l e s . As to the e v o l u t i o n of the t h e s i s i t s e l f , I am indebted to my a d v i s o r s Brahm Wiesman, I r v i n g Fox and Bob W i l l i a m s f o r c o n s i s t e n t l y g i v i n g time to o f f e r t h o u g h t f u l c r i t i c i s m and v a l u a b l e a d v i c e , and to L a r r y Wolfe and E r i k K a r l s e n f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n the l a t t e r stages. As w e l l , I wish to thank the s t a f f of the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing i n Burnaby and V i c t o r i a , and the Crown land p l a n n i n g task f o r c e members f o r p r o v i d i n g i n v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n and anecdotes. My s p e c i a l thanks, however, goes to my wife Rose whose pa t i e n c e , encouragement and understanding helped make the task surmountable. 1 CHAPTER I — INTRODUCTION PURPOSE At present, over 90 percent of the land i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia i s under Crown ownership. Much of t h i s vast land resource, however, i s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of numerous P r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r i e s i n the form of r e s e r v e s . The remaining u n a l i e n a t e d Crown land i s a d m i n i s t e r e d by the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing (LPH) and may be a v a i l a b l e to the r e s i d e n t s of B.C. under v a r i o u s l e a s i n g and purchasing arrangements. With the expanding p o p u l a t i o n and f u r t h e r development of our resources, i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n i s being d i r e c t e d towards the use of these lands by a broad range of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s . In response, the M i n i s t r y has r e c e n t l y developed p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g the management and d i s p o s i t i o n of these lands to the i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s . The purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s to document and evaluate the decision-making s t r u c t u r e and process that r e g u l a t e s the use of u n a l i e n a t e d Crown land i n the Lower Mainland Region of B r i t i s h Columbia. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l employ a p p r o p r i a t e normative c r i t e r i a to assess the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the p l a n n i n g processes u t i l i z e d to d e r i v e two r e c e n t l y completed Crown land plans i n the r e g i o n . To augment t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , a review of the e v o l u t i o n of Crown land a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n B.C. and an examination of the l e g i s l a t i v e base upon which a l i e n a t i o n d e c i s i o n s are e s t a b l i s h e d w i l l be presented. 2 THE PROBLEM . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , B r i t i s h Columbia has been regarded as a resource r i c h Province, being endowed with abundant 'supplies of water, land, minerals and f o r e s t resources- During the Province's c o l o n i z a t i o n p e r i o d , these resources were c o n s i d e r e d u n l i m i t e d and, as a r e s u l t , much development occurred with • l i t t l e regard f o r long-range i m p l i c a t i o n s . T h i s philosophy p r e v a i l e d throughout much of t h i s century as the resources were e x t r a c t e d and the Province prospered e c o n o m i c a l l y . The l a t e 1960s, however, brought f o r t h an opposing viewpoint, one of i n c r e a s i n g awareness and r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t our resources are not merely commodities to be e x p l o i t e d f o r s i n g l e short-term purposes. Rather, they are the essence of our s u r v i v a l and t h e r e f o r e must be p r o t e c t e d . T h i s awareness, to a l a r g e degree, was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r numerous l e g i s l a t i v e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e changes i n the P r o v i n c e . The i n s t i t u t i o n of the Environment and Land Use Act and the c r e a t i o n of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves are two noteworthy examples of t h i s movement. Land i s a common, l i m i t e d resource and i t s use u l t i m a t e l y a f f e c t s a l l other resource a l l o c a t i o n s . F u r t h e r , i t i s acknowledged that land management i s a f f e c t e d by numerous, dynamic socio-economic f a c t o r s . These two p r i n c i p l e s are l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the trends that i n f l u e n c e land a d m i n i s t r a t i o n at a l l l e v e l s . Examples of such trends on a p r o v i n c i a l s c a l e 3 i n c l u d e : * the competition f o r the l i m i t e d land base by a g r i c u l t u r e , f o r e s t r y , settlement, r e c r e a t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n uses. * the continued concern for the maintenance of a high q u a l i t y environment, tempered by other i n f l u e n c e s such as m a i n t a i n i n g employment and income, and the d e s i r e f o r a s t a b l e economy. * the value s h i f t i n the p o p u l a t i o n as a whole, from the f r o n t i e r philosophy based on the e x p l o i t a t i o n of p e r c e i v e d , u n l i m i t e d resources to a value system based on s o c i a l , economic and environmental s t a b i l i t y r e q u i r i n g r a t i o n a l compromise between l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s . * the continued i n c r e a s e of p o p u l a t i o n i n the Province r e s u l t i n g i n an i n c r e a s e d demand for r u r a l l i f e s t y l e o p t ions and Crown land r e c r e a t i o n uses. With these f a c t o r s i n mind the mandate of the M i n i s t r y may be examined. The c r e a t i o n of the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing i n 1978 e s t a b l i s h e d the f o l l o w i n g m i n i s t e r i a l g o a l : "The management and a l l o c a t i o n of Crown lands in the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia to ensure: The maintenance and improvement of a q u a l i t y system of parks and the encouragement of the best use of Crown land f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l , r e s i d e n t i a l , i n d u s t r i a l , commercial and r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h i n the Province of B.C." (LPH, 1980(c), p.2). As i n d i c a t e d by t h i s statement, the M i n i s t r y has the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the c o o r d i n a t i o n of a wide range of m u l t i p l e -o b j e c t i v e p l a n n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . Many a c t o r s w i t h i n the M i n i s t r y as w e l l as other agencies are charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 4 f o r d e r i v i n g e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n s to Crown land management i s s u e s . A q u e s t i o n a r i s e s , how adequate i s the Crown land p l a n n i n g process i n a r r i v i n g at a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s that are s o c i a l l y optimal? To i l l u s t r a t e , i t may be q u e r i e d , have a l l a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s been provided an o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a c h i e v i n g the f i n a l outcome? The s o c i a l values embodied i n our democratic system d i c t a t e that the most e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n s are those d e r i v e d by a process where a l l p o i n t s of view are c o n s i d e r e d . S i m i l a r l y , who determined the i n f o r m a t i o n requirements and to what extent were these needs met? Again our s o c i a l values i n t u i t i v e l y t e l l us that i n order to make a "good" d e c i s i o n we must have access to the broadest range of i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e . As w e l l , we would a l l agree that a process must not be w a s t e f u l of f i n a n c i a l or human re s o u r c e s . F i n a l l y , we might examine how the u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n was achieved and i f i t i s being f a i t h f u l l y implemented. In a d d i t i o n to the normative qu e s t i o n s o u t l i n e d above, the Crown land p l a n n i n g process must be c o n s i d e r e d i n terms of i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s on the."environment" i n which i t operates. For i n s t a n c e , what are the b e n e f i t s and c o s t s d e r i v e d from the program and who i s to bear these encumbrances or enjoy the accrued gains? S i m i l a r l y , how does the process cope with meeting short-term o b j e c t i v e s while keeping f u t u r e o p t i o n s open? The preceding p o i n t s i l l u s t r a t e the general problems that c o n f r o n t a l l resource management s e c t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the 5 a l l o c a t i o n of p u b l i c goods and s e r v i c e s - how to design i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements and decision-making processes that r e f l e c t the s o c i a l w i l l of our s o c i e t y . T h i s paper examines these i s s u e s in terms of t h e i r relevance to land management. STUDY OBJECTIVES This t h e s i s reviews the Crown land p l a n n i n g process u t i l i z e d i n B r i t i s h Columbia's Lower Mainland Region, with emphasis on the f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i v e s : 1. to document the e v o l u t i o n of the l e g i s l a t i v e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e s that r e g u l a t e Crown land p l a n n i n g in B r i t i s h Columbia today. 2. to d e t a i l and comprehend, as f u l l y as p o s s i b l e , the o p e r a t i o n of the Crown land p l a n n i n g process. T h i s i n v o l v e s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s and the nature of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s . 3. u t i l i z i n g a p p r o p r i a t e e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a , to evaluate the adequacy of the Crown land p l a n n i n g process as an i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement f o r a r r i v i n g at management d e c i s i o n s that are s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e , and 4. based on a t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of p u b l i c p o l i c y a n a l y s i s , to make recommendations reg a r d i n g the p o t e n t i a l changes i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s and r u l e s with respect to t h e i r e f f e c t s on the decision-making pr o c e s s . 6 CHAPTER II — CROWN LAND PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA P o l i t i c s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been • a d r i v i n g f o r c e i n the management of Crown land i n B r i t i s h Columbia. James Douglas, at the turn of the century, u t i l i z e d f r e e Crown grants as b a i t to l u r e e a r l y s e t t l e r s to the P r o v i n c e . L a t e r , Crown grants were a l s o employed in n e g o t i a t i n g the b u i l d i n g of the i n t r a p r o v i n c i a l railway ( C a i l , 1974). More r e c e n t l y , these lands have been used to "make more land a v a i l a b l e to the c i t i z e n s of B.C." ( B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979(a), p.709). Perhaps the • most s t r i k i n g o b s e r v a t i o n that can be drawn from a review of our h i s t o r y i s t h a t , indeed, h i s t o r y does repeat i t s e l f . The contemporary procedures of conducting p u b l i c a u c t i o n s , r e g u l a t i n g purchase p r i c e s and s e l l i n g only to r e s i d e n t s are remarkably s i m i l a r to the p r i n c i p l e s adopted i n James Douglas' Proclamation of 1859. What i s new, however, i s the concept of Crown land "management" as opposed to procedures o r i e n t e d s t r i c t l y towards d i s p o s a l . I t i s tempting to regress to the e a r l y years with the i n t e n t of reviewing the e v o l u t i o n of c u r r e n t procedures. Such a step, however, would be a r e p e t i t i o n of p r e v i o u s works, most notably the e x c e l l e n t d e s c r i p t i o n s provided by C a i l (1974) and Pearson (1971). As a r e s u l t , I s h a l l commence i n the 1970s, a p e r i o d of profound changes. 7 THE EVOLUTION OF CROWN LAND PLANNING The e a r l y years of the 1970's were a milestone in the development of a resource management s t r a t e g y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. R e l a t i v e to Crown lands, the c r i t i c a l year was 1970 fo r i t was then that a new Land Act f o r the Province was adopted by the L e g i s l a t u r e . The i n t e n t of t h i s s t a t u t e may be best summarized by the f o l l o w i n g statement: . " I t i s an adjustment to s u i t c u r r e n t concerns, not a r a d i c a l or r e v o l u t i o n a r y departure from former a c t s . By being a f l e x i b l e yet s t a b l e base on which to b u i l d land p o l i c i e s , the 1970 Act continues the t r a d i t i o n of i t s p redecessors" (Pearson, 1971, p.22). In essence, the Act was new but not d i f f e r e n t . L a r g e l y i t c o n s o l i d a t e d the management techniques that had been e v o l v i n g over the previous decades. N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t d i d r e f l e c t a number of p o l i c y changes. For the f i r s t time pre-emption 1 as a method of Crown land a l i e n a t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d . The Act f u r t h e r s t r e s s e d the need for p r e s e r v a t i o n of shorelands f o r p u b l i c use and l i m i t e d purchase of p u b l i c lands to Canadians. The bureaucracy that worked w i t h i n t h i s framework, however, d i d not change. The r e s p o n s i b l e agency, the Department of Lands, F o r e s t s and Water Resources continued to operate with i t s modest, V i c t o r i a - b a s e d s t a f f i n l a r g e l y a c l e r i c a l c a p a c i t y . The focus of department a c t i v i t i e s was p r o c e s s i n g a l i e n a t i o n 1pre-emption was a method of a c q u i r i n g land whereby a s e t t l e r on the land was given the r i g h t to purchase i t from the Crown before an o p p o r t u n i t y was o f f e r e d to o t h e r s . 8 a p p l i c a t i o n s forwarded by p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s through the P r o v i n c i a l Government Agents. No attempts were made to inventory the a v a i l a b l e Crown land resources or develop an o v e r a l l d i s p o s a l s t r a t e g y . Crown land p l a n n i n g , i n a h o l i s t i c sense, was not c o n s i d e r e d necessary f o r we were s t i l l a f r o n t i e r and land was r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . The f o l l o w i n g year, 1971, witnessed the c r e a t i o n of a new s t a t u t e , the Environment and Land Use Act (ELUA). I t e s t a b l i s h e d the Environment and Land Use Committee (ELUC) of Cabinet and gave them broad powers to r u l e over the use and p r e s e r v a t i o n of the P r o v i n c e ' s n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . Numerous hypotheses have been brought f o r t h regarding the i n t e n t of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n (Crook, 1975). Proponents have s t a t e d that i t s c r e a t i o n was i n response to the Government's commitment towards p r o t e c t i n g the n a t u r a l environment while c r i t i c s argued that i t s b a s i c i n t e n t was to provide a v e h i c l e f o r Cabinet to circumvent e x i s t i n g procedures when approving l a r g e - s c a l e energy p r o j e c t s . Regardless of i t s i n i t i a l i n t e n t , t h i s s t a t u t e was to become perhaps the s i n g l e , most important pi e c e of resource l e g i s l a t i o n i n the Province to date. The New Landlords The def e a t of the S o c i a l C r e d i t government in 1972 witnessed the beginning of an o v e r a l l Crown land development s t r a t e g y . The New Democratic Party (NDP), the new Government, had a s t r o n g m a j o r i t y and an i n t e n t to reverse e x i s t i n g e x p l o i t i v e p a t t e r n s of resource development. The Lands, F o r e s t s 9 and Water Resources p o r t f o l i o was assumed by R.A. W i l l i a m s , an urban planner by p r o f e s s i o n , who was determined t o "... b r i n g the Land's Department i n t o the Twentieth Century" ( B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973). Recognizing the power contained i n the ELUA, the Government proceeded to make s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n the P r o v i n c e ' s resource management s t r u c t u r e . A s t a f f s e c r e t a r i a t (ELUCS) was c r e a t e d to d i r e c t l y a s s i s t c a b i n e t i n p r e p a r i n g a P r o v i n c i a l resource s t r a t e g y . T h i s group c o n s i s t e d of three u n i t s : s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s , resource p l a n n i n g and resource a n a l y s i s ; a l l of which were immediately consumed with the task of i d e n t i f y i n g and documenting resource i s s u e s i n the Province. As w e l l , the Department of Lands, F o r e s t s and Water Resources blossomed as i t s s t a f f and f i n a n c i a l resources i n c r e a s e d . The most s i g n i f i c a n t of the immediate changes was the " f r e e z i n g " of a l l p r o d u c t i v e a g r i c u l t u r a l lands i n the P r o v i n c e . U t i l i z i n g the broad " p r e s e r v a t i o n " powers provided i n the ELUA, the L e g i s l a t u r e i n the s p r i n g of 1973 c r e a t e d the Land Commission Act, which set the b a s i s f o r r e s e r v i n g both p r i v a t e and Crown lands f o r a g r i c u l t u r e . The o p p o s i t i o n was v o c i f e r o u s and the Government had to endure abuse from a l l s i d e s (Smith, 1975). Given t h i s r e a c t i o n , the Government was p l a c e d i n a p o s i t i o n of having to d e v i s e a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s which would provide a d d i t i o n a l r u r a l land f o r development and thus, p l a c a t e the c o n t i n u i n g o p p o s i t i o n . I t i s at t h i s time that Crown lands, again, s u r f a c e d as a -popular p o l i t i c a l t o p i c . 10 In 1974 the Department of Lands, F o r e s t s and Water Resources was i n s t r u c t e d to pursue an active.development program f o r vacant Crown lands. Much.of t h i s development, however, was to occur i n the form of l e a s e s r a t h e r than o u t r i g h t s a l e . I t was deemed that t h i s approach would best p r o t e c t the Province's long-term i n t e r e s t s . As a r e s u l t , a few areas were i d e n t i f i e d and p l a c e d on the market. The most p u b l i c i z e d were i n the Kamloops d i s t r i c t where i n 1975 an a u c t i o n was h e l d to dispose of s h o r e l i n e r e c r e a t i o n l o t s on a number of small l a k e s . To a l a r g e degree, these e f f o r t s were not s u c c e s s f u l , as many p o t e n t i a l landowners were h e s i t a n t to develop p r o p e r t i e s on a l e a s e - h o l d b a s i s . In a d d i t i o n , the Department attempted to i d e n t i f y and s e l l Crown land f o r small homesteading purposes (Province, 1975, J u l y 3). Again, t h i s endeavour had l i m i t e d r e s u l t s . The major problem appeared to be that many of these a l l o c a t i o n s were on an ad hoc b a s i s . L i t t l e e f f o r t was made to r e l a t e the amount of land being provided to c u r r e n t market c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Furthermore, the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s were h e s i t a n t t o get i n v o l v e d i n what they viewed as a p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t o l o c a l l a n d development p o l i c i e s . The p u b l i c was a l s o beginning to express t h e i r d i s a p p r o v a l of c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s . On J u l y 1st 1975, a demonstration was h e l d i n Keremeos where the B.C. Land Access Lobby t e m p o r a r i l y blocked Highway #3 to p r o t e s t the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of Crown land f o r purchase and r u r a l s ettlement. I t i s perhaps the above combination of events that convinced the Government that a comprehensive Crown land 11 management s t r a t e g y was necessary. Thus i t embarked on a much wider program u t i l i z i n g the r e c e n t l y e s t a b l i s h e d seven r e g i o n a l resource management committees (RRMC) as the c o o r d i n a t i n g body. The plan was to d e c e n t r a l i z e t e c h n i c a l s t a f f and decision-making to the regions where the resources were l o c a t e d . Ultimate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y would r e s t with ELUC, with the S e c r e t a r i a t p r o v i d i n g t e c h n i c a l guidance to ELUC and the RRMCs. Based on t h i s concept, the Lands Department s t a f f was p h y s i c a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the Province and advised to i n i t i a t e Crown land in v e n t o r y programs. In the l a t e f a l l , however, an e l e c t i o n was c a l l e d and Government e f f o r t s turned towards p o l i t i c s r a ther than a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The p r o v i s i o n of a d d i t i o n a l Crown land f o r p r i v a t e use became a part of both the NDP and S o c i a l C r e d i t p a r t i e s ' p l a t f o r m s . The NDP s t r e s s e d the merits of t h e i r newly c r e a t e d scheme while the o p p o s i t i o n p a r t i e s made c o n t i n u a l r e f e r e n c e to the e r o s i o n of developable r u r a l l a n d away from p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s and the need f o r immediate r e v e r s a l of these t r e n d s . On e l e c t i o n day the NDP was d e f e a t e d and the S o c i a l C r e d i t p a r t y again formed the Government of the P r o v i n c e . As promised durin g the campaign, the new Government c r e a t e d a M i n i s t r y of Environment to assume stewardship over a l l land and water re s o u r c e s . Due to i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the P r o v i n c i a l economy, the f o r e s t f u n c t i o n was i s o l a t e d i n t o a separate m i n i s t r y . As w e l l , the ELUCS was removed from a s t a f f f u n c t i o n and p l a c e d i n a l i n e c a p a c i t y w i t h i n the M i n i s t r y of Environment. The net 1 2 r e s u l t of these changes was an uneasiness among a l l concerned. The p o l i t i c a l l e v e l d i d not t r u s t the bureaucracy.and the c i v i l s e r v i c e d i d not know what to expect from a government that had campaigned to decrease the red tape in the Pro v i n c e . The resource t e c h n o c r a t s were e s p e c i a l l y d i s a p p o i n t e d with the reassignment of the ELUCS and the r e s u l t i n g l o s s of an i m p a r t i a l c o o r d i n a t i n g body (Heayn, 1977). In November 1977, Mr. N e i l s e n , the M i n i s t e r of Environment, announced that 300,000 acres of Crown land s u i t a b l e f o r farming would be made a v a i l a b l e f o r purchase i n the s p r i n g of 1978. These lands would be open to both purchase and l e a s e options and would be disposed of by p u b l i c c o m p e t i t i o n . The s t a t e d purpose of t h i s r e l e a s e was to make small farms more v i a b l e as w e l l as to c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r persons who wished to commence a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y . A few a u c t i o n s were h e l d but again the o v e r a l l response was very l i m i t e d . In s h o r t , d e s p i t e the urgency proclaimed during the e l e c t i o n r e g a r d i n g the need f o r Crown land development, very l i t t l e " p l anning" occurred d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . The r e g i o n a l Lands Branch personnel were s t i l l p r o c e s s i n g i s o l a t e d a p p l i c a t i o n s with no cohesive s t r a t e g y f o r a s s e s s i n g the e n t i r e u n a l i e n a t e d Crown land resource. The major emphasis appeared to be l i m i t e d to the development of a province-wide Crown land i n v e n t o r y . 1 3 A New M i n i s t r y Is Created December 1978 brought f o r t h the c u r r e n t stage i n the e v o l u t i o n of B.C.'s Crown land development s t r a t e g y . At t h i s time the s t r u c t u r e of the Government was reorganized and a M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing was c r e a t e d . The prime reason given f o r t h i s r e o r g a n i z a t i o n was to make land more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to the c i t i z e n s of B r i t i s h Columbia. S p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e s were made to the time-consuming and an t i q u a t e d nature of the e x i s t i n g d i s p o s a l processes and what a d m i n i s t r a t i v e changes would be made to a l l e v i a t e t h i s s i t u a t i o n ( B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979(a), p.709). Throughout t h i s r e o r g a n i z a t i o n the relev a n c e of a M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing was s e r i o u s l y q u e s t i o n e d and more than once was i t r e f e r r e d to i n a derogatory manner, such as the " M i n i s t r y of L e f t o v e r s " ( B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979(a), p.706). T h i s p e r c e p t i o n of being a haphazard c r e a t i o n , r e s u l t i n g from p o l i t i c a l j o c k e y i n g , remains with the M i n i s t r y to the present time, throughout many l e v e l s of Government. To counteract these a t t i t u d e s the new M i n i s t e r , Mr. Chabot, made a concerted e f f o r t to demonstrate to the p u b l i c that Crown land was " f i n a l l y going to be a c c e s s i b l e to the r e s i d e n t s . " On January 15, 1979 he iss u e d a press r e l e a s e s t a t i n g that the Government was going to o f f e r 64 m i l l i o n acres of Crown land to the Province's r e s i d e n t s . The p a r c e l s would be i n v a r y i n g s i z e s and would probably be s o l d through a l o t t e r y system. Rumours of a s p r i n g e l e c t i o n a m p l i f i e d these e f f o r t s and the ra t e of press 14 r e l e a s e s . At the S o c i a l C r e d i t party convention in Vancouver on January 13, 1979 the Premier s t a t e d that "... the s e l l i n g of Crown land would h e l p more people become homeowners and help ease the m u n i c i p a l tax l o a d . . . The government owns 95 percent of the land i n B.C. and wants to g i v e young people a chance to buy t h e i r p i e c e of the P r o v i n c e " (Mclean, 1979). Once the e l e c t i o n date was f i n a l l y announced, these is s u e s became even more prominent. Again both p a r t i e s produced platforms which emphasized gre a t e r access to the Province's p u b l i c lands. The d i f f e r e n c e t h i s time, however, was that the r o l e s were re v e r s e d . The S o c i a l C r e d i t government was now i n the p o s i t i o n of having to defend t h e i r past a c t i o n s while the NDP continued to r e i t e r a t e the Government's i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . These a c t i v i t i e s continued to e s c a l a t e u n t i l e l e c t i o n day when the Government was r e e l e c t e d and p l a c e d i n the p o s i t i o n of having to honour i t s campaign commitments. To do so, i n J u l y 1979, Mr. Chabot presented two s t a t u t e s before the l e g i s l a t u r e . In i n t r o d u c i n g the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing Act and the Land Amendment Act he s t a t e d that with these amendments the Province would at l a s t be able to d e l i v e r a comprehensive Crown land management s t r a t e g y . Thus the stage was set f o r the bureaucracy to commence the p l a n n i n g necessary to develop the P r o v i n c i a l program. 1 5 THE LEGISLATED MANDATE As i n d i c a t e d in the i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter, the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing was e s t a b l i s h e d with the f o l l o w i n g mandate: "The management and a l l o c a t i o n of Crown lands i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia to ensure: the maintenance and improvement of a q u a l i t y system of parks and the encouragement of the best use of Crown land f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l , r e s i d e n t i a l , i n d u s t r i a l , commercial and r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia" (LPH, 1980(c), p.2). T h i s p o l i t i c a l mandate i s f u r t h e r d e f i n e d on the b a s i s of l e g i s l a t i o n , r e g u l a t i o n s and m i n i s t e r i a l p o l i c i e s . In terms of Crown land management, the M i n i s t r y ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s are o u t l i n e d i n two A c t s , the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing Act and the Land Act . The M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing Act e s t a b l i s h e s the M i n i s t r y , d e l i n e a t e s i t s f u n c t i o n s , and o u t l i n e s i t s powers r e l a t i v e to other governments and agencies. S p e c i f i c to Crown lands, the purpose of the M i n i s t r y i s s t a t e d i n S e c t i o n 5(2): "to administer the Crown land resources of the P r o v i n c e " ( B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979(b), p.2). The m i n i s t e r i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s statement i s as f o l l o w s : "Administer as used here i s d e f i n e d b r o a d l y : i t i n c l u d e s a wide range of f u n c t i o n s such as p o l i c y development and implementation, p l a n n i n g , managing, d i r e c t i n g , c o n t r o l l i n g and e v a l u a t i n g " (LPH, 1980(c), p. 2) . 1 6 The Land Act, as may be noted from the f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n , a l s o r e i n f o r c e s the M i n i s t r y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e with respect to u n a l i e n a t e d Crown land. "4. The m i n i s t e r has the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a l l Crown land except land s p e c i f i c a l l y under the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of another m i n i s t e r , branch or agency of government" ( B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979(b), p.2). To "administer" these u n a l i e n a t e d Crown p a r c e l s the Land Act f u r t h e r provides s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i t y under the f o l l o w i n g three sect i o n s . S e c t i o n 11: The Lieutenant Governor-in-Counci1 may, for any purpose that he c o n s i d e r s a d v i s a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , by n o t i c e signed by the m i n i s t e r and p u b l i s h e d i n the Gazette, reserve Crown land from d i s p o s i t i o n under t h i s Act, and may, by s i m i l a r method, amend or c a n c e l i n whole or i n p a r t a reserve e s t a b l i s h e d under t h i s Act or a former Act . S e c t i o n 12: The m i n i s t e r may, f o r any purpose he c o n s i d e r s a d v i s a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , t e m p o r a r i l y withdraw Crown land from d i s p o s i t i o n under t h i s Act, and he may amend or c a n c e l the withdrawal. S e c t i o n 13: The m i n i s t e r may, i f he c o n s i d e r s i t a d v i s a b l e i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , designate the most d e s i r a b l e use of a p o r t i o n of Crown land, may withdraw the p o r t i o n from d i s p o s i t i o n under t h i s Act f o r a purpose other than the d e s i g n a t e d use and may amend or c a n c e l the withdrawal ( B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979(b), p.4) . In summary then, the u t i l i z a t i o n of these f i v e s e c t i o n s p r o v i d e s the M i n i s t r y with the s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n to a l i e n a t e Crown lands to t h e i r "best" use, p r o v i d i n g such a c t i o n s are deemed to be i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The f i r s t two s e c t i o n s p r o v i d e v e h i c l e s whereby m i n i s t e r i a l s t a f f may engage i n p o l i c y development and e v a l u a t i o n , while the l a t t e r three have been u t i l i z e d as implementation techniques to a s s i g n Crown land to 1 7 s p e c i f i c - u s e d e s i g n a t i o n s . T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n and i t s u t i l i z a t i o n w i t h i n the Crown land planning process i s reviewed i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n the l a t t e r p o r t i o n of t h i s chapter where the processes' implementation procedures are d i s c u s s e d . R e l a t i o n to Other Legi s l a t ion Exempted from LPH c o n t r o l are p r i v a t e lands and a l i e n a t e d Crown lands (lands under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of other M i n i s t r i e s such as P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s , mineral claims and other forms of s i n g l e - u s e r e s e r v e s ) . At present, there are only two a d d i t i o n a l s t a t u t e s which enable s p e c i f i c m i n i s t r i e s or agencies to r e g u l a t e land uses on u n a l i e n a t e d Crown land. These are the F o r e s t Act which grants the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s the j u r i s d i c t i o n to r e g u l a t e a l l f o r e s t lands and the M u n i c i p a l Act which p r o v i d e s l o c a l government with the a u t h o r i t y t o prepare settlement and r e g i o n a l plans f o r t h e i r r e g i o n s . In terms of l o c a l governments, p a r t i c u l a r l y r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s , i t i s recognized that an a u t h o r i t y to engage in p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s on Crown land e x i s t s and many of these agencies do prepare plans f o r areas which i n c l u d e u n a l i e n a t e d Crown lands. I t i s important to note, however, that these bodies are a c r e a t i o n of the P r o v i n c e , as enabled under the M u n i c i p a l Act, and t h e r e f o r e are subordinate to P r o v i n c i a l mandates. Consequently, the LPH p l a n n i n g program or any other P r o v i n c i a l p l a n n i n g scheme may preclude any s p e c i f i c land use d e s i g n a t i o n s assigned by a l o c a l government. N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t must be recognized that the LPH M i n i s t r y has j u r i s d i c t i o n over 18 u n a l i e n a t e d land only and that as soon as these lands are developed, s o l d or l e a s e d they are co n s i d e r e d a l i e n a t e d and, t h e r e f o r e , come under l o c a l government c o n t r o l . In other words land s o l d f o r a use by LPH cou l d be d i s a l l o w e d f o r that use upon a l i e n a t i o n . Under the Fo r e s t Act the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s i s given broad powers to administer a l l lands designated as f o r e s t lands i n the Provi n c e , thereby e x c l u d i n g these areas from the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the LPH M i n i s t r y . There are, however, s i g n i f i c a n t areas o u t s i d e P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s that have f o r e s t use p o t e n t i a l and co n v e r s e l y , there are many areas w i t h i n the F o r e s t s which are not u t i l i z e d for f o r e s t purposes. To a l l e v i a t e the p o t e n t i a l . f o r c o n f l i c t s , the two m i n i s t r i e s have, i n September 1979, endorsed an agreement which d e f i n e s the r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of each m i n i s t r y i n managing both f o r e s t and non-forest uses w i t h i n  P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s , e x c l u d i n g Tree Farm L i c e n c e areas. P r i n c i p a l l y , t h i s document recognizes the r o l e of the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s as the l e a d agency f o r c o - o r d i n a t i n g and managing f o r e s t uses and the LPH M i n i s t r y as the le a d agency f o r managing a l l n o n - forest uses i n c l u d i n g a l l Crown f o r e s h o r e . F i n a l l y , t h i s agreement o u t l i n e s the s p e c i f i c steps to be taken i n removing or e s t a b l i s h i n g P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t d e s i g n a t i o n s . 