Pender Harbour And Area Residents Association (PHARA) Delegation to the Sunshine Coast Regional District
Request for support of amendments to the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan 12 December 2019
Request for support of amendments to the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan 12 December 2019
| scrd_delegation_presentation_dec12_2019_final_1.2.pptx |
The Pender Harbour and Area Residents’ Association (PHARA) 3 December 2019
Regarding PHARA Delegation to the Sunshine Coast Regional District Planning and Development Committee
on December 12, 2019
Executive Summary
This briefing will provide background information and context to the suggested changes to the current Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan(PHDMP)
Focus Areas
Proposed administrative and substantive amendments to the PHDMP as informed by new information supplied by Qualified Professional Engineers and Biologists.
Complete the Area A OCP and update Bylaw 337 to include Tidal waters Foreshore Zoning and Land Use Regulations.
Our objective is to have all dock owners be in compliance and our local community members of the shíshálh swiya work together to build the trust and working relationships as envisioned by the Foundation Agreement.
Changes to Engineering and Environmental Requirements.
Engineering analysis of the PHDMP found it contains legislated hazards related to float buoyancy and stability plus the 43% light transmission criteria is not achievable. It further states that the PHDMP must be amended to reflect proper engineering design of all the elements of any new dock system. Additionally, redesign/replacement of existing docks to meet new criteria would be unprecedented.
Recent Environmental Review by Balanced Environmental Services Inc. found among other things that the reports and studies used in the creation of the PHDMP do not support the stated objectives of the PHDMP and that it does not provide any information justifying the use of zones for dock management.
Our hope is that the professional staff of the shíshálh Nation, Province and the SCRD will review the PHDMP and associated documents and update them through the Shared Decision Making process as outlined in the Foundation Agreement to adequately represent legislated requirements and the will of the communities affected.
Requests of the SCRD
1) Request support for proposed amendments to the PHDMP
2) Request completion of the Area A OCP and update Bylaw 337 to include Tidal Waters Foreshore Zoning and Land Use Regulations
Respectfully,
William (Bill) Charlton
Sean McAllister
Directors Pender Harbour and Area Residents Association (PHARA)
12921 Oyster Bay Rd, Garden Bay, BC, V0N1S1
604 740 6144
caniksvoyage@yahoo.com
Copy to Peter Robson - President PHARA
Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan Proposed Amendments
Submitted by:
The Pender Harbour and Area Residents’ Association November 2019
REFERENCES
a. Crown Land Use Policy file 12565-00, January 21 2019
b. Safety Concerns with the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan, Ref 01-00, Rev 3, December 21, 2018
c. Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan, Engineering Review, 18055-100-rpt-001, April 25, 2019
d. Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan Environmental Review, 5879-R-01.1, February 26, 2019
e. Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan Opportunities & Alternative Strategies , March 11, 2019
f. PH DMP Guidance For QP’s on Conducting Foreshore Surveys - no date, no file number
g. Letter, Pacific Advisory Services to Kevin Haberl, Director Resource Authorizations, South Coast, Penner Report - Review of Draft Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan, November 8 2015
h. Land Procedure Policy Variance May 26 2011, amended Jan 14 2019
Colour Key:
Suggested deletions
Proposed amendments
Comments
DISCLAIMER THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY VOLUNTEERS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A FINAL OR EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF AMENDMENTS REQUIRED TO THE EXISTING DMP
PENDER HARBOUR DOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.0 INTENT OF DOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan (the DMP) is an instrument of policy that provides guidance in relation to docks authorized or proposed under the Land Act within the Management Area, as identified in Appendix A.
2.0 PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES
In addition to the principles and objectives outlined in other applicable provincial Operational Land Use Policies, the objective of the DMP is to promote responsible and appropriate dock development by:
• Helping to minimize and mitigate impacts to marine resource values; • Protecting archaeological resources from disturbance;
• Contributing to address impacts, including cumulative impacts, of dock development on Aboriginal interests; and
• Advancing collaborative management between the shíshálh Nation and the Province of British Columbia.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
“Applicable Laws” means any legislation, regulations, rules, codes, guidelines, and standards and of any federal, provincial, regional, municipal, or other governmental authority having jurisdiction, as may be amended from time to time;
“Aquatic Crown Land” means that land below the visible high water mark of a body of water extending offshore to the recognized limit of provincial jurisdiction, including the Foreshore;
“Authorization” means a licence, lease, permit, authorization or other approval issued by the Province of BC pursuant to the Land Act;
“Best Management Practices” means the practices set out in Section 8 of this Dock Management Plan;
“Boathouse” means a structure for the storage of boats and does not include a dwelling unit;
“Commercial Dock” means a Dock operated year-round or seasonally as ancillary to a commercial operation and may include breakwaters;
“Critical Habitat” means habitat that is important for: (a) sustaining a subsistence, commercial, or recreational fishery, or (b) any species at risk (e.g. terrestrial or aquatic red and blue-listed species, those designated by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or those SARA-listed species), or (c) its relative rareness, productivity, or sensitivity (e.g. eelgrass meadows, kelp forests, foreshore salt marsh vegetation, herring spawning habitat, and potential forage fish spawning beach habitat);
“Critical Habitat” habitat features associated with species listed under schedule 1 of the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA).