19 THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE To implement i t s mandate the M i n i s t r y has chosen a two-t i e r e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e system: a policy-making l e v e l at headquarters i n V i c t o r i a , and an' o p e r a t i o n s l e v e l i n the r e g i o n s . The s t r u c t u r e of the two groups i s d e p i c t e d in F i g u r e s 1 and 2. A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the l i n e flows and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of each of the sub-units i s p r o v i d e d . Crown land a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f a l l s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of two d i v i s i o n s , the Lands and Housing Regional Operations D i v i s i o n and the Program and Management S e r v i c e s D i v i s i o n . The f i r s t i s r e g i o n a l l y based in the seven Resource Management Regions (RMR), while the l a t t e r i s s i t u a t e d i n V i c t o r i a . In keeping with the present. a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s p o l i c y of d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , much of the onus i s p l a c e d on the r e g i o n a l s t a f f to i n s t i g a t e and develop p l a n s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r s p e c i f i c r e g i o n a l needs. As a r e s u l t , the r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r , i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the land managers and the r e g i o n a l planner, i s r e q u i r e d to develop Crown Land P l a n s , to process them through the adoption procedures and to ensure that they are implemented. By f a r the m a j o r i t y of work undertaken by the D i v i s i o n , however, i s the p r o c e s s i n g of Crown land a p p l i c a t i o n s . One key p o i n t to note i n t h i s s t r u c t u r e i s that the r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f i s d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e to the r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r and not to the p l a n n i n g s t a f f i n V i c t o r i a . The primary f u n c t i o n of the V i c t o r i a based Land Programs group i s the development of m i n i s t e r i a l p o l i c i e s and procedures F I G U R E 1 M I N I S T R Y OF L A N D S , P A R K S AND H O U S I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L P L A N ( J U N E 19 8 0 ) M I N I S T E R D e p u t y M i n i s t e r P a r k s a n d O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n D i v i s i o n L a n d s a n d H o u s i n g R e g i o n a l O p e r a t i o n s D i v i s i o n P r o g r a m & M a n a g e m e n t S e r v i c e s D i v i s i o n S e v e n R e g i o n a l M a n a g e r s ( s e e F i g u r e 3 f o r t y p i c a l r e g i o n ' s s t r u c t u r e ) C r o w n L a n d P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m - p r e p a r a t i o n o f C r o w n l a n d p l a n s P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s I L e g a l S e r v i c e s H o u s i n g P r o g r a m s R e s e a r c h F i n a n c e & A d m i n i s t r a t i o n L a n d P r o g r a m s 1 L a n d R e c o r d s ! C r o w n L a n d P l a n n i n g P r o g r a m - p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t - q u a l i t y c o n t r o l S o u r c e : A d a p t e d f r o m L P H A n n u a l R e p o r t s . F I G U R E 2 T Y P I C A L R E G I O N A L S T R U C T U R E R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r S e c r e t a r y I P l a n n e r M a n a g e r L a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n I S u p e r v i s o r F i n a n c e & A d m i n i s t r a t i o n D i s t r i c t M a n a g e r D i s t r i c t M a n a g e r S e n i o r E x a m i n e r I C l e r k A c c o u n t s C l e r k O f f i c e S e r v i c e s L a n d L a n d E x a m i n e r s I n s p e c t o r s I n s p e c t o r s C l e r k s O f f i c e A s s i s t a n t s 1 B i o l o g i s t 1 M a n a g e r H o u s i n g & D e v e l o p m e n t P r o j e c t M a n a g e r P r o j e c t A s s i s t a n t S o u r c e : A d a p t e d f r o m t h e M i n i s t r y o f L a n d s , P a r k s a n d H o u s i n g , L a n d A l l o c a t i o n P r o c e d u r e s M a n u a l ( 1 9 7 9 ) . 22 to a i d r e g i o n a l o p e r a t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s i n c l u d e s developing pla n n i n g g u i d e l i n e s , reviewing work programs and m a i n t a i n i n g q u a l i t y c o n t r o l over M i n i s t r y output. F i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a l l Crown land planning a c t i v i t i e s u l t i m a t e l y l i e s with the M i n i s t e r and h i s executive committee, comprised of the deputy m i n i s t e r and h i s a s s i s t a n t s . THE CROWN LAND PLANNING PROGRAM Emerging from the p o l i t i c a l mandate, in 1979, M i n i s t r y o f f i c i a l s i n s t i t u t e d a comprehensive p l a n n i n g program. T h i s e f f o r t was one of the f i r s t attempts, on a p r o v i n c i a l s c a l e , at p r o v i d i n g a systematic p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g y f o r e i t h e r l a n d or water based res o u r c e s . The c l o s e s t forerunner to t h i s approach i s the f o l i o system 1 f i r s t u t i l i z e d by the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . Numerous f a c t o r s i n h e r i t e d from preceding a c t i o n s g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d the scope and design of t h i s program. To s t a r t , the Land Programs group, the d e s i g n e r s of the Crown land p l a n n i n g program, had enormous p o l i t i c a l pressure put upon them to produce a v i a b l e planning s t r u c t u r e . Given the i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of past endeavours, f u r t h e r p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n by e i t h e r r e s e a r c h i n g or s o l i c i t i n g c o o p e r a t i o n from other m i n i s t r i e s was not f e a s i b l e . The program had t o be developed and implemented i n the s h o r t e s t workable time. 1A resource f o l i o i s a s e r i e s of maps d e p i c t i n g v a r i o u s b i o -p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 23 Furthermore, t h i s group had. to recognize . e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements and behavior. In essence, they had to design a program that c o u l d operate w i t h i n the e x i s t i n g RRMC system. T h i s i s much more complex than what appears on the s u r f a c e . F i r s t , the RRMCs are l a r g e l y composed of i n d i v i d u a l s with b i o - p h y s i c a l backgrounds who, by v i r t u e of t h e i r t r a i n i n g , may not always be sympathetic towards land development. F u r t h e r , there i s a tremendous v a r i a t i o n i n the o p e r a t i o n a l procedures between the seven r e g i o n s . For in s t a n c e , the Lower Mainland RRMC meets only once or twice a year to d i s c u s s broad i s s u e s while some of the i n t e r i o r groups meet monthly to deal with s i t e -s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , there i s no set of common p o l i c i e s or implementation techniques by which resource a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s are made. Each RRMC i s l e f t to determine i t s scope and o p e r a t i o n a l format. Any program designed by LPH would have to account f o r these d i f f e r e n c e s . In a d d i t i o n , the LPH M i n i s t r y was not viewed as a powerful f o r c e , s i n c e i n the past i t had not demonstrated much l e a d e r s h i p . As w e l l , the M i n i s t r y was viewed as the r e a l e s t a t e arm of the Government and, t h e r e f o r e , was not to be t r u s t e d when i t came to p r e s e r v i n g the P r o v i n c i a l p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . F i n a l l y , throughout t h i s p e r i o d the concept of s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g 1 had become popular and was being adopted by many of the resource m i n i s t r i e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the M i n i s t r i e s of F o r e s t s 1 t h e s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g approach i s d i s c u s s e d i n some l e n g t h i n Chapter VI. N 24 and Environment were p r e p a r i n g t h e i r own planning programs and t h e r e f o r e viewed the LPH plann i n g process as a secondary or perhaps t e r t i a r y f u n c t i o n r e l a t i v e to t h e i r own a c t i v i t i e s . Given these f a c t o r s the Land Programs D i v i s i o n had l i t t l e a l t e r n a t i v e but to act u n i l a t e r a l l y and develop a program that best s u i t e d t h e i r immediate needs. Thus, i n the f o l l o w i n g year a Crown land p l a n n i n g program was d e v i s e d and implemented. The program u t i l i z e s f i v e planning, l e v e l s : 1. A P r o v i n c i a l P o l i c y P o s i t i o n Paper on Crown Land that d e l i n e a t e s a comprehensive s t r a t e g y f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of p r o v i n c i a l Crown lands and re s o u r c e s . 2^ . A Regional Crown Land Strategy which m o d i f i e s p r o v i n c i a l goals a c c o r d i n g to the d i v e r s e r e g i o n a l r e s o u r c e s . 3. A Sub-Regional Crown Land Plan that p r o v i d e s g e n e r a l i z e d d e s i g n a t i o n s of land a c c o r d i n g to r e s o u r c e / l a n d use p r i o r i t i e s and c a p a b i l i t i e s . The prime purpose of t h i s plan i s to enable c o n f i d e n t and e f f i c i e n t a d j u d i c a t i o n of land a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r l a r g e areas and to i d e n t i f y areas where more d e t a i l e d p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s are r e q u i r e d . 4. A S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan which develops d e t a i l e d p o l i c y recommendations and d e s i g n a t e s areas f o r s p e c i f i c uses that can be secured through l e g i s l a t i o n . 5. O p e r a t i o n a l Plans which e s t a b l i s h d e t a i l e d s i t e development programs f o r s p e c i f i c uses. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p r e p a r a t i o n of these plans l i e s at v a r i o u s l e v e l s . For i n s t a n c e , the p r e p a r a t i o n of a P r o v i n c i a l P o l i c y i s f e l t to be beyond the scope of any one m i n i s t r y and must be a j o i n t e f f o r t at the Cabinet l e v e l . The development of a Regional Crown Land Stra t e g y i s seen as the task of an i n t e r -agency committee comprised of personnel at the Regiona l Resource Management Committee l e v e l . The Sub-Regional and S u b - D i s t r i c t Plans are developed through a s i m i l a r inter-agency format but u t i l i z i n g the o p e r a t i o n s l e v e l p e r s onnel i n the r e g i o n s . L a s t l y , 25 the O p e r a t i o n a l Plan i s seen as a refinement of s u p e r i o r plans by d i s t r i c t LPH p e r s o n n e l . T h i s s t r a t e g y i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 3. In view of the complexity and s i z e of the e f f o r t s r e q u i r e d to develop these p l a n s , combined with the o v e r l a p p i n g mandates of other m i n i s t r i e s , LPH has adopted a stance that immediate e f f o r t s should be d i r e c t e d towards the development of Sub-Regional and S u b - D i s t r i c t P l a n s . I t i s f e l t that most land a l l o c a t i o n problems can best be addressed at t h i s s c a l e and that doing so w i l l be the best approach to meet M i n i s t r y g o a l s . Furthermore, more general or s p e c i f i c plans can be developed once these documents are i n p l a c e (LPH, 1979(a)). To prepare these plans the M i n i s t r y has d e v i s e d a Crown Land Planning Process. S i m p l i f i e d , the planning model c o n s i s t s of four phases: i n i t i a t i o n , f o r m u l a t i o n , adoption and implementation. These four stages are d i s c u s s e d i n t u r n . I n i t i a t i o n The i n i t i a t i o n phase c o n s i s t s of two major a c t i v i t i e s : the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a need to r e s o l v e a Crown land i s s u e and the assessment of t h i s need r e l a t i v e to the requirements of other areas. The prime o b j e c t i v e of t h i s stage i s to determine i f the p r o j e c t i s s i g n i f i c a n t enough to warrant i t being c a r r i e d out. To f a c i l i t a t e t h i s process, the M i n i s t r y has d e v i s e d a system of annual work programs which are d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to the budget pro c e s s . 2 6 FIGURE 3 CROWN LAND PLANNING HIERARCHY P r o v i n c i a l P o l i c y P o s i t i o n Paper - Broad Goals & Objectives f o r Crown Lands & Resources - Recognition of Regional D i v e r s i t y - I n t e g r a t i o n with Economic Development Strategy Regional Crown Land Strategy - A p p l i c a t i o n of P r o v i n c i a l Goals & P o l i c i e s to S p e c i f i c Resource Management Regions - Formulation of Strategy f o r Integrated Use/Management of Crown Land i n Regions Sub-Regional Crown Land Plan - A p p l i c a t i o n of Regional Strategy to Sub-Region/District - Statement of Demand, P r i o r i t i e s & Associated Uses f o r Land - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Resource P r i o r i t y Areas & P o l i c i e s f o r Use S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Most S u i t a b l e Crown Land Uses - Recommended P o l i c i e s , Programs & R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r Selected Management & Development Areas According to Sub-Regional P r i o r i t y - Both Conceptual & D e t a i l e d Plan Components are Included • Operational Crown Land Plan - E s t a b l i s h S i t e Development Programs f o r S p e c i f i c Use Indicated i n Sub-D i s t r i c t Plan - Prepare Plan According t o Uses & P o l i c i e s of S u b - D i s t r i c t Plan - Prepared by Agency Indicated i n S u b - D i s t r i c t Plan Source: Adapted from M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, Planning Manual. 27 In keeping with the p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y of d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y , the onus f o r i n i t i a t i o n l i e s at the r e g i o n a l and d i s t r i c t l e v e l s . It i s expected that d i s t r i c t l a n d managers, with the a i d of the r e g i o n a l planner, w i l l examine and p r i o r i z e the major Crown land resource concerns i n t h e i r area and then develop a work program that responds to these i n t e r e s t s . T h i s submission i s then forwarded to the r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r who reviews i t with other d i s t r i c t submissions. The outcome of t h i s review i s a p r i o r i z e d work program that d e l i n e a t e s what planning w i l l be done i n each Resource Management Region i n the upcoming year. F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the submission i s forwarded to the RRMC which reviews i t s relevance to o v e r a l l r e g i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s . Upon r e c e i v i n g RRMC endorsement the work program i s submitted to V i c t o r i a where the e n t i r e process i s repeated, i n c o r p o r a t i n g the M i n i s t r y ' s p r o v i n c i a l o b j e c t i v e s . I d e a l l y , the outcome i s a framework f o r a c t i o n t h a t i s endorsed by a l l l e v e l s and r e f l e c t s a s t r a t e g y f o r r e s o l u t i o n of a l l major Crown land i s s u e s r e l a t i v e to other m i n i s t r i e s ' needs i n each of the seven RMRs i n the P r o v i n c e . F i n a l s a n c t i o n i n c l u d e s the approval of proposed budgets by the Treasury Board and l e g i s l a t i v e debate on m i n i s t e r i a l estimates. Formulation The f o r m u l a t i o n stage, u n l i k e the pre v i o u s phase, i s very loose i n o u t l i n i n g the a c t u a l p l a n n i n g steps to be taken. T h i s i s l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the r e g i o n a l planner who i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r developing the Crown land plan . As a r e s u l t , 28 the p l a n n i n g programs undertaken i n the regions may vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c c o r d i n g to the d i v e r s i t y of personnel and resource concerns i n the ar e a . To compensate f o r these v a r i a t i o n s , M i n i s t r y o f f i c i a l s have developed a prototype format to guide the r e g i o n a l s t a f f i n p r e p a r i n g the p l a n s . In essence, how plans are d e r i v e d i s l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the r e g i o n a l s t a f f p r o v i d e d that a l l f i n a l documents are submitted i n a format a c c e p t a b l e to "headquarters" i n V i c t o r i a . In terms of the a c t u a l p r e p a r a t i o n of a Crown land p l a n , there does appear to be a number of common a t t r i b u t e s . G e n e r a l l y , the process i s as f o l l o w s . F i r s t , terms of r e f e r e n c e for the study are developed. T h i s commonly i n c l u d e s a rough o u t l i n e of the proposed study area, a broad statement of what the plan i s t r y i n g to achieve and a c a l l f o r input from a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s . T h i s o u t l i n e i s d i s t r i b u t e d to a l l p r o v i n c i a l agencies and l o c a l governments having j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the area as w e l l as any other s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups, whom the  planner f e e l s may be a f f e c t e d . The l a t t e r may i n c l u d e i n d u s t r y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , outdoor c l u b s , ratepayers' groups, n a t i v e i n t e r e s t s and so on. Those who respond form the Crown Land Planning Task Force (CLPTF) and are charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d e r i v i n g a . p l a n . The primary mode of communication between these i n t e r e s t s i s through a s e r i e s of meetings where the area i s d e f i n e d and each group i s given an op p o r t u n i t y t o s t a t e t h e i r concerns, be they p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l or p o l i t i c a l . The p e r c e i v e d r o l e of the LPH s t a f f i s to act as f a c i l i t a t o r s throughout t h i s process and i n the end, to 29 s y n t h e s i z e the f i n d i n g s i n t o a p l a n . The involvement of the p u b l i c at l a r g e i s l e f t to the judgment of the planner. The M i n i s t r y has developed g u i d e l i n e s f o r p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n but t h e i r use appears to be at the d i s c r e t i o n of the r e g i o n a l planner. The e n t i r e process, as may be expected, w i l l vary i n length depending on the complexity of i s s u e s and the ensuing b a r g a i n i n g process. G e n e r a l l y , i t i s f e l t that a plan can be developed i n a p e r i o d of s i x months to one year. Adoption The t h i r d stage of the p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t y i s the adoption phase where the document i s endorsed and prepared for d i s t r i b u t i o n . Again, the onus i s p l a c e d on the d i s t r i c t land manager to c a r r y the p r o j e c t through to f r u i t i o n . Upon r e c e i v i n g the s a n c t i o n of the task f o r c e , the p l a n recommendations are submitted to the r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r who seeks concurrence on the concepts of the plan from the RRMC and the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t . The s a n c t i o n of the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t , i t appears, i s d e s i r a b l e but not mandatory. Once t h i s c o n f i r m a t i o n i s r e c e i v e d , the plan i s submitted to the a s s i s t a n t deputy m i n i s t e r (ADM) at the headquarters' l e v e l f o r format c r i t i q u e and v e r i f i c a t i o n of compliance with o v e r a l l p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y . Upon the completion of t h i s review, the plan i s recommended f o r adoption to the m i n i s t e r by h i s e x e c u t i v e committee. At t h i s p o i n t , the r e g i o n a l s t a f f i s informed of the o f f i c i a l s t a t u s of the p l a n , and the document along with an e x e c u t i v e summary and press r e l e a s e i s 30 made a v a i l a b l e f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n . Implementat ion The process o u t l i n e d above forms the sequence of events by which a Crown Land Plan i s c r e a t e d . The f i n a l , and perhaps the most.important stage, the implementation of the p l a n , has only in the l a s t year been f i n a l i z e d by the M i n i s t r y . T h i s phase represents the " f o r m a l i z a t i o n " of the planning process i n that i t t r a n s l a t e s a "paper p l a n " i n t o a c t i o n s through u t i l i z a t i o n of the Land Act . As noted e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, the Land Act p r o v i d e s the M i n i s t r y with a u t h o r i t y to a l l o c a t e Crown land f o r s p e c i f i c uses, to r e s t r i c t i t s a l l o c a t i o n and to reserve l a n d from any or a l l d i s p o s i t i o n s . T h i s a u t h o r i t y permits a p l a n to i d e n t i f y p e r m i t t e d uses for management and development on u n a l i e n a t e d p o r t i o n s of Crown land and to e s t a b l i s h c r i t e r i a f o r a d j u d i c a t i n g land a p p l i c a t i o n s so that they conform with the s p e c i f i e d uses (LPH,1980(c)). As w e l l , a plan may designate areas where no d i s p o s i t i o n should occur. The mechanisms f o r g i v i n g l e g a l s t a t u s to land d e s i g n a t i o n s a l l o c a t e d i n a plan are Crown land r e s e r v e s . These are drawn from S e c t i o n s 11, 12 and 13 of the Land Act and are as f o l l o w s : 1. O r d e r s - i n - C o u n c i l : Under S e c t i o n 11, the Cabinet upon recommendation of the LPH M i n i s t e r may withdraw a Crown land area from a l i e n a t i o n g e n e r a l l y i_n favour of a s p e c i f i c use. T h i s i s an absolute 31 r e s e r v a t i o n and can only be amended or c a n c e l l e d by an a d d i t i o n a l O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l . 2. Map Reserve: Under S e c t i o n 12, the M i n i s t e r may e s t a b l i s h a formal r e s e r v e , t e m p o r a r i l y withdrawing a designated Crown land area from a l i e n a t i o n jLn_ favour of a • s p e c i f i c use or environmental concern. 3. Designated Use Area: Under S e c t i o n 13, the M i n i s t e r may set a s i d e a Crown land area from a l i e n a t i o n f o r any other purpose other than the  designated use, although a l i e n a t i o n s compatible with the designated use may be c o n s i d e r e d . I t i s the i n t e n t of the M i n i s t r y , upon i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e land use d e s i g n a t i o n s . through an i n t e r a c t i v e p l a n n i n g process, to u t i l i z e the above powers to delegate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f u r t h e r management or p l a n n i n g to an a p p r o p r i a t e Crown agency, r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t , m u n i c i p a l i t y or, i n c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e s , p r i v a t e companies. For i n s t a n c e , each p l a n i d e n t i f i e s areas that have a s p e c i f i c s u i t a b i l i t y (e.g. f o r e s t r y management). U t i l i z i n g these mechanisms the M i n i s t r y may t r a n s f e r c o n t r o l of these s p e c i f i c areas to the agency best equipped to manage the land and i t s resources (e.g. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s ) . The d e c i s i o n on which implementation technique to use i s based on the s i z e of the area and the importance or value of the Crown land r e s o u r c e . As an i l l u s t r a t i o n , O r d e r s - i n - C o u n c i l , the 32 most formal or " b i n d i n g " of the techniques, are u t i l i z e d to reserve areas that are e i t h e r l a r g e or c o n t a i n unique resource c a p a b i l i t i e s . Such an order would r e q u i r e Cabinet s a n c t i o n . The more " r o u t i n e " assignments are achieved by an order of the LPH M i n i s t e r through S e c t i o n s 12 and 13 of the Act. One issue recognized but not e x p l i c i t l y addressed here i s the r e l a t i o n of these procedures r e l a t i v e to other P r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s . The mechanisms o u t l i n e d above may only be u t i l i z e d to a s s i g n unalienated. Crown land and are s u b j e c t to paramount s t a t u t e s such as the Environment and Land Use Act, the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t . The Record Thus Far With regard to the o v e r a l l s t a t u s of the p l a n n i n g program, to date 57 S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plans have been i n i t i a t e d i n the Province, e i g h t of which have been adopted, another ten have been completed and w i l l soon be presented f o r adoption, while the remainder are pending completion. As w e l l , M i n i s t r y o f f i c i a l s are i n the process of d e v e l o p i n g a Sub-Regional Plan i n the Cariboo D i s t r i c t . If s u c c e s s f u l , t h i s e f f o r t w i l l then be expanded to other areas of the P r o v i n c e . 33 CHAPTER III -- METHODOLOGY The major q u e s t i o n addressed i n t h i s t h e s i s i s , to what extent i s the Crown land planning program u t i l i z e d in the Lower Mainland a c h i e v i n g the LPH M i n i s t r y ' s e x p l i c i t goal - managing and a l l o c a t i n g Crown land i n t h i s Province i n a manner that optimizes the economic and s o c i a l w e l l - b e i n g of the r e s i d e n t s of B.C.? The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to respond to t h i s q u e s t i o n by f i r s t , reviewing v a r i o u s means by which the program can be evaluated, and second, i d e n t i f y i n g the r e l e v a n t data sources s u i t a b l e to the a n a l y s i s . EVALUATING THE CROWN LAND PLANNING PROGRAM Depending on one's experience, the words " e v a l u a t i o n " or "assessment" can t r i g g e r a wide range of p r o c e d u r a l images. Economists may think i n terms of o p p o r t u n i t i e s foregone while other s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s may r e f l e c t on the o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r perso n a l growth. Planners, on the other hand, would l i k e l y examine the degree to which p r e s c r i b e d goals or p o l i c i e s were achieved. For t h i s , they have developed g o a l s ' achievement m a t r i c e s , p l a n n i n g balance sheets, o p e r a t i o n a l c h e c k l i s t s , and numerous other formal techniques ( M c A l l i s t e r , 1980). Contrary to these "output" measurement methods there i s an opposing viewpoint, one that attempts to ev a l u a t e the " i n p u t s " to the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . T h i s normative assessment i s based on the assumption that a "good" decision-making process w i l l produce a "good" outcome (Fox, 1976). 34 Heayn (1977) i n conducting a s i m i l a r e v a l u a t i o n of the r e g i o n a l resource management committee s t r u c t u r e i n B r i t i s h Columbia aggregates t h i s wide range of assessment methods i n t o four groups. Drawing from the l i t e r a t u r e he p o s t u l a t e s that the performance of i n s t i t u t i o n s may be assessed by: 1. Goals' Achievement 2. D e c i s i o n E f f i c a c y 3. System A n a l y s i s , and 4. Normative Assessment of the Decision-Making Process. Transposing t h i s approach i n t o the context of the "task f o r c e " s t r u c t u r e u t i l i z e d i n the Crown land planning process, the normative assessment technique appears to be the most a p p l i c a b l e . The ensuing d i s c u s s i o n e l a b o r a t e s on the r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s c h o i c e , r e l a t i v e to the remaining three techniques. Goals' Achievement assessment i n v o l v e s the comparison of s t a t e d goals with a c t u a l consequences, or a c t u a l r e s u l t s with the intended r e s u l t s . T h i s form of assessment i s i m p r a c t i c a l f o r a number of reasons. F i r s t i t i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e to judge success i n terms of a c h i e v i n g s p e c i f i c g o a l s , as o p e r a t i v e goals are seldom c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d and people can r a r e l y agree on them. Second, we l i v e i n a dynamic world where standards, p r i o r i t i e s and programs are c o n s t a n t l y being amended. As a r e s u l t , one cannot determine the best benchmark from where e v a l u a t i o n should begin. F i n a l l y , the experience with the Crown land p l a n n i n g program has been too short to provide concrete evidence of achievement. 35 D e c i s i o n E f f i c a c y r e l a t e s to the economic o p t i m a l i t y of d e c i s i o n s , whereby the best end consequence i s measured by some form of b e n e f i t - c o s t a n a l y s i s or by some pre-conception of the " p u b l i c good" (Heayn, 1977). As with g o a l s ' achievement, given the i n t e r a c t i v e nature of the p l a n n i n g process, any measure of an economically optimal d e c i s i o n may be u n r e l a t e d to the r e a l -world s i t u a t i o n . As O'Riordan (1972, p.109) argues, i t w i l l probably never be p o s s i b l e to make optimal d e c i s i o n s , s i n c e there i s no c l e a r consensus of what c o n s t i t u t e s the " o p t i m a l " . The " m u l t i - f a c e t e d , c o n f l i c t i n g and s h i f t i n g p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " , coupled with the u n c e r t a i n t y of f u t u r e outcomes, have " l e d most students of the d e c i s i o n process to by-pass the search f o r the optimum i n favour of 'second best', ' s a t i s f y i n g ' or 'sub-optimal' s o l u t i o n s " . System A n a l y s i s i n v o l v e s a s s e s s i n g a program r e l a t i v e to the t o t a l environment in which the program i s f u n c t i o n i n g . Implied i n t h i s method i s the r e s e a r c h e r ' s cognizance of competing programs, a v a i l a b l e resources and overt and covert o r g a n i z a t i o n f u n c t i o n s . In s h o r t , to conduct t h i s e v a l u a t i o n one would be o b l i g e d to know the complete programs of a l l p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies, t h e i r g o a l s , the p r i o r i t i e s a s s i g n e d to each program - i n essence, "knowing more about the o r g a n i z a t i o n than the o r g a n i z a t i o n knows i t s e l f " (Weiss, 1972, p.30). Furthermore, t h i s method i s s t a t i c . Programs, g o a l s and p r i o r i t i e s can change and may be i n t e r p r e t e d and implemented d i f f e r e n t l y by i n d i v i d u a l s . Given these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t i s concluded that t h i s technique, as w e l l , i s not a p p l i c a b l e to the 36 task at hand. An assessment of the Dec i s ion-Making Process, u n l i k e the above three techniques, i s not s o l e l y concerned with the f i n a l outcome of the program, r a t h e r i t concentrates on the process by which d e c i s i o n s are achieved. The b a s i s f o r t h i s approach stems from the b e l i e f that i f each a c t i o n l e a d i n g to a d e c i s i o n i s conducted i n concert with s o c i e t a l p r e f e r e n c e s , the f i n a l outcome i t s e l f w i l l r e f l e c t the s o c i a l w i l l . F u r t h e r , people more o f t e n agree on the process or what must be done, rather than what goals should be achieved. As w e l l , i n s t i t u t i o n s are able to amend the process to meet the changing p r i o r i t i e s of s o c i e t y . As Fox suggests, "This i n f a c t i s the way we have judged i n s t i t u t i o n s . In North America and Western Europe we have a p p r a i s e d governmental i n s t i t u t i o n s i n terms of t h e i r democratic processes and e f f e c t i v e n e s s , not i n terms of the p o l i c i e s implemented" (Fox, 1976, p.747). What then c o n s t i t u t e s a "good" process? F o r t u n a t e l y there i s g r e a t e r agreement on values that determine what processes are a c c e p t a b l e than there i s upon the goals or o b j e c t i v e s i n q u e s t i o n . In our s o c i e t y these encompass the s o c i a l values or i d e a l s as determined by the m a j o r i t y of c o n s t i t u e n t s (Mayo, 1960). For students of the p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n process these are known as democratic norms by which the "goodness" of a d e c i s i o n process may be a p p r a i s e d (Eyre, 1979; Fox, 1976). The ensuing s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e s the d e r i v a t i o n of such norms f o r e v a l u a t i n g the Crown land planning p r o c e s s . 37 Normative C r i t e r i a Much has been w r i t t e n regarding the elements that comprise democratic p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s (Mayo, 1960; Polsby, 1963). As w e l l , there are numerous r e f e r e n c e s r e s p e c t i n g the p o l i t i c a l -a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behavior of o r g a n i z a t i o n s (Haefele, 1973; Olson, 1965; Ostrom, 1973; R u s s e l l , 1979). More r e c e n t l y , M c A l l i s t e r (1980) has pro v i d e d h i s "Philosophy of Democracy" while attempting to address some of the e v a l u a t i o n i s s u e s embodied i n the f i e l d of environmental p l a n n i n g . Throughout these w r i t i n g s , however, there appear to be s e v e r a l common p r i n c i p l e s . For in s t a n c e , i t i s b e l i e v e d that c i t i z e n s a f f e c t e d by a d e c i s i o n should be a f f o r d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y to s t a t e t h e i r o p i n i o n s r e g a r d i n g the i s s u e . As w e l l , the c i t i z e n should be pro v i d e d adequate i n f o r m a t i o n on which to base h i s o p i n i o n . S i m i l a r l y , i t i s agreed that these e f f o r t s should not squander time or res o u r c e s . F i n a l l y , when a d e c i s i o n i s achieved i t should be implemented i n the manner p r e s c r i b e d by the m a j o r i t y . Drawing from these p r i n c i p l e s the f o l l o w i n g are suggested as a p p r o p r i a t e normative c r i t e r i a or " i d e a l s " a g a i n s t which the Crown land p l a n n i n g program may be ev a l u a t e d : 1 . The c r i t e r i o n of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s . Each i n t e r e s t group, i n c l u d i n g p u b l i c and p r i v a t e agencies or i n d i v i d u a l s , should be recognized and be represented i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s that l e a d to a d e c i s i o n . The value frameworks of the i n t e r e s t s should determine which a l t e r n a t i v e s are c o n s i d e r e d and what i n f o r m a t i o n i s generated. 38 2. The c r i t e r i o n of adequacy of i n f o r m a t i o n . D e c i s i o n s should be based upon the best a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n regarding the consequences of a l t e r n a t i v e courses of a c t i o n . Good in f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d e s feedback from experience w i t h i n the system, as w e l l as the r e s u l t s of the experience outside the system. 3. The c r i t e r i o n of d e c i s i o n e f f e c t i v e n e s s . A l l d e c i s i o n s made should be c a r r i e d through a c c o r d i n g to the o b j e c t i v e s developed throughout the process. Moreover, the d e c i s i o n s should be implemented. 