The term “critical habitat” has special meaning with respect to ecosystem values and species habitats that is internationally recognized. In Canada “critical habitat” is by normal convention reserved for habitat features associated with species listed under schedule 1 of the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). Under SARA, to be critical habitat, an ecosystem feature must be: •habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a schedule 1 listed species; and
• identified as the species’ critical habitat by federal authorities; and
• identified as critical habitat in a formal recovery strategy or action plan for the species.
While the DMP defines ‘critical habitat’, there is no supporting evidence that there is any Critical Habitat within Pender Harbour.” See ref d. and DFO “Species at Risk Act”
“Dock” means a structure used for the purpose of mooring boats and for providing pedestrian access to and from the moored boats, and may consist of a single dock, wharf or pier (including walkway ramp) and includes Private Moorage Facilities, Group Moorage Facilities, Strata Title or Condominium Moorage Facilities, Commercial Docks and Marinas, but does not include Industrial Docks;
“Dock” A dock is a system of one or more components which permits access from (a boat at) the water surface to the nearby uplands. It typically consists of three main components:
1) a Pier: The portion of a dock affixed to the land, which may overhang the water, especially at high tides. It is often also referred to as a jetty, although the latter term is more correctly a solid structure projecting into the sea and intended to influence currents and/or pro-vide shelter.
2) a Ramp: The hinged section of a dock which connects a pier to a float, and the slope of which varies with tidal conditions.
3) a Float: A buoyant structure on the water surface which is secured by anchors, pilings or similar means to locate it in a relatively fixed position in order to permit boat access and/or mooring. (see ref b, c)
“Dock Footprint” means the area that lies directly under the Dock and/or Boathouse, and the area impacted/influenced by the shadow as determined by the Qualified Professional;
“Dock Management Zones” means those zones within the Management Area and as depicted in Appendix B;
“Fisheries Act (Canada)” means Fisheries Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14) as may be amended or replaced;
“Foreshore” means that land in tidal areas lying between the high tide and the mean low tide and that land in non-tidal areas that is alternatively covered by water and exposed with the normal rise and fall of the level of the body of water, i.e. that land between the ordinary high and low water mark;
“Group Moorage Facility” means a multi-berth moorage similar to a private moorage facility but for the personal use of a group or association of residents from the surrounding community;
“Industrial Dock” means a dock providing moorage that is ancillary to an upland general industrial use as defined under the Province’s General Industrial Use Land Use Policy;
“Management Area” means the Pender Harbour area identified in Appendix A;
“Management Plan” means the management plan as described in Section 7;
“Marina” means a dock providing moorage on a fee for service basis, and includes ancillary uses such as marine way; boat ramp and may include the sale of gasoline, groceries, or supplies to the boating public whether provided on the dock or on the upland; and provision of scheduled service by float plane companies;
"Natural Boundary" means the visible high water mark of any lake, river, stream or other body of water where the presence and action of the water are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark on the soil of the bed of the body of water, a character distinct from that of its banks, in vegetation, as well as in the nature of the soil itself;
“Preliminary Field Reconnaissance” means a field survey that is designed to assess the archaeological resource potential of the study area, and to identify the need and appropriate scope of further field studies, and is performed by a Qualified Professional.
“Private Moorage Facility” means a dock that is: (a) Permanently affixed to Aquatic Crown Land and any ancillary structures such as a boat lift and anchor lines; and (b) Is for the personal and private use by one or a number of individuals or a family unit for boat moorage and does not include a Group Moorage facility, as defined;
“Qualified Professional” means an applied scientist or technologist, acting alone or together with another Qualified Professional, if:
(a) The individual is registered and in good standing in BC with an appropriate professional organization constituted under an Act, acting under that associations’ code of ethics and subject to disciplinary action by that association, and
(b) The individual is acting within that individual’s area of expertise;
“Replacement Tenure” means a subsequent Tenure agreement issued to the Tenure holder for the same area and purpose as under the original Tenure;
“Riparian” means the vegetated transitional area between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and is delineated from the Natural Boundary upland for a distance of 15 metres;
“Strata Title or Condominium Moorage Facility” means a multi-berth moorage similar to a Private Moorage Facility but used by the residents of a waterfront strata or condominium development;
“Tenure” means:
(a) Any interest in Crown land that is granted or otherwise established under a prescribed instrument, or
(b) A prescribed designation or other status that, under an enactment, is given to, conferred on, or made or otherwise established in relation to Crown land;
(c) And includes those Tenures which terms may have expired but are authorized by the Province to continue on a month-to-month basis;
“Tenure” means a Land Act disposition of provincial Crown land from an authorized provincial ministry or agency with the legislative mandate to issue such rights, and includes those Tenures which terms may have expired but are authorized by the Province to continue on a month-to-month basis; (see ref a.)
“Tenure Area” means the area approved under an existing authorization, or the area under application for authorization under the Land Act;
“Tenured Dock” means a Dock that is authorized by a Tenure.
4.0 APPLICATION OF PENDER HARBOUR DOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN
4.1 This DMP applies within the Management Area for Authorizations of:
(a) The construction of a new Dock or Boathouse;
(b) The relocation of a Tenured Dock or Boathouse within a Tenure Area;
(c) Changes to the dimensions of a Tenured Dock or Boathouse;
(d) An existing Dock or Boathouse that was not previously authorized under Tenure;
(e) A Replacement Tenure as per Section 6.2.
4.2 The repair or rebuilding of Tenured Docks or Boathouse damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion, flood, or other casualty must meet the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new dock tenure.
4.3 This DMP does not apply to applications for:
(a) An assignment of a Tenure to a different Tenure holder;
(b) A consent to mortgage; and
(c) The modification of the provisions of a Tenure.
5.0 DOCK MANAGEMENT ZONES
5.1 The Dock Management Zones within the Management Area are shown in Appendix B.
5.2 The Province will apply the management objectives for each Dock Management Zone set out in Table 1 when making decisions regarding Authorizations subject to this DMP.
The current system of zoning is not supported by our Environmental Reports, (see ref b, c, d, e):
• The DMP states that the entire harbour is rated as highly sensitive archaeologically but does not explain what the zones are based on.
• The DMP is silent on any biophysical comparison between the zones and therefore it appears that the zones are not based on biophysical characteristics.
• The western shoreline of the Francis Peninsula is an active coastline with steep drop offs and Gunboat/Oyster Bays are protected shallow bays comprised mainly of mudflats. Both areas have fewer docks than the rest of Pender Harbour yet are the only areas within Zone 1.
• Differences in habitat sensitivity between Zones 2 and 3 are not apparent.
• Without any biophysical justification for the zones and accepting that the entire harbour has high archaeological values, it is not clear why dock construction and maintenance guidelines differ between zones.
• See ref b, c, d, e,
The zones are not based on peer reviewed environmental studies and are inconsistent in their approach. From an environmental point of view, the Biological studies being performed for each dock should provide information that should be used in determining whether a new dock should be allowed. A review of archeological impacts should also be used in this determination. Current docks should be grandfathered as they had previously been provincially approved.(ref c, g) Current docks that are detrimental to the environment or have archeological impacts should either be required to mitigate these impacts or be removed.
6.0 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
6.1 APPLICATIONS FOR NEW TENURES
When an applicant applies for a Tenure for the purpose of a Dock or Boathouse, the Province will:
(a) Encourage prospective applicants to engage with the shíshálh Nation early. The applicant may wish to engage the shishalh Nation prior to submitting an application;
(b) Require the applicant to provide the following information as part of the application:
(i) The identification of any Critical Habitat within the Tenure Area and Dock Footprint and the plan for the protection of any identified Critical Habitat. This should be completed by a Registered professional biologist.
(ii) A Preliminary Field Reconnaissance assessment of archeological resources in the Foreshore area of the Tenure area. If the Preliminary Field Reconnaissance identifies new archaeological sites, then the provincial process under the Heritage Conservation Act applies
(iii) A Management Plan, including specifications regarding the design of the Dock and describe how ongoing maintenance activities will be consistent with the Best Management Practices set out in Section 8.0 Supported by a Registered professional biologist.
These 2 additions (i), (iii) would make it clear as to what is required of the applicant
(c) Initiate First Nation consultation on the application once it receives the information identified in Section 6.1 (b);
(d) For new Docks, and Docks rebuilt under Section 4.2, an applicant must submit written confirmation by a Qualified Professional, confirming that the Dock was constructed in accordance with the approved Management Plan and meets Fisheries Act (Canada) requirements.
For new Docks and boathouses, and Docks/boathouses rebuilt under Section 4.2, an applicant must submit written confirmation from a qualified Biologist that the dock meets the DMP Best Practices and the Fisheries Act (Canada) requirements.
6.2 APPLICATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT TENURES
Where an applicant seeks a Replacement Tenure the Province will:
(a) Encourage the prospective applicant to engage early with the shíshálh Nation. The applicant may engage the shíshálh Nation prior to submitting an application;
(b) Initiate First Nation consultation on the application once it receives the information identified in Section 6.1 (b);
(c) Require the applicant to provide the following information as part of the application:
(i) Require the tenure holder to submit a Preliminary Field Reconnaissance assessment of archeological resources in the Foreshore area of the Tenure Area prepared by a Registered Archeologist as part of the application for a Replacement Tenure where one has not been completed in the past;
(ii) Require a Management Plan identified in Section 7.0 to be submitted in support of a Replacement Tenure supported by the opinion of a Qualified Professional, where no Qualified Professional opinion was obtained in the past.
Require a Management Plan identified in Section 7.0 to be submitted in support of a Replacement Tenure supported by a biologist and a statutory declaration that the applicant understands the requirements of Section 7.0 and has complied with same.
6.3 Where the opinion of a Qualified Professional is required under this DMP with respect to Critical Habitat, the opinion must be given by a Registered Professional Biologist
6.4 The Province may require the applicant to submit additional archaeological assessments depending on the results of a Preliminary Field Reconnaissance of the Tenure Area and the potential impact of the proposal on First Nation interests.
6.5 Cultural materials recovered during the course of archaeological investigations should be deposited to the shíshálh Nation tems swiya Museum, subject to the requirements of the Heritage Conservation Act.