4. The c r i t e r i o n of decision-making e f f i c i e n c y . The p r o c e s s , as p e r c e i v e d by i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s , should not be w a s t e f u l of time and resources i n a c h i e v i n g and implementing d e c i s i o n s . At t h i s j u n c t u r e i t must be recognized that the c r i t e r i a o u t l i n e d above are normative " i d e a l s " o nly. A q u e s t i o n remains as to how these p r i n c i p l e s can be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o measurable e n t i t i e s . For t h i s , i t i s necessary to develop a s e r i e s of i n d i c a t o r s which c o u l d be u t i l i z e d to measure the "compliance" of c e r t a i n a c t i o n s r e l a t i v e to the i d e a l s . I t must be r e a l i z e d , however, that due to the s u b j e c t i v i t y inherent i n the use of these c r i t e r i a , a p r e c i s e measure of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l performance i s not p o s s i b l e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , as Fox (1976, p.748) e x p l a i n s , "... i t i s b e l i e v e d that the c r i t e r i a s p e c i f i e d p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r a s k i n g s e a r c h i n g q u e s t i o n s about the 39 performance of any i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement". In t h i s context we may t r y to a s c e r t a i n how p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the process are chosen, what s o r t s of i n f o r m a t i o n are made a v a i l a b l e , i s the p u b l i c i n v o l v e d i n the process, who determines what i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e l e v a n t , are the plans implemented, are they u s e f u l , and so on. The i n t e r v i e w schedule contained i n Appendix I d e p i c t s the range of qu e s t i o n s u t i l i z e d to determine the impressions of those i n v o l v e d i n the planning process. DATA SOURCES The q u e s t i o n c e n t r a l to t h i s t h e s i s was s t a t e d at the s t a r t of t h i s c h a p ter. To examine i t , two Crown land plans r e c e n t l y completed i n the Lower Mainland region were chosen as case s t u d i e s : the Lang Creek S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan and the Upper L i l l o o e t S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan. The reasons f o r t h i s s e l e c t i o n are t h r e e f o l d . F i r s t , i n f o r m a t i o n was r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . The LPH Burnaby o f f i c e was most c o o p e r a t i v e i n sup p l y i n g f i l e s , correspondence and other r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . F u r t h e r , these two plans are among the f i r s t to be undertaken u t i l i z i n g the newly i n s t i t u t e d p l a n n i n g format and, as such, provide an e x c e l l e n t v e h i c l e f o r determining the acceptance of the pl a n n i n g program by i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s . F i n a l l y , the two plans are d i v e r s e i n nature thereby p r o v i d i n g a mixture of i s s u e s and co n c e i v a b l e courses of a c t i o n . The.Lang Creek p l a n n i n g area i s s i t u a t e d on the eastern boundary of the M u n i c i p a l i t y of the D i s t r i c t of Powell River and 40 covers an area of approximately 63 square k i l o m e t e r s . I t s b i o -p h y s i c a l base i s not uncommon from a t y p i c a l west coast environment. A g r i c u l t u r e and f o r e s t a c t i v i t i e s are e v i d e n t . However, most of the region i s u t i l i z e d for r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l purposes. The area c o n t a i n s an i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n of 2200 persons who g e n e r a l l y move there seeking a r u r a l l i f e s t y l e , uncomplicated by r e s t r i c t i o n s inherent i n urban s e t t l e m e n t s . As a r e s u l t , the major concern i s the r e s o l u t i o n of land use c o n f l i c t s stemming from the demand for r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l development. T h i s p l a n was completed and adopted i n the s p r i n g of 1980. The Upper L i l l o o e t p l a n n i n g area i s l o c a t e d 25 kilo m e t e r s north of Pemberton i n the Upper L i l l o o e t R i v e r V a l l e y . The study area i s l a r g e l y undeveloped but does c o n t a i n s e v e r a l i s o l a t e d pockets of a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y on p r i v a t e lands. The area abounds i n f o r e s t , w i l d l i f e and f i s h r e s o u r c e s . As w e l l , a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the v a l l e y f l o o r i s i n c l u d e d i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. The Upper L i l l o o e t River i t s e l f c o n t a i n s many t r i b u t a r i e s and i s subject to severe f l o o d i n g , c r e a t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t e r o s i o n problems. Contrary to the i s s u e s i n Lang Creek, the major concern here i s the com p e t i t i o n f o r the land base by a g r i c u l t u r a l , f o r e s t r y and w i l d l i f e uses. The area i s unique i n t h a t , due to i t s i s o l a t i o n , i t has p o t e n t i a l f o r the c u l t i v a t i o n of s p e c i a l i z e d a g r i c u l t u r a l seed products, the pro d u c t i o n of softwoods f o r the pu l p i n d u s t r y , and the p r o v i s i o n of a winter h a b i t a t f o r a wide range of ungulates. T h i s plan was completed dur i n g the l a t t e r part of 1979 and was o f f i c i a l l y 41 adopted by the M i n i s t r y i n August 1980. Appendix II presents a chronology of events that c o n s t i t u t e d both of these p l a n n i n g processes. T h i s t h e s i s presents the f i n d i n g s of a research p r o j e c t undertaken d u r i n g the summers of 1980 and 1981. Throughout the course of the p r o j e c t , 26 i n t e r v i e w s were conducted with a l l a v a i l a b l e task f o r c e members i n v o l v e d in the p r e p a r a t i o n of the two p l a n s . The l i s t of respondents i s contained i n Appendix I I I . To assemble the sentiments of those l e s s i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d in the program, numerous a d d i t i o n a l i n t e r v i e w s were conducted with p e r i p h e r a l l y i n v o l v e d o f f i c i a l s at both the r e g i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s . To v e r i f y the content of these d i s c u s s i o n s a d e t a i l e d review of LPH correspondence f i l e s and minutes of the CLPTF meetings was a l s o undertaken. F i n a l l y , to develop a t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of p u b l i c p o l i c y a n a l y s i s which would serve as a b a s i s f o r recommending p o t e n t i a l changes in the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , a review of a p p r o p r i a t e l i t e r a t u r e concerning p u b l i c p o l i c y processes and p o l i t i c a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behavior was completed. The concepts gained through t h i s e x e r c i s e serve as the foundation f o r the ensuing a n a l y s i s . 42 CHAPTER IV -- A THEORETICAL OVERVIEW In the preceding chapter we have, from a broad range of l i t e r a t u r e , d e r i v e d four " i d e a l s " or normative c r i t e r i a which, i f adhered to, w i l l c o n s t i t u t e a "good" planning p r o c e s s . Most of us r e a l i z e , however, that i d e a l s are seldom met. In terms of i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements there are numerous f a c t o r s which may l i m i t a "good" process or d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n . R e c o g n i t i o n of these i n f l u e n c e s i s imperative f o r t h i s e v a l u a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f recommendations f o r improvements are to be d e r i v e d from the r e s u l t s . As a consequence, some of the b a s i c precepts of p o l i t i c a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behavior, with s p e c i f i c a t t e n t i o n to t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on the normative i d e a l s must be addressed. As Ostrom (1973) suggests, an a p p r o p r i a t e theory of i n s t i t u t i o n a l design i s necessary to understand how a system w i l l work and how changes i n a system w i l l a f f e c t i t s performance. T h i s chapter explores a v a r i e t y of t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s that may a s s i s t i n e x p l a i n i n g and e v a l u a t i n g the Crown land p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . Much of what has been w r i t t e n on the subject of p o l i t i c a l -a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behavior may be grouped under what i s known as P u b l i c Choice Theory. The major concepts inherent in t h i s theory of i n t e r a c t i v e policy-making are d i s c u s s e d i n the ensuing s e c t i o n . 43 PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY P u b l i c Choice Theory encompasses a wide range of p r i n c i p l e s that have o f t e n been r e f e r r e d to as s o c i a l c h o i c e , c o l l e c t i v e c hoice or democratic a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (Arrow, 1963; Mue l l e r , 1976; Ostrom, 1973). R u s s e l l (1979) d e f i n e s p u b l i c c h o i c e as being "concerned with the mechanisms . by which human s o c i e t i e s make d e c i s i o n s about t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e l i f e " . Embodied i n these i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are two ba s i c assumptions: (1) a l l persons, i f provided the o p p o r t u n i t y , act i n t h e i r own s e l f - i n t e r e s t , and (2) they act i n a r a t i o n a l manner. S e l f - i n t e r e s t i m plies that each person has p r e f e r e n c e s which a f f e c t the d e c i s i o n s he makes; and these p r e f e r e n c e s may vary from i n d i v i d u a l to i n d i v i d u a l (Ostrom, 1973). R a t i o n a l i t y i s i d e a l l y d e f i n e d as the a b i l i t y to rank a l l known a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e to the i n d i v i d u a l i n a c o n s i s t e n t manner (Downs, 1957). U t i l i z i n g these p r i n c i p l e s i t i s p o s s i b l e to make i n f e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g the expected a c t i o n s of the v a r i o u s a c t o r s in the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . For i n s t a n c e , p o l i t i c i a n s are r a t i o n a l in that they are vote maximizers. T h e i r i n t e r e s t i s i n o b t a i n i n g votes yet they must be r a t i o n a l i n terms of i n s u r i n g the gen e r a l welfare of the c i t i z e n s who, i f pleased, w i l l r e t u r n them to o f f i c e . S i m i l a r l y , bureaucrats have goals which are s e l f -i n t e r e s t o r i e n t e d (e. g. success, i n c r e a s e d budgets, and so on). Nev e r t h e l e s s , they act r a t i o n a l l y or " i n the most e f f i c i e n t manner p o s s i b l e given t h e i r l i m i t e d c a p a b i l i t i e s and the co s t of in f o r m a t i o n " (Downs, 1967, p.2). V o t e r s , as w e l l , w i l l seek to enhance t h e i r p o s i t i o n by e i t h e r c a s t i n g t h e i r b a l l o t or 44 o r g a n i z i n g i n t o i n t e r e s t groups to promote a " c o l l e c t i v e s e l f -i n t e r e s t " . In short, the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " may not e x i s t , rather i t i s an aggregation of r a t i o n a l s e l f - i n t e r e s t s . How then i s t h i s behavior capable of producing a c t i o n s that are s o c i a l l y a c c e ptable? One suggested view i s as f o l l o w s : " I t may seem strange to a s s e r t that most o f f i c i a l s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y motivated by s e l f - i n t e r e s t . . . . "Although many o f f i c i a l s serve the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t as they p e r c e i v e i t , i t does not n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w that they are p r i v a t e l y motivated s o l e l y or even mainly by a d e s i r e to serve the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t per se. If s o c i e t y has c r e a t e d the proper i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements, t h e i r p r i v a t e motives w i l l l e a d them to act i n what they b e l i e v e to be the p u b l i c interest,, even though these motives, l i k e everyone e l s e ' s , are p a r t l y rooted in t h e i r own s e l f - i n t e r e s t . T h e r e f o r e , whether or not the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t w i l l in f a c t be served depends upon how e f f i c i e n t l y s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s are designed to achieve that purpose. S o c i e t y cannot insure that i t w i l l be served merely by a s s i g n i n g someone to serve i t " (Downs, 1967, p.87). F o l l o w i n g Downs' argument then, the key element that should be c o n s i d e r e d i s the design of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Vincent Ostrom, a noted s c h o l a r , has devoted much e f f o r t to i n t e g r a t i n g democratic p r i n c i p l e s i n t o the p u b l i c p o l i c y d e c i s i o n process. Based on the premises of P u b l i c Choice Theory he presents s e v e r a l b a s i c p r o p o s i t i o n s i n h i s paradigms of Democratic A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (Ostrom, 1973, p.111). He argues that s i n c e decision-makers are n e i t h e r more nor l e s s c o r r u p t i b l e than t h e i r f e l l o w men and that decision-making i s a " p o l i t i c a l process", i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l be tempted to e x p l o i t t h e i r power to t h e i r own advantage and to the detriment of o t h e r s , unless a u t h o r i t i e s are d i v i d e d and organized i n a 45 f a s h i o n so that they l i m i t and c o n t r o l one another. Recognizing t h i s , he proposes that a v a r i e t y of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l arrangements can be used to provide our p u b l i c goods and s e r v i c e s . These o r g a n i z a t i o n s "can be c o o r d i n a t e d through v a r i o u s m u l t i -o r g a n i z a t i o n a l arrangements i n c l u d i n g t r a d i n g and c o n t r a c t i n g to mutual advantage, competitive r i v a l r y , a d j u d i c a t i o n , as w e l l as the power of command in l i m i t e d h i e r a r c h i e s " (Ostrom, 1973, p.112). It i s f u r t h e r emphasized that having the supporting bureaucracy accountable to a " s i n g l e center of power" w i l l reduce the c a p a b i l i t y of the system to adapt to d i v e r s e , dynamic environments. As w e l l , i t w i l l reduce the e f f i c i e n c y of the o r g a n i z a t i o n as measured by l e a s t - c o s t s expended i n time, e f f o r t and r e s o u r c e s . To sum h i s viewpoint he O f f e r s the f o l l o w i n g : "Fragmentation of a u t h o r i t y among d i v e r s e d e c i s i o n c e n t e r s with m u l t i p l e veto c a p a b i l i t i e s w i t h i n any one j u r i s d i c t i o n and the development of m u l t i p l e , o v e r l a p p i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s of widely d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s are necessary c o n d i t i o n s f o r m a i n t a i n i n g a s t a b l e p o l i t i c a l order which can advance human welfare under r a p i d l y changing c o n d i t i o n s " (Ostrom, 1973, p.112). The view that "fragmented a u t h o r i t y " and " o v e r l a p p i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s " w i l l encourage a c c o u n t a b i l i t y has been f u r t h e r e x p l o r e d by Sproule-Jones (1972). He argues, " m u l t i p l e d e c i s i o n s t r u c t u r e s i n s u r e that p u b l i c entrepreneurs have an i n c e n t i v e to come to terms with the " p u b l i c " as w e l l as other agencies, thereby p e r m i t t i n g e x t e r n a l i t i e s of p u b l i c choice to become i n t e r n a l i z e d and p u b l i c goods to be produced at the a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l " (Sproule-Jones, 1972, p.186). If we r e t u r n to the s t r u c t u r e of the Crown land p l a n n i n g 46 process i t i s evident • that the d e c i s i o n format u t i l i z e d to d e r i v e Crown land plans resembles the s t r u c t u r e o u t l i n e d above. In short, the task f o r c e s comprised of resource i n t e r e s t groups with " o v e r l a p p i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s " and "fragmented a u t h o r i t y " employ a b a r g a i n i n g process to d i s t r i b u t e the p u b l i c good (Crown l a n d ) . Hence i f we are to recommend changes to the p l a n n i n g process, p u b l i c choice theory may a s s i s t i n p r o v i d i n g a " g u i d i n g format" f o r the design of a system that w i l l meet the normative c r i t e r i a . PROBLEMS IN DESIGNING AN OPTIMAL SYSTEM No model or theory which attempts to e x p l a i n a dynamic system i s without l i m i t a t i o n s . A l a r g e body of l i t e r a t u r e c r i t i q u i n g p u b l i c choice has been developed as i t s t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l concepts have evolved (Simon, 1957; Olson, 1965; R u s s e l l , 1979). I t i s not intended that t h i s d i s c u s s i o n provide a comprehensive review, but r a t h e r that a few f a c t o r s r e l a t i v e to the Crown land p l a n n i n g process be i d e n t i f i e d . For d i s c u s s i o n these are presented i n four s e c t i o n s : (1) the bounded r a t i o n a l i t y problem (2) the i n f l u e n c e of p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s (3) the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n problem (4) the i n f o r m a t i o n problem 47 The Bounded R a t i o n a l i t y Problem One of the key assumptions inherent i n p u b l i c choice theory i s that the a c t o r s i n a d e c i s i o n process w i l l act i n a r a t i o n a l manner. At the outset, r a t i o n a l i t y was r e f e r r e d to as the a b i l i t y to rank a l l known a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e to the i n d i v i d u a l i n a c o n s i s t e n t manner. R i s i n g from t h i s premise, p l a n n i n g t h e o r i s t s have evolved the r a t i o n a l planning models. Although v a r y i n g i n format these models embrace the concepts of ( l ) being able to view the i m p l i c a t i o n s of each a l t e r n a t i v e i n a h o l i s t i c f a s h i o n (2) c o n s i d e r i n g the whole complex of consequences that would f o l l o w from each choice and (3) w i t h i n a value system, determining the best a l t e r n a t i v e (Simon, 1957). A c t u a l behavior, however, may f a l l short i n r e a l i z i n g t h i s s t r a t e g y . Dror notes, " C o n s t r u c t i n g complete, weighted i n v e n t o r i e s of values and r e s o u r c e s , i d e n t i f y i n g a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s , making v a l i d p r e d i c t i o n s of the c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s - these tasks are f a r beyond our knowledge and c a p a c i t y " (Dror, 1968, p.133). Herbert Simon(1957) f u r t h e r suggests that comprehensive r a t i o n a l i t y i s impeded by complex and u n c e r t a i n environments. He p o s t u l a t e s t h a t , to compensate, i n d i v i d u a l s operate w i t h i n a "bounded r a t i o n a l i t y " and t h e r e f o r e " s a t i s f i c e " or choose the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e that i s "good enough". F u r t h e r , he concludes t h a t decision-makers are g e n e r a l l y r i s k averse, and hence, d e c i s i o n s r a r e l y depart from the s t a t u s quo. 48 The Influence Of Percept ions And A t t i t u d e s As i m p l i e d i n the preceding d i s c u s s i o n , the p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s of i n d i v i d u a l s i n a d e c i s i o n process can s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o n s t r a i n the achievement of a r a t i o n a l outcome. Personal a t t i t u d e s of the people s h a r i n g i n a d e c i s i o n , t h e i r o p i n i o n s as to what others p r e f e r , and/or t h e i r o p i n i o n s as to what others should p r e f e r can g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e the search f o r i n f o r m a t i o n needed to d e f i n e the problems and e l i c i t a l t e r n a t i v e s (White, 1966). In reviewing the r o l e of p u b l i c a t t i t u d e s i n d e c i s i o n -making, . G i l b e r t White i d e n t i f i e s four f a c t o r s that govern a t t i t u d e formation: the d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n , the i n d i v i d u a l ' s experience, h i s p e r c e p t i o n of h i s r o l e , and h i s competence in d e a l i n g with i t s complexity. He p o s t u l a t e s that these f a c t o r s l i m i t the scope w i t h i n which p r o f e s s i o n a l s search f o r answers, and as a r e s u l t , standard a l t e r n a t i v e s are o f t e n adopted based on untested assumptions re g a r d i n g p e r c e i v e d s o c i e t a l p r e f e r e n c e s . T h i s stance has been acknowledged by Sewell (1971) who found that engineers c o n s i d e r e d the p u b l i c to be dependent on t h e i r judgment, e s p e c i a l l y where t e c h n i c a l or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o m p l e x i t i e s were concerned. Kates (1962), as w e l l concludes that p r o f e s s i o n a l resource managers are o f t e n " p r i s o n e r s of experience". In summary, i t may be concluded that one's r a t i o n a l i t y i s l i m i t e d by h i s e v a l u a t i v e framework, which i n turn i s i n f l u e n c e d by h i s p e r c e p t i o n s and v a l u e s . In t o t a l , these f a c t o r s c o n s t r a i n the g e n e r a t i o n and acceptance of a l t e r n a t i v e s , of e v a l u a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n and of the l e g i t i m a c y of f u l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 49 b a r g a i n i n g processes (Hobson, 1979). The Representation Problem In our democratic s o c i e t y i t i s presumed that a l l a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s should be a f f o r d e d the o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d e c i s i o n process. Some p u b l i c c h o i c e t h e o r i s t s assume that i n d i v i d u a l s with common s e l f - i n t e r e s t s are motivated to organize i n t o groups to f u r t h e r t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e ends. In other words, i f the members of some group have a common i n t e r e s t or g o a l , and i f they would a l l be b e t t e r o f f i f the goal were achieved, i t has been thought to f o l l o w l o g i c a l l y that the i n d i v i d u a l s i n that group would, i f they were r a t i o n a l and s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d , act to achieve that g o a l . T h i s view, however, has come under s c r u t i n y by many t h e o r i s t s , the most popular p o s i t i o n being the one expressed by Mancur Olson. In h i s study of c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n , Olson p o s t u l a t e s that i n d i v i d u a l s with common i n t e r e s t s may not be motivated to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the group d e c i s i o n . He sums h i s p o s i t i o n by s t a t i n g : "... unless the number of i n d i v i d u a l s i n a group i s q u i t e s m a l l , or unless there i s c o e r c i o n or some other s p e c i a l device to make i n d i v i d u a l s act i n t h e i r common i n t e r e s t , r a t i o n a l , s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l not act to achieve t h e i r common or group i n t e r e s t s " (Olson, 1965, p.2). He s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h i s p o s i t i o n by r e f e r r i n g to the " f r e e -r i d e r " concept developed by economists to e x p l a i n the market system's i n a b i l i t y to p rovide p u b l i c goods. T h i s p r i n c i p l e i s 50 based on the b e l i e f that i f i n d i v i d u a l s p e r c e i v e that they w i l l b e n e f i t r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , each would p r e f e r that other members pay the f u l l c o s t s of the a c t i o n while they withdraw from involvement. In a d d i t i o n to the above, there are numerous other i n d i v i d u a l s with common i n t e r e s t s who choose not to organize to i n f l u e n c e decision-making. The general p u b l i c , or i n Olson's language the " f o r g o t t e n groups", tend not to organize because t h e i r p e r c e i v e d t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s are greater than the b e n e f i t s that would p e r s o n a l l y accrue to them from doing so. As a r e s u l t of* these problems, i t must be recognized that d i f f u s e i n t e r e s t s may not be w e l l represented i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . Due to high t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s they cannot o b t a i n resources and t h e r e f o r e w i l l not be able to generate i n f o r m a t i o n to e valuate a l t e r n a t i v e s . Without these t o o l s i t may not be p o s s i b l e to adequately e v a l u a t e the c h o i c e s presented or to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s to the decision-makers. As a c o n c l u d i n g note, however, we must recognize t h a t , d e s p i t e Olson's l o g i c , there w i l l be i n s t a n c e s where, i n some groups, p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l occur. To i l l u s t r a t e , membership i n c o n s e r v a t i o n groups, such as Greenpeace or the S i e r r a Club, cannot be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of r a t i o n a l , s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d behavior. Rather, there appears to be an i d e o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t i o n that guides i n d i v i d u a l s i n t o the ranks of such o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 5 1 The Information Problem A key element in any d e c i s i o n process i s i n f o r m a t i o n . Without adequate i n f o r m a t i o n we cannot determine p l a u s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s , t h e i r consequences and, u l t i m a t e l y , cannot achieve the 'best' c h o i c e . In the context of the p u b l i c c h o i c e model, infor m a t i o n i s the major element through which the r a t i o n a l , s e l f - i n t e r e s t s express t h e i r d e s i r e s . There are, however, numerous l i m i t a t i o n s that prevent a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s from having f u l l access to adequate i n f o r m a t i o n . The f i r s t , and i n many re s p e c t s the most s i g n i f i c a n t , has been a l l u d e d to i n the previous d i s c u s s i o n of p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s . I t i s recognized that one's e v a l u a t i v e framework, a composition of pe r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s , education and experiences, g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e s the approach one adopts to problem s o l v i n g . C o l l e c t i v e c h o i c e , however, presumes t h a t through an i n t e r a c t i v e process many of these b i a s e s w i l l be recognized and, h o p e f u l l y accounted f o r . The cost of c o l l e c t i n g and s y n t h e s i z i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i s a f u r t h e r f a c t o r which may i n h i b i t adequate decision-making. Often the onus i s on a group to a s c e r t a i n t h e i r data requirements and be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s c o l l e c t i o n . I f these groups do not have the necessary funds or e x p e r t i s e they have to turn to o u t s i d e sources, a p r a c t i c e that may be expensive i n both a f i n a n c i a l and temporal sense. If in f o r m a t i o n c o s t s are a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the group's t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s they may choose to a b s t a i n from the p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r o c e s s . 52 An a d d i t i o n a l element i n the in f o r m a t i o n problem r e l a t e s to the monopoly on i n f o r m a t i o n that c e r t a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s may have as a r e s u l t of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i z e or l e g i s l a t e d mandate. By v i r t u e of these f a c t o r s c e r t a i n i n t e r e s t s may be precluded from having access to resources and, t h e r e f o r e , be dominated by, or dependent upon, groups with d i f f e r i n g p e r c e p t i o n s of the problem. Throughout the preceding d i s c u s s i o n there has been an unstated common thread, the quest i o n of u n c e r t a i n t y . U n c e r t a i n t i e s are v a r y i n g in type; some may be reduced through i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , others may be recognized with some p r o b a b i l i t y , while s t i l l o thers may not be analyzed at a l l because the f u t u r e outcomes are t r u l y unknown. To a l a r g e degree the s t r a t e g y of coping with u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n resource management has been to ignore them. Neve r t h e l e s s the sub j e c t has r e c e i v e d some academic debate and methods f o r coping with t h i s issue have been advanced (Lindblom, 1959; E t z i o n i , 1967; H o l l i n g , 1978). Although v a r y i n g in a p p l i c a t i o n they a l l advocate some form of an "adaptive" approach. In terms of t h i s review, i t may be s u f f i c i e n t that the e x i s t e n c e of t h i s problem be recognized and, i n proceeding, as few o p t i o n s as p o s s i b l e be f o r e c l o s e d while a c h i e v i n g the land a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s . 53 THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK REVIEWED R e l a t i v e to the d e r i v e d normative i d e a l s , the extent to which recommendations to improve the Crown land p l a n n i n g process are a t t a i n a b l e w i l l l a r g e l y depend on whether or not the suggestions recognize p o l i t i c a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behavior. The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed : suggests that r a t i o n a l i t y and s e l f - i n t e r e s t can e x p l a i n a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the behavior, but not a l l . L i m i t a t i o n s based on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s , p e r s o n a l ideology, "bounded r a t i o n a l i t y " , and w i l l i n g n e s s to cope with u n c e r t a i n t y g r e a t l y a f f e c t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior. As a r e s u l t s e v e r a l problems a r i s e which can i n h i b i t a decision-making process from a t t a i n i n g the normative i d e a l s . F i r s t there may be i n s t a n c e s where a l l i n t e r e s t s are not represented i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . High t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s may prevent groups or i n d i v i d u a l s from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the development of a l t e r n a t i v e s or making t h e i r c h o i c e s known to the decision-makers. S i m i l a r l y there may be l i m i t a t i o n s on the extent and q u a l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n u t i l i z e d to make the f i n a l c h o i c e . T y p i c a l l y an agency w i l l c o n c e p t u a l i z e and evaluate a l t e r n a t i v e s based on i t s p e r c e p t u a l framework. If the f u l l range of these "frameworks" i s not accounted f o r i n the process some l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t s , or courses of a c t i o n , may be e f f e c t i v e l y excluded. In a d d i t i o n to the problems a r i s i n g from human behavior there i s a more p e r v a s i v e f o r c e , that of u n c e r t a i n t y . The complexity of n a t u r a l resource problems does not lend i t s e l f to unequivocal s o l u t i o n s . 54 Where a p p r o p r i a t e , ensuing recommendations must recognize and account f o r these v a r i a n c e s . The remainder of t h i s t h e s i s w i l l u t i l i z e these p r i n c i p l e s to develop suggestions which may b r i n g the Crown land p l a n n i n g process c l o s e r to the normative i d e a l s . 55 CHAPTER V -- ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE STUDIES The purpose of the d i s c u s s i o n thus f a r has been to set the stage f o r the f i n a l three c h a p t e r s . I n i t i a l l y the conception of the Crown land planning process was reviewed, with s p e c i a l regard to the r u l e s and s t r u c t u r e s that comprise the planning program. The l a s t two chapters have been devoted to developing an e v a l u a t i v e framework and to o u t l i n i n g p o t e n t i a l problems that such an assessment may encounter. T h i s chapter w i l l u t i l i z e t h i s framework to determine whether the two s u b j e c t p l a n n i n g processes were undertaken i n accordance with the d e r i v e d i d e a l s . Once completed, t h i s a n a l y s i s w i l l form the b a s i s f o r the f i n a l two s e c t i o n s where the Crown l a n d p l a n n i n g program w i l l be reviewed i n the context of other p r o v i n c i a l p l a n n i n g s t r u c t u r e s and some improvements w i l l be presented which, i f adopted, may p l a c e the Crown land p l a n n i n g process c l o s e r to the normative i d e a l s . To begin with, however, a t t e n t i o n must be d i r e c t e d at the a c t u a l events that comprised the Upper L i l l o o e t and Lang Creek pl a n n i n g processes. The f o l l o w i n g are summaries of the two p r o c e s s e s . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n may be e x t r a c t e d from the d e t a i l e d c h r o n o l o g i e s c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix I I . As w e l l , to provide some background on the contents of the two plans, the executive summary from each plan i s presented i n Appendix IV. 56 THE UPPER LILLOOET PLANNING PROCESS The Upper L i l l o o e t Crown Land Plan was i n i t i a t e d i n 1977 when the LPH M i n i s t r y r e c e i v e d three a g r i c u l t u r a l lease a p p l i c a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g 332 h e c t a r e s of Crown land i n the Upper L i l l o o e t R i v e r V a l l e y (LPH,1980(d)). In d i s c u s s i n g these requests with other agencies, the M i n i s t r y q u i c k l y d i s c e r n e d that t h i s area was subject to numerous resource c o n f l i c t s and that a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the resource p o t e n t i a l s was necessary before the a p p l i c a t i o n s c o u l d be acted upon. I t was f u r t h e r b e l i e v e d that i f these a p p l i c a t i o n s were approved, a d d i t i o n a l requests would be forthcoming. Consequently, these l e a s e d e c i s i o n s were p e r c e i v e d to be the t u r n i n g p o i n t i n f u t u r e l a n d -use a l l o c a t i o n p o l i c i e s i n the V a l l e y . To gain a g r e a t e r understanding of the range of concerns, the M i n i s t r y on October 18, 1977 i n v i t e d a number of the resource agencies to an i n f o r m a l meeting to d i s c u s s these i s s u e s . A review of the meeting minutes i n d i c a t e s that p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o n s i s t e d p r i m a r i l y of the key resource m i n i s t r i e s i n c l u d i n g the M i n i s t r i e s of F o r e s t s , Environment, A g r i c u l t u r e , Lands, Parks and Housing as w e l l as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from F i s h e r i e s and Oceans Canada and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. As each of the agencies' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o u t l i n e d t h e i r s p e c i f i c concerns, i t r a p i d l y became apparent that the major i s s u e to be r e s o l v e d was whether the l a n d should be a l l o c a t e d f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l or f o r e s t r y uses. Stemming from t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , each agency was asked to 57 prepare b r i e f background r e p o r t s o u t l i n i n g t h e i r s p e c i f i c resource concerns in g r e a t e r d e t a i l . The r e c e i p t of t h i s m a t e r i a l , over the next few weeks, confirmed the complexity of the land use problem and i n d i c a t e d the n e c e s s i t y f o r a more formal approach to r e s o l v e the b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e s . As a r e s u l t , LPH convened a second meeting on November 15, 1977 at which 11 agencies were present. The membership was expanded to i n c l u d e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from the Pemberton V a l l e y Dyking D i s t r i c t and the I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission. The s t a t e d purpose of t h i s meeting was to o f f i c i a l l y c r e a t e a pla n n i n g task f o r c e , r e a f f i r m the v a r i o u s concerns and d e l i n e a t e the study boundaries. Much of the d i s c u s s i o n was centered on the need to expand the study area i n t o the v a l l e y ' s upper slopes s i n c e a c t i o n s there g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d the a c t i v i t i e s on the v a l l e y f l o o r . I t was r e s o l v e d that LPH would prepare a study boundary map f o r d i s c u s s i o n at the subsequent meeting. The next event of consequence was the r e c e i p t of a l e t t e r by LPH from the Squamish L i l l o o e t Regional D i s t r i c t (SLRD) o u t l i n i n g a number of concerns. The f i r s t was a complaint at not being i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e on the task f o r c e . The second o u t l i n e d the SLRD's d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i m i t i n g the study area to the v a l l e y f l o o r . I t argued that l o g g i n g a c t i v i t y on the v a l l e y slopes g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e s downstream e f f e c t s and that i f pla n n i n g was to occur, the e n t i r e watershed must be c o n s i d e r e d as one p l a n n i n g u n i t . As w e l l , the Regional D i s t r i c t expressed concern over the l o s s of economic a c t i v i t y i n Pemberton due to the export of raw wood m a t e r i a l from the v a l l e y . F i n a l l y , i t 58 maintained that the Crown land p l a n n i n g process must respect the d e s i r e s of l o c a l government s i n c e i t was t h i s body which was d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by the plann i n g e x e r c i s e and was answerable to the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s . On the next day the task f o r c e h e l d i t s second meeting at which time the SLRD r e p r e s e n t a t i v e was present. Contrary to the SLRD's p o s i t i o n , the task f o r c e r e s o l v e d to l i m i t the study boundaries to the v a l l e y f l o o r where the g r e a t e s t c o n f l i c t s were prese n t . I t was argued that resource data was not a v a i l a b l e f o r the e n t i r e watershed and that no se c t o r had the time or resources to undertake the necessary inventory work. At the c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s meeting i t was decided that each agency would provide maps d e p i c t i n g a v a i l a b l e resource values which would be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a resource f o l i o of the area. In the ensuing s i x months much of the task f o r c e ' s a c t i v i t i e s c o n s i s t e d of the p r e p a r a t i o n and submission of d e t a i l e d data by each of the s e c t o r s . An a d d i t i o n a l meeting was he l d on February 2, 1978 to d i s c u s s s e v e r a l s p e c i f i c p o i n t s . From the minutes i t appears that much of the d e l i b e r a t i o n d e a l t with road access to the v a l l e y and the p o s s i b l e impacts of geothermal development i n the Meagher Creek area, a region on the p e r i p h e r y of the study area. Based on the agencies' submissions and the v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s d i s c u s s e d at the pr e v i o u s meetings, L P H p l a n n i n g s t a f f prepared an i n i t i a l d r a f t d u r i n g the summer and c i r c u l a t e d i t f o r comment. The plan c o n t a i n e d two o p t i o n s , one fa v o u r i n g 59 a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y , the other, f o r e s t r y . The l a t t e r was chosen as the most s u i t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e . On September 7, 1979 the task f o r c e , comprised of nineteen persons r e p r e s e n t i n g twelve agencies, was convened to d i s c u s s the d r a f t p l a n . S e v e r a l c o n t e n t i o u s p o i n t s were r a i s e d . At the outset the format of the document was c r i t i c i z e d . Many of the p a r t i c i p a n t s f e l t that i t was too long and contained s u p e r f l u o u s m a t e r i a l r e g a r d i n g LPH's p l a n n i n g program. More imp o r t a n t l y , however, the d i s c u s s i o n appeared to s o l i d i f y the v a r i o u s stances adopted by the p a r t i c i p a n t s . I t was noted that f l o o d i n g was a major problem and that a d d i t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y would aggravate the e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n more so than f o r e s t r y . The F i s h and W i l d l i f e s e c t o r s a l s o endorsed the f o r e s t r y option s t a t i n g that these a c t i v i t i e s would be l e s s d e t r i m e n t a l to ungulate h a b i t a t . The d i s s e n t i n g group, the a g r i c u l t u r e s e c t o r , s t r e s s e d the need to keep f u t u r e o p t i o n s open, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the P r o v i n c e ' s goal of 60% a g r i c u l t u r a l s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y was to be met. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the minutes of the meeting i n d i c a t e that a consensus was reached i n support of the f o r e s t r y o p t i o n and i t was agreed that no • f u r t h e r task f o r c e meetings would be necessary. To r e s o l v e the a g r i c u l t u r e - f o r e s t r y stalemate, however, a sub-committee composed of F o r e s t r y , A g r i c u l t u r e , F i s h and W i l d l i f e and Lands, Parks and Housing r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s was formed. T h i s group would meet at a l a t e r date with more d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n from which a f i n a l compromise would be e f f e c t e d . To the best of t h i s w r i t e r ' s knowledge the SLRD r e p r e s e n t a t i v e was not present at t h i s meeting and had d e c l i n e d 60 to p a r t i c i p a t e i n f u t u r e a c t i v i t i e s s i n c e the D i s t r i c t regarded t h i s e x e r c i s e as having l i t t l e value f o r t h e i r purposes. Subsequent d i s c u s s i o n s with the SLRD r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r e v e a l e d a b e l i e f that the f o r e s t r y s e c t o r would act to s u i t i t s own aims, r e g a r d l e s s of l o c a l i n f l u e n c e s . The task f o r c e sub-committee met on October 11, 1979. Each member agency presented more d e t a i l e d i n v e n t o r i e s and a compromise was reached. I t was agreed that the upland slopes had l i t t l e a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d be u t i l i z e d e x c l u s i v e l y f o r f o r e s t r y purposes. On the other hand, the v a l l e y f l o o r lands had p o t e n t i a l f o r supporting a range of uses. In these areas i t was r e s o l v e d that development for e i t h e r f o r e s t r y or a g r i c u l t u r e uses would have to be sympathetic to the other r e s o u r c e s . For i n s t a n c e , no f o r e s t tenures would be granted, thereby a v o i d i n g the e x c l u s i o n of f u t u r e a g r i c u l t u r a l development, i f and when a plan review i n d i c a t e d t h i s c o n v e r s i o n was necessary. S i m i l a r l y , the moose h a b i t a t was to be p r o t e c t e d by a s p e c i a l plan c o o p e r a t i v e l y prepared by -the F o r e s t r y and Environment M i n i s t r i e s . During the ensuing four months numerous memoranda were exchanged between LPH and the v a r i o u s m i n i s t r i e s on s p e c i f i c a s p e c t s of the p l a n . The Water Management Branch, the F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, F i s h e r i e s and Oceans Canada and the M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e a l l forwarded comments f o r improvement of the document. During the e a r l y p a r t of February, 1980 the LPH r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f produced a f i n a l • v e r s i o n f o r endorsement by the Lower Mainland RRMC. T h i s a p p r o v a l was granted on 61 February 14, 1980 pending a number of minor changes based on the M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e ' s comments. During A p r i l , 1980 the plan was reviewed in V i c t o r i a , adopted by the M i n i s t r y ' s e x e c u t i v e committee and prepared f o r c i r c u l a t i o n . As a f i n a l p o i n t i t i s worthy to note that the plan never d i d r e c e i v e Regional D i s t r i c t s a n c t i o n . T h e i r p o s i t i o n remained that of opposing any development not d i r e c t l y c o n t r i b u t i n g to the l o c a l economy. The ensuing memo forwarded by the SLRD r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to LPH on May 20, 1980 best summarizes t h e i r p o s i t i o n , "..as a p a r t i c i p a n t - i n the Planning process I have p r e v i o u s l y gone on records as opposing any f u r t h e r commitment of f o r e s t resources w i t h i n the Pemberton V a l l e y that do not provide f o r l o c a l economic b e n e f i t s . T h i s Regional D i s t r i c t b e l i e v e s that any TFL for cottonwood pr o d u c t i o n should be r e s t r i c t e d to p r o v i d e f o r l o c a l p r o c e s s i n g and l o c a l economic b e n e f i t s . T h i s Regional D i s t r i c t f u r t h e r urges that a l t e r n a t i v e s to a commitment f o r paper p r o d u c t i o n of the cottonwood lands be sought, as a more labour i n t e n s i v e i n d u s t r y such as s a w m i l l i n g f o r b u i l d i n g and f u r n i t u r e m a t e r i a l s may prove to be the best use and provide f o r the highest economic retu r n s from these cottonwood lands. There are two main i n d u s t r i e s i n the Pemberton V a l l e y , a g r i c u l t u r a l and l o g g i n g . The normal process (present p o l i c y ) of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d being developed f o l l o w i n g the c l e a r c u t t i n g of f o r e s t lands has enhanced the a g r i c u l t u r a l i n d u s t r y i n the Pemberton V a l l e y and the awarding of a TFL to Scott Paper f o r the purpose of a non-labour i n t e n s i v e use of the cottonwood f o r e s t s w i l l l i m i t the growth and expansion of the a g r i c u l t u r a l i n d u s t r y w i t h i n the V a l l e y . The second a l t e r n a t i v e then i s to have a c l e a r cut programme of the cottonwood land so that the land c o u l d then r e v e r t to a g r i c u l t u r a l use and add to the a g r i c u l t u r a l i n d u s t r y of the V a l l e y . " The LPH p o s i t i o n regarding t h i s request was to s t a t e that t h i s matter was beyond the LPH mandate and had to be r e s o l v e d between the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s and the Regional D i s t r i c t 62 ( L e t t e r from Tom Lee, A s s i s t a n t Deputy M i n i s t e r to A l Rhoades, Regional D i r e c t o r , LPH; Sept. 2, 1980). THE LANG CREEK PLANNING PROCESS In comparison to the above program, the Lang Creek p l a n n i n g process was, i n a l l r e s p e c t s , s i m p l e r . The experience gained in the Upper L i l l o o e t combined with the r e l a t i v e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d resource problems i n Lang Creek, r e s u l t e d i n a plan being i n i t i a t e d , prepared and adopted in a s i n g l e year. The Lang Creek Plan was i n i t i a t e d to r e s o l v e a concern over land use c o n f l i c t s a r i s i n g from an i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r Crown r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s . During 1979 the M i n i s t r y had r e c e i v e d approximately 40 a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r small h o l d i n g s i n the study area. As w e l l , the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s was commencing i t s program of e v a l u a t i n g the land base for i n c l u s i o n i n t o the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . To s a t i s f y these demands a program to designate the a v a i l a b l e u n a l i e n a t e d Crown lands to the most ap p r o p r i a t e uses was i n i t i a t e d . The p l a n n i n g process commenced when the LPH r e g i o n a l planner attended a Powell R i v e r Regional D i s t r i c t ' s (PRRD) T e c h n i c a l Planning Committee (TPC) meeting to a p p r i s e the v a r i o u s agencies of the M i n i s t r y ' s i n t e n t to prepare a Crown land p l a n . Within the next two weeks, as a follow-up to t h i s i n i t i a l c o n t a c t , the r e g i o n a l planner d i s t r i b u t e d a "working terms of r e f e r e n c e " to a l l members of the TPC. T h i s memorandum contained a general o u t l i n e of the study area, a t e n t a t i v e l i s t 63 of p e r c e i v e d i s s u e s and an i n v i t a t i o n to p a r t i c i p a t e on the Crown land planning task f o r c e . In a d d i t i o n , the p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to suggest f u r t h e r agencies or groups which should be i n c l u d e d i n the plann i n g program. . To document the s p e c i f i c resource concerns, the pl a n n i n g s t a f f e n v i s i o n e d a resource f o l i o c o n t a i n i n g four maps: an environmental c o n s t r a i n t s map which summarized b i o - p h y s i c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s , a l e g a l c o n s t r a i n t s / l a n d s t a t u s map, a p h y s i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s map d e p i c t i n g n a t u r a l hazards and an i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and s e r v i c e s map. P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to forward a l l a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i v e to t h e i r s p e c i f i c concerns so that i t could be aggregated i n t o t h i s format. In reviewing the LPH correspondence f i l e s , i t appears that the response was very f a v o u r a b l e . In the ensuing months there was a constant flow of in f o r m a t i o n between the agencies and the LPH p l a n n i n g team. By June, the p l a n n i n g s t a f f had r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n regarding f i s h e r i e s , f o r e s t p o t e n t i a l s , a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e s , m i neral c l a i m s , land s u i t a b i l i t y f o r s e p t i c tanks and a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t i e s . To augment the " s o c i a l " i n f o r m a t i o n requirements the planners u t i l i z e d the r e s u l t s of a survey conducted by the Regional D i s t r i c t . The purpose of t h i s p o l l , undertaken i n the pr e v i o u s year, was to o b t a i n the r e s i d e n t s ' " d e s i r e s " so that they c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the D i s t r i c t ' s r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g program. As w e l l , the planners c o n t a c t e d a Notary P u b l i c i n Powell River to gain some i n s i g h t i n t o a v a i l a b l e p r i v a t e h o l d i n g s and c u r r e n t l o c a l a t t i t u d e s towards the r e a l e s t a t e market. 64 Based on the responses r e c e i v e d , the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and l e g a l c o n s t r a i n t s maps were prepared and d i s t r i b u t e d to the task f o r c e . The f i r s t formal meeting of the task f o r c e was he l d on August 2, 1979. The s t a t e d purpose of t h i s g a t h e r i n g was to d i s c u s s the data, p r o p o s a l s and recommendations submitted by the v a r i o u s agencies. The outcome of t h i s meeting was an agreement, in p r i n c i p l e , on the v a r i o u s i s s u e s and p o s s i b l e a c t i o n s f o r t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n . Based on t h i s agreement, the plann i n g s t a f f compiled an i n i t i a l p lan d r a f t and, i n October, c i r c u l a t e d the document f o r comments. A review of the ensuing correspondence i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , the plan was w e l l r e c e i v e d . The c r i t i c i s m s forwarded were s i n g l e agency concerns l i m i t e d to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s p e c i f i c elements of the p l a n . The d e s i g n a t i o n s or proposed land uses and t h e i r boundaries were not a major i s s u e . Recognizing these comments the plann i n g s t a f f prepared the second d r a f t which was d i s t r i b u t e d f o r review p r i o r to the second formal task f o r c e meeting h e l d on December 6, 1979. At t h i s meeting the plan was again reviewed by the task f o r c e and s e v e r a l minor amendments were proposed. I t was r e s o l v e d that there was s u f f i c i e n t agreement on the contents of the plan and that no a d d i t i o n a l meetings would be necessary. Upon completion of the necessary amendments, the plan was forwarded to the PRRD for review. On January 8, 1980 the Regional Board passed a motion s a n c t i o n i n g the broad land use d e s i g n a t i o n s proposed by the p l a n with the attached two comments: 65 " 1 ) The Plan suggests p u t t i n g a l a r g e area of Crown land i n t o the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . The Board supports the concept of i n t e n s i v e s i l v a c u l t u r e as the prime use of t h i s land, but recommends that the land remains i n the hands of the Crown, under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the l o c a l government. This recommendation i s made so as to maintain f l e x i b i l i t y and responsiveness of planning i n the area. 2) D.L. 3814 c o n t a i n s the source of one t r i b u t a r y of Deighton Creek. Though not an o f f i c i a l community water supply, t h i s Creek does supply domestic water to a number of f a m i l i e s . The Regional D i s t r i c t r e i t e r a t e s i t s request of December, 1978, that t h i s • d i s t r i c t l o t be reserved f o r watershed p r o t e c t i o n " (Minutes of the PRRD Board, January 8, 1980). The M i n i s t r y ' s response to these comments was s i m i l a r to the r e p l y forwarded to the SLRD reg a r d i n g a comparable request in the Upper L i l l o o e t area. Again i t was s p e c i f i e d that the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , under the F o r e s t Act, i s given s o l e j u r i s d i c t i o n over f o r e s t uses i n a l l P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s . In terms of the watershed, t h i s matter a l s o would have to be r e s o l v e d with the B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e s p e c i f i c a l l y ( L e t t e r to PRRD from A c t i n g D i r e c t o r , LPH Lower Mainland Region, February 5, 1980). On February 5, 1980 the Plan was endorsed by the Lower Mainland RRMC and has subsequently been adopted by the E x e c u t i v e Committee and the M i n i s t e r . The f i n a l Plan was r e l e a s e d f o r c i r c u l a t i o n on A p r i l 2, 1980. During February the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission h e l d a p u b l i c h e a r i n g i n the area at which time the lands d e s i g n a t e d f o r a g r i c u l t u r e i n the Plan were i n c l u d e d i n t o the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. More r e c e n t l y , LPH and the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s have h e l d a s e r i e s of meetings r e g a r d i n g the i n c l u s i o n of the designated lands i n t o the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . To 66 date, no a c t i o n has been taken to f o r m a l l y implement the plan d e s i g n a t i o n s as provided f o r i n the Land Act . To r e c a p i t u l a t e , the Lang Creek Crown land p l a n n i n g program was i n i t i a t e d d u r i n g February, 1979 p r i n c i p a l l y to prepare a document which would a s s i s t LPH r e g i o n a l o p e r a t i o n s ' s t a f f i n a d j u d i c a t i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l l o t s . A committee composed l a r g e l y of c i v i l servants from three l e v e l s of government meeting twice d u r i n g a year p e r i o d r e s u l t e d i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of the Crown Land P l a n . Most of the respondents appear to be s a t i s f i e d with the f i n a l Plan and the d e r i v e d d e s i g n a t i o n s have been used by some m i n i s t r i e s to secure s p e c i f i c use d e s i g n a t i o n s . No p r o v i s i o n s were pr o v i d e d f o r d i r e c t p u b l i c input at any phase of the Plan's development. T h i s input was d e r i v e d from the survey r e s u l t s c o l l e c t e d by the Regional D i s t r i c t . AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CASE STUDIES With the two case s t u d i e s in mind i t i s now p o s s i b l e to review the processes i n l i g h t of the normative i d e a l s . Two f a c t o r s , however, must be c o n s i d e r e d . F i r s t , i t must be recognized that the p l a n n i n g program i s being compared to a s e r i e s of i d e a l s that most l i k e l y cannot be f u l l y achieved. Hence, any recommendations t h a t may a r i s e must be a b l e to be r e a l i s t i c a l l y implemented. Second, the c h a r a c t e r of the data determines the s t y l e of a n a l y s i s . In t h i s i n s t a n c e the s u b j e c t i v e nature of the m a t e r i a l does not lend i t s e l f to s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s ; r a t h e r , the two case s t u d i e s are combined 67 and s p e c i f i c examples are drawn from each process to i l l u s t r a t e the s a l i e n t p o i n t s . As i n d i c a t e d i n Chapter I I I , the foundation of t h i s a n a l y s i s i s based on a s e r i e s of "searching q u e s t i o n s " that can be d i r e c t e d at the a c t u a l processes and subsequent outcomes. REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS T h i s c r i t e r i o n i s the cornerstone of t h i s assessment f o r , without adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s , a d e c i s i o n process cannot be " l e g i t i m a t e " , a s p r e s c r i b e d by the normative i d e a l s . Furthermore, persons have v a r y i n g p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s towards i s s u e s which g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e t h e i r outlook and a c t i o n s . T h i s d i v e r s i t y must be accounted for i f a l e g i t i m a t e d e c i s i o n i s to be a chieved. S p e c i f i c to the task at hand two b a s i c q u e s t i o n s may be asked: who was represented i n the d e c i s i o n process, and a_t what stages d i d t h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n occur? These que s t i o n s are d i s c u s s e d i n t u r n . Range of Represented I n t e r e s t s As noted i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , i n p r a c t i c e every i n t e r e s t cannot be represented. Such a c t i o n would, at best, be c h a o t i c with the l i k e l y r e s u l t that d e c i s i o n s c o u l d not be achieved. To account f o r t h i s , s o c i e t y has developed v a r i o u s forms of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r u l e , governed by i n d i v i d u a l s who remain answerable to the p u b l i c through an e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s . As w e l l , a number of mechanisms have evolved to p rovide a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s an o p p o r t u n i t y to be heard. T h i s o p p o r t u n i t y , i t i s argued by some, 68 may be the best that we can ever hope to achieve. The key element in these thoughts, however, i s the phrase " a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s " . For i t i s these i n d i v i d u a l s or groups who must endure the consequences of the proposed a c t i o n s . What i n t e r e s t s , then, are a f f e c t e d by the Crown land p l a n n i n g process? There are f i v e general c a t e g o r i e s of i n t e r e s t s that are a f f e c t e d by Crown land p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s . The f i r s t category i n c l u d e s a broad range of P r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t r i e s , c o r p o r a t i o n s or  commissions whose "spheres of i n f l u e n c e " i n t e r f a c e with the mandate of the LPH m i n i s t r y . Table I d e p i c t s the most r e a d i l y r ecognized members of t h i s group and o u t l i n e s the areas of common concern. The second category i s comprised of F e d e r a l resource  agencies whose, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may a f f e c t , or be a f f e c t e d by Crown land p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s . Conceivably t h i s group may i n c l u d e d i v i s i o n s o f : 1 . Environment Canada i n c l u d i n g the Canadian W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e , Inland Waters D i r e c t o r a t e and Parks Canada, 2. F i s h e r i e s and Oceans Canada r e l a t i v e to t h e i r mandate to p r o t e c t and enhance anadromous f i s h stocks and h a b i t a t , 3. Transport Canada in terms of t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n over a i r p o r t s , n a v i g a b l e waters and dock f a c i l i t i e s , 4. N a t i o n a l Defence re g a r d i n g m i l i t a r y lands, and 5. Indian and Northern A f f a i r s with r e s p e c t to Indian r e s e r v e s . As w e l l , t h i s category may i n c l u d e v a r i o u s task s p e c i f i c 69 TABLE I PROVINCIAL AGENCIES AFFECTED BY CROWN LAND PLANS P r o v i n c i a l Agency * M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission B.C. Hydro * M i n i s t r y of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources * M i n i s t r y of Environment Assessment & Planning Div. Environmental Management Div. * M i n i s t r y of Forests F o r e s t r y Div. Timber, Range & Recreation Div. * M i n i s t r y of Health * Islands Trust * M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks & Housing Parks & Outdoor Recreation Div. Regional Operations Div. M i n i s t r y of Municipal A f f i a r s * M i n i s t r y of P r o v i n c i a l Secretary & Government Services * M i n i s t r y of Transportation & Highways Areas of I n t e r e s t - a g r i c u l t u r e p o t e n t i a l s / production - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a g r i -c u l t u r a l land reserves - land requirements f o r energy p r o j e c t s and t r a n s -mission l i n e s - mineral and petroleum resources - s t r a t e g i c planning and p r o j e c t impact management - f i s h and w i l d l i f e - marine resources - waste management - water management - p e s t i c i d e c o n t r o l - planning and f o r e s t man-agement - range and r e c r e a t i o n p o t e n t i a l s - p u b l i c h e a l t h i n s p e c t i o n (potable water, s e p t i c tanks) - planning on the designated Gulf and Howe Sound Islands - establishment and manage-ment of p r o v i n c i a l parks - a d j u d i c a t i o n of Crown land a p p l i c a t i o n s - c o o r d i n a t i o n of l o c a l government plans - a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e s - highway planning - g r a v e l e x t r a c t i o n - s u b d i v i s i o n approval These agencies r e c e i v e r e f e r r a l s on Crown land a p p l i c a t i o n s . 70 commissions such as the I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission which p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the development of the Upper L i l l o o e t P l a n . F i s h e r i e s and Environment Canada are the only two agencies that are on the LPH r e f e r r a l l i s t . The t h i r d i n t e r e s t i s comprised of the v a r i o u s l o c a l  governments w i t h i n the desig n a t e d planning area. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s embraces the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s , adjacent m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and to some degree, l o c a l school boards. Given that the f i r s t two agencies have a l e g i s l a t e d r i g h t to r e g u l a t e land uses w i t h i n t h e i r boundaries, t h e i r major concern would be the assurance that the proposed Crown land uses were responsive to r e g i o n a l or municipal p r o p o s a l s , s i n c e land a l i e n a t e d to the p r i v a t e s e c t o r would be subj e c t to l o c a l land use and s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s . School boards c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y be concerned with the p r o v i s i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s when lar g e Crown developments are c o n s i d e r e d . The f o u r t h category r e p r e s e n t s those i n t e r e s t s which are d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by Crown land a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s , that i s the l o c a l landowners who are i n t e r e s t e d i n r e s i d i n g or p r e s e n t l y r e s i d e near or on the subj e c t area. I t i s these persons who must contend with the consequences of the d e c i s i o n s . The f i n a l i n t e r e s t r e p r e s e n t s what i s of t e n r e f e r r e d to as the " p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " , i n c l u d i n g the " s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups" and the p r e v i o u s l y mentioned " f o r g o t t e n groups". The f i r s t encompasses those i n t e r e s t s that are organized to pursue a s p e c i f i c cause or b e l i e f (e.g. The S i e r r a Club, the Pemberton 71 V a l l e y Dyking D i s t r i c t and so on). The l a t t e r , on the other hand, r e f l e c t s those i n d i v i d u a l s who l i k e l y have an o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g an i s s u e but t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s i n h i b i t them from p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Nonetheless, the mission of the LPH m i n i s t r y , "... the a l l o c a t i o n of Crown lands i n the Province i n a manner that optimizes the economic and s o c i a l w e l l -being of the r e s i d e n t s of B r i t i s h Columbia" (LPH, 1980) . i n d i c a t e s that a l l these views s h a l l be accounted f o r . U t i l i z i n g t h i s broad range' of p o t e n t i a l p a r t i c i p a n t s as a guide, the degree to which the two case s t u d i e s s a t i s f i e d t h i s c r i t e r i a may be examined. At the o u t s e t , i t i s important to recognize that the task f o r c e i s the forum by which s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t s make t h e i r views known; hence, the major concern here i s to i d e n t i f y which of the above i n t e r e s t s had adequate access to that body. Appendix III o u t l i n e s the p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies in each p l a n . From these l i s t s i t i s evident t h a t , i n both i n s t a n c e s , a wide v a r i e t y of p r o v i n c i a l resource m i n i s t r i e s , f e d e r a l agencies and l o c a l governments were represented. F u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e s that these r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r membership on the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t ' s TPC or p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the LPH r e f e r r a l network. In a d d i t i o n , based on the planning s t a f f ' s d i s c r e t i o n , other " a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s " were i n v i t e d . For example, the Pemberton V a l l e y Dyking D i s t r i c t was requested to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the Upper L i l l o o e t p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . To determine i f t h i s s e l e c t i o n was s a t i s f a c t o r y a number of q u e s t i o n s were presented to task f o r c e members. C l e a r l y the 72 m a j o r i t y of respondents were i n favour of t h i s method and u n h e s i t a n t l y s t a t e d that they f e l t a l l i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s were adequately represented. Hence, i t may be surmised that w i t h i n the f i v e - g r o u p framework, the f i r s t three i n t e r e s t groups r e c e i v e d adequate r e c o g n i t i o n . F u r t h e r i n q u i r y , however, suggests that at no time during e i t h e r of the two planning processes was there p r o v i s i o n made fo r the general p u b l i c or s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t groups such as the log g i n g i n d u s t r y , ratepayer groups or the outdoor c l u b s to p a r t i c i p a t e . When respondents were asked to comment on t h i s omission, r e p l i e s were v a r i e d . LPH r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s s t a t e d that, in these two i n s t a n c e s , formal p u b l i c involvement was not e s s e n t i a l . They s t a t e d that the Upper L i l l o o e t p l a n n i n g area c o n t a i n e d no r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g on Crown land and that the d e s i r e s of Lang Creek r e s i d e n t s were i n c o r p o r a t e d by u t i l i z i n g the r e s u l t s of an a t t i t u d e survey conducted by the PRRD. I t was a l s o noted that the M i n i s t r y does not have the l e g a l mandate to conduct p u b l i c hearings and that the s o l i c i t a t i o n of p u b l i c sentiments can be achieved only through i n f o r m a t i o n meetings. Such meetings may be sponsored by the a p p r o p r i a t e l o c a l government body or by the M i n i s t r y . In the l a t t e r i n s t a n c e , the meeting must be c a l l e d e i t h e r by the M i n i s t e r or the ADM r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e g i o n a l o p e r a t i o n s . These p r a c t i c e s , i t was f e l t , were too s t r i n g e n t and ac t e d as a d e t e r r e n t t o a c t i v e p u b l i c involvement. References were made to delays i n o b t a i n i n g p o l i t i c a l s a n c t i o n f o r such a c t i v i t i e s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r e x c l u s i o n of p u b l i c involvement expressed 73 by respondents o u t s i d e LPH, was that the d i s c u s s i o n s were t e c h n i c a l i n nature and that the p u b l i c i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y cognizant of these matters to p a r t i c i p a t e . I t was a l s o emphasized that s i n c e these t e c h n o c r a t s are working in the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , the p u b l i c ' s d e s i r e s are accounted f o r . T h i s b e l i e f , we have a l r e a d y observed, may not be n e c e s s a r i l y t r u e . I n d i v i d u a l s seeking to maximize t h e i r " s e l f - i n t e r e s t s " may w e l l p l a c e i n c r e a s e d budgets, per s o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n or some other goal ahead of the l e s s d e f i n a b l e " p u b l i c good". Hence, q u i t e l i k e l y the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t c o u l d only be determined i f an o p p o r t u n i t y was p r o v i d e d whereby a l l i n d i v i d u a l s or groups c o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e , i f they so d e s i r e d . In answer to the f i r s t q u e s t i o n of who should be represented, i t may be concluded that the process u t i l i z e d i n the two case s t u d i e s excluded the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of non-governmental i n t e r e s t s . Hence, a l t e r n a t i v e s d e r i v e d by t h i s group may represent a narrow p o i n t of view, that of career c i v i l s e r v a n t s . Stages of Re p r e s e n t a t i o n S o c i e t a l norms suggest that a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s should be i n v o l v e d throughout the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . Only i n t h i s manner can a l l concerns be recognized and i n t e r e s t s be p r o t e c t e d . As has been noted e a r l i e r , the Crown land p l a n n i n g process i s comprised of four stages: i n i t i a t i o n , f o r m u l a t i o n , adoption and implementation. Each of these phases i s reviewed b r i e f l y 74 below. 1 . The i n i t i a t i o n phase i n c l u d e s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and assessment of a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n s to r e s o l v e s p e c i f i c Crown land i s s u e s i n the v a r i o u s r e g i o n s . U t i l i z i n g an annual work program these concerns are p r i o r i z e d by r e g i o n a l s t a f f and forwarded to the RRMC f o r comment. Upon r e c e i v i n g endorsement at t h i s l e v e l the work program i s then r e f e r r e d to V i c t o r i a f o r Executive Committee and M i n i s t e r i a l s a n c t i o n and subsequent budget a p p r o v a l . Although t h i s stage i s l a r g e l y an i n t e r n a l f u n c t i o n , i t i s important to in c l u d e i n t e r e s t s o u t s i d e LPH so they can i d e n t i f y i s s u e s r e l e v a n t to them and determine how they should p a r t i c i p a t e to adequately represent t h e i r concerns. I t i s evident t h a t , at a minimum, RRMC and l o c a l government p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l . 2. U t i l i z i n g the'Crown land p l a n n i n g task f o r c e as the v e h i c l e f o r a c t i o n , the fo r m u l a t i o n stage i s comprised of three t a s k s . F i r s t , r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n and a l t e r n a t i v e management approaches are generated. Next, the a l t e r n a t i v e s are debated i n order to determine the v a r i o u s e f f e c t s of each a c t i o n and f i n a l l y , a consensus i s reached on the best o p t i o n . I t i s imperative that a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s have adequate input,throughout t h i s p r o c e s s . 3. The adoption stage may be viewed as the decision-making phase i n the proc e s s . At t h i s p o i n t the pla n i s reviewed by 75 the RRMC and headquarters' s t a f f i n V i c t o r i a . Once san c t i o n e d the adopted plan becomes an o f f i c i a l p o l i c y statement of the M i n i s t r y . I n t e r e s t groups are not i n v o l v e d in t h i s decision-making stage; however, p r o v i s i o n s should e x i s t f o r a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s to appeal to the decision-maker. 