6.6 TERM OF TENURE
(a) Subject to subsection (b), approved new Dock and Boathouse Tenures and Replacement Tenures other than Marina and Commercial Docks will not exceed a term of ten (10) years; and According to Crown Land Use and Policy (Jan 21, 2019), Para 11.3, permissions do not require replacement unless there is significant modification of a private moorage facility. There should be no reason to have a different policy in the DMP.
(a) Approved new Dock and Boathouse Tenures and Replacement Tenures do not require replacement unless there is significant modifications of a private moorage facility.
(b) Approved new Dock Tenures and Replacement Tenures granted for a Marina and Commercial Docks will not exceed a term of 30 years.
6.7 Applications must comply with all Applicable Laws including but not limited to the Fisheries Act, Navigable Water Protection Act, and Species at Risk Act.
7.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS
7.1 A Management Plan for a proposed Dock or Replacement Tenure must demonstrate the following:
(a) Structures will not unduly block access along the foreshore for public access, or for First Nations harvesting of marine resources for food, social and ceremonial purposes;
(b) Dock construction will not include the use of native beach materials (e.g. boulders, cobble, gravel, sand and logs);
(c) Filling, dredging, or blasting will not be undertaken within the Tenure Area;
(d) The Dock and Tenure Area will be kept in a safe, clean and sanitary condition; all work, including dock construction, dock use, refueling of machinery and washing of buckets and hand tools, will be conducted in a manner that will not result in the deposit of toxic or deleterious substances (e.g. sediment, un-cured concrete, fuel, lubricants, paints and stains), into the water in accordance with Applicable Laws, including the Fisheries Act (Canada) and in accordance with Best Management Practices; and
(e) Ongoing maintenance activities will be consistent with the Best Management Practices and supported by the opinion of a Qualified Professional
The design of the New Docks will be consistent with the Best Management Practices set out in Section 8.0 and supported by the opinion of a Qualified Professional. supported by a statutory declaration that the applicant understands the requirements and has complied with the same. Avoidance of Critical Habitat should be supported by the opinion of a qualified biologist
8.0 DOCK CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
8.1 Critical Habitats should be avoided within the Dock Footprint. New Docks must not be installed over these habitats unless the design mitigates for potential impacts and does not result in losses to these habitats. Boathouses must not be built over Critical Habitat.
8.2 Design of a Dock or Boathouse should not include components that block the free movement of water along the shoreline. Crib foundations or solid core structures made of cement or steel sheeting should be avoided as these types of structures result in large areas of vegetation removal and erosion in Riparian areas.
8.3 The bottom of all floats must be a minimum of 1.5 metres above the sea bed during the lowest tide. Dock height above lowest water level must be increased if deep draft vessels are to be moored at the Dock. The Dock and the vessel to be moored at the Dock must not come to rest on the foreshore sea bed during the lowest tide of the year. This practice should agree with the Province wide requirements for all Private moorage facilities (ref a, appendix 3) which states “ensure dock structures are not grounded at low water/low tide. All docks must be on pilings/suspended or floating at all times.” Additionally, owners of docks that were previously approved (engineering review recommendation, ref b, c, and ref g) should be grandfathered as to not cause owners undue financial hardship.
8.3 The dock structures must not ground at low water/low tide. All docks must be on pilings/suspended or floating at all times.
8.4 The size of all docks should be minimized. Access ramps, walkways or docks should be a minimum of 1.0 metre above the highest high water mark of the tide. Access ramps and walkways should not exceed a maximum width of 1.2 metres. Docks should not exceed a maximum width of 1.5 metres.
While the word “should” is used in this paragraph the suggested pier and float dimensions are unworkable and unsafe (see ref b, c). There are an infinite number of dock designs that have been in use for many years that should be acceptable. The 1.2m ramp does not take into account materials available and the need in some cases for adherence to wheelchair access criteria. As shading is the issue, a QP biological analysis should be the determining factor rather than an arbitrary size figure. We therefore suggest this para reflect the Provincial regulations and read as below. Additionally, the Naval Architect and mechanical/Marine Engineer’s report we commissioned.
• Based on this initial analysis and using criteria published in recognized engineering and /or regulatory standards, limiting maximum width to 1.5 metres for floating dock elements will lead to extremely unsafe conditions when floats are loaded to even a nominal capacity.
• Various sources such as Marina Design and Construction; D.P. Bertlin; Bertlin and Partners, Consulting Engineers, London, UK and Standing Balance on Inclined Surfaces with Different Friction, SVENSSON, HALDER, GARD, and MAGNUSSON: Industrial Health 2018, 56, 292-299, suggest 2.5 metres as a minimum float width.
8.4 No structure shall unduly impede public access along the foreshore. Access ramps and walkways should be a minimum of 1.0m above the highest high water mark of the tide. Dock size should be minimized and supported by a biologist report to minimize shading effects and environmental impacts.
8.5 All improvements should be a minimum of 5.0 meters from the side property line (6.0 meters if adjacent to a dedicated public beach access or park) and at least 10 meters from any existing dock or structures, consistent with Federal requirements under Transport Canada’s Navigable Waters Protection Act. If these distances are not achievable, a variance may be applied for under the Act, under Minor Works.