4. The implementation stage puts the plan i n t o a c t i o n . Again, as envisaged by the des i g n e r s of the planni n g process, t h i s i s very much an i n t e r n a l a c t i v i t y . I n t e r e s t groups, however, c o u l d play a r o l e i n observing or a s s i s t i n g i n the implementation to ensure that the plan i s c a r r i e d out. As w e l l , p r o v i s i o n s should e x i s t to permit adjustments as c o n d i t i o n s change and new inf o r m a t i o n i s brought to l i g h t . In r e t u r n i n g to the normative i d e a l of f u l l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n throughout the process, i t i s evident that i n the two cases t h i s requirement was not achieved and, moreover, c o u l d not have been achieved under the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e . For i n s t a n c e , i n the i n i t i a t i o n phase the only p a r t i c i p a t i o n p rovided f o r , ou t s i d e LPH s t a f f , i s f o r other p r o v i n c i a l agencies i n v o l v e d i n the RRMC review procedure. At t h i s stage no other l e v e l of government or p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s i s aware of the p r o j e c t s being c o n s i d e r e d . In the case s t u d i e s i t appears t h a t , c o n t r a r y to e s t a b l i s h e d procedures, the " i n t e n t " to commence these two plans was not even made known to the RRMC. (The a c t u a l reasons f o r t h i s were not determinable from e x i s t i n g i nformation.) The f o r m u l a t i o n phase p r o v i d e s the g r e a t e s t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r 76 a l l i n t e r e s t s to p a r t i c i p a t e . The task f o r c e approach ensures t h a t , at minimum, the three l e v e l s of government agencies are in v o l v e d i n developing the p l a n . I t must be recognized, however, that involvement of the p u b l i c i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y , and i n the two cases reviewed, these i n t e r e s t s were excluded. The adoption stage again i s very much an i n t e r n a l procedure. The process does provide f o r RRMC review but, as before, the involvement of i n t e r e s t s o utside the p r o v i n c i a l sphere, i n c l u d i n g the l o c a l MLA, i s l i m i t e d to r e c e i v i n g n o t i f i c a t i o n of adoption, and a copy of the f i n a l plan document. A f f e c t e d p a r t i e s are not provided an op p o r t u n i t y to appeal to the decision-makers. The implementation stage i s l a r g e l y the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of LPH r e g i o n a l s t a f f . T h i s process i s viewed from w i t h i n as the execution of pre v i o u s d e c i s i o n s and as such, no o u t s i d e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . Neither the Lang Creek nor the Upper L i l l o o e t p l a n s , to date, have been f u l l y implemented. ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION In Chapter IV c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n was devoted to d i s c u s s i n g v a r i o u s f e a t u r e s of p o l i t i c a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behavior and i t s e f f e c t s on decision-making s t r u c t u r e s . I t was noted that agencies tend to i d e n t i f y with the i n t e r e s t s they serve and thus assume s i m i l a r o b j e c t i v e s . As w e l l , r e g u l a t o r y bodies tend to become sympathetic towards the o b j e c t i v e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n s they r e g u l a t e . Moreover, i t was observed that the education and 77 experience of persons sharing i n a d e c i s i o n tend to i n f l u e n c e the manner in which problems are p e r c e i v e d and r e s o l v e d . If these b e h a v i o r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are to be accepted, one would assume that the range of p a r t i c i p a n t s g r e a t l y a f f e c t s the c o l l e c t i o n of "good" in f o r m a t i o n and the development of a l t e r n a t i v e s . Transposing these concepts to t h i s review, i t i s suggested that the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s i n d i c a t e whether or not the i n f o r m a t i o n generated f o r the p l a n n i n g process was adequate. 1 . Did the d e r i v e d a l t e r n a t i v e s r e f l e c t the values of the a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s ? 2. Was the q u a l i t y and the q u a n t i t y of the i n f o r m a t i o n adequate? 3. Were the a l t e r n a t i v e s and d e c i s i o n s e f f e c t i v e l y communicated to the p a r t i c i p a n t s ? A l t e r n a t i v e s and A f f e c t e d I n t e r e s t s The answer to t h i s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s a review of the a c t i o n s of the Crown land p l a n n i n g task f o r c e . I t i s t h i s group which i s charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f o r m u l a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e p o l i c i e s and management plans f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n to the decision-makers. The answer, however, must be premised on the f a c t that i n the two cases not a l l i n t e r e s t s were represented. Conceivably, t h e r e f o r e , not a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s were brought to l i g h t . T h i s task then i s l i m i t e d to determining whether the d e r i v e d a l t e r n a t i v e s r e f l e c t e d the values of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t e r e s t s . 78 By i n c l u d i n g a range of p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies on a task fo r c e i t i s l i k e l y that a v a r i e t y of options w i l l be brought f o r t h . In s h o r t , the maintenance of " s e l f - i n t e r e s t " d i c t a t e s that each i n t e r e s t w i l l produce a l t e r n a t i v e s and s u p p o r t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n that maximizes i t s g o a l s . In d i s c u s s i n g t h i s issue with the v a r i o u s p a r t i c i p a n t s , i t , however, became apparent that t h i s approach was somewhat c o n s t r a i n e d . The m a j o r i t y of p a r t i c i p a n t s d i d not view themselves as being i n v o l v e d i n an i n t e g r a t e d resource p l a n n i n g e x e r c i s e . Rather they p e r c e i v e d the process as being one which would a s s i s t the LPH M i n i s t r y in r e s o l v i n g LPH problems. Hence, t h e i r task was to provide i n f o r m a t i o n from which the planner c o u l d d e r i v e the o p t i o n that c o u l d best meet the LPH needs. Despite t h i s p e r c e p t i o n and l a r g e l y due to the planning s t a f f ' s d e s i r e to pursue an i n t e g r a t e d p l a n n i n g approach, an attempt was made to develop a number of o p t i o n s based on the inputs of the v a r i o u s resource a g e n c i e s . In the Upper L i l l o o e t Plan two options were developed: one r e f l e c t i n g an a g r i c u l t u r a l p r i o r i t y , and the other s t r e s s i n g the development of f o r e s t r y and the p r o t e c t i o n of the w i l d l i f e and f i s h e r i e s h a b i t a t , while p r e s e r v i n g f u t u r e a g r i c u l t u r a l o p t i o n s . The l a t t e r was chosen as the "best means of a c h i e v i n g the plan g o a l " (LPH,1980(d),p.4). D i s c u s s i o n s with task f o r c e members re v e a l e d a g e n e r a l s a t i s f a c t i o n with the range of a l t e r n a t i v e s developed and the subsequent d e c i s i o n . No suggestions were o f f e r e d as to what resource v a l u e s or unexplored o p t i o n s were 79 omitted. The above comments exclude the views h e l d by the Squamish L i l l o o e t Regional D i s t r i c t which argued f o r a broader based planning approach. As noted i n the previous documentation, t h i s approach was d i s m i s s e d by the other members of the task f o r c e as being beyond the scope of the e x e r c i s e . They d i d not p e r c e i v e i t as a comprehensive planning e x e r c i s e but rather the r e s o l u t i o n of immediate resource a l l o c a t i o n concerns. In Lang Creek no s p e c i f i c o p t i o n s per se were developed. From the beginning there appeared to be a consensus regarding the resource i s s u e s and the means to r e s o l v e them. As a r e s u l t one "plan concept" was developed, based on the data forwarded by the p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies. T h i s process, as w e l l , appears to have met with the approval of the m a j o r i t y of the task f o r c e . D i s s e n s i o n again was l i m i t e d to the Regional D i s t r i c t ' s comments regarding the e r o s i o n of l o c a l land use c o n t r o l by a s s i g n i n g lands to the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . In summary, i t may be concluded that with the exception of the views expressed by the l o c a l governments, the a l t e r n a t i v e s c o n s i d e r e d i n both processes d i d r e f l e c t the values of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g a gencies. 80 Information Q u a l i t y and Quantity The i n f o r m a t i o n u t i l i z e d i n developing the Crown land plans came from the p a r t i c i p a n t s . At the commencement of each process the v a r i o u s agencies were requested to submit t h e i r resource concerns i n both graphic and w r i t t e n form. These data were then aggregated i n t o a resource f o l i o which became the f o c a l p o i n t of d i s c u s s i o n . T h i s process p r o v i d e s an o p p o r t u n i t y to i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s and enables the p a r t i c i p a n t s to see what i s being traded o f f i n each a l t e r n a t i v e . None of the respondents had any major c r i t i c i s m s of t h i s technique or suggestions f o r more a p p r o p r i a t e methods. G e n e r a l l y , t h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was extended to the q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n u t i l i z e d i n the two case s t u d i e s . Adverse comments were l i m i t e d to some agencies e x p r e s s i n g d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n and . t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to a c q u i r e a d d i t i o n a l resources so that g r e a t e r d e t a i l c o u l d be p r o v i d e d . In the Upper L i l l o o e t p lan some respondents r e f e r r e d to the merit of o b t a i n i n g a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s on the c o s t s and e f f e c t s of dyking the r i v e r and a g r e a t e r understanding of the f e a s i b i l i t y of c o n v e r t i n g the lands to a g r i c u l t u r a l uses. As w e l l , F i s h and W i l d l i f e personnel expressed a need f o r a d d i t i o n a l data on ungulate winter ranges. None of these concerns, however, were f e l t to be strong enough as to l i m i t the c r e d i b i l i t y of the p l a n . In Lang Creek the major concern was the l a c k of i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the c u r r e n t demand f o r Crown l o t s i n r e l a t i o n to the p r i v a t e market system. In s h o r t , most agencies s t a t e d that they would have been more comfortable i n 81 r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e i r concerns i f more d e t a i l e d data was a v a i l a b l e . Again, i t must be noted that p u b l i c sentiments were not d i r e c t l y sought, hence not i n c o r p o r a t e d . Embodied in the above i s a common agency complaint, that of having inadequate funds or time to produce s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s , i t appears, i s a r e s u l t of o u t s i d e agencies not being aware of upcoming LPH p l a n n i n g programs and consequently not being prepared i n e i t h e r a f i n a n c i a l or manpower sense. T h i s lack of resources produces " i n f o r m a t i o n gaps" which cause the i n t e r e s t s to become over p r o t e c t i v e of t h e i r resource, f o r fear of l o s i n g something they are not yet f u l l y aware of. Over p r o t e c t i o n , i n t u r n , i n h i b i t s the w i l l i n g n e s s to compromise thereby i n c r e a s i n g the d u r a t i o n of the p r o c e s s . The r e s o l u t i o n of these problems, as v e r i f i e d by numerous p a r t i c i p a n t s , i s g r e a t e r a r t i c u l a t i o n of LPH procedures and a n t i c i p a t e d p r o j e c t s at both the RRMC and o p e r a t i o n s l e v e l s and i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a j o i n t budget p r i o r i z a t i o n process f o r p l a n n i n g Crown la n d . Communication of A l t e r n a t i v e s and Information Information i s of l i t t l e value u n l e s s i t i s communicated to those i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , each a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t should be a p p r i s e d of the r e l e v a n t background m a t e r i a l , the proposed a l t e r n a t i v e s , the c h o i c e of the best a l t e r n a t i v e and the r a t i o n a l e f o r the c h o i c e . To adequately review the processes' compliance with t h i s 82 i n d i c a t o r i t i s necessary to examine two separate components: communication w i t h i n the task force s t r u c t u r e and communication between LPH and the i n t e r e s t s o u t s i d e the M i n i s t r y . Communication amongst task f o r c e members i s achieved through correspondence and attendance at p e r i o d i c meetings. A review of the meeting minutes and LPH f i l e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , the meetings were reserved f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n of the p a r t i c i p a n t s " i n t e r e s t s " and d i s c u s s i o n on the r e s o l u t i o n of s p e c i f i c i s s u e s . Correspondence, on the other hand, was u s u a l l y l i m i t e d to s o l i c i t i n g or p r o v i d i n g greater d e t a i l on i s s u e s r e l e v a n t to the v a r i o u s resource agencies. Conversations with the task f o r c e members i n d i c a t e d a general s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h i s approach. Most agreed that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the groups had enhanced communication between the agencies by p r o v i d i n g a good opp o r t u n i t y f o r o p e r a t i o n s l e v e l personnel to become f a m i l i a r with the programs of other m i n i s t r i e s . The c r i t i c i s m s that were r e c e i v e d were d i r e c t e d at the Upper L i l l o o e t process. Due to the sporadic meeting schedule, a number of p a r t i c i p a n t s f e l t that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of more d e t a i l e d agendas would have been h e l p f u l i n p r e p a r i n g f o r the meetings. The communication format between i n t e r e s t s o u t s i d e the task f o r c e and the LPH M i n i s t r y , however, d i d r e c e i v e a number of adverse comments. I t has been p r e v i o u s l y noted that to a s i g n i f i c a n t degree o u t s i d e agencies were not aware of the scope of the P r o v i n c i a l Crown land p l a n n i n g program. T h i s f a c t combined with the " r e a l e s t a t e image" of the M i n i s t r y has r e s u l t e d i n the p l a n n i n g program being viewed as a mechanism to 83 " s e l l o f f " the P r o v i n c i a l land base. To counteract these views i t has been suggested that the M i n i s t r y s h i f t some of i t s "Crown land f o r a l l " p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s e f f o r t s to promoting i t s r o l e i n the planned a l l o c a t i o n of the land resource to i t s optimal use. The above remarks have been d i r e c t e d at inter-agency communications; the ensuing p o i n t s are concerned with the i n t r a -m i n i s t r y a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with Crown land p l a n n i n g . "Planning", i f one r e c a l l s , i s undertaken at two l e v e l s w i t h i n the M i n i s t r y . .The regions prepare the r e g i o n a l and d i s t r i c t p lans while the Lands Programs D i v i s i o n in V i c t o r i a focuses on province-wide a c t i v i t i e s . The l a t t e r i s a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d e v e l o p i n g the Crown land program and f o r q u a l i t y c o n t r o l of a l l plans o r i g i n a t i n g i n the f i e l d . Communication between the two l e v e l s , r e garding the plans under review, appeared to be l i m i t e d , to an exchange of p r o c e d u r a l memorandums. C r i t i c i s m s o r i g i n a t i n g at the r e g i o n a l l e v e l s t a t e d a p e r c e i v e d l a c k of sympathy by headquarters towards r e g i o n a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s . S p e c i f i c concerns i n c l u d e d the p e r c e i v e d i n f l e x i b i l i t y of the plan document format and the implementation procedures. The V i c t o r i a s t a f f , on the other hand, noted that the present a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e i n h i b i t s open communication. The e x i s t e n c e of two separate d i v i s i o n s prevents the two groups from a c t i v e l y working with one another. Both of these t o p i c s are the subject of more s p e c i f i c d i s c u s s i o n i n the ensuing s e c t i o n s of t h i s c h a p ter. 84 EFFECTIVENESS To t h i s p o i n t t h i s e v a l u a t i o n has been ce n t e r e d on examining the "components" of the Crown land planning p r o c e s s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was determined who was i n c l u d e d i n the process and on what b a s i s the d e c i s i o n s were d e r i v e d . T h i s c r i t e r i o n s h i f t s the e v a l u a t i o n to an examination of the worth or value of the d e c i s i o n . In other words, does the plann i n g process accomplish what i t se t s out to do? To t h i s end, the f o l l o w i n g three q u e s t i o n s are c o n s i d e r e d : , 1 . Were there any f a c t o r s that i n h i b i t e d the task f o r c e from reaching a d e c i s i o n ? 2. Were the d e c i s i o n s implemented? 3. Were the processes and d e c i s i o n s of value to the p a r t i c i p a n t s ? A b i l i t y to Reach Dec i s i o n s An e f f e c t i v e decision-making process p r o v i d e s f o r an e q u i t a b l e and e x p e d i t i o u s r e s o l u t i o n of c o n f l i c t s . B a r g a i n i n g and the accommodation of opposing i n t e r e s t s are e s s e n t i a l elements of t h i s s t r a t e g y . One c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the process i d e n t i f i e d d u r i n g i n t e r v i e w s with the task f o r c e members was a p e r c e i v e d " u n w i l l i n g n e s s to compromise" by some members. T h i s t r a i t was co n s i d e r e d by some to be the s o l e f a c t o r r e s p o n s i b l e fo r the p r o t r a c t e d l e n g t h of the Upper L i l l o o e t p r o c e s s . The reasons p r o v i d e d f o r t h i s r e s i s t a n c e were v a r i e d . Some f e l t that members were not o b j e c t i v e enough or, to put i t more s u c c i n c t l y , d i d not b e l i e v e i n an i n t e g r a t e d resource management approach. 85 Others p l a c e d the problem on group dynamics, s t a t i n g that i t was d i f f i c u l t f o r a group of f i f t e e n persons to reach a consensus. S t i l l others noted the o v e r p r o t e c t i v e a t t i t u d e s of some agencies. T h i s stance, as p r e v i o u s l y determined, may be a response to a lack of funding r e s u l t i n g i n the i n a b i l i t y to c o l l e c t adequate i n f o r m a t i o n . When viewed o b j e c t i v e l y , however, the above, to a la r g e degree, appears to be symptomatic of a much broader problem the l a c k of understanding by task f o r c e members of t h e i r s p e c i f i c r o l e and the lack of freedom by the agencies' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to a d j u s t p o l i c y to meet l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s or to trade o f f one i n t e r e s t f o r another. From d i s c u s s i o n s i t was observed that members p e r c e i v e themselves i n one of two p o s i t i o n s . There are those who view t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the decision-making process. In t h i s regard t h e i r task along with other members, i s to review the p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , d e r i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s and to decide on the best course of a c t i o n . The second group, the m a j o r i t y , regards t h e i r r o l e as l i m i t e d to an a d v i s o r y c a p a c i t y and not decision-making. Consequently, t h e i r p o s i t i o n i s not viewed as one of compromise but r a t h e r as p r o t e c t i o n of t h e i r s e l f - i n t e r e s t s so that when the d e c i s i o n i s made by LPH planners t h e i r views w i l l be accounted f o r or at l e a s t recorded. The l a t t e r p o s i t i o n , as p r e v i o u s l y noted, appears to r e s u l t from a lack of understanding of the scope and i n t e n t of the pl a n n i n g p r o c e s s . Again, the process i s viewed as being an LPH s o l u t i o n to LPH problems, not an endeavour to manage the P r o v i n c i a l Crown land to achieve the 86 best use of t h i s resource. The s o l u t i o n , as. before, appears to hinge on the M i n i s t r y overcoming i t s " r e a l e s t a t e " image by s t r e s s i n g i t s r o l e as planners r a t h e r than s a l e s agents and the r e s o l u t i o n of a broader i s s u e r e l a t i v e to which agency should assume the "l e a d r o l e " i n developing p r o v i n c i a l land use p l a n s . A b i 1 i t y to Implement D e c i s i o n s One of the major problems ev i d e n t i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l design i s the d i f f i c u l t y of d e l i n e a t i n g implementation arrangements which achieve p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e s . The desig n e r s of the Crown land planning program have chosen to u t i l i z e t h e i r l e g i s l a t e d mandate to o f f i c i a l l y designate p a r c e l s of land to s p e c i f i c land uses through m i n i s t e r i a l orders or O r d e r s - i n - C o u n c i l . In t h i s manner Crown land plans d e s i g n a t i o n s r e c e i v e 'government s a n c t i o n and thus become, b i n d i n g on a l l p a r t i e s . To date, n e i t h e r the Upper L i l l o o e t nor the Lang Creek plans have advanced to t h i s stage. The Upper L i l l o o e t w i l l q u i t e l i k e l y never be implemented by the M i n i s t r y as the e n t i r e area i s s l a t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . Some attempts, however, are being made to u t i l i z e these l e g a l mechanisms f o r p o r t i o n s of the r e c r e a t i o n and r e s i d e n t i a l development areas i n the Lang Creek p l a n . As i n the Upper L i l l o o e t , the f o r e s t r y management areas w i l l become part of the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . P o r t i o n s of the area have a l s o been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves d u r i n g a review undertaken by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. The need f o r the l e g a l f o r m a l i t y embodied i n the e x i s t i n g implementation techniques appears to be a c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e 87 between v a r i o u s groups w i t h i n the M i n i s t r y . Proponents of the e x i s t i n g implementation format argue that only by s i t e - s p e c i f i c m i n i s t e r i a l d e s i g n a t i o n f o r each use category w i l l the i n t e n t s of the Crown land plans be p r o t e c t e d . For i n s t a n c e , i f an area i s best s u i t e d f o r r e c r e a t i o n , then i t should be set a s i d e f o r that purpose only, by a r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s e r v e . Under t h i s mechanism, Crown land i s then a l l o c a t e d on the b a s i s of a comprehensive management plan which accounts fo r e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s e n s i t i v e areas, promotes o r d e r l y economic development and a l l o c a t e s land to i t s h i g h e s t and best use. The net r e s u l t of t h i s system, however, i s a myriad of s i n g l e purpose re s e r v e s enacted by m i n i s t e r i a l order i n each of the p l a n n i n g areas. T h i s f a c t o r , as argued by the opposing group, i s the major weakness of the implementation procedures. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , they c r i t i c i z e the immense task of m a i n t a i n i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d of the l a r g e number of r e s e r v e s i n b u r e a u c r a t i c order. Even more so, they argue a g a i n s t the i n f l e x i b i l i t y p r ovided by such d e s i g n a t i o n s . For i n s t a n c e , to remove an e x i s t i n g reserve r e q u i r e s an a d d i t i o n a l m i n i s t e r i a l order or O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l . Often these changes are unforeseen and are of minor consequence, n e v e r t h e l e s s , they consume much s t a f f time, which i t i s argued, may be b e t t e r spent i n other ways. An example of such an occurrence would be a p r e s e n t l y unrecognized need f o r a f u t u r e g r a v e l e x t r a c t i o n s i t e . If the area was d e s i g n a t e d by m i n i s t e r i a l order f o r another purpose, a d d i t i o n a l orders would be r e q u i r e d to f i r s t r e l e a s e i t , and then redesignate i t to the new use. T h i s , i t i s argued, promotes 88 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n e f f i c i e n c y . I t i s important to recognize that the disagreement i s not d i r e c t e d at the need for implementation but rather at the manner in which i t i s undertaken. Given the above arguments, i t i s suggested that a more favourable "adaptive" approach would be one that u t i l i z e s a s i n g l e m i n i s t e r i a l , order to s p e c i f y the v a r i o u s land use d e s i g n a t i o n s in an e n t i r e planning area. Under such circumstances amendment procedures, i f deemed necessary, would r e q u i r e only one subsequent order. Value of the D e c i s i o n The u l t i m a t e measure of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a d e c i s i o n i s whether the p a r t i c i p a n t s regard the outcome as being b e n e f i c i a l f o r t h e i r purposes. One g e n e r a l l y wishes to d i s c e r n that e f f o r t s have not been i n v a i n . The ensuing sentiments have been assembled a f t e r two i n t e r v i e w s with most members of the two task f o r c e s . I n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w s were conducted during the summer of 1980, at a time when the p l a n s were being readied f o r adoption. To augment these views a second attempt to reach the members was made one year l a t e r . During the i n t e r v e n i n g p e r i o d both plans were f o r m a l l y adopted. The purpose of the second c o n v e r s a t i o n was to determine i f t h i s f o r m a l i t y had changed the respondents views towards the p r o c e s s . For c l a r i t y , the comments r e c e i v e d are summarized ac c o r d i n g to agency and p l a n . 89 The Upper L i l l o o e t S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan 1 . M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing Regional Operations D i v i s i o n - Lower Mainland Region The task f o r c e r e s o l v e d that the a g r i c u l t u r a l l e a s e s should not be granted and that the e n t i r e area should be maintained f o r f o r e s t r y uses. As a r e s u l t , a l l l e a s e and purchase a p p l i c a t i o n s are being denied without r e f e r r a l to other a g e n c i e s . In t h i s respect the plan has reduced the time r e q u i r e d f o r a p p l i c a t i o n a d j u d i c a t i o n . 2. M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e The process has r e s u l t e d i n the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the region's a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . The p l a n i t s e l f has had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the M i n i s t r y ' s a c t i v i t i e s . 3. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission T h i s agency has not u t i l i z e d the plan i n t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . 4. M i n i s t r y of Environment, F i s h and W i d l i f e Branch The p l a n has r e s u l t e d i n the resources being documented. However, i t i s f e l t that the plan d i d not p r o v i d e adequate p r o t e c t i o n f o r the v a l l e y ' s unique moose p o p u l a t i o n . 90 5. M i n i s t r y of Environment, Water Management Branch The plan followed very c l o s e l y the suggestions p r o v i d e d . The document i t s e l f i s u s e f u l as an information base. The p o l i c i e s i n the p l a n , however, have not a l t e r e d the agency's pre v i o u s s t r a t e g i e s regarding water a l l o c a t i o n . 6. F i s h e r i e s and Oceans Canada The plan has c l a r i f i e d the need f o r the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the f i s h e r i e s resources i n the area. The f a c t that the plan suggests no requests f o r development be e n t e r t a i n e d , has c u r t a i l e d a p p l i c a t i o n s and, t h e r e f o r e , has reduced the time that would have been devoted to responding to r e f e r r a l s . 7. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s The plan has aided the d e s i g n a t i o n of the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t i n the area. Since p r i o r agreement was achieved d u r i n g the process i t w i l l be unnecessary to debate the m e r i t s of i n c l u s i o n , r a t h e r the areas designated f o r f o r e s t use w i l l be i n c l u d e d o u t r i g h t . 8. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, Parks and Outdoor Re c r e a t i o n D i v i s i o n The region c o n t a i n s no areas of high r e c r e a t i o n c a p a b i l i t y . As a r e s u l t , the D i v i s i o n ' s i n t e r e s t i n the plan was minimal. 91 9. S g u a m i s h - L i l l o o e t Regional D i s t r i c t The plan has been of no value to the D i s t r i c t . I t d e a l t with a small i s o l a t e d p o r t i o n of the region and f a i l e d to recognize l o c a l l y expressed concerns. For the area that was examined, however, the plan d i d p r o v i d e a u s e f u l inventory of r e s o u r c e s . 10. I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission The plan appears to address the concerns of t h i s agency and thus i s v a l u a b l e . 11. Pemberton V a l l e y Dyking D i s t r i c t The r e s p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h i s agency s t a t e d the group's concerns were p r o t e c t e d by the Water Rights Branch. Hence, i f they were s a t i s f i e d , so was the D i s t r i c t . The Lang Creek S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan 1 . M i n i s t r y of Lands., Parks and Housing Regional Operations D i v i s i o n - Lower Mainland Region The plan has p r o v i d e d s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s to a s s i s t i n the d i s p o s a l of Crown l o t s i n the r e g i o n . As a r e s u l t , the M i n i s t r y ' s o f f i c e r s are able to maintain an ordered development s t r a t e g y by d i r e c t i n g a p p l i c a n t s to staged s u b d i v i s i o n s . The M i n i s t r y i t s e l f has not p r o v i d e d s e r v i c i n g , but r a t h e r has l i m i t e d i t s r o l e to s t r i c t l y r e g u l a t i n g the a v a i l a b i l i t y and 92 c o s t s of the l o t s . Despite the agreements embodied in the p l a n , some r e f e r r a l s to other agencies are s t i l l t a k i n g p l a c e . 2. M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e A g r i c u l t u r e i s not a high p r i o r i t y resource use i n the area. These i n t e r e s t s are adequately p r o t e c t e d by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. 3. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission T h i s p l a n n i n g e f f o r t c o i n c i d e d with the Commission's review of ALR d e s i g n a t i o n s in the area. The Commission conducted a separate p u b l i c hearing a f t e r which ALR amendments were made. This plan i s c o n s i d e r e d a "breakthrough" i n the Commission's work in that i t i s the f i r s t p r o v i n c i a l p l a n to e x p l i c i t l y recognize and i n c o r p o r a t e ALR d e s i g n a t i o n s . 4. M i n i s t r y of Environment, F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch The plan has r e s u l t e d i n a b e t t e r understanding of the w i l d l i f e resources i n the area. A l s o i t has enabled the v a r i o u s m i n i s t r i e s to become a p p r i s e d of each other's concerns. However, the p l a n should have been more d e t a i l e d with respect to the f i s h and w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s . As a r e s u l t , to ensure the p r o t e c t i o n of these resources, a d d i t i o n a l s i t e - s p e c i f i c agreements w i l l be requi red. 93 5. M i n i s t r y of Environment, Water Management Branch The process has ensured that the major water concerns in the area w i l l be respected during f u t u r e development. The plan i t s e l f , however, has not a l t e r e d t h i s agency's previous water a l l o c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . 6. F i s h e r i e s and Oceans Canada P r o v i n c i a l plans are not b i n d i n g on the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s F e d e r a l department, but f i s h e r i e s concerns were adequately expressed i n the p l a n . Since the amount of r e f e r r a l s has decreased as a r e s u l t of the p l a n , t h i s agency's workload i s that much l i g h t e r . 7. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s R e l a t i v e to the M i n i s t r y ' s mandate to manage the f o r e s t r esources, the process has had marginal v a l u e . On the other hand, i t has a i d e d i n the d e s i g n a t i o n of the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . Confident that the f o r e s t r y management areas w i l l be the s o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , the M i n i s t r y has e s t a b l i s h e d a demonstration f o r e s t i n the areas adjacent to p r i v a t e lands. 8. M i n i s t r y of P r o v i n c i a l S e c r e t a r y and Government S e r v i c e s , Archaeology D i v i s i o n The M i n i s t r y ' s concerns regarding the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e s have been addressed. As a r e s u l t , the 94 process has been v a l u a b l e . 9. C o r p o r a t i o n of the D i s t r i c t of Powell River The p l a n has had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the m u n i c i p a l i t y . The in c r e a s e d a v a i l a b i l i t y of Crown l o t s , however, has been a detriment from a m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c i n g p o i n t of view, i n that i t has promoted the continued s c a t t e r i n g of development. The m u n i c i p a l i t y would l i k e to see a broader approach taken to plann i n g r e g i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l l a nds. In s h o r t , the p r o v i n c i a l programs should be combined with l o c a l government's planning e f f o r t s . 1 0 . Powell R i v e r Regional D i s t r i c t The plan's d e s i g n a t i o n s are being i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the D i s t r i c t ' s r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g program. The process has been b e n e f i c i a l because the Region was able to determine the s p e c i f i c p r o p o s a l s of the government agencies. The area c o n s i d e r e d , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , i s only a sma l l p o r t i o n of the D i s t r i c t . In terms of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the p l a n , the Board s t i l l has some r e s e r v a t i o n s regarding i t s i n a b i l i t y to i n f l u e n c e p o t e n t i a l f o r e s t development adjacent to p r i v a t e lands. 95 EFFICIENCY Most would agree that an e f f e c t i v e process i s one that does not squander time, manpower or f i n a n c i a l resources. As w e l l , one would expect an e f f i c i e n t process to a v o i d the d u p l i c a t i o n of e f f o r t s that are undertaken by other agencies or i n d i v i d u a l s . The measurement of these i d e a l s , however, i s , at best, d i f f i c u l t s i n c e o f t e n there are no p r e c i s e benchmarks to i n d i c a t e where " i n e f f i c i e n c y " begins. As a r e s u l t , i t i s necessary to r e l y on the p e r c e p t i o n s of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . In a d d i t i o n to the above l i m i t a t i o n s , i t i s recognized t h a t , in the context of the f o u r - s t a g e . p l a n n i n g process, only the e f f i c i e n c y of the plan f o r m u l a t i o n stage i s being c o n s i d e r e d . The others are l a r g e l y i n t e r n a l LPH a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s , a review of which i s not p o s s i b l e f o r i t would r e q u i r e a knowledge of a l l M i n i s t r y f u n c t i o n s . Recognizing the above, the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s are suggested as i n d i c a t o r s of whether or not the Crown land p l a n n i n g process can g e n e r a l l y be regarded as e f f i c i e n t : 1 . Did the process waste time, manpower and resources? 2. Was there d u p l i c a t i o n in any of the tasks a s s o c i a t e d with the process? 96 E f f i c i e n t Use of Time and Resources M o s t . p a r t i c i p a n t s agree that the time devoted to task f o r c e a c t i v i t i e s was w e l l spent. The meetings were g e n e r a l l y viewed as p r o d u c t i v e and few suggestions were provided as to the manner i n which the process c o u l d be improved. As w e l l , no i n d i c a t i o n of an e x c e s s i v e use of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e resources was o f f e r e d . The c r i t i c i s m s r e c e i v e d , however, appear to be centered on two i s s u e s : the prolonged time span between meetings and the loquacio u s format of the plan documents. In terms of the f i r s t , the problem appears to be a s s o c i a t e d with delays i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of graphic m a t e r i a l . The Burnaby o f f i c e does not employ d r a f t i n g personnel, consequently the maps had to be sent to V i c t o r i a f o r p r e p a r a t i o n . In the Upper L i l l o o e t t h i s f a c t o r , alone, was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a six-month delay. T h i s i s s u e , however, appears to be s o l v a b l e . In the f u t u r e , funds w i l l be made a v a i l a b l e so that these tasks c o u l d be c o n t r a c t e d out to l o c a l f i r m s . Regarding the plann i n g documents, many c r i t i c i s m s were d i r e c t e d towards the voluminous format and i t s u n s u i t a b i l i t y f o r d a i l y use. Respondents a f f i r m e d that i f the pl a n was to be a working document f o r f i e l d p e r s o n n e l , i t con t a i n e d f a r too much sup e r f l u o u s m a t e r i a l , such as the i n c l u s i o n of the pr e f a c e c o n t a i n i n g LPH goals and plann i n g p r i n c i p l e s . S i m i l a r l y , the s t a f f i n v o l v e d i n p r e p a r i n g the plan s t a t e d that the p r e s c r i b e d format was too r i g i d and th a t the nature of the r e v i s i o n s requested by V i c t o r i a were, at times, too p e t t y c r e a t i n g 97 i n e f f i c i e n c i e s by having to do s e v e r a l r e - w r i t e s . T h i s c r i t i c i s m seems to i n d i c a t e a g r e a t e r need f o r the headquarters s t a f f to become more i n v o l v e d i n the r e a l i t i e s of r e g i o n a l o p e r a t i o n s . During the i n t e r v i e w s , respondents were f u r t h e r q u e r i e d r e g a r d i n g the p l a n n i n g processes', e f f e c t s on t h e i r d a i l y o p e r a t i o n s . Most s t a t e d , that a d d i t i o n a l tasks stemming from t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n were l i m i t e d to the generation of area-s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s r e s e a r c h d i d consume some of t h e i r time that had been a l l o c a t e d f o r other t a s k s , but not to the degree that i t hampered d a i l y o p e r a t i o n s . In terms of adverse e f f e c t s r e s u l t i n g from the process, several, comments were made regarding the l o s s of c r e d i b i l i t y of the program due to the time r e q u i r e d to complete the p l a n s . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n was more s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d at the three year p e r i o d taken to prepare the Upper L i l l o o e t P lan. However, given that many agencies w i l l not u t i l i z e the p l a n s , the q u e s t i o n of "wasted e f f o r t " remains open. D u p l i c a t i o n of Tasks Neither the Upper L i l l o o e t nor the Lang Creek areas were s u b j e c t s of p r e v i o u s land use p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s . As such, the p r e p a r a t i o n of the two Crown land plans posed no d u p l i c a t i o n of p r e v i o u s or concurrent a r e a - s p e c i f i c p l a n n i n g endeavours. The respondents were not a b l e to provide any evidence that the plans were not necessary or r e p e t i t i v e of t h e i r agencies' programs. At the present time, however, the purview of land use 98 p l a n n i n g i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s changing. In a d d i t i o n to the Crown land p l a n n i n g program, the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s i s p r e p a r i n g province-wide p o l i c i e s f o r the management of P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s . Recent l e g i s l a t i v e amendments have a l s o provided the M i n i s t r y of Environment with a mandate to "plan" the resources under i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . Even more r e c e n t l y the Planning Act D i s c u s s i o n Paper has f u r t h e r proposed a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of a l l p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . These changes, combined with the t r a d i t i o n a l p l a n n i n g r o l e accorded to l o c a l governments, have, to the o u t s i d e r , c r e a t e d a maze that i s d i f f i c u l t to comprehend. In terms of t h i s task, that of e v a l u a t i n g the Crown land planning process, i t appears e s s e n t i a l to broaden the assessment so that the e f f e c t s of these e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e s may be reviewed. The ensuing chapter summarizes the major e x t e r n a l p l a n n i n g programs and t h e i r e f f e c t s on the Crown land p l a n n i n g program. 99 CHAPTER VI -- PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANNING - A BROADER PERSPECTIVE I t i s o f t e n s t a t e d that "planning" i s a dynamic pro c e s s . T h i s i s nowhere more evident than i n t h i s Province's c u r r e n t resource p l a n n i n g s t r u c t u r e . At present, without exception, each resource m i n i s t r y i s at some stage i n d e v i s i n g and implementing p l a n n i n g programs which w i l l i n e v i t a b l y have some i n f l u e n c e on the Crown land planning process. A c c o r d i n g l y , any recommendations o f f e r e d for improving the LPH program must account f o r these e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e s . In terms of p r o v i n c i a l p l a n n i n g , there are three major f a c t o r s that merit c o n s i d e r a t i o n : the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s program, the c u r r e n t emphasis on s t r a t e g i c planning and the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t of the impending Planning A c t . Each of these are d i s c u s s e d i n t u r n . DESIGNATION OF PROVINCIAL FORESTS Since i t s i n c e p t i o n i n 1912 the F o r e s t Act has i n c l u d e d p r o v i s i o n s f o r the establishment of p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t s . O r i g i n a l l y , these f o r e s t s were r e l a t i v e l y small and l i m i t e d to areas with high timber value. In the l a t e 1960's a program was i n i t i a t e d to i n c l u d e i n p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t s a l l lands best s u i t e d f o r long-term f o r e s t r y uses. T h i s program was suspended i n 1973 to allow f o r a g e n e r a l review of the l a n d a l l o c a t i o n and p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s e s . As a r e s u l t , no a d d i t i o n a l f o r e s t s have been c r e a t e d s i n c e then ( M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , 1979). 100 The passage of a new F o r e s t Act i n 1978 r e a f f i r m e d the M i n i s t r y ' s r o l e with a strengthened mandate to manage, p r o t e c t and conserve the f o r e s t resources of the P r o v i n c e . Based on s e c t i o n s 4 and 5 of the Act the M i n i s t r y , i n 1979, r e a c t i v a t e d the p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t program. I t i s proposed that i n those regions of the Province where p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t s have not a l r e a d y been e s t a b l i s h e d , Crown land w i l l be assessed and c l a s s i f i e d i n t o two broad c a t e g o r i e s : 1 . p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t s , composed of l a r g e continuous t r a c t s best s u i t e d f o r long-term f o r e s t management, and 2. n o n - f o r e s t areas, composed of land best s u i t e d f o r a g r i c u l t u r e , settlement and a s s o c i a t e d development. To achieve the above d e s i g n a t i o n s the F o r e s t S e r v i c e , the l e a d agency, has developed the f o l l o w i n g p r o c e s s . I n i t i a l l y the M i n i s t r y ' s Inventory D i v i s i o n prepares maps d e p i c t i n g a l i e n a t e d land, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves and proposed p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t boundaries. T h i s package i s then forwarded to the v a r i o u s resource agencies i n the regions f o r comment. I t i s expected that t h i s review w i l l r e s u l t i n three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : areas to be i n c l u d e d i n t o the f o r e s t s , areas to be excluded and d e f e r r e d p l a n n i n g a r e a s . The l a t t e r represent s p e c i f i c t r a c t s where land use and boundary c o n f l i c t s e x i s t . When t h i s occurs, d e s i g n a t i o n i s to be r e s o l v e d by a task f o r c e appointed by the r e s p o n s i b l e RRMC. If consensus cannot be reached at t h i s l e v e l the i s s u e s w i l l be forwarded to ELUC f o r a d e c i s i o n . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d that a l l the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s i n the Province w i l l be designated by 101 O r d e r s - i n - C o u n c i l before December 1982. The program f u r t h e r p r o v i d e s f o r an ongoing review at f i v e - y e a r i n t e r v a l s as a monitoring mechanism. Once designated as f o r e s t s , the land becomes the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the F o r e s t S e r v i c e . T h i s agency assumes the r o l e of p l a n n i n g and a d m i n i s t e r i n g a l l f o r e s t , range and r e c r e a t i o n a l uses w i t h i n the designated f o r e s t s . D i s c u s s i o n s with f o r e s t r y personnel i n the Lower Mainland and V i c t o r i a i n d i c a t e that approximately 90 to 95 percent of the Crown land i n t h i s r e g ion w i l l be i n c l u d e d i n the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s . Given the above, i t i s evident that the r o l e of the LPH M i n i s t r y w i l l be d i m i n i s h e d i n both a s p a t i a l and a f u n c t i o n a l sense. F i r s t , LPH w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o o r d i n a t i n g "planning" i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y smaller area, that i s the land excluded from the p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t s . In t h i s context the M i n i s t r y i s e x p e c t i n g to continue p r e p a r i n g s u b - d i s t r i c t l e v e l plans to address area-s p e c i f i c resource problems. In the remaining areas, those w i t h i n the f o r e s t s , the LPH M i n i s t r y w i l l , as d e f i n e d by i n t e r - m i n i s t r y agreements, ad m i n i s t e r non-forest and foreshore uses. The bulk of the a n t i c i p a t e d endeavours, however, w i l l be a s s o c i a t e d with the examination of the d e f e r r e d p l a n n i n g areas as e s t a b l i s h e d by the f o r e s t d e s i g n a t i o n program. 1 02 STRATEGIC PLANNING Much of the planning a c t i v i t y c u r r e ntly, being undertaken by a l l resource m i n i s t r i e s at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l may be aggregated under the concept of s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g . Leading the f i e l d i s the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s which, f o r s e v e r a l years now, has been p r e p a r i n g timber supply area analyses throughout- the Pr o v i n c e . More r e c e n t l y , the M i n i s t r y of Environment has a l s o embarked on an ambitious program of developing s t r a t e g i c resource plans f o r approximately 40 pl a n n i n g u n i t s c o v e r i n g the e n t i r e P r o v i n c e . The r a t i o n a l e f o r reviewing the s t r a t e g i c approach here i s not to present a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n n i n g s t r a t e g i e s but r a t h e r , to determine the "environment" i n which the LPH process i s o p e r a t i n g . Consequently, t h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s l i m i t e d to b r i e f l y o u t l i n i n g the s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g approach and then n o t i n g some of the e f f e c t s that i t may have on the Crown land p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . In a s t r i c t sense s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g i s not new; ra t h e r i t i s a new approach to c l a s s i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n that l i k e l y a l r e a d y e x i s t s . U n l i k e many previous p r o v i n c i a l " p lanning" endeavours, i t i s not s i t e - s p e c i f i c or c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n o r i e n t e d ; r a t h e r i t c o n c e n t r a t e s on d e f i n i n g broad m i n i s t e r i a l r e g i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l resource p r o d u c t i o n goals and management s t r a t e g i e s . In a sense, i t s h i f t s p l a n n i n g from a r e a c t i v e to a p r o a c t i v e mode. The approach i s s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to a n t i c i p a t e demand and i n i t i a t e programs and p o l i c i e s that ensure the achievement of long-term resource management g o a l s . 1 0 3 These p o i n t s are perhaps best i l l u s t r a t e d by examining the elements of the M i n i s t r y of Environment's s t r a t e g i c planning program. T h i s approach i s composed of the f o l l o w i n g elements: "- d e s c r i p t i o n of management o b j e c t i v e s f o r a l l major resource programmes; - e s t i m a t i o n of c u r r e n t u t i l i z a t i o n (commitments) and fu t u r e demands ( o p p o r t u n i t i e s ) f o r the f u l l range of environmental resources under the mandate of the M i n i s t r y ; - assessment of the c a p a b i l i t y of the environmental resources base to meet these demands at v a r i o u s l e v e l s of management; - e v a l u a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e programmes and p o l i c i e s to meet these demands using economic, s o c i a l and b i o p h y s i c a l c r i t e r i a ; - s e t t i n g p r i o r i t i e s i n the l o c a l , r e g i o n a l and P r o v i n c i a l context; - ensuring the implementation of s e l e c t e d p r i o r i t i e s , and - monitoring performance" ( M i n i s t r y of Environment, 1 9 8 0 ) . In summary, the s t r a t e g i c approach may be d e f i n e d as a process of determining s p e c i f i c resource t a r g e t s i n a r e g i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l context. The p o l i c i e s and p r i o r i t i e s d e r i v e d can then be u t i l i z e d i n developing m i n i s t r y i n i t i a t e d , d e t a i l e d , o p e r a t i o n a l , management plans f o r s p e c i f i c resources i n smaller areas (e. g. watershed or e s t u a r i e s ) or can provide a b a s i s f o r m i n i s t r y input i n t o other agencies' p l a n n i n g processes (e.g. e s t a b l i s h i n g timber harvest plans or p r e p a r i n g Crown land p l a n s ) . As with most long-range p l a n n i n g endeavours, immediate r e s u l t s are not expected. The M i n i s t r y of Environment expects 1 04 that i t w i l l take at l e a s t s i x years before i t s i n i t i a l s t r a t e g i c plans are completed. Conversations with other resource m i n i s t r i e s i n V i c t o r i a i n d i c a t e t h a t , although the concept i s viewed as necessary i n p r i n c i p l e , very l i t t l e progress has been made towards i n i t i a t i n g the approach. What then are the e f f e c t s of these a c t i v i t i e s on the Crown land p l a n n i n g process? At the outset i t may be surmised that the lack of " s t r a t e g i c " resource plans p r e c i p i t a t e d and g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d the development of the Crown land p l a n n i n g program. The LPH M i n i s t r y s t a f f , i n a c t i n g on the Government's commitment to make Crown land a v a i l a b l e to r e s i d e n t s , was d i r e c t e d to prepare a management and d i s p o s a l s t r a t e g y . The response was the development of a f i v e - t i e r e d p l a n n i n g h i e r a r c h y c o n t a i n i n g a p r o v i n c i a l s t r a t e g y , a r e g i o n a l s t r a t e g y , s u b - r e g i o n a l p l a n s , s u b - d i s t r i c t plans and o p e r a t i o n a l p l a n s . I n i t i a l l y the program has emphasized the p r e p a r a t i o n of s u b - d i s t r i c t p l a n s f o r i t was b e l i e v e d that t h i s l e v e l best s u i t e d the M i n i s t r y ' s aims. The reasons f o r t h i s emphasis appear to be twofold. Foremost i s that t h i s l e v e l of plann i n g was most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r i s o l a t i n g p a r c e l s s u i t a b l e f o r a l i e n a t i o n . Second, i t was simply not p o s s i b l e to prepare " h i g h e r - o r d e r " plans because no m i n i s t r y , i n c l u d i n g LPH, had any documented r e g i o n a l s t r a t e g y f o r managing t h e i r r e s o u r c e s . Conceivably then, i f the concept of s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g had been i n p l a c e , the o r i e n t a t i o n of the Crown land p l a n n i n g program may have been s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . In terms of the f u t u r e there i s l i t t l e doubt that the p r e p a r a t i o n of r e g i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l s t r a t e g i c plans by the 105 v a r i o u s resource m i n i s t r i e s w i l l g r e a t l y enhance the d e c i s i o n -making c a p a b i l i t i e s of a l l agencies. Such a t r e n d would permit the LPH M i n i s t r y to expand i t s r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s . As w e l l , i t w i l l p r o v i d e a sound b a s i s f o r determining the need for d i s t r i c t and o p e r a t i o n a l l e v e l p l a n s . THE PLANNING ACT In B r i t i s h Columbia's p l a n n i n g c i r c l e s no" document was more ea g e r l y awaited or heatedly d i s c u s s e d as was the Planning Act D i s c u s s i o n Paper r e l e a s e d i n September 1980 by the M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s . Although the f i n a l content of the proposed l e g i s l a t i o n s t i l l remains in doubt, there continues to be a b e l i e f that some l e g i s l a t i v e amendments w i l l be forthcoming i n the near f u t u r e . As i t i s not p o s s i b l e to s p e c u l a t e on the nature of these p r o p o s a l s , the concern here i s l i m i t e d to reviewing the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the i n i t i a l D i s c u s s i o n Paper on the Crown land p l a n n i n g program. When r e l e a s e d , the Planning Act was l a b e l l e d as a " s i n g l e p l a n n i n g l e g i s l a t i v e handbook". The key purpose f o r i n t r o d u c i n g t h i s Act was to e s t a b l i s h land use p o l i c i e s that achieved the s o c i a l , economic and environmental o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s P r o v i n c e . Of g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t to t h i s e x e r c i s e , the Act had a f u r t h e r aim, that of, "... the c o o r d i n a t i o n of P r o v i n c i a l land use p o l i c i e s to maximize the b e n e f i t s from the use and development of our land and resources f o r a l l B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n s " ( M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , 1980). 106 To achieve these broad g o a l s , the Act proposed a f i v e -t i e r e d , h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e composed of the Cabinet, the Environment and Land Use Committee, an I n t e r - M i n i s t r y Planning Committee (IMPC),. Regional C o o r d i n a t i n g Committees (RCC) and l o c a l governments. Under the e n v i s i o n e d s t r u c t u r e , the d i v i s i o n of planning r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i s as f o l l o w s . The Cabinet i s provided the a u t h o r i t y to approve p r o v i n c i a l o b j e c t i v e s , p o l i c i e s and p l a n s . ELUC has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r ensuring c o m p a t a b i l i t y of p l a n n i n g o b j e c t i v e s between m i n i s t r i e s at the p r o v i n c i a l and r e g i o n a l l e v e l s and between p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l governments. The IMPC i s appointed by ELUC and i s composed p r i m a r i l y of the deputy m i n i s t e r s from the resource and i n f r a s t r u c t u r e m i n i s t r i e s . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of t h i s group are to guide the.process and e s t a b l i s h procedures f o r r e g i o n a l p r o v i n c i a l p l a n n i n g . The RCCs, a l s o appointed by ELUC, w i l l c o n s i s t of p r o v i n c i a l and r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s t a f f i n seven or e i g h t geographic r e g i o n s . These bodies w i l l i n t e g r a t e and thereby r e p l a c e the e x i s t i n g 28 r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s ' t e c h n i c a l p l a n n i n g committees and the c u r r e n t RRMC s t r u c t u r e . The primary tasks of these committees w i l l be to prepare p r o v i n c i a l r e g i o n a l p l a n s , p r o v i d e t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e to l o c a l government and c o o r d i n a t e settlement and resource management p l a n n i n g at the r e g i o n a l l e v e l . The f i n a l l e v e l , l o c a l government, i s to r e t a i n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p h y s i c a l l a n d use p l a n n i n g i n i t s areas of j u r i s d i c t i o n . In a d d i t i o n to the major s t r u c t u r a l changes o u t l i n e d above, the Act f u r t h e r proposed s i g n i f i c a n t i n n o v a t i v e a l t e r a t i o n s to the c u r r e n t land use r e g u l a t o r y p a t t e r n s . The most s i g n i f i c a n t of these was the c r e a t i o n of a Land Use Appeal 107 Board to advise the M i n i s t e r on " c o n t e n t i o u s " i s s u e s . The m e r i t s of these changes have been the subject of much debate. Proponents argue that the new l e g i s l a t i o n i s a necessary h o l i s t i c approach which must be i n s t i g a t e d i f B r i t i s h Columbia i s to p r o p e r l y manage i t s f i n i t e r e s o u r c e s . C r i t i c s , however, p o i n t to i t s c e n t r a l i z e d command s t r u c t u r e s t a t i n g that i t does not present s u f f i c i e n t avenues f o r the expression of r e g i o n a l and l o c a l i n t e r e s t s . As much as t h i s t o p i c i s engaging, i t i s not p o s s i b l e to f u l l y review the range of c r i t i c i s m s presented. Our task remains the examination of c o n c e i v a b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the Crown land p l a n n i n g program. Those i n t e r e s t e d i n a normative c r i t i q u e of the Act may r e f e r to Wiesman (1980). The most s i g n i f i c a n t consequence of the Act on the LPH program i s i n the context of the proposed RCC s t r u c t u r e , which w i l l have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p r e p a r i n g p r o v i n c i a l r e g i o n a l p l a n s . In t h i s regard, however, the Act r a i s e s many q u e s t i o n s . The major i s s u e s not addressed a r e : 1. Who w i l l provide the necessary s t a f f support f o r the IMPC and the RCCs? and 2. On what b a s i s are p r i o r i t i e s to be derived? In terms of the l a t t e r , Wiesman (1980, p.2) notes "4. The act p l a c e s e x c e s s i v e r e l i a n c e on n e g o t i a t i o n between the o f f i c i a l s of s i n g l e - p u r p o s e m i n i s t r i e s and Crown c o r p o r a t i o n s to r e s o l v e land use c o n f l i c t s . While such n e g o t i a t i o n i s important, i t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t , because in t h a t process c o n f l i c t s are l i k e l y to be r e s o l v e d e x c l u s i v e l y on the b a s i s of each s i n g l e - p u r p o s e agency attempting to p r o j e c t i t s own i n t e r e s t . " 108 The most s i g n i f i c a n t of the two q u e s t i o n s , however, i s the former. In not d e s i g n a t i n g an e x p l i c i t p l a n n i n g a u t h o r i t y f o r the p r e p a r a t i o n of the r e g i o n a l p l a n s , the Act leaves a v o i d which can only be answered by s p e c u l a t i o n . The p r a c t i c e of " f l o a t i n g chairmanships" c u r r e n t l y u t i l i z e d i n the RRMC system appears to be s i m i l a r to the proposed s t r u c t u r e . To many of the respondents contacted i n the course of t h i s r e s e a r c h , t h i s design was f e l t to be inadequate as i t i n h i b i t s c o n t i n u i t y and i m p a r t i a l i t y i n decision-making. A favoured a l t e r n a t i v e u t i l i z e s an i m p a r t i a l s t a f f group to f a c i l i t a t e and c o o r d i n a t e the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e s . T h i s concept i s not new and has been the major recommendation of many pr e v i o u s s t u d i e s (Chambers, 1974; Farquharson, 1974; Slocan V a l l e y Community F o r e s t Management P r o j e c t , 1974). Recognizing the above q u e s t i o n s and the assumption that a s t r u c t u r e s i m i l a r to the one o u t l i n e d i n the proposed Act w i l l be implemented, the Planning Act may a f f e c t the Crown land p l a n n i n g program i n e i t h e r of two ways. F i r s t , i f the RCCs are to assume the c o o r d i n a t i n g c a p a c i t y i n the r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g endeavours, LPH's r o l e as "planners" of Crown land may be di m i n i s h e d . In t h i s i nstance t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i l l be s i m i l a r to that of any other resource m i n i s t r y . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e i r tasks w i l l i n c l u d e the p r e p a r a t i o n of LPH " s t r a t e g i c p l a n s " and, upon the completion of RCC r e g i o n a l p l a n s , o p e r a t i o n a l plans t o implement the M i n i s t r y ' s Crown land d i s p o s i t i o n g o a l s . In s h o r t , p l a n n i n g endeavours w i l l be o r i e n t e d towards the management and d i s p o s i t i o n of Crown r u r a l 109 r e s i d e n t i a l and r e c r e a t i o n l o t s and the f o r e s h o r e , not c o o r d i n a t i o n of region-wide resource p l a n s . The second a l t e r n a t i v e , c o n t r a r y to the p r e v i o u s , could foresee an expansion of LPH p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Recognizing that the M i n i s t r y does have a l e g i s l a t e d mandate to a l l o c a t e land and a s t r u c t u r e d program that i s c u r r e n t l y being implemented, LPH could w e l l become the t e c h n i c a l c o o r d i n a t i n g body of the proposed RCCs. In essence, the program would continue i n i t s present course but be expanded to i n c l u d e a l i e n a t e d Crown l a n d . As may be expected, the LPH m i n i s t r y s t a f f favours the second a l t e r n a t i v e , s t a t i n g t h a t , indeed, t h i s M i n i s t r y i s the best equipped to undertake t h i s r o l e and i s the most i m p a r t i a l of the resource agencies. The major impediment to such a s i t u a t i o n , however, i s the p e r c e i v e d " r e a l e s t a t e " image of the M i n i s t r y . As i n d i c a t e d i n the preceding e v a l u a t i o n , LPH i s not viewed as a n o n - p a r t i s a n group that can be " t r u s t e d " to make e q u i t a b l e l a n d a l l o c a t i o n s . 1 1 0 CHAPTER VII -- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS U t i l i z i n g normative c r i t e r i a t h i s t h e s i s assesses the p r o c e d u r a l elements of the Lower Mainland Crown land p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h approach i s based on the premise that a "good" plan n i n g system i s more l i k e l y to f a c i l i t a t e b e t t e r land a l l o c a t i o n and resource management d e c i s i o n s . As a precept, i t i s acknowledged that a "good" process i s one that p a r a l l e l s the normative elements embodied i n l i b e r a l democratic theory, s i n c e these are the fundamental values which determine what type of decision-making processes are a c c e p t a b l e i n our s o c i e t y . In l i g h t of t h i s , the ensuing four i d e a l s are u t i l i z e d to assess the planning process: 1 . R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s i n the d e c i s i o n -making process 2. Adequacy of i n f o r m a t i o n 3. E f f e c t i v e n e s s of the process 4. E f f i c i e n c y of decision-making Since one i n t e n t i o n of the a n a l y s i s i s to suggest recommendations f o r improving the planning process, a t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e i s p r o v i d e d . A b a s i c comprehension of p o l i t i c a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e behavior i s necessary to ensure that the suggestions are p r a c t i c a b l e . As a premise to the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e to s t a t e that t h i s e v a l u a t i o n i s a "snapshot" of the past. The two case s t u d i e s reviewed were i n i t i a t e d when the Crown land program was i n i t s i n f a n c y . Over the past two years v a r i o u s components of the program have been m o d i f i e d and new procedures have been adopted. A v i g o r o u s attempt has been made to keep 111 abreast of these changes. However, i t i s q u i t e c o n c e i v a b l e that c e r t a i n aspects may have been overlooked. Notwithstanding the above, i t i s my b e l i e f that the f i n d i n g s s t a t e d here r e f l e c t the present s i t u a t i o n , as the major s t r u c t u r e and emphasis of the program have not changed over the i n t e r v e n i n g p e r i o d . CONCLUSIONS I n i t i a l l y , i t i s necessary to commend the LPH M i n i s t r y s t a f f on t h e i r e f f o r t s towards c r e a t i n g a " b e t t e r " resource management s t r u c t u r e i n the P r o v i n c e . The pl a n n i n g group has taken a strong i n i t i a t i v e i n developing and implementing a pla n n i n g framework w i t h i n a very short p e r i o d . The M i n i s t r y has o f t e n been c r i t i c i z e d f o r p u t t i n g the " c a r t before the horse" in that i t has concentrated on i s o l a t e d a l i e n a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s before developing a general overview of t o t a l Crown resource requirements and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to other s e c t o r s and uses. T h i s c r i t i c i s m , however, must be tempered by r e c o g n i z i n g the f a c t o r s which l e a d to t h i s emphasis. Foremost, the program was c r e a t e d i n response to a p o l i t i c a l mandate which s t r e s s e d the a v a i l a b i l i t y of Crown land f o r the Province's r e s i d e n t s . As such, much of the i n i t i a l e f f o r t was d i r e c t e d at i s o l a t i n g areas where Crown r e c r e a t i o n l o t s c o u l d be developed. In a d d i t i o n , as noted e a r l i e r , that the development of r e g i o n a l s c a l e Crown land plans was not f e a s i b l e , as very few of the resource agencies had an aggregated r e g i o n a l overview of t h e i r resource extents and demands. As a p e r i p h e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n , i t a l s o appears that o p e r a t i o n s l e v e l s t a f f of the m i n i s t r i e s were not " o r i e n t e d " 1 12 towards r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g . Rather, the p e r c e i v e d r o l e s were that of managing s i t e - s p e c i f i c i s s u e s on the b a s i s of each s i n g l e -purpose agency's i n t e r e s t s and mandates. The c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from t h i s r e s e a r c h are: 1. Not a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s were . represented i n the two planning processes reviewed. T h i s i s the r e s u l t of an apparent lac k of commitment by LPH towards p u b l i c involvement in the program. S p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t s excluded were the general p u b l i c , the resource i n d u s t r i e s and the s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups. 2 . In l i g h t of the above, and as a r e s u l t of the design of the four-stage planning process, a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the d e c i s i o n s achieved were not accountable i n e i t h e r a p o l i t i c a l or p u b l i c sense. In s h o r t , the a l t e r n a t i v e s and d e c i s i o n s were d e r i v e d by c i v i l s e r v a n t s . 3. The c u r r e n t emphasis of the program i s towards the r e s o l u t i o n of s i t e - s p e c i f i c Crown resource i s s u e s . The net r e s u l t of t h i s a c t i v i t y i s that broader r e g i o n a l or p r o v i n c i a l "needs" are not r e c o g n i z e d and are perhaps being traded away under t h i s s t r u c t u r e . 4. There i s an apparent f r u s t r a t i o n with the process on the part of l o c a l governments who view themselves r e s p o n s i b l e to the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s , yet have a marginal a d v i s o r y c a p a c i t y i n the d e c i s i o n s that a f f e c t them. 5. In the Lower Mainland Region, at the time of the p l a n s ' i n c e p t i o n , the program's i n i t i a t i o n procedures were not c a r r i e d through. The " i n t e n t to p l a n " was not d i s c u s s e d at 1 1 3 the RRMC and as a r e s u l t , the resource agencies were not a p p r i s e d of t h e i r impending involvement. Consequently, f i n a n c i a l and manpower commitments were not secured which in turn l e d to i n f o r m a t i o n gaps and produced a r e l u c t a n c e to compromise amongst the p a r t i c i p a n t s . T h i s comment i s e s p e c i a l l y d i r e c t e d towards the Upper L i l l o o e t planning p r o c e s s . One may s p e c u l a t e that i f the i s s u e s were more co n t e n t i o u s in Lang Creek would, the process have been as p r o t r a c t e d as the L i l l o o e t process? I n t u i t i v e l y , i t appears the answer would be a f f i r m a t i v e . 6. The scope of the LPH M i n i s t r y ' s p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s i s unknown to agencies o u t s i d e the M i n i s t r y . The LPH M i n i s t r y i s p r i m a r i l y viewed as the r e a l e s t a t e arm of the Government which a c t s as an advocate f o r the development of r e s i d e n t i a l , r e c r e a t i o n a l and a g r i c u l t u r a l uses of Crown lan d . The planning program i s viewed as a means to achieve t h i s end. 7. The members of the two task f o r c e s do hot view themselves as p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a p r o v i n c i a l Crown land management pro c e s s . Rather, most of them i n t e r p r e t t h e i r r o l e as being t e c h n i c a l a d v i s o r s whose s o l e purpose i s to p r o t e c t t h e i r agencies' i n t e r e s t s . 8. The task f o r c e approach to decision-making i s favoured by the m a j o r i t y of p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies. T h i s arrangement has i n c r e a s e d i n t e r - m i n i s t r y communication and f a c i l i t a t e d a g r e a t e r empathy f o r the v a r y i n g resource concerns. 9. During t h i s p e r i o d of review the communication between V i c t o r i a and the r e g i o n a l s t a f f was c o n s t r a i n e d . T h i s 1 1 4 appears to be a r e s u l t of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e . At present, the r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f and the V i c t o r i a p l a n n i n g s t a f f are i n two separate d i v i s i o n s . As a consequence the r e g i o n a l planners are, i n a sense, working for two masters. 10. There i s some disagreement on the me r i t s of the e x i s t i n g implementation s t r u c t u r e . The comments r e c e i v e d are not based on the need f o r implementation but ra t h e r on the presumed a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n e f f i c i e n c y of the present system. 11. The value of the adopted plans to the p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies i s v a r i e d . Most agree that the plans d i d c l a r i f y t h e i r resource concerns w i t h i n the sub j e c t areas. On a broader s c a l e , however, the plans are viewed as having l i m i t e d value to the v a r i o u s m i n i s t r i e s ' o v e r a l l f u n c t i o n s . Again, t h i s appears to be c o n s t r a i n e d by the b e l i e f that t h i s program's s p e c i f i c aim i s to r e s o l v e LPH problems. 