8.6 Docks must be constructed to allow light penetration under the structure and used decking materials must allow for minimum of 43% open space allowing for light penetration to the water surface. Light transmitting materials may be made of various materials shaped in the form of grids, grates, and lattices to allow for light passage.
The Naval Architect and Mechanical/Marine Engineer’s report and Engineering Review we commissioned state:
• This clause is very onerous and may be difficult to achieve in any practical manner. It only refers to the ‘dock’ so it is assumed that it is meant to apply to piers, ramps, and floats.
• In reviewing a number of grating products available on the market, we found that the percent of open space ranges from 20% to 70%. Generally, gratings with larger open space have deeper cross boards spaced farther apart. To achieve a higher open space will generally result in larger holes in the grating.
• It is important to note that decking and grating do not serve the same structural purpose. Grating is used to support vertical loads only. Decking is used to support vertical loads and to act as a diaphragm to transit lateral and torsional loads; and to prevent racking. Also the vertical load carrying capacity of grating is limited to pedestrian level loading only. Most grating products cannot be used for larger loads or any motor-vehicles.
• Most critically however, any such criterion does not address the reality of the essential presence of floatation materials. Depending upon the design loading and the materials of construction, the floatation elements alone of any float would have from 0% light penetration to something in the order of 40% net available area between the floatation. Thus, achieving a light transmittance of a minimum of 43% open areas would require more than 100% transmittance in the remaining net available are (clear of the floatation billets). Even a glass deck cannot achieve more than 100% light transmittance so the requirement in Section 8.6 of the Plan simply cannot be achieved in a simple float configuration, especially one with a maximum width of 1.5 m. • It must be recognized that any light penetration requirement applied to floating structures will be in direct conflict with other fundamental design and safety objectives such as load capacity, stability, deck strength, mooring loads and impact resistance, which must take precedence. • It is also noted, that in this clause the word ‘must’ is used indicating mandatory compliance.
Since a biological survey is required to determine adverse effects of each dock on the environment, it would appear this passage is irrelevant and should be deleted in its entirety. See Ref b, c.
8.7 Docks should be aligned in a north-south direction to the maximum extent that is practicable. The Provincial environmental study made this recommendation which is not supported as being practical in the Pender Harbour area. It also is in direct conflict with the Provinces own regulations which state “all docks should be oriented at right angles to the general trend of the shoreline” The provincial regulations should apply.
8.7 Docks should be oriented at right angles to the general trend of the shoreline. See Ref a.
8.8 Concrete, steel, treated, or recycled timber piles are acceptable construction materials although steel is preferred. Detailed information on treated wood options can be obtained on-line from the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website (Guidelines to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat from Treated Wood Used in the Aquatic Environment in the Pacific Region).
8.9 Access to the Foreshore for construction purposes should be from the adjacent upland property wherever possible. If heavy equipment is required to work on the Foreshore or access is required along the Foreshore then the advice of a Qualified Professional or Fisheries and Oceans Canada should be obtained.
8.10 Works along the Foreshore should be conducted when the site is not wetted by the tide.
8.11 Applicants for Docks that exceeds 20 square meters, or such other dimensions as may trigger a review under the Fisheries Act from time to time, must contact Fisheries and Oceans Canada and submit a Request for Review or other required documents to ensure proposed activities, and the scheduling of those activities, complies with Fisheries and Oceans Canada requirements including the fisheries works window.
8.12 The upland design of the Dock, including anchor points, should avoid disturbing riparian vegetation adjacent to the Project Footprint due to its role in bank stabilization and erosion control.
8.13 Pile driving is the preferred method of pile installation. All pile driving must meet current Fisheries and Oceans regulations.
8.14 The use of Styrofoam, to keep docks afloat is prohibited for new construction and repairs unless the styrofoam is encapsulated. Styrofoam floats on existing docks that are showing evidence of breakdown should be replaced using an alternative material.
8.15 Docks must be constructed in accordance with requirements under Navigation Protection Act as may be amended or replaced from time to time.
Variance Procedure -Land Procedure Policy Variance May 26 2011, amended Jan 14 2019
This should be included as reference in the DMP, possibly as 8.16.
Just click on PDF file for more detailed information below
| private_moorage.pdf |
| 01-00_safety_concerns_-_pender_harbour_dock_management_plan_-_rev._a.pdf |
| engineering_review_malacek.pdf |
| balanced_environmental_review_march_8_2019.pdf |
| 5879-r-01.2_pender_hbr_dmp_alternative_startegies.pdf |
| dmp__qp_guidance.pdf |
| penner_report_2015.pdf |
Government Relations Update UPDATE 7 AUG 2019
The context of the government relations effort is based on a respect for the provincial government’s reconciliation with the shíshálh Nation and a thorough understanding of government processes, policies and politics.
Working with the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan Working Group, Pender Harbour and Area Residents’ Association and representatives of the Pender Harbour Chamber of Commerce, and after much research on the government documents, agreements and applicable legislation, an understanding of the key issues and concerns was acquired.