12. Neither of the two pl a n n i n g processes,as p e r c e i v e d by the p a r t i c i p a n t s , were c o n s i d e r e d " i n e f f i c i e n t " . As w e l l , the processes d i d not harbour any adverse e f f e c t s nor d i d they s i g n i f i c a n t l y impair d a i l y o p e r a t i o n s . From a broader p e r s p e c t i v e , however, given that the plans d i d not have d i r e c t relevance to the o p e r a t i o n s of s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies, the q u e s t i o n of whether time spent i n p r e p a r i n g these plans was " e f f i c i e n t " remains open. 13. F i n a l l y , there appears to be much u n c e r t a i n t y r e g a r d i n g the fu t u r e focus of the pl a n n i n g program. The establishment of P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s , the c u r r e n t P r o v i n c i a l emphasis on s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g , and the impending Planning Act are 1 1 5 three e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s which may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the s t r u c t u r e of the program. IMPROVING THE PLANNING PROCESS An u n d e r l y i n g theme throughout t h i s paper has been an acknowledgement that i n s t i t u t i o n s should be designed in l i g h t of i n d i v i d u a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior and that such designs must be adapted to the p h y s i c a l and government environments in which they operate. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , with the Crown land p l a n n i n g process i t i s not p o s s i b l e to s t a r t with a clean s l a t e , as an accepted i n s t i t u t i o n a l framework i s c u r r e n t l y i n p l a c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , the task here i s to propose a c t i o n s which may strengthen the present system. To t h i s end, the preceding c o n c l u s i o n s are d i s c u s s e d i n l i g h t of the d e r i v e d normative i d e a l s . One b a s i c p r i n c i p l e embodied in L i b e r a l Democratic Theory i s that a l l a f f e c t e d i n t e r e s t s should be i n v o l v e d throughout a d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . T h i s range of i n t e r e s t s comprised of "fragmented a u t h o r i t i e s " with " o v e r l a p p i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s " w i l l encourage a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and enhance the c a p a b i l i t y of a system to adapt to d i v e r s e , dynamic environments. The major problems i n h i b i t i n g such a c t i o n s , however, are the l a c k of m o t i v a t i o n of the general p u b l i c to organize and the t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s i n c u r r e d through p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s i t has been determined that the most a p p r o p r i a t e method of a l l e v i a t i n g these shortcomings i s to ensure that a l l a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s are p r o v i d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e , i f they so d e s i r e . 116 Transposing these thoughts to the two case s t u d i e s i t i s evident that the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a l l i n t e r e s t s to be represented in the d e c i s i o n processes d i d not e x i s t . The e x i s t i n g process does not provide n o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s with an occasion to be heard. To a l l e v i a t e t h i s major weakness i t i s recommended t h a t : P u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n become a r e q u i r e d rather than a d i s c r e t i o n a r y element i n the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . N o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l groups should be given an o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n determining i n f o r m a t i o n requirements, developing a l t e r n a t i v e s and choosing the most a p p r o p r i a t e scheme to r e s o l v e t h e i r concerns. Such a process would be more accountable to both p o l i t i c a l and p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s . The manner i n which t h i s recommendation may be implemented i s dependent on the present i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . Given the e x i s t i n g arrangement, the most p l a u s i b l e s o l u t i o n appears to be the u t i l i z a t i o n of p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n meetings to communicate s p e c i f i c p l a n n i n g concerns. The above suggestion i s not to be i n t e r p r e t e d as an endorsement of t h i s p r a c t i c e or as the "best" s o l u t i o n f o r i n c l u d i n g p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Further r e s e a r c h i n t o the M i n i s t r y ' s e x p l i c i t o b j e c t i v e s and a l t e r n a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t o r y mechanisms i s necessary and should be an immediate goal of the M i n i s t r y . Next to being p r o v i d e d with an o p p o r t u n i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e , access to adequate i n f o r m a t i o n i s a key element i n a d e c i s i o n -making pr o c e s s . Not only must i t be adequate i n terms of q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y , but mechanisms should e x i s t whereby the 117 data r e l e v a n t to the r e q u i r e d d e c i s i o n s i s e f f e c t i v e l y communicated to a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . Only through a f u l l exchange of ideas, based on the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' v a r y i n g p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s towards the resource i s s u e , w i l l a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d e c i s i o n be achieved. In the t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , s e v e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were presented which may i n h i b i t such a c t i o n s . It was noted that i n d i v i d u a l s operate w i t h i n a "bounded r a t i o n a l i t y " and t h e r e f o r e " s a t i s f i c e " or choose the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e that i s "good enough". As w e l l , the problems of coping with u n c e r t a i n t y and d e a l i n g with t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s which i n h i b i t the generation of adequate info r m a t i o n were examined. In the end, i t was surmised that these problems can be best r e s o l v e d when the "most" i s known about the s p e c i f i c concern. In s h o r t , good i n f o r m a t i o n can expand the bounds of c e r t a i n t y and thus achieve b e t t e r d e c i s i o n s . In terms of the two case s t u d i e s the p a r t i c i p a n t s p e r c e i v e d an i n a b i l i t y to provide i n f o r m a t i o n that was "very good". T h i s p e r c e p t i o n appears to be the r e s u l t of two f a c t o r s . F i r s t , most of the agencies o u t s i d e the LPH M i n i s t r y were not aware of the upcoming pl a n n i n g programs and consequently, were not prepared to p a r t i c i p a t e i n e i t h e r a f i n a n c i a l or manpower sense. The reasons f o r t h i s appear to be c e n t e r e d on the i n a b i l i t y of the e x i s t i n g RRMC s t r u c t u r e to f a c i l i t a t e the r e q u i r e d inter-agency work program reviews. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies were not aware of the breadth of the LPH p l a n n i n g program or what t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n requirements i n v o l v e d . To these groups the extent of the p l a n n i n g process was 118 b e l i e v e d to be l i m i t e d to task f o r c e a c t i v i t i e s . Most of the respondents, to a l a r g e degree, were unaware of the implementation and i n i t i a t i o n stages. These misunderstandings g r e a t l y reduce the c r e d i b i l i t y of the program, and when combined with the r e a l e s t a t e image of the M i n i s t r y , the more p o s i t i v e s i d e of LPH e f f o r t s tend to become di m i n i s h e d . To r e s o l v e ; t h i s problem i t i s recommended t h a t : The Land Programs D i v i s i o n prepare and d i s t r i b u t e a t e c h n i c a l paper o u t l i n i n g the Crown land p l a n n i n g program components to the ope r a t i o n s l e v e l personnel throughout the r e g i o n s . The ope r a t i o n s l e v e l i s s t r e s s e d because i t i s these i n d i v i d u a l s who have the most d i r e c t c o n t a c t with implementing the program. In order f o r a decision-making process to be e f f e c t i v e not only must there be adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n but the e n t i r e e x e r c i s e must b e n e f i t the p a r t i c i p a n t s . F u r t h e r the process should i n c l u d e mechanisms f o r implementing the d e r i v e d d e c i s i o n s i n a f a s h i o n that i s ac c e p t a b l e to a l l those i n v o l v e d . As s t a t e d i n the c o n c l u s i o n s , the b e n e f i t of the adopted Crown land p l a n s , as p e r c e i v e d by the p a r t i c i p a n t s , was v a r i e d . Most agreed that the plan n i n g documents were u s e f u l t o o l s f o r the LPH M i n i s t r y to achieve t h e i r a l i e n a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . S p e c i f i c concerns, however, were d i r e c t e d at the M i n i s t r y ' s s t r e s s on de v e l o p i n g a r e a - s p e c i f i c ( s u b - d i s t r i c t ) Crown land p l a n s . T h i s d i r e c t i o n , we noted e a r l i e r , was i n response to the M i n i s t r y ' s p o l i t i c a l goals and an apparent lack of s u b - r e g i o n a l resource data. From a long-term p e r s p e c t i v e , however, i t may be 1 1 9 argued that such a c t i o n s are not i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the P r o v i n c e . A p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e i s one which s t r e s s e s a " s t r a t e g i c approach", where e x i s t i n g r e g i o n a l commitments and o p p o r t u n i t i e s are e s t a b l i s h e d p r i o r to developing more d e t a i l e d a l i e n a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . In s h o r t , before more Crown land i s a l i e n a t e d , the r e g i o n a l land base and the resources i t supports should be determined in concert with the demand f o r the land and i t s products. T h i s p o i n t i s the most common c r i t i c i s m that has been d i r e c t e d at the program from o u t s i d e agencies at a l l l e v e l s of government. In l i g h t of t h i s , i t i s suggested t h a t : The LPH M i n i s t r y p l a c e a g r e a t e r emphasis on p r e p a r i n g s u b - r e g i o n a l and r e g i o n a l Crown land p l a n s . The timing f o r such a s h i f t appears to be a p p r o p r i a t e . Given that the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t program i s going to remove a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the land base from LPH a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , i t w i l l become more important to examine the remaining p o r t i o n s i n a broader resource p e r s p e c t i v e . S p e c i f i c to the plan f o r m u l a t i o n procedures, the task f o r c e s t r u c t u r e appears to be an a p p r o p r i a t e plan p r e p a r a t i o n t o o l . P a r t i c i p a n t s agree that t h i s process i s the best s u i t e d f o r the p l a n n i n g tasks and does not harbour any i n e f f i c i e n c i e s . A r i s i n g from w i t h i n the M i n i s t r y , however, are a number of concerns r e l a t i n g to the present a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e . In t h i s regard, the major weakness noted i s the dual a l l e g i a n c e imposed upon the r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g s t a f f . In f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r d u t i e s they are d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e to the Regional Manager yet much of . t h e i r "planning output" i s under d i r e c t s c r u t i n y of 120 "headquarters" i n V i c t o r i a . T h i s f a c t o r has c o n t r i b u t e d to a s t r a i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Land Programs D i v i s i o n (the c r e a t o r s of pl a n n i n g p o l i c y ) and the r e g i o n a l planners (the implementors of pl a n n i n g p o l i c y ) , at times r e s u l t i n g in communication being l i m i t e d to the exchange of memorandum through o f f i c i a l channels. To a l l e v i a t e t h i s weakness i t i s recommended t h a t : A f u l l - t i m e headquarters' planner be appointed to . l i a i s e between V i c t o r i a and the r e g i o n s . The m a j o r i t y of. t h i s persons time should be spent i n the regions responding to s p e c i f i c r e g i o n a l q u e r i e s and p r o v i d i n g guidance i n i n t e r p r e t i n g M i n i s t r y procedures. In view of the range of backgrounds and experiences of the r e g i o n a l s t a f f i t i s f u r t h e r suggested that t h i s person have had c o n s i d e r a b l e experience i n p r o v i n c i a l planning procedures both w i t h i n and o u t s i d e the M i n i s t r y . It i s a n t i c i p a t e d that the above appointment would enhance the c u r r e n t communication p a t t e r n s , thereby l e a d i n g to the development of mutually a c c e p t a b l e s o l u t i o n s to p r e v a l e n t problems. The p r e v i o u s l y mentioned d i s p u t e s . concerning plan format and the implementation s t r u c t u r e are s p e c i f i c i s s u e s which t h i s arrangement c o u l d address i n the Lower Mainland Region. The above four recommendations have been o r i e n t e d towards suggesting p o s i t i v e a c t i o n s that may be achieved under the present LPH and p r o v i n c i a l p l a n n i n g systems. In reviewing the preceding l i s t of c o n c l u s i o n s , however, i t i s ev i d e n t that many 1 21 of the i d e n t i f i e d problems have not been addressed, and more impo r t a n t l y , cannot be addressed u n t i l t h i s Province's o v e r a l l p r o v i n c i a l p l a n n i n g framework i s m o d i f i e d . As i n d i c a t e d i n Chapter VI, there are many i n f l u e n c e s that p l a c e the p r o v i n c i a l and thus, the Crown land planning schemes i n an u n c e r t a i n s t a t e . It i s expected that the M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , through the p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t d e s i g n a t i o n program, w i l l assume a g r e a t e r r o l e i n managing the Province's Crown land resource. In p r e p a r i n g m i n i s t r y - s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i c plans other m i n i s t r i e s , as w e l l , w i l l assume a greater r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n a d j u d i c a t i n g on the use of B r i t i s h Columbia's n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . Of even g r e a t e r magnitude are the p o t e n t i a l changes that may a r i s e i f a Planning Act i s i n s t i t u t e d i n the Province. Recognizing the u n c e r t a i n t y embodied i n these i n f l u e n c e s , the Crown land p l a n n i n g program, d e s p i t e the above suggested p r o c e d u r a l changes, w i l l continue to be viewed as "inadequate" f o r a number of reasons. For ins t a n c e l o c a l government w i l l c ontinue to be f r u s t r a t e d with the p r o v i n c i a l planning p r o c e s s . Under the e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l scheme, although they are given the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to "plan" t h e i r areas and are h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these a c t i o n s by the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s , t h e i r input i n t o the process i s p e r c e i v e d by them to be very l i m i t e d . The Crown land a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s are l a r g e l y d e r i v e d by p r o v i n c i a l agencies yet, because of the l o c a l government's p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a d v i s o r s i n ' the process, they are h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n s by t h e i r e l e c t o r a t e . In a d d i t i o n , l o c a l governments favour a broader pla n n i n g approach 122 as opposed to the s i t e s p e c i f i c emphasis inherent i n many p r o v i n c i a l planning endeavours. The r e g i o n a l economy and the p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s are viewed as more important than the a l i e n a t i o n of i s o l a t e d Crown l o t s . Second, the Crown land plans being d e r i v e d by LPH w i l l continue to be viewed as LPH plans and, t h e r e f o r e , w i l l not be accepted as unbiased land d e s i g n a t i o n schemes. More so, the M i n i s t r y i s not p e r c e i v e d as having the "power" to make r e g i o n a l land a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s on behalf of the other m i n i s t r i e s . In shor t , the M i n i s t r y i s not viewed as the most a p p r o p r i a t e "lead agency" to prepare p r o v i n c i a l land use p l a n s . Next, there w i l l continue to be a lack of f i n a n c i a l and manpower resources necessary to prepare the r e l e v a n t data. T h i s f a c t i s due to the i n a b i l i t y of the e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l s t r u c t u r e to "pre-plan" upcoming e f f o r t s . An a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e that enables annual budgets and work programs of each m i n i s t r y to be brought to l i g h t i s e s s e n t i a l . In the Lower Mainland, the RRMC s t r u c t u r e does not appear to s a t i s f y t h i s need. F u r t h e r , i t may be argued that t h i s s t r u c t u r e was n e i t h e r designed nor s t a f f e d f o r t h i s purpose. The r e s o l u t i o n of these i s s u e s i s co n t i n g e n t on one f a c t o r - the establishment of an inter-agency group to determine, p r i o r i z e and perform r e g i o n a l and p r o v i n c i a l p l a n n i n g t a s k s . To a l l e v i a t e the above weaknesses i t i s suggested that these groups be composed of p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l governments and that the groups be l e d by an independent chairman who has no vested 123 resource i n t e r e s t . In t h i s regard, i t i s apparent that the proposed Planning Act i s a most c r i t i c a l element. Through t h i s l e g i s l a t i v e t o o l an o p p o r t u n i t y e x i s t s to remedy the above shortcomings. U n t i l t h i s occurs, the LPH Crown land p l a n n i n g program w i l l continue to operate i n an "inadequate" and u n c e r t a i n s t a t e . 1 2 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED Arrow, K. 1963. S o c i a l Choice and I n d i v i d u a l V alues. Cowles Foundation Monograph, No. 1 2 , John Wiley, New York. Bauer, Raymond A. and Kenneth J . Gergin (e d s . ) . 1968. The Study  of P o l i c y F ormulation. The Free Press, New York. Braybrooke, D. and C E . Lindblom. 1963. A Strategy of D e c i s i o n . The Free Press of Glencoe, C r o w e l l - C o l l i e r P u b l i s h i n g Co., New York. B r i t i s h Columbia. 1971. Environment and Land Use Act. V i c t o r i a . B r i t i s h Columbia. 1973. Hansard Debates. V i c t o r i a . B r i t i s h Columbia. 1978. Fores t Act. V i c t o r i a . B r i t i s h Columbia. 1979(a). Hansard Debates. V i c t o r i a . B r i t i s h Columbia. 1979(b). Land Act. V i c t o r i a . B r i t i s h Columbia. 1979(c). M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing  Act. V i c t o r i a . B r i t i s h Columbia. 1980. M u n i c i p a l A c t . V i c t o r i a . B r i t i s h Columbia. 1 9 8 1 . Environmental Management Act. V i c t o r i a . B.C. Environment and Land Use T e c h n i c a l Committee. 1979. G u i d e l i n e s f o r Regional Resource Management Committees. V i c t o r i a . B.C. M i n i s t r y of Environment. 1980. An Approach to S t r a t e g i c  Planning f o r the M i n i s t r y of Environment. V i c t o r i a . B.C. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s . 1978(a). F o r e s t and Range L e g i s l a t i o n  H i g h l i g h t s . V i c t o r i a . B.C. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s . 1978(b). F o r e s t Planning Handbook. V i c t o r i a . B.C. M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s . 1979. P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s . A D i s c u s s i o n Paper prepared by the Planning D i v i s i o n of the B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , V i c t o r i a . B.C. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing. 1978, 1979. Annual  Reports. V i c t o r i a . B.C. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing. 1979(a). D i s c u s s i o n  Paper - Crown Land Planning H i e r a r c h y and D e s i g n a t i o n  Systems. V i c t o r i a . 1 25 B.C. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing. 1979(b). A t t i t u d e s Towards Crown Land i n B r i t i s h Columbia." Parks and Housing Review. V o l . 1, No. 2, pp. 9-12. B.C. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing. 1980(a). Crown Land  Planning H i e r a r c h y and D e s i g n a t i o n Systems of the M i n i s t r y  of Lands, Parks and Housing. V i c t o r i a . B.C. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing. 1980(b). Lang Creek  S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan. Burnaby. B.C. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing. 1980(c). Planning  Handbook. V i c t o r i a . B.C. M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing. 1980(d). Upper  L i l l o o e t S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan. Burnaby. B.C. M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s . 1980. The Planning Act, A  D i s c u s s i o n Paper. V i c t o r i a . Bross, Irwin D.J. 1953. Design f o r D e c i s i o n . The Free Press, New York. C a i l , R.E. 1974. Land, Man and the Law. The D i s p o s a l of Crown  Lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1871-1913. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Press, Vancouver. Chambers, Alan D. 1974. P u r c e l l Study. U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Crook, C.S. 1975. Environment and Land Use P o l i c i e s and  P r a c t i c e s of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. B.C. I n s t i t u t e f o r Economic P o l i c y . A n a l y s i s , V i c t o r i a . Doern, G.B. and P. Aucoin ( e d s . ) . 1979. P u b l i c P o l i c y in Canada.  O r g a n i z a t i o n , Process and Management. MacMillan Company of Canada, Toronto. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper and Row P u b l i s h e r s , New York. Downs, Anthony. 1967. In s i d e Bureaucracy. L i t t l e , Brown and Co., Boston. Dror, Y. 1968. P u b l i c P o l i c y Reexamined. Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Co., San F r a n c i s c o . E t z i o n i , A. 1967. "Mixed Scanning: A ' T h i r d ' Approach to Decision-Making." P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Review. December, pp. 385-392. Eyre, P.J. 1979. I n s t i t u t i o n s f o r the Optimal P l a n n i n g P o l i c y  Process: A p p l i c a t i o n to B r i t i s h Columbia. M.A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. " P u b l i c Lands, 126 Farquharson, K.G. 1974. Mica R e s e r v o i r Region Resource Study  F i n a l Report. Prepared f o r the Environment and Land Use Committee, V i c t o r i a . Finkleman, J . 1 9 3 9 . "Government by C i v i l Servants." Canadian Bar  Review. V o l . 17, pp. 166-175. Flathman, R i c h a r d E. 1966. The P u b l i c I n t e r e s t . John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. Fox, I r v i n g K. 1970. "The Nature of Planning D e c i s i o n s i n a Democratic S o c i e t y . " In D r i v e r , B.L. (ed.) Elements of  Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Planning. U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, pp. ' 213-224. Fox, I r v i n g K. 1976. I n s t i t u t i o n s f o r Water Management i n a Changing World. Westwater Research Center, Vancouver. N a t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l . V o l . 16, 1976, pp. 743-758. Haefele, Edwin T. 1973. Rep r e s e n t a t i v e Government and  Environmental Management. The Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, B a l t i m o r e . Heayn, B.I. 1977. I n t e g r a t e d Resource Management; B.C.'s  Regional Resource Management Committee. M.A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Held, V i r g i n i a . 1970. The P u b l i c I n t e r e s t and I n d i v i d u a l  I n t e r e s t s . Basic Books Inc., New York. Henning, David H. 1970. "Na t u r a l Resources A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the P u b l i c I n t e r e s t . " P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Review. Volume 30, pp. 134-140. H i c k l i n g , A l l e n . 1975. Aids to S t r a t e g i c Choice. Centre f o r C o n t i n u i n g Education, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Hobson, Robert, D. 1979. A Study i n E s t u a r i n e Resources: The  F r a s e r River T r a i n i n g Works P r o p o s a l . M.A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. H o l l i n g , C.S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and  Management. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto. Kates, R.W. 1962. Hazard and Choice P e r c e p t i o n i n Flood P l a i n  Management. Research Paper No. 78, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, Chicago. Lane, W.T. (ed.). 1979. S e l e c t e d Readings i n Law f o r L o c a l  P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . School of Community and Regional Pla n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Lee, T. September 2, 1980. L e t t e r to A. Rhoades. 1 27 Leedy, Paul D. 1974. P r a c t i c a l Research Planning and Design. MacMillan P u b l i s h i n g Co., New York. Lindblom, C h a r l e s E. 1959. "The Science of Muddling Through." P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Review. Sp r i n g , 1959, XIX:2. Mayo, H.B. 1960. An I n t r o d u c t i o n to Democratic Theory. Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press Inc. M c A l l i s t e r , D.M. 1980. E v a l u a t i o n i n Environmental Planning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Mclean, B. 1979. "Socreds Taking Stock f o r Market Crown Land S a l e . " The P r o v i n c e . January 13, p. 1. M u e l l e r , Dennis, C. 1976. " P u b l i c Choice: A Survey." J o u r n a l of  Economic L i t e r a t u r e . V o l . 14, No. 2 (June), pp. 395-433. Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of C o l l e c t i v e A c t i o n . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, Cambridge, Mass. O'Riordan, T. 1972. P e r s p e c t i v e s on Resource Management. Pion L t d . , London. O'Riordan, T. 1976. " P o l i c y Making and Environment Management: Some Thoughts on Processes and Research Issues." N a t u r a l  Resources J o u r n a l . V o l . 16, pp. 55-72. Ormsby, M.A. 1958. B r i t i s h Columbia: a H i s t o r y . The MacMillan Company of Canada L t d . , Toronto. Ostrom, V i n c e n t . 1973. The I n t e l l e c t u a l C r i s i s i n American  P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama Press, Alabama. Pearson, D.F. 1971. A H i s t o r y of the B r i t i s h Columbia Lands. S e r v i c e . B r i t i s h Columbia Lands S e r v i c e , V i c t o r i a . Perks, W.T. and I.M. Robinson. 1979. Urban and Regional Planning  i n a F e d e r a l S t a t e . McGraw H i l l Book Co., New York. Polsby, N. 1963. Community Power and P o l i t i c a l Theory. Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, New Haven. Powell River Regional D i s t r i c t . January 8, 1980. Minutes of Board Meeting. P r o v i n c e . 1975. "Rural Land Program Coming, says S t u p i c h . " J u l y , 3 p. 2. Rees, W.E. and E r i k K a r l s e n . N.D. The Regional D i s t r i c t s and  Environmental Management in B.C. Centre f o r C o n t i n u i n g Education, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Rhoades, A. February 5, 1980. L e t t e r to the Powell R i v e r 128 Regional D i s t r i c t -Robin, M a r t i n . 1972. The Rush f o r S p o i l s . M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart L t d . , Toronto. Robin, M a r t i n . 1973. P i l l a r s of P r o f i t . M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart L t d . , Toronto. R u s s e l l , C.S. (ed.). 1979. C o l l e c t i v e Decision-Making  A p p l i c a t i o n s from P u b l i c Choice Theory. The Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, B a l t i m o r e . Sewell, W.R. D e r r i c k . 1971. "Environmental P e r c e p t i o n s and A t t i t u d e s of Engineers and P u b l i c Health O f f i c i a l s . " Environment and Behavior. March, pp. 23-59. Simon, Herbert A. 1 957 (a.) .•-Administrative Behavior. The MacMillan Co., New York. Simon, Herbert A. 1957(b). Models of Man. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. Slocan V a l l e y Community F o r e s t Management P r o j e c t . 1974. F i n a l  Report. Winlaw, B.C. Smith, B. 1975. The B.C. Land Commission Act. M.A. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. Sproule-Jones, Mark. 1972. " S t r a t e g i c Tensions i n the Scale of P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s . " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P o l i t i c a l Science. V o l . 2. 1972, pp. 173-191. Sproule-Jones, Mark. 1974. "An A n a l y s i s of Canadian F e d e r a l i s m . " P u b l i u s . Volume 4, Number 4, pp. 109-136. Squamish L i l l o o e t Regional D i s t r i c t . December 13, 1977. L e t t e r to D.R. Hehn. Squamish L i l l o o e t Regional D i s t r i c t . May 20, 1980. L e t t e r to L. Wolfe. Thompson, V.A. 1969. Bureaucracy and Innovation. U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama Press, Alabama. T u l l o c k , G. 1979. " P u b l i c Choice i n P r a c t i c e . " In C.S. R u s s e l l ( e d . ) . 1979. C o l l e c t i v e D e c i s i o n Making. The Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, B a l t i m o r e , pp. 27-45. Utton, A.E., W.R.D. Sewell and T. O'Riordan. 1976. N a t u r a l  Resources f o r a Democratic S o c i e t y P u b l i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n  Decision-Making. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Weiss, C a r o l H. 1972(a). E v a l u a t i o n Research: Methods of  A s s e s s i n g Program E f f e c t i v e n e s s . P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J. 1 29 Weiss, C a r o l H. (ed.). 1972(b). E v a l u a t i n g A c t i o n Programs. A l l y n and Bacon, Boston. White, G.F. 1966. "Formation and Role of P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s . " In H a r r e t t , H. (ed.). 1966. Environmental Q u a l i t y in a Growing  Economy. Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, B a l t i m o r e . Wiesman, B. 1980. The B.C. Planning Act - A C r i t i q u e . School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. APPENDIX I_ INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1 3 1 I N T E R V I E W S C H E D U L E : C r o w n L a n d P l a n n i n g T a s k F o r c e P a r t i c i p a n t s 1 . D a t e : 2 . N a m e : 3 . T i t l e : 4 . A g e n c y : 5 . W h a t i n s t i g a t e d t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e C r o w n L a n d P l a n n i n g T a s k F o r c e ( C . L . P . T . F . ) ? . . . 6 . I n y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t i s t h e r o l e o f a C . L . P . T . F . ? 7 . How w a s t h e m e m b e r s h i p o f t h e T a s k F o r c e d e t e r m i n e d ? D o y o u f e e l a l l a g e n c i e s w i t h l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d ? 8 . W h a t w e r e y o u r a g e n c y ' s m a j o r c o n c e r n s i n t h i s p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m ? 9 . Was y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s h a n d i -c a p p e d i n a n y w a y , e i t h e r i n t e r n a l l y o r e x t e r n a l l y ? P l e a s e e l a b o r a t e . 1 0 . T h r o u g h o u t t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , d o y o u f e e l t h a t a l l t h e v a r i o u s a g e n c i e s ' i n t e r e s t s w e r e a d e q u a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d a n d p r o t e c t e d ? 1 1 . I n g e n e r a l , h o w w e r e d e c i s i o n s a c h i e v e d : c o n s e n s u s , m a j o r i t y v o t e . . . ? I f a n d w h e n d e c i s i o n s w e r e n o t r e a c h e d , w h y d i d t h i s o c c u r ? 1 3 2 I N T E R V I E W S C H E D U L E ( c o n t i n u e d ) 1 2 . D o y o u f e e l t h e r e w a s s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e t o a i r t h e i r v i e w s r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n -t e n t o f t h e p l a n ? 1 3 . I s p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n n e c e s s a r y i n t h i s p r o c e s s ? W h y ? 1 4 . H o w w a s i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d f o r u s e i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s ? 1 5 . Was i t a d e q u a t e t o m a k e d e c i s i o n s ? W h a t f u r t h e r i n f o r -m a t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n v a l u a b l e ? W h a t w o u l d b e y o u r e s t i m a t e o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l c o s t ? 1 6 . W a s i n f o r m a t i o n m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o a l l T a s k F o r c e m e m b e r s f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g ? O n c e p r o d u c e d , w a s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y d i s t r i b u t e d t o a l l T a s k F o r c e m e m b e r s ? 1 7 . T h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e s s , w a s t h e r e a m p l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s a l l v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e s e v a r i o u s a c t i o n s ? W e r e t h e d i s c u s s i o n s d o m i n a t e d b y a n y o n e i n d i v i d u a l / a g e n c y ? 1 8 . D o y o u f e e l y o u r t i m e o n T a s k F o r c e a c t i v i t i e s w a s w e l l s p e n t ? 1 9 . W h a t w o r k h a v e y o u / y o u r s t a f f d o n e a s a r e s u l t o f y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n t h e T a s k F o r c e t h a t o t h e r w i s e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n u n d e r t a k e n ? 2 0 . H a s y o u r w o r k l o a d c h a n g e d a s a r e s u l t o f y o u r i n v o l v e -m e n t i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m ? ( E . g . , H a v e n o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s b e e n m a d e e a s i e r d u e t o t h e c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f s o m e r e s o u r c e c o n f l i c t ? ) 1 3 3 I N T E R V I E W S C H E D U L E ( c o n t i n u e d ) 2 1 . I n y o u r o p i n i o n , w h a t , i f a n y , a r e t h e m a j o r b o t t l e -n e c k s i n t h e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s ? ( E . g . , i n f o r m a t i o n d e l a y s , t o o m a n y p e o p l e , i n s u f f i c i e n t f i n a n c e s , t r o u b l e r e a c h i n g c o n s e n s u s . . . ) 2 2 . H a v e a n y T a s k F o r c e d e c i s i o n s e v e r b e e n o v e r t u r n e d ? I f s o , b y w h o m ? 2 3 . W e r e y o u r a g e n c y ' s m a j o r r e s o u r c e c o n c e r n s a d e q u a t e l y e x p r e s s e d i n t h e m o s t r e c e n t d o c u m e n t ? 2 4 . H a v e t h e r e b e e n a n y a d v e r s e e f f e c t s r e s u l t a n t f r o m t h e C r o w n l a n d p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m ? 2 5 . H a s y o u r a g e n c y ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n t h e T a s k F o r c e e n -h a n c e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h o t h e r a g e n c i e s o r h a s t h i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n a l w a y s e x i s t e d ? 2 6 . O n c e t h e C r o w n L a n d P l a n i s i m p l e m e n t e d , d o y o u f e e l t h a t t h e a d o p t e d p o l i c i e s w i l l b e o f s o m e b e n e f i t t o y o u r a g e n c y ' s r o u t i n e f u n c t i o n s ? 2 7 . How d o e s t h i s a p p r o a c h f i t i n t o e x i s t i n g r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s s u c h a s t h e R . R . M . C . a n d t h e r e f e r r a l s y s t e m ? 2 8 . How m a n y C . L . P . T . F . ' s h a v e y o u b e e n o n ? 2 9 . A s s u m i n g y o u c o u l d s t a r t f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g , c a n y o u s u g g e s t a " b e t t e r a r r a n g e m e n t " t o d e r i v e C r o w n L a n d P l a n s a n d / o r w a y s t o i m p r o v e t h e e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e ? 3 0 . C o m m e n t s ? APPENDIX II CHRONOLOGIES OF CORRESPONDENCE AND MEETINGS 135 C H R O N O L O G Y OF C O R R E S P O N D E N C E A N D M E E T I N G S L i s t o f A b b r e v i a t i o n s A L C A g r i c u l t u r a l L a n d C o m m i s s i o n A R P A s s i s t a n t R e g i o n a l P l a n n e r C L P T F C r o w n L a n d P l a n n i n g T a s k F o r c e D P R D i s t r i c t o f t h e C o r p o r a t i o n o f P o w e l l R i v e r F O C F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s C a n a d a FWB M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , F i s h & W i l d l i f e B r a n c h I P S F C I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c S a l m o n F i s h e r i e s C o m m i s s i o n MA M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e ME M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t M E M P M i n i s t r y o f E n e r g y , M i n e s & P e t r o l e u m R e s o u r c e s MF M i n i s t r y o f F o r e s t s M L P H M i n i s t r y o f L a n d s , P a r k s & H o u s i n g M P S M i n i s t r y o f P r o v i n c i a l S e c r e t a r y & G o v e r n m e n t S e r v i c e s M T H M i n i s t r y o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n & H i g h w a y s P B M i n i s t r y o f L a n d s , P a r k s & H o u s i n g , P a r k s B r a n c h P H I P u b l i c H e a l t h I n s p e c t o r P R R D P o w e l l R i v e r R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t P V D D P e m b e r t o n V a l l e y D y k i n g D i s t r i c t R A B M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s B r a n c h R P R e g i o n a l P l a n n e r RRMC L o w e r M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t C o m m i t t e e S L R D S q u a m i s h - L i l l o o e t R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t T C T r a n s p o r t C a n a d a T P C T e c h n i c a l P l a n n i n g C o m m i t t e e W I B M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , W a t e r I n v e s t i g a t i o n s B r a n c h WRB M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , W a t e r R e s o u r c e s B r a n c h 1 3 6 T H E U P P E R L I L L O O E T S U B - D I S T R I C T CROWN L A N D P L A N N I N G P R O C E S S 1 2 - 0 9 - 7 7 R A B t o M L P H e n c l o s i n g s o i l s m a p p i n g f o r U p p e r L i l l o o e t v a l l e y , 1 2 - 0 9 - 7 7 M L P H t o W I B r e q u e s t i n g c o m m e n t o n f l o o d i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a g r i c u l t u r a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . 2 2 - 0 9 - 7 7 M L P H t o 1 0 a g e n c i e s n o t i f i c a t i o n o f m e e t i n g t o d i s c u s s r e s o u r c e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h r e e a g r i c u l t u r a l l e a s e a p p l i c a t i o n s . 2 2 - 0 9 - 7 7 M F , r a n g e d i v i s i o n t o M L P H e n c l o s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o n p a s t u r e s t u d y o f t h e P e m b e r t o n a r e a . 0 7 - 1 0 - 7 7 FWB t o M L P H e n c l o s i n g c o m m e n t s a s r e q u e s t e d r e g a r d i n g p o s -s i b l e f o r m a t f o r s t u d y . 1 4 - 1 0 - 7 7 W I B t o M L P H t h e U p p e r L i l l o o e t R i v e r i s v o l a t i l e a n d t h e a r e a r e q u i r e s r i g i d c u r t a i l m e n t o f b u i l d i n g o f a n y n a t u r e . E n c l o s i n g d e t a i l e d r e g u l a t i o n s . 1 8 - 1 0 - 7 7 R E S O U R C E A G E N C I E S ' M E E T I N G p u r p o s e o f t h e m e e t i n g w a s t o r e v i e w r e s o u r c e i s s u e s . M a i n i s s u e i d e n t i f i e d a s f o r e s t r y v e r s u s a g r i c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t . 2 8 - 1 0 - 7 7 FWB t o M L P H e n c l o s i n g c o m m e n t s i n s u p p o r t o f f o r e s t r y o p t i o n . A u n i q u e h e r d o f m o o s e m u s t b e p r o t e c t e d . 0 1 - 1 1 - 7 7 A L C t o M L P H t h e a r e a i s a t t h e e x t r e m i t i e s o f t h e A L R . F i s h e r i e s , w i l d l i f e a n d f o r e s t r y u s e s a r e a l l c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o t e c t i o n t h e m e . 0 4 - 1 1 - 7 7 P V D D t o M L P H e n c l o s i n g p o s i t i o n o f t h e B o a r d - a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s h o u l d b e h e l d f o r r e a l f a r m e r s n o t s p e c u -l a t o r s . 1 3 7 0 8 - 1 1 - 7 7 M F , s p e c i a l s t u d i e s t o M L P H a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l a l t e r n a t i v e w o u l d f o r e c l o s e f o r e s t r y o p t i o n s . T h e h a r w o o d i n t h e a r e a i s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t a n e x i s t i n g m i l l i n N e w W e s t m i n s t e r . F u r t h e r f o r e s t m a n a g e -m e n t i s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h w i l d l i f e u s e s . 0 8 - 1 1 - 7 7 MF t o M L P H c o n c e r n e d w i t h u t i l i z i n g f o r e s t l a n d s f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l p u r p o s e s . R e c o m m e n d t h a t a n i n t e g r a t e d l a n d u s e p l a n b e d o n e . 1 4 - 1 1 - 7 7 F O C t o M L P H e n c l o s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o n f i s h e r i e s . A g r i c u l -t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d s u b s e q u e n t f l o o d c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s w o u l d d e c r e a s e f i s h r e a r i n g a n d s p a w n -i n g h a b i t a t . 1 5 - 1 1 - 7 7 MA t o M L P H e n c l o s i n g c o m m e n t s o n a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a g r i c u l -t u r a l l e a s e s . L a n d s s h o u l d n o t b e a l i e n a t e d f o r p u r p o s e s o t h e r t h a n a g r i c u l t u r e . 1 5 - 1 1 - 7 7 C L P T F M E E T I N G a g r i c u l t u r a l l e a s e a p p l i c a t i o n s h a v e b e e n d e n i e d . S t u d y a r e a s h o u l d i n c l u d e u p p e r s l o p e s o f t h e v a l l e y . M L P H i s t o p r e p a r e a s t u d y b o u n d a r y m a p . 1 5 - 1 1 - 7 7 WRB t o M L P H a l m o s t a l l t h e v a l l e y i s i n a n a c t i v e f l o o d p l a i n . R e c o m m e n d n o c l e a r i n g o r d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e v a l l e y f l o o r . 2 8 - 1 1 - 7 7 M L P H ( B u r n a b y ) t o M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) r e q u e s t i n g a b a s e m a p b e p r e p a r e d f o r t h e s t u d y a r e a . 1 2 - 1 2 - 7 7 M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) t o M L P H ( B u r n a b y ) l e a d t i m e f o r m a p p r e p a r a t i o n i s 3 t o 6 m o n t h s . 1 3 - 1 2 - 7 7 S L R D t o M L P H c o m p l a i n t r e g a r d i n g n o t b e i n g i n c l u d e d o n t h e t a s k f o r c e . T h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t i s t h a t t h e e n t i r e w a t e r s h e d s h o u l d b e s t u d i e d . A l l c o n t r o l s i n t h e p l a n s h o u l d b e e f f e c t e d b y S L R D l e g i s l a t i o n . 1 3 8 1 4 - 1 2 - 7 7 C L P T F M E E T I N G d i s c u s s i o n c e n t e r e d o n d e t e r m i n i n g s t u d y b o u n d a r i e s . A g e n c i e s a s k e d t o p r o v i d e r e s o u r c e m a p s f o r f o l i o . 1 2 - 0 1 - 7 8 MF t o M L P H e n c l o s i n g f o r e s t c o v e r b a s e m a p s . 0 1 - 0 2 - 7 8 P B t o M L P H n o i m m e d i a t e p l a n s i n t h e v a l l e y b u t o p t i o n s s h o u l d r e m a i n o p e n . 0 2 - 0 2 - 7 8 C L P T F M E E T I N G d i s c u s s i o n d e a l t w i t h r o a d a c c e s s t o u p p e r v a l l e y a n d M e a g h e r h o t s p r i n g s . M a p s a r e b e i n g p r e p a r e d . 1 3 - 0 2 - 7 8 M L P H ( B u r n a b y ) t o M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) r e q u e s t i n g t h e s o i l s b a s e m a p b e p r e p a r e d . 1 6 - 0 3 - 7 8 M L P H ( B u r n a b y ) t o M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) s e n d i n g f i s h a n d w i l d l i f e b a s e m a p . 2 5 - 0 9 - 7 8 M L P H ( B u r n a b y ) t o M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) p r o c e e d w i t h s t a t u s m a p b u t h o p e q u a l i t y i m p r o v e s . 1 5 - 1 1 - 7 8 M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) t o M L P H ( B u r n a b y ) f o r w a r d i n g f o l i o m a p s . 2 1 - 0 2 - 7 9 M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) t o MF p l a n n i n g s t u d y n o t a t i o n s o f i n t e r e s t d o n o t p r e c l u d e a p p l i c a t i o n s . 1 6 - 0 3 - 7 9 M L P H ( B u r n a b y ) t o M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) r e q u e s t i n g r e c e n t a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y . 0 5 - 0 4 - 7 9 R P t o M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) s h o u l d p l a n g o t o C L P T F b e f o r e p l a n p r o t o t y p e e s t a b l i s h e d ? 1 6 - 0 5 - 7 9 M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) t o R P g e n e r a l c o n c e p t s m a y b e d i s c u s s e d w i t h t h e C L P T F b u t n o t d e t a i l e d p o l i c i e s . T h e p l a n p r o t o t y p e w i l l b e a v a i l a b l e s o o n . 2 2 - 0 8 - 7 9 A R P t o M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) e n c l o s i n g d r a f t p l a n f o r c o m m e n t . 139 07-09-79 C L P T F M E E T I N G e x t e n s i v e r e v i e w o f t h e d r a f t p l a n - f o r m a t t o o l o n g - MA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p l a n ' s a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c i e s - c o n s e n s u s r e a c h e d t h a t p l a n s h o u l d o n l y p r e s e n t t h e f o r e s t r y o p t i o n - s u b - g r o u p e s t a b l i s h e d t o r e s o l v e t h e f o r e s t r y - a g r i c u l t u r e s t a l e m a t e . 19-09-79 MF t o M L P H e x i s t i n g f o r m a t o f t h e p l a n i s t o o l o n g a n d t h e r e f o r e r e d u c e s t h e c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f c o n t e n t . 02- 10-79 MA t o R P r e i t e r a t i n g t h e n e e d t o p r o t e c t a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s . 11-10-79 MA t o R P m a p o f s u i t a b l e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s w i l l b e f o r -w a r d e d . O b j e c t i n g t o f o r e s t r y p r o p o s a l s i n c e i t i s a p e r m a n e n t a l l o c a t i o n o f l a n d f o r f o r e s t u s e s . T h e n e e d f o r a f i v e y e a r r e v i e w s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e p l a n . 11-10-79 C L P T F S U B - G R O U P M E E T I N G c o n s e n s u s r e a c h e d o n f o r e s t r y - a g r i c u l t u r e c o n f l i c t . P l a n p o l i c i e s t o b e r e v i e w e d i n f i v e y e a r s . 03- 12-79 P B t o R P i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h p l a n p r o p o s a l s . 05-12-79 WRB t o A R P WRB c o n c e r n s a r e a d e q u a t e l y c o n s i d e r e d . 11-12-79 ME ( I n v e n t o r y & E n g i n e e r i n g B r a n c h ) t o R P c o n c u r t o t a l l y w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e s t u d y , F o r m a t o f t h e p l a n , h o w e v e r , c o u l d b e m o r e c o n -c i s e . 02-01-80 F O C t o R P e n c l o s i n g d e t a i l e d c o m m e n t s . F a v o u r f o r e s t r y o p t i o n o v e r a g r i c u l t u r e . 01-02-80 R P m e e t s w i t h FWB d i s c u s s i o n o f FWB p r o p o s a l f o r c r e a t i n g a w i l d -l i f e m a n a g e m e n t a r e a . 140 05-02-80 M L P H t o FWB c o n f i r m i n g d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e w i l d l i f e r e s e r v e p r o p o s a l . S e n d i n g t o t h e R R M C f o r d i s c u s s i o n . 0 5-0 2-80 M L P H t o - c h a i r m a n R R M C f o r w a r d i n g p l a n f o r e n d o r s e m e n t . 14-0 2-80 RRMC m e e t i n g n o t e s P l a n a p p r o v e d s u b j e c t t o m i n o r c h a n g e s a s r e q u e s t e d b y t h e M A . 27-02-80 MA t o R P a g r e e w i t h s u m m a r y s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p l a n . T h e d r a f t , h o w e v e r , i s u n n e c e s s a r i l y n e g a t i v e t o w a r d s a g r i c u l t u r e . E n c l o s i n g s u g g e s t i o n s f o r r e v i s i o n . 25-03-80 R P t o M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) f o r w a r d i n g p l a n f o r s t a f f r e v i e w . 30-04-80 P l a n r e v i e w e d b y P l a n R e v i e w F o r u m i n V i c t o r i a - a p p r o v e d . 20-05-80 S L R D t o R P t h e D i s t r i c t d o e s n o t e n d o r s e t h e P l a n b e c a u s e t h e V a l l e y ' s f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s a r e c o m m i t t e d t o o u t s i d e a g e n c i e s w h i c h w i l l p r o v i d e n o d i r e c t b e n e f i t t o t h e l o c a l e c o n o m y . 27-08-80 M L P H ( V i c t o r i a ) t o A s s i s t a n t D e p u t y M i n i s t r y , M L P H c o m m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e S L R D p o s i t i o n . T h e p r o b l e m i s w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e M F . 02-09-80 A s s i s t a n t D e p u t y M i n i s t e r , M L P H t o M L P H ( B u r n a b y ) P l a n i s t o b e a p p r o v e d w i t h S L R D a p p r o v a l . L o c a t i o n o f t h e f o r e s t i n d u s t r y i s n o t a n i s s u e w i t h M L P H . 27-05-81 U p p e r L i l l o o e t S u b - D i s t r i c t C r o w n L a n d P l a n p r i n t e d a n d d i s t r i b u t e d . 1 4 1 T H E L A N G C R E E K S U B - D I S T R I C T CROWN L A N D P L A N N I N G P R O C E S S 0 6 - 0 2 - 7 9 R P a t t e n d s m e e t i n g o f t h e P R R D T P C t o a p p r i s e t h e m o f t h e f o r t h c o m i n g L a n g C r e e k p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m . 2 2 - 0 2 - 7 9 R P d i s t r i b u t e s t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e a n d l i s t o f i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o p o s e d p l a n n i n g e x e r c i s e t o a l l P R R D T P C m e m b e r s . R e c i p i e n t s a s k e d i f t h e i r a g e n c y w i s h e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e , a r e t h e t e r m s a c c e p t a b l e , w h o w i l l b e t h e c o n t a c t p e r s o n a n d a r e t h e r e a n y o m i s s i o n s i n t h e l i s t o f p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s o r i s s u e s . 2 7 - 0 2 - 7 9 F W B , r e g i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o R P v e r i f y i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 0 2 - 0 3 - 7 9 TC t o R P r e q u e s t i n g m a p o f s t u d y a r e a . - 0 3 - 7 9 R P t o T C m a p e n c l o s e d , s e e k i n g a d v i c e o n f u t u r e a i r p o r t n e e d s i n P o w e l l R i v e r . 0 5 - 0 3 - 7 9 M F , r a n g e r i n P o w e l l R i v e r t o R P a c k n o w l e d g i n g r e c e i p t o f t h e t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e a n d i s w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e . 1 4 - 0 3 - 7 9 D P R , p l a n n e r t o R P a c c e p t s t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e a n d v e r i f i e s p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 1 9 - 0 3 - 7 9 P H I , C o a s t G a r i b a l d i H e a l t h U n i t t o R P v e r i f i e s p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 2 2 - 0 3 - 7 9 M T H , a p p r o v i n g o f f i c e r t o R P v e r i f i e s p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 2 7 - 0 3 - 7 9 T C t o R P s t a t i n g T C i n t e r e s t i s i n t h e p r e s e n t a i r p o r t o n l y a n d n o t i n f u t u r e r e s e r v e s . 0 3 - 0 4 - 7 9 M F , r e g i o n a l o f f i c e t o R P s t a t e s w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e . 142 12-04-79 M A , r e g i o n a l o f f i c e t o R P u n c l e a r o f i n p u t r e q u i r e d , f o r w a r d i n g t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e t o d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t . 01-05-79 M A , d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t t o R P w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e . 10- 05-79 A R P t o F O C f o r w a r d i n g t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e . 17-0 5-79 P R R D t o A R P e n c l o s i n g r e s u l t s o f c o m m u n i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n d u c t e d i n t h e r e g i o n . 22- 05-79 P H I t o A R P e n c l o s i n g l i s t o f d i s t r i c t l o t s w i t h k n o w n s e w a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n p r o b l e m s . 23- 05-79 M P S , a s s i s t a n t r e g i o n a l a r c h a e o l o g i s t t o A R P p r o v i d i n g c o m m e n t s o n k n o w n a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a . 28-05-79 A R P t o M P S a c k n o w l e d g i n g r e c e i p t o f a r c h a e o l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . 28-05-79 A R P t o P R R D r e q u e s t i n g f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n o n s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s . 28-05-79 M F , r a n g e r t o RP e n c l o s i n g a l i s t o f l o t s s u i t a b l e f o r l o n g - t e r m f o r e s t m a n a g e m e n t . 05-06-79 F O C ( N a n a i m o ) t o A R P f o r w a r d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o n s a l m o n i d p o p u l a t i o n s i n s t r e a m s . 0 6-0 6-79 A R P t o C L P T F e n c l o s i n g a c o p y o f t h e l a n d s t a t u s m a p . 07-06-79 A R P t o ME ( V i c t o r i a ) r e q u e s t i n g t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f a d e v e l o p m e n t c a p a b i l i t i e s m a p . 11- 06-79 P R R D t o A R P f o r w a r d i n g s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s . 143 25-06-79 A R P t o C L P T F d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e m a p . 28-06-79 M P S t o A R P t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d w a s p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d t o t h e R P . 05-07-79 A R P t o M A , d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t r e q u e s t i n g i n p u t r e g a r d i n g t h e v i a b i l i t y o f a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a . 05-07-79 A R P t o WRB r e q u e s t i n g s p e c i f i c d a t a o n w a t e r s h e d a n d w a t e r r e s o u r c e s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a . 05-07-79 A R P t o D P R r e q u e s t i n g f u r t h e r d a t a r e g a r d i n g t h e n e e d f o r f u t u r e a i r p o r t r e s e r v e s . 0 5-07-79 A R P t o M E M P r e q u e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o n m i n e r a l c l a i m s . 12- 07-79 F O C t o A R P r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r c r e e k p r e s e r v a t i o n a r e s a m e a s t h e ME 1 s . 13- 07-79 M E M P t o A R P r e q u i r e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e a r e s p o n s e c a n b e f o r w a r d e d o n m i n e r a l c l a i m s . 13-07-79 WRB t o A R P f o r w a r d i n g d a t a o n w a t e r s h e d s . 13-07-79 A R P t o n o t a r y p u b l i c i n P o w e l l R i v e r r e q u e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o n a v a i l a b l e p r i v a t e h o l d i n g s a n d c u r r e n t a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e r e a l e s t a t e m a r k e t . 16- 07-79 A R P t o M E M P e n c l o s i n g s p e c i f i c d a t a n e e d s r e s p e c t i n g m i n e r a l c l a i m s . 17- 0 7-7 9 A R P t o C L P T F e n c l o s i n g l e g a l c o n s t r a i n t s m a p . 18- 07-79 A R P t o A L C r e q u e s t i n g i n p u t r e g a r d i n g A g r i c u l t u r a l L a n d R e s e r v e b o u n d a r i e s . 144 19- 07-7 9 N o t a r y P u b l i c t o A R P f o r w a r d i n g v i e w s r e g a r d i n g t h e r e a l e s t a t e m a r k e t i n P o w e l l R i v e r . 24-07-79 M A , d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t t o A R P e n c l o s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e v i a b i l i t y o f s m a l l s c a l e a g r i c u l t u r e i n t h e s t u d y a r e a . 24-07-79 D P R t o M L P H , r e g i o n a l l a n d m a n a g e r r e q u e s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l r e s e r v e d e s i g n a t i o n o n f u t u r e a i r p o r t l a n d s . 27-07-79 M F , r e g i o n a l f o r e s t e r t o A R P e n c l o s i n g i n i t i a l c o m m e n t s r e g a r d i n g f o r e s t u s e s i n t h e p l a n n i n g a r e a . 02-08-79 M E M P t o A R P e n c l o s i n g m i n e r a l c l a i m s d a t a . 02-08-79 C L P T F M E E T I N G d i s c u s s i o n c e n t e r e d o n d a t a a n d p r o p o s a l s s u b m i t t e d t o t h e a g e n c i e s . A R P t o s y n t h e s i z e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . 16-08-79 A R P t o C L P T F e n c l o s i n g w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t m a p . 16-08-79 W I B ( V i c t o r i a ) t o R P f o r w a r d i n g m a p d e p i c t i n g l o c a t i o n s o f w e l l s . 23-08-79 A R P t o M T H r e q u e s t i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f g r a v e l r e s e r v e s i n t h e a r e a . 06-09-79 A R P t o T C r e q u e s t i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f l a n d s r e q u i r e d f o r a i r p o r t r e s e r v e s . 20- 09-79 A R P t o T C r e q u e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n s u b m i t t e d b y t h e D P R r e g a r d i n g t h e n e e d f o r a i r p o r t r e s e r v e s . 27-09-79 M L P H , l a n d o f f i c e r t o D P R s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t c o n t a c t TC t o v e r i f y t h e n e e d f o r a i r p o r t r e s e r v e s . 04-10-79 FWB t o R P s u b m i t t i n g a c u r s o r y h a b i t a t e v a l u a t i o n o f L a n g C r e e k . 145 10-10-79 T C t o A R P d e l i n e a t i n g s t a t u s o f a i r p o r t l a n d s i n q u e s t i o n , 16-10-79 A R P t o C L P T F d i s t r i b u t i n g d r a f t o f p l a n f o r c o m m e n t . 26-10-79 T C t o A R P v e r i f i c a t i o n o f p a r c e l s n o l o n g e r r e q u i r e d f o r a i r p o r t r e s e r v e . 29-10-79 D P R t o M L P H , l a n d o f f i c e r r e q u e s t i n g l a n d t o b e r e s e r v e d a l t h o u g h n o t n e c e s s a r i l y f o r a i r p o r t p u r p o s e s . 05- 11-79 A R P t o M A , d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t r e q u e s t i n g c o m m e n t s o n a g r i c u l t u r a l s i t e s d e t a i l e d i n t h e d r a f t p l a n . 06- 11-7 9 M F t o A R P e x p r e s s i n g c o n c e r n s o v e r p r o v i d i n g r e c r e a t i o n -a l l a n d s a t t h e e x p e n s e o f f o r e s t l a n d s . 13-11-79 M P S t o A R P t h e d r a f t p l a n a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s e s t h e h e r i -t a g e r e s o u r c e s . 15-11-7 9 M L P H , d i s t r i c t l a n d m a n a g e r t o D P R M L P H i s i n t e r e s t e d i n C r o w n r e s e r v e s f o r a i r -p o r t u s e s o n l y a n d n o t c o m m e r c i a l o r i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t y . 15- 11-79 WRB t o A R P e n c l o s i n g m i n o r a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e d r a f t p l a n . 16- 11-79 M A , d i s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t t o A R P e n c l o s i n g c o m m e n t s r e g a r d i n g l i m i t e d a g r i c u l -t u r a l d e v e l o p m e n t p o t e n t i a l s . 23-11-79 M T H t o A R P f o r w a r d i n g d a t a o n g r a v e l r e s e r v e s . 29-11-79 A R P t o C L P T F c i r c u l a t i n g s e c o n d d r a f t , c a l l f o r s e c o n d m e e t i n g . 06-12-79 C L P T F M E E T I N G d r a f t g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e t o a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s , n o f u r t h e r m e e t i n g s a r e r e q u i r e d . 146 14-12-79 PHI t o RP e n c l o s i n g v e r i f i c a t i o n of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of po t a b l e water i n the Small H o l d i n g Development Area. 08-01-80 ALC t o ARP e n c l o s i n g comments r e g a r d i n g the management of a g r i c u l t u r a l lands i n the R e s i d e n t i a l H o l d i n g Zone. The Commission i s conducting a separate review of the ALR boundaries i n the study area. 12-01-80 ARP to ALC s t a t i n g most of the ALC's comments have been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the f i n a l d r a f t . 18-01-80 PRRD to ARP ex p r e s s i n g the Board's g e n e r a l agreement with the plan's c a t e g o r i e s . The Board, however, would l i k e t o mai n t a i n g r e a t e r c o n t r o l over f o r e s t a c t i v i t i e s adjacent to p r i v a t e l a n d s . 23-01-80 ALC to RRCC (carbon copy) the ALC w i l l be conducting a p u b l i c h e a r i n g t o review ALR boundaries. 23- 01-80 MTH, approving o f f i c e r t o ARP e n c l o s i n g minor comments on .the E x e c u t i v e Summary. 24- 01-80 WRB to ARP ex p r e s s i n g concern over supply of i r r i g a t i o n water t o areas s l a t e d f o r development. 30-01-80 ARP to MLPH, V i c t o r i a i n f o r m a t i o n o f f i c e r e n c l o s i n g c o p i e s of d r a f t p l a n . 05-02-80 MLPH, r e g i o n a l manager to RRMC chairman forwarding p l a n t o the RRMC f o r endorsement. 05-02-80 MLPH r e g i o n a l manager t o PRRD s t a t i n g the M i n i s t r y does not have j u r i s d i c t i o n over f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s . C o n f l i c t s r e g a r d i n g l o c a l c o n t r o l of these lands must be forwarded t o the MF. 14-02-80 MLPH, r e g i o n a l manager to MLPH, deputy m i n i s t e r e n c l o s i n g p l a n and e x e c u t i v e summary, r e q u e s t i n g adoption of the p l a n . 147 21-0 3-8 0 ALC to MLPH, r e g i o n a l land manager ALC has conducted a p u b l i c h e a r i n g and i s i n -c l u d i n g the pl a n ' s a g r i c u l t u r a l lands i n t o the ALR. 27-03-80 M i n i s t e r i s s u e s a press r e l e a s e s t a t i n g the p l a n i s complete. 31-03-80 ARP to MLPH ( V i c t o r i a ) e n c l o s i n g c o p i e s of the P l a n . 31-03-80 ARP to CLPTF e n c l o s i n g copies of the P l a n . 02- 04-80 Lang Creek S u b - D i s t r i c t Crown Land Plan a v a i l -able f o r wide c i r c u l a t i o n . 24-02-81 MLPH ( V i c t o r i a ) t o MLPH, r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r s t a t i n g t h a t the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r implemen-t a t i o n l i e s w i t h the Region. What steps have been taken? 20-03-81 RP to MF (Powell River) s o l i c i t i n g procedures f o r i n c l u d i n g the f o r e s t areas i n t o the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . 20-03-81 MLPH, r e g i o n a l d i r e c t o r t o MLPH ( V i c t o r i a ) p r e p a r i n g the necessary documentation f o r i n c l u d i n g the f o r e s t areas i n t o the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t s under S e c t i o n 12 o f the Land A c t . 03- 04-81 MF, d i s t r i c t manager t o RP n o t i f i c a t i o n of meeting to d i s c u s s f o r e s t i n c l u s i o n s . APPENDIX III TASK FORCE PARTICIPANTS 149 UPPER LILLOOET CROWN LAND PLANNING TASK FORCE 1. D.R. Proudlock Pemberton V a l l e y Dyking D i s t r i c t , Pemberton, B.C. 2. Jim McCracken Water Rights Branch, M i n i s t r y of Environment, New Westminster, B.C. 3 . *Hugh N e s b i t t - P o r t e r Water I n v e s t i g a t i o n s Branch, M i n i s t r y of Environment, V i c t o r i a , B.C. 4. David Bruce Parks Branch, M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, North Vancouver, B.C. 5. Don Kinnear, F o r e s t e r M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , Vancouver, B.C. 6 . Gordon McKinnon F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, M i n i s t r y of Environment, Burnaby, B.C. 7. Steve MacFarlane F i s h e r i e s and Oceans Canada, Vancouver, B.C. 8. Fr e d Andrew I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a c i f i c Salmon F i s h e r i e s Commission, New Westminster, B.C. 9. * B r i a n Nyberg M i n i s t r y o f F o r e s t s , Vancouver, B.C. 10. Bob Lawrence F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, M i n i s t r y . o f Environment, Pemberton, B.C. 11. Gerry K r o t z , A s s i s t a n t Ranger M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , Pemberton, B.C. 12. E.W. Walker M i n i s t r y of A g r i c u l t u r e , C l o v e r d a l e , B.C. UPPER LILLOOET CROWN LAND PLANNING TASK FORCE (continued) 13. Ivan Knowles S q u a m i s h - L i l l o o e t R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t , Pemberton, B.C. 14. John Gerbrandt, Land O f f i c e r M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, Burnaby, B.C. 15. L a r r y Wolfe, Regional Planner M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, Burnaby, B.C. 16. Karen Ferguson, A s s i s t a n t R e g i o n a l Planner M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, Burnaby, B.C. These .persons were not a v a i l a b l e f o r i n t e r v i e w s . LANG CREEK CROWN LAND PLANNING TASK FORCE 1. Gary Gibson, P u b l i c Health Inspector Coast G a r i b a l d i Health U n i t , Powell R i v e r , B.C. 2. *Te r r y Stokes, D i r e c t o r Powell R i v e r Regional D i s t r i c t , Powell R i v e r , B.C. 3. F r a n c i s Legget, A s s i s t a n t Planner Powell R i v e r Regional D i s t r i c t , Powell R i v e r , B.C. 4. A l P e a t t , T e c h n i c i a n F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, M i n i s t r y of Environment, Burnaby, B.C. 5. Don Van der Horst, P l a n n i n g A s s i s t a n t M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , Vancouver, B.C. 6. Bruce Horning, Ranger M i n i s t r y of F o r e s t s , Powell R i v e r , B.C. 7. *B.J. Jawanda, D i r e c t o r , Plans C o o r d i n a t i o n M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , V i c t o r i a , B.C. 8. *Tucker F o r s y t h e M i n i s t r y of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and Highways, Gibsons, B, 9. K i r k M i l l e r A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, Burnaby, B.C. 10. R. Sabine, Planner C o r p o r a t i o n o f the D i s t r i c t of Powell R i v e r , Powell R i v e r , B.C. 11. N e i l Armstrong, C o n s e r v a t i o n O f f i c e r F i s h e r i e s and Oceans Canada, Powell R i v e r , B.C. 12. M a r t i n Driehuyzen M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e , C l o v e r d a l e , B.C. 13. P a u l i n e R a f f e r t y , A r c h a e o l o g i s t M i n i s t r y o f P r o v i n c i a l S e c r e t a r y , V i c t o r i a , B.C. 14. Jim McCracken Water Rights Branch, M i n i s t r y of Environment, New Westminster, B.C. LANG CREEK CROWN LAND PLANNING TASK FORCE (continued) 15. * C a r l D i l l o n Community A i r p o r t s O f f i c e , T r a n s p o r t Canada, Vancouver, B.C. 16. L a r r y Wolfe, R e g i o n a l Planner M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, Burnaby, B.C. 17. Karen Ferguson, A s s i s t a n t Regional Planner M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, Burnaby, B.C. 18. L a r r y Sorken, Land O f f i c e r M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing, Burnaby, B.C. * These persons were not a v a i l a b l e f o r i n t e r v i e w s . APPENDIX IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES 154 UPPER LILLOOET SUB-DISTRICT CROWN LAND PLAN  SUMMARY The i n i t i a t i o n of a resources study of the Upper L i l l o o e t R i v e r V a l l e y r e s u l t e d from concern with resource use c o n f l i c t s a r i s i n g from three a g r i c u l t u r a l l e a s e a p p l i -c a t i o n s r e c e i v e d d u r i n g 1977 i n v o l v i n g 332 hectares of Crown l a n d . From i n f o r m a t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h other agencies i t was c l e a r t h a t a g r i c u l t u r e development would reduce ungulate w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t (moose), as w e l l as a f f e c t f o r e s t r y y i e l d s (cottonwood). In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e was con-cern f o r o n - s i t e and downstream f l o o d hazards and avalanche dangers. I f the three a p p l i c a t i o n s were approved, a d d i -t i o n a l a p p l i c a t i o n s would be l i k e l y . T h e r e f o r e these l e a s e d e c i s i o n s r e p r e s e n t e d a t u r n i n g - p o i n t land-use p o l i c y d e c i s i o n f o r a v a l l e y . To address these concerns, an i n t e r a g e n c y task f o r c e was o r g a n i z e d October 18, 1977. T e c h n i c a l s t u d i e s were undertaken by the Task Force to prepare c a p a b i l i t y mapping and resource s u i t a b i l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s . On the b a s i s of these s t u d i e s , the Task Force e v a l u a t e d v a r i o u s s t r a t e g i e s and recommendations were d i s c u s s e d . Two a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n concepts f o r . l a n d use on the V a l l e y F l o o r were d i s c u s s e d d u r i n g the study. The f i r s t 155 r e f l e c t e d an a g r i c u l t u r a l p r i o r i t y . The second s t r e s s e d the development o f f o r e s t r y r e s o u r c e s and the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the w i l d l i f e and f i s h e r i e s h a b i t a t , w h i l e p r e s e r v i n g f u t u r e a g r i c u l t u r a l o p t i o n s . Although the a g r i c u l t u r a l a l t e r n a t i v e may p o s s i b l y a l l o w f o r some f i s h enhancement or w i l d l i f e improvements a c c o r d i n g to the B.C. M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e , i t was e v i d e n t t h a t n e g a t i v e impacts on these resources was r e l a -t i v e l y g r e a t e r than w i t h the second a l t e r n a t i v e . The a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s i d e r e d t o be the b e s t means of a c h i e v i n g the p l a n g o a l was the f o r e s t r y o p t i o n . T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e r e i n f o r c e s the f o r e s t r y i n d u s t r y , while p r e -s e r v i n g long-term w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t and f u t u r e a g r i c u l t u r a l p o t e n t i a l s . T h i s p l a n i s a statement of r e s o u r c e , e n v i r o n m e n t a l , economic and s o c i a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r the r e s o u r c e a r e a . I t c o n t a i n s g e n e r a l p o l i c y c o n c e r n i n g the study area r e p r e -s e n t i n g a c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t toward c o o r d i n a t i o n o f p r o v i n -c i a l o b j e c t i v e s and concerns f o r p l a n n i n g and management of the study area's Crown l a n d s . The p o l i c i e s proposed i n t h i s study w i l l be r e l e v a n t f o r 10 years u n l e s s a major change i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s warrants f u r t h e r review. 156 LANG CREEK SUB-DISTRICT CROWN LAND PLAN SUMMARY Concern over l a n d use c o n f l i c t s stemming from a demand f o r r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l development p r e c i p i t a t e d the need f o r the Lang Creek Crown Land P l a n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the Lands and Housing D i v i s i o n of the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing r e c e i v e d 37 a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r Crown l a n d w i t h i n the study area from January t o November, 1979. The m a j o r i t y o f the a p p l i c a t i o n s were f o r smal l h o l d i n g s . Many of these a p p l i c a t i o n s were d i s a l l o w e d due to p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t w i t h other land uses such as resource development. The need t o designate areas f o r s e t t l e m e n t purposes and l a n d f o r i n c l u -s i o n i n the P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t were r e c o g n i z e d as ways of e l i m i n a t i n g c o n f l i c t and s a t i s f y i n g demands. An i n t e r - a g e n c y task f o r c e c o o r d i n a t e d by the Lands and Housing D i v i s i o n , Lower Mainland Region, was formed to address these concerns f o r m a l l y i n a comprehensive manner. Through t h i s t a s k f o r c e , i t was p o s s i b l e to make land use d e c i s i o n s i n a manner t h a t would o p t i m i z e s o c i a l , economic and environmental b e n e f i t s . Study terms of r e f e r e n c e were prepared i n February, 1979 and data was c o l l e c t e d and analyzed by September, 1979. 157 The a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a t p r e s e n t , l a n d use c o n f l i c t s c o u l d be avoided and t h a t a l l major demands f o r la n d use w i t h i n the p l a n n i n g area c o u l d be accommodated. A g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i s p r o t e c t e d by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. F i s h and w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s i n the area are w e l l r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h most s i g n i f i c a n t h a b i t a t s l o c a t e d along water courses and c l e a r i n g s such as the power l i n e . E x i s t i n g r e s e r v e s , i n c l u d i n g a l a r g e a i r p o r t r e s e r v e were r e - a s s e s s e d and d e a l t w i t h a c c o r d i n g t o need. Only one concept p l a n has been proposed i n t h i s document T h i s p l a n a l l o w s f o r p r e s e n t and f u t u r e s m a l l h o l d i n g s ( r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l ) use, p r o v i d e s l a n d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the Powell P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t , p r e s e r v e s l a n d f o r f u t u r e a g r i c u l t u r a l use and allows f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of f i s h and w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s . Reserves have been maintained over some d i s t r i c t l o t s f o r s p e c i f i c uses such as watershed purposes, g r a v e l p i t s and f u t u r e a i r p o r t development. The p l a n makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r development t o o c c u r w i t h i n the p l a n n i n g area i n a manner t h a t i s s o c i a l l y , e c o n o m i c a l l y and e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y a c c e p t a b l e 

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095156/manifest

Comment

Related Items