A strategy was developed to bring the concerns of the DMP specifics, and the decision-making process that created it, to the attention of the provincial government. Together objectives were set to establish a meaningful consultation relationship with the Province and the shíshálh Nation and to support and advance the SCRD UBCM resolution.
An Issues Note was developed and delivered to the provincial government that was used as the platform to advocate for a committee being struck to review the DMP, receive information and consider amendments to the unworkable sections.
The next step was to solicit support from the local MLA. A community meeting was held, and a briefing presentation provided where the MLA committed to help find answers, hold the government to account and his hope for certainty, dialogue and better ways of resolving disputes. It was acknowledged that we are at the front edge of reconciliation efforts.
Communications with senior government officials continued and a meeting was held where government staff were assigned to help further their understanding of the issues. A creative response was provided to government’s ask of how to break the impasse between local residents and the Nation. The government’s internal review and local intelligence gathering is still ongoing.
Communications with the local MLA continued. We believed we were on the right track to get support for a review of the DMP.
Strategy discussions were held concerning the AVICC conference and UBCM convention. A convention policy advocacy plan was developed with a media awareness component.
Further communications were held with the provincial government that focused on the zones.
Through working with our SCRD rep, a deeper understanding was acquired of how the DMP was created – a process that pre-empted the Official Community Plan. Not only had the DMP been rushed through months before a Memorandum of Understanding with UBCM was signed pledging consulting and exchanging information with local governments, and before the Foundation Agreement was signed between the Province and shíshálh Nation setting out principles that included “building partnerships where individuals, communities, organizations and industry throughout the shíshálh swiya will have roles,” but it also circumvented the OCP and bylaw process that would have ensured all concerned would have a voice on issues such as the zones.
These issues were brought to the attention of the senior government officials. Further meetings with Ministers are being planned.
Government staff indicated they were obtaining technical information from FLNRO and local knowledge from the MLA and these parties needed more time to complete their information.
Further communications with the MLA were recently unsuccessful with a full message box and lack of response to a meeting request.
Communications with senior government officials is ongoing.
Government Relations Update UPDATE 7 AUG 2019
The context of the government relations effort is based on a respect for the provincial government’s reconciliation with the shíshálh Nation and a thorough understanding of government processes, policies and politics.
Working with the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan Working Group, Pender Harbour and Area Residents’ Association and representatives of the Pender Harbour Chamber of Commerce, and after much research on the government documents, agreements and applicable legislation, an understanding of the key issues and concerns was acquired.
A strategy was developed to bring the concerns of the DMP specifics, and the decision-making process that created it, to the attention of the provincial government. Together objectives were set to establish a meaningful consultation relationship with the Province and the shíshálh Nation and to support and advance the SCRD UBCM resolution.
An Issues Note was developed and delivered to the provincial government that was used as the platform to advocate for a committee being struck to review the DMP, receive information and consider amendments to the unworkable sections.
The next step was to solicit support from the local MLA. A community meeting was held, and a briefing presentation provided where the MLA committed to help find answers, hold the government to account and his hope for certainty, dialogue and better ways of resolving disputes. It was acknowledged that we are at the front edge of reconciliation efforts.
Communications with senior government officials continued and a meeting was held where government staff were assigned to help further their understanding of the issues. A creative response was provided to government’s ask of how to break the impasse between local residents and the Nation. The government’s internal review and local intelligence gathering is still ongoing.
Communications with the local MLA continued. We believed we were on the right track to get support for a review of the DMP.
Strategy discussions were held concerning the AVICC conference and UBCM convention. A convention policy advocacy plan was developed with a media awareness component.
Further communications were held with the provincial government that focused on the zones.
Through working with our SCRD rep, a deeper understanding was acquired of how the DMP was created – a process that pre-empted the Official Community Plan. Not only had the DMP been rushed through months before a Memorandum of Understanding with UBCM was signed pledging consulting and exchanging information with local governments, and before the Foundation Agreement was signed between the Province and shíshálh Nation setting out principles that included “building partnerships where individuals, communities, organizations and industry throughout the shíshálh swiya will have roles,” but it also circumvented the OCP and bylaw process that would have ensured all concerned would have a voice on issues such as the zones.
These issues were brought to the attention of the senior government officials. Further meetings with Ministers are being planned.
Government staff indicated they were obtaining technical information from FLNRO and local knowledge from the MLA and these parties needed more time to complete their information.
Further communications with the MLA were recently unsuccessful with a full message box and lack of response to a meeting request.
Communications with senior government officials is ongoing.
DOCK MANAGEMENT PLAN WORKING GROUP MEETING 11 APRIL 2019
Hello neighbours,
Our group had a good meeting 11 April at Bob Fielding’s Boardroom. We invited our communications specialist, Cynthia Shore, to join us to give an update on her initiatives with the Provincial Government. Over the past 3 months she helped us prepare for a briefing we presented to our local MLA Nicholas Simons, which detailed our vision for the future and a road map to make change to the DMP. It was very well received by Nicholas. He thought it presented an opportunity to begin a renewed dialogue with the Government to have our voices heard and acted upon. This briefing is included as a pdf file on our website. Cindy also prepared a briefing note which she successfully presented to senior Government staff along with a revised slide briefing.
She is presently working with government officials exploring ways in which to reinvigorate and relay our concerns about the dock plan in its present form. We are hoping to setup a meeting soon in this respect.
Additionally, you will notice in our briefing slides, an initiative by the SCRD to review the process the Province uses for disposition of land, which includes crown land. A copy of the motion approved by the SCRD Board is included in the slides.
This motion, which will be of benefit to all residents of Pender Harbour, was passed at the recent Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities(AVICC) and will also be presented at the Union of BC Municipalities(UBCM) in September. These motions are important parts of the SCRD initiative to have more of a voice in all land use decisions, which may help resolve the issue of zones in the DMP.
We discussed at length the 2 engineering studies and the 2 biological studies we had commissioned which support our views that DMP rules around dock design are unsafe, unworkable and expensive. The biological study, pinpointed the fact that earlier studies commissioned by the government did not support the system of zones in the DMP, as well as other issues.
Your board decided to keep these studies confidential at the moment, to give Cindy an opportunity to present them to the Province in a way that would highlight their importance in any further discussions.
Individual Studies and Boathouses - it was the general consensus that eventually, all dock owners would require a qualified biologist(QP) study under every dock in the harbour. Although some dock owners have not been specifically asked to provide a study at this time, it is clear that at the next renewal of a Permission a study would be required. It is still unclear whether boathouses will be allowed in the future. We have asked that question but have not received an answer. There are applications going forward from owners with boathouses, so we may get an answer once reviewed by the province.
Should anyone require or wish to have a study completed at this time, it can be arranged by emailing Bob Fielding, ggardenb@dccnet.com. Current cost is approximately $1000.
It appears that renewal applications are still being sent to dock owners but it has been a very slow process, with very few Permissions being issued to date.
We have been receiving phone inquiries from anxious dock owners approaching their final date to send in their application. Our best advice at this time is Do Not allow your application to lapse and complete your application by the required date unless you can get an extension from the Province.
Please be assured that we are still working to have changes made to the DMP that will benefit all residents of Pender harbour. Your continued support is appreciated.
Sean McAllister, Bill Charlton, Co-chairs DMPWG
February 2019
Click on pdf file to open update of last meeting "Presentation to MLA"
Click on pdf file to open update of last meeting "Presentation to MLA"
| phara_mla_presentation_feb_2019.pdf |
Mission Statement
•Develop an economically and environmentally vibrant community in which we all share.
•Promote beneficial relationships between the residents of Pender Harbour, the Provincial Government and the shíshálh Nation.
•Develop an economically and environmentally vibrant community in which we all share.
•Promote beneficial relationships between the residents of Pender Harbour, the Provincial Government and the shíshálh Nation.
February 2019
Current Advice to Dock Owners
1. Ask the government for an extension citing, health, lawyer referral, not sufficient time etc. They have been granting up to a year.
2. All dock owners should obtain legal advice. Each dock renewal is different and we understand that the government is dealing with each renewal on an individual basis. You may have legal issues that are unique.
3. WE CANNOT GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE.
The DMP is a policy document and accordingly can be varied by the government if you can convince them it is reasonable to do so. At the proper time, we’ll be using our engineering and environmental reports as reasons for change,
4. We do NOT suggest that you allow your renewal application to lapse. You may not get another chance to renew your lease or permission especially if you are in the RED zone. The loss of your ability to have a legal dock will have serious
consequences to the value of your property.
Dock Management Plan Update February 2019
The DMP Working Group is continuing efforts to have the DMP modified, changed or abandoned. Some of the things we have done recently are:
1. We have received a report from qualified professional naval architects outlining concerns with the DMP rules on dock design,
2. We have a second engineering report which is critical of dock design as indicated in the DMP
3. We have commissioned a review of the environmental assessment performed by the government to determine its relevance to Pender Harbour,
4. We have retained the services of a government liaison expert to assist us in delivering our message to the Provincial government. We are hoping to bring the DMP issue to the attention of the executive branch of government within the next 60 days.
5. We have obtained extensive legal advice on the merits of commencing legal proceedings at this stage
6. We are in constant contact with our local Area A rep (Len Lee)
7. We have been in communication with our MP (Pamela Goldsmith Jones) who is attempting to assist us.
8. We have developed a data base containing contact information on all dock owners, to date about 250+ names and emails. We invite all dock owners to join in this effort,
9. We are updating our website, which now will be found under the new Pender Harbour and District Residents Association, PHARA.ca, website.
10. We are working towards having members of the public appointed to the various Foundation Agreement boards, that will be reviewing the dock renewals currently being sent out by the government.
We are attempting to utilize a more conciliatory approach in our discussions with the government and the SIB. We are hopeful this new approach will bear fruit. In the interim we would appreciate it, if you could convey that message in any dealings you may have with the government and the SIB.
We will keep you posted with respect to any further developments.
Thank you for your support.
Bill Charlton, Sean McAllister
Co-Chairs DMPWG
On February 4, 2019 a special meeting was held to vote on the community association name change from Pender Harbour Advisory Council (PHAC) to Pender Harbour and Area Residence Association (PHARA) to better reflect the focus, purpose and growth of the Association.
PHARA is a volunteer organization which exists to support the vitality of the communities of the Pender Harbour and area as excellent places to live, work and play for residents and visitors. The Association provides a structure that allows residents to identify issues of broad community concern and have them effectively addressed.
PHARA is involved in the community in many ways, with committees dealing with derelict boats, cleaning local waters of debris, the annual trash bash, beach access signage, the installation of No Wake signs in the harbour and much more. We invite community input into other projects we should take on as an association.
The Association recently added the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan (DMP) Working Group as a committee. The purpose of this relationship is to give the DMP Working Group a parent organization with a broader base of membership in the community, as they continue to focus on how to best deal with issues related to docks in the Harbour.
On April 14, 2018 the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operation and Rural Development {FNLR ORD} released the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan. The document is titled Replacement of Your Crown Foreshore Tenure in Pender Harbour. This plan, which applies to all docks in Pender Harbour and Area, includes a requirement for mandatory dock owner paid studies, new requirements for dock design and construction, restrictions on who can have a dock and arbitrary prohibition of docks in some areas. All this has been imposed on residents without any reasonable explanation from or consultation with the Provincial Government. In October 2018, the Provincial government released the “Foundation Agreement”, establishing a new relationship between the Provincial Government and the Sechelt Indian Band. Amongst other things, this agreement provides an opportunity for local residents to be consulted and have a voice in any type of “application”. An “application” could refer to a building permit, variance, forestry development or dock application. We have not been formally invited to be part of these new boards, even though it is established in the agreement.
Our Dock Management Plan Working Group realizes it is very important to continue engaging fairly and professionally with all parties, including the BC Government and the Sechelt Indian Band, if we are to effect needed changes to this plan. We will continue to approach the Provincial Government for inclusion in this process where it affects our interests. To this end, the Working Group has engaged a number of professionals, engineers, environmental scientists and others, to ensure that any change we propose to the Government can be substantiated with verifiable, professional, scientific information. We do not have the resources to match the deep pockets of the Provincial and Federal Governments where professionals are maintained at taxpayer expense. We are therefore asking all residents to contribute to our fund, used to employ these professionals. This is not just about docks. This plan is having an economic impact on the future of our community including commercial enterprises and property values. Pender Harbour has been chosen as the first area to implement the Government’s Dock Management Plan. Government representatives have informed us that once completed, these rules will become the new standard for all docks throughout the Province whether on salt or fresh water.
Recent Media Coverage on Dock Management Plan
Global News, May 24, 2018 https://globalnews.ca/video/4227762/sunshine-coast-dock-owners-in-an-uproar
Vancouver Sun, May 21, 2018 http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/unauthorized-docks-to-be-demolished-in-pender-harbour
Coast Reporter, April 5, 2018 http://www.coastreporter.net/real-estate/province-releases-pender-dock-plan-1.23256672
Province of British Columbia
|
This is the text of the Province's Announcement of April 4, 2018:
The Pender Harbour dock management plan, released today, provides mandatory requirements for dock design and construction to meet environmental and archeological concerns, and defines three zones within Pender Harbour where additional requirements or restrictions apply.
The dock management plan was developed collaboratively with shíshálh Nation, and with input from Pender Harbour dock owners and stakeholders. The final plan was informed by the 13 recommendations from consultant Barry Penner’s 2016 report, including the results from the recently completed archeology survey and environmental study. The dock management plan divides Pender Harbour into three zones, with no new docks allowed to be built in Zone 1. The existing unauthorized docks in this zone will need to be removed. Zone 2 allows for the construction of new docks, if shared by multiple parties and for commercial use. The structures need to be consistent with the new dock management plan requirements. New applications for private moorage will not be accepted. Zone 3 allows for new applications. Any existing unauthorized docks in zones 2 or 3 will need to be brought into compliance with the new rules under the dock management plan. The existing 321 dock owners seeking replacement tenures will now be able to begin the tenure replacement process. Ministry staff will be contacting those dock owners directly about the application process. The environmental study found that increasing numbers of docks are associated with a decrease in kelp cover and fish abundance, and harm critical eelgrass habitats, which support species at risk. The archeological survey found that no portion of the Pender Harbour area can be considered low potential for archeological materials. The Pender Harbour dock management plan aims to address environmental stewardship and resource management concerns by minimizing impacts to marine resources, protecting archeological resources from disturbance, and advancing collaborative management between the shíshálh Nation and the Province. |
SUPPORTING MATERIALS released April 4, 2018: Website with the Province's Announcement Full text of the Pender Harbour Dock Management Plan Environmental Study Summary Environmental Study Full (please note this is a very large file, hence a link has been provided, rather than the full report, but there appear to be problems with the file loading) Environmental Study Full alternate location to access complete file Archeological Survey Summary ***If you have trouble opening the above files, instruct them to open in Adobe Reader or try another browser Please note that the above files are also available at the following link: http://www.arfd.gov.bc.ca/ApplicationPosting/viewpost.jsp?PostID=43285 Draft Dock Management Plan (April 7, 2015) Review of Pender Harbour Draft Dock Management Plan (Penner Report) (November, 2015) Comparison of Zone Maps 2016 and 2018 |
